NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 8 February 2011.)

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:02): I rise to continue my remarks on this bill which were begun last evening. I was at that stage making a suggestion about the statutory review that was carried out, and I understand that the report of that review was tabled in this place in 2007, over three years ago, and we now have the bill coming forward from that. I was making the point that, to my mind, the bill we have before us is designed particularly by and for the bureaucracy, and I have some concerns about that and think that we would be better off if we had a more wide-ranging review that took into greater consideration the concerns of the people who are subjected to the administration of this piece of legislation.

Having said that, I now wish to address the matters within the bill. I also undertook to address a matter that concerned one of my constituents. I mentioned this last night, and the minister suggested that I should give a more detailed example. I will do that right now. A constituent complained to me that departmental officers attended his property in the middle of last year with armed police, and he was somewhat concerned by that. The circumstance I will describe to the house and will leave members to make their judgment on whether the armed police were necessary and whether this constituent of mine was being treated fairly. The minister might complain that this is a different act, but it is the same group of people and the same mentality, and I am using this as an example.

This constituent had a drain put through his property some years ago under the Upper South-East Drainage Scheme. More recently, he has had another series of drains constructed on his property, basically duplicating the drain that was put through a number of years ago (but as part of what was known as the REFLOWS project) to divert water from the South-East and, in this instance, particularly out of water which normally comes out of Bool Lagoon and flows down Drain M and which would otherwise continue down Drain M and outfall into Lake George near Rivoli Bay and then into the sea.

There is a regulator on Drain M not far from Bool Lagoon, and the water can be diverted up the old Bakers Range watercourse, which would see it eventually end up heading towards the Coorong and eventually into the Coorong. The REFLOWS project is about constructing some drains and structures to aid that diversion of water in the South-East back towards some of its traditional flow paths.

This particular landholder, in the middle of his property (or where I inspected a few weeks ago with him), the draining that was constructed to reduce flooding and reduce the impact of dryland salinity on his property has basically been cut off from water flows. It has had a structure put on it (when I say 'a structure', it is a bridge with culverts under it), and it has been blocked to stop water flowing from his property down there; and another drain has been constructed on his property, heading in a slightly different direction and going through what someone has determined should be a wetland.

It is called a swamp. It is called the Tatiara Swamp. It is a semi-wetland. I would have to describe it like that, and I will explain why in a moment. The water is now being diverted in a different direction and, when it flows out of the wetland, through the neighbour's property (because this wetland crosses into two properties), on the neighbour's property there is another structure there, and, at that point last winter, departmental officers went out and partially blocked the culverts leading out of this structure. As a consequence of that and with heavy rains, his property became inundated and he had significant flooding across his property, even outside this partial wetland and across his grazing country, which, obviously, after a short period of time—only a matter of days—will, indeed, kill the pastures and cause significant economic loss to the farmer concerned.

As a result of that, he went to the first structure I described and opened that to allow water to run down the original drain that was constructed to alleviate flooding on his property, and that caused a dispute between him and the departmental officers. He was trying to maintain his farming practices and stop the flooding of his property. The department had decided that it was fair game for him to flood his property.

From where I have physically inspected the site (I have been shown photographs taken at the time which give a pretty clear indication of the water levels and also give a pretty clear indication of where the water was flooding onto his property), I have to inform the house that I have significant sympathy for my constituent. I have significant concerns, notwithstanding the dispute that arose between him and the departmental officers, that this dispute was resolved by the department by arriving on his property with an armed police officer. I am not too sure that this sort of dispute should be resolved in that manner.

Here is a farmer, trying to go about his lawful business, make a living and trying to prevent flooding, and we have a department that has built a structure. It has what we call a 'sill level', so that the water has to get to a certain level before it can flow through the structure, and then the department comes along and half blocks off that structure, those culverts, to raise the sill level even further and flood this land out.

There is no management plan for these series of structures, there is no management plan for this wetland or this system of drains. Here is the farmer having no management plan so that, when the water level gets to a certain point and starts to cause a certain amount of damage, he can ring up the department and say, 'Hey, boys, you'd better come out here and remove some boards and let a bit of water go because I'm getting flooded out.' There is no explanation to him as to how he can redress his concerns and his flooding.

His other complaint was that the department kept driving across his property in these severe wet winter conditions, cutting up his tracks, driving off tracks and driving on parts of his property where he certainly would not drive at that time of year and in those conditions. They kept shifting around heavy machinery and culverts, etc., literally making a mess of his property in the winter. Any farmer knows that in that country you do that sort of work in the dry part of the year. If you do not manage yourself and get yourself organised to be able to complete those sorts of works in the dry part of the year, you wait until the next year. You do not go and make a mess in that sort of country in the middle of winter.

I got an undertaking from one of the departmental officers that remedial work would be done to some fencing that was knocked down and a gate that was destroyed. I got an undertaking that that work would be done before Christmas last year. I was on the property in January and that work still had not been done.

I put that information to the house because I think it illustrates why members on this side of the house, at least, are from time to time, if not continually, frustrated by the administration of some of this legislation which includes the NRM Act. There are a number of pieces of environmental legislation which come under the same heading. So, that is the most recent example, minister. There is a long list of examples I could give about similar activities by departmental officers confronting landholders under the name of environmental protection where, in my opinion, I think they have gone over the top.

Certainly, I have had discussions with previous ministers. I will not cite names, but in one instance I had a debate with a previous minister for the environment where I said, 'If you continue down this path and end up taking this person to court over an alleged native vegetation clearance, you will completely lose the battle in the South-East of trying to get farmers on side with regard to native vegetation.'

That person happened to be one of the most well-known conservationists in the South-East and the department were trying to drag him through the courts because they were alleging that he had destroyed some native vegetation. This particular landholder had, in fact, basically given land to the department. He had fenced off parts of his property to allow links to be made between significant areas of remnant native vegetation so they could be linked together as corridors for animals. A significant amount of land was fenced off from his use as a gift, basically, to the people of South Australia. That counted for nothing when the departmental officers wanted to charge him over something very, very insignificant. At the end of the day, they did the right thing and did not press charges and that showed how insignificant the whole thing was.

The Hon. P. Caica: So that one was resolved.

Mr WILLIAMS: That one was resolved but it caused a lot of angst, not only to my constituent but to a lot of his friends and neighbours too who were all aware of it. It was a worthless and useless exercise. Minister, that is the sort of thing that happens out in the field which does not do the ultimate cause any good. That is why the opposition will raise a significant number of questions about this particular legislation and, I suspect, will oppose a number of the matters before us.

I put it in that term because the opposition spokesperson, the Hon. Michelle Lensink in the other place, is still consulting on this piece of legislation, so I have to give notice to the house that we will not oppose. We will allow the bill to go through this house but there are a number of questions I wish to put to the minister in the third reading stage and that will inform us, as we go forward, to come to a formal position on a number of the clauses. But I do want to point out some of the concerns that I have identified, and I am sure some of my colleagues will contribute to that same exercise over the next little while as we progress the debate.

It is my intention now to go through the bill reasonably quickly. It is not a third reading exercise, but I want to go through and just point out to the minister the major concerns that we have, so he is forewarned. When we get to the third reading, and ask some formal questions on the various clauses, he might be better prepared than otherwise to answer those questions.

I will start off with the definitions in clause 4. The bill proposes to delete the existing definition of 'intensive farming' and replace it with a definition that is very similar. I have some queries about even that definition, but it also provides that the NRM plan could define intensive farming. I suspect that the opposition will be very concerned about that. I think it gives far too much power to the NRM board

That brings me to another clause—and I do not know the number of it just offhand. The NRM legislation (as it currently stands) obliges the NRM boards to review their plans every five years. That is a fairly good system; it provides plenty of flexibility. Five years is not a very long time, and if there was an issue that arose and the NRM board had a concern about a new style or type of intensive farming, I think at the time of its review it might be able to look into that. However, to give the NRM plan the ability to redefine intensive farming I think is going over the top. I think that is something that should be reserved for the parliament to make those sorts of changes to the intent of the legislation.

Clause 4 also deletes the definition of 'residential premises'. I certainly intend to ask the minister some questions on that, because I am not sure of the rationale behind that. In relation to clause 5, I am sure the minister will argue that it will make it much easier administratively for the department and the minister's office. Clause 5 intends to enable the minister to delegate a whole range of powers under chapter 5 of the principal act. I want to go through that in the third reading, because I think a number of those powers should not be delegated or be able to be delegated to the executive officer or any other officer of the department.

One of the things we are seeing in the way legislation is being drafted and passed through this parliament, and then administered, is that we are shifting far too much authority, particularly on policy matters, away from ministers, the executive government and the parliament, and installing far too much authority and power in the bureaucracy. I think that leads to poor governance.

Clause 7 sets out to increase the term of membership of the NRM council from three years to four years, and clause 11 of the amendment bill does the same for NRM board members. I wish to question the minister on the rationale behind that. I am not too sure that more is better. Clause 12 extends by a month the due date for the annual reports under the act, from 31 October to 30 November. I certainly cannot understand the rationale behind that. Again, I think that is another plank in the shift of power away from not only the parliament but also the minister to the bureaucracy.

We all know that it is most unlikely that the parliament will sit on 30 November, because, as in the last few years, we have not been sitting in December. The minister, under the act, has a set number of sitting days to table the annual reports. It is most likely that the annual report would not be tabled until the next year, so the parliament would not necessarily see the annual reports of the NRM boards until the February after the 30 June date that the report goes to. I think that is totally inadequate. If agencies cannot get their annual reports completed in time to be able to give them to the minister, whereby the parliament will then get some opportunity to see them before the end of that relevant calendar year, I think the agencies need to have a look at the way they operate.

I find clause 15 quite curious. It extends the power of the chief officer to delegate any functional power of the chief officer of the agency not just under this act but under any other act, presumably, that the chief officer is responsible for. I find that quite extraordinary, to be honest. I think the parliament needs to seriously look at that and question it. For the life of me, I cannot think of a reason why you would want to do that in any legislation.

I was talking about Leon Byner's contribution to the debate last evening, and I mentioned clause 16 during that discussion. It deletes section 72, which provides that a person can refuse to answer a question or refuse to provide documentation on the grounds of self-incrimination. I can indicate to the minister that I will be most amazed if the opposition supports that particular amendment. I will certainly give him the opportunity to give further information at the third reading.

Clause 18 introduces a significant number of new requirements in relation to water allocation plans to include an assessment of environmental water requirements. All I can say at this stage on this clause is that the brief for this particular clause must have been drafted in complete ignorance of the debate that surrounded the Murray-Darling Basin guide which was released four or five months ago. It does not seem to have any consideration for social or economic impacts.

A nationwide debate raged over the problems that that has caused in regard to trying to reform the Murray-Darling system. Again, I think the parliament needs to be cognisant of that debate over the Murray-Darling and look very closely at these particular clauses. There is some wording there that I have particular problems with.

Clause 19, which I certainly support, deletes section 78, which will remove the requirement for a concept statement to be published as part of the plan development process, and I think that is a good move. That certainly will streamline the processes, and I do not think it will cause any problems in the community. The processes to develop water allocation plans, or any NRM plans per se, are so lengthy and convoluted that most people just lose interest well before they get to the finish line. That has been one of the problems with this legislation, and certainly clause 19 in some way seeks to address that.

Clause 22 proposes to extend the life of plans from five to 10 years; I question that. Just a few moments ago, I talked about the five-yearly review, and I think that that is a good system. I personally have not had any problems with a five-yearly review, other than the fact that the current boards do not seem to be able to get within cooee of that time frame. Certainly, in the South-East they will be lucky to complete the current review within 10 years of when the last plan was handed down. In fact, the 10-year time frame is not far away, so I can understand the department suggesting to the minister that this would be a good way to go forward. I think that it is a case of our changing the legislation to try to match up with the failure of NRM boards to work in a timely fashion rather than to provide good administration of natural resource management matters.

Clause 25 is an interesting one. It basically clarifies the matter where water taken for the construction or repair of a public road does not come within the accountability requirements that apply to other water users or the taking of water for other purposes. I find it quite curious. Certainly, a question was raised over the construction of the Northern Expressway about water, and the amount of water, that was being taken from aquifers in that area. There seemed to be no accountability, particularly during drought periods when householders were watching their gardens die and irrigators were on some restrictions as well, and there was a question mark over the sustainability of water use on the northern Adelaide Plains. There seemed to be no obligation on those who were taking water for the construction of the Northern Expressway to be accountable. I personally do not support that.

In fact, I was talking to one of my colleagues' constituents in the Adelaide Hills only in this last hour about water metering and I was making the argument—as I have for many years—that, if you do not meter it, you cannot manage it. I think that applies to water taken for the construction or the repair of public roads. I could not start to guess how much water was taken for the Northern Expressway, but I am aware that a significant amount of water is used in road construction. It is a necessary part of road construction—I do not walk away from that—but that was a major project. The amount of water used would have been significant in the context of managing that resource, and I think that it should have at least been metered.

As I said, there was some obligation on the user—the contractors who were using the water—to be careful, just as everybody else in the state was being careful, particularly during that time of the drought, and also to build a wider understanding, particularly in the case of major projects such as that one. So, I have some problems with that particular clause which, I suspect, is about clarifying that particular matter, and I suspect that that was the example that drove the requirement to clarify it.

Clause 27 includes a new definition of degradation or the impact of the degradation of land, which includes the productive capacity of land. That is a very interesting concept with regard to NRM matters. Certainly the process of water allocations over the South-East, which is something I have lamented for many years, has significantly impacted on the productive capacity of land. I note that there is another bill on the Notice Paper under the same act relating to the impacts of forestry on water balance. Again, that legislation could have a significant impact on the productive capacity of land.

I can only repeat what I have said many times in this place: when it comes to water, people who sit behind desks and ponder over these questions of natural resource management have little understanding of the practical aspects of water use in a farming context, or certainly in a forestry context. That is why we have had an ongoing debate in the South-East for at least 14 or 15 years, and it continues to rage.

In my opinion, the bureaucracy in particular completely fails to understand the impacts that the decisions taken by NRM boards on water allocation plans have on the productive capacity of land. It is totally unfair that the productive capacity of one landowner's land is driven down in order to drive up the productive capacity of another farmer's land. That is what has been happening in the South-East for a number of years now.

Clause 30 goes to the same area. I certainly want to question the minister about water-affecting activities, because one of his previous colleagues took what I thought was an exceptional step to declare forestry as a water-affecting activity. I do not know the actual section in the principal act—it might be 127, from memory—but, to my mind, when the parliament passed the additional legislation for that particular section, it was never intended to be used in that sense at all. I think any fair-minded person reading that provision would accept that, so I want to question the minister on that, too.

There are a number of other things that I want to question the minister about in the third reading. As I said, the opposition has not taken a formal position on these individual clauses but we will be doing that over the next week or two. The minister's response will inform those decisions but I suspect that a number of the matters that I have raised will indicate where the opposition will have problems supporting the minister's intent.

Clause 35 intends to clarify carryover and I am sure we will have an interesting discussion about that because there are many questions left unanswered with regard to carryover. The last clause that I want to highlight is clause 39 which, with regard to water conservation measures, will transfer the power from a regulating-making power to a power of simply giving notice in the Gazette.

As a legislator, I invariably comment when I am the lead speaker on a bill, that I think the parliament is abrogating its duty by giving more and more powers for regulations to be made. I think it detracts from the reason that we are all here, and that is to oversee the legislation and the statutes of the state, and to oversee them on a regular basis if that is necessary. However, to abrogate that duty by giving regulation-making powers, I think, is an abuse of the reason that we are here, and I have made that comment many times. If there needs to be a change to legislation, it is not that difficult for the minister to come in here and, if necessary, make the argument and go through the process to make that change to the legislation.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, and we are going to have the debate; that is what it is all about. However, if all of this was done simply by regulation, it takes away the power of the parliament to question you, it takes away from the parliament the power to be responsible for the legislation and gives it to the minister and/or the bureaucracy. I think that is a failure on behalf of the parliament to do its job.

In this case, we have been asked to approve a step further and that is to change existing regulation-making power to a power where simply the achievement can be obtained by giving notice in the Gazette. That is not a disallowable instrument, so the parliament has no say. It is difficult enough, in my experience, to get a disallowance motion up on a regulation. Once the executive can change the law (which is basically what they are doing) simply by putting a notice in the Gazette, the parliament has been cut right out of the loop and has no say whatsoever.

Again, I would urge the parliament to look very closely at that and question whether that is the way we want to head. For some years I have been questioning the way that we are already heading with regard to regulation-making powers—I think this is going right over the top. I think I have covered most of the areas that I wished to in my second reading contribution so I will conclude my remarks and listen with interest to my colleagues.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:34): As a regional member in this good place the care of our lands and our waters is an issue that comes to my attention quite often. Given my previous government role and involvement in animal and plant control boards, at one stage as an acting secretary of a board, I do have some exposure to what the expectations of the community are and the frustrations that they have when you try to deliver the services and programs that are required and you cannot do that.

I do wish to comment on just a couple of particular things. I commend the member for MacKillop on his efforts. I note that he was just starting last evening, but has now laid into it and detailed all the areas of concern that the opposition has. They are quite varied, too, because he is exposed in the South-East of South Australia to a different range of issues from mine. There are a lot of water issues that are relevant to the South-East. For the good people of Goyder, the issue that I am contacted about is animal and pest plants and the coastal environment, where there is a real need for a lot of work to be done.

I do recognise that the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board, of which my electorate is a part, has been in existence since 2004 and has been well led by good people, I must admit. I did have some frustrations a few years ago when—

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, the Hon. Caroline Schaefer is the new chair. I was with the Hon. Caroline Schaefer at a launch of some suggestions on coastal plants for a revegetation project at Wallaroo about two months ago, where a trial site has been established which identifies some plants that have a good chance of establishing quickly and the rehabilitation of the foreshore dunes. I commend the Northern and Yorke board on their efforts. I know there was good publicity locally about it, so a lot of those people who live in delicate coastal environments around Yorke Peninsula will ensure that they take up those planting suggestions to rehabilitate those areas.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The minister was also there, yes, and spoke quite well. It was all very nice.

Mr Williams: The existing minister?

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes; it was good to have the minister there. I apologise for that, minister. I was distracted; I was talking to Mr Odenwalder. The great frustration that I had with the Northern and Yorke board some three years ago, which was related to the parliament by quite a few members, was a significant increase in the levy.

It is interesting that the member for Ashford, in her contribution today on the behalf of the Natural Resources Committee of parliament, talked about the review undertaken of any levy from the seven boards around South Australia which is above CPI. The great frustration I had at that time was that the Northern and Yorke board levy, or the income increase, was 333 per cent in one year.

The coastal communities that I represent, because they have a higher value base and the levy that local government collects is based upon the capital value of the lands, paid a significant portion of that. I had people screaming at me from everywhere about questioning the natural resource management boards, what they do, their effectiveness, how their structure works, who gets paid what and all these sorts of things.

The issue has settled down. I do respect that some significant controls have been put in place. It is not an easy one to manage, but it just goes to demonstrate that no matter how well-intentioned the parliament and the structures the parliament puts in place are, there will always be a collection of people out there who feel aggrieved in some way about whatever we do. The minister nods his head, because he knows there is a community out there very upset about marine parks at the moment, too.

I do respect the fact that he is going to try to ensure a situation that resolves the frustration that is out there. He is a man who is prepared to listen to comments that are made with the intent of improving a situation and is not just completely negative all of the time but will move forward on that. The shadow minister, the member for MacKillop, has certainly outlined concerns that the opposition has. It is an issue that is discussed quite often in our joint party room, because it does come back through many of the issues that we has local members have responsibility for.

I note that the review upon which these amendments are based comes from a report completed in 2007; so it has taken some time, as I understand it, for these amendments to get to the parliament. There are concerns that, to paraphrase, the level of responsibility is taken away from the minister and put more within the bureaucracy. We are very much a party to that. We believe strongly in ministerial responsibility.

In understanding that there are some 57 different portfolios, or whatever number was quoted on radio yesterday, there is a great challenge to the 15 members of the cabinet to ensure they keep that level of control, but that is what we are elected here for. I know that members from this side look forward to the opportunity, hopefully in the near future, to have that chance to question the bureaucracy in all portfolio areas and keep a very tight control on it and to ensure that we are never blindsided but we know what is happening and as much as humanly possible keep on top of issues, but we have to get that right.

I come from a community that believes very strongly in the fact that it wants to be involved. Some of the people involved in these NRM boards have had a lifetime of experience, and no doubt that is why you have appointed them to the board, upon nomination. Some of them have been asked to go into it from a very wide background, but they bring into the board a skill set that has to be used, and I understand that it is.

No doubt the shadow minister will question the plans in place that are established by each of these boards. The plans that control the activities of the board previously had a lifetime of some five years—and that would have been subject to some level of review—and are now extended to 10 years, I think it is. I know that the vision needs to be broad and have a perspective that gives people hope that everything that is necessary will actually be undertaken, but by having that longer term vision is that a strengthening or a weakening of it? Yes, yearly reviews will be undertaken but are we still going to achieve the outcomes that every person wants? I think I have prattled on enough. I recognise that it is—

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: No, it's not. I wish I had more about it, minister. I am relying upon the very wise words of others to have collected my thoughts about what my intended contribution is. I look forward to the committee stage. The shadow minister has indicated that he has questions on quite a few sections and clauses and then, no doubt, will allow this bill to get through in a somewhat quicker time than the original bill. Is this the one, member for MacKillop, that the member for Davenport made an eight-hour contribution on, or something like that, on natural resource management?

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: It just shows that when important legislation comes before the house the willingness to debate is always there. I look forward to the swift passage of the bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Congratulations on your forensic contribution there, and I quote, 'something like that'.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:42): I have been in this place for 21 years and this is a most important subject to me, in fact I think I have made 21 or 22 speeches on this very matter. It has been well documented that before I came here—and at the threat of being a bloody nuisance in relation to repeating all of this—I was involved with the Animal and Plant Control Board. In fact I was, first, chairman of the pest plants board and, at the same time, chairman of the invertebrate pests board. We thought it was a waste of time to have these different meetings with the same people sitting on them, and often with the same officers sitting on the board, so we decided, at the grassroots level, to put them together. The bureaucracy said, 'No, they need to be separate', but we put them together anyway at the local level, and it grew and after a while it officially became the Animal and Plant Control Board and it worked well.

I then had the vision of wanting them to put the soil boards in with it. It just happened to be that the McColl medal was being presented a few weeks later, and I was summonsed to put these views, which weren't held by the soil people, because it was different funding back in those days. I was summonsed to attend the McColl medal presentation to put my views on why I would want to put the soil boards in with the Animal and Plant Control Board, and I did. I went along and I put my point of view.

In the end it was not received all that well, because there was a fair bit of in-built bureaucracy and long-held views amongst government people and also some of the volunteers, but afterwards several people came up to me and said that what I had said was dead true and that I was correct. One of those people was Mr Arthur Tideman, and if you know anything about the history of the Department of Agriculture in South Australia, Arthur Tideman looms large. There is another man, Mr Matheson, I have forgotten his Christian name, who is the same. These guys wrote all the books in relation to landcare in early South Australia, when it was not quite so—I use the word 'sexy' advisedly—topical; they were the pathfinders of the early days of landcare in South Australia.

That is when my desire to pursue this track of putting the soil boards in started. I was elected to parliament at about the same time, so I continued this debate when I came here. I continued it in opposition through until 1993 and then in government, and in government is when we started to discuss some of these matters and started to build it together.

Then it was minister Hill, in 2002, who actually brought it together. I was horrified when I saw the document that was brought in, and my comments were made very strongly then about the whole thing destroying the volunteer ethic in landcare. I was quite happy to bring in just the landcare section as we knew it then, but the landcare section that is here today is far more expansive and far more bureaucratic than was ever envisaged. What we have done today is we have driven the volunteerism out of landcare and allowed the bureaucracy to take over. I am not having a go at the minister here; he was not the minister then.

I spoke to minister Hill at the time—he was the minister who brought it in—and said, 'This won't work. This will kill what we have, and it will add to the costs hugely.' At that point in time, I think the state government was picking up probably 20 to 25 per cent of the cost and the feds about the same, or 30 per cent, and the rest was being picked up by local government. What we see now is a huge increase in costs. But, worse than that, the cost for the state government has moved away across to the other section of government, and I think the cost today of NRMs is approximately 7 or 8 per cent of the total bill from the state. So, there has been a very effective cost shift away from state government in relation to the provision of this.

There has been a huge up shift for local government and a massive up shift for all those involved with the landcare, with the levy and everything else, and this is entirely predictable. When you see the boards we used to run, and I was chairman of one of them, we used to run them on a shoestring. The only paid persons there were the officer and a part-time cleric. You should see what is there now; we have half a dozen. They have cars provided, they have conferences—

Mr Williams interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I'm just talking about a region, and you know how many regions there are. We have conferences and we have promotional material. I do not need to explain to the house how bureaucracy has grown, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you know as well as I do, and you really cannot blame them. If you allow the environment, they will grow, because they certainly do, and they have conferences and everything else. We have seen the costs blow out hugely.

Mr Arthur Tideman is still with us and, I think, in good health and good mind. Hopefully, I am going to see him within the week and show him the legislation that we are debating right now in relation to what is being implemented because I really do think that it does acknowledge that, first, we have some problems with what we have put in and, secondly, that there is a way of addressing them. However, in some ways, I do not believe it is right because I think the minister is further aggravating the problem by saying that he is not responsible and that he is going to remove his office from some of the decision making.

I have been scanning through the bill, and I welcome having a review. However, when you see some of the reasons given for the change, I have difficulty. I notice that clause 4(5)—definition of 'intensive farming'is verysimilar to the existing act but adds paragraph (b), which gives the NRM plan the opportunity to find any form of farming as intensive farming. I challenge anybody to tell me what to include here. All farming? Anyway, please define what is 'farming'? Farming is anybody growing anything. If you have anything in your backyard and you are growing it for food, you are, as far as I am concerned, farming. I know the minister will say that it is about those who are making a living doing that.

Any intention to take the powers away from the minister or flick it to any bureaucracy or create a new bureaucracy, I would resist. Clause 5 intends to delete paragraph (b) from section 11, the effects of which will enable a minister to delete the powers within chapter 5 of the principal act and it will list all the various sections of that. I am wondering whether this is further pandering to the bureaucracy. I believe it is.

Clause 7 increases the term of membership of NRM councils from three to four years; similarly, clause 11 does the same for the NRM board members. I question why that would be. Why would you do this? Is it because you cannot get people to sit on these boards? I have no real problem with that. Four years is the natural term of the parliament, and you could run these in the same way.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr VENNING: I do not think so. I will not stand on that, but I will check. The question needs to be asked about why that has been done. Are people putting their names forward to be in these positions? It is an area of great interest, and in the old days you had to knock them back with a stick. I wonder whether that is still the case, because there is a fair bit of frustration out there in relation to NRM.

Clause 12 extends the deadline for the annual report by one month, from 31 October to 30 November. I do not know why that is. From 30 June to October; are our bureaucrats not being paid enough to work hard enough to get it out on time? I think we should be tightening it up, not making it even looser, because these people get very tired.

Clause 15 extends the powers of the chief officer to delegate a function or power of the CEO from just this act to any other act. That is an interesting one, and I would like that to be clarified. Clause 16 deletes section 72, which provides that a person can refuse to answer a question or refuse to provide documentation on the grounds of self-incrimination. If this is deleted, does that mean that a person has no choice but to answer questions? I believe that is a bit rough justice, as we see with the powers of the officers to enter these properties.

I was on the radio earlier this week, and I appreciate the minister's comments about what I said on the radio. We hear constituents complaining about the powers of officers, but not all our constituents are perfect—and, in this instance, probably more so than not. I will not name the constituent we were discussing, but as members we have to represent them here, the good and the bad. It is not for us to judge. However, the powers of the officers certainly have come under question. I think that in this particular case it was very vague, in terms of the way to handle it, and it was not handled very well.

However, I believe there are other cases where the power of officers should not exceed those of a police officer. They should at least, where possible, seek permission to enter a property, speak to people and ask them whether they could check the documentation. If you ask them nicely, it will probably be fine. If you tell them, 'We are going to see your documentation', then you can bet your boots they will say, 'Sorry; I'm not inclined to show you.' There is a way of cooperating.

In the old days, when I was on those boards, cooperation was the key thing. You did have people who did not do the right thing, but it is amazing what you can do if you just front up to them, or meet them somewhere, and say, 'Look, we've got a complaint about your weeds, and we really have to do something about that. What do you suggest we can do? Let's work cooperatively together. Our officer is here to help you. We must do it; we have an act to administer here. Your neighbours have done the right thing and you have to do the same.' We did that right through, and I have to say that in my (perhaps) 10 years in that job there was only an odd occasion when we did not have some success.

So I urge caution about what is in this act now; that the powers of those officers be amended. The power of the minister should always be paramount, and I do not think the officers can make those decisions on the ground, to go into a property and say, 'Right, we are here'; walk straight in without any permission at all and tell the landowner that they have no rights, that the officers have the right to enter and so they are. I do not believe that is quite right; it is the wrong message entirely.

Landcare is a lot different today from what it was 21 years ago, there is a huge difference. There is now a great acceptance out there that we need to look after our land asset, and I will not accept anyone saying that farmers are not great landcare people, because they all are. We are now intensive farming; we have to, to produce enough food to feed ourselves. We are doing crop on crop on crop, which was unheard of 25 or 30 years ago, but unless you look after your land you cannot do that, because you would be mining your soil rather than farming it.

Farmers today take every opportunity they can to conserve. We do not see the bash and burn farmers any more. Occasionally we see the burners—because of snails and a few other things like that they have to burn—but you do not see the fires going up like you used to because people treat their straw as valuable. It is no longer a throwaway product, a waste—in fact, you can sell it if you wish, people are out there looking for it now. Straw is no longer a waste product.

Farmers are indeed very conscious of landcare. We are seeing a lot of trees being planted back on the farms, particularly in low areas where there is occasional salt. I was in Western Australia only a few weeks ago, and it absolutely horrified me to drive south of Perth, from Perth to Esperance, and see all the areas of salt that have come into those lands where once were fine trees. In fact, a lot of the trees that are there are dead. We are lucky in South Australia—whether it is just pure luck, or whether it is the soil types we have or the drainage. We have salt areas, but nothing like they have. They have thousands and thousands of hectares just gone to waste. How you bring them back, I do not know. They would not be brought back in my lifetime, or even in your lifetime, minister, as a younger person. It is very sad indeed, so let it be a lesson to us all.

We should be moving—and we have because of the Landcare people here in South Australia for probably 20 years, and I will mention one: Mr Jaeschke from Clare. He has been leading the charge, as a soil board person, about keeping trees in the low areas to make sure the watertables do not come up and bring the salt up. So, thank goodness we have these sorts of people. Mr Henderson from Caltowie is another who over the years has done a lot of work, and these people are still with us and they are all very senior. We have done a lot of work, so it may not just have been a lucky break that we do not have this salt problem, but farmers are very conscious about that—they have to be.

I am very concerned in relation to landcare, and a new subject very dear to my heart is the building on or taking out of production our most productive lands. Our agricultural production is falling. I got that fact only this week. It is falling. Why? Because we are not putting the work or the money into R&D in relation to agriculture, to increased production and better varieties. Secondly, we are taking more and more land every year out of production. It does not gel; it is not common sense. We have to feed more and more people on less and less land, and we are spending less and less on R&D, so to me, it does not equate.

In relation to landcare, I think it is most important to keep our land productive. We have to look after it. We have to set standards out there. We do have officers. We do have our boards. We have some very good people in place, and I will name one: Mrs Sharon Starick, who is on your council, I believe, minister, and I listen to her a lot. I also note the appointment of Mrs Caroline Schaefer to chair one of these boards. I believe a phone call or two were made after my recent comments on the ABC from Mrs Schaefer, and yes, I was expecting that. Mrs Schaefer and I have not always seen eye to eye.

My comments in relation to the NRM have been consistent for 20 years. I was concerned then about what would happen. It has happened, and I am not into 'I told you so,' but that is exactly what has happened. The bureaucracy has taken over, and we have so many more people involved in the system. We are spending a lot more money, which is coming out of local government, with much bigger contributions from all the farmers, but we are getting less service for it. We are getting complaints now about the level of weeds, vertebrate pests, foxes and rabbits—all the things that in those days we kept under strict control under volunteer ethic. I know people say there are not the people out there now to run these boards. Well, there are, and I am sure that if we encouraged them, we would get them.

I am certainly very interested to see this bill and will sit back and watch what happens here. I do not know how many more years I have left in this place, but can I say I just think that—

Mrs Geraghty: Come on, Ivan, you're not telling us you're going? Surely you have another 20 years!

Mr VENNING: Well, it is with issues like this that I would be sad to leave this parliament knowing that it was not resolved, but I do not believe this bill is doing that. There are certain things highlighted here, and I am sure the minister is reasonable enough to accept, as we go through, to look at certain aspects of it to make it better. I think we have been there, done that, and now is the time to fix it up.

Can I just say that my heart is with Landcare, it always was—that is where I am from, that is where I am going. I think this issue is most important, and I am pleased that it is here before the parliament and we assess it this way. I also commend the shadow minister, who has done a lot of work on this, and I look forward to when he is the minister and he can reverse a lot of this.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]