NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: REVIEW OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT LEVY ARRANGEMENTS

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:06): I move:

That the 49^th report of the committee, entitled Review of Natural Resources Management Levy Arrangements, 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 rise. The Natural Resources Committee is concerned about a number of issues related to NRM levies, including the widespread practice of proposing above CPI increases and the bureaucratic complexity of the processes required to update business plans.

Whilst the committee is sympathetic to the need for NRM boards to increase their funding bases and has historically recommended increases of some levies, members maintain the position that above CPI levies should be the exception rather than the rule. At a meeting with the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation in 2011, the Natural Resources Committee made a number of suggestions for improving the process of preparing business plans and, in particular, determining levy increases in 2012-13.

In response to this request the minister directed the boards to provide copies of their draft business plans to the committee, concurrent with their release for public consultation. This has proved helpful in providing committee members with more time to consider the proposed levy increases. I should note that the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation makes himself available to our committee and meets with us informally quite regularly. We acknowledge his support for the committee.

A number of other suggestions form the basis of this report. The committee acknowledges significant differences between NRM boards in size, diversity and numbers of local government areas included; for example, the committee has recommended greater standardisation in reporting to facilitate comparisons between the NRM boards. The committee also noted differences between the boards in relation to remuneration and turnover. Amendments to the Natural Resources Management Act have been passed recently. These amendments include changes to board members' terms and reappointment. I commend the minister on these changes.

I wish to thank all those who have been involved and have given their time to assist the committee with this report. I particularly 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 particularly also like to thank the parliamentary staff for their excellent assistance to our committee. Madam Speaker, I commend this report to the house.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:10): I also rise to support the 49^th report of the Natural Resources Committee, entitled Review of Natural Resources Management Levy Arrangements. As this house will already know, I have been fairly forthright with my views on Natural Resources Management Board levies, and I wholeheartedly support the work that the NRM boards and their staff do throughout the state, but I do not support any levy increases in excess of CPI.

I can very well understand how those levy increases have come about over many, many years, because the NRM boards are doing essentially what is an endless task. The work that they could do for our state is essentially boundless, so it is not surprising that, of course, they would always try and ask for more and more money. Over previous years, we have certainly had a situation where levy increase requests in excess of CPI have continually been agreed to, and I am actually very pleased that our committee has highlighted this problem and tried to put a stop to it.

It is not that we do not want the NRM boards to do the work that they do, it is just that the act is actually quite clear: the increases should not be in excess of CPI. If they had levy increases double, triple or quadruple CPI, they still would not be able to do all of the work that the people of South Australia would like them to do, so it makes sense to actually just fall back in line with what the act recommends.

Certainly, for my own vote within our Natural Resources Committee, I have decided to vote against any levy increase in excess of CPI. On some occasions I have been in the majority, and on some occasions I have not, but that is the position that I have decided to take, as one member of this committee. There are, of course, three main recommendations that come out of this report, and I am focusing on the first one, Recommendation A, which states:

...the Committee recommends that the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation direct DEWNR to ensure that in future increases remain within the CPI.

The other two recommendations are also very important, but I will not go into those right now; however, I certainly do support those other recommendations. My main point is to ask the minister to accept and uphold Recommendation A.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:13): I rise to briefly make a contribution to this report. I thank the chair and members of the Natural Resources Committee for undertaking this review. On previous occasions, I have made comment about the inappropriateness of levy increases above CPI. Special provision for this is made with a process of supervision under the committee structure that we have. I accept that there can be situations where an increase in levy above CPI could be justified, and I place that on the record.

What happens in the establishment of bodies such as this is that, from time to time, they will be asked to add to their duties, and they will be asked to take responsibility for more and more with less and less. I think, in a circumstance where it can be identified that a new area of jurisdiction or responsibility is to be placed on these bodies, that they could present a persuasive case for additional funding, and that may need to be by a levy. If that occurs, that there is a transfer of an area of responsibility which is currently with a state, federal or local government to the natural resources groups and all their boards, then that is a matter that needs to come with funding.

It also needs to be decided in the context of a revision of fees or funding whether it is a direct allocation or whether it is a fee or levy that applies at the state, local or federal levels. In other words, it is not appropriate, where there is a transfer of responsibility from one level of government to a statutory body, without there being a review of what funding has already been allocated in the level of government that currently has that responsibility.

I can accept that there would be certain circumstances, and the process is there to facilitate that, but what we have seen with the application made by the Adelaide and Mount Lofty region, and their request in recent times for a much greater increase than the CPI and the ultimate rejection of their request, consistent with the recommendation of this committee, is that it cannot be used to simply say, 'We want more and more,' without some assessment of what they are spending the money on.

I have made it perfectly clear to a number of the boards—in particular, the Adelaide and Mount Lofty region—that I expect, as a member of this parliament and as a member of the public paying for this levy, that they prioritise areas of responsibility and deliver services which are effective in water management and preservation and in soil quality and protection against erosion, together with pest management. These are their three main areas of responsibility, and I expect, as I am sure other members would, that they will deliver outcomes in those three areas. I, for one, have not been happy that now, eight years after the initial passing of this legislation and establishment of these groups, we are having still more reviews, more plans, more reports and, I think, an inadequate level of outcome.

Just this year, the minister convened with the new chair of the Natural Resources Management Council on his publication to set out some assessment of the advance and application of the responsibilities of each of the different regions. We had a dot system: we had a pink dot or a red dot or a green dot according to whether they had actually achieved a certain outcome consistent with the committed areas of the plan that they all signed up to. As a member of the parliament, or as a member of the public, I found that grossly inadequate in terms of any real feedback as to how and what is being done, whether there are achievable outcomes and whether there is a demonstrable benefit from the programs that have been activated to secure the advance of those visionary and very meritorious aspirations.

There is nothing wrong with having a plan, there is nothing wrong with having something that everyone works to, but when it ultimately comes to having set these things up I would still like to see more of the funds allocated in these levies to demonstrable outcomes of programs. So I commend the committee for looking at this issue again.

As it was only tabled yesterday, I have not had an opportunity to actually read the full report, but I will review it. I think the member for Stuart pointed out that this request go to the minister, that there not be an allowance other than at CPI. I agree with the sentiment expressed by the member for Stuart, but that is exactly why we have a provision in the act to have this supervision by the parliamentary committee to cover a situation outside of CPI. We had set it up specifically to accommodate circumstances where it may be justifiable but it should be the exception rather than the rule. I am not sure that asking the minister to do that, contrary to the provision of the act, is actually the way to do it, but it may be that the minister comes back with some proposed amendment to the act for us to cover that, in which case I will look at it with interest, and I hope to be able to support the same.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (11:20): I rise to support the 49^th report of the Natural Resources Committee, entitled Review of Natural Resources Management Levy Arrangements. First, I would like to say what a great job the member for Ashford does in presiding over this committee; and it is a great committee to work on in that all the members work in a cohesive manner and try to get the best that we possibly can for this state.

I certainly support the sentiments of the members for Ashford, Stuart and Bragg. The boards themselves do a tremendous job, right throughout our state, in managing our natural resources, and those boards have a great diversity in the type of lands that they look after and the way they can raise their levies.

One of the things I would say is that I believe these levies should be referred to as taxes, because that is what they are at the end of the day; and, as a committee and a parliament, we must make sure that those taxes are spent on what they have been raised for, and that is to protect our environment. The boards do a tremendous job in doing that but I think they could do it better.

I certainly support the suggestion that the levy should not be raised by any more than CPI, but there are situations sometimes where there are jobs that have to be done within regions and those boards should be able to put to our committee and the government good reasons why they need to raise that tax to protect the environment in any particular manner.

I will use the arid lands as an example, where the quantum that they raise is very small and they have such a vast area to look after. I had no problem in supporting their application for extra moneys, whereas some of the other boards that raise a lot of money and have much smaller areas to look after have to be extremely careful not to try to raise those levies by any more than the CPI. With no further ado, I support this motion.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (11:22): As with the previous speakers, I also would like to comment on and support the 49^th report of the Natural Resources Committee, entitled Review of Natural Resources Management Levy Arrangements. I also congratulate the member for Ashford on her great leadership of this committee. As the member for Mount Gambier has already indicated, this committee is represented by a wide range of political alliances, and it has one final view in the outcome, which is the better management of our natural resources across the whole of the state.

I, like the member for Stuart, have some concerns and, unless it is greatly justified, I certainly would not be able to approve any increases above the CPI. The natural resources boards do a fantastic job under extreme circumstances, and I tend to agree with the member for Mount Gambier that maybe the levy should be renamed a tax, because it is, in effect, some form of taxation to manage issues across the state.

Just because a board puts in an application and it may be below the CPI or just on the CPI increase, I do not believe it should be an automatic approval by the Natural Resources Committee of the parliament. We are there as a committee to ensure that we get the best opportunities for the people of those regions that each board represents, and we will continue to do that. I think that the natural resources boards need to be very innovative and continually managing to look at the best practices going forward. Everything changes and we need to change with the times.

Also, the fact is that the natural resource boards out there need to be able to allocate more time, and the minister may be able to take this on board. When they put their reports into the Natural Resources Committee of the parliament, we then analyse them and bring the boards in to discuss issues with them. If we have any concerns, we need to get them back to each of those regional boards.

Those boards may need to also come back with some justification, even if the increase is on the CPI or above the CPI, to convince the Natural Resources Committee of the parliament that this increase is justified. These final increases or levies or taxes that are approved need to then go back and be identified to each of the local council areas, and the councils need to include them on their rate notices. We also need to be able to ensure that, if we are going to hold something up because some justification is required, we do not hold up the rate notices going out from the councils because, as I said earlier, they are the ones collecting these moneys on behalf of the government of the day to ensure that we put that into the natural resources.

Like the member for Stuart and other members, I wholly support all the recommendations in this report. Again, I commend the staff of our committee who do a fantastic job. I would say that this committee would be one of the hardest working committees in the parliament. We have certainly done the best we can. We have personally been out on the ground and looked at issues because if you do not do that you do not have a real understanding of the real issues facing the regions and the outback areas. I certainly commend this report to the parliament.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:26): I acknowledge that this committee does a great job, and I think it should remind us all of the value of parliamentary committees: they can—and they usually do—do great work. I know the member for Davenport has sought to expand the number of committees, and I do not have a problem with that. I think committees, where they apply themselves and are diligent, can bring great benefit to the people of South Australia through their insights and inquiries.

In relation to the NRM, I agree with the member for Mount Gambier. We have the River Murray levy, it is a tax; we have the NRM levy, it is a tax; we have the emergency services levy, it is a tax. We should call them what they are, and I do not have a problem with paying taxes provided the money is used for productive purposes.

In regard to the NRM levy and the boards, no other aspect of government, I believe, gets the same scrutiny as the NRM boards. I have argued on many occasions that we should apply the same blowtorch approach to all areas of government because some of the bigger ones are spending billions of dollars and, in comparison, the NRM boards are spending fairly modest sums of money. That in itself is not a reason why NRM boards should be automatically funded beyond CPI, but I think there could be a case-by-case basis for some boards to increase the amount, and I think in particular of the one where I live in the Mount Lofty Ranges area.

I would not support a blanket prohibition on an increase beyond CPI. I think it should be on a justified basis and, if an NRM board can show that the money is being spent productively and on ground works in particular rather than on bureaucratic activity, I think there is a case for particular NRM boards to have an increase beyond CPI.

In a sense, the NRM boards are doing what should be done by government anyway. During the early seventies, a department of environment was created and I think that a lot of people thought that the environment was saved from degradation and so on. The environment is never saved from degradation and destruction, so you need to be constantly not only protecting the environment but trying to restore it and do other things as well so that we keep as much of the natural environment as possible.

What has happened with these levies, whether it is the River Murray levy, the emergency services levy or the NRM levies, is that governments have tried to shift additional revenue collection out of the mainstream budget process. As I say, we have to pay taxes, we know that, but I think it would be more transparent if they were called taxes. Some of these activities were actually funded directly out of the budget.

The NRM boards do a range of things. It varies, to some extent, on where they are, but from soil management issues to pest plants. The Mount Lofty Ranges board in particular is doing a lot of work in relation to watercourses. I am particularly keen to see some of our riverine environments restored. NRM money is funding wetlands. We have seen some fantastic projects on the Torrens. We have seen some of their work in the upper reaches of the Torrens. That is excellent hands-on work that is funded out of the NRM levy and almost certainly would not happen if you did not have an NRM board in that area.

I think people should see the NRM levy as an essential part of environmental management, but, as I said earlier, there should be no blank cheque for any organisation, whether it is an NRM board or any other government organisation, simply to increase its revenue without justifying the expenditure and without doing worthwhile things. I will repeat the point: I do not support a blanket ban on increases beyond CPI, but they should be justified. It should be on a case-by-case basis. If a particular board can demonstrate that in its situation something beyond CPI is necessary then I am quite relaxed about that.

If you talk to councils—and my two colleagues here are well versed in councils—they argue that the CPI is not an adequate measure of the increase in costs that they have to bear, and I guess the NRM boards would argue similarly. The CPI basically reflects the cost of cornflakes and milk. What the NRM boards are doing in managing soil, pest plants, pest animals and restoring creek lines, etc., has little relationship, as far as I can see, to the price of a packet of cornflakes.

So, I think people need to be mindful of using that index. Maybe there should be a focus on a more appropriate index. I am sure councils would argue the same way, because people attack them for increases in their rates beyond CPI. I commend this committee. I support the comments of the member for Ashford. I think the whole committee is very active and very busy and, once again, highlights the importance of parliamentary standing committees.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:33): I will speak briefly on this because in my whole time in this place I have made many speeches on this subject. Initially, I was very keen on putting the old boards together to form NRM boards, but I was never in favour of going the full hog, as they did. As I said earlier, I was chairman of an animal and plant control board. We put the two together back then and it worked. We were about to put the soils in when I got into parliament and then rather than just put the soils in we put the lot in. In hindsight, I believe that was a mistake. It has made a huge body that, I believe, we have lost control of.

I thought it worked well before when we had the councils, and I was on council myself. The Local Government Association was heavily involved with landcare in those days and we had a very strong volunteer ethic. People with both professional and personal interests were involved and the costs were minimal. The landowners, communities, everybody, got good value. Today, we see what has happened, and we knew it would happen, the bureaucracy took over, squeezed out a lot of volunteers and we now have a top-down body rather than a bottom-up, and I am very concerned about that.

I am very pleased that the Natural Resources Committee—very capably chaired by the member for Ashford—can be a watchdog in relation to the ongoing costs of these committees because there is a great tendency to just run up the bills. Bureaucracy can go mad, particularly where they are not being watched. Yes, I can understand—and I agree with the member for Fisher to some degree—that there can be exceptions to costs above CPI. If all the stakeholders agree with it, I have no problem, but generally speaking I am very happy that these costs are being reined in. I appreciate that we have a very effective watchdog in our Natural Resources Committee active here in the parliament and any committee that wants to go above that, I think it is good.

It cannot unscramble the eggs. I am sad to see, as I end my career in this place—and this is an area I have had a strong point of view on—that as I leave this place it is not as good as it used to be. That is sad, indeed, because I believe that we got very good service before at a very low cost; the opposite is true now. I commend the committee and the chair.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:36): I thank the members who have contributed, not only to our report but also the speakers today: the members for Stuart, Bragg, Mount Gambier, Frome, Fisher and Schubert. I know that other members in this place would probably speak if they had the opportunity. The passion and support for natural resources in this state is quite overwhelming and I think it is a real testament to the parliament that we have such a wide interest and commitment to try to make it better.

I understand the words of the member for Schubert because having been on the Environment, Resources and Development Committee with him as the chair, this was a debate and discussion that we would have quite regularly with regard to that committee. The member for Schubert has been an ongoing advocate to try to manage our natural resources and has put up a whole lot of models. I understand the comments that he has made and the concerns that he has. In fact, all the speakers today—and certainly other members of the committee—have consistently tried to work out how we can best manage these resources.

I would particularly like to build on the comment made by the member for Frome. There is a great appreciation—and we have some former local government people on our committee, so we have some great expertise as well—for the role that local government plays, not only with the natural resources committees and some of the work that is done, but also the fact that they do the administration, and that is actually a very efficient and useful contribution.

However, there are also other grants. In addition to the levies, I have been very impressed that the different natural resources committees have been able to attract funds, both commonwealth funds and specific funds. One of the inquiries we did looking at weeds and invasive species has shown that there needs to be specific funds set up to address some of these issues as well. That is just one example of natural resource management that our committee looks at.

I commend not only the people who are elected to work with the Natural Resources Committee but the huge volunteer effort that goes in and the goodwill that goes in to natural resources management. Again, I thank everybody and also commend the report to the house.

The SPEAKER (11:39): It is generally not customary for the Speaker to speak on a motion but I also have concerns about the rises as a result of a discussion with a constituent yesterday who has had a very significant rise in his levy in the Arid Lands area, so I wish you luck with it.

Motion carried.