Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I find myself in furious agreement with the member for Makin once again—as far as a piece of legislation is concerned—and certainly with his comments on the water efficiencies of irrigators. I know how much work he did to save water when he was the Mayor of the City of Salisbury in South Australia. Much of the water savings measures conducted throughout this great land of ours in recent times have been with the objective of providing water to South Australia.

We heard the minister for water only yesterday talking in the parliament about the final day for any disallowance to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Last year, in the last week of parliament, I moved a disallowance to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and I stand by what I did then. But water is, as the member for Makin pointed out, so important to us all, and I certainly concede that water is as important to South Australia as it is to any other state. We need to make Commonwealth decisions in the national interest when it comes to water.

I know that one of the great pioneers of water and irrigation, Sir Samuel McCaughey, is going to be honoured soon with the unveiling of a marvellous statue in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area, where he did so much work to enhance irrigation and thereby give that particular region the ability to grow food, because you cannot grow food without water. Water is life; life is water—we all know that. One of Sir Samuel's famous sayings was 'Water is more precious than gold'. I concur with the member for Makin when he says that future conflicts will be fought over water. That is the reality.

We talk a lot in this place about mining, but I do not think we give enough credit and priority to that most precious resource, which is of course water. I heard the member for Makin loud and clear when he said that the priority of this parliament should have been water-saving measures and water-saving infrastructure. I am sad to say that, for every dollar the federal Labor government has spent on water-saving infrastructure, it has spent $5 on water buybacks, which do nothing but rip out the lifeblood, the economics, and the ability of regional communities to make money and grow food to feed our nation and other nations.

We are talking about the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Registration Fees) Bill 2013 and the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Amendment (Registration Fees) Bill 2013, and it is important legislation. In 2005, the coalition government created the world's first national Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards scheme, or WELS scheme, providing for water efficiency labels on dishwashers, urinals, taps, toilets, shower heads and washing machines. These labels give consumers easy-to-understand star ratings and water consumption information on the water efficiency of various products. The scheme has been generally accepted and supported by industry, although some believe that the scheme has not been stringent enough in dealing with non-compliant products. Yet others complain about the high cost of administering the scheme.

We heard the member for Dunkley, just a little earlier, talk about a Queensland retailer, Glenn Powell, who was in some difficulty because the swing tags were removed from six of the products in his store and he faced a $6,000 fine for each and every one of those six swing tags removed. We all know that consumers go into stores and sometimes take things, like taking swing tags to the shelf to see that they match up with a product or to another store, thinking that it has a price on it and they can perhaps get a better deal.

Sometimes they just take them so that they have the information—maybe a phone number that they can call to get some more information. For whatever reason, we find ourselves in a situation where sometimes stores are hit with high fines for not being compliant, when really a little bit of common sense by the compliance officer would make so much sense. We do live in a nanny state and hopefully after 14 September 2013, when hopefully the coalition will be elected to government, that nanny state that we are currently living in will be lessened. We have an amendment bill before the parliament at the moment to stop undercover operatives having to wear hi vis vests in Afghanistan. In my own electorate I heard the other day that people who are pallbearers and are carrying caskets from funerals have to do a three-day course to carry the coffins on their shoulders, otherwise it must be at waist level. I hear you laugh, but this is the ridiculous state which we have become—

An honourable member: It just doesn't have a lot to do with the water bill—waist level!

Some of the occupational health and safety nonsense that businesses and people are being forced to endure is just ridiculous.

The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Registration Fees) Bill 2013 will enable the minister to set registration fees under the WELS Scheme based on the whole cost of the scheme. The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme Amendment (Registration Fees) Bill 2013 makes consequential amendments to allow the fees to be recovered in the form of a tax or levy. All scheme costs may be taken into account in setting the fee, including, but not restricted to, costs to do with processing registration applications, compliance monitoring and enforcement, policy, standard development and communications. In the absence of these changes, the registration fees could cover only the costs of service provision, instead of the entire costs of the scheme.

Combined, these bills implement the decision of the Standing Council on Environment and Water in November 2011 that the scheme should recover 80 per cent of its costs from registrants. This will represent around $1.7 million per annum. The quantum of the fee will be set by the federal minister in a legislative instrument after consultation with the states and territories. The coalition established the WELS Scheme and continues to back it. Despite that, these changes envisage a rise in government fees, or in effect represent a levy or a tax on the industry to recover the costs of administration. Indeed, many are concerned that the government setting of the fees is unaccountable to the industry or consumers. There is nothing surprising in that sentence—'government' and 'unaccountable'—because those two words go hand-in-hand. For example, this bill allows the government to recover all of the costs of the scheme even though the Council of Australian Governments agreement was for only 80 per cent to be recovered. The government says it intends to recover only 80 per cent of the costs, but sometimes what this government says and what this government actually does are generally, Member for Flinders, two entirely different things, as you would well know.

Some believe that the proposed fees are too high and could be lowered if the government administered the scheme in a more efficient way. For these reasons—and they are important reasons—the coalition has referred these bills to a Senate inquiry. The coalition supports the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Scheme and the government should recover the appropriate costs it incurs to administer the scheme. However—and this is important—this must be done in an efficient and effective way.

I see the minister for water has arrived, and he knows how important water efficiency is. He, of all people, knows how important it is so that we save as much water as possible. He would be very interested too, because he was not in the chamber when the member for Makin was praising irrigators and made reference to Riverina irrigators for the water efficiency that they have been doing for many years. They are using such things as laser levelling and drip measures to ensure that the water they use is going to where it is needed. It is not generally going in evaporation, and they are spending a lot of money. I would urge him while he is here to once again see where the taxation implications for irrigation corporations are up to, because in a press release on 18 February 2011 he promised that it would be fixed up in association with the regional development minister, Simon Crean—as men of their word, I take it that they will be doing something about it and they have given me an assurance that they will. I again urge him to look into that. I see him urging his advisers to do that. I am appreciative of that because I know that he knows how important it is that we get those implications sorted, so we can put in place that water savings infrastructure and make sure that South Australia gets its fair share of water, which I know the member for Makin wholeheartedly agrees with.

As I say, it was a Liberal and Nationals government that introduced the first water efficiency labelling standards scheme in 2005. We did it because we know how important it is to save as much water as we can. I know Minister Burke knows how important it is to save as much water as we can, because there is nothing more precious in this country than water. We all know that and we need to make sure that we can save as much as possible. It is true to say that water efficiency comes at a cost, but it is imperative that we safeguard this cost from massive price rises, which makes efficient use of water unaffordable for farmers and householders.

This bill will enable the minister to set registration fees based on the entire cost of the scheme. That is a bit of a concern. As I say, the government always needs to be accountable—no matter when it sets taxes, levies, it has to be accountable. Compliance needs to have common sense with it for all those businesses which sell products with the star ratings under the WELS scheme. They cannot be smashed as the member for Dunkley pointed out a little earlier on. We need to have common sense, because businesses are the engine room, particularly small businesses, of our economy. They employ so many, many people. They pay enough taxes as it is. They do not need to be continually hurt by stupid, nonsensical compliance regimes. This is good legislation but it needs a little more thought. That is why we have recommended that it go to a Senate committee and, on those points, I will sit so that the water minister can make his valid remarks.

See this speech in context