NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 24 March 2011.)

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:56): I rise to speak briefly on the Natural Resources Management (Review) Amendment Bill. In the mid-1980s the government established the Land Resource Management Standing Committee, comprised of CEOs of various government departments, including lands, agriculture, environment, tourism and local government. The purpose of the committee was to coordinate work programs for those individual departments so as to avoid duplication of effort.

Coincidentally, at around the same time, the department for environment had a poor record in managing the state's parks. Water catchment boards were subsequently established to ensure the water quality of creeks and streams through the metropolitan area. One example of their work was to name the creeks where they crossed suburban streets. This had no effect on water quality whatsoever. Metropolitan councils were required to collect the levies for each of the water catchment boards.

These boards developed into what we now know as NRM boards. Their role was expanded to include producing land management plans and water allocation plans, among other things. The NRM Act of 2004, which resulted in the amalgamation of a number of separate pieces of legislation, also provided for a whole host of powers in relation to freehold land, whereas in the past the legislation was only concerned with government land. I think it is fair to say that in 2004 there was a certain level of concern over what was being proposed by the NRM Act.

By the same token, I think many of the ramifications of what was being proposed were not fully contemplated. The current bill is said to be the result of an extensive review, yet, like the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, most if not all people I have spoken to about this issue had no idea that review had taken place. Indeed, the same can also be said for the consultation process in relation to draft water allocation plans.

One has to ask the question: what is the point of having a consultation process if the views and sentiments of the very people who are directly affected by what is being proposed are largely ignored? Let me be clear. These complaints have not been made by one or two people who attended those meetings. I have attended a number of meetings in regional communities in relation to the draft water allocation plans for the western and eastern Mount Lofty Ranges, and the attitude has been the same.

People feel they are not being consulted, they are being snubbed and, worse still, they are being told what the state of play will be by bureaucrats. Indeed, I believe the Leader of the Opposition, Isobel Redmond, is on public record as saying that, prior to becoming leader, she too attended meetings in her electorate that formed part of the consultation process, only to have the matters she raised largely ignored or dismissed. This comes as no surprise.

This is the most bureaucratic piece of legislation I have ever seen. It has been implemented in the most officious and obnoxious manner that I have ever experienced in all my years in the Public Service and is a reflection not only on the Public Service but also on the minister and, more particularly, the government.

There has been little consideration given to crucial issues such as biosecurity and occupational health and safety on properties. There has even been less consideration given to the detrimental effect that some of the proposed measures will have on our farmers and South Australia's food bowl more generally.

There is no question that landowners and food producers are particularly concerned about the powers of authorised officers and that this issue has been the subject of intense media scrutiny. Food producers and landowners are concerned not only about the very broad scope of these powers but also, and perhaps more to the point, about the way in which they are being exercised by authorised officers.

My office has spoken personally with a number of farmers in relation to their treatment by authorised officers, and the underlying sentiment expressed by most of them has been one of bullyboy tactics and a total disregard for their livelihoods. Farmers are particularly concerned that authorised officers can march onto their properties without any regard for the fact that they are quality-assured producers and without any regard for the fact that unauthorised entry could result in catastrophic consequences for their livestock.

I understand that similar provisions relating to powers exist under other pieces of legislation and have not been the subject of the same level of criticism. This tends to suggest that the problem rests more with the way in which authorised officers are carrying out their duties than the powers themselves. I note that there are already a number of amendments on file that deal with this issue, and I foreshadow that I will also be proposing amendments of my own, which I think will complement what is being proposed by other members.

I will also be introducing a number of other amendments which have been drafted in consultation with food producers and landowners and, in particular, FLAG SA. By way of background, FLAG SA is an association formed in recent months by food producers and landowners of regional communities concerned about the potential impacts of draft water allocation plans and the proposed changes to the NRM Act.

Members may be aware that, on 28 March 2011, FLAG SA held a public meeting in order to raise its concerns regarding the proposed bill and the draft water allocation plans with the Minister for Environment and Conservation who, together with three NRM representatives, agreed to attend the meeting.

Also in attendance was the Leader of the Opposition and a number of members from another place, as well as the Hon. Michelle Lensink, the Hon. Ann Bressington and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire from this place. I give credit to the minister for agreeing to attend the meeting and facing the 1,000-odd people who turned out.

Members who attended would attest to the less than warm reception the minister received from the very frustrated crowd of people. One of the most contentious issues raised on the night had to be that of metering dams, which was strongly opposed. Other issues of contention included the powers of authorised officers, the sale of water entitlements (particularly to overseas investors), increasing levies, the erosion of rights of property owners, the fencing off of dams and creeks, requirements in relation to stocking rates, low flow diversion measures and biosecurity issues.

The general poor attitude and behaviour of NRM authorised officers and the poor consultation processes did not go unnoticed either. It is important to stress that these communities are not opposed to environmental conservation. Indeed, they pride themselves on ensuring best practice. They have a vested interest in ensuring the sustainability and viability of their properties so that they may be handed down to future generations.

It is high time the minister, and indeed the government as a whole, took heed of their concerns and acknowledged the wealth of experience these communities have to offer in getting it right. I make no apologies for not wishing to proceed with this bill further at present. Even at this late stage, my office is still being contacted in relation to possible amendments to the bill; and, short of scrapping the bill and starting over, I think it is absolutely critical that we try to get it right.

Before finishing I would like to acknowledge all the hard work that FLAG SA has put into this issue in a relatively short time. I will not mention them all by name, but I would like to acknowledge particularly the work of Mr Peter Manuel who first raised this issue with me back in December of last year and who continues to dedicate so much of his own time to this issue.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Regional Development, Minister for Public Sector Management, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Government Enterprises, Minister for Gambling) (16:05): I believe that there are no further speakers in relation to this bill. I would like to thank honourable members for their valuable contribution. I look forward to the committee stage. There have been a number of questions posed, which I will deal with at the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: There was a question in relation to NRM levies and funding. There is a disparity on levies within and between regions. Regional NRM boards, through their planning and consultation processes, recommend whether a regional NRM levy and/or NRM water levy should apply and what the basis and amount of those levies should be. The amount of the levy or levies relates to the total funding required by the board to implement its plan. NRM water levies can only apply where a water resource has been prescribed.

Councils collect the regional NRM levy, which is based on their share of the total local government contribution. Each council's share is determined by the minister after consultation with the council. The regional NRM levy is currently based on either a fixed amount or a rate in the dollar of valuation. Discussions are currently being held with the LGA to seek to improve the regional NRM levy collection process.

The regional NRM levy in out of council areas is also recommended by the relevant board through the planning and consultation processes. This levy is collected by the minister. In response to the Hon. Michel Lensink's request, I am advised that the proposal to aggregate rateable land (the same as in council areas) will benefit landowners. A landowner who owns and occupies more than one piece of contiguous rateable land, instead of paying a levy on each piece, will only pay the one levy. A landowner whose land qualifies as a single farming enterprise will only pay the one levy whether or not that rateable land is contiguous (except where that land lies in more than one NRM region).

The distribution of levy funding is clearly set out in the act: levy funds collected from a region can only be used by the regional NRM board established for that region. Additional support funding for boards is provided from state government recurrent funding, based on principles for its allocation approved by the Minister for Environment and Conservation on 22 November 2007. This model was developed in consultation with the regional NRM boards.

Accordingly, allocations are proposed to meet the needs of those boards that have no or limited capacity to raise funds through other mechanisms and, to the extent that there are any residual funds available after the needs of those boards have been met, to those that have some capacity to raise funds through other mechanisms. I am sure that funding issues will be raised and considered as part of the comprehensive review of the NRM Act that is currently underway.

The Hon. John Dawkins asked three questions in relation to local action planning groups, and I have received the following information in answer to these questions. His first question was: how many local action planning groups exist in South Australia and what individual areas do they cover? I am advised that there are 12 local action groups within South Australia, 10 within the SA Murray-Darling Basin NRM region, one in the South-East and one in Adelaide. I have here a map that shows the coverage of the 10 LAP groups within the SA Murray-Darling Basin NRM region, and I seek leave to table that map.

Leave granted.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: The second question was: what level of funding is provided to the LAP groups, firstly, from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and, secondly, through the relevant NRM board? In 2009-10, I am advised that the former department of environment and heritage provided $1,100 to LAP groups. The SA Murray-Darling Basin NRM Board provided some $3.713 million, this being a combination of NRM levy and commonwealth Caring for Our Country funding. The former department of water, land, biodiversity conservation provided LAP groups with an additional $397,000-odd in 2009-10 for 15 projects as part of the NRM community grants scheme.

The third question was: is it accurate that secured funding for LAP groups has not been extended beyond 30 June 2011? I have been advised that the current portfolio of contracts between the SAMDB NRM Board and local action planning groups is due to expire on 30 June 2011. Discussions between the board and the LAP groups will commence shortly in regard to funding for 2011-12.

The Hon. Robert Brokenshire asked a number of questions relating to funding, and these questions can be summarised. In relation to the first question on the amount that has been paid out of NRM levy funds in the last three years to the government agencies and the boards and universities mentioned, I am advised that the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board paid the following from the NRM levy: in 2007-08, a total of $1.146-odd million; for 2008-09, a total of $1.366-odd million; and for 2009-10, a total of $1.169-odd million. Specific information can be provided if that is needed.

The AW NRM Board does not receive any NRM levies and therefore this question is obviously not applicable to them. The Eyre Peninsula NRM Board paid, in 2007-08, $319,725; in 2008-09, $120,526; and in 2009-10, $151,303. The KI NRM Board paid only minor expenses from the NRM levy to another state agency. This was to Rural Solutions SA for the provision of expert advice to support the board's authorised officer in species identification and training. The amounts were: in 2007-08, nil; 2008-09, $1,245; and 2009-10, $1,179.

The Northern and Yorke NRM Board paid the following from the NRM levy: in 2007-08, a total of $117,456; in 2008-09, a total of $8,972. The South Australian Arid Lands NRM Board paid only minor expenses from the NRM levy to another state agency. This was to the former department for environment and heritage. The amounts were: in 2007-08, nil; in 2008-09, $4,500; in 2009-10, nil. The South Australian Murray-Darling Basin NRM board paid the following from the NRM levy: in 2007-08, a total of $671,810; in 2008-09, $389,096; in 2009-10, $190,063. The South-East NRM board paid the following from the NRM levy: in 2007-08, $168,586; in 2008-09, $90,113; in 2009-10, $296,446.

Before answering the second question, I would like members to note two important issues. Several boards allocate funding directly to individual landholders to undertake work on their properties and do not use community groups to distribute funding on their behalf. This eases the administrative burden on community groups, which do not necessarily have the facilities to administer the funds, and allows boards to monitor expenditure being distributed to landholders in accordance with Treasurer's Instructions.

A number of community organisations receive funding for the individual group to carry out on-ground works; other community organisations do not receive funding from boards, as they are not incorporated bodies. The second question relates to what percentage of regional NRM boards' income, as a percentage of total income and levy income, is paid to community organisations. The amounts in 2009-10 are as follows:

the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM board: 25 per cent of the NRM levy income was paid to the community organisations listed;

there was no NRM levy in the AW NRM board; 12 per cent of the total income was paid to the community organisations listed;

the Eyre Peninsula NRM board: 7.5 per cent of the total income, or 0.6 per cent of the NRM levy income, was paid to the community organisations listed;

the Kangaroo Island NRM board: no NRM levy income was paid to the community organisations listed;

the Northern and Yorke NRM board: a total of $423,500 was paid to community organisations listed, which is 8 per cent of the total income; 16 per cent of the NRM levy income was paid to the community organisations listed;

the South Australian Arid Lands NRM board: a total of $197,000 was paid to the community organisations listed, and that is 2.5 per cent of total income; no NRM levy income was paid to the community organisations listed;

the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin NRM board: a total of $4.339 million was paid to the community organisations listed, which is 20 per cent of total income; 9 per cent of the NRM levy income was paid to the community organisations listed; and

the South-East NRM board: a total of $456,875 was paid to the community organisations listed, which is 6 per cent of the total income; 0.3 per cent of the NRM levy income was paid to the community organisations listed.

In relation to regional NRM boards, the government supports the current arrangements, whereby regional NRM boards are instrumentalities of the Crown. Accordingly, members are appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of the minister and are responsible to the government, through the minister, and ultimately to the community, for the manner in which they exercise their functions. Their membership is deliberately skills-based.

I now refer to the reassurances sought by the Hon. Michelle Lensink as to how often it is believed each NRM board may need to review its regional plan. The act already requires that regional NRM boards review their business plan annually and then amend that plan so that it specifies the ensuing three financial years to which its business plan relates.

In relation to consultation, I would like to talk about consultation that occurred in relation to the review which resulted in this bill. Submissions were invited from the NRM Council, regional NRM boards and other agencies in mid 2006, followed by a three-month public consultation period across South Australia in early 2007, inviting comment on any issues within the scope of the review.

In relation to authorised officers and the powers of authorised officers under the act, I make the following comments. I am advised that the report on the review of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 highlighted a number of comments received on increasing the powers of the authorised officers from those they currently have. As members will notice, the report specifically did not propose to amend the act to increase those powers. The powers of authorised officers under the NRM Act were based on those in the three acts which it repealed. The resulting powers are consistent with those contained in contemporary environmental legislation.

I think that just about covers all matters that were raised. If I have missed any, no doubt they will be picked up during the review of the clauses.

Clause passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.