I can't think of any more important issue. If we get this right, we'll not only preserve our landscape for future generations we'll be able to generate I think more investment and more job opportunities in the inland and we sure as hell need those jobs.
— John Anderson
Yes, yes, no one denies, for example, that you're going to be able to fix the Murray through the Living Murray process without money, no one denies that.
We have to have a way of dealing with this that engenders confidence, trust, gives us every chance of getting the right outcome and boosts both sustainability and economic return at the same time.
Well if you were asking my personal opinion on that I think the answer can only be yes but it was missed. Much as I know I'm responsible for a lot of things, I can't wear any responsibility for that.
If we get it right, there need not be losers.
Well they have an input into policy but in the end governments are elected to put together policy but the good thing about the Wentworth Group is that you know you've got 11 pretty capable people with a lot of good ideas.
I'm not being evasive but I am saying I'm not a scientist and I'm not directly involved in the consultation however the science must be sound, it must be agreed and the consultation must be of a high quality or no one will have any confidence in the process.
People forget that a huge proportion of our jobs still depend on agricultural production in Australia so of course there are exports. That's easily overlooked.
But my point is that you design something in the end that precludes any unhealthy trading practices that are not going to serve your environmental or your economic objectives but now is not the time to do it.
I don't know that I can give a definitive answer to that, I can only say that if we create the right climate those who are producing those products will have the opportunity to move into a higher value product if changes are needed if we get this right.
Look there are going to be, there are already adjustment processes in place but the point is that you'll actually make them work and get satisfactory outcomes if there's decent burden sharing along the way. If there's, if you like a proper transitional assistance.
They've got to tell us what is necessary to ensure the future health of the river system.
We made certain that there were decent transitional arrangements to get us to where we wanted to go. The same principle will have to apply here or we won't get there.
It is one of the issues that will have to be worked through however let me make the point and I think anyone would accept that if you set it up properly, not only will you get better environmental outcomes, you have a chance to create more wealth with the available resource.
I don't know the taxpayer has perhaps much of an understanding of just how much wealth has been and is being and can be created that flows through the economy and just how many jobs depend upon it.
