ON-FARM EMERGENCY WATER INFRASTRUCTURE REBATE
SCHEME
891. Mr P.J. RUNDLE to the Minister for Water:
I refer to the additional $50 million
funding made available by the federal government for the on-farm emergency
water infrastructure rebate scheme to support communities in drought.
(1) When will the
minister stop making excuses and match commonwealth funds that are available to
support farmers in water-deficient areas, including the 411 applications that
his department has already processed but not paid out?
(2) Once the
minister finally decides to match the funding, will he work with me to help
change the guidelines to include much-needed catchment works?
Mr D.J.
KELLY replied:
(1)–(2) I am very happy that the member for Roe asked me
that question—very happy indeed—and I will tell him why.
The chamber might be interested in this. The federal government introduced a scheme
called the on-farm emergency infrastructure
rebate scheme, through which farmers can apply for up to 25 per cent of
the cost of doing work on their property to improve water resilience. Farmers
can get up to $25 000 for each application. The member opposite has raised this
issue a number of times. He raised it on 14 October this year, when he said —
When will the state government reopen
the scheme for WA farmers and begin processing previously received applications
to allow farmers to implement water-saving measures ahead of the summer?
He went on in a supplementary
question to say —
I support getting that money straight
out.
He then raised it in budget
estimates, and in particular he raised the issue of the 401 applicants who have
currently put in applications but no funding is available to them. He has
raised it again today. What the member has not identified, and what I am now
aware of, is that he is one of the applicants.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Mr D.J. KELLY: The advice I have
received from the department is that the member is one of the outstanding
applicants.
Mr M. McGowan: Did you
declare that?
Mr D.J. KELLY: Is that
correct, member?
The SPEAKER: Through the
Chair, please.
Mr D.J. KELLY: The member
has just confirmed that he is in fact one of the applicants. Not only is he one
of the outstanding applicants, he applied in the first round, which was
previously funded, and he has received an amount of money. I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is
a member coming into this place and arguing for the state government to
facilitate that federal grant scheme by providing taxpayers' money —
Mr D.T. Redman interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for
Warren–Blackwood!
Mr D.J. KELLY: He has come
into this place —
Ms M.J. Davies interjected.
The SPEAKER: Leader of the
National Party!
Mr D.J. KELLY: Was the
Leader of the National Party aware that the member for Roe was coming into this
place, arguing —
The SPEAKER: Minister, through
the Chair; and quiet, please. You have asked a question. Hear the answer.
Mr D.J. KELLY: The member
for Roe has come into this place, arguing for taxpayers' money to be
expended on a grants program when he is one of the outstanding applicants. As a
rural producer, he may be eligible for that grants program, but he should have
indicated to the house —
Mr D.T. Redman: Did you take
the $600 electricity rebate? Did the Premier take the electricity rebate?
Mr D.J. KELLY: Come on!
Mr D.T. Redman interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for
Warren–Blackwood, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr D.T. Redman interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Warren–Blackwood, I call
you to order for the second time.
Mr D.T. Redman interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Warren–Blackwood,
I called you to order for the first time, and you did not hear. I called you to
order for the second time. Now I am calling you to order for the third time. I was
on my feet and you were still talking across the chamber.
What is wrong with you, member for
Cottesloe? Do you have an affliction there, or what? I call you to order for
the third time.
Mr D.J. KELLY: The member for
Roe should have come into this place and acknowledged that he is one of a relatively small—in fact, about 400—outstanding
applicants for this grant fund. Not everybody is going to get it, like
the $600 electricity credit, which people do not have to apply for. He has an
outstanding application with the department,
which is on hold, and which he has now raised not once, not twice, but three
times in this place, without declaring that he has a financial interest.
Ms M.J. Davies interjected.
The SPEAKER: Leader of the
National Party, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr D.J. KELLY: Not once, not
twice, but three times he has come into this place and raised an issue, and
argued that Western Australian taxpayers'
funds should be expended, when he is a direct financial beneficiary of that
scheme. That is not the standard that members should display in this
house. Politicians are often accused by members of the public of coming into this place to feather their own nests. The
member for Roe should have done the right thing and informed the house
that he was a direct beneficiary of what he was arguing for and then there
could have been no complaint. But he did not. The question for the National
Party is: is this the standard that it will permit? Is this the standard that
the National Party will walk by? Is it okay for the National Party to allow
members to come into this house and pursue a personal financial interest?
Member for Roe, the issue of getting
financial assistance to farmers who are struggling because of the lack of rain
in certain parts of Western Australia is a very serious one. I met with the
federal Minister for Agriculture, Drought and Emergency Management and the
federal Minister for Resources and Water via Zoom this week to try to get some
funds out of that federal program. On this side of the house, we are doing
everything we can to assist those farmers. But the member for Roe coming in
here and raising this issue without declaring his financial interests does not
do those farmers any good and does the member harm.
Ms M.J. Davies: You're
a grub.
Withdrawal of Remark
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: The Leader of the Nationals WA used an
inappropriate term, and I ask her to withdraw it.
The SPEAKER: I did not hear
it.
Government members: I heard it.
The SPEAKER: No, I am just
asking.
Ms
M.J. Davies: It was consistent
with other language that has been used in this Parliament many times, Mr
Speaker.
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: You have
had a bad day. Just withdraw.
The SPEAKER: Excuse me! I did
not hear what it was.
Ms M.J. Davies: I said the
Minister for Water was a grub!
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: I do not think
that is —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: I do not think
it is unparliamentary, but I would not use it very often—put it that
way.
Ms M.J. Davies: Thank you, Mr
Speaker.
Questions without Notice Resumed
The SPEAKER: Is anyone going
to ask a question?
Several members interjected.
Mr P.J. RUNDLE: Mr Speaker.
Several members interjected.
Mrs L.M. Harvey: Four hundred
farmers are waiting for action.
The
SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition,
I was on my feet. I call you to order for the first time. Member for Roe.