Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Macdonald for his introduction and for allowing me to continue my remarks and my questions to the minister. The question to the minister goes to the extent of who are in receipt of these flood levies. We have asked the questions about floods and other natural disasters. The question was asked last night about drought, and I am very hopeful that we may receive some advice from the minister as to whether natural disaster extends to drought. We do understand. We hope, however, that the minister is going to confirm advice that was received with regard to the bushfires surrounding Perth. That advice, which came via the West Australian, was apparently the result of a decision by the Prime Minister, but it would be excellent if the Senate could be apprised of the validity of that point.

Last evening, before the discussion was terminated, I was briefly asking questions about the eligibility under the levy for funding in the Gascoyne region, which was subject to WA’s worst floods in December last year. I made the point that, under the Australian government natural disaster recovery fund, eventually, by mid-February, I was able to organise a situation in which people did receive their $1,000 per head for adults and $400 for children—which, in fact, then exempted them from paying this levy. Others have already commented, as I will. I am very keen to know from the minister: will the Gascoyne region be entitled to funding under this levy, part of which is a $1.8 billion tax grab from some individuals in Australia—not companies, and not many, but some? Will the Gascoyne region be entitled to funding under the flood levy scheme so that they can put into place mitigation bunding and avoid that disaster—which Emergency Management Australia, taking it upon itself earlier this year, decided to overrule the Prime Minister on and, in their own wisdom, made a decision to not allow that level of disaster recovery funding for the citizens of that place? Fortunately, that  has changed. I need to know now whether or not, under this levy arrangement, people of the Gascoyne are entitled to that funding.

I also want to go to a quotation by the member for O’Connor, in the other place, Mr Crook, on 2 March this year. I seek clarification from the minister, as a result of this media release that Mr Crook put out apparently after further discussions with the government. In late February this year, on the tail end of another cyclone coming down the Western Australian coast, the Goldfields region was subject to intense flooding. I was in fact in Kalgoorlie on Saturday and Sunday. To watch the desert greening as a result of that flooding was wonderful. The flood did in fact wash away sections of the transcontinental railway, which was closed for some period of time. Some of the more remote communities in the shires of Laverton, Leonora and Menzies were particularly affected. Mr Crook, to quote from his release, has advised that those shires ‘will be able to access natural diaster support’—no problem there: those arrangements are long in place between the federal and state governments, the natural disaster has been declared and it has been accepted. The question I have of the minister is this. Mr Crook’s release goes on to tell us:

As part of his dialogue with the Government regarding the Flood Levy, Mr Crook has negotiated to ensure a fair deal for WA residents, including:

-Activation of the Australian Government Disaster Recovery Payment … for … the Gascoyne—

which he had absolutely nothing to do with. The fact is that the Prime Minister’s decision of 11 February, following my questions in this place, activated that—but, nevertheless, he chooses to take that glory upon himself. The media release goes on—and this may help to answer questions asked by Senator Cormann last night; this is Mr Crook advising us of his dialogue with the government—to say that he also negotiated:

-Exemption from paying the flood levy for flood, fire and storm affected residents in WA …

So we now have another element to this. And he particularly tells us:

This is a very positive outcome and I am pleased to see these communities in need will benefit from the Flood Levy.

I will not read out the rest of his media release, because most of it is spent bucketing me and calling to account what he believed to be ‘political games’ that I was playing—