NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: KANGAROO ISLAND NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT BOARD

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley:

That the report of the committee on the Kangaroo Island Natural Resources Management Board levy proposal 2007-08 be noted.

(Continued from 26 September. Page 760.)

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (19:51): I do not intend to take a great deal of time tonight to address these various reports; however, I did want to make some general comments with regard to natural resources management boards as they operate in regional South Australia. I have made these comments on a number of previous occasions, and l continue to maintain that this government has cost-shifted to such an extent that general ratepayers are being asked to bear a considerably higher burden for natural resources management than they should. That has been done within the letter of the law but, in my view, the government has not performed as was understood by those people who so adamantly supported the natural resources management boards being set up.

As I have said on a number of occasions, what we have actually done is replace volunteers with not just one but two, and sometimes three, layers of bureaucracy. To date there is very little—and I repeat, very little—that is actually being done in the way of works-on-ground in any of the natural resources management regions. They have spent the past 2½ to three years developing plans, to the extent that they cannot afford what they are now being asked to do and what their plans suggest they must. As a result, they have had to put up the levies beyond what is reasonable. At this stage the government is not even covering the administrative costs of the natural resources management boards, either as individual resources management boards or as a whole.

It has been very disappointing for me. It is easy to cane local government, the natural resources management boards and various others, but I want to speak tonight because my complaint is not with the natural resources management boards—most of whom are very well-meaning people very much committed to their regions and to the management of natural resources in those regions. However, they have effectively had their hands tied behind their backs financially, and are finding it increasingly difficult to fund any meaningful works. I will just spend a little time reading summaries of some of the submissions that we had. First, I refer to the Northern and Yorke Natural Resources Management Board levy proposal and some of the submissions that we were sent. There was a submission from the Flinders Ranges Council saying:

...concern over inconsistencies between the Natural Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act with regards to the consultation processes applicable to councils and the budget/business plan setting processes.

In a letter dated 19 March 2007, the council stated that it believed that unnecessary costs could be incurred, as 'the collection method adopted by a board may not fit with council rating administration policies, system and procedures'. The council went on to advise:

Councils set rates and charges as determined by the needs and best fit with the council's community. If councils are to continue to collect the levy the relevant Natural Resource Management board should advise council of the quantum to be collected and leave it to the council to determine the collective methodology.

The District Council of Mount Remarkable opposed the proposals of the board on two main points: the proposed increase in the quantum of the levy and the proposed change in the basis of the levy. It wrote:

Following a presentation from the local board, considerable discussion ensued regarding both the proposed levy increase and the change to its distribution basis (fixed rate). Significant opposition to the latter was expressed by member councils.... The single biggest concern with the proposed increase in the levy is the adverse impact that this will have on our rural communities. These communities are severely affected by the drought and even if this year produces a return, economic improvements cannot realistically be expected to flow into our communities until later in the calendar year or early next.

That is a letter dated 28 March 2007. As with the Flinders Ranges Council, the District Council of Mount Remarkable also called for the NRM levy to be administered at a state-based level calling attention to the emergency services levy and the River Murray levy. The council felt that this would allow for greater acceptance of the redistribution of funds across boards and ensure a more equitable outcome for all regions. Then we come to the District Council of Barunga West—and when we talk about concern being shown I think this probably sums it up.

The District Council of Barunga West drew attention to the fact that within their region council contributions toward resource management schemes have risen from $22,000 in 2004-05 to the proposed NRM contribution of $145,000 to $150,000 for 2007-08, an increase of over 600 per cent. The council sees this as an insult to its ratepayers and perceives the process as a cost shifting exercise by the government. The council also fears that it will experience serious financial strain attempting to pay NRM contributions to the board regardless of whether or not ratepayers are able to pay, especially as the council currently offers many rural landholders flexibility in their rate payment agreements due to the drought conditions.

There was also a submission by Jamie Botten and Associates on behalf of the Clare Valley Wine Growers Association, which I will not go into in any detail except to use a quote from the Hansard reportwhen they appeared, as follows:

...there doesn't appear to be any basis for the number, but that rationale itself, using a levy to highlight the importance of managing the resource effectively, is, in my respectful submission, not what levies—certainly water-based levies under the NRM Act—are there for. They are to raise funds for a certain set of works or natural resource management.

After consideration of these submissions the committee made a recommendation that a water-based levy not be applied. I think the issue is actually greater than that. The report goes on to state:

The Northern and Yorke NRM Board's financial plan for the year 2007-08 as set out in the board's report to the Minister for Environment and Conservation included a regional division 1 levy quantum of $2,532,000, an increase of $1,771,598 relative to the 2006-07 quantum of $760,400. This increase in quantum will see the average levy per rateable property rise about 333%...to an average of approximately $37...

An amount of $37 does not seem much, but that is an average, so it is indeed a huge rise. The argument for is it a reduction in both state and commonwealth government funding. The minister has said on a number of occasions that she made a special grant of $1 million for the introduction of this plan. If the board were able to carry on, perhaps it would not matter. However, what we are talking about is a series of boards which are run by people with the best intentions and the best plans but which have been dudded by the government. Cost shifting has taken place, perhaps not by the letter of the law but certainly by the intent and the understanding of both the people in the regions and, indeed, the boards as they were set up.

As I have said, the committee made the recommendation that a water-based levy not apply in the Clare Valley, and I am pleased to say that the minister acceded to that request. However, it does not alleviate the concerns of the people on the ground and, indeed, of local government, which is left with the unenviable task of increasing what people see as their rates purely to cover these huge leaps in levies as they are imposed. We also took evidence from the Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Board, which also applied for a large increase. The division levy under the amended proposal for the Eyre Peninsula NRM region resulted in an quantum increase of $424,000 from $972,000 in 2006-07 to $1,396,000 in 2007-08, an increase of what seems to be a minimal amount but it is an increase of 44 per cent in one year.

As well as that, the contribution of each of the district councils does not relate in any way to the population who must pay those levies. For instance, the average levy of the City of Port Lincoln under the amended proposal will be $37; the City of Whyalla, $37; and the District Council of Ceduna, $60. I do not know what the population of Cleve is at the moment, but I would think the population of the entire district would be no more than 5,000, and their average payment is $80, as it is for the District Council of Elliston, which would have an even lower base.

Again, we as a committee—and I was part of that committee—criticised the boards for not consulting properly and for not being transparent enough and, in the case of Northern and Yorke, calling advertisements in the newspaper, consultation and all of those things. However, in the end, I defend their efforts to continue to operate and to continue to develop resource management strategies and plans in their district when the government is quite cynically, in my view, and in a sinister fashion, starving them of a proper funding framework. Regarding Eyre Peninsula, the committee stated:

The committee found that investigation into the Eyre Peninsula NRM board has highlighted certain shortcomings of the NRM legislative framework. Although dissatisfied with the level of public consultation and consideration shown by the board, the committee was sympathetic to the board due to its exceptional geographic and demographic characteristics. The committee was also encouraged by the board's commitment to overcoming its funding problems and its attitude towards reducing administration costs.

The committee felt strongly that the experience of the Eyre Peninsula board presented a strong case for the introduction of some form of statewide cross-subsidy scheme whereby highly populated regions which are able to sustain relatively good services at a small cost to ratepayers contribute an amount towards the maintenance of lowly populated rural areas.

This is an admirable sentiment, but I reminded the committee at the time that the City of Adelaide is likely to have a double slug when it comes to managing stormwater some time within the next few years. It seems, then, that the ratepayers concerned with the waterways and stormwaters of Adelaide will be less than enthusiastic about subsidising natural resource management on the Eyre Peninsula or in the pastoral lands.

Again, my plea is that, in spite of the faults, if you like, of the natural resource management boards, the real fault is indeed with the government. If we are going to introduce these natural resource management plans, if we are going to expect people to be properly remunerated for their efforts, if we are going to expect eventually to see some sort of on-ground works, the levy on the ratepayers in those regions must be met virtually on a dollar for dollar basis, in my view, by the government of the day. I had this argument yesterday with regard to marine parks; I have this argument often with regard to natural resource management and environmental preservation. If the taxpayers of Australia want these works to take place, they as general taxpayers must be prepared, and their governments must be prepared, to pay for at the very least the administration costs involved. That has not happened, and this has clearly been a cost shifting exercise. However, I commend again the work of the committee and the various regional reports that have been submitted.

Motion carried.