❓ A parliamentary question regarding the WA government's commitment to the national action plan on salinity and water quality, specifically concerning funding allocation and the signing of a bilateral agreement. The Minister disputes the figures and accuses the federal government of underfunding WA.
AnsweredQoN 211Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the national action plan on salinity and water quality and this Labor Government’s lack of commitment to provide $60 million by not signing the bilateral agreement. (1) Why does this Government refuse to recognise the enormous effort of rural and regional communities by allocating only $4 million per year of new funding for the national action plan? (2) Why does this Government continue in its insistence that $8 million per year of existing funding should be recognised by the federal Government when every other Labor Government in the country has committed new funds? (3) When will the minister sign the bilateral agreement and commit $60 million of new funding to the Western Australian land care community? Dr J.M. EDWARDS
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) The figure is wrong. The amount would be more than $60 million. The figure we are negotiating at the moment is closer to $80 million. I put that on the record immediately. In Sydney last Friday the Minister for Agriculture and I met our federal counterparts. We had a meeting at which we went through very clearly with them what we had been spending in this State. We mounted an argument that we wanted an extra $8 million per annum from the Commonwealth Government. It is not a new argument. I do not know what the member said to his colleague Hon Warren Truss, who certainly had his figures wrong. It is not a new argument. The same argument was run by Hon Richard Court in November 2000. This was the first opportunity we had to run that argument face to face with commonwealth representatives. We ran the argument hard. We gave acknowledgment to the previous Government for its salinity plan, which we are now implementing. The member is also wrong when he refers to every other Labor State not doing as we are doing. New South Wales got some benefit from money that was recognised as having been allocated previously. When the Council of Australian Governments agreement was signed in November 2000, it was very clear that Western Australia and New South Wales would not be disadvantaged. However, I believe that the Commonwealth is trying to hold us up. The Commonwealth is saying that it has $250 million for NHT2. However, it immediately takes out of that $117 million that is being spent on NHT1, so that immediately goes from the pot of money it has on the table. In addition, NHT has meant that Western Australia has had $30 million for the past few years. This year we are told that the allocation is $7 million; that is, a drop from $30 million to $7 million, which is absolutely disgraceful. The only party putting money in is the State Government. It has allocated $165 million to be spent over the next four years. I call upon the federal Government to stop spending $10 million on advertising. We went to Sydney to hear a briefing from the federal Government. People know about salinity; they know it is a problem, but the federal Government wants to spend $10 million telling all of us what a problem it is. We want that money directed to being spent on the ground; we want it to happen now; we want it to happen so that people get the benefit from it and we stop bickering.
(1) Why does this Government refuse to recognise the enormous effort of rural and regional communities by allocating only $4 million per year of new funding for the national action plan? (2) Why does this Government continue in its insistence that $8 million per year of existing funding should be recognised by the federal Government when every other Labor Government in the country has committed new funds? (3) When will the minister sign the bilateral agreement and commit $60 million of new funding to the Western Australian land care community? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) The figure is wrong. The amount would be more than $60 million. The figure we are negotiating at the moment is closer to $80 million. I put that on the record immediately. In Sydney last Friday the Minister for Agriculture and I met our federal counterparts. We had a meeting at which we went through very clearly with them what we had been spending in this State. We mounted an argument that we wanted an extra $8 million per annum from the Commonwealth Government. It is not a new argument. I do not know what the member said to his colleague Hon Warren Truss, who certainly had his figures wrong. It is not a new argument. The same argument was run by Hon Richard Court in November 2000. This was the first opportunity we had to run that argument face to face with commonwealth representatives. We ran the argument hard. We gave acknowledgment to the previous Government for its salinity plan, which we are now implementing. The member is also wrong when he refers to every other Labor State not doing as we are doing. New South Wales got some benefit from money that was recognised as having been allocated previously. When the Council of Australian Governments agreement was signed in November 2000, it was very clear that Western Australia and New South Wales would not be disadvantaged. However, I believe that the Commonwealth is trying to hold us up. The Commonwealth is saying that it has $250 million for NHT2. However, it immediately takes out of that $117 million that is being spent on NHT1, so that immediately goes from the pot of money it has on the table. In addition, NHT has meant that Western Australia has had $30 million for the past few years. This year we are told that the allocation is $7 million; that is, a drop from $30 million to $7 million, which is absolutely disgraceful. The only party putting money in is the State Government. It has allocated $165 million to be spent over the next four years. I call upon the federal Government to stop spending $10 million on advertising. We went to Sydney to hear a briefing from the federal Government. People know about salinity; they know it is a problem, but the federal Government wants to spend $10 million telling all of us what a problem it is. We want that money directed to being spent on the ground; we want it to happen now; we want it to happen so that people get the benefit from it and we stop bickering.
(2) Why does this Government continue in its insistence that $8 million per year of existing funding should be recognised by the federal Government when every other Labor Government in the country has committed new funds? (3) When will the minister sign the bilateral agreement and commit $60 million of new funding to the Western Australian land care community? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) The figure is wrong. The amount would be more than $60 million. The figure we are negotiating at the moment is closer to $80 million. I put that on the record immediately. In Sydney last Friday the Minister for Agriculture and I met our federal counterparts. We had a meeting at which we went through very clearly with them what we had been spending in this State. We mounted an argument that we wanted an extra $8 million per annum from the Commonwealth Government. It is not a new argument. I do not know what the member said to his colleague Hon Warren Truss, who certainly had his figures wrong. It is not a new argument. The same argument was run by Hon Richard Court in November 2000. This was the first opportunity we had to run that argument face to face with commonwealth representatives. We ran the argument hard. We gave acknowledgment to the previous Government for its salinity plan, which we are now implementing. The member is also wrong when he refers to every other Labor State not doing as we are doing. New South Wales got some benefit from money that was recognised as having been allocated previously. When the Council of Australian Governments agreement was signed in November 2000, it was very clear that Western Australia and New South Wales would not be disadvantaged. However, I believe that the Commonwealth is trying to hold us up. The Commonwealth is saying that it has $250 million for NHT2. However, it immediately takes out of that $117 million that is being spent on NHT1, so that immediately goes from the pot of money it has on the table. In addition, NHT has meant that Western Australia has had $30 million for the past few years. This year we are told that the allocation is $7 million; that is, a drop from $30 million to $7 million, which is absolutely disgraceful. The only party putting money in is the State Government. It has allocated $165 million to be spent over the next four years. I call upon the federal Government to stop spending $10 million on advertising. We went to Sydney to hear a briefing from the federal Government. People know about salinity; they know it is a problem, but the federal Government wants to spend $10 million telling all of us what a problem it is. We want that money directed to being spent on the ground; we want it to happen now; we want it to happen so that people get the benefit from it and we stop bickering.
(3) When will the minister sign the bilateral agreement and commit $60 million of new funding to the Western Australian land care community? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) The figure is wrong. The amount would be more than $60 million. The figure we are negotiating at the moment is closer to $80 million. I put that on the record immediately. In Sydney last Friday the Minister for Agriculture and I met our federal counterparts. We had a meeting at which we went through very clearly with them what we had been spending in this State. We mounted an argument that we wanted an extra $8 million per annum from the Commonwealth Government. It is not a new argument. I do not know what the member said to his colleague Hon Warren Truss, who certainly had his figures wrong. It is not a new argument. The same argument was run by Hon Richard Court in November 2000. This was the first opportunity we had to run that argument face to face with commonwealth representatives. We ran the argument hard. We gave acknowledgment to the previous Government for its salinity plan, which we are now implementing. The member is also wrong when he refers to every other Labor State not doing as we are doing. New South Wales got some benefit from money that was recognised as having been allocated previously. When the Council of Australian Governments agreement was signed in November 2000, it was very clear that Western Australia and New South Wales would not be disadvantaged. However, I believe that the Commonwealth is trying to hold us up. The Commonwealth is saying that it has $250 million for NHT2. However, it immediately takes out of that $117 million that is being spent on NHT1, so that immediately goes from the pot of money it has on the table. In addition, NHT has meant that Western Australia has had $30 million for the past few years. This year we are told that the allocation is $7 million; that is, a drop from $30 million to $7 million, which is absolutely disgraceful. The only party putting money in is the State Government. It has allocated $165 million to be spent over the next four years. I call upon the federal Government to stop spending $10 million on advertising. We went to Sydney to hear a briefing from the federal Government. People know about salinity; they know it is a problem, but the federal Government wants to spend $10 million telling all of us what a problem it is. We want that money directed to being spent on the ground; we want it to happen now; we want it to happen so that people get the benefit from it and we stop bickering.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) The figure is wrong. The amount would be more than $60 million. The figure we are negotiating at the moment is closer to $80 million. I put that on the record immediately. In Sydney last Friday the Minister for Agriculture and I met our federal counterparts. We had a meeting at which we went through very clearly with them what we had been spending in this State. We mounted an argument that we wanted an extra $8 million per annum from the Commonwealth Government. It is not a new argument. I do not know what the member said to his colleague Hon Warren Truss, who certainly had his figures wrong. It is not a new argument. The same argument was run by Hon Richard Court in November 2000. This was the first opportunity we had to run that argument face to face with commonwealth representatives. We ran the argument hard. We gave acknowledgment to the previous Government for its salinity plan, which we are now implementing. The member is also wrong when he refers to every other Labor State not doing as we are doing. New South Wales got some benefit from money that was recognised as having been allocated previously. When the Council of Australian Governments agreement was signed in November 2000, it was very clear that Western Australia and New South Wales would not be disadvantaged. However, I believe that the Commonwealth is trying to hold us up. The Commonwealth is saying that it has $250 million for NHT2. However, it immediately takes out of that $117 million that is being spent on NHT1, so that immediately goes from the pot of money it has on the table. In addition, NHT has meant that Western Australia has had $30 million for the past few years. This year we are told that the allocation is $7 million; that is, a drop from $30 million to $7 million, which is absolutely disgraceful. The only party putting money in is the State Government. It has allocated $165 million to be spent over the next four years. I call upon the federal Government to stop spending $10 million on advertising. We went to Sydney to hear a briefing from the federal Government. People know about salinity; they know it is a problem, but the federal Government wants to spend $10 million telling all of us what a problem it is. We want that money directed to being spent on the ground; we want it to happen now; we want it to happen so that people get the benefit from it and we stop bickering.
(1)-(3) The figure is wrong. The amount would be more than $60 million. The figure we are negotiating at the moment is closer to $80 million. I put that on the record immediately. In Sydney last Friday the Minister for Agriculture and I met our federal counterparts. We had a meeting at which we went through very clearly with them what we had been spending in this State. We mounted an argument that we wanted an extra $8 million per annum from the Commonwealth Government. It is not a new argument. I do not know what the member said to his colleague Hon Warren Truss, who certainly had his figures wrong. It is not a new argument. The same argument was run by Hon Richard Court in November 2000. This was the first opportunity we had to run that argument face to face with commonwealth representatives. We ran the argument hard. We gave acknowledgment to the previous Government for its salinity plan, which we are now implementing. The member is also wrong when he refers to every other Labor State not doing as we are doing. New South Wales got some benefit from money that was recognised as having been allocated previously. When the Council of Australian Governments agreement was signed in November 2000, it was very clear that Western Australia and New South Wales would not be disadvantaged. However, I believe that the Commonwealth is trying to hold us up. The Commonwealth is saying that it has $250 million for NHT2. However, it immediately takes out of that $117 million that is being spent on NHT1, so that immediately goes from the pot of money it has on the table. In addition, NHT has meant that Western Australia has had $30 million for the past few years. This year we are told that the allocation is $7 million; that is, a drop from $30 million to $7 million, which is absolutely disgraceful. The only party putting money in is the State Government. It has allocated $165 million to be spent over the next four years. I call upon the federal Government to stop spending $10 million on advertising. We went to Sydney to hear a briefing from the federal Government. People know about salinity; they know it is a problem, but the federal Government wants to spend $10 million telling all of us what a problem it is. We want that money directed to being spent on the ground; we want it to happen now; we want it to happen so that people get the benefit from it and we stop bickering.
(1) Why does this Government refuse to recognise the enormous effort of rural and regional communities by allocating only $4 million per year of new funding for the national action plan? (2) Why does this Government continue in its insistence that $8 million per year of existing funding should be recognised by the federal Government when every other Labor Government in the country has committed new funds? (3) When will the minister sign the bilateral agreement and commit $60 million of new funding to the Western Australian land care community? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) The figure is wrong. The amount would be more than $60 million. The figure we are negotiating at the moment is closer to $80 million. I put that on the record immediately. In Sydney last Friday the Minister for Agriculture and I met our federal counterparts. We had a meeting at which we went through very clearly with them what we had been spending in this State. We mounted an argument that we wanted an extra $8 million per annum from the Commonwealth Government. It is not a new argument. I do not know what the member said to his colleague Hon Warren Truss, who certainly had his figures wrong. It is not a new argument. The same argument was run by Hon Richard Court in November 2000. This was the first opportunity we had to run that argument face to face with commonwealth representatives. We ran the argument hard. We gave acknowledgment to the previous Government for its salinity plan, which we are now implementing. The member is also wrong when he refers to every other Labor State not doing as we are doing. New South Wales got some benefit from money that was recognised as having been allocated previously. When the Council of Australian Governments agreement was signed in November 2000, it was very clear that Western Australia and New South Wales would not be disadvantaged. However, I believe that the Commonwealth is trying to hold us up. The Commonwealth is saying that it has $250 million for NHT2. However, it immediately takes out of that $117 million that is being spent on NHT1, so that immediately goes from the pot of money it has on the table. In addition, NHT has meant that Western Australia has had $30 million for the past few years. This year we are told that the allocation is $7 million; that is, a drop from $30 million to $7 million, which is absolutely disgraceful. The only party putting money in is the State Government. It has allocated $165 million to be spent over the next four years. I call upon the federal Government to stop spending $10 million on advertising. We went to Sydney to hear a briefing from the federal Government. People know about salinity; they know it is a problem, but the federal Government wants to spend $10 million telling all of us what a problem it is. We want that money directed to being spent on the ground; we want it to happen now; we want it to happen so that people get the benefit from it and we stop bickering.
(2) Why does this Government continue in its insistence that $8 million per year of existing funding should be recognised by the federal Government when every other Labor Government in the country has committed new funds? (3) When will the minister sign the bilateral agreement and commit $60 million of new funding to the Western Australian land care community? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) The figure is wrong. The amount would be more than $60 million. The figure we are negotiating at the moment is closer to $80 million. I put that on the record immediately. In Sydney last Friday the Minister for Agriculture and I met our federal counterparts. We had a meeting at which we went through very clearly with them what we had been spending in this State. We mounted an argument that we wanted an extra $8 million per annum from the Commonwealth Government. It is not a new argument. I do not know what the member said to his colleague Hon Warren Truss, who certainly had his figures wrong. It is not a new argument. The same argument was run by Hon Richard Court in November 2000. This was the first opportunity we had to run that argument face to face with commonwealth representatives. We ran the argument hard. We gave acknowledgment to the previous Government for its salinity plan, which we are now implementing. The member is also wrong when he refers to every other Labor State not doing as we are doing. New South Wales got some benefit from money that was recognised as having been allocated previously. When the Council of Australian Governments agreement was signed in November 2000, it was very clear that Western Australia and New South Wales would not be disadvantaged. However, I believe that the Commonwealth is trying to hold us up. The Commonwealth is saying that it has $250 million for NHT2. However, it immediately takes out of that $117 million that is being spent on NHT1, so that immediately goes from the pot of money it has on the table. In addition, NHT has meant that Western Australia has had $30 million for the past few years. This year we are told that the allocation is $7 million; that is, a drop from $30 million to $7 million, which is absolutely disgraceful. The only party putting money in is the State Government. It has allocated $165 million to be spent over the next four years. I call upon the federal Government to stop spending $10 million on advertising. We went to Sydney to hear a briefing from the federal Government. People know about salinity; they know it is a problem, but the federal Government wants to spend $10 million telling all of us what a problem it is. We want that money directed to being spent on the ground; we want it to happen now; we want it to happen so that people get the benefit from it and we stop bickering.
(3) When will the minister sign the bilateral agreement and commit $60 million of new funding to the Western Australian land care community? Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) The figure is wrong. The amount would be more than $60 million. The figure we are negotiating at the moment is closer to $80 million. I put that on the record immediately. In Sydney last Friday the Minister for Agriculture and I met our federal counterparts. We had a meeting at which we went through very clearly with them what we had been spending in this State. We mounted an argument that we wanted an extra $8 million per annum from the Commonwealth Government. It is not a new argument. I do not know what the member said to his colleague Hon Warren Truss, who certainly had his figures wrong. It is not a new argument. The same argument was run by Hon Richard Court in November 2000. This was the first opportunity we had to run that argument face to face with commonwealth representatives. We ran the argument hard. We gave acknowledgment to the previous Government for its salinity plan, which we are now implementing. The member is also wrong when he refers to every other Labor State not doing as we are doing. New South Wales got some benefit from money that was recognised as having been allocated previously. When the Council of Australian Governments agreement was signed in November 2000, it was very clear that Western Australia and New South Wales would not be disadvantaged. However, I believe that the Commonwealth is trying to hold us up. The Commonwealth is saying that it has $250 million for NHT2. However, it immediately takes out of that $117 million that is being spent on NHT1, so that immediately goes from the pot of money it has on the table. In addition, NHT has meant that Western Australia has had $30 million for the past few years. This year we are told that the allocation is $7 million; that is, a drop from $30 million to $7 million, which is absolutely disgraceful. The only party putting money in is the State Government. It has allocated $165 million to be spent over the next four years. I call upon the federal Government to stop spending $10 million on advertising. We went to Sydney to hear a briefing from the federal Government. People know about salinity; they know it is a problem, but the federal Government wants to spend $10 million telling all of us what a problem it is. We want that money directed to being spent on the ground; we want it to happen now; we want it to happen so that people get the benefit from it and we stop bickering.
Dr J.M. EDWARDS replied: (1)-(3) The figure is wrong. The amount would be more than $60 million. The figure we are negotiating at the moment is closer to $80 million. I put that on the record immediately. In Sydney last Friday the Minister for Agriculture and I met our federal counterparts. We had a meeting at which we went through very clearly with them what we had been spending in this State. We mounted an argument that we wanted an extra $8 million per annum from the Commonwealth Government. It is not a new argument. I do not know what the member said to his colleague Hon Warren Truss, who certainly had his figures wrong. It is not a new argument. The same argument was run by Hon Richard Court in November 2000. This was the first opportunity we had to run that argument face to face with commonwealth representatives. We ran the argument hard. We gave acknowledgment to the previous Government for its salinity plan, which we are now implementing. The member is also wrong when he refers to every other Labor State not doing as we are doing. New South Wales got some benefit from money that was recognised as having been allocated previously. When the Council of Australian Governments agreement was signed in November 2000, it was very clear that Western Australia and New South Wales would not be disadvantaged. However, I believe that the Commonwealth is trying to hold us up. The Commonwealth is saying that it has $250 million for NHT2. However, it immediately takes out of that $117 million that is being spent on NHT1, so that immediately goes from the pot of money it has on the table. In addition, NHT has meant that Western Australia has had $30 million for the past few years. This year we are told that the allocation is $7 million; that is, a drop from $30 million to $7 million, which is absolutely disgraceful. The only party putting money in is the State Government. It has allocated $165 million to be spent over the next four years. I call upon the federal Government to stop spending $10 million on advertising. We went to Sydney to hear a briefing from the federal Government. People know about salinity; they know it is a problem, but the federal Government wants to spend $10 million telling all of us what a problem it is. We want that money directed to being spent on the ground; we want it to happen now; we want it to happen so that people get the benefit from it and we stop bickering.
(1)-(3) The figure is wrong. The amount would be more than $60 million. The figure we are negotiating at the moment is closer to $80 million. I put that on the record immediately. In Sydney last Friday the Minister for Agriculture and I met our federal counterparts. We had a meeting at which we went through very clearly with them what we had been spending in this State. We mounted an argument that we wanted an extra $8 million per annum from the Commonwealth Government. It is not a new argument. I do not know what the member said to his colleague Hon Warren Truss, who certainly had his figures wrong. It is not a new argument. The same argument was run by Hon Richard Court in November 2000. This was the first opportunity we had to run that argument face to face with commonwealth representatives. We ran the argument hard. We gave acknowledgment to the previous Government for its salinity plan, which we are now implementing. The member is also wrong when he refers to every other Labor State not doing as we are doing. New South Wales got some benefit from money that was recognised as having been allocated previously. When the Council of Australian Governments agreement was signed in November 2000, it was very clear that Western Australia and New South Wales would not be disadvantaged. However, I believe that the Commonwealth is trying to hold us up. The Commonwealth is saying that it has $250 million for NHT2. However, it immediately takes out of that $117 million that is being spent on NHT1, so that immediately goes from the pot of money it has on the table. In addition, NHT has meant that Western Australia has had $30 million for the past few years. This year we are told that the allocation is $7 million; that is, a drop from $30 million to $7 million, which is absolutely disgraceful. The only party putting money in is the State Government. It has allocated $165 million to be spent over the next four years. I call upon the federal Government to stop spending $10 million on advertising. We went to Sydney to hear a briefing from the federal Government. People know about salinity; they know it is a problem, but the federal Government wants to spend $10 million telling all of us what a problem it is. We want that money directed to being spent on the ground; we want it to happen now; we want it to happen so that people get the benefit from it and we stop bickering.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.