House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate National Water Initiative National Water Initiative Mr WILLIAMS House of Assembly MacKillop Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (15:28): Today, I rise to talk about the principles of recovery for the cost of water planning and management activities. Today, I asked the Treasurer a question and I think one supplementary on this matter. He declined to give an answer on the basis that he thought I was setting a trap for him. I was not setting a trap, I just want the government to show some accountability in this area, and I will explain why I want to see some accountability. The NRM board in my part of the world, in the South-East of the state, is seeking to impose an additional levy collection on the region of some $3.7 million in the next financial year. That is a substantial increase. The excuse for this is that the government wants to impose the 'impactor pays' principle in the National Water Initiative. Indeed, at a drought forum that the Minister for Agriculture held in Naracoorte in my electorate last Monday, he even asserted that this was an imposition by the federal government. That was incorrect, and I pointed it out at the meeting. The National Water Initiative is an agreement between the water ministers in all the states. A set of principles was established under this agreement, which was signed off way back in 2004, and I will read to the house from them: In the context of the [National Water Initiative] and for the purpose of cost recovery, water planning and management are those activities undertaken by, or on behalf of governments as a result of water use…only. It goes on to say in another point: Governments have committed in the [National Water Initiative] to publicly report the total cost of water planning and management and the proportion of the total cost of water planning and management…attributed to water access entitlement holders and the basis on which this proportion is determined. Furthermore, it goes on in principle 3, Cost-effectiveness test, to say: Having identified water planning and management costs to be recovered from water users, in whole or in part, activities should be 'tested' for cost-effectiveness by an independent party and the findings of the cost-effectiveness review are to be made public. Principle 4 says: Costs are to be allocated between water users and governments using an impactor pays approach. It notes that: An impactor is an individual, group of individuals or organisation whose activities generate costs, or a justifiable need to incur costs. Then it goes on in principle 5 to say: Water planning and management costs are to be identified and differentiated by catchment or valley or region and by water source where practicable. I bring this to the house's attention because, as I said in my opening remarks, the NRM board (natural resources management board) in the South-East is seeking to increase the levy collected in that region by some $3.7 million, $2.4 million of which they claim is to reimburse the department of the environment for these water planning and management costs. That is notwithstanding that, historically, that NRM board already receives substantial moneys from water licence holders through a water-based levy—which is in addition to the land-based levy imposed by the same board on my constituents. Water users—those who hold a water licence—already pay a levy, ostensibly, for water planning and management costs. Indeed, it is the NRM board that has developed the water allocation plan in the South-East, which work has been paid for by water users already through their levy. I am questioning why there is this increased demand and, indeed, what work the Minister for Water has done to comply with his obligations under the National Water Initiative that I have just read out. I did an exercise of working out the amount of levies collected by the NRM board in the South-East over the last 10 years and I can tell the house that the total revenue from the 2006-07 year until the current financial year, some 10 years, has increased by 95 per cent, whereas the CPI is only 24.5 per cent. Indeed, if next year's proposal goes ahead, there will be a total of 241 per cent increase in the revenues of the NRM board in the South-East over that 10-year period, or the equivalent of 10 times the CPI. I think the government should be answering how it is justifying these additional costs. Time expired.