DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, $136,273,000

ADMINISTERED ITEMS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, $21,821,000

ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AUTHORITY, $3,686,000

Witness:

Hon. P. Caica, Minister for Environment and Conservation, Minister for the River Murray, Minister for Water.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr A. Holmes, Chief Executive, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Mr R. Janssan, Executive Director, Corporate Services, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Mr R. Denton-Brown, Director, Financial Services, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Mr A. Gerace, Senior Management Accountant, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Mr M. Cooper, Manager, Management Accounting, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

The CHAIR: The estimates committees are a relatively informal procedure and, as such, there is no need to stand to ask or answer questions. The committee will determine an approximate time for consideration of proposed payments to facilitate the changeover of departmental advisers. I ask the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition if they could indicate whether they have agreed on a timetable for today's proceedings and, if so, provide the chair with a copy. I have an amended timetable.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, I believe that is agreed to.

The CHAIR: Are you all right with that, member for MacKillop, all happy with the arrangements for timetabling?

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes.

The CHAIR: Changes to the committee membership will be notified as they occur. Members should ensure that the chair is provided with a completed request to be discharged form, which the chair may refuse to accept. If the minister undertakes to supply information at a later date, it must be submitted to the committee secretary by no later than Friday 19 November 2010. This year, the Hansard supplement, which contains all estimates committee responses, will be finalised on Friday 3 December 2010.

I propose to allow both the minister and the lead speaker for the opposition time to make a brief opening statement. There will be a flexible approach to giving the call for the asking of questions based on about three questions per member, alternating each side. Supplementary questions will be the exception rather than the rule. A member who is not part of the committee may, at the discretion of the chair, ask a question. Questions must be based on lines of expenditure in the budget papers and must be identifiable or referenced. Members unable to complete their questions during the proceedings may submit them as questions on notice for inclusion in the House of Assembly Notice Paper.

There is no formal facility for the tabling of documents before the committee; however, the documents can be supplied to the chair for distribution to the committee. The incorporation of material in Hansard is permitted on the same basis as applies in the house; that is, that it is purely statistical in nature and is limited to one page in length. All questions are to be directed to the minister and not the minister's advisers, and the minister may refer questions to advisers for a response. I also advise that for the purposes of the committee television coverage will be allowed for filming from both the northern and southern galleries. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and refer members to Portfolio Statements, Volume 4, Part 11.

The Hon. P. CAICA: For the purposes of Hansard, and in the interests of getting on with some questions, I will make my statement very quickly. It is a privilege to be here today in my first estimates committee as the Minister for Environment and Conservation. South Australia's long-term economic, environmental and social wellbeing will continue to depend on our ability to ensure that we balance the conservation and productive use of our natural resources.

We have a great opportunity to do this with the establishment of the new Department of Environment and Natural Resources on 1 July 2010. DENR brings the conservation of the environment and the management of natural resources together, and with this comes a better opportunity for us to take a whole-of-landscape approach to the way that we manage and use our lands and seas.

Under the new agency structure, the regional service delivery of DENR and that of the regional NRM boards will be amalgamated under the DENR banner, providing a one-stop shop for regional communities on environment and natural resources issues. This will be a new way of delivering services to regional South Australia, making it easier for communities to work with us to deliver on-ground NRM and environmental outcomes. The creation of DENR will assist the government to pursue its policy priorities in the area of the environment and natural resources, including South Australia's Strategic Plan (SASP) and the State Natural Resources Management Plan.

I am pleased to advise the committee of DENR's SASP achievements over the past year. The land biodiversity and marine biodiversity targets have been achieved and the soil protection target is on track to be achieved. The Lose No Species target is now measured by describing the trends in some well-known and significant species and, as reported in the 2010 SASP update report, the ability to achieve this target remains within reach. In addition, momentum has continued with the marine parks program, and I am pleased that 13 marine park local advisory groups, comprising approximately 180 community members from around the state, were established in the past year. These groups will help the government understand what regional communities want from marine parks, and ensure that community views are considered during the development of draft management plans and zoning arrangements for each marine park.

The state NRM plan was published in 2006 and the first statutory five-year review of the plan occurred in December 2009. The plan is currently being revised in consultation with the NRM Council to set future directions for natural resources management in South Australia. Another highlight for this year has been the adoption of an additional three regional NRM plans. This means that seven of the eight boards have now completed plans.

In 2009-10 DENR added approximately 145,000 hectares of high biodiversity land to the Protected Area System through 19 park proclamations under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972. As well as expanding the protected area system, DENR is focusing efforts on improving visitor experiences. DENR works with Aboriginal communities to protect areas of cultural significance and provide cultural experiences for visitors. Co-management brings together the interests that Aboriginal people and the broader community have in the land. In 2009-10 the Indigenous Land-Use Agreement (ILUA) and Co-management Agreement over the Flinders Ranges National Park and the Narungga fishing ILUA were finalised.

Following the devastating 2009 Victorian bushfires, DENR took the lead role for two ministerial reviews. This resulted in changes to the Native Vegetation Regulations prior to the 2009-10 bushfire season. Delegation to regional South Australian Country Fire Service officers is now in place to enable local approval of native vegetation clearance associated with planned fuel reduction works. Fire management capabilities were boosted by an additional $4.5 million over four years, commencing in July 2009. During 2009-10 DENR increased its prescribed burning program and 92 burns were completed—almost twice the number of burns conducted in the previous year.

In June 2010 I released the Long-Term Plan for the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth region. The Australian government has now provided $21.04 million for projects associated with early works detailed in this plan. This is in addition to the initial $10 million provided for the development of the plan.

I would like to take this opportunity to briefly mention several other DENR highlights from the past year, including the removal of 6,460 camels from the South Australian rangelands, the provision of heritage grants to owners of state heritage buildings totalling $250,000 and the accreditation of the Botanic Gardens and State Herbarium with the American Association of Museums, the first organisation outside the United States to be accredited.

The 2010-11 state budget papers reflect that DENR has been allocated an operating budget of $135.1 million on a net cost of service basis to deliver a range of programs during the year. Key structural changes to the budget for the 2010-11 year reflect in the corporation of NRM and State Flora functions under machinery of government changes, resulting in an increase in net cost of services of $13.4 million. In addition, the impact of the Sustainable Budget Commission recommended net savings are $4.7 million this financial year, comprising expenditure reductions of $5.3 million and revenue or cost recovery measures of $0.7 million.

An amount of $28.3 million has been provided in the budget for investing expenditure during 2010-11, which includes $13 million during the first year of the Adelaide Living Beaches Sand Transfer Infrastructure project, and $2.6 million for the further upgrade to facilities at Belair National Park, as well as $1 million each for the Adelaide Botanic Garden Aquifer Storage System and the upgrade to Plane Tree Drive in Botanic Park. The balance of the investing budget is allocated to the department's annual program and $700,000 for the upgrade of facilities at Seal Bay.

In 2010-11, DENR will continue to integrate the delivery of services provided by DENR and NRM boards and introduce amendments to the Natural Resources Management Act 2004. The department will also continue working closely with marine park local advisory groups, peak stakeholders and local communities as draft management plans for the zoning are prepared. Other targets include the analysis and implementation of relevant findings from the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission; ongoing adaptive management of the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth region; and the proclamation of additional parks under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972.

These goals cannot be achieved without a consistent and coordinated effort. In the coming year, DENR will focus on working across government with our industry stakeholders, our friends from the conservation movement and the wider South Australian community to deliver the outcomes we all need for a healthy, productive and sustainable environment. I thank you for allowing me to make that introductory statement.

Mr WILLIAMS: I have a very brief statement, only in so much as just to make a comment about the process. This is one of those portfolio areas where the opposition spokesperson is a member of the Legislative Council, and the process prevents the actual spokesperson from being a part of the committee, which I think, is frustrating to all oppositions, notwithstanding that ministers from the Legislative Council sit on the committee. I think that is something that the parliament should look at. It would be a much more effective committee if the person who spends the day-to-day oversight on behalf of the opposition party was able to actually come and sit on this committee.

Other than that, I am happy to get on with the question. I welcome the minister's undertaking to change the times in exchange for short introductory statements and lack of questions from the government's side. My first question relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 11.6, which refers to the targets and highlights. My question is about prescribed burn-offs in DENR managed lands—a fairly topical subject. I think it was only today, or over the weekend, that I read a report from CFS personnel suggesting that we are looking at a very significant fire risk for this season. Both the highlights and the targets talk about a 40 per cent increase in the effort put into burn-off over the previous year. I was after some information in acreage terms. Could the minister tell us how many acres—or I don't mind if he measures it in square kilometres—were burnt off last year, what is the intention this year and what is that as a percentage of the total land under the care and control of DENR?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the honourable member for his question. He is quite right to identify that a significant component of the delivery of our services involves making sure that we are able to effectively undertake prescribed burns. They have two outcomes: they mitigate against what might otherwise be the situation should there be a wildfire or a bushfire through those regions. It is also critically important—and we are looking at this in the future—to determine at what times we can do these prescribed burns because they also have a benefit, if you like, on the regeneration of the seed bank that exists there.

We deliver fuel management strategies in combination with increased suppression capabilities to reduce the impact of bushfires on communities and the environment. It was only recently that I was over on Kangaroo Island and met with the DENR personnel who have developed a very good working relationship with the CFS over there. It was not always the case, and quite simply—as you would know, Mitch—the best fire that anyone can possibly fight is on someone else's land.

Mr WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

The Hon. P. CAICA: The trouble is that the fire does not know whose land it is, and travels. So, they have all been working very coherently in what is a very troublesome region of South Australia with respect to bushfires.

Our fire management capabilities were boosted by an additional $4.5 million over four years, commencing in July 2009. A further $879,000 was announced in December 2009, which saw the employment of an additional 26 seasonal firefighters. It was this funding that enabled DENR to maintain sustained suppression efforts at bushfire incidents and greatly assisted with delivering the increased prescribed burning program. The 2009-10 prescribed burning program was the largest to date, with 92 burns completed, totalling almost 11,000 hectares; 555 hectares were burnt in the Mount Lofty Ranges, an increase of 75 per cent from 2008-09; and a further 10 comprehensive fire management plans were completed and adopted, taking the combined total of reserves now covered by fire management plans to 135, or 45 per cent of parks and reserves managed by DENR.

I finish by making this point. This was one of the areas I focused on when I first became minister. There are lots of good people working within DENR but, late one Friday afternoon, having been given a presentation earlier that day, I wondered what in percentage terms we are actually burning with respect to the public estate. The percentage figure I was given was, of course, for the whole state, but everyone in this room would realise that, if the public estate includes a gibber desert, then we do not burn there. So I asked the question of what were the areas targeted and, quite simply, it was anything really below the Goyder line—that is, the public estate—where the majority of effort would be undertaken.

We will continue to work with the community. Allan can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the prescribed burning season starts today. It is one of the jobs that is vitally important with respect to not only the management of the public estate but also to mitigate any potential loss of life and property with respect to fires emanating from and travelling across the borders of the public estate.

Membership:

Hon. M.J. Atkinson substituted for Mr Odenwalder.

Mr WILLIAMS: On the same line, the minister's CEO was quoted in another parliamentary committee only last week as saying: 'What happened in Kinglake will happen in the Adelaide Hills—there is absolutely no doubt about that.' I am pretty certain that I am correct in saying that a substantial amount of native vegetation and scrub in the Adelaide Hills is under the control of the minister's department. Given the CEO's comments, has the minister changed the department's attitude to prescribed burning, and can the residents of the Adelaide Hills be comfortable in believing that whatever is necessary to be done will be done to ensure that there is control of the amount of fuel available for wildfire in that region in the coming summer?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I will not comment specifically on the CEO's comments in that regard, save and except that I may invite him to clarify those if he so wishes. We have to look at where the hot spots are, and there is no doubt that one of the most difficult areas to maintain and in which to prevent bushfires is in the Adelaide Hills. I say that on the basis that that is where people live, that is where all the trees are, and that makes a combination that makes it potentially a more dangerous situation than might otherwise be the case, if we refer earlier to the gibber deserts, without being flippant in any way as it is a serious issue.

We will focus our efforts within the Adelaide Hills and work closely with the CFS. I draw attention to the fact that the relevant act was changed last year to allow the CFS to authorise the clearance of native vegetation for the purposes of limiting the fuel available there. I also make the point that, whilst DENR will be diligent about what is being done on the public estate with regard to our responsibility to reduce fuel load and to make sure it is more safe than otherwise would be the case, I also highlight (whilst it is not my portfolio responsibility; it is that of my colleague and friend Michael Wright) that that responsibility is also levelled at every individual owner of property within the Adelaide Hills and elsewhere. I know that the CFS is working very closely with landowners to make sure that they understand their responsibilities, as well, in relation to the reduction of fuel load. Our focus will continue to be in the Adelaide Hills, where we increased the level of burning last year, as I mentioned in the previous question. I have also mentioned the variations to the Native Vegetation Regulations.

Certainly, in regard to the recommendations that have come from the bushfire royal commission, we will continue to provide ongoing support to the South Australian CFS, who do an outstanding job in relation to the management of native vegetation for bushfire safety, and we have contributed significantly to the evaluation of the findings of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission in relation to the South Australian context. In addition, we will also finalise and implement a roadside safety operational framework, again in consultation with the CFS and relevant authorities. Allan, do you want to clarify the comment you made in any way?

Mr HOLMES: I did make an amendment to the record of that meeting to say that one could expect fires of that magnitude to occur in the Adelaide Hills. That was just a point of clarification.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I will also add that my very first job as a recruit firefighter was during the 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires. It is safe to say that, at that stage, I hardly knew the front of a hose from the end of a hose, but we were deployed into the Black Hill/Anstey Hill regions as recruit firefighters. I certainly hope that we never experience anything like we did in 1983. I think the previous one was in the 1950s.

People are living in regions like that and, with the amount of fuel there, I know full well that we will have another fire, and it will be a significant fire, within the Adelaide Hills. We need to properly prepare for that circumstance, and the best way we can do that is to make sure that we have a responsibility that extends to every individual landowner. We have to make sure that we reduce the fuel and have appropriate fire plans in place, and that also means individual fire plans for those who occupy houses and property in those more prone regions.

Mr WILLIAMS: I now refer to Budget Paper 6, page 138, which talks about budget measures and some savings. An additional $6 million is proposed to be raised through entrance fees, and it talks about increasing entrance fees. Are there any new fees, or is this proposal simply about increasing existing fees? There are approximately 4.5 million visitations to South Australian parks every year and, of these, how many will have a fee levied?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the honourable member for his question. I am advised that the $5.75 million over four years, with respect to increased revenue, is across a variety of areas not just specifically entrance fees to our very wonderful parks in South Australia. It is a process that has been undertaken with a view to the science of the matter, as well, because we want as many people as possible to visit the public estate and to enjoy the environment that exists there. We want them to leave those parks having had a very good, worthwhile and beneficial experience.

It is about getting the balance right between the costs involved in enjoying that experience and ensuring that, through those entrance fees, we are able to maintain the public estate. It is also incumbent upon us to make sure that, when people visit our wonderful parks, the appropriate facilities are there for them to be able to enjoy that experience. So a variety of measures have been identified to generate additional net income from commercial activities that are undertaken within the parks system or through the increase in costs recovery.

As I mentioned, these measures include undertaking site-specific marketing of key parks to increase the number of visitors, and the introduction of an online booking system for heritage accommodation within parks to increase utilisation rates. I would certainly recommend that; when I was on Kangaroo Island I stayed at the heritage lighthouse at Cape Du Couedic and it was fantastic. In addition to that we are also looking at ways by which we can enhance the traveller experience to Kangaroo Island by looking at some trails that could utilise that accommodation for those people who want walks similar to what is done in Wilpena and Cradle Mountain—but I deviate and I apologise for that.

We have also ensured appropriate commercial returns from lessees for the use of parks and/or infrastructure. In addition, these measures include implementing entrance fee pricing that reflects improved park infrastructure and visitor experiences and progressive introduction of cost reflective pricing for guided and unguided tours with commercial sites.

Many of DENR's high-visitation parks have undergone refurbishment to enhance the quality of visitor experience, as I mentioned, and improve access. Price increases will make a contribution to the cost of undertaking these refurbishments and ongoing maintenance. Entrance fees at a small number of national parks—and they are Belair, Innes and Lincoln—will be considered for future price increases. The prices for entrance fees at the majority of parks have increased marginally from 1 July 2010 to reflect CPI increases.

In relation to your specific question—I think it was about the price increase at some of the respective parks—as I have said, all of them have undertaken an increase, but generally a marginal increase with respect to reflecting CPI prices. I will get back with some more information, Mitch, if that suits, in regard to the more specific question about—

Mr WILLIAMS: If you can give the specific details, with the numbers.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, we will do that.

Mr WILLIAMS: On the same area, minister, because on the same page of the budget there are also some budget savings, can you give us an undertaking that there will be no loss of park rangers, of field rangers, from the park system?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I cannot give that undertaking, because, if you look at the quantum savings required from DENR, it is obvious that they will mainly be from staffing levels. What we have done, though, as best as we possibly can, is to ensure that, in and through that process, we reduce the impact on the delivery of our core services. So, whilst I cannot give that undertaking, quite simply, the focus in regard to the job losses that will occur as a result of the savings that we are identifying, that we are required to find, will in the main not have a greater impact on those particular services.

The number of park rangers employed with DENR as of 1 July 2010 is 108.5 FTEs. A 2006 election commitment was the delivery of 20 additional park rangers for South Australia. That funding commitment to deliver this initiative was $5.249 million over four years, commencing in 2006-07. It is a commitment that has been delivered on, and the additional rangers are now working across the state's park and reserve system; and, of course, it is park rangers who provide additional support for fire management works, including prescribed burns and bushfire responses, nature conservation activities and support for volunteers and community groups.

As part of the 20 new park rangers initiative, DENR commenced a graduate ranger program to induct new recruits into a program of specialised training. I am pleased to say that I have met quite a few of these graduate rangers, who not only work in the field but also involve themselves in other aspects of the DENR organisation as part of the training that they undertake. The program will continue, I am pleased to report, in 2010-11, and four new graduate rangers will be recruited early in 2011.

Mr WILLIAMS: I move onto the Capital Investment Statement, Budget Paper 5, page 39, and refer to the proposal to build a pipeline along the metropolitan beach to shift sand. On 23 September 2010, through a media release from the minister, the government announced that the planned 22-kilometre sand pipeline, which was announced on 9 September 2008, would be reduced to a nine-kilometre pipeline, costing nearly $26 million.

In the original plan, in the 2008-09 budget, the capital investment statement noted that the 22-kilometre project was due to be completed in June 2011 at a cost of $17.6 million. According to the 2010-11 budget, the Adelaide's Living Beaches project is now due for completion in 2012, with the remaining works focused on construction of a sand transfer pipeline and pumping system to facilitate sand management on metropolitan beaches. Minister, it seems that, over the two-year period from September 2008 until September 2010, there has been an $8.4 million blowout and 13 kilometres cut in the pipeline. Can you explain to the committee what has been going on with this project?

The Hon. P. CAICA: The major objective of the Adelaide's Living Beaches strategy is to protect coastal property and infrastructure and to maintain the amenity of Adelaide's beaches by collecting sand from locations along the northern beaches of the metropolitan coast where it accumulates and recycling it to areas along the central and southern metropolitan coast where there is a sand shortage.

The Adelaide's Living Beaches strategy includes construction of a sand-pumping pipeline to recycle sand more effectively, reducing the number of trucks carrying sand along our beaches and roads. Quite simply, the tendered costs for the pipeline project significantly exceeded estimates prepared by independent cost estimators, due to factors such as the need for larger pump stations than anticipated and the need to use horizontal directional drilling, rather than excavation, in some areas to avoid damaging sensitive areas.

As I understand it, part of this change of scope was a result of some of the trials that had occurred in relation to the pumping of that sand. As a result, the scope of the pipeline project has been reduced to fit within the budget parameters. The revised pipeline involves constructing a nine kilometre pipeline, rather than the original 22-kilometre pipeline, to pump and discharge sand along the busier sections of the coast, such as Glenelg, Brighton, Kingston Park and West Beach, with sand carting to be used in the less busy section, such as Semaphore, Tennyson and Glenelg North. Negotiations are currently occurring with the preferred tenderer regarding the modified pipeline project, with a contract expected to be signed by the end of the calendar year. By way of background, since 1972, Adelaide's beaches have been maintained by using trucks to shift sand from the northern beaches—where, as members would know, sand builds up—back to the southern beaches.

Certainly, it is still the long-term objective to revisit the original scope of the project but, given the budget constraints we have experienced this year—and everyone is aware of what we have been required to identify with regard to savings—we have had to cut the cloth as best we can to make sure that we are still able to complete a component of the project, that component being along the busiest beaches. Without saying that it will exactly be the case, as minister I advise that the government's objective is still that we ensure, in time, that the 22-kilometre pipeline is completed. I cannot give any guarantee as to when that will be the case but, certainly, that remains the objective.

The member is quite right to identify (and we have made no bones about it) that, as a result of the tendering process, the costs that came in with regard to the 22-kilometre stretch exceeded the budget we had available to us and, as a result, we will be progressing a reduced scope with respect to the project. I would also add that the money you have identified includes the artificial reef (for want of a better term) that was put out at Semaphore—that was included in the original costings. I think that has been quite effective as well in regard to the sand that builds up behind that artificial reef, so we will continue to manage our beaches in such a way that they provide an amenity.

I also add that the beaches are enjoyed by not only those people who are lucky enough to live right on top of them but by many hundreds of thousands of people who live in Adelaide and other parts of South Australia who come to Adelaide to enjoy holidays. We will continue to make sure that we manage the transfer of sand from not only an environmental perspective but also so that the amenity that the beach provides for many hundreds and thousands of people from metropolitan Adelaide and beyond will continue to be enjoyed.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 6, page 137, operating expenses, savings initiatives in relation to marine parks. I quote operating costs to be cut by $1.5 million in recurrent funding from 2012-13 ($3 million over two years). The Strategic Plan 2010 progress report considers that target T3.4 Marine Biodiversity to create 19 marine parks aimed at maximising ecological outcomes has been achieved, even though management plans for the parks will continue to be developed for adoption by 2012-13.

The 2007 budget for marine parks was $4.152 million over four years or approximately $1 million per annum. There was no reference in the budget to the dollars required for displaced effort, which the fishing industry says is critical to determine prior to zoning and management plans. My initial question is: what is the total funding that has been allocated to the marine parks program?

The Hon. P. CAICA: The targeted support for the marine parks program over the two years 2012-14 is $3 million. Savings, as you would have identified, are restricted to years three and four in the forward estimates, which coincide with the implementation phase of the marine parks. It is certainly expected by this time that management plans will be in place for the 19 marine parks established under the Marine Parks Act 2007. The budget savings, therefore, will occur in the implementation phase for marine parks.

The impact of the budget cuts will be minimised by retaining the essential work involved in the implementation phase while reducing or deleting discretionary elements such as grants and seed funding for supplementary research. There will also be some revenue raising from the sale of mapping and survey information. Importantly, marine parks will be delivered, as committed by this government, including a comprehensive community engagement program. As a government we will continue to work closely with local communities and stakeholders during the next phase of the marine parks program as we develop draft management plans, zoning and impact statements for each of the 19 marine parks.

Mr PEDERICK: In relation to monitoring marine parks, how many additional monitoring vessels will there be?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Quite simply, that has not yet been determined. We would be utilising our existing resources. It has not yet been determined what resources are required to make sure that we monitor not only what goes on in marine parks—whether that is outside what is ultimately determined as an activity that should or should not occur within those parks—but also it is critically important that we monitor that environment in such a way that we are able to measure the benefits or otherwise of the establishment of these marine parks.

I am told that, in other places around the world where marine parks have been established, over a period of time there is a spillover effect, if you like, from those fish and other creatures that inhabit that habitat, and that has been of benefit to all users who extract resources from the ocean. A prime example, as I understand it, is Cape Kennedy in America, where they had an exclusion zone in an area that historically was fished, but they wanted the fishermen and professional fishermen out of the region because they were firing rockets, and then the monitoring of that region showed additional benefit to those fishers outside of the region as a result of the spill.

Not everyone agrees with that, and the member will know that it certainly is an emotional argument in relation to marine parks and it will continue to be emotional. The state government has a commitment to the establishment of a series of representative marine parks to preserve habitat that needs to be preserved to, in turn, enhance the ability of the state to have a healthy habitat that continues to benefit the environment and users of that environment. That also includes both recreational and commercial fishermen.

In regard to the monitoring, specifically, we will use all of the government resources, including the fisheries department, SARDI, DENR and DTEI, and users will also be provided with monitoring information. I think that is critically important, because we know we are going to have a few blues, and we have already had a few blues. I think that we probably have not been able to capture the hearts and minds of the commercial and recreational fishing sector to date, and I think I have made it clear to you that we have sucked back a little bit to undertake a process of comprehensive engagement, and we are working very closely with the local communities and the commercial fishing sector and, hopefully, we will be able to arrive at an appropriate landing spot.

Ultimately, it is a bit like the Murray-Darling Basin, about which I am sure we will get some questions. The same theory applies, that the users of that system will be beneficiaries of a system that is maintained at an appropriate level of health to allow future generations to extract from that resource in a sustainable way. The same theory, in my view, applies to marine parks.

However, it is also safe to say that it has not been without its difficulties, and we are working through those. The best way to do that is to work with the local communities, and that also includes commercial fishermen. It is also safe to say they are not at one, either, on this particular issue but, hopefully, through this process we will all get to that landing spot where we are at one in regard to the benefits that will arise and accrue through the implementation of a representative marine park system in South Australia.

Mr PEDERICK: Referring to the same budget line, will the government have enough resources to police the proposed vast area of marine parks, or will there be an element of self-policing required from the commercial and recreational sector?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the honourable member for the question. I think it is a very good question. I mentioned earlier that we will be utilising the existing resources from a government perspective, but that will also include our ability to work with the communities. I think a very successful program that has been implemented in South Australia over an extended period of time is Fishwatch.

Of course, the member knows that the best compliance and regulation you can have is when, as a community and individuals, we undertake a process of self-compliance—a process of self-enforcement and regulation. So it will be getting that balance right between using, and I do not like the term, the 'big stick', but to make sure that through educative processes everyone understands their obligations in regard to the proper and appropriate activities that can be undertaken within marine parks.

So there would be that balance, if you like, between the resources that we have—being fisheries, DENR and DTEI, amongst others—and our engagement with the local communities and, indeed, users of the ocean to make sure that we get that balance right between that process and that self-imposed compliance with the adherence to those appropriate activities within the marine park system.

Mr PEDERICK: I have a further question re marine parks in the same budget line. The fishing industry, obviously, says it is critical to determine what is happening with displaced effort and compensation prior to zoning and management plans being introduced. How much money has been set aside in the budget and forward estimates for displaced effort?

The Hon. P. CAICA: The government recognises the importance of the seafood industry to South Australia's economy and regional areas and has given a commitment that its marine parks program will have less than a 5 per cent economic impact on the state's seafood industry. That is as per the methodology in the 2007 EconSearch report.

The commercial fishing industry is seeking greater certainty about displaced effort and compensation and has been advising government on a suitable displaced effort and compensation scheme. Details of the displaced effort and compensation scheme and any supporting regulations will be confirmed during 2010-11 before the draft management plans with the zoning are released for public comment. The government, of course, will aim to minimise any displacement of commercial fishing by buying out quota, endorsements and/or licences through a market-based process.

Now, I will make this point: the progression of this particular matter stalled, and I have mentioned that in parliament to a question that you asked. It has stalled because I asked the Displaced Effort Working Group to go away and, if you like, to have another look at what it is that they were proposing as being the formula for compensation and displaced effort. I quite simply think, and firmly believe, that the best approach is actually to buy out effort, and that is to buy licences, and that that is the most appropriate approach. I do not believe that compensation ought be paid for what is, if you like in the most simple terms, the requirement for people to go a little bit further than what they otherwise might have had to do.

We are not taking away their ability to fish. What we are saying is that, for a variety of reasons—not the least of which is the retention of that habitat—some activities might not be able to occur in these multi-use marine parks. Compensation needs to be about what impact that displaced effort has on the viability of their business and the best approach to minimise any displacement of commercial fishing is to buy out quota, endorsements and/or licences through the market-based process.

Having said that, we are continuing to work with the fishing groups in relation to this particular matter. I am very pleased and I welcome the input that they have had to date and I am certainly grateful for the ongoing input that they are going to have in this process. But it will still focus on the viability or otherwise with respect to compensation of their business as a whole.

We will work through that particular process. It is a bit like the horse and the cart—they are not as keen to work on the management plans until they have a firm understanding of what the compensation regime, if you like, will be and I understand that. That is why we delayed the meetings of the marine park local advisory groups, until we had got to a more solid position, if you like, on the compensatory regime. That is still the position of the fishing industry.

I am also very pleased, too, that at least we have a consolidated group that purport to represent the industry as a whole, because as you know yourself, and certainly you do, Peter, that they are a diverse group and they do not always sing off the same tune sheet. I think it has been a very positive move towards a single, coherent group that is speaking on behalf of the seafood and fishing industries as a whole.

It also means that I do not have to have as many meetings as I used to have with all the individual, disparate groups that represent various areas of the seafood industry. Not that I mind meeting with them because I think they are very, very decent human beings, but it just needs to have a solid, single, coherent voice, and that is being done.

We will continue to progress this. There has been no money allocated at this point in time. I have certainly taken to cabinet indications based on what the quantum of the money that might be involved, but I am not going to, as you would expect, state what that figure is that I took to cabinet. We intend to continue to work with the seafood industry to avoid some of the circumstances that occurred interstate involving who actually is eligible for compensation. We say that it is those people involved with the direct extraction, those who are licence holders.

Again, I will just reinforce the point, that we will aim as a government to minimise any displacement of the commercial fishing effort by buying out quota, endorsements and licences through that market-based process. We understand its importance to the South Australian economy, the national economy and, indeed, the regional areas where you guys come from. We should not lose sight of the fact that the money generated from recreational fishing in this state is generated within regional economies. So, we want to minimise the impact but, at the same time, we want to make sure that we do have an appropriately representative marine park system that preserves habitat so that our great grandkids will still be able to go and catch a feed of fish and, indeed, so that our great grandkids, if they happen to be commercial fishers, will be able to extract a decent living out of that resource that we need to continue to protect.

Bear in mind, too, that I think the whole system got lost a bit, because this is not really about the way in which we manage our fisheries (that is done through the Fisheries Management Act), but it is a way by which we are able to protect the habitat in which species live, which in turn is going to benefit those people who extract commercially, as well as those people who undertake recreational fishing activities—it is just that I haven't had a chance to fish much lately!

Mr WILLIAMS: I thought I could hear the frustration coming through.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes; I read some fishing books every now and then.

Mr WILLIAMS: I was going to suggest, minister, if you are concerned about the message getting confused—you just made the comment about the fisheries being managed through the Fisheries Management Act—I think part of the problem there was the advertising that your government carried out with the little boy and the big fish in the boat, and that is what it was all about.

The Hon. P. CAICA: You know, Mitch, as the then fisheries minister, that I worked very closely and developed a good working relationship with the fishing industry, and I hope that I continue to have that good working relationship. Quite simply, there was the perception that the environment, from the fishermen's perspective, was the enemy in this process, and what we are trying to do through this process is make sure that we are in no way the enemy; in fact, we are all allies in this matter, trying to ensure that we get what we want. You can talk to the people concerned, whether they be my friends in the South-East or elsewhere: we all actually want the same thing, namely, a sustainable resource for future generations to be able to enjoy. So, we come from that starting point, and it is just the way we get there that might differ from time to time. That is why we are committed to working with these people: to make sure that the road map, if you like, for the way forward is one on which we all agree.

The CHAIR: What does that mean?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Quite simply, Mr Chairman, what that means is that, as a government, we want to work with the industry and local communities, and we want to make sure, when the representative marine parks system is established, that everyone, or at least the majority, supports it, knowing that it is the right thing to do.

Mr WILLIAMS: I can understand you being confused, Mr Chairman.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Mr Treloar understood it the first time.

Mr WILLIAMS: He is the only one in the room who did. Minister, I now refer you to Budget Paper 6, Budget Measures Statement, page 139, and the program efficiencies with respect to the natural resources management boards. There is a comment there about cutting costs and saving money—$26 million over four-year estimates. What is the government's current annual appropriation to the NRM program, excluding NRM levies and federal funds? What is the actual contribution to the NRM program from the state government?

The Hon. P. CAICA: It is $16 million but, when you include the payroll tax, it takes the state appropriation to the NRM system up to $17.1 million.

Mr WILLIAMS: Has that been a consistent payment from the states into that program?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I understand it has. I am advised that the $16 million has been at that level for the previous three financial years.

Mr WILLIAMS: On the same issue, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 11.6, targets and highlights. One of the targets for 2010-11 is to integrate NRM board operations with DENR field operations. Can you explain exactly what is intended to happen there?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, I can, and I welcome the opportunity to do so. When I first became Minister for Environment and Conservation, it was brought to my attention (depending on who you spoke to) that, whilst there was an acknowledgement of the good work that has been done by NRM boards—I think it is even something that the member for Hammond raised publicly as well—there was certainly the perception out there, and, in fact, people believed that it was more than just a perception, a reality, that the growth of the NRM boards had been at the expense of the delivery, if you like, of on-ground projects. That was raised with me in possibly the very first week that I took on this job. Whilst I am a person who believes whatever anyone tells me until I find out otherwise, I further investigated that and, certainly, everywhere I went across the state it was an issue.

Certain NRM boards are doing things very well, others are doing them well and others are not doing them as well as others. However, it was argued that there was a bureaucratisation, if you like, of what the community was seeing as the NRM boards at the expense of the ability to increase the level of on-ground projects. Quite frankly, what we have decided in the creation of our new agency—and I mentioned this in my opening comments—is to improve the administration and structure of natural resources management in South Australia through the integration of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and NRM board regional services to provide a single regional one-stop-shop for NRM services.

This will provide a shift to a whole-of-management landscape approach—and I think I have spoken about that—that includes not only the public estate but the integration of natural resources management through working with individual landholders and, indeed, those who lease the land, so that we can have an increased emphasis on collaborating, partnering and engaging local communities. It provides us with a great and a significant opportunity for improving NRM services in South Australia.

The responsibilities and roles of NRM boards will not change, they will continue to be the primary interface between the government and community stakeholders, but—and this is certainly out there already—we will have a single person responsible for each NRM region. Whereas historically we had the conservator and our regional managers, there will now be one person. In some instances, it will be a former employee of an NRM board or someone who remains an employee of an NRM board and, in other areas, it will be a person who is an employee of DENR, but the point is that we are integrating the way in which we do it.

In addition to that—and I know that everyone on that side has had some experience with local councils in their regions—it has been raised with me by local councils that they felt out of the loop and believed that they could have provided a far better outcome if they had understood what NRM boards and, indeed, DENR were doing from time to time. So, it is about integrating it in such a way that we actually have the whole region working towards objectives clearly agreed by that region (by that community) on how to manage the natural environment.

Some people say that integrated resource management is a myth. I think that we can disprove that by taking the approach that we have. What we have undertaken and what we are committed to is significant reform in the way in which we have previously done things; but I also think it is the next logical evolutionary step, if you like, in regard to the whole of landscape natural resource management. I also think it puts us in good stead to engage the commonwealth as well in regard to what it is that we can manage here in South Australia that sets a template for the other states and, indeed, the commonwealth.

When we talk about whole of landscape management, it is a bit like the bushfires we spoke about earlier: a bushfire does not know that there is a boundary between the public state and private state. The natural resources do not know that there is a state boundary; those natural resources continue.

We have undertaken, with the Northern Territory, the intercontinental corridor. We are looking at whole of landscape management in South Australia through various biodiversity regions. We can do that only by integrating the way in which we do things. That means working in a coherent way between the government departments, and that also includes the NRM boards but also the local community, which includes local landowners and local councils. I am very excited by this process and have set it as one of the flagship issues that, as minister and as government, we will be pursuing during this term of government.

Mr WILLIAMS: I do not know whether we are able to put this into Hansard, but can you provide the opposition with an organisational plan of the structure that you envisage for the integration?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Absolutely; in fact, I thought we might have provided that at the briefing we gave you, but we have not, we will continue to send through whatever information you want on this and other matters.

Mr WILLIAMS: There was one, but it was very general.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes. I make this point, too, because there are people—and they may very well be within our department—who will start digging trenches because they like the way things are done today.

Mr WILLIAMS: No!

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, and that will happen outside, too. Whilst we have the idea of the structure in general terms, we are still working through that, because we want ownership of this along with the broader community, which also includes the NRM boards and the people of the community with whom the NRM boards will still be responsible for that interface.

The CHAIR: We now move on to the EPA.

Departmental Advisers:

Ms H. Fulcher, Chief Executive, Environment Protection Authority.

Mr T. Circelli, Director, Strategy and Sustainability, Environment Protection Authority.

Dr K. Baldry, Director, Regulation and Compliance, Environment Protection Authority.

Mr P. Dolan, Director, Science and Assessment, Environment Protection Authority.

Mr R. Jacka, Chief Financial Officer, Environment Protection Authority.

The CHAIR: Minister, do you have a brief opening statement?

The Hon. P. CAICA: It will be a very brief opening statement, Mr Chairman. During the 2010-11 financial year, the Environment Protection Authority will continue to progress the implementation of the government's priorities to ensure it meets key environmental challenges and meets its responsibilities as a state primary environmental regulator.

The EPA has five ongoing environmental goals: clean and healthy air; land and water that is fit for purpose; communities protected from unacceptable noise; sustainable use of resources; and communities protected from unacceptable radiation. These goals will be pursued through influencing decision-makers, building relationships, working in partnership with licensees, cooperation with stakeholders and ensuring compliance with the relevant legislation.

Key projects for the EPA in the forthcoming year include continuing to work actively with South Australian businesses to expand on the sustainable licence program that promotes beyond compliance and sustainability outcomes; consultation on a revised Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy; and developing and publishing water quality report cards in conjunction with other portfolio partners and in support of key actions within Water For Good. Focusing on these targets will allow the EPA to continue improving and communicating environment standards and how they are regulated to provide better outcomes for environmental health.

These targets complement the highlights from 2009-10 which include launching new sustainability licences which include voluntary sustainability commitments to augment traditional mandatory regulatory requirements; implementing the site contamination provisions of the Environment Protection Act 1993; and implementing the Code of Practice for Vessels and Facility Management (Marine and Inland Waters), including new greywater management requirements for all vessels operating on SA waters. The EPA is well-placed to meet the challenges of the 2010-11 financial year.

Mr WILLIAMS: I have no opening statement so we will go straight into questions. I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, Portfolio Statements, page 11.36, Highlights 2009-10, and the issue of the EPA licensing of the desalination plant at Port Stanvac. It states there as one of the highlights that the EPA received approval to add desalination to schedule 1 of the EPA Act for activities of environmental significance.

Has the EPA concluded all the parameters for licensing of desalination? Is this information publicly available at this point? If not, when will it be publicly available? What substances will there need to be licences to pollute to be provided for; and has there been a determination for the trigger values for each of those substances, for instance defouling chemicals, etc.?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the honourable member for his question and, if I do not answer it in its entirety, it is because there were many components to it, and I am sure you will let me know if I do that. It is clear that desalination is increasingly being used in South Australia with about 80 desalination plants in operation and proposals for at least 15 new plants.

Desalination, of course, is a key component of South Australia's water security plan, Water For Good, and the greater use of desal plants as we go into the future is to be expected. The water security plan also noted that disposal of brine requires comprehensive management and that regulation of desalination under the Environment Protection Act 1993 is being reviewed. Current regulatory arrangements for managing the environmental risks of desalination are inadequate.

Although the operation of some desalination plants can be licensed where discharge to marine or inland waters contains antibiotic or chemical water treatments, the EPA does not have the power to license desalination plants that discharge brine to land or to license desalination when discharges do not contain antibiotic or chemical water treatments.

This is despite the fact that eco-toxicity testing indicates that the toxic impacts of highly concentrated salt can be more significant than that of chemicals in the discharges. This greatly limits the EPA's ability to deal with salinity issues in key areas such as Langhorne Creek and the Northern Adelaide Plains which are important areas for South Australia's food and wine industry.

In view of the growing use of desalination, including the scheduled commissioning of the Port Stanvac plant some time early next year and the environmental risks that it poses, it is important that regulatory arrangements regarding this matter are reformed and the resources required to implement effective regulatory arrangements are secured as a matter of priority.

In relation to the desal plant specific to the honourable member's question (that is, the one at Port Stanvac), the primary environmental issue is the management of salt and brine, particularly in terms of its effects on land (and I mentioned that), as well as the discharge that will occur into the ocean. As a government, we have made a commitment to make sure that we manage that. Certainly, the modelling shows that the discharge will have a minimal effect within a 100 metre radius of the outlet pipe.

We want to monitor that to make sure that the modelling is correct and that it is not having an adverse impact in a broader sense on the Gulf St Vincent. We have made a commitment to monitor that discharge of the brine and also to report publicly the results of that monitoring, because I think it is critically important that the community is aware of what that monitoring is showing.

The EPA intends to place on its website details of licences and conditions relating to desal plants. We know that we are going to have any number of desal plants continuing to be built here in South Australia. We recognise it as a polluting activity and that, as a result, we need to make sure that we have the regulatory framework in place that allows the EPA to play its appropriate role with respect to the licensing and subsequent monitoring of the environmental impact of these desalination plants. We are committed to making sure that will occur.

With respect to 2010-11 and the next steps to be taken, we will continue to develop an amendment to schedule 1 to allow for the licensing of desalination plants. We will continue to consult with all stakeholders in the preparation of this amendment, which includes, too, of course, the people within our community, whether they be the Friends of Gulf St Vincent and other environmental groups, as well as industry people. I was lucky enough to visit Osmoflo. I do not know whether the honourable member has been out there—

Mr WILLIAMS: I have been.

The Hon. P. CAICA: It is a fantastic operation. It does a very good job. It is a very good South Australian operation, which I think is on the verge of further expansion. We know that is a way by which we will be able to secure water supplies in the future which will not only reduce our reliance on those more traditional climatic dependent sources but which also will be critical to the future economic expansion of this state to make sure that we do have access to those diversified water supplies, a very important one of which is water that is sourced through desalination.

Mr WILLIAMS: Thank you, minister. We might come back to you in a memo with some of the specifics of that question.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Okay.

Mr WILLIAMS: I now refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, page 11.39, Sub-program 1.1: Environment Protection; Environmental Goals. One goal is 'clean and healthy air'. Can the minister advise the committee the total number of air-monitoring stations in the state and indicate how many of these are in full operation?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am told we can; it might just take a minute.

Membership:

Mr Piccolo substituted for Mrs Geraghty.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am advised that there are 12. The majority of them are in metropolitan Adelaide at strategic points. There are air-monitoring stations in Port Pirie and Whyalla, but the majority are in metropolitan Adelaide.

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, the opposition has been given information that the air-monitoring station in the CBD of Adelaide has not worked for a number of years. Can you confirm what the status of that particular station is?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am advised that the information received by the opposition is correct; that is, for a period of time the monitoring station in the CBD was not functioning, but I am also advised that it was only the carbon monoxide component of that monitoring that was not working. Two sets of discussions are currently being undertaken with the City of Adelaide and one is about re-establishing the site. However, given the information that was sourced as to whether or not we would continue with that station in the CBD, we will need to focus on where the greatest air quality issues are, and through that process of discussion with the City of Adelaide, if it is subsequently determined that that air quality measuring station could be put to better use in another location where there are greater air quality issues, that is what would occur.

Mr WILLIAMS: I would have thought that CO₂ would have been the prime air quality thing that you are trying to measure in the CO₂, to be quite honest. Why, in spite of national standards for airborne lead being at 0.5 micrograms per cubic metre, has the target at the Ellen Street air-monitoring site at Port Pirie been set at 2.2 micrograms in 2009-10 and two micrograms in the current year 2010-11, some four times the national standard?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Of course, we have been undertaking efforts for a considerable period of time to improve the air quality in Port Pirie. That air quality is measured by the annual average concentration for airborne lead. We have four sites within Port Pirie: one at Frank Green Park; one at Ellen Street, Port Pirie (which you have identified); one at Oliver Street, Port Pirie; and one at Pirie West Primary School. I am advised that the different measurements (if you like) are dependent upon the distance from the smelter.

Quite simply, you would say that the best level we can have is zero. That is not the case. It is about a continuing improvement program until, ultimately, levels are acceptable, then we can have the debate about what level is acceptable (if you like), as well. I would say that, in Port Pirie, we have worked across government through the EPA, with the Department of Health and also the local council and Nyrstar (and before Nyrstar its predecessors) about how we would be able to achieve this and what mechanisms can be put in place by Nyrstar to reduce the level that is discharged at that location. We have also, as you are aware, in respect of water restrictions, allowed for there to be the watering of lawns, gardens and the washing down of houses within the Port Pirie region as part of mitigating against the impacts of the discharge that occurs in that town.

I am told that with respect to Ellen Street, Port Pirie, the measures that are set there are variable, dependent upon the location and distance from the smelter. We have other measures in place where exceedence can often be attributed to other issues, and we take into account, amongst other things, exceedence days attributed as follows: two days because of industry, three days with wind blown dust, and four days local development. So, we are continuing to work with the local community.

When I was with the fire service I remember that we visited Port Pirie quite often, and there was always this not just an economic attachment but it became an emotional attachment to the Port Pirie Smelters because everyone within the town relied on that for their income and, indeed, their wellbeing. I am pleased to say that Nyrstar is making efforts to reduce not just the impact of but the amount of discharge that occurs at that site, and will continue to do so by working with not only the EPA but the Department of Health to make sure that we minimise the impacts that arise from living in what is, essentially, an industrial town and region that has, as its centrepiece and as an important part of the state economy, a smelter.

Mr WILLIAMS: I now move on to the solid waste levy. I note from Budget Paper 6, page 142, that there will be an additional revenue of $17.7 million over the three years in the forward estimates through the solid waste levy. Will the government again reduce the amount that it funds the EPA from the consolidated account in view of the additional revenue coming from the solid waste levy?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Could you repeat that question please, Mitch?

Mr WILLIAMS: I refer to the additional revenue that the budget highlights of $17.7 million that will come in from the solid waste levy. The question is: will part of this fund be used to offset funding for the EPA from the consolidated account and, if so, how much?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I thank the honourable member for his question. As he has quite rightly identified, the 2010-11 budget includes an increase to the solid waste levy from $26 per tonne in metropolitan Adelaide and $13 per tonne in non-metropolitan Adelaide to $35 per tonne in metropolitan Adelaide in 2011-12 and $17.50 per tonne in non-metropolitan Adelaide. The waste levy will continue to increase beyond this to at least $50 per tonne in metropolitan Adelaide to align it with levies in New South Wales and Victoria.

We believe that increasing the waste levy will continue to drive behaviour change through a stronger economic incentive to divert waste from landfill. We have listened to industry feedback and consequently, in conjunction with this increase, I have sought a review of the levy, which will be commissioned by Zero Waste SA. That will include working in partnership with the Local Government Association and representative councils to review the levy. The review will consult with key sectors that pay the waste levy, including landfill operators, local government and recyclers.

We also recognise the fact that increasing the levy could exacerbate the risk of illegal dumping and we are committed to managing this particular risk. The draft SA Waste Strategy 2010-15 sets a target for reduction of incidents and tonnages of waste being dumped illegally. This target will be pursued through a number of actions, including education, enforcement, action and disincentives for dumping. The review will also examine a number of aspects, including illegal dumping and potential options for structure in order to ensure that the government's goal to reduce waste to landfill is best achieved. In regard to the specifics of your question; yes, it will. The EPA is not directly funded through the levy, but $2.5 million will be allocated to the EPA with another $2.5 million to Zero Waste SA with respect to supporting those two organisations. Quite simply, the increase in the levy was not a matter that was greeted with universal support, but we are committed to diverting waste away from landfill.

There is something else I also want to look at. I have not been in this job for that long, but we want to encourage resource recovery. So it is not just diversion from landfill, while that is in itself important: it is also about what can actually be recovered from that particular waste in the form of resource recovery, and we can do that along every step of the way. At the moment we have a levy based on just a single weight, if you like, but we know—and I will not name them, but will make out like an ABC person—that with the organisations involved in organic recycling (and you have been there) there is also the matter of a differential levy. That has been raised with me as I have been around the traps, as well.

We need to have this waste levy as a very legitimate way by which we intercept waste going to landfill. We stand by that, and I know that when you were in government you stood by that as well; and in future distant years when you are back in government, I am sure you will continue to support that. However, I think we can also be clever about the way in which we manage the levy to actually provide incentives to maximise as much resource recovery as we can from the interception of that landfill. So I am very keen—and very keen to work with you guys as well, in a bipartisan way—to ensure that South Australia stays at the forefront of recycling, at the forefront of interception of waste that would historically have gone to landfill, and do it in such a way that we become not just a national but an international leader in the way we recover resources from what was formerly regarded as waste.

Mr WILLIAMS: I now move on to container deposit legislation. I see that there is a cost recovery measure in the budget which is due to raise an extra $1.5 million. Are you not concerned that this will impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of that scheme?

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, I am not.

Mr WILLIAMS: Where do you see this cost landing? Will it mean higher charges by manufacturers on South Australian consumers?

The Hon. P. CAICA: The evidence continues to indicate that the refund increase to 10¢ was a catalyst for a strong increase in return. That is notwithstanding the fact that in some areas the return may not have been to the same level as increases in other areas, but we have seen an 80.1 per cent return rate for containers that have deposits. That is an increase of 5.6 per cent over the 2008-09 figures and a 14.6 per cent increase over the 2007-08 figures, when the refund rate was 5¢.

It is a very interesting issue, and it never ceases to amaze me that the rest of Australia has not jumped on board with this. We have a situation where you could be at your local footy match and drinking a can of beer—hypothetically, because you would not be drinking beer at the footy—

Mr WILLIAMS: A Coke.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, a Coke, because that also has a deposit on it. So Mitch is drinking his can of Coke, and I can bet that if he dropped it someone would grab it before it hit the ground. That is a very good thing here in South Australia, and it sets us apart from the rest of the nation. I am very pleased that the Northern Territory will introduce container deposit legislation based on what we have done here, and we will support them with that. It never ceases to amaze me that at the national level we are never able to gain much traction with the eastern seaboard states in regard to the advantages.

The other advantage that we have had is that we have got in excess of 100 recyclers who have created business from that. So, that in turn lends itself to other ways by which we can recover resource through these recycling depots. Look, this increase in fees will land only on eligible beverages in this scheme. It is around 0.15¢ per container of a 10¢ deposit.

I do not believe that it will have any significant impact, but what I do want to do and pursue is to actually look at how we can expand the container deposit legislation in such a way that we capture some of the anomalies, if you like, that are exempt from this at this point in time. Now, that is not just a unilateral decision that can be made by me. I need to get out there and engage with not only recyclers but also industry and the broader community about what we can do, if we are to do anything at all, with respect to the expansion.

I understand in Norway, or certainly one of the Baltic states—and I am not suggesting that this is the road we are going down—any container is subject to a deposit. They have a significant return, whether it be shampoo containers, for example —not that I would use it very often—and other containers.

Mr WILLIAMS: Hair restorer.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, hair restorer containers; that's right.

Mr WILLIAMS: It comes in containers, apparently. It works, minister.

The Hon. P. CAICA: It does a good job. I really think that we have done a great thing here in South Australia. It is regarded as an icon. The container deposit legislation is one of the state's icons. I think that we can build on that to make it even more effective. I also believe that there is a willingness within our community to make sure that we are able to, if you like, recover those resources that we can recycle.

Mr WILLIAMS: Can I say, minister, I am delighted to hear your comments, particularly those about wanting to expand the scheme and the intransigence of other jurisdictions. You are possibly unaware, but I was in Broken Hill a couple of months ago, and the council up there are devastated by the most recent changes to our legislation, which has meant that they can no longer participate in the scheme. They used to participate in the scheme that was running here in South Australia. They regard themselves as being very close to South Australia, and virtually all of the containers that arrive in Broken Hill are sourced out of South Australia.

They were operating quite happily within the scheme, at no cost to South Australia, but they have been denied access now because of the most recent legislative changes. So, I will come back to you on that and hopefully we can work out a way that we can circumvent that and get at least Broken Hill back into the CDL.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, okay. Thanks very much for that, Mitch.

The CHAIR: Time has expired now for the section on the EPA. We move on to Zero Waste.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr V. Levitzke, Chief Executive, Zero Waste SA.

Mr P. Fioretti, Business Manager, Zero Waste, SA.

Mr Ian Harvey, Manager, Strategy and Programs, Zero Waste SA.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I will forgo even the short version of my opening statement, given that we have 20 minutes of questions with respect to this line of questioning. There is no doubt in my mind that what we have here in South Australia in the services provided by Zero Waste—we talked about the container deposit legislation earlier and it being a South Australian icon—makes it the jewel in the crown in the way it works with the broader community and industry to ensure that our State's Strategic Plan goal, namely, to reduce waste to landfill by 25 per cent, is achieved. Zero Waste plays its part in making sure it continues to work with the broader community to ensure that these ambitious targets for each of the core waste streams, municipal solid waste, construction demolition waste and commercial industrial waste, as well as household waste, are achieved.

We are proud—and as a parliament we should all be proud—of the role Zero Waste SA plays in South Australia. There is nothing that replicates it anywhere else in Australia, and that is more shame to those other states than it is credit to South Australia for its introduction. We are very proud of it.

Mr WILLIAMS: I refer to an earlier question regarding the solid waste levy. I understand that 50 per cent of the levy collected goes into the Waste to Resources Fund. The balance of unspent funds are hypothecated in this fund and is currently $18.6 million. I understand the Treasurer approves the annual allocation from this fund that can be expended by Zero Waste. What is the policy with regard to this money? Are we trying to built up money to a target, or is the $18.6 million and the additional money going in as the solid waste levy increases? What will happen to those funds and how are they being spent?

The Hon. P. CAICA: It is a very did good question. At the moment those funds sit in the hypothecated fund, and that fund will continue to grow, given the increase in the levy with the other 50 per cent component going to Zero Waste SA and a further component to the EPA. It is incumbent upon me as the minister to provide cabinet with an argument about why we put up arguments on how best to use that money, particularly with respect to the objectives of that fund, that is, to reduce waste to encourage recycling and to promote and encourage resource recovery.

Part and parcel of that is the fact I mentioned earlier about the review of the waste levy that will be undertaken by government with stakeholders and also to see how into the out years we are able to lodge a sustainable argument about access to that fund for certain initiatives. It is certainly my intention to put forward proposals that advocate access to that hypothecated fund.

That will only ever occur if we have an argument, a proposal and a process that is beyond reproach regarding the benefits that will accrue from the use of those funds for the further promotion of resource recovery, and we are committed to doing that. I have already attended and spoken at the Zero Waste Board and also the EPA Board. It is not about just the boards themselves but the broader industry equipping me with a proposal and a plan that, on any fair assessment, even by cabinet, would be worthy of its full support. It is my job, Mitch, to do that.

Mr WILLIAMS: Get on with it, Minister!

The Hon. P. CAICA: I intend to.

Mr PEDERICK: Minister, I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, Portfolio Statements, page 11.53. The only annual performance indicator is the annual reduction in waste to landfill. The estimated reduction in 2009-10 was about 40,000 tonnes, considerably less than achieved in 2008-09 which was 57,000 tonnes. Why is this, and what is the current total annual tonnage of waste to landfill?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am advised that with respect to the 2009-10 estimated result we have done better, if you like, than we have from the 2009-10 target where we see a difference between 35,000 tonnes to 40,000 tonnes, bearing in mind the important word there is 'reduction.' I am advised that we are on target to meet our 2010-11 target and we hope that will certainly be the case.

Mr PEDERICK: Minister, how do you quantify the difference, though, between 40,000 tonnes and the 57,000 tonnes that was achieved in 2008-09? The 40,000 tonnes was the estimated reduction in 2009-10.

The Hon. P. CAICA: However, we do not have the figures. We would need the figures going back to 2007-08 to find out what the target was to achieve that actual. I do not have those figures here in front of me. I am happy to get back to you regarding what the targeted figures were for 2008-09. We only have the actual there and the target for 2009-10 and the estimated result for 2009-10 and then the target for 2010-11—are you with me?

Mr PEDERICK: Yes. If you can bring them back.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, I will.

Mr PEDERICK: That will be good. Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, Portfolio Statements, 2009-10 highlights and 2010-11 targets. One of the highlights relates to incentive funding to major waste collectors in the commercial industrial sector. One of the targets in 2010-11 is to provide financial support for the metro recycling and resource recovery infrastructure investment program. Can the minister provide full details of what these incentives are?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, I can and I am very pleased to do so. The Zero Waste SA Metropolitan Infrastructure Program provides assistance to industry. It is aimed specifically at increasing South Australia's capacity for local reprocessing of recyclable material to high value end-use products, and invests in infrastructure that enables greater re-use of waste materials.

In 2009, the South Australian Recycling Industry Investment Review was completed which assessed current recycling infrastructure capacity, recycling industry growth and priority investment opportunities. In line with the findings of the industry, investment review priority areas for investment for this program have been identified and included in the 2010-11 Metropolitan Infrastructure Grants funding call, which closed on 8 October 2010.

The 2010-11 funding call currently open is for $1.2 million over two years but, by way of background, since its establishment Zero Waste SA has held four rounds of metropolitan infrastructure grants and has awarded funding for 16 projects totalling $3.3 million, and the program has in turn leveraged approximately an additional $8.6 million in industry investment. We will continue to ensure that we use this in such a way that we are able to leverage, if you like, our investment from industry for those common objectives.

The other program that I will just briefly mention in the same context is the Zero Waste SA Resource Efficiency Assistance Program (REAP), which is helping businesses and government understand, develop and implement cost-saving resource efficiency measures and in doing so building their capacity to deal with a range of rapidly emerging environmental, financial and social consequences. Zero Waste delivers REAP in partnership with the Business Sustainability Alliance, which is a coalition of four government agencies: Zero Waste SA, the Department of Trade and Economic Development (that is Innovate SA), the Environment Protection Authority and SA Water.

Zero Waste also works to help state government to improve management of materials, energy and water across its myriad of operations, including offices, hospitals, national parks, emergency services, correctional facilities, TAFE campuses and schools. The key elements of the REAP program are commitment from management, diagnostic evaluation training programs, in-house technical support, financial support in the form of resource efficiency audits and a wide range of support programs and opportunities for business, industry and networking.

Whilst I would never say that $1 million here or there is not a lot of money—because it is—we certainly get a very good bang from our buck in regard to the incentives programs and indeed the behavioural change that is achieved through this particular expenditure.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 6, the Budget Measures Statement, page 143, and savings initiatives: cuts to the incentive and grants programs. Cuts of $1.7 million are indicated for industry incentive programs, grants programs, research work and recycling campaigns. Does the minister have a list of all the programs that are to be cut?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Ultimately, Zero Waste SA's governance and arrangements are undertaken by a board and it will be up to the board to determine to a very great extent where those variations will occur in the future. I will give you an undertaking to provide you with that information once I am advised by the board as to where it will have its particular focus.

Mr PEDERICK: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 4, Portfolio Statements, and the 2009-10 highlights. One of the highlights was that there was a review of the regional implementation program to identify gaps in resource recovery. I will put the questions together: what did the review find and what are the barriers to resource recovery in regional South Australia?

The Hon. P. CAICA: I think our ongoing improvement in regard to this is really about how we can continue to build on and improve what we are doing. Your specific question was about the gaps, as I understand it?

Mr PEDERICK: What did the review of the regional implementation program to identify the gaps in resource recovery find?

The Hon. P. CAICA: What we have found is that dispersed population centres—and I know that you come from what could be described as a dispersed population centre—where fewer people exist and there is a lower rate base coupled with considerable transport distances, create additional difficulties for achieving viable recycling outcomes in many regional areas. That is why many regional and rural communities are encouraging councils to provide more opportunities for recycling. Zero Waste SA will continue to work with those local councils in recognition of these particular difficulties. The draft South Australia's Waste Strategy 2010-15, recently put out for public consultation, does not set specific recycling targets for regional South Australia. That is to provide, I think, greater flexibility for rural councils because it is difficult out there, given the dispersed nature of the communities and the rate base they have.

There are many other Zero Waste SA programs and activities, such as school and community grant programs and electronic waste collections. Members would be aware of our next challenge, that is, come 15 December, the transfer from analog to digital in regional South Australia and the impact that will have. Also, as I have mentioned, electronic waste collection and the household hazardous waste and the farm chemicals collection programs, amongst others, are also aimed at assisting recycling and improved waste management in regional South Australia. In particular, Zero Waste SA's regional implementation program supports local government regions to progressively implement waste reforms and improve the recovery of materials from country areas.

Also raised with me, although I would not specifically have those figures in front of me, are some concerns that have been expressed by local councils in relation, again, to the tyranny of distance and the impact that has on illegal dumping. So, we are aware of that and we continue to work with councils on that matter.

Most regional councils in South Australia have, with funding from Zero Waste SA, developed regional waste management plans. The plans provide a blueprint for commissioning and decommissioning of infrastructure, including landfill and services across the state. The implementation of these plans often requires considerable time to obtain development and other approvals. The program, as the member mentioned, has been subject to review and continuous improvement, and it is strongly supported by regional councils. I am very pleased with the way in which Zero Waste continues to engage our local councils in regional South Australia and, in turn, engage the local community.

Mr WILLIAMS: I seek leave to have inserted in Hansard the omnibus questions without my reading them.

Leave granted.

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of the baseline data that was provided to the Shared Services Reform Office by each department or agency reporting to the minister—including the current total cost of the provision of payroll, finance, human resources, procurement, records management and information technology services in each department or agency reporting to the minister, as well as the full-time equivalent staffing numbers involved?

2. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2009-10 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister—listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of appointment?

3. For each department or agency reporting to the minister how many surplus employees will there be at 30 June 2010, and for each surplus employee what is the title or classification of the employee and the Total Employment Cost (TEC) of the employee?

4. In financial year 2009-10 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on projects and programs was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2010-11? How much was approved by cabinet?

5. Between 30 June 2009 and 30 June 2010, will the minister list job title and total employment cost of each position (with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more)—

(a) which has been abolished; and

(b) which has been created?

6. For the year 2009-10, will the minister provide a breakdown of expenditure on all grants administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister—listing the name of the grant recipient, the amount of the grant and the purpose of the grant, and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instruction No. 15?

7. For all capital works projects listed in Budget Paper 5 that are the responsibility of the minister, will the minister list the total amounts spent to date on each project?

8. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, how many Targeted Voluntary Separation Packages (TVSPs) will be offered for the financial years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14?

The CHAIR: There being no further questions, I declare the examination of the proposed payments concluded.

[Sitting suspended from 11:53 to 13:15]