Legislative Council Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2) 53 2 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time Water Levies Water Levies The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE Legislative Council Water Levies The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (15:07): A supplementary: I actually do care more than the minister, but what I want the minister to tell us is in relation to the $3.5 million for 2015-16 and the $6.8 million for 2016-17. Does the minister stand comfortably by his government happy for that money to be ripped out of irrigators, food producers and offsetting budget mismanagement in DEWNR and the government with the cuts that have been put there because they were doing this work before this levy and now all of a sudden they are taking this money? The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change Water Levies The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (15:07): How do you try and turn around this sort of lunacy? The honourable member doesn't even want to listen to the facts that I have put on the table about national and state governments around this country talking through the National Water Initiative saying we need to put some of the costs—some of the costs, not all of it—back to the users and the beneficiaries of the system. Just to give him some comfort I might read into the Hansard some information that has been provided to me from members of the community who have been commenting on some of the ridiculous assertions made in the media potentially by the honourable member—I don't know, I don't really follow him very much when he goes on the radio because, frankly, his submissions are incoherent. The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink Legislative Council The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: You obviously do. The Hon. I.K. HUNTER Legislative Council The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: No, I have people do that for me now, the Hon. Michelle Lensink. I can't be bothered listening to what the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has got to say on these issues because he is incoherent. He doesn't understand the basic premise of the system. But let me just put on record some statements made from members of the public in relation to some of these issues that have appeared in the media, and I will read them. On, 'Water not owned by farmers': I am concerned by the narrowness of vision and understanding of those opposed to the management of water resources in the Western Mount Lofty Ranges, in particular the Fleurieu Peninsula, and contributing to the management cost. In July this year a water resource management arrangement was put in place to manage and oversee the Western Mount Lofty Ranges resource. Those of us who are existing established users have been given allocations based on our past use, the volume of which has been guaranteed. The water that falls on my property is not owned by me, it is a national-owned resource which includes environmental requirements. The available water has to be managed under regulation and allocations made for domestic and stock and agricultural requirements according to the capacity of the water catchments. The levy which has been introduced is to cover the cost of managing the water resource. As a beneficiary, I believe it is totally appropriate that I contribute to the management cost of the water resource. Further, I emphasise that those of us who are existing approved users have been given allocations which are protected by the arrangement. Domestic and stock requirements are exempt from the levy. The levy, which is costed at $6 per megalitre— and I think that is a reduction, from memory, from $10. I stand to be corrected about that, but I think that's a reduction from $10 to $6— is not expensive and claims that it will affect the viability of agricultural producers and farms is questionable. That is in the adjoining area of the easterns but we are talking about the westerns here. That is from a local community member in Hindmarsh Valley. There is one other appearing in the newspaper, The Times at Victor Harbor, SA, general news, which states: I am surprised by the out of date attitude of several of last week's letter writers on the NRM water levy. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire might have been one of these out-of-date people, I don't know. It continues: They seem to believe that they have exclusive right to all rainfalls on their properties. They seem to be unaware that they have a responsibility to share that water. What about their neighbours' need for stock and domestic water? Where will the water to fill our reservoirs and underground aquifers come from? What about the flood irrigators of Langhorne Creek? Do we want even less or no flow in our rivers and creeks? What about the Murray, the Lakes and the Coorong? These farmers are commercial water licence holders being charged just $6 a megalitre of water while mains water users pay around $3,360 per megalitre. The self-interested attitudes being displayed in these letters are the reason why the NRM board is needed to manage our water resources for all. That was from a member of the community at Goolwa. I've got to say that the blatant ignorance on display in this place and in the media when the honourable member gets up to ask these questions really is an insult to this chamber. He would do very well to read up and understand why it is necessary that we put resources into water management planning, why it is absolutely necessary for the continuance in the long term of agriculture and productive use of water in the state, and if he doesn't get it he should hang up his shingle and go out into private practice because he does no good in here. Members interjecting: The President Legislative Council The PRESIDENT: Order!