SAVE THE RIVER MURRAY LEVY

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:24): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Consumer Affairs, representing the Minister for Environment, a question regarding the Save the River Murray Levy.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Honourable members are witnessing wet weather today in Adelaide, including through the ceiling here in front of me and into the bucket—

The Hon. Carmel Zollo: It's leaking right in front of you.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: —leaking right in front of me—and that is arguably due in part to a La Nina weather system in the Pacific Ocean that has brought floods and cyclones across not only the Murray-Darling Basin but also the catchments, taking Lake Eyre to record levels. Consequently, nature, not any tax or levy, seems to have resolved, at least in the short term, the environmental challenge of the drought in the Murray-Darling Basin.

In the 2003-04 financial year, this state government imposed the Save the River Murray Levy for the stated purpose of restoring health to the River Murray. Since then, the levy has raised somewhere in the order of $140 million and at present sees householders and charities levied $36 per annum and commercial customers $162 per annum, whilst farmers pay between those amounts, depending on the size of their property.

I note that, in the 2009-10 report on the Save the River Murray Fund tabled 9 November last year, the fund's receipts were $25 million and $22 million in the immediate past and current reporting years, from which about $4 million per annum has been paid to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, now called the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. In the 2009-10 years, $1 million was paid for Murray-Darling Basin reform and intergovernmental relations. Some of the money has gone to water allocation planning for the Peake Roby Sherlock—

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Brokenshire might want to wind that explanation up as well.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I am nearly there, sir, but I am just trying to help the minister. Some of the money has gone to water allocation planning for the Peake Roby Sherlock groundwater resource that has no interaction with the Murray and has no Murray pipeline to it.

I note, in the context of those 2009-10 expenditures, former treasurer Foley said, in announcing the 2003-04 budget, that the levy 'will go into a special Save the Murray Fund and by law can only be spent on measures to improve the health of the river'. Finally, as at 30 June last year, $6 million is sitting in the fund unspent and the government has admitted it has no plans to spend the money at present. Therefore, my questions are:

1. To what extent has the levy been used as a cost shift to pay for consultancies provided by government instrumentalities?

2. Has the government broken the law in making payments from the fund that will not improve the health of the river?

3. What were the government's triggers for discontinuing or holidaying the levy when it introduced it?

4. Will the government axe the levy?

5. Will the government rule out cutting the levy between now and the next state election if it is not going to axe it now and, if not, what will be different then from the situation now, with floodwaters coming down the river?

The PRESIDENT: I remind the honourable member that, rather than cut the levy, perhaps the Hon. Mr Brokenshire should ask his staff to cut down his explanations, because they won't be—

The Hon. D.W. Ridgway: How about less longwinded drivel from the minister?

The PRESIDENT: Order, the President is talking! The Leader of The Opposition will come to order. They are too long, and he won't be allowed to get away with it again.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises) (15:28): I thank the honourable member for his questions and will refer them to the relevant minister in another place and bring back a response.