NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: NORTHERN AND YORKE NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT BOARD

Mr RAU (Enfield) (11:44): I move:

That the 12th report of the committee, on the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board Levy Proposal 2007-08, be noted.

Much of what needs to be said about the NRM levies has already been stated in noting the Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board Levy Proposal for 2007-08. Very briefly, it is the consultation required under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 that the committee finds totally unsatisfactory, and we have recommended that the consultation period be extended from 21 days to 35 days and that it includes consultation with the public and the Natural Resources Committee. These can be found as recommendations 1 to 3 in the report.

I would like to raise the more specific issues that came up during the consideration of the levy proposed by the Northern and Yorke NRM Board. It is apparent from the submissions received by the committee that there has been a lack of meaningful public consultation employed by the board. Even after the mandatory consultation with local government, the board appears to have had little regard to concerns raised. It is the opinion of the committee that the lack of consideration given by the board to such obvious public disapproval is unacceptable. I emphasise that, from the point of view of the committee, there appeared to be no serious effort to understand community concerns and no serious effort to persuade the communities involved that the proposals that were being formulated by the board had any merit or should in some way receive broader community support. As I have said, from my point of view and I think that of the rest of the members of the committee, that is completely unacceptable.

Reading the submissions we received from local governments in the region, it is clear that they—the local governments—showed a genuine regard for their constituents, and we commend them for their efforts in bringing matters to the attention of their board, albeit to no avail. The committee was not satisfied with the means by which the board determined or attempted to justify the division 2 levy. Our initial recommendation to the Minister for Environment and Conservation was that the division 2 levy be removed from the Northern and Yorke NRM plan. The minister has since agreed, and the division 2 levy has been removed from the plan. On a positive note, the committee acknowledges that all boards are just emerging from transitional arrangements, and the committee felt that Mr Lewis, the presiding member, gave a fair account of the direction of the board.

With respect to the proposed levy, the committee considered that the average levy of $37 was not unacceptable. This is despite the fact that it represents a threefold increase in the levy raised in the previous year. However, the board needs to consider doubling its efforts in securing state and commonwealth funds. The notion of simply increasing levies to compensate for the loss of these funds amounts to cost shifting and in future will not be met favourably by the committee.

I would like to thank all those who gave their time to assist the committee during its consideration of the levy proposed in the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management plan, including Mervyn Lewis, the Presiding Member of the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board; and James Levinson, Jamie Botten and Associates and Sean Edwards from the Clare Region Winegrape Growers Association Incorporated. I also thank the Flinders Ranges Council, the District Council of Barunga West, the District Council of Mount Remarkable and Jamie Botten and Associates, again, on behalf of the Clare Region Winegrape Growers Association for their submissions.

Finally, I express a very sincere thank you to my colleagues the members of the committee: of course, first and foremost, the invaluable wisdom provided to the committee by the Hon. Graham Gunn, the Hon. Sandra Kanck, the Hon. Stephanie Key, the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, the Hon. Lea Stevens and the Hon. Russell Wortley. I thank them for their excellent cooperation and assistance during the preparation and work on this inquiry. I would also obviously like to thank the staff of the committee who, as always, have provided excellent support. I commend the report to the house.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:49): I am actually quite pleased by the tone of the report by the chairman of this committee, because it supports the frustrations that I have felt in the last eight months since I became aware of the projected increases to the NRM levy for the Northern and Yorke area of up to 335 per cent. This is a matter on which I have spoken in the past. The fact that the levy increase is pulling from that region and its property owners an increase from $760,000 in the previous financial year to $2.6 million in this financial year is one that people have spoken to me about dozens of times. I have had contact from not only the councils that are within my electorate but also from councils across that region who are very concerned—given the drought—about the ability of their property owners to pay the increase.

We have heard talk about the fact that it is an average cost of $37 per property owner, and I understand that. However, if we look at the real dollars and cents, we see, for example, the situation concerning the Barunga West council, which is a relatively small council based around Port Broughton and Bute (and Bute is in my electorate). In the 2004-05 period it was paying $22,000 in equivalent costs towards animal and plant control board and natural resources management issues; it has now gone to $150,000 in the 2007-08 year—a 600 per cent increase. You can understand the frustration people feel.

The member for Enfield spoke to some of us and suggested that it was appropriate for us all to put submissions in about this levy increase. I know that I wrote letters, and I also encouraged councils within my area to write letters, so when I read the report I was a little surprised to see that there were only around four or five submissions (and some of those letters were not recognised in that; they must have been considered in a different forum). We thought that this was a great opportunity to get one aspect of government control to ensure that, when expressing an opinion to the minister, one would be listened to.

Indeed, the frustration I had in writing to minister Gago on this matter was that she seemed to take the line that it was an acceptable increase. However, in estimates questioning we raised this point specifically and spoke about the fact that any increase above CPI had to be approved by the minister. I immediately said to her, 'Minister, this is 100 times the CPI increase.' So, something needs to happen. I was interested to read the Hansard report of the consultation that occurred between the parliamentary Natural Resources Management Committee and the representatives of the Northern and Yorke NRM board. Certainly, the chairman focused on that in this report, where he says (in almost his introductory comments):

I think the fact is that with these two issues, consultation and levy increase, given the level of it, it would be useful for you to hit those front and centre and see where we go from there.

The chairman has emphasised that in his comments just now, recognising that for him it was a consultation issue and it was a levy increase. I think it was about two weeks ago that I received through the mail, at home, a very impressive publication from the Northern and Yorke NRM board—I think it was called Gumnut (the member for Stuart may also have seen it)—which I acknowledge was produced on recycled paper. This certainly expounded not only all the programs this group intends to carry out this year but also its future visions, and while that is, no doubt, attempting to justify the levy increase, it still fell short of my expectations.

When the NRM proposal was first mooted about four years ago there was a lot of support from within local government because we thought it was an opportunity for a lot more dollars to flow through to very necessary on-the-ground works. Councils were attracted to it; as it allowed them to transfer some of the costs they previously had to pay to animal and plant control boards which were based on the rural and residential rates they received, and they hoped it would be a concerted and coordinated approach across larger regions to ensure that major works and very important smaller ones were actually undertaken as well. However, that does not appear to be the case.

Given the current drought, there are a lot of people out there who are finding it really difficult to pay their bills. They are proud people who want to meet their financial obligations, and they are attempting to pay everything, but in some cases this is seen as the final nail in the coffin. Because it is separately identified on the rate notice, council has responsibility for collecting it, and there will be some people for whom it will be impossible to pay. They will resist that and will probably pay as much of their council rates as they can, but they will not be able to pay this NRM levy. I believe the government needs to consider that in future years; there has to be more equal balance in this. People want works to occur and they want a contribution from the taxpayer overall, because the taxpayer overall actually benefits from the things taking place. There is no doubt that the local landholders also benefit because they are the custodians of the land, the ones who want to make sure it is in good condition for future generations to take on, but we need to improve this.

I am pleased with the sentiment expressed by the chair, the member for Enfield, in this report. Let us hope that the lessons he has learnt, and the things that the NRM committee has told the Northern and Yorke NRM board it needs to improve upon in future years, are listened to; that the consultation improves immediately and that we get a system of levy collection that allows people to feel they are getting value for money. At the moment, these people do not think that is the case.

Motion carried.