Landscape South Australia Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (16:07): I rise to indicate that I am the lead speaker for the opposition on the bill. The Landscape South Australia Bill implements the government's election commitment to repeal and replace the Natural Resources Management Act 2004, although I note that the scale of the reform is limited and this bill replicates very much what is in the current act.

I note the bill has already passed the House of Assembly with some amendments successfully moved by the shadow minister for environment and water, the member for Port Adelaide, Dr Susan Close, and that the government has subsequently agreed to support several other opposition amendments. I would like to put on record my thanks to the minister's office for facilitating a number of briefings for the opposition on the bill, including for myself and my office.

The bill has several differences to the Natural Resources Management Act, which it seeks to replace, that I will address in this second reading speech. In relation to landscape regions, most notably, the bill provides for the abolition of the NRM regions established under the act and the winding up of the NRM boards that administer each of these regions. In place of those eight NRM boards will be eight regional landscape boards as well as an additional and differently constituted board to be called Green Adelaide. The biggest changes will happen outside this parliament and outside this act in the proposed changes to the boundaries of the regions.

The landscape regions are to be established by the minister, in line with the procedure outlined in the bill. Whilst certain elements of this process remain similar to those in the NRM Act, such as consideration of the nature and form of the natural environment, local government boundaries and other factors, it is worth noting that the consideration of the water catchment areas was purposely removed from this bill. This issue was canvassed by the shadow minister, Dr Susan Close, during the committee stage in the House of Assembly, and I flag my intention to pursue the issue further during the consideration of the bill in this place.

Water management is of huge importance for our state and of particular concern to the many South Australians in regional areas who will engage closely with the Landscape SA system. It remains of concern to the opposition that water catchment areas are not being considered at a level as fundamental as the establishment of regions and the boards. This may have flow-on effects to other areas of the Landscape SA framework.

The minister and his department have already published a map of the proposed Landscape South Australia regions. I also flag my intention to ask questions of the minister during the committee stage about those boundaries, as I understand some concerns have been raised in consultation on the bill, particularly by local councils.

I also note that the current Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM region has been substantially reduced in size and, under the proposed boundary, is to become the Green Adelaide region described in the bill. The bill also provides a separate list of legislated priorities for this region to other landscape regions, as well as a different board composition, which I will come to a bit later in my contribution.

In relation to decentralisation and direct election, the Minister for Environment and Water has stated that one of his key objectives in this process will be the decentralisation of the natural resource management system. The discussion paper released as part of the consultation process leading up to the bill's introduction states:

While the NRM Act brought positive change and benefits, the passage of time and gradual centralisation mean the current system of natural resources management is not delivering what it should.

However, the opposition is concerned that many of the proposed changes stated as mechanisms to achieve this outcome are largely cosmetic. This begins at the similar structure of Landscape SA to the current NRM system: both have a system of regions overseen by boards; both have a range of planning, grant allocation and front-line service functions; and the two have near identical function with respect to water resource management.

The headline reform proposed as part of this push for decentralisation is the direct election of landscape board members. It is worth noting, however, that only three of these board members are to be directly elected, with the majority, including the chairperson, to be directly appointed by the minister. The minister also retains the power to appoint the entirety of any board if he believes there is a reason to do so. Additionally, the entire Green Adelaide board will be appointed by the minister. These examples illustrate that the minister's headline reforms are in many ways merely cosmetic.

In relation to biodiversity and ecosystem health, we are in turn concerned that in the minister's push for decentralisation, in, as I think he called it, a back to basics approach, he has cut out provisions to conserve and enhance the state's vital natural environment. Fundamental to the NRM system, and now the landscape system, there is a need to strive to support ecosystems across the state, maintain biodiversity and strive for a healthy natural environment. This is essential, not just for the sake of having a thriving natural environment, which in itself is important, but there is also economic benefit to this. Achieving these outcomes helps improve the productivity of land for primary industry, a key stakeholder in the NRM system.

Other industries, particularly in tourism and recreation, rely on our world-renowned natural environment to drive economic activity, and we owe it to future generations of South Australians to maintain the health of our environment so that they too can enjoy these benefits. The bill as it stands does not prioritise these issues. The impression given by the minister's approach to these challenges is that they are an optional extra rather than an integral part of any system designed to manage our state's natural resources.

In the other chamber, the shadow minister for environment and water, Dr Susan Close, has pursued these issues both in lines of questioning and in moving amendments to the bill. While some of these amendments were either supported by the government or have been the subject of discussion with the government, the progress made does not adequately address our concerns as an opposition. Importantly, these concerns have been raised numerous times in consultation and stakeholder feedback.

While the opposition welcomes that the bill makes greater reference to climate change than the 15-year-old act it seeks to replace, we still do not believe the bill reflects a government that takes seriously the need to take action on climate change. The issues of biodiversity and ecosystem health are also critical to addressing climate change, as are other amendments not supported by the government in the other place that sought to prioritise climate science, among other issues.

The opposition intends to file further amendments to the bill to ensure environmental outcomes, biodiversity and an ecosystem approach are enshrined in our natural resources management legislation, and I look forward to further exploring these in the committee stage of the debate.

Returning to the issue of the composition of boards and Aboriginal partnerships, I would like to make some comments regarding provisions in the bill that seek to guide the minister's appointment to regional landscape boards and to the Green Adelaide board.

Currently, the act prescribes a range of areas of knowledge, skill and experience that the minister must take into consideration when appointing an NRM board. These criteria reflect the wide range of activities undertaken through the NRM program, including primary production, soil conservation and land management, conservation and biodiversity management, business management and Aboriginal interest and heritage. This stands in stark contrast to the provisions of the bill, which do not prescribe any such criteria.

As the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs and reconciliation, I have particular concerns regarding the lack of provision to ensure Aboriginal expertise and interests are represented on regional landscape boards. For tens of thousands of years Aboriginal people have been custodians of our land and have managed it very successfully. We are concerned that this experience, over thousands of generations, is not adequately reflected in the make-up of the board as it stands.

Similarly, provisions to ensure landscape boards work in partnership with the traditional owners of the land they seek to manage appear to be lacking in this bill. While some do exist, such as clause 23(4)(b) of the bill, they are not requirements. Rather than stating that the boards must work collaboratively with Aboriginal people, that particular clause states that they should seek to do so. At this early stage in the debate I would like to place on the record a number of questions for the minister to address in his second reading sum up:

1. What consultation was undertaken with Aboriginal communities and stakeholders in the drafting of this bill?

2. Why were references to Aboriginal interest in land and water and Aboriginal heritage removed as a legislated requirement for the minister to consider when making board appointments?

3. How does the government intend to guarantee Aboriginal representation on regional landscape boards if that is not a legislated requirement?

4. How does the government intend to guarantee meaningful partnerships with Aboriginal people and communities if they are not legislated?

I would be grateful if the minister could bring back a response to these questions when we resume debate in the future.

In relation to levies and funds, this bill provides for two main levy funds: a grassroots grants program to be allocated and approved by individual landscape boards; and the landscape priorities fund, with grants to be signed off by the minister directly. I signal that the opposition will have questions about the standards and guidelines to be followed in allocating grants from both funds. The bill also carries over many of the provisions from the NRM Act with respect to NRM levies. Levies are a significant point of discussion in the community, including during the consultation process on the bill.

The bill implements the government's pre-election commitment to cap levy increases to CPI; however, the bill also contains a mechanism for the minister to override this cap. In line with current practice under the NRM Act, the bill provides that local councils are required to pay applicable levies, which they are then able to implement as a levy to landholders. I understand that the Hon. Frank Pangallo has filed an amendment to the bill that seeks to allow councils to apply for a refund of a levy amount if unpaid levies from landholders become written-off debts, in accordance with the Local Government Act.

As I have done previously, I would like to ask the minister two questions to be addressed in the second reading sum up by the minister. Firstly, how much money do local councils currently spend on NRM levies that they are currently unable to recover and, secondly, has this issue been raised by local government during consultation on the bill?

As I said from the outset, the opposition supports the passage of this bill; however, we continue to have key concerns which have not yet been addressed. We will be filing amendments in the coming days and weeks to attempt to remedy some of these issues. We are keen to see a strong system put in place to manage our state's natural resources, to protect and sustain our natural resources and to adequately address the threat of climate change. We acknowledge the huge importance of getting this right for the many landholders and primary producers who will engage closely with this framework once it is in place. With that in mind, I commend the bill to the chamber and look forward to the committee stage.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.S. Lee.

At 16:23 the council adjourned until Tuesday 23 July 2019 at 14:15.