HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-09-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SOUTH-EAST DRAINAGE SYSTEM

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (14:35): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation questions about the proposed South-East drainage system tax.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: Recently the minister outlined the government's intention to introduce a tax on the good people of the South-East for the upkeep of the drainage system. As I indicated, the upkeep of the drainage system has always been the realm of government, whether by the drainage board or the minister's own department. As the Hon. Mr Brokenshire pointed out, it is a public good. It is a public good because the benefit is not fully excludable; in other words, the total number of beneficiaries cannot be identified. This is the reason previous plans for a levy have been abandoned. My questions to the minister are:

1. What methodology is the government using to define those South Australians liable for this tax?

2. What does the government expect to raise from this tax?

The PRESIDENT: I am a bit unsure about tax and the state's ability to raise a tax. Minister.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (14:36): Indeed, Mr President: members opposite do not seem to have any understanding of what a levy might be and for what purposes it might be used. Let me take them through it. As I have said before in this place, over the past two years the state government has provided additional funding for the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board for the operation, management and maintenance of the South-East drainage system. There has been an additional $6 million over two years, on top of base funding of approximately $2.1 million. This additional funding was needed to complete urgent asset maintenance, repairs and upgrades on ageing public infrastructure, such as bridges on public roads, property access culverts and monitoring stations.

As I have also said before in this place, those opposite have not stated how they would fund the upkeep of the drainage system, they have not said whether they would introduce their own levy or just expect the taxpayer to subsidise the works. Yes, there is certainly an environmental benefit for some of these projects, and that is exactly why the government, on behalf of the taxpayer, contributes annually to the upkeep of the drainage system.

However, there are also people who can be identified as having a direct benefit, a financial benefit, from such a drainage system, and is it not fair that they pay a little bit towards the maintenance of that system on an annual basis? Isn't that fair? Or, will members opposite demand that the taxpayers of South Australia pay for it? That is what we want to hear. Tell us what you're going to do. You know what we're going to do—tell us what you're going to do. Are you going to take out of the taxation system the funding for SEDSOM? Come and tell us—we are all waiting to hear.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT