PRIME MINISTER:
Well ladies and gentlemen, the Deputy Prime Minister and I are delighted to welcome you to a press conference appropriately which is being sprinkled with rain, because this has been a tremendous day for the future security of water supply in this country. It's been a particularly good outcome for the primary producers of Australia. We have reached agreement for a national water initiative and the agreement has been signed by all states except Western Australia and Tasmania. The Tasmanian Government for reasons related to the death and funeral of the former Premier, was not represented at the meeting. I'm disappointed Western Australia has not signed, but it seems to be a characteristic of Western Australia in recent years, that it takes a year or two to finally sign up to these agreements. That was the case with the salinity agreement. And I just want to make it very plain to the people of Western Australia that in any future announcements we make about water projects, Western Australia will get her fair share. There can be no argument about that.
But given that it was an agreement overwhelmingly about the Murray Darling, the fact that the other states have signed and the terms of the agreement are absolutely first class, it is historic. It does mean that we can now see the flow of that $500 million towards fixing the Murray Darling. And that is historic not only for the whole nation, but it's particularly beneficial for the people of South Australia. But can I say that the person who deserves most of the credit for this agreement is beside me, and that's John Anderson. Nobody has worked harder than John Anderson to bring about this agreement. It would not have been possible without John's work, and I do want to pay tribute to him. I want to thank the National Farmers' Federation and I acknowledge the presence of Peter Corish, the President of the National Farmers' Federation, for this agreement.
The sticking points in the end boiled down to essentially the circumstances surrounding compensation in the event of withdrawal of water rights. It has been agreed that the first three per cent, if there is a change in the science, and I think the aficionados all understand vaguely what I mean by that, the first three per cent is borne by the farmers. Between three and six per cent, the proposition of the States was that it be a third the States, a third the Commonwealth, a third the farmers. We were arguing for 50/50 and I offered in the end that we would pick up the share that would otherwise have been borne by the farmers, so that we bear two-thirds of that and the states one. And then after six per cent, it's 50/50. But that of course only applies after 2014. The existing arrangements under the COAG agreement last year apply for the next 10 years. But we're going to have titles, we're going to have tradeable water rights and entitlements - things that for years people have wanted. And I think what this agreement does enshrine is the capacity of the governments of Australia working together in the national interest to reach sensible agreements. It is a huge victory for commonsense. It's long overdue. It will be warmly welcomed by the people of South Australia.
And might I also add that we reached agreement to seek some further advice and some working papers in relation to two important health issues. One of those is workforce shortage, and the other related to the interaction of GPs and their possible co-location in public hospitals. Overall, an excellent meeting and one that I say again would not have been possible without the leadership and the contribution of the Deputy Prime Minister, who more than any other person in this country has argued and advocated and fought the cause of water reform and water security for the people not only of rural Australia, but also the people of Australia generally.
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER:
Thanks. Two very, very important and significant agreements today, and I think a pretty rare sort of coming together of some otherwise disparate groups - bankers, farmers, conservationists, scientists, leaders generally - to basically sign on to what I think is probably now the world's best management framework for water. I really believe it can be. In the same way that our land title system has driven tremendous wealth creation and export performance in this country, I believe that this will do the same. Can I make the point that I hear people arguing about which state wanted that amount of money and what have you. All of that stuff can I tell you, and Peter Corish will confirm this, pales into insignificance beside the investment that this will drive in better production outcomes, in more jobs, and in better environmental outcomes, and that's been the great breakthrough - the recognition that secure property rights with decent pathways for returning over allocated systems to balance and what have you, is indeed the key to driving the better environmental outcomes that frankly the country has been wanting for 10 years. Can I just say Prime Minister that I very much appreciate all that you have done in this regard, and I know people right across the nation would join me in that. Can I say that there are a lot of other people who deserve a lot of credit and when I get the moment I might see if we can't throw a few drinks for a few people.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well I don't know what...
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Well because this was not a day to deal with individual state projects.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
But their time will come when individual projects are looked at. And I want to say to the people of Western Australia that when the time comes for the Commonwealth to allocate money for individual projects, Western Australia will get her fair share. But today was not the day...
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Hang on, hang on. Today was not the day to address individual projects. I mean you've got to remember that last year we reached in-principle agreement on the National Water Initiative and the Murray Darling Living Murray Initiative, and today was meant to bring that to fruition and to sign off on those agreements. And it was never acceptable to me or to the Commonwealth that the signing of those agreements should be linked to decisions on a whole lot of other individual projects. That was never on. That was never in contemplation. Now what I've said to the premiers is that if there are individual projects, and as part of the agreement we will seriously look at those projects. I can't make any promises and we naturally reserve the right to initiate our own projects. Nobody should imagine that projects in individual states are going to be driven by... solely by the decisions of state governments. Sometimes the Commonwealth will reserve the right to initiate a project itself in an individual state, even though the state government may not support it, and that applies certainly in Western Australia and it certainly applies in other states as well.
JOURNALIST:
Do you anticipate before the election announcing further money for water projects, Prime Minister?
PRIME MINISTER:
Oh look, I wouldn't want to start talking about anything to do with the election.
JOURNALIST:
I understand, Prime Minister that in your discussions with Premier Gallop, the discussions got fairly willing to the put that you were shouting at each other - was that your recollection?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, no. Look, I thought it was very foolish of him not to sign the agreement. I just don't understand. I mean one of the clauses in the agreement commits the Commonwealth to consider projects with the people who have signed the agreement. Now, by not signing it in a sense, you could argue he's given up some leverage but I'm going to obviously overlook that because I'm interested in a proper outcome for the people of Western Australia. But look, I just don't understand how a premier of a state can stand outside a national agreement such as this, an historic national agreement. It just seems to me to be quite petty and I don't quite know, I mean if it's tied up with some old-fashioned notion of vigorous states' rights I think it's missing point. I think it's missing the point in Western Australia. Western Australians have a sense of nationalism and as all Australian these days do and I just think it's rather petty and pathetic that he didn't sign up and bear in mind that he's taken two years to sign the national agreement on salinity and we actually gave Western Australia financially a better deal on salinity than most of the other states because it had a greater problem. I mean, this is an issue about the Murray Darling and it's a big national issue and we had to fix it but thankfully what the states have really, you know, were more directly concerned have signed.
JOURNALIST:
(inaudible)
PRIME MINISTER:
Yeah, of course.
JOURNALIST:
The Premiers are suggesting there would be....
PRIME MINISTER:
They can speculate about what I do. I mean, people do that everyday. Mark, I am declining to say anything about what I might be doing between now and whenever I decide the election is going to be held and I still haven't decided.
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER:
And if I might so, Peter Corish will confirm every word of what I'm about to say - I'll repeat it. This was never about, what amounts to, in the overall scheme of things, relatively minor amounts of money for specific projects. The unlocking of investment here will come from the private sector. It's all about economic growth, it's all about the security to plan, to switch, to more sophisticated and technologically advanced methods of water usage to produce more with less water, more efficiently, more environmentally appropriately and so forth and where will most of that money come from? Not the taxpayer, it was never going to. This is about securing the private sector investment because that's what agriculture is about in Australia and so in that sense - please understand the significance of this breakthrough is that it establishes secure, decent, fair, reasonable pathways back to sustainability where there's over-allocation at the same time as it locks in investment certainty and it moves in a very, very important development that's been perhaps oversighted at this point in time. The breakthrough we've been waiting for since 1994 - an effective model for trading. So the water goes where it will drive the best possible investment, where it won't be wasted and where you'll get the best environmental outcomes. Those sorts of things are the nub of this. If we're going to reduce it to a row over a bit of money here and a bit of money there you can see precisely why the Prime Minister makes the point, it's the agreement you've got focus on. Now it does of course in addition to that unlock that money for the living Murray. But please understand that the key, this is the point the scientists and the conservationists have been making, the key to getting to sustainability as we now have all come to recognise is giving farmers who after all want to look after their natural resources the investment security to do it properly.
JOURNALIST:
How much money is available to individual projects?
PRIME MINISTER:
I don't want to start speculating about money being available for anything.
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER:
Nothing like what is now available for farmers when they go to their banks and say, we can plan with certainty.
JOURNALIST:
Farmers have worn the brunt of the reduction so far - was there any discussion of how city dwellers could contribute to saving water and water shortages and are you concerned that Pitt Street farmers could control water via trading rights?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, John might want to answer that.
DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER:
Look, it does include an urban water component, quite an important one which will lay the framework for more efficient water usage in terms of what's available now, but also I think it sets out, if you like, the investment framework that will be needed for some of the things that I think our cities are going to have to do in the future and that includes recycling of water. It certainly includes, you know, collecting storm water and what have you and I think quite frankly we might as well bite the bullet. I think at some time or another it's going to mean some cities will have to tackle the environmental issues surrounding further storage, so certainly that is in there, Dennis, yes it is. All of us are involved in water in Australia. Everyone of us who eats, everyone of us who wears clothes, that has a roof over our head. Every single one of us but we also have uses in an urban sense. So it does involve urban water.
PRIME MINISTER:
One more question.
JOURNALIST:
Mr Howard, are you able to quantify or even estimate the cost to the Commonwealth of your involvement in that formula for the buying out of over-allocated water?
PRIME MINISTER:
No, I'm not but I don't think it will be huge because you are talking about, you're talking about a period after 2014 and you're talking about an extra contribution between three and six per cent. I am told that the average buy back is not likely to rise above about five per cent. In many cases it could be less. So I don't expect it will be large and I think it's a perfectly reasonable additional cost for the Commonwealth to take on behalf of Australia's farmers who mean so much to our nation as a means of resolving the only substantial point of difference between the Commonwealth and the States. But the amount involved is I am told is not likely to be huge.
JOURNALIST:
Speculators, Mr Anderson, are you concerned about speculators?
JOURNALIST:
... just on the issue about the (inaudible) grandparents of raising their grandchildren, can you explain a bit about what this means...?
PRIME MINISTER:
Well, it's an issue that Mr Beattie's raised before - and I will make this the last because I think we better let you get out of the cold, I don't want anybody catching a chill at this important time of the year, it might put you... you know, I mean, you never know, you might want to go on holidays or go to the football - and, but the grandparent issue, the Premier has raised before, and I'm quite sympathetic to his point and what we agreed was that we get our relevant departments together and see where there might have been cracks through which people were falling and we're going to come back and talk about it further. But I think he does make a valid point on this and we would like to help. Thank you very much.