Natural Resources Committee: Levy Proposals 2015-16

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:16): I move:

That the 101^st to 105^th reports of the committee, concerning the Natural Resources Management Board Levy Proposals 2015-16, be noted.

One of the Natural Resources Committee's statutory obligations is to consider and make recommendations on any annual levy proposed by a natural resources management board where the levy increase exceeds the annual CPI rise. Of the six proposed increases in division 1 land-based levies for 2015-16, there are only two higher than the 3.1 per cent CPI reference rate. The four remaining division 1 levy proposals were equal to or less than CPI. Of the five division 2 water levy proposals considered, only one was higher than CPI. The remaining four division 2 water levies were either equal to or less than CPI.

The committee is very pleased to see boards acting with restraint and generally keeping levy increases at or very close to CPI. Whilst committee members are always sympathetic to the desire of the NRM boards to increase their funding bases, the committee believes that the increases above CPI should be the exception rather than the rule.

The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board sought a 24.3 per cent division 2 levy increase. Initially this sounded like a large increase; however, the committee accepted the board's explanation that the increase was due to the inclusion of levies of approximately 2,300 additional licensees in the Western Mount Lofty Ranges prescribed water resources area and the funds raised will be allocated towards properly managing this important resource. Furthermore, the committee heard that existing levies have been reduced for other licensees under the region's water allocation plan. Members also heard that without the inclusion of these additional licensees, the overall levy increase would have been limited to CPI.

The Kangaroo Island board has sought a 12 per cent division 1 increase. The committee accepted the board's reasoning that a proposed increase, while exceeding CPI, represented $3.96 per assessment per annum due to its fixed rate and that the increase was needed in order to carry out the board's functions as required under the NRM Act and to meet community expectations. The South Australian Murray Darling Basin NRM Board sought a 5.1 per cent division 1 levy increase. In this instance, the committee accepted the board's reasoning that the levy proposal was amended following consultation with the affected community members. The board, in response to this feedback, chose to offset this increase by reducing its division 2 levy increase to 1.1 per cent below the year's CPI increase.

At its meeting on Friday 15 May 2015, the committee determined not to object to any of the proposed NRM levy increases for the 2015-16 financial year. Members were pleased to hear from various boards of the important role played by the NRM officers in South Australia's regional communities. For example, members heard of the important role natural resources management staff played in fighting the Sampson Flat fires back in January this year.

Professor Chris Daniels, Presiding Member of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, estimated that 60 AMLR regional staff were among the DEWNR employees involved in fighting the Sampson Flat fires and that, following the fires, many of the DEWNR staff were also involved in working with individual landholders to help them regrow their farms and properties and doing such things as managing weeds, conserving soil, identifying bits of remnant vegetation that may have survived and even identifying individual trees that either needed to be removed or retained.

One point particularly concerning the committee regarding the future of NRM in the state was the future project funding for nearly all of the NRM boards. There is a rapidly approaching sharp fall in the overall NRM funding expected. The impact of this is particularly well illustrated in the Kangaroo Island NRM Board submission. The KI submission and the graphs in our reports that we tabled yesterday show that this indicates a sharp drop in the overall NRM funding over the next few years, particularly under the federal government's national Landcare program, formerly known as Caring for our Country, which has been cut across the board. Even with the modest increase in its division 1 levy, the KI NRM Board projects its income will contract from $3.4 million in 2014-15 to $1.1 million in 2017-18. In that very short time, two-thirds of the KI NRM Board funding will simply evaporate. This is very concerning to say the very least.

I would like to commend the members of our committee—the member for Napier, the member for Kaurna, the member for Flinders, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire MLC, the Hon. John Dawkins MLC, and the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars MLC—for their contributions to this report. Can I say that I would also like to commend the members particularly in this chamber who support the NRC with their feedback and also with information to help us do our work. I am particularly indebted to that cooperation and also, when we go to regions, the support that is given by members to make sure that we understand the issues in their particular area.

I would also really like to thank the committee staff for their assistance. They have done a very good job. As members would know, we are also trying to undertake an extensive inquiry into fracking in the South-East. This is taking up a lot of time, time that we are all appreciating, particularly from the community and all the stakeholders in this area. Our staff have been under a lot of pressure, and to do all of our other jobs has been quite an effort, so particularly thank you to them. I commend the report to this house.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:23): I rise to make a few comments in response to the member for Ashford on the NRC report to do with the Kangaroo Island NRM area. The NRC runs only second to the Public Works Committee as the most active committee in the house—

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

Mr PENGILLY: I thought I might get that one in. I thank the member for Ashford. She is a diligent and good chair and a diligent and good member in relation to natural resources. I have had some discussions with the Presiding Member of the KI NRM Board, Mr Richard Trethewey, on various occasions. Although it seems a substantial increase, I am comfortable with what they propose and am supportive of it.

Mr Damian Miley, the manager over there, the CEO of the organisation, has not been in the job that long and he is putting his own stamp on things. We had a wonderful manager prior to him in Mr Bill Haddrill, who moved to Queensland. Mr Miley has a big task in front of him, and one of the problems he does have is some entrenched bureaucracy, particularly in national parks.

I find it totally ridiculous that the national parks side of it—the Seal Bay, Kelly Hill Caves, Flinders Chase and others, for example—is all run from Adelaide, and that the local manager has no input into that. I think it is something that is blatantly, completely ridiculous. All the decision-making is taken out of his hands and he merely runs the on-ground assets instead of running the business side of that, and that is something that the committee may pick up on.

I think that the NRM board is reasonably well accepted by most of the community. I think that, under his leadership over the last couple of years, Richard Trethewey has a very good handle on what goes on around the island. He is sensible and balanced and, in the main, they have some sensible and balanced members on the NRM board which works well. I do not get myriad complaints about it. I just do not hear that anymore. I do have some concerns (and I have spoken about this with Richard Trethewey as well) over water controls in a very high rainfall area—not this year particularly but in most years. Richard and I talked about that.

One thing that the farming landholders on the island will not be dictated to is on the issue of water. NRMs generally should have learnt a fairly valuable lesson out of the debacle on the Fleurieu with the Western Mount Lofty Ranges and the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges plans. I am hopeful that, in the future, the KI NRM will learn from the mistakes made on the mainland and move slowly.

I also think they need to be a little bit careful about where they distribute money on the maritime side of it. There is an outfit over there called KI Dolphin Watch, which started out just as a group of interested people who were interested in dolphins and whatnot. I had no problem with that; they picked up some sponsorship, etc. However, latterly they have grown into an over-zealous, eco—how do I term this—over-active group who seem to think they know everything about what goes on in the sea and nobody else does, to the extent that even yesterday I had an email from somebody who was most upset with some of the statements that have come out of that group, allegedly.

I think that the NRM needs to keep it in balance, needs to work with the community for the community but, under Mr Miley (while he is there), Mr Trethewey and the board members I am hopeful that we will get some good outcomes. With those few words I resume my seat.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:27): I thank the committee, including its Chair, for the work that has been done to review the fee increases for the natural resource management boards. I thank those who work on those boards, and I thank those who are employed by the NRMs across the state.

Certainly the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM is one which sits within my electorate, and I attend the board meetings as often as possible to discuss their projects, to give them compliment and recognition when they do good ones and to raise my concerns when I think they are failing in some area. Others around the state, including Kangaroo Island which the member has just spoken on, have certainly been performing well in my view, and we must thank those who are doing it. That is notwithstanding that the government has, since the inception of the NRM boards, cannibalised their income and the control of them.

That is another speech for another day, but let me say that I was utterly appalled to read in this year's budget that the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources is going to cannibalise the budgets of the NRM boards. They are going to be raising something like $40 million over the next four years out of the money that is raised by the NRM boards through their levies.

Each year that they apply to come back to have an increase and justify whether it is more than CPI, and the like, they have to take into account the raise that occurs by the government. So, the new water planning and management fees and the new NRM land levies are all going to be massively increased in the amount that they are obliged to pay the government. This is just disgraceful. All it means is they are going to become a body to raise revenue for the department and I do not want to see that money swallowed up and removed from projects on the ground that are so worthy and so necessary.

Finally, this year's ultimate insult follows the time they raided the NRM board in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty region to provide works in the relocation of sand to Glenelg. It is an important project, but something like $20 million for that project was taken out of the NRM budget to actually implement those capital works. That is disgraceful. It has nothing to do with the natural resources of the state. It is to do with ensuring that the people who visit Glenelg beach have sand when they are playing on the beach and it is for tourism and all those other things. It has nothing to do with the management of natural resources and it is scandalous that they took it out.

The budget this year says they are taking out money to operate and maintain the Patawalonga Lake system and the Glenelg gates, which are necessary to retain water for the marina and for boats to go in and out and the like. It is all meritorious work but, again, to take millions of dollars out of the NRM budget over the next four years to maintain the operation of the Patawalonga Lake system is an absolute disgrace.

I say to the committee, when you hear the plight of the NRM boards who are putting a submission to you to necessarily increase their levies, understand one thing—it is coming in one pipe and being sucked out the other by this government. That is not acceptable. I thank you for the work you do, but understand that the ability of these boards to continue to do the work they were set up to do is under huge pressure because of the conduct, unconscionable as it is, of this government.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner.