Landscape South Australia Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Mr HUGHES (Giles) (15:53): I was going to listen to a few more of the country members because I do believe sincerely that their input into the proceedings would be of value. As you know, I come from a country community, but it is an industrial community. I am probably one of the few people on this side of the house who has spent some time out there poisoning rabbits—do not let the animal liberationists know that—and working on pest plants and animals, so I have had a little bit of practical experience.

This is a significant piece of legislation, or at least on the surface it appears to be, even though a large element of the Natural Resources Management Act has virtually been put over into this bill. It will be interesting to see how fundamental the changes are going to be on the ground, and I suspect the changes are not going to be fundamental.

When the original bill was brought before parliament—and it has stood now for 15 years as the act—the initial intent behind it was to generate a far more integrated approach to a whole raft of issues in the broad sweep of our state, and it did some of that effectively. However, over time systems do evolve, and I have heard some of the criticism that has come from people in country South Australia about what they believed was the centralisation of decision-making and what was seen as an increase in red tape. I think it is always valuable to look at longstanding acts and see how they can be improved and how they can be changed.

Having looked at some of the literature surrounding this bill and having looked at the legislation, in some respects I see this as an evolutionary process, and there is always going to be that give and take. I spoke to some people from various sectors of primary industries and asked what they thought about the current bill. I have to say that the feedback that I received, especially in relation to consultation, was positive.

As a regional person, I have been exposed to all sorts of consultation processes over the years and some have been very good—some were very good by the previous government and some were very poor. I would have to say, though, that the people I have spoken to across a number of industries gave this a tick. They said that there was a lot of constructive engagement between primary producers and those people with a strong and primary emphasis on conservation and conservation practices—not that the two things are separated: there is often a very significant overlap.

It was put to me by someone with a lot of history in this area, and a lot of history in primary industries, that what they attempted to do with the bill was to get the structure right and that some of the really profound contentious issues, such as the big issues around water, were parked to one side. In the main, in this state, a lot of issues around native vegetation legislation are to a large degree settled, certainly far more settled than the other states. When people get the consultation right that is important and it should be acknowledged. In my part of the world, there was a whole series of meetings and there was strong involvement, and I think that is positive.

We have to see how this works in practice, so I do not want to necessarily pre-empt it, but one of the concerns that we on this side have is that there is a downgrading of emphasis when it comes to biodiversity and habitat protection. Even though we have had an act for 15 years and there is a whole range of other factors at work—and then there is that whole legacy of what has happened in this state before the Natural Resources Management Act and now this bill—when it comes to biodiversity in the state, the record has not been fantastic.

Over 60 species have become extinct, and it looks as though it is continuing apace, which is incredibly sad. Some scientists believe that we are entering into the sixth great extinction with the rate of species lost globally, but also in Australia, which does not have a fantastic record. You would not want to see a watering down at a local level when it comes to activity to do the right thing by our environment.

As the deputy leader said earlier today, good farming practice recognises the supreme importance of good conservation practice and the need for the preservation and expansion of natural habitat. Even though there seems to be a reduction in emphasis in terms of language, we might well find that practice by those people on the ground, the great variety of people who make a contribution in regional South Australia, is not going to fundamentally change.

The bill talks about the election of three people to the board, and I think that is a good thing. It can be challenging, but it does give it a degree of democratic and regional legitimacy. I know that to date people have been increasingly reluctant to put up their hands because they questioned the value of some of the things that were being done. If we are going to improve, that is a good thing.

Reflecting contemporary circumstances, there is mention of climate change in the objects and principles of the bill. That is going to be a fundamental challenge in regional South Australia. Sometimes I hear those opposite talking about practical conversation and practical measures, and they are not quite on board with the profound changes that are going to happen in regional South Australia—profound changes that are going to put at risk the livelihoods of a lot of people who over generations have depended upon primary industries.

Current trajectories show that we are heading toward an increase of 3° to 4° in average global temperatures. Translated into reality, the changes that are going to be driven by global warming are going to manifest themselves in this state—which is the driest state in Australia and part of the driest inhabited continent in the world—more severely initially than in all the developed countries in the other developed parts of the world. The bill needs to identify climate change in the objects and the principles.

The bill needs to look at how we effectively translate that adaptive response. It is my belief that there are things we can do to adapt, but the level of change we are talking about is going to outstrip our adaptive capacity in a whole range of ways. The member for Flinders might well be aware that one of the big pieces of adaptive strategy was actually done on Eyre Peninsula. It is very disappointing that that body of work was let slide to the side when the Marshall government was elected, as the work had national and global recognition.

The CPI increases, and the cap on increases, is one of those givens, where people say, 'Well, we're not going to be paying more and it is going to be limited to CPI increases.' That is always popular and we recognise that. It might be popular, but there needs to be an assurance that at the end of the day funding will be commensurate with real needs, and real needs often do not reflect the CPI increase. I know there is provision in the bill for the minister to intervene in a way to adjust, if need be, beyond the CPI cap. I hope that he exercises that responsibility in a way that is going to advantage the environment and the people in regional and urban South Australia.

I think it is incredibly important that when it comes to funding the activity that happens and the work undertaken throughout regional South Australia, and indeed in urban South Australia, it is done in an equitable manner. I know that historically I have had some issues with the current act. Those issues were about ensuring that in an equitable way we make a contribution to the upkeep of the environment and all the things that need to be done in South Australia.

At the moment, at least some components of what people pay with the NRM levy is not done on an equitable basis. Somebody with a property in Whyalla will be paying significantly more than someone with a property in some suburbs in Adelaide. This is a personal point of view, but when it comes to a degree of cross-subsidisation, that should not be done on a regional level. That should be done at a state level, given that we all have an obligation, but take into account people's capacity to pay.

In general, it should be done in an equitable fashion across the state because the services delivered by regional South Australia are services we all benefit from. Even though there is an urban component to this, most of it is out there in regional South Australia. That said, there needs to be some concentration on ensuring that we do not degrade our efforts in biodiversity, habitat protection and enhancement. In fact, I believe that additional resources should be allocated to those areas.

Once upon a time, the activities that occurred out in regional South Australia, in our rural areas, were about soil, water, pest plants and pest animals. A lot of the focus was initially on those, but there is now a whole raft of other issues. It is making sure that we do that effectively. There is a whole range of things that happened over the years that are a cause for concern and happened not just in South Australia but also nationally.

I have spoken to some of our soil scientists. The number of soil scientists we now have in this state has greatly reduced over the years. I know that primary industries used to employ a significant number of soil scientists, but that number has gone down, and we should all reflect upon this. My side of the house should reflect upon this as well because I think it is just fundamental.

When it comes to entomologists nationally in this country, the number that we now have, despite a whole raft of challenges, is greatly reduced. Maybe people do not see these as sexy areas to get into, but they are fundamentally important. When we are allocating resources to ensure soil protection and enhancement, looking after water, addressing that ongoing challenge of pest plants and pest animals, we need that strong science background, but we are losing that; we are losing it as a nation and we have lost it as a state. There are some substitutes for it, but a lot of it has disappeared. Given the challenges that we are going to be facing in the coming decades, that is deeply concerning.

One of the areas of interest, given what I believe is the lack of an equitable way of funding the NRM, is that the landscape priorities they fund might give us an opportunity to address some of that, depending on how that fund ultimately operates. With the big population centre of Adelaide, more of that money might well be available to go out into the regions to meet some of the challenges we face and some of the resource needs that exist out there.

When I was on the Whyalla city council, one of the bugbears I spoke against on a frequent basis was this funding element of the communities of Eyre Peninsula. Obviously, there are other contributing sources from beyond the communities, but of all the communities on Eyre Peninsula the community of Whyalla provided the biggest amount of funding. What was interesting about that was that of the 80-odd projects I tallied up at the time, only two or three of those—which were very minor in nature—were funded in Whyalla. The rest were on Eyre Peninsula.

That might have reflected a real need—that is not my argument, that those needs should not be met—but I believe that consideration should be given to the element that comes from our households and how best to do that in an equitable fashion. Another thing that was often a bugbear—and I know it was about administrative simplicity, but at the end of the day this is a state-sanctioned charge—was that the charge was on rate notices. I think it should be very clearly identified as a state charge.

It will be interesting to see what ultimately happens on the ground with this bill, assuming it is passed. Given the people who have been involved in the past, I think many of them will continue to do what they do in regional South Australia and in the urban area. There might well be other people who are willing to make a contribution. As I said, some people did have the perception that decision-making was moving in a more centralised direction.

I think it is always important to have that combination of genuine grassroots expertise and local knowledge but, in addition, some of the rarer points of view that are based upon an incredibly strong grasp of the science. There needs to be that mix with sometimes centralised expertise, but it has to be done in conjunction with the grassroots expertise that exists within our community. At the end of the day, we all want to see our primary industries succeed, but we also do not want to continue the losses we have encountered in the past.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:13): I rise to commend this bill to the house. I am glad to hear indications from the other side that it will have support for a speedy passage through this place, and I hope the other place as well. It is an important reform, and the minister ought to be rightly proud of the diligent and thoroughgoing work he has engaged in over the course of getting on for two years now to bring this bill to the house.

To set the scene and to put it into some context, this is a tremendous example of how a policy ought to be prosecuted. This bill is the result of policy commitments made by this government in the course of the campaign. It is a set of commitments that has been thoroughly put to the people ahead of the election. We are now in yet another example of steadily going about doing what we said we would do in delivering for the people of South Australia, bringing to this parliament thoroughgoing reform legislation designed to result in practical outcomes for the betterment of people throughout South Australia. That is particularly so in relation to people from the regions.

This has been a year in coming. It was presented to this house a little over a year following the election. Perhaps to illustrate the substantial amount of work that has been involved in bringing this bill to the house, I note that in schedule 5 to the bill, commencing at page 219, we see 28 separate pieces of legislation that are affected by this bill that require a consequential amendment as the result of the reform process that is set out here.

The member for Narungga, in his remarks earlier, has ably set out the core objectives of these reforms, and I will not repeat them. They are clearly understood by the people of South Australia, not only because the member for Narungga so ably explained them to us today but for the reason that we have been going out and talking about this with the community of South Australia over a long period of time. So even before this legislation comes into action, as I hope it will very soon, the people of South Australia who have been engaged in this space, particularly those in regional South Australia, have been very much part of the process of reform.

They told us why they had lost confidence in the regime that was in place over the entire period of the previous government, commencing in 2004. They told us that they were sick to death of the constantly increasing costs that they were having to bear, coupled with the increasing lack of direct control over what was going on in terms of delivery of the NRM throughout the regions. They made it clear that they wanted to have more direct involvement at a local level, more efficient and relevant delivery of programs, making real difference on the ground, together with a realignment of the boundaries—the structure in which this is delivered—so that the regions actually reflect the communities that they are there to deliver outcomes for.

I listened carefully and, with respect, I appreciate the contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in making her remarks as the lead speaker for the opposition. In understanding that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition indicated support for the passage of the bill, I noted three key areas of concern raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, echoed by the contribution of the member for Giles just now. The first was in relation to our commitment to cap rises in levy rates according to CPI.

The second, which the deputy leader raised as a matter of concern, was the introduction of elections in terms of the selection process. The third was what was described as a reduction in emphasis on biodiversity, although I note that both the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and the member for Giles were quick to note that this legislation is, for the first time, making direct reference to the broader challenges of climate change.

First, in relation to our commitment to cap the rises in costs, this is a commitment of which we are very proud. Of course, it comes in the context of a provision for exemptions where the climate does what the climate does and throws at us extraordinary circumstances, but this is part of what we are committed to do to restore confidence in the community in the delivery of a program that compels people to make a contribution to it. We want to restore confidence by giving people the assurance that we will not, in an open-ended way, continually up the costs that they have to bear.

Secondly and in connection with that, by way of addressing the concern raised about the introduction of elections, we wholeheartedly look forward to the introduction of a democratic process to participation on the NRM boards. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition observed that this might take some time and involve some energy being committed. That is true, but if we are genuinely to achieve a restoration of engagement of our local communities and a gradual building of confidence over time in these processes, then predictability around cost and the opportunity for election to participation are two key elements.

Of course, on this side of the house, as in all things that involve public money, we are quick to acknowledge that this is not our money: this is the money of the people of South Australia, in this case contributing to levies. It ought to be very carefully applied and, indeed, carefully spent when we require contributions to be made.

I point to one key statistic that was adverted to by the member for Narungga earlier. The consultation in the lead-up to these reforms indicates that a very high number of people—indeed, 65 per cent—reported not knowing where and how their levies were spent. It is not surprising that, as a corollary to not being aware how the rates are spent, they would take a view that the rates are going up too much, so the two go together.

We want to limit what we charge. We want people to be more confidently and actively engaged in the process. It is a very important reset that we now engage in. As the member for the seat of Heysen in the Adelaide Hills, I am very aware that this area has been increasingly contentious, particularly over recent years, in terms of management. I look forward to being actively engaged with all the members of my communities, from those who are active in the environment and volunteering space through to those who derive their living on the land and everyone in between, to ensure that this legislation does in fact lead to the greater level of engagement and confidence that we expect.

I would like to illustrate the breadth and depth of engagement in Heysen, an area that I am very conscious of is one of 15 biodiversity hotspots nationwide, a particularly valuable and precious part of our state as far as the natural environment is concerned. I was proud that the first of my major public fora, following being elected as the member for Heysen, was to convene a forum for Friends of Nature locally through the Hills. It was a forum that took place on 21 August last year.

Looking to get the various different community contributors engaged and talking to one another effectively, I was surprised and delighted by the level of goodwill and engagement that was out there and the willingness of people to engage. I hope that many of them will put up their hands to participate in the elections that are coming.

To illustrate the sort of cross-section of participants in this space in the Hills, I note that we heard from Professor Chris Daniels, who is the Director of Cleland Wildlife Park and also the Presiding Member of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty NRM Board, and Ms Natalie Stalenberg, who directs the Water for Nature program at Nature Foundation SA.

We also heard at the forum from Jasmin Packer, who is active at the University of Adelaide in the Adelaide Hills Science Hub, where she is a research fellow. We also had participants at the forum from the Adelaide and Mount Lofty NRM, including Ms Stephanie Cole, who is a volunteer support officer, and Mr James Thiessen from the Department for Environment and Water. Also at the forum were Mr Brent Lores and Ms Jennifer Pitman, who are rangers. We heard from the minister earlier today about how we are working in parallel to expand the number of rangers who are active throughout the state. Also presenting at the forum were Ms Amelia Hurren from Trees For Life and Mr Ross Oke from the Goolwa to Wellington Local Action Planning Association.

Mr Oke is a tremendous example of someone active through the Hills, leading a combination of voluntary and professional effort and achieving practical improvements for our local environment by working collaboratively with landowners, scientists and volunteers in a natural environment. I was very grateful for the opportunity to provide Ross with a chance to lead the minister through some of the many projects that he and the Goolwa to Wellington LAP have underway and completed over the journey when the minister joined me to travel through Heysen earlier this year.

We also heard at the forum from Mr Danny Rohrlach, who is well known throughout the Hills as President of the Sturt Upper Reaches Landcare Group, and from Mrs Merri Tothill, who is the Chair of the Angas River Catchment Group. We also had contributions from Mr David Ragless, a celebrated quiet achiever in the Hills and a longtime driver of the good work of the Friends of Woorabinda, among many other things. We heard from Mr David Mussared of the Aldgate Valley Landcare Group and also from Mr Peter Watton from the Friends of Scott Creek.

The forum was attended by well over a hundred people from far and wide from throughout the Hills. It is the sort of cross-section of people who have knowledge and motivation and, given the incentive and empowerment by government in this space, can help us to achieve great things together as local communities.

Having mentioned the Friends of Scott Creek, it is an opportunity for me to note also that when we talk about practical outcomes it is very important to listen as a government to what we are told by those who volunteer in the space, and the Friends of Scott Creek have long sought to expand the area of the Scott Creek Park marginally to take in some land that adjoins the park that has been controlled by SA Water.

It is an area of land that has on it a pioneer cottage, Mackereth Cottage, and for a long time the Friends of Scott Creek, who are doing great work throughout the conservation park, were somewhat thwarted as they looked at this small patch of land under the control of SA Water and Mackereth Cottage. They have wanted nothing more than to get their hands on that area of land so that they could carry on their great work in weed eradication in appreciation of the biodiversity, as well as maintaining the cottage.

I was delighted to bring this to the attention of the minister recently. I am very pleased—notwithstanding this having been a matter of ongoing advocacy for the better part of the last two decades—that the minister was very quick to act and that that portion of land has now been transferred to the friends, and I look forward to improvements on that patch of land and to the gradual restoration of the cottage.

That is just a small illustration of what can be done when active contributors in this space are empowered and when a government listens to proposals that have merit. That is what this reform is about. It is a substantial body of work and it will have its workings out over the long term ahead. I commend the minister for his work and I commend this bill to the house.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (16:33): I likewise rise to support this important piece of legislation. As a long-term farming family in the Fleurieu Peninsula, I certainly understand the importance of managing landscapes and managing the land we work with and managing the other important parts that interact with our farming operations, that being the natural environment that is there as well.

I certainly have been very supportive of the minister bringing this to the house and the development of this important piece of legislation. There have been many hours of consultation, and certainly the members of the community of Finniss have been heavily involved in conversation around this bill and the importance of bringing it forward. There was a great need to bring back particularly the confidence of the farming community in this space.

Natural resources management is an important part of farming, and having the confidence in the way the government is operating in this space, and the engagement to and from the farmer back to government and others, is essential to make sure that we achieve the best outcomes. It is something that I have certainly watched over many years and been involved in, in particular with a dairy farming discussion group of about 10 dairy farmers who operate across the Fleurieu. It is something that is discussed nearly every time they are out together as they walk around their properties looking at different things, looking at the way they try to manage their properties within the environments within which they sit.

Sometimes it is the simple frustration of the neighbour's lack of weed control that sits at the height of their concern. This goes back to the early days of my farming career and the way weeds were managed back then. There used to be local weed officers who were paid by council who would assist farmers to make sure that the weeds on their property were controlled. They would also help them have conversations with their neighbours. That has certainly been lost over time, but it is very important for farmers to make sure that they are actually operating with the total environment, not just in their own space, on their own piece of property. It needs only one neighbour to be a problem and it is a costly problem for them going forward.

Over the years, on the two properties my family has had—one at the coast, at Port Elliot, and one at Mount Compass—we have had many weed problems we have had to deal with, and we have covered many of the notifiable noxious weeds that have operated on our properties. At one stage, there was silverleaf nightshade, commonly known as tomato weed, which is a big problem in the cropping industry, as it shifts so easily with cultivation. My grandfather reported it on our property at Port Elliot back in the 1950s. Interestingly, we had a spray contractor find it on a property back in the early 2000s and it was reported again. It is very important to know that it was understood that it was still there and still being managed and had been managed, trying to restrict its spread.

That is what farmers do. They are out there looking after their land, making sure that it is there for the future and managing within the frameworks of legislation, such as this landscape bill. It gives us guidelines as farmers on how to operate and how we need to operate without neighbouring farmers and neighbouring landholders, who are not always farmers now (as we see particularly in the peri-urban areas), as the community from the cities move out into regional areas. We need them to understand why we need to manage our environment, as much as the way we do it ourselves.

It is a combined community effort to make sure that we look after our landscape. Landscape is not just about weeds: it is also about managing the pests and managing the native species on our properties. This morning in a committee, the member for Heysen and I were discussing the overabundance of kangaroos in the Adelaide Hills region, and that is certainly something that has happened with the big changes that have occurred on our farm in my lifetime.

My parents bought the farm where we live now in 1976; at that stage, there were no kangaroos on the property, and that was the way it was pretty much right through into the late 1990s. You would see the occasional one come through, but you certainly would not see a permanent residence of kangaroos existing there. We now have well over 300 kangaroos living on our farm. Back in 1997, we fenced off a piece of scrub to stop cattle going through the scrub after a fire went through, to allow the scrub to regenerate, and it has given a great environment for the kangaroos to live and thrive in. They have their own refuge from cattle disturbing and chasing them away, and they have effectively been able to use it as their home and we have seen a huge explosion in numbers.

This morning, I was listening to Associate Professor David Paton, and his concerns are that the kangaroos are probably doing as much damage as the cattle were trampling through those pieces of scrub because of the sheer numbers that are actually there now, which are well beyond what would have been there naturally when there were predators such as dingoes, etc. keeping the numbers down. This is the sort of material that we need to look at as we go through this important piece of legislation to make sure that we are putting the levers in the hands of locals who understand their community and understand their problems and are able to address those problems locally. Under the old structures and the boundaries, that was certainly one of my frustrations.

Water has not been a big reform in this bill. My understanding is that is to be done at a future time. However, I spent about 11 years working as part of a consultative group on a water allocation plan in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges. It was an extremely frustrating process because, mirrored alongside that at the time, was a similar process happening in the Western Mount Lofty Ranges. The two plans were very close to one another and operated by two different groups doing roughly the same thing, roughly at the same time and trying to achieve roughly the same outcome. It seemed like a complete waste of resources, when the environments are very similar.

I think it is fabulous to see the proposed boundary changes in this bill to allow that community to realise that it does not have to operate down two separate avenues with a line that runs at the top of the catchment and to allow those communities, which are very similar, to operate as one and make decisions for their environments as one. It is also really important that this bill allows the locals themselves to have a say about who sits on their local boards, to elect members to that board and to allow people with an interest to get involved and understand what is needed in their region and to give the ability for farmers in particular and other community members somewhere to go to in order to have a conversation about the problems facing them and what needs addressing.

There are some things that I see just through my community that concern me that are not addressed because they are not front of mind and they are not issues that are actually out there that people believe need addressing in a strong way. One that comes to mind is that many years ago outside the town hall in Mount Compass there was some sand drift. As a solution, someone decided to plant African lovegrass outside the town hall to try to hold the soil.

African lovegrass is a nice, flowing grass that blows in the wind, and I suspect that is how it gets its name: it is nice and flowing and hides other activities. It was planted there to stabilise the sand drift in front of the town hall but, interestingly, it has shifted down every single road that leads to Mount Compass, with the council graders operating and dragging that plant down the roads. It is now at the point where it is starting to invade other properties, not just the roadside reserves.

This is an issue that the community has been aware of 40 years, but it is only just starting to come to the point where someone says that we should do something about it. It would have been quite easy to have stopped it 35 years ago, but now we have hundreds of kilometres of roads that have African lovegrass along them and it is getting out into paddocks. It is going to be difficult to remove it from roadsides, etc., so we need the planning and we need the local community to bring those problems forward.

Another weed that I see as an issue around the Mount Compass area is radiata pine. The Kidman family had land in the Mount Compass area and they decided they would like to bound their properties with radiata pine. They planted many radiata pines around their property and they can be seen sitting there today. The original ones that were planted are getting to the age where they are starting to die, but, unfortunately, they also seed and many of those radiata pines are now appearing in native scrub.

As you stand in Mount Compass and look up toward Mount Moon, the hill just north of the town, you can see pine trees popping up all over it. The difficulty is that they are very hard to access because they are on the side of the hill, but it is also difficult to stop this happening because the seed is drifting in there. It does need attention because those trees grow into significant trees and they take out a lot of the native vegetation that is underneath that, causing problems.

This is where we need to see the planning. We need to make the decisions and we need the locals to decide that this is a problem and it needs addressing. Likewise, as I mentioned earlier with kangaroos, there is no point in one neighbour deciding to take kangaroos out from his property by seeking permits to remove a certain number of kangaroos because, without a controlled and managed way of dealing with this issue, they will just come back in from the neighbour's property. This is where it is so important that communities have some say and control, and we are able to give their farming communities as well as their non-farming communities in the region some ability to achieve the desired result.

There are also challenges in dealing with the different aspects of the community. One thing that seems to have become a very popular pastime in the last couple of years is blackberry picking. There are many people parked on the side of the road with their ice-cream buckets trying to get a bucketful of wild blackberries growing along the road. Blackberries are a complete and utter menace to our native environment and should not be there in the first place.

We are now seeing a conflict occurring because the people who love picking and eating blackberries are getting really irate with farmers who are out there spraying, or even with the local council if they decide to spray the roadsides. They do not understand the risk that those blackberries are placing on many other parts of our environment, smothering important bits of native vegetation. Road reserves are often the only bits of remnant native vegetation around and it is very important that we protect them.

For my whole farming career, we have gone around our property on a yearly basis to try to minimise the number of blackberries that are growing alongside the roads. We still need that to occur in order to get them removed from the environment and prevent them from pressuring out native plant species and providing a habitat for animals such as foxes, which can attack both native and domesticated species, causing problems there. This is a very difficult space in NRM.

There are so many challenges and so many things that have to be dealt with to try to achieve the right outcome for the community. I think this bill is doing a fantastic job of bringing the localness back, giving confidence back to farming communities, rural communities and city communities that this is going to achieve an outcome to improve the environment right across South Australia. I think this is a brilliant piece of legislation that has been brought before this house. I thank the minister for the work he has done in this space and I thank all the other members, particularly the regional members, who have been involved in the consultation process through the regions.

There was an extensive consultation that went through different parts of the state. There are different needs everywhere. One of the places that the Natural Resources Committee went to look at were the arid lands. They have completely different needs and different expectations as to what the bill is going to deliver to them. But very importantly, the outcome is always the same: trying to get a better landscape and a better management system for that landscape to achieve what is needed.

I also commend the minister for the Green Adelaide region. Adelaide certainly needs to manage its environment as well. I think it is really important that it has been separated from the Western Mount Lofty Ranges because they had very different expectations, desires and outcomes that could be achieved. To actually separate and remove that link I think has been very important. It will be fabulous to see Green Adelaide operating and looking after the different aspects of the environment and the natural resources that exist through the city.

There are still many things that are important to manage within the city region. There are rivers that flow through Adelaide. We have the River Torrens just down from Parliament House. We have to make sure that is also looked after. However, it is looked after in a different way from streams such as the Tookayerta that flows from Mount Compass down to the Lakes through the Finniss River. They are totally different environments, but both still need to be managed to make sure that the needs of those systems are met.

The Tookayerta is a really interesting creek system. It is the only creek system that flows every day of the year. The water seeps out of the sands at Mount Compass and flows down the stream, flowing the whole length of the creek right throughout the year. It has some amazing fish species that are only found in that stream because of the reliability of that water. It is so important that we look after and protect streams like the Tookayerta. It is a challenge.

There are many things that need to be done for the natural resources of this state going forward, but I think the bill is a fantastic step forward. Hopefully, it will restore confidence, particularly of the farming community, to get back involved, not just looking after their patch but looking after their neighbouring patches to make sure that the environment we live in is protected going forward and that they are still able to operate their businesses sustainably throughout that period as well. That is also very important. It is not just about the environment; it is actually about operating in a sustainable way, making sure that the environment is protected and also that business is protected. With those words, I highly commend the bill and thank the minister for bringing this legislation forward.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (16:53): I rise today to add my support to the Landscape South Australia Bill 2019 introduced by the Minister for Environment. I thank him wholeheartedly for the hard work that he has put in, along with those in the department and in Legislative Services, which enables us to have a bill of the density that we have in front of us. It would be remiss of us not to thank those who have worked extremely hard in preparing the bill we have in front of us today for consideration.

The Marshall Liberal government, as has been made very clear over the debate so far, has a strong focus on practical environmental outcomes. It protects our environment and benefits all our communities, and prior to the 2018 election it was made very clear to us that communities wanted to see reform in the area of natural resources management. That is exactly what we intended to do by bringing this bill to the house today.

That being said, it was made very clear that some parts of the NRM process were working well. There were good parts to the legislation, but one of the most common complaints around the NRM process that I received was about the propensity for time and resources to be spent, in large part, around business case development and that what led, in terms of on the ground delivery, was not necessarily reflected in the contribution and business planning that had been prepared. The existing system that was established by the previous government in 2004 had, in many respects, lost the confidence of the public, particularly within regional areas, as has been made evident by many of my colleagues.

It is not every day that we get the opportunity to make reform in this manner. It really is a generational legislative change brought forward here today that redefines how we look at natural resources management to now broaden the definition to landscapes rather than just to natural resources management, although I guess when we say 'generational' there are some in this place who have well and truly outlasted that 15-year process.

As a result, we have a bill before us today that is extensive and that has been well consulted on. The member for Heysen, in his contribution, made it very clear that the consultation for this bill that occurred during the campaign process, and since government as well, is, I would say, almost an exemplar for how good consultation is conducted and how good preparation is conducted when writing and putting forward a policy that then becomes a bill to be brought before the house.

That extensive engagement included a wide range of activities. There were 23 engagement sessions held with peak bodies and other relevant members. The NRM partners and presiding members and board members were all involved in that process, as well native title groups, First Nations and the South Australian Regional Organisation of Councils. There was an extensive period where the YourSAy online engagement tool was used, and a number of interested stakeholders participated in that discussion online.

There were also 26 community forums held across metropolitan Adelaide and regional and outback locations. Those forums were held in places right across South Australia: from Port Lincoln to Ceduna to Port Augusta, to Victor Harbor, McLaren Vale, Murray Bridge, Kingscote, Clare, Glenunga, Mawson Lakes, Gawler, Coober Pedy, Mount Barker and, on a number of occasions, Berri, Yunta, Leigh Creek, even Grange, as I am sure the member for Lee would be very excited to hear.

There was a wide range of views across both rural, regional and also metropolitan South Australia, and it really is a credit to the hard work of the minister, his department and the broader team in terms of the preparation put in place to bring this bill to the house. At the end of the day, this is a bill whose primary role is to put people back at the heart of natural resources or landscape management. It also seeks to address the constant gripe of many within our community that many of our cost-of-living levies have often not included a CPI cap or increase, and this is something this bill seeks to introduce.

Lastly, in terms of the overall aims of the bill I would like to draw attention to the fact that it is something we committed to introducing. It was an election commitment and, in bringing this bill to the house in the last parliamentary sitting week, the minister has ticked off that election promise, another election promise delivered by this Marshall Liberal government.

In terms of key policy changes compared to previous arrangements, they include the introduction of eight regional landscape boards plus Green Adelaide, the metropolitan board which will encompass all of metropolitan Adelaide, including the whole seat of Colton and the three council areas that make up that area—West Torrens, Charles Sturt and Holdfast Bay. I will talk a little bit further about Green Adelaide in just a second.

The boards obviously will be decentralised, putting decision-making and authority back in the hands of the community, particularly in terms of the regional areas. Previously, I touched on the change in CPI arrangements, which I believe will be welcomed strongly by many members within my community. I now move on to discuss Green Adelaide and some of its functions and proposed oversight arrangements.

I see it as a very exciting introduction and change as far as landscape management is concerned. There are seven priorities that Green Adelaide seeks to address: coastal management, urban rivers and wetlands, green streets and flourishing parklands, water-sensitive urban design, controlled pest plants and animals, nature education, and fauna in the urban environment. They are all very important priorities for us to address.

The key part of these priorities that Green Adelaide wishes to impart—particularly for those in the western suburbs of Adelaide, right the way down our metropolitan coastline and, more broadly, the coastline of South Australia—is a return to an approach that treats the Hills and the sea as one. It recognises the connection of the waterways and the sea, and the impact that inland activities can have on our coastal environments.

The first area I wish to briefly make a few comments about is the priority of urban rivers and wetlands. It is an extremely topical subject within the western suburbs. Obviously, we are at the end of the River Torrens where the Torrens meets the sea. The River Torrens catchment is over 500 kilometres in length, also named Karrawirra Parri, for those who can recognise the Indigenous name associated with that system. It originates in Mount Pleasant, makes its way through the Mount Lofty Ranges, flows for about 80 kilometres across the Plains and then exits at the Torrens mouth between West Beach and Henley Beach South.

There are a number of issues pertaining to urban rivers and wetlands and their importance to our broader coastal environment. The first, and probably most pressing, is that of sediment, wastewater run-off and pollutants that often enter Gulf St Vincent. Over the last few years, some great work has been done in recognition of the importance of wetlands, and a number of restoration activities have taken place, both across my electorate and more broadly through the River Torrens and other waterways within the western suburbs.

We talk about practical outcomes and the great activities that local groups have. We have seen a huge level of impact that local groups in small community-based organisations have had in positively impacting these areas across my electorate. For instance, there are a number of friends groups that dedicate themselves to ensuring that the waterways are clean and free of rubbish to prevent it entering Gulf St Vincent or, more regularly, to prevent it sitting there when we do not have clear flows through the system.

I make the observation that this is probably the driest I have seen the Torrens run from the weir down to West Beach at the moment. It is probably the driest I can remember it being in the time I have lived in the western suburbs. It is something we must all keep in mind as things start to change and move in our broader environment. Every year, Arbor Day is held within the western suburbs across Lockleys and the River Torrens catchment area. A huge group of volunteers regularly come out to plant and clean and ensure that the river system is in the best possible condition, ultimately ensuring that run-offs, the sediments and the pollutants, are absolutely at a minimum when they enter our coastal environments.

The second area I wish to touch on briefly in regard to the priorities of Green Adelaide is green streets and flourishing parklands. An issue that has been raised with me across the broader electorate in regard to green streets and parklands is the loss of green space within many of our council areas. I believe that the Local Government Association, in conjunction with the state government, has undertaken a range of urban heat mapping activities to understand the impacts of the urban heat island effect, which for all intents and purposes is a by-product of urban infill where we have reduced the number of trees, plants and open green space within some of our more densely populated metropolitan areas.

Understanding these heat maps provides an opportunity for where we should be directing further activities and infrastructure investments by way of parks, trees, etc., into the future. In a Vision 2020 report, it was noted that the canopy cover for urban South Australia was at 19.5 per cent, down nearly 2 per cent across the years 2013 to 2016. A large degree of that impact was certainly felt within my local area.

Another report on green space I would like briefly to reference is titled 'Where should all the trees go?' It was undertaken by a research group, Horticulture Innovation Australia. It listed both the West Torrens council area and the City of Charles Sturt as two of the worst performing councils across all of Australia, certainly across South Australia, by way of lost green space. A 7.2 per cent drop was recorded in the Charles Sturt area in 2013. It is significant to realise and understand the impacts that urban infill and densification are having.

I am incredibly lucky that I represent an area where many people wish to live and where many people have the great opportunity of accessing coastal areas and everything that comes with that, but there is something that we obviously need to keep in mind in terms of replenishment of any green trees or canopy that are taken out of the area. To put it into context, it is estimated that the loss of canopy in the period from 2008 to 2017 would almost cover 40 ovals the size of Football Park filled with trees. It is a significant change. Obviously, with that come increased energy costs in terms of keeping housing cool. It is clearly placed as a priority for the Green Adelaide body that will be made as a result of this legislation.

Another area that I want to touch on briefly is nature education. We obviously have a great opportunity to tap into this with the creation of Glenthorne National Park in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. Increasingly, we have seen a willingness of schools and businesses to partner around nature education. The results of many surveys have indicated that children want to learn about their natural environment. It has been incorporated into many of our STEM activities across the state as well as within many of our schools. Those STEM activities also include outside nature-based areas.

Finally, in the time remaining to me I would like to address another priority of Green Adelaide, one that is also very close to my heart and my local constituents, that is, coastal management. My constituents will certainly welcome the new approach by the Landscape South Australia Bill and Green Adelaide to encompass the Hills to sea mindset and to recognise that the coastal area and our seas should not be treated differently and that the impact on inland areas certainly has a significant impact on our coastal environment.

As a government, we certainly recognise the value of our pristine coastline, and we are doing what we can to protect it through broad and strong environmental reforms, such as those we are putting forward today. The impact of these changes has certainly been seen across my seat of Colton, within both the broader Green Adelaide policy that will soon come into place and the 'New life for our coastal environment' policy, which includes increased sand replenishment, a R&D fund, seagrass restoration and a focus on stormwater run-off and sediment and pollutants entering Gulf St Vincent.

We certainly acknowledge that there is more work to come and more things we can do, but I want to draw attention to the increasing impact that both storm activity and the natural process of longshore drift have had on our western suburbs, from Glenelg North through to West Beach and Henley Beach South. The neglect of this section of precious coastline over the last 14 years has certainly culminated in the slow erosion of dunes across that system. There is a renewed focus by this government that is made very clear by the DHI report and the consideration by this government of long-term options that will present us moving forward.

When we talk about the bill and a shift of focus back to what can be done at the grassroots level, I must also recognise the incredible work of many of our local community groups right across my electorate that are undertaking great work in doing what they can to protect our dune system as well. Lisa, Bernadette and their wider team from the Henley Dunes Care Group have been constantly out with planting days and dune maintenance days to do what they can at a local level to ensure that our dunes are well looked after. Like many, they recognise the importance of planting and the importance that should be placed on ensuring that our dunes are there for the future.

There is much more that I can talk about in terms of coastal management, and I am sure that I will be making further commentary around that in this place during my time here but, in regard to this particular bill, I just want to make it very clear that I support legislation that positively impacts on the cost of living and this bill does that through the CPI cap on the NRM or subsequent levy. I support legislation that removes red tape and creates efficiency. I support legislation that puts people front and centre.

I am pleased for the people of the western suburbs that a Hills to sea approach that has been identified for Green Adelaide will be put in place as a result of the Landscape South Australia Bill passing. I commend the bill to the house and I thank the minister for his hard work and dedication in preparing it.

The Hon. T.J. WHETSTONE (Chaffey—Minister for Primary Industries and Regional Development) (17:13): I, too, rise to speak on the Landscape South Australia Bill. I will start by saying, 'Picture yesteryear.' Once upon a time, we used to look around and see the animal and plant control board doing great work. We would see a few of those officers doing great work, working with the landowners and working with the farmers. We would see plant control vehicles getting around and the officers working with the landowners to make sure that boxthorns were dug out, cacti were removed, coordinated baiting programs were currently underway and introduced pest species, particularly weeds, were being eradicated. Everyone, by and large, was doing a great job.

Some of those landowners and farmers were not adhering to the rules, and they would always receive a letter in the mail saying that if they did not clean up their act, if they did not actually work in a constructive way, the animal and plant control officer would undertake the work and would then send a bill to the landowner, and that is the way it used to be.

I know that I used to take pride in making sure that, with respect to my property, once a year the program was that if there were any boxthorns or any introduced weeds or pest species I would eradicate them. By and large, a lot of those programs sadly have disappeared. What we are seeing now, today, are large offices full of people dedicated to the NRM, all wearing nice, clean, shiny uniforms, and there is a fleet of vehicles—a large fleet of vehicles—that you cannot see the end of, and they are all NRM vehicles.

We look around at the levies that were once paid specifically for looking after our soils, looking after our water and looking after our pests, animals and weeds. They have now been replaced by NRM officers who are now an adjunct to the Department for Environment and Water. Those fees are now paying wages. Those fees are now having large amounts of people sitting in offices looking for the next opportunity to fill out a grant form, a process, so they can look at the next round of funding so they can keep their job—actually making sure that they are still part of that NRM workforce.

I must say that the majority of them are doing a great job, but they have fallen into a system that now requires a previous government's bureaucracy that has turned into a monster, and that monster is known as the NRM board. I think it would be fair to say that it is a system that has been bastardised, and it has now been pushed into disrepute whereby landowners and farmers particularly—it is not just regional people, but all the people who care about the environment, the environmental groups, all those people who are the eyes and ears—are now disenchanted with the way that things have fallen, the way that the government has treated those groups as a cash cow, and I think the level of service has reduced.

I drive around my electorate and there are large amounts of boxthorns and there are large conglomerations of cactus. If I look out of my back window—and I am blessed that I look across the flood plain on the great River Murray—what I see over that flood plain, the Lyrup flood plain, are boxthorns. I see cactus and I see the river corridor with Bathurst burr and the Noogoora burr. Travelling along the highway, we see the Buffel grass. We do not see any eradication of Buffel grass; we see signs that say 'Buffel grass'. That is outrageous! We know that it is Buffel grass, but nothing is being done about it, other than the signs to say, 'Buffel grass'.

We are now seeing large numbers of corellas that are not being managed. The number of foxes I think is alarming. Those foxes are having a detrimental impact on our native species, those small native reptiles. We see a large number of cats. When I say ‘a large number of cats’, I mean a large number of cats. I am sure that you, too, Mr Deputy Speaker, would attest to the number of feral animals that grace our primary producer paddocks and our regional centres.

We know that rabbits are a problem. We know that our abundant native species, particularly kangaroos and emus, have been a significant problem, particularly in the north of the state. Earlier this week, I announced a rabbit coordinator, and that rabbit coordinator will do some great work. His role will be to coordinate landowners to come together and control rabbits in a much more collegial and collaborative way, so that one neighbour is not fighting the good fight while the other neighbours are not aware that there is actually a baiting program currently underway. With the eradication program, we will see a much more collaborative approach, much like the wild dog situation that we saw south of the dog fence.

Sadly, the dog fence is in disrepair. Sadly, we are seeing more and more wild dogs moving south, and sadly we are seeing more and more sheep, particularly in a year like this year, that are being taken. It has been reported that more than 20,000 lambs have been taken this year. If you do your sums, you do not need to be a rocket scientist to understand that lambs are at a record price and wool is at a record price, yet these dogs are roaming free. That is why, as an incoming government, I was part of the decision-making to have a much more coordinated aerial and land-based baiting program with dog trappers out there. These programs have been introduced through the NRM's lack of ability to act.

We know that the role of the NRM is not so much that they have to be up in the arid lands or up in the pasture country eradicating dogs, but the dogs are heading south. Those numbers are increasing significantly, and they are having much more impact on our livestock. Livestock is one of the largest commodities in this state. It is my wish and my wont, and I will increase the number of livestock so that we can increase the amount of exports in order to help our farmers to grow. We will increase the herd numbers and flock numbers but, to do that, we need to manage our landscapes.

We need to have a much better process in place. That is why the Minister for Environment has been so dedicated to the cause of changing from the NRM Act and moving it over to the landscape SA act. I commend his vision, and I commend all the contributions here today because we understand what we are up against. Again, what we have seen is a bureaucracy that has come at us but is not dealing with the problem. As I said, there is a real problem there.

Prior to the 2018 election, we made it very clear that this government wanted to reform the Natural Resources Management Act. It is great to see that a large amount of consultation was done prior to this bill coming to the parliament. I know that many groups, particularly groups that care and are out there volunteering—whether it is a Local Action Planning Group, or Trees For Life, or The Nature Conservancy—are doing great work. Some groups are there for political gain, and they are not doing the work so much but are out there agitating through the media process. But by and large those people who really care are out there doing the work.

There are so many volunteer groups. They are out there doing bird counts. They are out there doing tree counts on the river. They are out there making sure that our fish stocks are in good shape, making sure our biodiversity is front and centre. I would like to thank all the volunteers, first and foremost, for the great work they do and the care they put into it. They are the eyes and the ears not only for me as a local member, not only for the Minister for Water and Environment but for the decision-makers—the legislators in this place—so that we can put a better process in place so we do not miss the target of biodiversity. It is dealing with our water management; it is dealing with our soils; and it is dealing with pests and weed management.

As I said, the NRM has become centralised. It has come away from the grassroots and, sadly, it has now become so wrapped up in red tape that it almost has itself wrapped up and unable to be nimble and manoeuvrable so that it can implement good steady change and effective management. Red tape is not a man's best friend. In particular, it is not a farmer's or a landowner's best friend. They know they are there for the good. They are the eyes and ears of their land and their soils. The majority of those landowners and farmers are good custodians. They are there to make a dollar. They are there making sure that their soils are well looked after and well managed.

When we look around today, we see no till farming and we do not see the big dust clouds that we once saw. Once upon a time in the dusty period of the season, early autumn and into spring, we would see graders grading bitumen roads. We saw large amounts of land blowing away and sand up to the fence lines. Those days are gone. We have some small pockets where it happens but, by and large, the landowners are great custodians and they work well with the volunteer groups as the eyes and ears for the decision-makers. Again, the extensive consultation has proved worthy that this Landscape SA legislation will be successful. It will see movement in the right direction, and I think it will see a new era within the management of our water, soils and pest and weed management.

Some of the feedback from the industry has been that that consultation process has been very valuable. The South Australian Wild Dog Advisory Group pointed out that pest animals do not adhere to borders and boundaries and hence the pest animal management requires a landscape-integrated approach. I think that is very clear and is probably something that I have only just touched on, particularly with the impact of wild dogs and the way they are being managed.

However, wild dogs are decimating not just sheep flocks. They are decimating young calves and also having a significant impact on goats. All these red meat sectors are large export opportunities. They are all there helping to feed the world, helping to grow our economy and make sure that we look at ways to better serve our lands. Primary Producers SA said that greater autonomy for boards to control their budgets and employ staff for water management, planning and soil and land management were the two key areas raised as part of the reform.

The wine industry had concerns about rises in the levies in recent years and cost shifting diminishing the on-ground funds. Again, it is pointing to the centralisation, the large administrative burden on those levies, and that is why our levies continue to rise at a great rate of knots: because we are paying and providing buoyancy for a large bureaucracy that was never there. We are now seeing that bloated bureaucracy consuming a large amount of levies and we are seeing fewer programs and services delivered on the ground.

We talk about Ag Excellence Alliance, decentralised decision-making, a whole-of-landscape approach with community and landowners at the centre with a renewed focus on soil, water and pest plants and animals—just like Agriculture KI, with decentralised decision-making and less red tape. There is a theme there, and the theme is that we see too much red tape and not enough levies actually hitting the ground. What we are seeing instead is, again, those levies getting tangled up in red tape.

A summary of the reform is that there will be eight new regional landscape boards plus Green Adelaide, the metropolitan body. Each board will have three members from a local community elected democratically and four members appointed by the minister, also from that community. The boards will be decentralised, putting the decision-making authority in the hands of the community. I think that really tells a great story. The feedback that the minister has received and the feedback that I have received—and I am sure the feedback all the MPs here have received—is that we need grassroots decision-makers. We do not want people sitting in glass towers making decisions from faraway places.

Normally, those decisions made are safe decisions without any real understanding and without those people getting their boots dirty. By and large, if you come to the Riverland and walk around you are going to get prickles in your boots and sand in your socks, but that just shows that you are out there getting a better understanding of what the grassroots input will mean to those boards.

The land and water levies will be capped by CPI and the boards will be responsible for setting and managing their own annual budgets and expenditure. The new bill will streamline and simplify a range to process to remove red tape that gets in the way of more effective on-the-ground management. Boards will set their own budget and business priorities unless a change to land or water levy arrangements is proposed or the plan is inconsistent with the regional landscape plan. There will be some boundaries and some constraints for those boards, but it is about keeping them in check. It is making sure that they are back to basics and doing what those levy payers, landowners and farmers need.

We will set up the grassroots grants and the landscape priorities fund to increase partnership opportunities, and boards will have a clear mandate to enter financial partnerships to deliver on-ground projects. That is music to my ears because I am seeing that there will be money hitting the ground for those grassroots programs. There will not be money hitting the offices or propping up large fleets of vehicles. You drive into a current NRM office block and there is a car park full of vehicles, and that is something that we need to have a look at.

The new regional boundaries will better enable communities to work together in managing landscapes. Some of those boundaries are the Alinytjara Wilurara area, South Australia Arid Lands, Eyre Peninsula, Northern and Yorke, Murraylands and Riverland, Hills and Fleurieu, Limestone Coast, Kangaroo Island and, of course, Green Adelaide. It is great to see that the minister has made sure that all South Australia will be part of the solution. I think it is a great initiative.

As part of the reform, each regional area will have a newly elected board, and the regional landscape boards will have three directly elected members and four appointed members by the minister to ensure a good mix of skills, knowledge and experience as well as a broad community representation. As I said, they will get their own budget. They will be able to develop their own business plan and, where there are plans, deliver them through regional landscape boards. That will be the tell-tale of how successful those individual boards are.

I would like to think that those boards will talk regularly and compare notes on how money is being best spent and how some of those projects are working so that we can have a work in progress, a work in motion, so that levy payers are getting good value for spend. I think that is critical. What we have seen is that the levies that will be collected in the regions will be part of the region, except for a portion for priority landscape-scale projects and services to underpin cross-regional outcomes.

In response to overwhelming community support for distributing some of the levy funding from the metropolitan area to regional South Australia, a new statewide landscape priorities fund will enable investment in large-scale integrated landscape projects to address subregional, cross-regional and statewide priorities. A percentage of the Green Adelaide land and water-based levies will be dedicated to the landscape priorities fund. It is really about understanding, sharing and making sure that South Australia is the beneficiary of the Landscape SA Bill.

What we have seen with the introduction of this bill is that this legislation will be a win-win for South Australia, not just for regional South Australia, not just for metropolitan Adelaide. I think it is a great outcome and a great initiative. It is an initiative by a minister who is dedicated to reforming NRM, making sure that Landscape SA is a success story. I am sure that my constituency in the seat of Chaffey is very excited about the opportunity that Landscape SA presents.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand that the new rabbit control officer is hopping into action—your words not mine.

Ms LUETHEN (King) (17:33): The proposed landscape South Australia act will give us less red tape, it will help us to better manage our natural resources, it will lower costs for South Australians and it will give us grassroots decision-making. The bill establishes eight new boards and a Green Adelaide board that will focus on important priorities to help Adelaide become the most ecologically vibrant city in the world. It will also cap increases to land and water levies, helping to ease cost-of-living pressures for South Australia.

Very importantly, this reform addresses one of the key priorities for the promises I made to my King electorate to help find solutions to lower the cost of living: the land and water levies being capped by CPI and boards being responsible for setting and managing their own annual budgets and expenditure with much more control. This is incredibly important because the cost of living continues to be one of the most important priorities for people living in King.

Not very long ago, while serving the community on the Tea Tree Gully council, I remember very clearly my concern and subsequently robustly questioning the NRM representative who was attending that meeting on why the council was required to pass on a 6 per cent plus increase in NRM rates from the NRM board to ratepayers. This concerned me greatly because while on council we were aiming for rate increases of less than 3 per cent, and we were continuously aiming—I know I was—to keep rates as low as possible during my time on council. As a result, we were able to achieve the lowest rate in that term than we had had in a decade.

When we were discussing the NRM levy, what was just as concerning as the high rate rise was how difficult it had been to establish exactly what the levy had been spent on in the past and what it would be spent on specifically in the future. Despite much questioning, I still could not determine what value my community members were receiving from this spend of their money, which was going up. At this time, I formed the opinion that this was a great opportunity to increase transparency, accountability and efficiency in NRM charges and operation.

In my 10 months of doorknocking and holding community forums, I became even more aware of and understood the more deep-seated concerns my King community members had about the NRM operations and outcomes. That is the second key reason I am so supportive of our government's Landscape SA reforms and believe that they absolutely reflect our community's desire for change and for better and more accountable outcomes. Importantly, these reforms will encourage more on-ground action so that regional communities can become more actively involved and empowered in natural resources management programs and initiatives.

I am heartened that the Marshall Liberal government has a strong focus on practical environmental outcomes that protect our environment and benefit our communities. Prior to the 2018 election, the Liberal Party made it clear that our communities wanted reform of natural resources management. Across SA, we have listened to communities, especially in our regions, who told us that there were good parts of NRM delivery, that they felt completely disempowered from decisions and that NRM was not working effectively for us at all.

It was clear: the NRM system established by the previous government in 2004 had lost the confidence of the public and particularly of regional communities. This was the result of a heavy, over-regulated and centralised system that focused more on nice business plans and glossy brochures rather than on outcomes. As a result, we proposed reform of NRM and a new start that refocused natural resources management on a back-to-basics approach to land, pest plant and animal species, and water management.

The legislative crux of this is the proposed replacement of the Natural Resources Management Act with a new landscape South Australia act. We believe that this reform will create resilient landscapes that are biodiverse and sustainable. It will also give our regional and rural communities a greater say in the management of our natural resources and provide more security and confidence in the system.

As the people in King know, I value their views and their experience, and they deserve to have their ideas and issues respected and built into future plans, and this is exactly what is happening. That is why it is an excellent outcome that the bill was extensively consulted on within the South Australian community, with local members attending sessions and hearing directly from the community on what needed to change as part of any reform. I was active in giving out paper copies of these consultation sessions to my electorate to make sure they could participate.

This bill deserves bipartisan support and addresses the concerns of metropolitan and regional South Australia. This bill puts people at the heart of our landscapes. As part of our election promises, we made a commitment to get the bill into parliament within a year of taking office and we successfully did this, with the minister introducing the bill last parliamentary sitting week. We have worked closely with the minister throughout this extensive reform and commend the huge body of work that has gone into the creation of this new landmark environmental bill.

For the record, this is a summary of the reform. The new act will replace the NRM Act. There will be eight new regional landscape boards plus Green Adelaide, the metropolitan body. The boards will be decentralised, putting the decision-making authority in the hands of the community. Very importantly, the land and water levies will be capped by CPI and boards will be responsible for setting and managing their own annual budgets and expenditure. Green Adelaide will focus on seven key priorities and work towards Adelaide becoming one of the most ecologically vibrant and climate-resilient cities in the world.

The act will take away the requirements for extensive bureaucratic business plan development and focus on real outcomes for our natural environment. Landscape is a broader concept than natural resources and reflects an integrated Hills to sea approach. Clause 3(2) of the bill defines landscape as being made up of three key components: firstly, the natural and physical environment, including coast and seas adjacent to the state's land; secondly, natural resources, including land and soil, water resources, native vegetation and animals and ecosystems; and, thirdly, the different ways people value and interact with their environment, including environmental, social, cultural and economic values.

Our coast and seas immediately adjacent to the land are important parts of the landscape, and these have not had the care and attention they so rightly deserve. This government is one that recognises the immense value of our 5,067 kilometres of pristine coastline and seeks to protect it through our broad and strong environmental reforms. This broadened focus will enable the impact of on-land practices on our coasts to be considered in an integrated Hills to sea approach to natural resources management through decision-making and investment as appropriate.

What do these reforms mean? Broadly, the reforms provide a simpler, more accessible system that will be delivered through a legislative framework that is more focused on outcomes than prescriptive processes, with processes to be set out in regulations or policies to enable them to evolve as circumstances change. They will replace unnecessary administrative processes and they will futureproof how information is shared, ensuring transparency and making the method for publishing information technology neutral.

New regional boundaries will more strongly align with the connections between regional communities and local government boundaries and better enable communities to work together in managing landscapes. The proposed boundaries have been shaped and informed by the extensive consultation completed in 2018. A key benefit will be for the primary production sector and will stem from reducing costs to businesses and household cost of living pressures by the CPI cap.

The minister, boards and other decision-makers will be required to be informed by local knowledge and expertise, together with the best available science, in planning and making other decisions. It will require our regional landscape boards to consider the local situation, conditions and other factors before requiring landholders to prepare and implement an action plan to address land degradation issues on their property.

This will give greater ability to take swift action against neighbouring landholders who are failing to control pest plants and animals on their properties. Boards will continue to work alongside landholders to provide support, advice and a helping hand where needed to empower them to deliver sustainable primary production and natural resources management outcomes. Levies collected in a region will be spent in the region, except for a portion for priority landscape-scale projects and services to underpin cross-regional outcomes.

Grassroots grants will also be available. Grassroots grants will be administered by each board, rather than from a centralised fund. Feedback strongly supported regions having more autonomy and control and a move away from central administration. This is about putting control back with their regions rather than decision-making about local issues being made by a central bureaucracy, and it will be a way to connect boards with local volunteers and community groups. For most regions, grassroots grants will be funded from land and water levies collected within that region.

For the first time, climate change will be embedded in a legislative framework for how we manage our natural resources. Greening Adelaide's streets and parks will be a priority for Green Adelaide, helping to build the resilience of the city to changes in climate. The new boards will also have an express mandate to fund projects to achieve resilient landscapes in the face of change. For our urban communities, Green Adelaide will deliver initiatives to confront the challenges of a changing climate and urban density and to pursue an agenda to transform our city into a world-leading, sustainable, green and climate-resilient city.

This will underpin Adelaide's livability, environmental sustainability and economic prosperity for future generations. This will also provide broader benefits to other urban communities through Green Adelaide's role in sharing knowledge and expertise across the state. Boards will need to consider biodiversity in making decisions and continue to fund programs that deliver biodiversity outcomes such as revegetation, rewilding and fencing.

We know that weed control is a critical component of preserving biodiversity in the regions. The bill places an emphasis on declared weeds. Each board will be able to work in partnership with their local community and relevant authorities to work out what the best approach is for the region and local circumstances. I am sure my Friends of Cobbler Creek will be very happy to support this, given they work in partnership today, and that means this can happen more in the future and more across South Australia.

The bill does away with action plans and replaces them with action orders. Currently, authorised officers can require landowners to prepare an action plan if they fail to take action to destroy or control declared pest plants and animals on their property. In response to feedback that there needs to be a simpler and faster process, rather than the landholder identifying what action is needed going forward, the authorised officer will be able to issue an action order setting out what action needs to be taken. The same penalties will apply. Action orders are a tailored, intermediate order that are specific to pest plant and animal control.

On the adverse impact of native animals, regional landscape boards will have a defined role in helping manage native species that are causing adverse impacts. Permits will continue to be required under the National Parks and Wildlife Act for the destruction of any protected native animal. On water reform, we have been clear from the start that water reform is not part of this reform process, given the complexity of water-related matters and the need to comprehensively engage further. The bill will not affect existing rights of water holders or make any changes to the way water is allocated or shared.

What we heard during our consultation on the landscape reforms was that people want streamlined yet fair pathways to compliance. Regulatory compliance approaches will be proportionate to the risk involved. This is one of the most fundamental principles underlying the bill. Removing the distinction between state and regional authorised officers will increase compliance capacity and enhance responsiveness on-ground in the regions.

For the first time, supporting the interests of Aboriginal people is included in the objects of the bill and will underpin decisions made by the minister and regional landscape boards. Currently, the Natural Resources Management Act only requires Aboriginal heritage to be considered under a principle of ecologically sustainable development. The bill introduces a new general principle of ecological, sustainable development that decision-making should be informed by local knowledge and expertise and traditional Aboriginal knowledge together with the best available science. This is a much broader concept of informed decision-making than previously mandated.

The reforms were extensively consulted on in 23 engagement sessions with key peak bodies such as Primary Producers SA, the Conservation Council SA, the Local Government Association of SA, NRM partners, NRM board presiding members, the statewide native title group, First Nations and the South Australian Region Organisation of Councils. We held 26 community forums across metro Adelaide and regional and outback locations. They were attended by a good mix of land managers, volunteer groups, industry experts, Aboriginal nations, primary producers and other tiers of government and advocacy organisations. There were 15 regional staff sessions with employees from the Department for Environment and Water.

I commend the minister for this bill, which acts on the feedback from our community across the state when we asked South Australia how we should manage natural resources. This new act will give our state a sustainable framework and approach to help Adelaide become the most ecologically vibrant city in the world. This reform will deliver better services to help protect our landscapes. It will cut red tape. It will lower costs to South Australians and prioritise providing resources to hands-on and on-ground efforts. This is another important example of how we are listening, acting and delivering for all South Australians.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.