Parliamentary Committees

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: ADELAIDE AND MOUNT LOFTY RANGES NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT LEVY

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:27): I move:

That the report of the committee on Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board levy proposal, 2012-13, be noted.

One of the Natural Resources Committee's statutory obligations is to consider and make recommendations on any levy proposal by the Natural Resources Management Board where the increase exceeds the annual CPI rise. I wish to thank all of those who gave their time to assist the committee during its consideration of the levy proposed by the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board for 2012-13.

The committee believes that the NRM boards overall do an excellent job and play a critical role in the management of South Australia's natural resources. We understand that for the boards and their hardworking staff and committed volunteers there will never be enough funds to undertake all of the NRM projects worthy of support. However, the committee has also consistently expressed reservations about the NRM boards proposing above CPI levy increases.

We believe increases above the CPI should be an exception, not the rule, and that increases should be well justified. This year, all of the NRM boards, apart from the Arid Lands and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges, proposed to keep their division 1 levies to either within or just above CPI, while the Arid Lands board proposed an increase of 50 per cent. The committee made an exception by accepting the board's argument and justification that their proposed increase was warranted, coming as it did from a low base to increase their levies to a level comparable with the other boards.

The committee supports the process of equalisation of division 1 levies across local government areas as pioneered by the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board. However, after consideration, members came to the conclusion that in the current economic climate this above CPI division 1 levy proposal could not be supported and it would be better for the levy equalisation to occur at a lower level than that proposed by the board.

The committee initially resolved to object to the levy and then followed up with a suggestion that the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges division 1 NRM levy for 2012-13 should be amended to reflect a rate less than that which appeared in the proposed plan but greater than the 2011-12 rate. The committee is pleased that the minister noted the committee's concern and subsequently revised down the increase to 6 per cent, as was gazetted on 21 June this year.

The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board ably administers the largest budget of all the NRM boards—more than $27 million for 2011-12. The committee trusts that, regardless of the final quantum of the funds available, the Adelaide and Mount Lofty NRM Board will be able to cut its cloth and continue its excellent work in 2012-13.

I commend the members of the committee: Presiding Member the Hon. Steph Key MP, Mr Geoff Brock MP, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire MLC, the Hon. John Dawkins MLC (Acting President), Mrs Robyn Geraghty MP, Mr Lee Odenwalder MP, Mr Don Pegler MP, and Mr Dan van Holst Pellekaan MP for their contribution. Finally, I thank members of parliamentary staff for their assistance. I commend this report to the house.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:31): I rise to support the report just spoken to by the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, which was very ably and well-written by him, I might add. It amazes me that he had the time to write it at such short notice, so well done. I will be reasonably brief with what I have to say, and I give notice that in the next few minutes I will combine my discussions on both the report the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars has just moved and the one that he is about to move with respect to multiple reports from the NRM boards across most, if not all, of the state.

I want to highlight that I personally, together with the committee, have for some time had concerns about some of the expenditure and growth in personnel of NRM boards. Well over 300 people are now employed by NRM boards or moving across to be employed under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. One of the big costs the boards have to cover is wages, and I know that is one of the reasons why the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board needed to look at a significant increase in its fees for the year.

As has already been pointed out, the intent of the act in parliament was that unless there were exceptional circumstances NRM boards should not look to lift their annual fees by more than CPI, particularly at this time when the finances of the state are very tight, we have high taxes and charges across the state, and families and communities are finding it tough. I think it is paramount that the multipartisan Natural Resources Committee, very ably led by the Hon. Steph Key, signals to any organisation that we have some responsibility for—on this occasion, the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM—that increases above CPI have to be very much investigated. Considering that when the NRM board put up its bid for its budget proposal this year it was looking at over 11 per cent, that is an astronomical increase in fees and charges with the levy. As has been explained by my colleague the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars that has now been repositioned to about 6 per cent.

I will not spend any more talking about how that occurred, as it has been overly explained, but I suggest that even 6 per cent is quite a considerable hike above CPI. As one member of the committee, knowing the thoughts of other colleagues on the committee as well, I think it is important to put on the public record for all NRM boards that, clearly, the Natural Resources Committee—a committee of both houses, I might add—will watch increases and requests over CPI very closely in the future.

I thought we actually flagged that to the boards last year. Most of the boards realised what we were saying and adhered to the requirements and intent of the act, but in the case of the Adelaide Mount Lofty Ranges, they decided to go solo on this. They will have to cut the cloth, as has been pointed out by my colleague, just as the rest of us are today in this state. With those few remarks, I commend the report to the house.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:35): I rise to support this motion, and I concur with the remarks made by my colleagues on the committee. I say at the outset that there are only three of us from this chamber on a committee of nine people, and I think we hold our weight very well with our lower house colleagues.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.M. Gazzola): You are most knowledgeable and talented.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Thank you, sir. Both my colleagues have encapsulated this matter very well. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire and I joined the committee at the same time after the last election, and the Hon. Mr Kandelaars has obviously more recently taken on that role. It has always been our position—and as the Hon. Mr Brokenshire said, it is an instruction within the act—that these increases should be in the area of CPI increase unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Certainly, the arid lands board which the Hon. Mr Kandelaars referred to is an exceptional circumstance. It is such a vast area with such a small population, and extraordinary natural resource issues, that it is an exceptional circumstance. However, the Adelaide Mount Lofty board is almost the exact opposite. It is a relatively small geographical area with well over one million people living in it, so it is by far the largest in population, and cuts across some 26 local government areas.

I think one of my colleagues, if not both of them, has mentioned the fact that our committee has made it pretty clear in dealing with boards in recent years that the time for coming to us with greater than CPI levy increases, unless there are those exceptional circumstances, has passed. I think most of them have got the message. Unfortunately, the Adelaide Mount Lofty board—I live within that area and I understand that they do good work, and there are lots of volunteers who support the work of that board—came to us with a proposal for an increase of 11.4 per cent on the division 1 and the committee found that unacceptable.

As the Hon. Mr Kandelaars has described, the committee objected to that. Subsequently, we were asked by the minister to do more than reject it and to come up with a form of words. That is what we have done, as described by the Hon. Mr Kandelaars and as he has put on the record here today:

...to reflect a rate less than that which appears in the proposed plan but greater than the 2011-12 rate.

I think the committee had an option of being much tougher than that and we, in a bipartisan manner, determined to take that course. The minister has, I think, observed our concern and cut down that rate to 6 per cent. He could have taken it further; however, there was some speculation that he may not have taken it down anything like as much as that. To that extent I commend the minister for doing that.

However, I have to put some concerns on the record that, when the committee made the determination to reject the increase by the Adelaide Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board, that decision from memory was done in early May and I think it was communicated to the minister's office very soon after that. The question I ask is: why, when the motion was put to the House of Assembly, the report was brought up rejecting the levy increase and, as part of the act, that meant that there had to be a motion of disallowance in the lower house?

When that was brought up some five weeks after the minister's office was advised, why did it take that long for the message to get through the system, because it was only when that motion of disallowance was being moved on 13 June that suddenly there was some commotion, a request that this chamber not deal with it that day, which we acceded to, and subsequently the committee has dealt with it.

I can say that as a member of the committee I was disappointed that it took some five weeks for the minister's office to actually get the full message that we meant what we said, that we are not a rubber stamp and that we are there by the act to administer the NRM levy increases. We have done that, I think, as conscientiously and as sensibly as could be expected. One would hope that the message gets through now that, certainly if there is a rejection in the future, the minister's office and departmental people need to act on it much more promptly, because five weeks was ridiculous.

Having said that, I commend the board for the work it does. Like all these organisations, we have to watch the growth in boards. We are all keen to see people out on the ground doing good works and as a committee we have witnessed some of the good work done in that region, ranging from the centre of Adelaide to Port Gawler to Kersbrook, and obviously a wide range of work needs to be done in those areas. I commend them for that, but I also say that we need to keep a close eye on these annual levy rises, and the committee will continue to do that. I commend the work of my colleagues on the committee, and we are very well led by the Hon. Steph Key and very well served by the committee staff. I commend the report to the council.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:44): In closing, I thank the Hons Robert Brokenshire and John Dawkins for their contributions. As the Hon. John Dawkins said, I believe the Natural Resources Committee is one of the hardest working committees in this parliament—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS: I did not think it would generate that much contention. It is one of the hardest working committees in this parliament, and it is a great pleasure to have been appointed to this committee. This is actually the 66^th report of the Natural Resources Committee in its short history but, as both honourable members have said, the Natural Resources Committee is giving a clear message to all the natural resources management boards that only in exceptional circumstances will the Natural Resources Committee consider levy increases above CPI. I think that is an appropriate position to take. I commend the motion to the council.

The PRESIDENT: It is obvious that the honourable member has never worked on the printing committee.

Motion carried.