❓ Dr. Honey questions the methodology for proposed dam fees for farmers. The Minister responds, clarifying the fees target mining and public water suppliers, and consultation is ongoing regarding other sectors like agriculture.
AnsweredQoN 745Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
WATER LICENCES
745. Dr D.J. HONEY to the Minister for Water:
I refer to the consultation the
government is currently undertaking for plans to introduce dam fees of up to $6
668 for licence renewals for struggling farmers.
Given that the government's
currently proposed plan is to charge farmers for the use of their dams on a cost-reflective
basis, can the minister please explain the methodology by which this fee will
be determined?
745. Dr D.J. HONEY to the Minister for Water:
I refer to the consultation the
government is currently undertaking for plans to introduce dam fees of up to $6
668 for licence renewals for struggling farmers.
Given that the government's
currently proposed plan is to charge farmers for the use of their dams on a cost-reflective
basis, can the minister please explain the methodology by which this fee will
be determined?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Cottesloe for
the question. In the budget we announced that fees will be introduced to cover
the cost of issuing water licences for the mining industry and the providers of
public water supplies. Currently, when issuing or renewing water licences,
those licences are provided for free. The taxpayers of Western Australia foot
the bill of about $14 million for those services. People in the mining industry—BHP
and the like—get that free of charge and we all pay for it. In the
budget we announced that we would introduce licence fees on a cost-recovery
basis for those industries. We also said that we would begin to consult with
the community about whether a cost-reflective arrangement should also apply to
other beneficiaries of water licences. That is what we are currently doing, we
are talking to the community and sections of industry about whether those costs
should be borne by the people who receive the benefits of the water licences or
whether the costs will continued to be borne by the general community.
I am very concerned. The member for
Cottesloe does himself no credit with the question that he asked and referring
to these as ''dam fees''. I heard him on radio the other day
saying that if people have multiple dams on their properties, they will have to
pay multiple fees and that they could end up with fees of up to $66 000. It is
completely incorrect. Currently, 96 per cent of dams in Western Australia do
not require a licence and they will not be affected if any decision is made to
introduce fees for water licences. The whole premise of the member's
question, which is that this is about dam fees, is patently disingenuous. When
people come into this place, and, ultimately into public life, they have to be
able to go to bed at night knowing that they have acted with integrity and been
honest with the people of Western Australia. If the member is going to portray
what we are doing —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Mr D.J. KELLY : If the member is going to portray this —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Mr D.J. KELLY : Mr Speaker, I am
trying to answer the question.
Ms M.J. Davies interjected.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the
Nationals, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr D.J. KELLY : If the member
is going to portray this as dam fees, I would say that he is being completely
disingenuous and is doing himself no credit. We are trying to deal with a situation
in which the government provides a service to some members of the community for
free and other members of the community then have to pick up the cost. That
means the money, the $14 million, that we spend on administering the water
licensing system is money that we cannot spend on other services.
In this question time we have heard
the member for Churchlands trying to chastise the Minister for Mental Health
for the fact that he claims that we are not spending enough on mental health
services. The Leader of the Nationals, again, chastised the Minister for Health
for saying that we should be funding men's sheds. A laudable principle
is that we have to ensure that those positive services are properly funded, but
we cannot do those sorts of things or domestic violence services or schools or
hospitals if we are providing free services to sections of the community that
can in fact afford to pay for them.
We announced in the budget that
water licenses for the mining industry and providers of public water supplies
will now be provided on a cost-reflexive basis. I think BHP and Rio Tinto can
pay for their water licences. I think most members of the community would agree
with that.
Mr D.T. Redman : What about
the agricultural sector?
Mr D.J. KELLY : As far as the
agricultural sector is concerned, member for Warren–Blackwood, it is a conversation
that we want to have with other sections of the community, as to whether or not
they can make a contribution to the administrative cost of providing water
licences. We need water licenses. We need to be able to ensure that when
someone applies for a water licence, we need to know whether we are going to
grant it, that the water is in fact there, that it is there in the long run —
Mr D.T. Redman interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for
Warren–Blackwood!
Mr D.J. KELLY : The member
could have asked the question.
The issuing of water licences in an
environment in which we have a drying climate, especially in the south west, is
not a tick-and-flick process, as the member and some others have sought to
characterise it. Typically, water licenses are for 10 years, for example. A
water licence that was issued 10 years ago, when it comes up for renewal, we
cannot just say that we sent out a renewal notice—tick, flick and it
gets granted again. We want to be in the position in which we can give members
of agricultural and horticultural industries security knowing that they will
have water availability going forward. Part of that is making sure that we have
a robust water licensing system. All we are doing at this point in time is
having a conversation with the community about whether other sections of the
community could make a contribution to the cost entailed with the issuing water
licences.
Member
for Cottesloe, I hope we can have a constructive debate on it. I thought one of
the tenets of the Liberal Party was that people should have to pay when
governments provide a service, so I hope the member will engage in this debate
sensibly and step back from the rhetoric that was embedded in the question he
asked originally.
the question. In the budget we announced that fees will be introduced to cover
the cost of issuing water licences for the mining industry and the providers of
public water supplies. Currently, when issuing or renewing water licences,
those licences are provided for free. The taxpayers of Western Australia foot
the bill of about $14 million for those services. People in the mining industry—BHP
and the like—get that free of charge and we all pay for it. In the
budget we announced that we would introduce licence fees on a cost-recovery
basis for those industries. We also said that we would begin to consult with
the community about whether a cost-reflective arrangement should also apply to
other beneficiaries of water licences. That is what we are currently doing, we
are talking to the community and sections of industry about whether those costs
should be borne by the people who receive the benefits of the water licences or
whether the costs will continued to be borne by the general community.
I am very concerned. The member for
Cottesloe does himself no credit with the question that he asked and referring
to these as ''dam fees''. I heard him on radio the other day
saying that if people have multiple dams on their properties, they will have to
pay multiple fees and that they could end up with fees of up to $66 000. It is
completely incorrect. Currently, 96 per cent of dams in Western Australia do
not require a licence and they will not be affected if any decision is made to
introduce fees for water licences. The whole premise of the member's
question, which is that this is about dam fees, is patently disingenuous. When
people come into this place, and, ultimately into public life, they have to be
able to go to bed at night knowing that they have acted with integrity and been
honest with the people of Western Australia. If the member is going to portray
what we are doing —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Mr D.J. KELLY : If the member is going to portray this —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members!
Mr D.J. KELLY : Mr Speaker, I am
trying to answer the question.
Ms M.J. Davies interjected.
The SPEAKER : Leader of the
Nationals, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr D.J. KELLY : If the member
is going to portray this as dam fees, I would say that he is being completely
disingenuous and is doing himself no credit. We are trying to deal with a situation
in which the government provides a service to some members of the community for
free and other members of the community then have to pick up the cost. That
means the money, the $14 million, that we spend on administering the water
licensing system is money that we cannot spend on other services.
In this question time we have heard
the member for Churchlands trying to chastise the Minister for Mental Health
for the fact that he claims that we are not spending enough on mental health
services. The Leader of the Nationals, again, chastised the Minister for Health
for saying that we should be funding men's sheds. A laudable principle
is that we have to ensure that those positive services are properly funded, but
we cannot do those sorts of things or domestic violence services or schools or
hospitals if we are providing free services to sections of the community that
can in fact afford to pay for them.
We announced in the budget that
water licenses for the mining industry and providers of public water supplies
will now be provided on a cost-reflexive basis. I think BHP and Rio Tinto can
pay for their water licences. I think most members of the community would agree
with that.
Mr D.T. Redman : What about
the agricultural sector?
Mr D.J. KELLY : As far as the
agricultural sector is concerned, member for Warren–Blackwood, it is a conversation
that we want to have with other sections of the community, as to whether or not
they can make a contribution to the administrative cost of providing water
licences. We need water licenses. We need to be able to ensure that when
someone applies for a water licence, we need to know whether we are going to
grant it, that the water is in fact there, that it is there in the long run —
Mr D.T. Redman interjected.
The SPEAKER : Member for
Warren–Blackwood!
Mr D.J. KELLY : The member
could have asked the question.
The issuing of water licences in an
environment in which we have a drying climate, especially in the south west, is
not a tick-and-flick process, as the member and some others have sought to
characterise it. Typically, water licenses are for 10 years, for example. A
water licence that was issued 10 years ago, when it comes up for renewal, we
cannot just say that we sent out a renewal notice—tick, flick and it
gets granted again. We want to be in the position in which we can give members
of agricultural and horticultural industries security knowing that they will
have water availability going forward. Part of that is making sure that we have
a robust water licensing system. All we are doing at this point in time is
having a conversation with the community about whether other sections of the
community could make a contribution to the cost entailed with the issuing water
licences.
Member
for Cottesloe, I hope we can have a constructive debate on it. I thought one of
the tenets of the Liberal Party was that people should have to pay when
governments provide a service, so I hope the member will engage in this debate
sensibly and step back from the rhetoric that was embedded in the question he
asked originally.
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.