House of Assembly Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2) 52 2 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Levy ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT LEVY Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Norwood ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT LEVY Mr MARSHALL (Norwood) (16:05): My question is to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation. Can the minister confirm that the government's latest backflip, this time on the NRM levy, was the result of a lack of adequate consultation with local government, the NRM standing committee— The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The questions have all contained comment, but it is beyond a joke. You cannot simply make some sort of argument when you ask a question. They are specifically disallowed by— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I am sorry, m'lud over there has fixed it up for me. You cannot put argument in a question; it is standing order 97, from memory. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: I will uphold that. I ask you to be very careful about your wording of the questions. Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: Would you like me to remove the word 'backflip'? Is that the offending word? I can take that word out, if you prefer, Madam Speaker. They seem very sensitive to the term 'backflip' over there. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member can bring the question to me, I will have a look at it and we will go to the next question. Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: I am happy to reword, Madam Speaker. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: If you can reword it now so that it is not controversial. Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: Can the minister confirm that the government's latest change in previously announced policy, this time on the NRM levy, was a result of lack of adequate consultation with local government, the NRM standing committee and the government's own backbench? Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I want to help the member for Norwood. When you say 'confirm it was a lack of adequate consultation'— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: —you are making an argument that there has been a lack of adequate consultation. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: I can do this slowly, if you like. When you ask someone to confirm that there was a lack of adequate consultation, you are making an argument that there is a lack of adequate consultation. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P.F. CONLON House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. CONLON: It is your dime. It is, therefore, argument, and I would ask the member for Norwood—I know he is new—to try to ask his question in an orderly fashion. Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: Was that comment an argument there, Madam Speaker? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Yes, there was. Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: 'I know he is only new.' The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: The member can ask— Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: I know he is only old, and a has-been. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: —if there was consultation, but to make the statement that there was lack of consultation, you have enough people— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: I will remove that, Madam Speaker. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: You have enough advisers on your side to know how to word a question. Mr MARSHALL House of Assembly Mr MARSHALL: Can the minister confirm that it will not proceed with a plan to increase the NRM levy for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board by the proposed 11.2 per cent, now settling for just 6 per cent—still double the inflation rate—but certainly around half of what was originally proposed by the minister? The Hon. P.F. Conlon House of Assembly The Hon. P.F. Conlon: That is better. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly Colton Minister for Sustainability Minister for Water and the River Murray Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton—Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (16:08): I will attempt to answer this in the four minutes that I have available to me. It is clear to me that the member for Norwood needs a greater understanding of how the NRM processes work. It was not a government proposal to increase it by the quantum— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: —that was recommended by the board— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Members on my left will listen to the answer or leave the chamber, order! The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: —which, of course, I supported by referring it to the Natural Resources Committee. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! An honourable member House of Assembly An honourable member: It is not your fault, then. The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: How can he call it mine, then? How can he call it my proposal, then? In essence, there is a process to go through. I make this point— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: I would have thought that the member for Norwood might be a little better informed, because he asked me a question on this matter in estimates, which finished just a couple of hours— An honourable member interjecting: The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: He did, actually. How would you know? There is little you do know. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: Madam Speaker— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The minister will sit down for a moment. We will have some order. The minister will not respond to interjections and members on my left will not interject or I will call question time to a close. Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! Minister. The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: So, as a result of a process that had been undertaken for an extended period of time, which included consultation by the NRM boards with local councils and with local community members, a proposal was put forward to increase the NRM levy by 11.4 per cent. It was then referred to the Natural Resources Committee. Under the act, the Natural Resources Committee has three ways by which it can deal with this: it can reject that quantum of increase, it can refer it back to me, or it can make a recommendation as to what the quantum will be. As a result of that process, it was referred back to me and I decided to set that fee at 6 per cent, which I understood reflected what was to occur in other members' areas. Members interjecting: The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: When they talk about doubling, we are very mindful of the— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: We are very mindful of the impact of fees and charges. Let me put this into context. We were talking about, for a significant majority of residents, depending on the council area they were in, a minimum of a $3 increase over a 12-month period. A $3 increase over a year—divide that by 52 and that will tell you how much a week—to a maximum of $8, I think, for Walkerville council (but I will stand corrected if that is not the case). If you divide that by 52 it will show you the increase over a period of time— The Hon. J.D. Hill House of Assembly The Hon. J.D. Hill: 40¢. The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: That is 40¢ my learned friend, the member for Kaurna, tells me. This is the point: it has been reduced from what was proposed to 6 per cent. Mr Marshall interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Norwood, order! The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: The other point I would make is that this proposed increase has been part of the four-year plan first mooted back in 2009, I understand. So the NRM committee had seen this figure each year for the last four years. They made a decision this time, it was built into it— An honourable member interjecting: The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, it is a process that we undertake. Of course, part of it was about making sure— Members interjecting: The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Order! The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: —that councils have sufficient time to be able to allocate that amount of money for the collection for NRM. So it was made in a timely fashion, and it was reduced to 6 per cent based on the fact that no advice had been received from the NRM committee about what it would be. As I understand it, that went to cabinet last Monday; it was subsequently gazetted, and it is at 6 per cent. That 6 per cent means that it is $1.50 for the majority of people who pay NRM levies within that district, leading up to half of $8, which is $4, for those who are going to suffer the highest increase. Of course, when you talk in percentage terms it can be a high percentage increase, but not in monetary terms. Notwithstanding that, we have been very mindful of the impact of the cost of living and we are doing what we can to make sure that that is managed from a government fees perspective. Members interjecting: The Hon. P. CAICA House of Assembly The Hon. P. CAICA: Madam Speaker, they have been rather rude in this chamber, which is rather noisy. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Thank you. The minister will sit down; his time has expired.