Parliamentary Committees

Natural Resources Committee: Levy Proposals 2016-17

Debate resumed.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:01): The reason I do not support the levy increases in excess of CPI is not that I do not value the work that the boards do. Certainly, efficiencies could be found. There is no organisation that could not do its work better, or could not do its work more efficiently, particularly under the broad government umbrella. I am not saying that they could not find ways to use the money more effectively, but that is not my main focus.

My main focus is the fact that the work that these NRM boards are expected to do is, essentially, endless. There is no shortage of projects that could come forward from within government, or from the public asking the board, 'Could you do this work? If you had some extra money, could you do this work, and, yes, it would benefit the community. Could you do this other work, and, yes, it would benefit the community.' It is a never-ending list.

Essentially, you have to cut the take from the taxpayer somewhere and I think that CPI is the appropriate place. I say that because four out of the eight NRM boards in the state share an overlap with my electorate of Stuart. I am engaged with four of these boards all the time in my work as the member for Stuart, and, of course, I also take interest in what the other four are doing. Let me also say that I disagree with the choice that the government has made over the last few years to absorb what were, essentially, fairly independent NRM boards operating around the state back into government control under the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources.

That has been a retrograde step, and I think that most NRM board members (and most NRM board staff) would agree with me in that regard, that they were more effective, more efficient and more linked into their local communities when they had that arm's-length relationship with the government department rather than all being government employees now. That has not been a positive step, and I say that for several reasons.

In the context of this debate, specifically, I say it because what we have seen is that the government contribution to the boards has decreased very, very significantly in the last few years. Particularly, in this request (going from 2015-16 to 2016-17) the actual direct funding contribution from the government via the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources to the NRM boards has dropped dramatically. At the same time, the charges from the government (from the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources) to the boards has increased significantly. So, bringing the boards back in under government control has not helped the boards at all from a financial perspective.

The reason that the boards overwhelmingly have had to come to the Natural Resources Committee of parliament and ask for these levy increases in excess of CPI is that the state government has said that it was going to contribute less money to them directly and it was actually going to charge these boards more money for their own cost recovery purposes, so the poor old boards are really stuck. It is not because they are wasting their money or being inefficient or that they cannot manage the budgets they have; it is because the state government has charged them extra and provided them less funding than they have over a period of time. I think that is incredibly disappointing.

The state government is saying to the boards, 'We do not value your work highly enough to want to continue supporting you financially; in fact, we place a value on the work that the boards do such that we, as a state government, are going to reduce the funding that we give you.' I think that is a great shame. Also, what the state government is then saying to the boards is, 'Not only are we going to give you less direct funding, charge you more for what we provide to you, we want you to go and get the difference from the taxpayer.'

In short, the government is saying, 'We are going to contribute less but just go and get the difference from the taxpayer,' and that is a very fundamental part of my logic for saying that is unfair. It is not reasonable for the government to force the boards to seek more from the taxpayer, purely because the government does not want to provide the funding itself that it typically has in the past. I think out of all of that, where are you going to find a point to say what is the maximum acceptable increase to the levy? There is not one perfect answer to that question, but in my mind I think then we should just leave it at CPI.

We also have the situation whereby councils, which collect the levy on behalf of the government from the levy payers, essentially the public, are now so frustrated and so angry with this situation that the government has put them in that they have now said that they do not want to collect the levy any longer. They have said that they feel so exposed to the opinions of their own ratepayers by what the government has done that they do not want to collect the levy because they think it reflects badly on the councils.

The government is trying to have everything its own way. It is trying to drag the boards back in under the department so that the boards do not operate at the arms-length relationship that they used to. They want to charge the boards more for their own cost recovery purposes. They want to contribute less money to the boards with regard to a contribution that is essentially on behalf of the taxpayer, and they want the boards then to charge the taxpayer more direct.

That is not a workable solution, that is not fair for the taxpayer, who of course does not get a reduction in any other taxes but is now asked to pay a greater share of tax through the NRM levy. It is not fair to the councils, which have to collect the levy to the government, and it is certainly not fair on behalf of the NRM boards and their staff who are really squeezed in this financial model and cannot get on and do the work they need to do. They are suffering in regard to short-term contracts; many of their staff are working without a contract, just extended month-by-month because they do not have the funding to offer a significant three, four or five-year contract to really quality people doing really good work. It is not fair to the environment either.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:09): I rise to speak on the 109^th and 110^th regional levies reports in the series of reports we are currently dealing with, that is, in respect of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty levy proposal. Firstly, I am very disappointed that we are dealing with the business plans and levy proposals as some sort of bulk group. We are restricted to 10 minutes to deal with these because they are now all being dealt with in bulk. We only get 10 minutes to deal with any of them that traverse our electorates, so I am going to address my attention, in what limited time I have, to the levy proposal in respect of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board levy proposal.

In short, members of the committee, the Hon. John Dawkins, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and our very own member for Flinders, voted against the non-support or not opposed the non-support or something like that—it is rather a double negative arrangement—which has the effect, though, as a majority filled by the government, of providing a 6 per cent increase in respect of the land levy, as it is colloquially known, that is, a division 1 levy, and no increase in the water levy.

In reading this report, everything that has been received from the department has been taken as gospel and on the information found in the report. Because the chief executive, Ms Pitcher, had provided evidence that there was in the order of $40 million for the cost of dealing with water planning and management, that has been taken as gospel. It is written here. It is not identified as being challenged by other members who gave evidence, including me, and it is not supported by any documentation.

I am appalled at that, not because I am suggesting Ms Pitcher is not telling the truth but because the committee is not actually scrutinising the material that is coming before them and requiring, as they should have, evidence on the breakdown of this alleged expenditure. It has just been taken en bloc and then accepted as one of the bases upon which there should be an increase much greater than CPI in the land levy for the area, part of which I represent.

Secondly, there is the claim of evidence by the minister, the Hon. Ian Hunter, to the estimates committee on 22 July 2015 in which he repeated what I say is a completely unsubstantiated claim—that is, that the boards should be responsible for the recovery of costs for water, usage and planning under some national agreement, when again the validity of that statement has been seriously challenged. It is not his claim that it should be recovered and that it was consistent with the National Water Initiative agreements, but that in fact this aspect should be recovered without there being any adequate evidence to support the prerequisites upon which the National Water Initiative agreements were signed.

I find it incomprehensible that members of the committee, other than the three I mentioned, should take this information, swallow it and then be forced to impose this incredible obligation on the people within this region. I find it unconscionable and quite inconsistent with what has been a fairly forensic assessment, in my experience with this committee in the past who have done their work diligently. I respect the Chair and the work she does on this. It is a hardworking committee, but this is a dereliction of duty by this committee in accepting and swallowing this information without even any commentary here on the challenges that were made.

They claim that it is necessary to beat budget requirements. When was this committee under an obligation to require representatives within these regions to have to pay huge increases in their levies because the government is under budget requirements, for goodness sake? Cabinet have a responsibility, along with minister Hunter, to get their books in order and to keep their books balanced, not cannibalise other sources of income which they see as an opportunity for them to prop up their disgracefully bereft budget responsibilities.

They have claimed that, to meet these budget requirements, modest annual increases are needed—that is the 6 per cent, and it is hardly modest. Let me go to table 6, the reprioritising of work. Table 6 shows a $1.3 million slashing of project works to be undertaken within this region. I am absolutely appalled at that. Inevitably, this was going to happen when there was a cost recovery for this alleged expenditure.

We have two things as a consequence. The people within the Adelaide and Mount Lofty area, firstly, not only have to have a massive increase in levy but, secondly, they have had a huge slashing, in table 6, to the extent of $1.3 million from the budgeted expenditure, $23½ million down to $22.2 million in land management and change—whatever that is, but it is suggested to be capital projects in the commentary of this report. There are some minor decreases, huge in the sense of 64 per cent and 62 per cent respectively in economic impacts, and planning and improvement. In fairness, they are only fairly small, modest payments originally budgeted for those two items anyway.

I make the point that it is not acceptable that we have this massive reduction in the provision for works, which is the actual work on the ground in these regions for the management of the natural resources. I am very concerned about this. I ask the committee this: what are you going to do in the next 22 days, between now and the end of June, if minister Hunter imposes another ministerial direction on these NRM boards for next year? We do not know that yet. Remember, the state budget has been adjourned to next financial year, to 7 July I think, instead of happening in June.

We will not even know until we are into next financial year whether minister Hunter needs to prop up some more deficiencies, such as the massive cost in moving the whole of the department from down at Keswick next to the railway station—a beautiful building. They are going to move the whole lot into the city. We have heard the announcements, we have seen the glossy new pictures of this beautiful new suite they are going to have in Adelaide. I hate to think how much money they are going to waste on lost rent in the premises they have at other properties for leases that have not expired, including Greenhill Road.

What are we going to do when minister Hunter needs some more money? He has just been in my electorate putting up a sign on the walk between Mount Lofty and Burnside, or Waterfall Gully—a lovely new sign; I hate to think how much it cost—to tell us that we are there recognising the Kaurna people. Well, we have known that in my electorate for a long time. We do not need a sign to tell us. I want there to be a prioritising of this money for natural resources protection and advancement within these regions.

I do not want my people robbed every year just because the minister needs more money to prop up this department, which in some areas has been disgracefully wasteful in expenditure. We have no protection whatsoever in knowing even now whether the minister is going to drop out some more ministerial statements, impose this on our boards and come back next year again begging this committee for an increase in those payments above CPI because they have no other choice other than, as they have done this time, say, 'We want a 6 per cent increase and we are going to slash over here our budgeted expenditure for capital works and project works in our region.'

I have been waiting for four years for somebody to do something about foxes in the Adelaide Hills, on which there was an excellent report from the Natural Resources Committee. I am still waiting. I regularly go down there to the meeting and ask 'What is happening with the foxes?' As usual, other regional NRMs seem to be doing some great work on this issue and I follow what they are doing and commend them.

I do not know whether there are foxes in the member for Stuart's area, but he has lots of other feral things up there. He has wheel cactus and all sorts of problems in his area, but his group does a great job fixing them. My group has no chance if they are going to have to keep on increasing the levies and then smash the projects for which they have already budgeted. I hate to think what is going to happen with rabbits next year.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:19): May I start off in the same vein that the previous speaker, the member for Bragg, has finished on.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: She still had 10 seconds.

Mr WILLIAMS: I am very concerned about the failure of this committee to uphold the needs and desires of this chamber. This committee is a committee of this chamber. It is a committee of the parliament. It is not a committee of the executive arm of the government. What this committee seems to have done is roll over for the executive arm of government, and it has let down the parliament. Thank God committee members no longer get paid for sitting on the committee because that would be an even greater travesty.

The reality is that this committee has failed in its duty. The committee is aware—and I know it is aware because I have given evidence to this committee on a not dissimilar matter—of the obligations on the minister and the government under the National Water Initiative. There are a number of obligations, all of which the minister has failed to meet. I was fairly confident that this committee would seek the relevant information and hold the minister to account. The reality is that the committee has failed to do that.

The committee has failed to have the minister publish the numbers on which he bases these claims for this additional money. That is one of the obligations under the National Water Initiative. Having failed to do that and having failed to meet all of the obligations under the National Water Initiative, he has failed to table the reasons he has not done that, which again is an obligation under the National Water Initiative. I would have thought that a committee of this house, a committee of this parliament, would have held the minister to account. I have to tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very, very disappointed.

I speak principally to the committee report with regard to the South-East Natural Resources Management Board Levy Proposal 2016-17, the 115^th report of the Natural Resources Committee. The committee, in its paragraph on Background, states:

In the 2015–16 state budget, the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources…announced its intention to begin partial recovery of water planning and management…costs, which had been set initially in the 2010-11 budget, in line with the National Water Initiative…

It is the only time this minister has agreed with the National Water Initiative. It goes on to say:

… Chief Executive Sandy Pitcher provided evidence to the committee that DEWNR annually incurred [water planning and management] costs on the order of $40 million. She said that DEWNR intended to recover only part of this amount from the NRM regions, via their levies: $3.5 million in 2015–16…rising to $6.8 million in 2016–17.

Why did the chief executive not tell the committee that almost $20 million of that $40 million was already being recovered from SA Water? Why? Because when I was talking to the committee one of the committee members said to me, 'Just be careful because these costs total $40 million. The minister might want to collect it all.' The reality is that SA Water already contributes substantially towards this.

I have here a copy of Direction to the South Australian Water Corporation Pursuant to Section 6 of the Public Corporations Act 1993. It is dated 9 May 2013 and signed by whom? The Hon. Ian Hunter MLC, Minister for Water and the River Murray. Under the heading of Water Planning and Management Charges, it states:

SA Water must make the following contributions to the Department for the Environment, Water and Natural Resources in each financial year of the initial regulatory period in order to support water planning and management activities.

In 2013-14, it was $16.7 million; in 2014-15, it was $17 million; and in 2015-16 it was $17.5 million. I understand that currently the amount is even more than that; it is more like $19 million. Notwithstanding that, why did the CEO of the department tell the Natural Resources Committee that there is $40 million and, 'How good are we? We're only asking for a small amount of it'?

Further, the committee's report says:

Both these amounts were lower than the cost recovery target of $9.6 million first set in the 2010-11 budget...

I hope the Chair of the committee, in summing up this debate, can point me to exactly where that is highlighted in the 2010-11 budget, because I cannot find it. Let me read from the 2010-11 Budget Statement, Budget Paper 3, Chapter 3—Revenue, on page 3.10:

In 2009-10, revenue from NRM levies is expected to be $3 million higher than originally estimated. Revenue from NRM levies is forecast to increase in 2010-11 primarily due to an increase in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM levy following a review by the Adelaide and Mount Lofty NRM Board of its programs. In 2011-12, revenue from NRM levies is affected by the cessation of NRM levy relief for drought affected levy payers in the River Murray area. Thereafter, revenue from NRM levies is forecast to remain relatively flat.

I do not know where the CEO of the department got that figure of $9.6 million from. I can tell you I cannot find it, and I would ask that the Chair of this committee, in summing up, point both the house and me to where, in that original document—the 2010-11 budget papers—this matter is highlighted, because I do not believe it is there. I have also dug out the Budget Improvement Measures: Restoring Sustainable State Finances, second report of the Sustainable Budget Commission, August 2010. This is the document on which these changes are predicated. Let me read from the Savings Proposal Summary:

The principal budget improvement measure proposed is the phased recovery of water planning and management costs from SA Water and, ultimately, consumers.

It goes on to say:

In relation to NRM Boards, measures are proposed which shift NRM Boards to increased cost recovery, relying more on the levy revenues from local handholders who benefit from local NRM activities, and removal of government operating grants and agency support services (or cost recovery of services).

Savings in relation to NRM Boards will be achieved by reducing state grant funding, discontinuing payroll tax subsidies, reducing grants under the state complementary NRM program, and a combination of rationalising agency NRM support services and recovering the remainder of those costs from NRM Boards.

It goes on to show that the figure would be $2.5 million a year. Again, I do not know where the figure of $9.6 million comes from. What I can tell you with regard to the NRM board in the South-East, in my electorate, is that Primary Producers SA were able to glean some information from the minister—the minister promising to open the books. I know the PPSA still has a number of questions of the minister and his agency, but they did get some information. I have a table here that reads 'Attachment 2: DEWNR water planning and management costs – by NRM region'. I can tell the house that the total cost in the South-East is $2.303 million—that is the total. It does not have a date on it. I assume this is the current year.

Before these increases were advocated by the minister, imposed by the minister, accepted by the local NRM board and now accepted by the committee, the South East NRM Board was already collecting $3.291 million from water levies in the South-East. As a result of this committee accepting the proposal from the South East NRM Board, that will increase to $3.7 million.

So, how lucky are water users in the South-East? They are going out and working their butts off to produce and keep the economy of this state going, and they are being hit up for $3.7 million to recover costs where the costs are only $2.3 million. All I can say to the house is the committee has been derelict in its duty.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (12:29): I echo the words of the member for MacKillop and it was a very good contribution to the house. I want to speak briefly about the disconnect that many landholders feel with the government and the NRM levy, and I guess the disconnect comes from the difference between what they pay and the services that they are perceived to receive in return. The NRM levy has been a main topic of conversation at many council meetings. I certainly know the Limestone Coast Local Government Association has it on its agenda almost as a standing item now.

One of the points that I would get this committee to look at is that the government is always interested in inputs, how much money is going in, but it never looks at outputs, how can the same or an improved service be done more efficiently with existing resources in a cost-effective manner, and perhaps working with local councils to improve the service delivery on aspects that can be done. There is no doubt that one of the biggest issues is the contribution to DEWNR's workforce through, basically, a corporate tax on landowners.

We are seeing a time down in the South-East when dairy farmers are under increasing pressure. I had some worrying forward projections on cattle prices and the increase in supply of beef cattle out of Europe and Russia, and with some of the forward projections, we may be seeing a similar effect to the dairy crisis in about 18 months' time due to the large upswell of farms in those European countries producing far more beef than they have ever produced before, obviously backed with certain subsidies. We have a situation in Australia where our farmers, our landholders, are taxed, levied, fees applied, just for carrying out normal business and in a global sense trying to compete with farmers in other countries who are highly subsidised and assisted. That does not bode well for the future of our primary industries.

I want to talk now about the South East Natural Resources Management Board. It has been resolved that $4.64 million will be raised from land levies and $3.96 million from water levies. The problem with the South-East is that we do not have the population density to absorb those massive increases like some other areas perhaps do, and I am thinking of Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges, which again will be doing it tough, but the levy increase will be spread over a greater population base and therefore the impact will be a lot less.

The South-East of South Australia contributes 33 per cent of the overall levy but, again, with a very diminished population base. If you take that down to a local level, and I am talking about the Grant district council here, their indication to me is that will be about $700,000 extra that will need to be raised from the residents of the Grant district council, and at about 10,000 people in total you can see a disproportionate impact on those ratepayers. To say that I was disappointed with the committee's recommendation to raise the rate above the 1.2 per cent CPI would be an understatement. I think where the work really needs to be done is looking at what services are provided, and opportunities for them to be provided in a more cost-effective manner.

I have had reports that 70 per cent of the levy raised is actually taken up in bureaucratic operations and 30 per cent is for on-ground. That type of differential really needs to be looked at. Why do we have people shuffling papers, yet the one sector of our economy that has been going okay, even though we have had droughts and downturns in dairy prices—this seems to be an unfair burden on that sector of the community and the industry.

I note that Primary Industries and Regions SA obviously opposed the rises and have called for an independent review into water planning and management costs. I will conclude my comments by saying that if anything good is to come out of this, it would be an independent review into water planning and management costs.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:36): I rise today to speak to the 109^th report of the Natural Resources Committee—a committee which I sit on. I, along with the other committee members, had great deliberations over the proposals from the NRM boards across the state to increase their levy requirements.

Deputy Speaker, you have heard from members on this side of the house, at least, on the great concern and anxiety that these increases hold, not just for the members on this side but also for their constituents. These constituents are primarily landowning primary producers who will be asked for a significantly higher increase this coming year. One of the statutory obligations of the Natural Resources Committee is to consider and make recommendations on any annual levy proposed by a natural resources management board where the levy increase exceeds the annual rise by the consumer price index for Adelaide.

I will just run through half a dozen or so of the proposed increases. In the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board, the proposed amendments included a 6 per cent increase in division 1, which is the land levy, and the division 2 (or water) levy was to remain unchanged for 2015-16. With all due respect, Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges residents got off rather lightly compared to some of the others. In the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board, the proposed amendment included a 25 per cent increase in division 1 (land) levy and a 93 per cent increase in division 2 (water) levy.

In the South East Natural Resources Management Board, the proposal was for a whopping 169 per cent increase in the division 1 (land) levy, and a 13 per cent increase in the division 2 (water) levy. Of course, both are well above CPI. The penultimate consideration was the South Australian Arid Lands Natural Resources Management Board, which is proposing a 48 per cent increase in the division 1 (land) levy and a 118 per cent increase in the division 2 (water) levy.

In my own neck of the woods, the Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Board proposal was that there be a 24 per cent increase in the division 1 (land) levy and a 7 per cent increase in the division 2 (water) levy. All of these proposed increases are the result of a government directive to our NRM boards to assist in payment of water management planning. As I said, it caused great concern. I believe it is yet another impost on the landowners and producers particularly across the agricultural regions of this state. It comes on the back of yet another increase of the emergency services levy, which is in fact the next item of committee business on the agenda today. No doubt, there will be similar concerns around that from members of the parliament who represent regional areas.

This year, all of the six NRM regions are proposing increases for 2016-17, and the reason behind these high NRM levy increases is the imposition of partial cost recovery of water planning and management charges. We have heard from members of this side what they think about this recuperation of costs. This has attracted unprecedented interest from community members. Many of the community members wrote to us and many of the members of this place actually presented in person to the committee raising their concerns.

Some of those concerns have been put into our annual report. As a member of the committee, I can assure this house and the parliament that we undertook our responsibilities very seriously. The boards' success in natural resources management depends on maintaining good relationships with their communities, and the committee acknowledges their important work. One of our concerns was that this significant increase in levy payments will undermine some of that good relationship and good will. The additional expenses imposed on the boards this year are a heavy burden and, as I said, the committee has detailed its concerns in the recommendations to the minister.

By way of background, I will read from the Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Board on page 4. The background and the lead-up to us arriving at this point is that in the 2015-16 state budget the Department of Environment Water and Natural Resources announced its intention to begin partial recovery of water planning and management costs, which had initially been set in the 2010-11 budget, in line with the National Water Initiative.

The member for MacKillop raised the point that he was not actually able to find that budget line. I do not think that he was saying that it necessarily does not exist, but he simply was not able to find it. I have no doubt he is up in his office at the moment looking even more forensically at those 2010-11 budget papers.

DEWNR chief executive, Sandy Pitcher, provided evidence to the committee that DEWNR annually incurred water planning and management costs in the order of $40 million. She said that DEWNR intended to recover only part of this amount from the NRM regions via their levies: $3.5 million in 2015-16, with the amount rising to $6.8 million in 2016-17, which of course means that this time next year our committee will once again be considering an increase in proposed levies. I cannot pre-empt how the committee might deal with that, nor can I pre-empt the reaction of the levy payers, because I suspect that their response will be not inconsequential. It will be yet another increased levy impost on the producers of this state.

Both those amounts were lower than the cost recovery target of $9.6 million first set in the 2010-11 budget. In estimates, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, the Hon. Ian Hunter in the other place, said the NRM boards were responsible for recovering fees associated with water usage, as required under the National Water Initiative. The minister said that, very kindly, DEWNR had delayed this cost recovery since about 2011.

The minister said the regions had been asked to determine the fairest way forward and to provide advice to him. 'Those people who receive a benefit should be paying for the government resources that are utilised in delivering that benefit,' he said. This is a significant change in the way government operates. To take on board what the member for Stuart contributed, how important does this government truly consider natural resources management?

I was a member of the original Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Board. I was appointed way back in 2005 and we took our task very seriously, but it is a different beast these days. Once again, we have conscientious community members who make an application, sit on the board and make considerations about what projects might be best delivered to the various regions throughout the state, and they take that position very responsibly. However, more and more they are being hamstrung by the constraints put on them by government.

The committee heard from Ms Pitcher that the regions did not have a choice in having these costs imposed on them, and that certainly came out in the evidence given by all the boards, who presented very professionally and very responsibly to the committee. Ultimately, they backed up exactly what Ms Pitcher said, that they really had not had any choice in this, that it was a directive from above, a directive from government via the minister, that they needed to raise these extra funds. Ms Pitcher went on to say:

It was certainly not a decision that presiding members had the power to agree or not agree…It is not a question of the boards deciding to lift the levy above CPI. They are the recipients of a government decision to take $6.8 million indexed over the forwards.

So, there you have it. She continues:

In addition to that DEWNR intended to begin full cost recovery for corporate services of $21,699 per full-time equivalent from all regions, commencing in 2016-17.

As I said, this is about to come back and bite us again. I can only imagine the reaction that might be had out in the regions on this, all for the want of a little bit of government support for natural resources management.

I have said in this place many times, and I continue to say: natural resources management is vitally important. Our producers right across the state, both land and sea food producers, rely on a healthy and productive environment. There are so many of us now on this planet, let alone in this state, demanding much of our environment that we can no longer not plan and manage that environment: it is how best we do it.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Digance.