HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-05-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Natural Resources Management Levy

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:48): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation some questions regarding his rip-off of property owners in South Australia.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Contrary to the minister's arrogance and ignoring the concerns out there, articles are appearing daily—articles such as one headed 'Angry Farmers to Feel Brunt of Land Tax Rise', and within that article, even one of the minister's own caucus members, the very good Hon. Steph Key, said:

The expenses imposted are a heavy burden and might have compromised the ability of the boards to carry out their works effectively as well as caused possible damage to their relationships with their communities.

That is from the very decent Hon. Steph Key. We are advised that $6.8 million will be returned to Treasury through sleight of hand with the levy, and we are also advised that approximately $6 million will be taken out of the fund to go to so-called corporate service charges reimbursement to the minister's department, DEWNR. My questions to the minister are therefore:

1. When the Save the River Murray levy was abolished, the money for those activities, we were told, was to come from Treasury, but it clearly appears now that many of the activities included in the so-called $43 million National Water Initiative are those that would have been covered by the old levy. True or false, minister?

2. I understand that the Murray-Darling Basin contribution is at least $19 million per annum and that SA Water is paying $17 million per annum. There is not much left of the so-called $43 million total spend. Why is the minister fleecing the property owners and the farmers of this state?

3. Does the minister agree that he is in breach of the obligations under the National Water Initiative to undertake an independent and public test for cost-effectiveness of the water planning and management costs that he is so-called passing on, but I would say is actually ripping off?

4. If local government says no on 1 July to collecting this outrageous increase in levy payments, what will the minister do to local government?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (14:51): I thank the honourable member for his incredibly high-quality question. As always, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire comes in here with very well researched questions, usually premised on absolute fallacies. Nonetheless, let me give him chapter and verse.

The state budget papers set out how the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources allocates its budget. The department has calculated the total cost of water planning and management at approximately $43 million. It should be noted that this figure represents a point in time snapshot, and the costs incurred across the water planning and management functions, and the total cost, vary from year to year. Recovery of these costs from those who benefit has been on the cards, I am advised, since the budget in 2011. That is how up to date the honourable member is; he has now only just discovered the budget of 2011 and is voicing some complaints about that. That is okay; in his own time.

The announcement contained in the 2015-16 budget, of our recovery of $3.5 million from the NRM boards in 2015-16 and $6.8 million in 2016-17 (indexed ongoing thereafter), represents a small fraction of the total investment in water resource planning and management. What does the honourable member expect would be the outcome, for example, of something that he has called for before, and another member has done today, an expensive independent inquiry? Does he actually expect such an inquiry will show that in fact there is such an incredible pull down in terms of water management and planning or is it actually expected to show that in fact we are only recovering a tiny proportion of the moneys that the government is spending on water planning and management?

If that is the case, then the call will come to actually make the beneficiaries pay more. If that is what he wants to do, then he should go out to his community and tell them that; that is what he should say to them, that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire has a plan to drive up costs to farmers and to the agricultural sector. That is what he should do if he was telling the truth to people, instead of rabbiting on as he does on the wireless from time to time and making up these stories.

As I said, when we expect to recover only $3.5 million in 2015-16 and $6.8 million in 2016-17 of that $43 million, approximately 8.1 per cent and 15.8 per cent of total costs over those two years, that expectation is just frankly silly. The state budget is publicly available. This chamber voted for it. The NRM boards' business plans are publicly available and the Natural Resources Committee, the committee the honourable member is on, just recently voted to not object to the increases.

There are, of course, ample consultation requirements for NRM boards in the development of these plans and they have fulfilled them. I am also informed that representatives from Primary Producers SA have met on a number of occasions with representatives from my department to go through these figures in greater detail. I am happy for any other groups to feel that they want to have the same explanation. Let me make it absolutely clear: we cannot be more transparent about what we are doing. We are taking a sensible approach to introducing a contribution from the beneficiaries to water planning and management costs.

How do those opposite seriously argue that those people who benefit from government investment in water planning and management should be immune from paying for a small proportion of that charge? How can they come in here and argue that and go out and hold their head up in the community and say, 'We are a fiscally responsible party of government'? They can't. They have no fiscal responsibility; they have no economic literacy whatsoever. Yet they come in here, sending a message to one community and they know in their heart of hearts they can never deliver on it because it is a small, partial recovery of the cost that the government pays on behalf of those affected sectors, those beneficiaries. We will continue to pay the majority of it, and we think it is very fair that the beneficiaries should also be making a small part payment towards those costs.

When all water related charges are taken into account, the NRM water levy rates paid by irrigators in our major food and wine producing areas such as the South-East and the Murray-Darling Basin are still incredibly low when compared to our interstate competitors. For example, the $6.30 per megalitre water levy rate proposed in the SA Murray-Darling Basin for 2016-17 is well below the equivalent charges in New South Wales and Victoria, I am advised. In the New South Wales Murray, the equivalent charge has been around $10.51 per megalitre, assuming a full use of entitlement. That is $6.30 per megalitre in the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin compared to $10.51 per megalitre in New South Wales. In the Victorian Murray, I am advised that the lowest equivalent charge has been around $11.05 per megalitre.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: You're not answering my question.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Of course, the honourable member is never interested in those facts. He is not interested in any accountability whatsoever; no accountability whatsoever for him. He doesn't care about the facts. He has no concern for them, none at all. All of this information, I am advised, is set out in the ACCC's most recent Water Monitoring Report. Similarly, the $2.58 per megalitre water levy rate proposed in the South-East for 2016-17 is less than half the rate of the most common New South Wales groundwater charges, as outlined on the relevant New South Wales government website, I am advised.

The decision to partially recover these costs is not just a measure that is consistent with the NWI principles, but outside of those principles it is a budget measure that was decided by this government and passed by this house—this house, Mr President. I believe the Hon. Mr Brokenshire—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: I didn't support it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: He's now saying he didn't vote for the budget. I'm not sure what he did, whether he was actually here or out milking Daisy and Maribel.

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister, can you please take your seat? The Hon. Mr Brokenshire, you have a very deep, loud voice, so I imagine it would be very difficult for the minister to hear himself think let alone try to give an answer. Please just sit there and let him answer the question the way he sees fit and we can all get on with question time. Minister.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr President, I have concluded my remarks.

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