Parliamentary Committees

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: LEVY PROPOSALS 2012-13

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:01): I move:

That the 67^th, 68^th, 69^th, 70^th, 71^st and 72^nd reports of the committee, concerning various natural resources management board levy proposals 2012-13, be noted.

One of the Natural Resources Committee's statutory obligations is to consider and make recommendations on any levy proposed by a natural resources management board where the increase exceeds the annual CPI increase.

I wish to thank all those who gave their time to assist the committee during the consideration of the levy proposals for 2012-13. Of the seven proposed increases in division 1 land-based levies for 2012-13, there were only two significantly that were higher than the CPI rate, which for this current financial year is 4 per cent. Only one of the division 2 water levy proposals was significantly higher than CPI. Overall, the committee is pleased to see the various NRM boards generally showing restraint when it comes to proposing levy increases.

Considering the above CPI levy increases presented challenges for the committee. Whilst members were sympathetic to the desire of the natural resources management boards to increase their funding base, members believe that, in principle, above CPI increases should be the exception rather than the rule. In this instance, the committee determined not to object to all of the one and two levies, with the exception of the division 1 levy of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board.

The committee supports the process of equalisation of division 1 levies across the local government areas, as pioneered by the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board. However, after careful consideration, members came to the conclusion that, within the current economic climate, this above CPI division 1 levy proposal could not be supported and that it would be better for levy equalisation to occur at a lower level than that proposed by the board.

The committee initially resolved to object to the levy and then follow this up with a suggestion that the AMLR division 1 NRM levy for 2012-13 should be amended to reflect a rate less than that which appears in the proposed plan but greater than the 2011-12 rate. The committee is pleased that the minister has noted the committee's concern and consequently revised down the proposed increase to 6 per cent, as gazetted on 21 June 2012.

Every year, the committee aims to visit at least two of the NRM regions to meet the NRM boards, their staff and volunteers in their local environment. This year, committee members were fortunate to visit Mannum as part of our inquiry into the draft Murray-Darling Basin plan. Members appreciated the assistance of the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin NRM Board, as well as the Mid Murray Council, in arranging a number of meetings and site visits with local residents, landholders and traditional owners. This visit, although short in duration, provided us with valuable information for our inquiry.

The committee is also looking forward to returning to the Eyre Peninsula NRM region to collect evidence for our inquiry into Eyre Peninsula water supplies. Members look forward to learning more about the challenges of managing water resources on Eyre Peninsula, and welcome the assistance of the Eyre Peninsula NRM Board with the forthcoming visit to their region. The committee also hopes to be able to fix a visit to the Alinytjara Wilurara NRM region in the year if the funds and time permit. Unfortunately, the proposed visit to the region last financial year was cancelled.

I commend the members of the committee—Mr Geoff Brock MP, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire MLC, the Hon. John Dawkins MLC, Mrs Robyn Geraghty MP, Mr Lee Odenwalder MP, Mr Don Pegler MP, Mr Dan van Holst Pellekaan MP and the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars MLC—for their contributions. Finally, I would like to thank the parliamentary staff for their assistance. I commend this report to the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:06): As a member of the committee, and certainly as the member for Stuart, I also commend this report to the house, but I would like to put on record my personal view with regard to NRM levies. I do not think that NRM levies should be allowed over CPI, and accordingly I voted that way in our committee. I respect the democracy of our committee, and I respect the other members of the committee as well, so our joint decision was not always the same as the decision I would have made independently.

I would like to say that this is not because I do not value the work of the NRMs; I certainly do. We can debate and discuss the values of how the money should be spent and where efficiencies might be gained, etc., but on the whole the NRM boards do very good work. I think their challenge is the fact that the work they are asked to do is essentially endless. They could be given three, four or five times the budget that they actually have and there would still be natural resources management work to do.

So, much like a family, it is always tempting to try to increase your income if you possibly can, and there would be no shortage of sensible, good ways to spend that additional income. But just like a family, it is typically not possible. I think the act makes it very clear that CPI is meant to be the limit, and I think that is appropriate. Our Presiding Member did mention that there were very few instances—two, I think—where levy increase requests were significantly above CPI.

For my own position, I chose that CPI should be the place where the line is cut off, in accordance with the act. Having said that, I repeat that I respect the democracy of our committee, and I was certainly only in the majority once in that case. That is something I am comfortable living with, because it is a very good, effective, bipartisan committee.

I would like to finish by thanking the NRM boards for the work they do across our state, and also thanking the staff who support our Natural Resources Committee: Mr Patrick Dupont and particularly, in this instance, Mr David Trebilcock, who is the one charged with putting work into analysing, summarising and providing us with a great deal of detail with regard to the levy requests put to us.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:08): I want to very briefly speak on this. I did note the report, and I certainly support the decision of the committee not to exceed the CPI. I think it is a common-sense decision.

Just briefly, particularly after what happened yesterday, I want to reflect back on what has happened to the NRM—in fact, to landcare generally over the many years I have been here. When I came here I was very strongly supportive of amalgamating several aspects of landcare—soils, water, weeds, vertebrate pests—all in together. I was happy that we were amalgamating all of them together, but one at a time. I never supported the holus bolus of lumping them all together. I believe the landcare section should have stood alone. I was strongly advocating putting the soil boards in with the animal and plant board. I was the chairman when we put the animal and plant together in the first place, and it worked well—a bit at a time, slowly, slowly, catchy monkey. It should have been the way to go.

I had many disputes at the time when minister Hill was the minister in charge and Mr Wickes, who now lives in my electorate in retirement, was the CEO. I am concerned because what we had worked extremely well, with the volunteer ethic and local government's strong involvement in it, and the costs were minimal. Now we see a very professional outfit—top-heavy with bureaucrats, very expensive—and, with some trepidation, I have to say that I do not believe the job on the ground is as effective as it was then. The landowners owned the process then and they felt part of it. I believe today they are told what to do.

It is ironic that the current chair of the NRM Council is a lifelong friend of mine, Andrew Inglis, and he has a challenge that he understands. He is a good choice of person. I congratulate minister Caica for that. I am certain in my last days here to get on the front foot, be positive and try to make the best job of this we possibly can.

Finally, I want to say that I am happy that this was a bipartisan decision of this committee, and I commend the committee for that. As I have always said, I believe the committee system in this place works well; in this case, it certainly has.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:11): I also support the outcome of what the committee looked into. I think it was probably something that needed to happen sooner rather than later. For many of the reasons the member for Schubert gave, I also support. Given the natural resources management system is the creation of this parliament, the boards need to understand that they need to come back to the parliament as they do on the levies.

My personal view is that they should be held at CPI without any change whatsoever. They should operate on CPI and base their operations around that CPI and, if they can attract money by the way of grants federally or from the state, so be it. However, I think the long-suffering ratepayers and taxpayers of South Australia at getting fed up to the back teeth with having increases thrust upon them over and above CPI, whether that be the NRM levy or council rates. I freely admit that in the past I have been part of bodies that have put up council rates more than CPI, but in these extremely difficult times the general ratepayer or taxpayer is struggling.

I find it absolutely ridiculous that people are using candles rather than electricity and the list goes on with fuel and whatever. In this place if we can make it easier for people by determining that increases to NRM levies are kept at CPI, I think we will have done our job. I agree with the member for Schubert, who is reading several editions of papers about his retirement. I should not point to him, should I?

Members interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I agree with him that some of these organisations have become top-heavy with bureaucracy. I wish I had never said that now, Ivan! However, I also agree with the member that not as much work is being done in some areas. Having been a member of the animal and plant control board, and the chair of one of those, I know that from a local perspective we kept a much tighter rein on things, on expenditure and in getting outcomes, so I think that is something the boards need to strive towards. I am sure that the parliament's NRC will keep an eye on those things. I congratulate the committee on what it has achieved here. Once again, I believe that this parliament needs to keep increases in levies at CPI—full stop.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:14): Just quickly, I want to come back to a theme that I have raised before in here. The NRM boards, I think, are a good thing. My concern, as with all bureaucracies, is that over time, if you are not watchful, they tend to become top-heavy and they tend to focus on issues rather than get down to front-line, hands-on type projects.

It has happened in local government and it has happened in, I guess, other areas such as state and federal government as well. I will just give one example. My council where I live used to have one-third of workers inside the building—the administration of the council—and two-thirds outside. Now it is reversed and, if you are not careful, that is what will happen with other bureaucracies. It could happen, if it has not already happened, with the NRM boards and their staffing.

However, protection of the environment, which is largely what they are on about, is important. A lot of people think that the environment is protected now because we have a department under the state government, but the reality is that the environment will always need to be not only protected but managed properly, so I think the NRM board concept—but more importantly, what they do—needs to continue. Without the NRM boards, we would not have seen the restoration of many of the riverine environments, including the Torrens. It is not finished yet, but without that money and without that input, a lot of those good projects just would not have happened.

Just quickly, people cite the CPI. The CPI measures essentially, as it says, the consumer price index so it is measuring the cost of cornflakes and milk and things like that. That, you can argue—and councils do argue—is not a relevant index for their costs. I think before people readily dismiss the CPI index and argue that councils and others should stick to it, you have to bear in mind that it may not necessarily be relevant to the type of work the NRM boards are doing, as it may not be relevant for councils which, as I say, do not tend to use a lot of cornflakes in what they are doing.

I make the point again that the NRM boards are subject to scrutiny by the parliament which is very different from what all other agencies experience. The ones that spend the really big money never have to front the parliament in the same way, and they should. They should all front the parliament. I can remember when I was on the Economic and Finance Committee looking at the water catchment boards, we almost got down to counting the number of pencils they had and looking to see whether people attended meetings twice on the same day and all that sort of thing. You should not have to do that but the point is that all the other government agencies are never put under the same scrutiny and they should be fronting the parliament, not through the mickey mouse process of estimates, but through a detailed assessment and scrutiny of what they do.

To conclude, I commend the people who are working through the NRM boards, whether they are involved in soil conservation or whatever. What they do is important and valued and I think as a parliament we need to come to terms with what is an appropriate measure. I do not think using CPI is necessarily appropriate or reasonable in the circumstances, because it does not necessarily relate to the work the NRM board does or indeed the work councils or other bodies do.

Motion carried.