Water Levies

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:00): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation and the Minister for Climate Change some questions regarding cost shifting of what I thought were dedicated levies.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Many irrigators in South Australia are furious about the fact that they are now facing an annual water levy charge for irrigation, but what has infuriated them more is a memo that went out to staff from the minister's department via the new chief executive officer, which confirms that this financial year $2.4 million will be taken from the water levies of irrigators to go into the department's general budget running operations. Further to that, it shows that in 2016-17, that figure will go to $6.8 million.

Notwithstanding the fact that irrigators are rightly outraged, can the minister explain how from a so-called dedicated levy from irrigators the department is going to rip millions of dollars out of it to prop up the cuts during the budget from a mismanaged government and Treasury?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (15:02): I thank the honourable member for his important question, although it does go to demonstrate the old adage that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing—particularly in the hands of the Hon. Mr Brokenshire. Let me just put a few facts on the record. The 2010-11 state budget established significant cost recovery targets for planning and management activities from 2011 and 2012 onwards. This was in line with the government's commitment to user-pays principles and supported South Australia's commitments under the National Water Initiative.

In South Australia these costs include supporting the water management requirements of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004, including through management of the water licensing system, monitoring and assessment of water resources for the purposes of developing water allocation plans, and compliance activities in relation to water management.

These costs underpin the management of water resources under the NRM Act. Since 2011, the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources has negotiated temporary budget relief against those cost recovery targets, but from 2015-16 this relief will no longer be provided. Recognising that NRM boards have a limited ability to meet the additional costs from revenue sources in 2015-16, and given that the 2015-16 business plan processes are finalised for that year only, DEWNR negotiated a range of once-off measures to reduce the amount to be recovered for NRM water levy revenue, which Treasury has accepted in lieu of direct cost recovery.

In 2015-16, this means a total of $3.5 million dollars is to be recovered from NRM boards, with $6.8 million to be recovered in 2016-17, which the honourable member mentioned in his question to me. I note that this amounts to only partial recovery of the full cost borne by government in relation to supporting water planning and management. In addition, the government made a decision that $1 million of costs, as has been ventilated previously, will be associated with operations and maintenance of the Patawalonga lake system and will be recovered from the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board. This measure will not be funded from water levies. Let me make it quite clear: this measure will not be funded from water levies.

In 2015-16, $0.3 million of costs associated with administering the NRM land levy and outside council area levies will also be collected ongoing from boards, and this cost-recovery measure applies across all boards. From 2016-17, $0.6 million of costs will be covered by extending the NRM water levy to the extraction of co-produced water by the gas and petroleum industry in the Far North Prescribed Wells area, South Australian Arid Lands region.

All these measures were detailed in the budgetary processes; all these measures were communicated very, very broadly. We understand that these changes will have significant impacts on NRM board programs, particularly in 2015-16, and that's why we have taken the steps we have to abate that. In order to allow regional NRM boards to consider how to allocate these changes, I have discussed the measures with presiding members and asked them to come back to me with a mechanism to actually see that through and, if necessary, I am open to suggestions of adjusting business plans.

It's very important to understand—very important to understand—that water levies have been charged in this state for a number of years, and the water levies are being charged for very, very important reasons—that is, to manage the sustainability of agriculture and farming in this state into the long term. What the honourable member seems to be grandstanding about is the fact that someone—but not him and not other people who are benefiting from these resources and these materials and this research—should be paying for this and of course, as I said, the taxpayer is paying for this because these jobs and functions are not being fully cost recovered.

But it is a position that this state, other states, the federal government, states of all political persuasions—Labor and Liberal—have been prosecuting in the past, that is, supporting the beneficiary pays or the user-pays system when passing on costs associated with maintenance of water supplies, research into the aquifer status, research into groundwater, research into dams, research into how many users are accessing particular water resources and how those resources can be shared most equitably through the users and the environment.

It is no surprise that costs money. It is no surprise that all states and territories have agreed to a user-pays approach to apportioning some of that money—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: I'm not interested in other states and territories.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: No, the honourable member is not interested in hearing the answer either because he's already made up his mind. He doesn't care about the facts, he doesn't care about rational decision-making processes. All he cares about is grandstanding on radio to try and increase his vote.