Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. I know his deep concern for the state of the Murray-Darling. His questions are always properly framed and they go to the whole question about what we can practically do about the challenge which is faced there, given the history of overallocation and the scientific consensus about the impact of climate change in making that system more stressed than it has been in previous times.

The scientific consensus most recently reflected, from memory, in a CSIRO report, which also involved the Bureau of Meteorology, was that climate change was a factor in bringing about the current stress of the Murray-Darling system. Therefore, in our response to it, the key challenge is dealing with the long-term measures: how do you act on climate change nationally and globally and how do you take off water pressures now? That goes to what the government is doing on the overallocation of water entitlements, which are the points contained in the answer I gave earlier to the member for Makin. Thirdly, what do you do to increase the efficiency of the irrigation system? I will come back to the question which the honourable member has asked about a cost-benefit analysis. These are the three practical measures which are necessary in the here and now to deal with the stress which is currently being experienced by the system. That is why in the meeting most recently with the Council of Australian Governments we allocated billions of dollars to the states and their respective irrigation systems, to do one thing—increase the efficiency of the irrigation systems, which, we are advised, if properly invested in, could result in 30 per cent greater efficiency as against the current water loss from often antiquated systems. That is the first point. The second is: what do you also do to draw down the overall take of water from the river system? That goes back to what I said before to the honourable member for Makin’s question about the investments we have made in buying back water entitlements. They are the two practical measures which are currently underway.

On the cost-benefit analysis which the honourable member has asked about, I will seek to come back to him in terms of what we can do practically on that question, because, unlike those opposite, who simply howl in response to any question on the Murray-Darling, I take the member for New England’s questions seriously because they are seriously intended. I believe he deserves a response on that question of the cost-benefit analysis.