PM: Well it's great to be out in this beautiful part of the Murray-Darling river system and coming out here reminds me of living in Canberra in earlier days and bringing the kids out to this beautiful part of the world. It is an extraordinary part of nature.
But we are here today to do something very important for the river system and for the environment and today we are announcing that the Government has completed the single largest purchase of water entitlements in Australian history.
The Government is buying almost 240 gigalitres of water entitlements for the environment for $303 million from the Twynam Agricultural Group. That's the equivalent to one half of all the water used in Sydney each year.
The water purchased today will be used to restore the rivers and wetlands of the Murray Darling Basin to health, with the water used exclusively for environmental flows. Put this also into context, this brings the total amount of water purchased by the Government in the 18 months that we have been in office to nearly 300 gigalitres of water entitlements.
And I would simply emphasise the point of contrast with the previous Government. The previous Government failed to directly purchase a single litre of water entitlements during its 12 years in office.
We therefore have sought to make a difference and this is part and parcel of a process in which the Minister has been engaged for a long period of time, in order to act to restore health to the Murray-Darling river system.
It also opens up again the direct relevance to necessary action on climate change. Climate change as we know is having a radical effect in so many areas of our environment in Australia, not just the health of the Murray-Darling river system but also the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu, which is why it is important to bring about early, decisive and effective action, nationally and globally on climate change in order to deal with the long term causes of the environmental challenges we face, including in this river system.
However, part and parcel of our strategy in the meantime is to purchase water entitlements and to do so at an order of magnitude, to make a difference. This is the single largest purchase of water entitlements from the Murray-Darling river system in Australia's history.
It is therefore designed to make a difference, it is designed to return this water for environmental flows, it is designed to make a concrete contribution to the important challenge of restoring this river system to health, a river system which is so important to so many Australians. I might just ask the Minister to add and then we will take some questions.
WONG: Thanks PM. Well I am very pleased to be here to announce this purchase of 240 gigalitres - that's 240 billion litres of water at a cost of around $303 million.
The group we are purchasing this water from is the Twynam Agricultural Group, and as the Prime Minister said, it is the largest single purchase for the environment in the nation's history.
Jut to put it into context, the total amount that South Australia draws from the River Murray for its critical human needs is less than the amount of water we are purchasing. And the amount of water that Adelaide uses in a normal year is also less than the amount we're purchasing.
So this is a very substantial purchase for the environment.
I also want to make the point that the group, Twynam, who is selling these entitlements, is making a transition from irrigated agriculture to dry land farming. They are already making that transition, reflecting of course the circumstances that many farmers find themselves in in the Murray-Darling basin. So we are pleased that we have been able to come to an arrangement with Twynam which enables them to utilise the money from this water purchase towards the continued operation of their agricultural operations within the basin,
This is a very important day, a day where we will begin returning this largest single purchase for the environment in the nation's history.
JOURNALIST: What is Twynam currently using the water for, what sort of irrigated crops? And are these just water entitlements or is it actual water?
WONG: Well, look, there is a lot of discussion about water entitlements; that is, how you purchase water. You purchase water entitlements. And why is that important? Because it means two things, it means first, we are reducing the amount of take from the rivers, which is good for the environment. The second is that it means as it rains, the rivers get a greater share. It is the responsible thing to do to purchase water entitlements.
I don't have all of the detail of exactly which irrigated crops Twynam was engaged in, I assume the usual set of irrigated crops that you see within the Murray-Darling Basin.
But clearly they have made a decision about transitioning. We are very pleased that we've been able to negotiate with them terms that have been acceptable to both parties, to ensure a good outcome, not only for agriculture but for the river.
JOURNALIST: Twynam would know how much water it was drawing each year so (inaudible) ?
WONG: Well that, as you would know Chris, the allocation towards each entitlement depends on how much it rains, and that can change from month to month. State Governments will allocate additional water as it rains, so that is a question the answer to which changes depending on available rainfall.
But what is important is purchase of entitlement because that means you are transferring entitlement from irrigation to the environment for the use of the environment to improve the health of our rivers. That's what is in the long term interests of the basin and that is what in the face of climate change we have to do to restore health to the Murray-Darling Basin rivers.
JOURNALIST: This is big against Adelaide's annual use. How is that against the total amount of water allocations that the Rudd Government would ultimately seek to buy? How much of the total job does this single purchase do?
WONG: Well can I say first, this is one-half of all the water used in Sydney each year so it is no small amount. And it is a very, very large purchase.
Just to put in context in terms of the amounts - as you would know what the Budget papers indicate over this and next, I think three years we're looking to purchase around $2 billion worth of water entitlements, so this is 303 million, it is a very substantial, very large single purchase, but we know there's a long way to go in the Murray-Darling Basin, we're making up for a lot of lost time. A failure to act on this issue by the previous Government over too many years and we will continue to progress the two tenders we currently have open, just as we said we would do before the election.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, the Opposition's been running hard in parliament about your allegedly dubious projections. Have you been (inaudible) up the economy and debt, have you been telling fibs about this as they claim and is there anything at all to their case that the estimates don't have the relevant figures?
PM: I will stand by the Treasury and the strategy outlined in the Budget papers and the figures contained within it.
Interesting on the question of figures and numbers this morning. Here's a question for you, which was put by one of your own to the Leader of the Opposition this morning. Question - what does the Coalition regard as an acceptable level of debt? Answer, the level of debt should be no more than necessary. Question, what then? Answer from Mr Turnbull, “well it's not a question of a number”.
Can I just say that actually nails it in one. This entire strategy on this entire fear campaign on debt and deficit is undermined again, absolutely in the Leader of the Oppositions response this morning. Not just ducking and weaving about not answering a question about what the Liberal Party's debt and deficit target is, but this morning saying explicitly it's not a matter of a number. Let me tell you, the Government's strategy is clear and outlined in the Budget papers. This underpins again the nature of the fear campaign which is being engaged in. The Liberals -
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: As I said in the Parliament, it was based on the advice of the Treasury.
JOURNALIST: Are you embarrassed that so much of the stimulus money, $40 million went to dead people and ex-pats overseas?
PM: Can I just say this, that I think Mr Turnbull is treading on very dangerous, sensitive ground here when he talks about payments being made to people and to their estates, who have died in the last year. I think he is treading on very dangerous and sensitive ground. The level of grief felt by so many people over the recent loss of a loved one is something which we should all reflect on. We are talking about people who have died in the last year or so. Secondly, a number of people who have suffered bereavements and suffered the loss of a loved one have appreciated greatly the payments made to their estates.
The last thing I'd say is this. As we have indicated in previous the answers on this matter. In previous years, when one-off payments have been made by previous governments of one category or another, it is quite plane from the advice that we've received that they have also gone in certain circumstances to people in this category as well. But the point I make is just a human one. Just think about it for a minute, you've lost your wife, your husband, a member of your family in the last 12 months or so.
A payment arrives, which goes to that person's estate because a tax declaration was provided in the previous year. Now you got people jumping up and down making a political point in the Liberal Party and elsewhere today, talking about you know dead people as if it's some loose piece of political commentary. I think we just need to show a bit of respect here.
JOURNALIST: Can I just ask what role did you play personally in the selection of Australia's Ambassador to Germany if any?
PM: Yeah, on the question of senior ambassadorial appointments, the Foreign Minister's practice and mine is we discuss all senior appointments. That was the practice also of my predecessor as I understand it with Mr Downer and therefore, that includes this particular appointment as well.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, would you be surprised and would you be comfortable if stimulus payments also went to a number of Federal MPs?
PM: I don't have any information to that effect. But, as I said, our -
JOURNALIST: Would they deserve it?
PM: Our advice, no, our advice, let's just go to the macroeconomic challenge here, let's just go to the core of it. The absolute truth of what's being transacted here, how do you make a difference? In the fourth quarter last year and the first quarter this year, to an economy at risk of tanking totally because of the global recession. Answer - provide direct payments based on the advice of the Treasury to provide an injection of activity into the economy now. Treasury's advice is very clear, use these criteria in deploying these payments to get that stimulus into the economy now, or wait and delay for a long period of time and for this stimulus to be delivered too late to have a proper effect, that was the basis of the decision we took and the debate therefore about payments going to deceased estates, payments going to persons abroad which have been canvassed before and which we've engaged in or within the overall logic of the advice given us.
It follows as a consequence that there is always going to be debate and controversy about who at the end of the day received a payment or who didn't. And I seem to remember last week being challenged about people who didn't receive the payment, who didn't lodge a tax return in the year concerned.
Our responsibility as national economic managers is to invest stimulus into the economy and I emphasise 70 per cent of our stimulus is in infrastructure, stimulus into the economy to make a difference and that is why so far Australia is doing better than most other economies in weathering this global economic storm.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) these payments could have been targeted slightly more specifically?
PM: Look, we actually had a long discussion in Cabinet at the time and we listened carefully to the Treasury's advice about how you would get that stimulus into the economy now. If you are going to wait and wait and wait for further changes to be made then the necessity for delivering that stimulus, given the enormous administrative machinery of state involved in getting that delivered into the hands of households would have not given us the stimulus at the time when it was needed.
Critical period for us was fourth quarter last year, first quarter this year as you know, the short term infrastructure projects involving school construction, housing construction and energy insulation, kick in, in the second quarter this year and particularly the third quarter. We have done this deliberately.
Phase one payments, quick immediate action. I seem to recall Access Economics reflecting on this recently. Phase two short term stimulus kicking in, in the second quarter this year, third quarter and progressively. Phase three, longer term infrastructure projects some of which will also kick in from the middle of this year as well.
We have done this deliberately in a staged fashion in order to provide continued pulse into the economy in what would otherwise be an environment which would shed, lose a further 200,000 plus people into the unemployment queues, we were not prepared to do that.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister just to be clear.
PM: There and then I will come back to you. Sorry can you say that again please.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: You know something? I said in the parliament yesterday there are 35,000 projects about to be rolled out across the country. And let me just say in advance and I've said this before, there is always going to be bumps in the road. But you know something? It's like what we've just been discussing here on some of the individual payments to families, there will be bumps in the road there too.
Our job is one of national economic leadership and one of acting in the national economic interest which is to ensure that that activity has been put into productive purposes long term and providing stimulus now. When I say our mission statement is to support jobs, business and apprenticeships today by investing in infrastructure for tomorrow we mean it.
We have applied every energy of Government to get this program out the door and done as effectively as possible. And I think against most global standards people should have a look at the quality of what we are doing relative to many other countries. This has been a Government which has sought to act decisively, early and ahead of the curve to make a difference and I submit to you in effect in relation to 200,000 jobs plus for each of the subsequent two years is a big effect.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister that advice that your talked about from Treasury, did that specifically countenance the payments to dead people and to expats or is this something of a revelation to the Government.
PM: No, no, no, no the precise content of the conversation I can't quite recall but it was along the lines of the, that if we were to delay in terms of making further adjustments to the system it would mean significant delay in actually delivering payments into the economy. That was the overall thrust of the conversation, we had it and we acted on the advice to get that stimulus out into the economy now.
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister federal magistrates-
PM: Are you cold?
JOURNALIST: Yep.
PM: Whose idea was it to come out here?
WONG: I am actually kind of freezing into place here.
PM: Got any long johns?
JOURNALIST: Judges who earn more than you do and can afford long johns. They claim they are not paid enough. Do you have any sympathy for their claim that because barristers who aren't in fact Government appointees but are private sector people earn more than them, they should be paid more?
PM: Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. I'd rather get myself briefed on what has been said and by whom before I actually touch on that one if that is okay but we-
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: The member for Sturt. Our favourite.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Mr Squiggle. I'm sorry-
JOURNALIST: (inaudible) Do you think that you're coming on a bit heavy with these Coalition MPs?
PM: You know something? There is something enormously liberating about the truth? You know. And the truth is they voted against payments for the school modernisation program and in their electorates are they now pretending that they voted for these projects. It's one or the other, that's the truth here.
It's like the truth about the you know debt and deficit campaign we were talking about before. The truth is outlined in a statement today by Mr Turnbull. It is not about a number. Hold the phone what are all these questions been about all week in parliament if it's not about a number, I mean let's just get a bit real here. The truth ain't a bad strategy you know and we're saying as I've said in response to your questions today on stimulus.
You know the truth is we're in the business of making a difference in economic activity in Australia given the impact of this extraordinary global recession, the worst in three quarters of a century and we've done it deliberately in phase one, phase two, phase three to make a difference. That's the truth of it and the truth of it also, skipping out the side of the mouth of my old friend Joe Hockey is they'd do exactly the same. That's the truth of it. This is all politics. And -
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: No, no I'm just saying what Joe said on the day after the budget, they'd be $25 billion less, except they're not supporting our $22 billion worth of savings measures, or maybe they will, maybe they won't, that puts them in the same ballpark as us. And that's the truth of it.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: Well if it was any more refined than that, I haven't heard if I go looking at very carefully what Mr Turnbull said today, it's not about a number and the only number we've got is 25 billion less. And can I just say I think the truth does out on all this, when the rubber hits the road on this stuff and when it comes to them saying in their electorates they really like the investment in schools and saying in Canberra that it is a terrible, terrible thing that a Government could borrow to invest in these schools. This doesn't pass the truth test. That's what it's all about.
And you know something? If I reflect back on the Liberal Party in the last decade, what are they best at? Fear campaigns. And-
JOURNALIST: Prime Minister, Prime Minister.
PM: -the fear ultimately is something which doesn't rest in the truth. Fear campaigns on a whole series of things.
JOURNALIST: (inaudible)
PM: You know something I think as I have said before this is a hard working Government, I work hard, I make no apology for that. And as far as appointments within departments are concerned that's a matter for the secretary, that's just life. We're going to get on with the business of governing and this government is not about to be accused ever of slacking off. We work hard, so do I, intend to do so. Thanks folks.