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.

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'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.

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.

Invoking Nature always measures the distance we have yet to travel to achieve real progress on environmental issues.

Those who deny human-caused climate change offer no compelling evidence to better explain the undeniable rise in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and global temperature.

When you fully focus in the match, you don't think too much about the atmosphere and the climate. Even if the temperature goes up, we will both sweat the same.

The 'environmental left' tells us that, though we have natural resources like natural gas and oil and coal, and though we can feed the world, we should keep those things in the ground, put up fences, and be about prohibition.