NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: EYRE PENINSULA NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT BOARD

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

That the 16^th report of the committee, on the Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Board, be noted.

(Continued from 2 April 2008. Page 2214.)

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (00:18): Given the lateness of this sitting, I will simply commend the tabling of this report. The NRM Committee undertook this report some time ago, and it made seven recommendations. The board appears to have acted as much as possible on the recommendations that pertain particularly to the Eyre Peninsula board. I believe that it has genuinely made efforts to be more transparent, in particular, with its imposition of levies, and more amenable to true consultation with the public and land-holders of the region.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER: Thank you, Mr President. There are other recommendations which need to be acted on by the government. I am sure that no-one here tonight would be surprised to find that the government has been somewhat slower in its reaction to our report than has the Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Board.

The Hon. SANDRA KANCK (00:20): As a member of the Natural Resources Committee I will begin by summarising this report with just three points: (a) we think that Brian Foster, the Chair of the Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Board, is a good bloke; but (b) we are not happy with the local NRM board continuing to argue that it is still in transition as an excuse for a lack of results; so (c) we will be back.

It was pointed out to the committee by a number of people that the area covered by the Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Board is larger than Tasmania, and that is a fact which must be acknowledged and appreciated. The size of the area and the size and distribution of the population are key factors and problems in managing the natural resources of this region. As one of the witnesses summarised it: 'the tasks are in the rural areas but the capacity is in the urban area'.

There was criticism of the NRM concept in the evidence that we took. For example, one person told us they were promised administrative improvements with the amalgamation of the three earlier entities, that is, the soil, water and pest plant grouping, but what they got was the same lack of service for an extra cost. We were told that 54 per cent of the budget was spent on administration and staff, yet I took a brief look at some of their office space, and it was basic and barely adequate. In fact, I would not be surprised if they were actually breaking occupational health and safety standards.

Even though the staff are working on natural resource projects, there is no sense in the community that they are getting value for the money that is being spent. There was disquiet about the who and the how of the choosing of members of the NRM board, the advisory committees and the four regional subcommittees. Although the report does not make a specific statement about this, the Natural Resources Committee is concerned about the process in relation not just to this region but also to all regions throughout the state. We are currently seeking a briefing from the department about how people are chosen to get onto these assorted groups, committees and subcommittees.

Views were expressed to us that good people who put their names forward were being overlooked, and this has created suspicion towards the board. The volunteer base that was previously involved, for instance, in the old pest plant body, by common and silent consent has not transferred its energies to the new entity, and this is a matter of great concern, because fewer volunteers means that more paid staff are required, which can only add to the accusations about the board being administratively top heavy.

We heard a few positives, but one was that the NRM board had been able to take over some of the tasks that did not fit the core business of councils. This is particularly so because of the dwindling rural populations with a corresponding decline in the rate base. The Ellison District Council, for instance, told us that it has only 1,460 rateable properties, but with an ageing population only 870 of those pay full rates. The numbers, of course, impact on the NRM levies. The individuals in the rural sub-regions have to pay a much higher levy than those living in the cities of Port Lincoln and Whyalla.

Meanwhile, in Whyalla we heard resentment that the vast majority of the levies paid by its citizens were being spent on the Eyre Peninsula and not for the benefit of Whyalla. It is a cross subsidy that they clearly resent. They pointed out that they have no salinity problems and no soil erosion, and their problems are urban.

It was apparent to me that they did not consider themselves to be part of the Eyre Peninsula community, and the Whyalla councillors made it clear that they would like to have direct access to that money, rather than seeing it go to the NRM board. They also criticised the flat fee, suggesting that it was unfair that a little old lady who was a pensioner in Whyalla should pay the same amount as Hagen Stehr in Port Lincoln.

Part of the unhappiness about levies has occurred because, under the old system, councils were meeting the costs of some of these programs from general revenue; now it shows up on the rate statements, and there is a sense, however wrong, that a new tax has been imposed. The NRM levy in Whyalla last year was $35.05, whereas in Wudinna, with a smaller rate base, it was almost double that at $70. In Whyalla, the view was expressed that, as it was a levy imposed by state law, it would be better collected statewide in the same manner as the emergency services levy.

The teething problems of a new entity seemed to be lasting longer in this region than in most others. The message that it was a body in transition was given to us a number of times, but other NRM regions we visited appeared to have managed that transition more effectively. The board has clearly failed to engage the community and, consequently, is not getting its message across, despite some good work and some dedicated people.

Communication and ownership appear to be lacking; perhaps it has to do with the sheer size of the region; perhaps it has to do with a mismatch of expectations of rural and urban dwellers. The appointment of a public relations officer at the time we visited may make a difference, but it is the intention of the Natural Resources Committee to visit again after 12 months to check whether these problems are being turned around. I sincerely hope that they will have by the time we make that visit, which will probably occur, I assume, within the next six to eight months.

There are some good people here, and there is a need for projects to go ahead. For some reason or other, there is in the community a lack of attachment to the NRM board and a lack of goodwill.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (00:27): After hearing such a dynamic speech made by the Hon. Ms Kanck, how can I say any more?

Motion carried.