If we get it right, there need not be losers.
They've got to tell us what is necessary to ensure the future health of the river system.
No I haven't and all I can say is that if it's cost $600,000, I hope we get $600,000 worth of value out of it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.