Bills

Landscape South Australia Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 20 March 2019.)

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (12:22): I indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition on this bill. I look forward to what will probably be a reasonably lengthy committee stage in which I can ask questions as well as move amendments. I would like to give an initial view of the bill. While we will support its passage through this house, we expect to have a number of amendments considered and may add to those amendments between the houses ready for the Legislative Council.

It is 15 years since the Natural Resources Management Act was created in this house. A once in 15 years opportunity to have a look at the way natural resources are managed in South Australia is a very important moment. The bill is of considerable length; I think it is nearly 250 pages long, only very slightly shorter than the act it seeks to replace. It is therefore an extremely important bill that requires and deserves serious consideration and attention.

I think it is fair to say that there have been mixed messages about the extent of the form contained within the bill in its attempt to replace the current Natural Resources Management Act. The language in the discussion paper that was released in June last year is reasonably mild. It states:

While the NRM Act brought positive change and benefits, the passage of time and gradual centralisation mean the current system of natural resources management is not delivering what it should.

On the other hand, the announcement of the introduction of the bill states:

The bill will repeal the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (the Act) and replace the broken and dysfunctional Natural Resources Management system that has transpired under 16 years of Labor.

That quote is from a ministerial press release on 20 March. I suggest that in substantial terms—and we will interrogate this further in committee—this, in fact, is not a significant change to the way in which natural resources are managed in this state. I suspect that the vast majority of the bill is identical to the current act and that many of the matters, which over time landholders, who have at times complained to the department, politicians or directly to the media, have found difficult to manage, remain the same. I will be exhaustively asking questions to confirm that my understanding of the powers of authorised officers has not altered at all—for example, the way in which water is managed from start to finish.

In some sense, I think it could be said that the changes being proposed in the bill are largely cosmetic, and largely a nod to some of the concerns that have always existed in rural and regional areas about the management of the system in this state, but that the system itself remains in place. The great reform (by which I mean significant rather than necessarily terrific) that occurred in 2004 was to remove the individual boards that existed for pest plant and animals, soil and water and to create an integrated system. It is one that I supported then, it is one that I support now and it is one that remains in place, despite the talk of a broken system.

Essentially, there is a change to the capping of the increase in the levies to CPI and the election of three board members for most of the boards, which I think will take a lot of energy and time, and I will have questions to ask. I am not sure it will substantially change the nature of those boards, considering that people from the communities were always selected to be on those boards. More concerning to me is the reduction in the emphasis on biodiversity, ecosystems and the natural environment on which good farming depends.

Farmers who understand farming, which is the vast majority of our farmers, landholders and primary producers in this state, understand that a healthy natural environment and intact ecosystem services are absolutely essential to their lands' capacity for productivity. It concerns me that there have been a diminishing number of references to those and lower priority and emphasis given to them. The vast majority of the amendments that I have for consideration in this chamber and in the other relate to restoring the importance of nature in natural resources management.

I was concerned about this from the start, from the very first single piece of paper that was provided to talk about the intention of the government in the new bill through to the discussion paper I quoted earlier from June last year. A picture was drawn—I have been told that it came out of the minister's office, but I do not know whether that is true or not—that has soil, water and pest plants and animals as being the basics of natural resources management and that somehow, by managing and paying attention to those, vibrant biodiversity, healthy landscapes and ecosystems will emerge. I think that most people who are interested in and concerned with ecology understand that it is not quite that simple.

I have had this issue raised with me by a number of environmental organisations. I am sure they are raising them directly with the government as well, and they will be raising them with people in the upper house also. I think it is fair to say that the consistent feedback that I have had from stakeholders is that they are unhappy with the lower emphasis on biodiversity, on habitat and on ecosystems. I read a concerning section in that document from June last year, which states:

In addition to these priorities [being the three that I have mentioned], other local and landscape activities may be needed in particular areas. These activities, such as revegetation, rewilding and fencing, can also be important contributions to achieving the community's desired outcomes for their landscapes…As part of a landscape-scale approach, we can assist people to undertake broader efforts to restore their natural environments.

This is very much reducing that activity within natural resources management to a discretionary optional extra rather than understanding just how crucial and central they are to healthy, productive land in this state. There are many organisations associated with the environment movement, of course, but one sent to me a concern about the back-to-basics mantra, that NRM boards will be directed to specifically focus on soil, water, pest plants and animals and under a plan where a maximum of five priorities can be identified. The concern states:

Under the structure proposed by the Landscape Act, we are concerned that any focus on biodiversity conservation as a priority in the landscape could be very much reduced or even completely absent.

I am not certain whether this is entirely deliberate on the part of the minister. I have raised it a number of times, but I raised my concern in the briefing that I had last week on this bill and had the impression that the minister's office at least had not seen this downgrading of the priority of biodiversity conservation as being a deliberate act, in which case I have some hope that some of my amendments might be acceptable to the government. Most of my amendments are drawn from the current act. I think it is simpler to use language that has already been in place for 15 years than to invent from the start, although there are some additional amendments in order to conform to the slightly different wording of the new act.

I mentioned that the government has determined to limit the levy increases to CPI, and I acknowledge that that is something they were very clear about going into the election. This was absolutely clearly part of their reform agenda. I guess that I am concerned about ensuring that the exemptions that sit within the bill are sufficient to enable a board to respond to the demands and requirements of the natural resources, which of course themselves have absolutely no bearing on CPI, although I do see that there are exemptions, and it may well be that they are sufficient.

I do not at this stage have amendments, but I will be asking questions about different circumstances in order to assure my side of the chamber that there is sufficient latitude to be able to respond to the kinds of challenges that we know are occurring broadly from the two horsemen of the apocalypse that our environment is facing: climate change and biodiversity collapse.

While I talk about funds, a specific concern has been raised with me by Landcare, which is a fantastic organisation, and I know that everyone in this parliament supports the work they do. They have a particular concern about the grassroots fund that has been established. The idea of having a fund that can be spent on grassroots activity, on-ground activity, a grants program that organisations can apply for, is a very good idea.

However, they have raised with me, and no doubt they will have also raised with the government, a concern that the wording in the bill is not entirely consistent with the election commitments that were made. In particular, there is a question mark over whether the impression had been given in the election commitment that the $2 million annually would be in addition to that raised by levies rather than using levy funding. I will ask questions about that during the committee stage.

Secondly, it seems pretty unambiguous that it had been characterised as a statewide fund, whereas the bill appears to attach it to individual boards, therefore potentially misaligning the amount of money available in any particular region to the money that that particular board has available, rather than there being a pool of $2 million that any group within South Australia could have access to. They are two legitimate concerns raised by Landcare, but there are a couple of other questions they have also raised that I will deal with. I also note their not unexpected concern about biodiversity management and conservation.

On another theme, the question of consultation has also been raised with me by stakeholders. There is not much guidance given or many requirements specified within the act for the minister, for boards, to undertake consultation at various important stages, such as the establishment of regions, the selection of non-elected board members, the creation of the 10-year state landscape strategy or the five-year regional plans.

There is, I believe, a reference simply to 'as the minister directs' or 'regulates', and I think that is insufficient comfort for many of the groups that would wish to be consulted and would wish to participate. They have raised no individual concerns about the current minister nor, presumably, about the current shadow—should things change—but it is the principle of ensuring that they will always have a voice, regardless of who happens to be in the ministerial chair, and an attitude for listening to those organisations.

There is a question mark that has been raised about the boundaries of the regions. This bill facilitates the creation of Green Adelaide, and we have no objection to the creation of that board on this side of the chamber. However, the government has signalled other changes in boundaries that would mean that the idea of water catchments, being the dominant reason why you would have particular boundaries, would be abandoned. The act does not, in fact, detail the boundaries—it creates the power for the minister to do that by proclamation by the Governor—but it does list the factors that the minister may take into account.

Paying particular attention to water catchment areas has been removed from the current act. I will be asking questions and moving an amendment to restore it, consistent with the feedback I have had from conservationists in the environment movement about the importance of carrying out the management of natural resources in a way that reflects the structure of our natural resources rather than the location of our towns and cities.

Staffing is another area we ought to spend some time on. I worked in the department when it went through the process of winding up what we fondly called 'walabi' at the time—the department for water, land and biodiversity conservation—and turned into the Department for Water, which has subsequently been put into the environment department as well, but I was in the environment department when natural resources came in. At that time, there was a centralisation—or at least a unification at a regional level—between the people who were employed through the environment department, who were primarily responsible for native wildlife, national parks, protected land and protected species, and the natural resources people.

This bill seeks to return, in a way, to the structure that happened initially under the NRM legislation in 2004, where the staff of the boards are public sector rather than Public Service and have a separate line of accountability away from the department—other, I note, than obviously the chief executive. Anyone who has worked in particularly public sector organisations, be they universities or public departments, or who has been in any kind of large business will know that pendulum swings back and forth on centralisation and decentralisation.

The change is annoying and frustrating for people who are working within, but it is the prerogative of new management to swing that pendulum in the other direction. I will have a number of questions about the working conditions for those who will be moving over into the public sector away from the Public Service. However, the concerns I have are about duplication.

We have a situation where the environment department budget is being cut and we are seeing people being offered TVSPs and leaving the department. We are seeing the imposition of a levy cap and we are seeing a decentralisation and a disentangling of staffing which ordinarily puts on budget pressure. I am concerned that we do not see a reduction of the dollars available to spend on natural resources, or on the environment and water in the department, as a result of this desire to have the appearance of these two areas being separate. I will be asking questions about that. I will be raising it as a risk that I see and, assuming that this bill emerges through parliament in roughly this form and becomes the act, that we are able to monitor what happens with the expenditure and how far the environment and natural resources dollar goes.

I am very pleased to see climate science or climate change being placed into this bill. I think it was not sufficiently recognised in the 2004 act and this bill remedies that, and I am pleased to see that. However, in the current status of the bill, it is largely a headline but does not come to life in the content or the requirement for the consideration in the state landscape strategy nor in the regional plans. I have filed amendments that seek to remedy that so that we not only have a nod to climate change but understand that keeping abreast of climate science is essential when we are dealing with the natural environment. It is essential for being legislative custodians for our farmers and primary producers.

That covers the vast majority of my issues. I am disappointed by the bill's inattention to nature and the importance of biodiversity conservation and habitat restoration. Anyone who understands what is happening in the natural world knows that that must be a high priority in order for us to continue to have productivity from our natural resources. I am pleased to see climate change in there and I am also pleased that there is an increasing emphasis on understanding and working with Aboriginal communities.

However, I have one more element of disappointment and that was the process used in bringing the bill to this chamber. I am on the Natural Resources Committee of parliament. It is a standing committee. It is a government member dominated committee, and I believe it is extremely discourteous for that committee not to have had the bill provided in draft form, for there to have been no face-to-face briefing despite repeated requests from the committee and, indeed, for it not to have been referred to our committee.

It is a substantial piece of legislation. It is a lengthy piece of legislation and it at least purports to be a major reform. It will guide the work of the Natural Resources Committee inevitably, and the Natural Resources Committee ought to be well placed to understand clearly what the changes are, what the community thinks and thought in the initial consultation phase of the changes and to advise this house and the other place on its views about the bill.

As I said, there have been repeated requests to the minister and the minister's office for that to occur—and not just from the Labor side. I am disappointed that has not happened. I think it is at the very least discourteous but, more importantly, it has probably robbed the chamber and the other place of useful input into what ought to be a very significant bill. With that, I will be interested to read the contributions by other members in the second reading stage and look forward to the committee stage as well.

Mr ELLIS (Narungga) (12:45): I rise to support the bill, which is a major, ambitious and meaningful reform to what has been a real problem area in regional South Australia. As a regional MP, I am particularly pleased to rise today to support the Landscape SA Bill, because it is particularly relevant to regional communities and is, I believe, a bill about which there is plenty to like. The bill establishes a new framework that better manages this state's natural resources. Of particular note are the features of:

decentralised decision-making finally being instituted and returning that decision-making to local communities;

a simpler and more accessible system;

a very welcome back-to-basics approach;

caps on levies to further address cost-of-living pressures;

the inclusion of a new, statewide landscape priorities fund;

a grassroots grants program which is enshrined in legislation by the bill and which recognises the value of local knowledge and expertise;

giving regional and rural communities a greater say in the management of the natural resources around them; and, importantly,

refocusing on actually delivering practical, on-ground outcomes and tangible, meaningful improvement in the lives of those people who live around the natural resources that need more protection than we can offer.

During the consultation and planning processes for this important natural resources management reform, we heard that people want to see more doing and less talking about doing. That is what this bill does: it delivers practical environmental outcomes that protect our environment and benefit local communities. It is a mantra I particularly believe in, and I am really excited to see it as the basis for this bill.

There is plenty to like about the Landscape SA Bill and, importantly, the reform within it is also the delivery of another pre-election commitment by the Marshall Liberal government, another pre-election commitment met. The repetitive, overlapping planning arrangements have been removed. Each of the new regional boards outlined under the new act will have a high-level, five-year regional landscape plan that sets out five priorities for managing the region's landscapes and identify how success will be evaluated.

Plans will be simple and approval processes have been streamlined. Each board will set its own budget, which will be set out in an annual business plan and which will clearly show the expenditure proposed for each of its priorities. This will improve the ability of the board to manage its own business. Boards will be required to keep proper accounts and publicly report on their activities annually, including a specific report on the actual expenditure of levy funds for the relevant financial year tracked against the board's budget for that year.

Importantly, boards will be responsible for setting strategy and approving programs, cutting out unnecessary high-level approval processes that are time consuming. In addition to being responsible for their own budget, boards will employ a general manager who will be responsible for employing and directing staff. All these measures will see less time planning what has to be done and more time actually doing what is required.

There will be time lines for completion of projects, further instilling confidence in the communities the new board will have to serve that they will see direct outcomes for their money. Boards will be required to outsource aspects of these priorities to the private and non-government sectors to create jobs and drive investment further. Local councils will be encouraged to apply to undertake this work. This is an all-important dimension, as the partnerships and localised teamwork that will follow will be invaluable for all involved.

Land and soil management will be a priority for the new landscape boards, particularly in regional areas, and this work will be achieved through greater and closer ties with landholders. In short, I view the introduction of the Landscape South Australia Bill into this parliament as another exciting development for regional South Australia, heralding a much-needed complete overhaul and reform of natural resources management.

The feedback I have received since becoming the member for Narungga is that, broadly, it is generally accepted that the natural resources management system is no longer serving its purpose, with non-localised decision-making, high fees and inefficiencies. As stated by minister Speirs when introducing the bill to this house, regional communities want a simpler system, a greater voice in decision-making and board members who actually reflect the community.

The new Landscape SA framework, as proposed, I believe will solve these problems and, importantly, also cap increases to land and water levies to CPI to further ease cost-of-living pressures that are being felt so hard by so many throughout our state. This important reform will see local, democratically elected representation on the new Landscape SA regional boards, lower fees and money raised in each region staying in that region—what a novel idea that is. With so much beautiful fauna and flora in the Narungga electorate, it is important that we have a practical system to look after it, and I believe that this reform will help that cause.

The introduction of the bill follows an extensive three-month public consultation process involving 26 community forums, 23 engagement sessions and 250 written submissions being received. Of the new regional landscape boundaries that are proposed, I believe that they have better aligned regions with communities of interest and local government boundaries, better enabling communities to work together in managing landscapes.

In my patch, it is proposed that the new Northern and Yorke landscape region will include the whole of the Narungga electorate with the additional areas of Burra, Springton and Mount Pleasant, currently located in the Murray-Darling Basin NRM region, as well as Gawler and Mallala, which are currently in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region. I can attest that Burra, Springton and Mount Pleasant are a better fit in the Northern and Yorke region than in the Murray-Darling Basin region and that including Gawler and Mallala in the Northern and Yorke region is a far more logical fit than where they currently find themselves, that is, in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges region.

I also personally like that, as part of the reforms, the government has sought to expand the scope of natural resources management to include coastlines that are adjacent to land and have not had the care or attention they require. The Narungga electorate, which features the Yorke Peninsula leg of coastline, is unfortunately currently facing myriad erosion and sand drift issues. It is my hope that the new recognition of coasts and seas within this new legislative framework will result in new partnerships, collaboration of vital resources and a better coordinated approach that better recognises the value of our pristine coastline.

It is also noted that the reform under the proposed act offers a dedicated, clearly defined role in assisting with the management of the impact of native animals and also recognises that weed control is a critical component of preserving biodiversity in the regions. Each board will be able to work in partnership with their local community and relevant authorities to work out the best approach for their region and local circumstances. When we consider pest plant and animal control, this bill does away with the action plans and replaces them with action orders. This is further welcome streamlining.

In response to the feedback that there needs to be a simpler and faster process rather than the landholder identifying what action is needed, going forward the authorised officers will be able to issue an action order setting out what action needs to be taken, and we can be confident that it will be. Another example is removing the distinction between state and regional authorised officers to increase compliance capacity, meaning that tasks can be done quicker. Currently, regional authorised officers can operate only within their region and need to be cross-authorised by multiple NRM boards in order to be able to deal with cross-boundary issues, such as managing pest plants and animals. This is a classic example of unnecessary red tape.

Regional landscape boards are also to have a defined role in helping manage native species that are causing adverse impacts. Importantly, this reform simplifies the planning load for boards, removes prescriptive consultation requirements and replaces unnecessary administrative processes, such as a requirement to gazette a notice as to the basis of assessment of water taken each year, and referring matters to the Natural Resources Committee unnecessarily.

Vitally, the new landscape SA act will put people at the heart of the management of our natural resources—the people who live in the regions and know them best will be put at the front of this reform—and that recognises that those who work on the land on a daily basis are best placed to sustain its environment. The bill recognises the value of strong on-the-ground partnerships and the value of the knowledge that land users have.

We are repealing the Natural Resources Management Act and replacing it with the landscape SA act to reduce the level of red tape and give real focus to practical programs and on-ground outcomes delivered by local skilled people who care about the land and soil around them and who, this government recognises, have the capacity, valued expertise and experience to directly contribute.

That is why the newly created landscape boards that are to replace the existing NRM boards will be responsible for setting strategy and approving programs. They will sit at arm's length from the government and be responsible for their own budget. They will be duly respected to decide on their projects and priorities, being trusted to identify up to five priorities to be achieved by their plan over a quantified five-year term.

Each board will have seven members, with three members elected by the community, ensuring that local knowledge plays a major role in decision-making on how to spend the hard-earned dollars raised to undertake the most needed projects. Each landscape board will establish a five-year landscape plan for their region and the plan will be simple and publicly accessible. Each landscape board will be responsible for employing a general manager who will employ and direct staff to deliver the environmental management programs of the board.

As noted, annual land and water levy rises will be capped at a rate set by an independent body or according to the Consumer Price Index. Importantly, the levies collected in a region will be spent in that region. There will be increased transparency, with every budget being publicly available and outlining how levies will be spent.

I believe that for the reasons outlined—increased transparency, decentralised decision-making, the focus on using and respecting local knowledge and expertise, the emphasis on better management of natural resources in regional areas, the reduction of red tape, better use of funds which translates to actual completed projects and the overall recognition that people want to see more doing and less talking about doing—this reform will be well received by the electorate of Narungga and the state overall.

It is really important to understand why those on this side felt so strongly that there was a need to repeal the Natural Resources Management Act and replace it with the proposed act we are currently debating and why our extensive consultation with the people of this state has culminated in the introduction of the bill before us and the radical, meaningful and ambitious reform of current management practice.

In my patch and in surveys across the state, similar sentiments were shown. The people paying the NRM levy had long lost confidence in where and why the money was being collected. Surveys revealed that 65 per cent of people did not know how their NRM levy money was being spent—65 per cent—nor did they know why the levies were continually going up, at exorbitant rates at times. We found that there was significant dissatisfaction across the state, and our consultation confirmed that the key to reform was a requirement for NRM boards to be independent from government and that:

a local community should be able to nominate board members in their own region;

the levies were too high;

decisions were seen to be being made by people in the city who had not visited the natural environment they were charged with managing, there being seemingly little understanding of local ecosystems or specific problems that needed to be addressed in specific regions;

the communities and landholders had no voice; and

the priorities appeared to be more about compliance and were too light on building relationships.

It is clear that the people in my region want more of the decisions affecting them to be made by the people who live in and understand their community and who know what the problems and priorities are. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.