NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: REVIEW OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT LEVY ARRANGEMENTS

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:35): I move:

That the report of the Natural Resources Committee on a Review of Natural Resources Management Levy Arrangements, be noted.

One of the Natural Resources Committee's statutory obligations is to consider and make recommendations on any levies proposed by the natural resource management board where the increase exceeds the annual CPI rise. The Natural Resources Committee is concerned about the number of issues related to NRM levies, including the widespread practice of proposing above-CPI increases and the bureaucratic complexity of the process required to update the boards' business plans.

Whilst the committee is sympathetic to the needs of the NRM boards to increase their funding base, and has traditionally recommended increases of some levies, members maintain the position that above-CPI levies should be the exception rather than the rule. At a meeting with The Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation in 2011, the Natural Resources Committee made a number of suggestions for improving the process of preparing business plans, and in particular determining levy increases in 2012-13.

In response to this request the minister directed boards to provide copies of their draft business plans to the committee concurrent with their release for public consultation. This has proved helpful in providing committee members with more time to consider proposed levy increases. A number of suggestions form the basis of this report. The committee noted a lack of standardisation between business plans and the annual reports across various boards, which makes it difficult for us to compare information and draw conclusions.

The committee also noted differences between the boards in relation to member remuneration and turnover. Amendments to the Natural Resources Management Act have recently been passed. These amendments include changes to board member terms and reappointment. However, committee members are of the opinion that more comprehensive reforms may be necessary.

I wish to thank all those who gave their time to assist the committee with this report. I commend 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, Mrs Robyn Geraghty MP, Mr Lee Odenwalder MP, Mr Don Pegler MP, and Mr Dan van Holst Pellekaan MP—for their contributions. Finally, I thank members of the parliamentary staff for their assistance. I commend the report to the house.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:38): I will be brief, but I rise to support the comments of the Hon. Mr Kandelaars in relation to this matter. This issue has been of concern to those on the Natural Resources Committee basically since this committee was established after the last election. Certainly, as the Hon. Mr Kandelaars explained, the committee has the responsibility of examining the work of the boards but also obviously the levy increases they wish to bring forward.

The committee's role in examining those matters is made difficult by the time frame in which the boards bring them to our attention and the cut-off time by which we have to deal with them. It is not dissimilar to some of the work the ERD Committee has to do in relation to development plans, and that has been modified in some sense over the years.

Well over 12 months ago—probably before the Hon. Mr Kandelaars was a member of the committee—we were fortunate to have evidence given to us by the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, a former colleague of mine in this chamber, who is now Presiding Member of the Yorke and Mid North NRM Board. Having been a member of the Natural Resources Committee previously, before she retired from this place, and now being a presiding member of one of the NRM boards, she has the wonderful, unique experience of having sat on both sides of the fence. Caroline was able to give us her thoughts about the difficulties that the boards experience in having to go through the consultation process, tick all the boxes along the way, and then have these delays in getting through to us so that we get enough time to deal with it.

We have had meetings with the minister, and I would hope that perhaps more note of the Hon. Ms Schaefer's remarks is taken in the future because I think that will make our job, and the job of the minister, easier when dealing with particular situations such as occurred this year, when the committee rejected the rise intended by the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board. Delays then followed because the minister's staff and the department took some five weeks to scratch their heads and work out what to do. That put a lot of stress on a lot of people, and we should not have that, particularly when people are serving in these roles for very minimal reward or, in a large number of cases, doing it for their love of the environment.

Having said that, I support the motion and commend the report to the council. If members are more interested in this, I commend to them the evidence given to this committee by the Hon. Caroline Schaefer a number of months ago. It is worth reading. I commend the report to the council.

Motion carried.