Landscape South Australia Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 4 July 2019.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (15:46): I rise to make some remarks on the second reading of the Landscape South Australia Bill. The bill seeks to repeal the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 and replace the system of NRM boards with a similar system of landscape boards to govern the management of our state's natural resources. The bill is curious for what it leaves out and even more curious for what it deletes. I will cover some of those aspects later in my contribution.

The NRM system evolved out of individual soil boards, pest control boards and water catchment boards. It was a fantastic reform of the Rann Labor government and then minister for environment and conservation, the Hon. John Hill. For some five years I was fortunate enough to work closely with NRM boards, departmental officers and the many people in the community involved in the work of natural resources management. It has been a system that has worked well for our state.

Projects have seen the reintroduction of species and restoration of habitats where we had previously seen environmental destruction. Boards, officers and community have worked effectively to mitigate soil erosion, control pest plants and animals, and manage flood risks. NRM grant programs across South Australia have seen community groups and schools invest in a wide range of environmental projects. Throughout it all, the former government's NRM policy has brought together work to support our primary industries, protect the environment, conserve biodiversity and ensure our natural resources are sustained for the next generation of South Australians.

However, as the shadow minister for environment and water in the other place has noted, this bill represents a once in 15 years chance to review how we manage natural resources in our state and establish a system which reflects the changing world that we now find ourselves in. The repeal of the NRM Act and introduction of a landscape act was, of course, one of the key environmental policy commitments the now government took to the 2018 state election. The Liberal Party's policy document entitled 'Natural Resources Management—Empowering Communities' promised to 'make NRM reform a foundation of our environmental and regional policies'.

The promises and rhetoric make it surprising—to me, at least—that much of the bill that we have before us is simply a reflection of the NRM system as it actually operates now. There still will be boards with broadly similar objectives to those of the NRM boards and the minister will still have the opportunity to appoint a majority of board members, including the chair. In his contribution on the bill in the other place, the Minister for Environment and Water noted that 'most water-related provisions in the act have been carried over unchanged to the new bill'.

The bill also seeks the continuation of the work of authorised officers to ensure the legislative framework and board decisions are carried out. Indeed, some of the restrictions on authorised officers have been removed from this bill, with the abolition of regional authorised officers meaning all will have statewide jurisdiction.

This is the curious aspect, because I have been, I suppose, the object of many criticisms of the existing framework, directed specifically around authorised officers, directed specifically around matters related to water, but this bill makes little or no changes to these aspects of the legislation. If these core aspects of the NRM system have not been changed, what has been?

The minister's public statements highlight the reform of direct election of some landscape board members. It is worth noting that the government has opted for a relatively minimal model of direct election of board members. The minister's stated intention is to hold these elections alongside local government elections. Only three of seven members are to be directly elected, and provisions exist for the minister to wholly appoint the board if he or she deems it preferable in a particular region due to special circumstances.

The bill also retains key areas of concern raised by stakeholders, including through the consultation undertaken in mid-2018 on proposed changes to the NRM system. For some years, and in the consultation report published on the YourSAy website, as I said earlier, stakeholders have raised concerns about the appointment of authorised officers, the breadth of powers that are given to them and a perceived heavy-handedness in the way compliance activities have been undertaken.

In government, we sought to strike a balance between respecting and partnering with landholders and also acknowledging the need for effective enforcement when policies and regulations were not being followed. There are many specific situations where individual landowners were not able to, or did not desire to, follow the legislative responsibilities of landowners.

Yet, we have the minister now seeking to reform NRM in this state and he has only made minor changes to the appointment and powers of authorised officers in this bill. The distinction between statewide and regional authorised officers has been removed, as I said, but the changes do not go very far beyond that.

I fail to see how the minister's rhetoric matches up to what is in the legislation before us. There is minimal change and it does not address the key issues of stakeholders. It does not address even the issues that the minister used to attack the previous government on. In fact, the bill before us is largely identical in many respects on these key issues.

In her second reading explanation in this place, the minister representing the Minister for Environment and Water noted that conditions on the appointment of an authorised officer could be made as the minister thinks fit. It is worth noting that the same provision appears in the NRM Act currently, that is, NRM Act sections 66 to 69, which largely mirror the bill clauses 200 to 202.

In a similar way, the concerns raised in the formal consultation process and in community feedback more generally focus heavily on the provisions in the bill for water management. Indeed, the consultation report 'Managing our landscapes: conversations for change' by Becky Hirst Consulting, dated 26 October 2018, notes on page 56:

Whilst it was highlighted throughout the engagement process that this stage of the reform process did not include significant water management reform, this topic was still raised consistently as a priority across the state.

Critiques about the current water management framework and suggestions for change have not been addressed in this legislation before us. Again, the former Labor government sought to balance the concerns of various groups and reach the outcome that benefited communities, met our obligations under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and other agreements and ensured strong environmental outcomes, and also to ensure that water was available for irrigators into the long-term future.

Yet, the minister, despite initiating a consultation process and introducing a bill to repeal the NRM legislation, has not yet taken the opportunity in this bill before us to address this feedback and incorporate the strongly held views of some respondents. He has ignored them. Indeed, the bill and the public statements made by the Minister for Environment and Water seem to be something of a smoke and mirrors exercise. The minister, I believe, is hoping that no-one who has complained about these various issues will actually read the content of the bill. The proposals for decentralisation and community focus are relatively limited, and key aspects of the bill remain unchanged.

What, then, has changed? Sadly, it appears to be the natural environment that will suffer in the transition from NRM to Landscape SA. The push for a 'back-to-basics' approach, the focus on sustaining ecosystems and promoting biodiversity and striving for the best environmental outcomes have somehow been lost in the drafting.

To my mind, the bill could have been an opportunity to modernise our approach to these issues, some 15 years after the passage of the NRM legislation, to reflect developments in science and ecology and, indeed, in terms of climate change and to ensure that South Australia is not being left behind in addressing key issues. Yet, the minister appears to have used this as an opportunity to do the opposite: to strip away the focus on these key biodiversity and ecological issues from the legislation.

This area of public policy is an incredibly important one for landholders and primary producers. We know that because farmers tell us. It is also important in ensuring our natural environment is protected and sustained to ensure future generations enjoy it and make as much use of it as we could want. That is why it is important to have those protections in this legislation—and it has disappeared.

There is a delicate balance to be struck here. It appears the minister has not acknowledged this and has undermined the work done under the previous system to ensure our environment is managed in a way that enables it to thrive. The shadow minister for environment and water ably prosecuted these issues during debate in the other place and I encourage members to read the Hansard in considering their own response to this bill.

The shadow minister secured some amendments, which are now reflected in the bill before us, making some progress in ensuring current and future risks to natural resources are identified in the state landscape strategy and in ensuring the Green Adelaide board is prioritising biodiversity sensitivity in urban design. Yet, these are only small measures in the context of the whole system. They are small saves, if you like, in the context of what has been lost in the drafting of this legislation.

The bill in its present form leaves out the importance of biodiversity and ensuring the health of our ecosystems and making action on climate change central to its provisions. I note that the Leader of the Opposition in this place has filed a number of amendments to address these and other issues—very fine amendments, in my view—and I look forward to supporting them. As it stands, the impact of the changes being made on our natural environment is being somewhat hidden behind smoke and mirrors, as I said, and we risk missing this opportunity to enshrine environmental outcomes in this substantial body of legislation before us.

As I said at the outset, the opposition will be supporting the bill. If I did not say that, I am saying it now. The council has an opportunity before it to set up a natural resources management framework for the next 15 years, just as the NRM Act gave us a framework for the last 15 years. I certainly hope the council takes advantage of its privileged position to do so, and I certainly believe that such longstanding legislation as we have needs to give higher priority to our natural environment, otherwise there may not be much left to manage into the future, and I know that our significant primary industries will suffer because of it.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (15:57): I rise to speak in broad support of the Landscape SA Bill. While at first glance the bill appears to be the old Natural Resources Management Act 2004 by another albeit more modern name, there are a number of improvements in this bill which I strongly endorse. My amendments, [Pangallo-1], [Pangallo-2] and [Pangallo-3], which I will speak to later, seek to remedy a provision that has been carried forward from the old NRM bill that I do not support.

I would like to thank minister Speirs and his advisers for the comprehensive briefings he has provided SA-Best. These, along with our own community and stakeholder engagement, have given me a thorough understanding of the bill and a good appreciation of the new approach that it seeks to implement. I would like to acknowledge the consultation undertaken by the minister and his team, and the incorporation of community views and ideas in formulating the bill. The bill is certainly all the better for the input of a very wide range of community members and groups.

While our eight NRM boards for the most part have served us well since 2004, this bill creates eight new at arms-length landscape boards to replace the old NRM boards and creates a new entity: Green Adelaide. The creation of the Green Adelaide board is well timed to ensure that Adelaide becomes a world renowned, water sensitive, ecologically vibrant and climate-resilient city that retains the best of what our city planners so beautifully laid out, while embracing 21^st century innovation in regard to water, open space and greening. We want to make sure that we maintain the land of the Kaurna people and do not detract from the vision of Colonel William Light.

The Green Adelaide board members are all ministerial appointments, and the other boards will comprise three elected and four appointed board members. We broadly support Labor's amendment that is aimed at ensuring one of those ministerial appointments will be a local council member. This will be an important linkage. This should provide a good mix of skills, qualifications, knowledge and experience, although I note these criteria will be prescribed in regulation rather than legislation.

Electing members of the eight regional boards in a process aligned with local government elections should be more cost-effective than standalone elections and should give the new boards stronger local representation and diversity. The focus of the new boards on a limited number of priorities over a five-year period, as articulated in new regional landscape and water allocation plans, should also produce better regional outcomes and performance that can be achieved under the outdated NRM Act.

Decentralised decision-making and getting rid of red tape are always welcome improvements, and local partnerships should give our landscapes more bang for our buck. I see it as an important and positive initiative that there will be scope for redistributing Green Adelaide levies into a new landscape priorities fund that can be directed to broader, longer term regional and statewide priorities, such as pest plants, animal control and overabundant native species.

We know we cannot effectively deal with the overabundant species, such as koalas, corellas or bats, on a limited local basis. Contrary to my opposition colleagues' views, I think the new Landscape SA board boundaries sensibly align with regional communities and local government boundaries. Being closer to the ground and better connected to the communities, the grassroots grants program that will be administered by the new regional boards should be better able to respond to local needs, to partner with local government and leverage from volunteer community groups, such as Trees for Life or the Australian Conservation Foundation.

The requirement for landscape boards to work collaboratively with Aboriginal communities and native title holders should ensure better ongoing management and participation of Aboriginal people in landscape management. I have not heard a lot of complaint about the on-ground compliance operations of NRM officers that the Hons Mr Darley and Mr Maher have referred to, although I have heard of some ridiculous native vegetation clearance prosecutions pursued by the department in the South-East, Kangaroo Island and Eyre Peninsula. I hope the bill delivers a more pragmatic approach which favours more collaborative compliance actions over initiating costly formal processes against landholders, most of whom I have overwhelmingly found to be highly competent and committed land managers.

The increased penalties in this bill, as compared to some of the outrageous price hikes we have seen from the government, are in keeping with CPI increases, but I would want to see improved relationships leading to less litigation in future. Like some of my Legislative Council colleagues, I will have more questions about all these aspects of the bill, including the employment and transition arrangements for NRM and departmental staff, at the committee stage, but overall I see the bill as a positive improvement.

That said, an element of the NRM legislation I have received sustained complaints about is the mechanism whereby local councils have to bill and collect the NRM levy on behalf of the state government. Apparently, this arrangement was made in 2004 as no other mechanism existed for the state government to collect the NRM levy. This is not the case today, with the government clearly capable of billing and collecting the emergency services levy and any other levy it so chooses to apply, including the Landscape SA levy.

I strongly disagree in principle with local government acting as a levy collection agency on behalf of the state government. It is completely inappropriate that local government should have to continue to carry the financial cost of billing, as well as the risk and debt of non-collection of state government levies. Irrespective of how much the unpaid levies might be—and they are estimated by the LGA to be in the region of $700,000—the mechanism for state government to collect these levies should be via the state and not passed on to local government. Put simply, the state government must take responsibility for the collection of its own state government levies, including this one.

My suggested amendments in [Pangallo-1], [Pangallo-2] and [Pangallo-3] all address this issue, albeit in two different approaches. My suggested amendments in [Pangallo-2], with [Pangallo-3] being consequential amendments, seek to amend the legislation to end the arrangement of local councils collecting the Landscape SA levy on behalf of the state government. Under my suggested amendments in [Pangallo-2] and [Pangallo-3], the state government Landscape SA boards would have to serve the notice and collect the levy from ratepayers. The Landscape SA board could do this by agreement with a public authority or the Governor may make other provisions by regulation.

My suggested amendment in [Pangallo-1] is a backstop measure should [Pangallo-2] and [Pangallo-3] fail to pass. [Pangallo-1] is a suggested amendment that would see local councils still collecting the landscape levy but, if council writes off a debt constituted by an unpaid regional landscape levy, the regional landscape board must, on application of the council, refund to the council an amount equal to the amount of the levy that has been written off. This provision is not perfect as there are conditions attached to local government writing off a debt, but it is better than having no provision to this effect at all, as we have now.

It is a welcome development that this bill caps Landscape SA levies to CPI increases, but I note that the minister can override this cap. I look forward to considering the suite of amendments that my colleagues, the Hon. Mark Parnell and the Hon. Kyam Maher, have filed recently. We broadly support the engagement of peak bodies being articulated in the bill. We will need to stay vigilant and alert to any report tabled in parliament identifying any sneaky new government fee increases and cost shifting to local government councils, such as we have seen recently from this government in regard to a 40 per cent hike to waste dumping fees and land tax.

As the old saying goes, the devil is in the detail. I look forward to the committee stage of the bill, which I am sure will cover a huge range of issues associated with the 400-odd provisions in the bill. With those comments, I indicate my broad support for the bill, inclusive of my suggested amendments.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (Minister for Human Services) (16:08): I would like to thank all speakers who have provided a contribution on the bill before the house. A number of comments have been made on this legislation, the merits of this reform and why we are doing it. I look forward to responding to questions on particular clauses that are of interest to members during the committee stage of the bill.

If I could address some of the particular concerns and, in particular, the concerns raised by the Hon. Ian Hunter. Water reform was specifically not part of the scope of this particular review and the government has been quite transparent about that from the start. In terms of the consultation, the brief of a lot of the consultation was to elevate the role of community in this very important role that these boards undertake on behalf of their communities.

Over the years, having been the opposition spokesperson for the environment, I have sat in here with a number of colleagues who were here. In relation to the existing legislation, the complexity of the consultation processes and the prescriptive nature of how consultation must take place—reports and so forth—has been a frustration for the community and has been a frustration for boards.

The bill before us reflects the consultation undertaken, with very clear messages that came through from that. A number of the amendments that have been filed are contrary to what the community told us, and some amendments use existing NRM concepts and language rather than being modernised, so I make those brief remarks.

I note that the bill passed the House of Assembly with some amendments moved by the Labor opposition. A number of other amendments were put forward that the Minister for Environment and Water, the Hon. David Speirs, did not agree to. He did, however, make it clear that we would be open to further discussing some of those amendments between the houses or in this place. I indicate that some of those amendments have now been filed by the honourable Leader of the Opposition and I look forward to considering those amendments in this chamber.

I would like to make a few remarks highlighting some of the key reforms to be delivered by this legislation to improve the way natural resources are managed. Over recent years, a gradual centralisation of staffing, resourcing and decision-making has eroded public confidence in how the natural resources management system is working. During extensive community consultation on the bill, people made it clear that they are looking for a simpler and more effective system that puts people back at the heart of managing our natural resources. They are looking for less focus on planning and bureaucratic regulation and more focus on giving communities a greater say on the management of our natural resources.

Importantly, to deliver what our community is looking for, this reform has focused on changes to board governance, including changes to the composition of boards and the way that they will operate in the future. Our reforms deliver a system that is more centred on boards working in partnership and on ground with local communities and groups to deliver real outcomes and practical programs to sustain our landscapes. The reforms also deliver a simpler and more accessible system by removing unnecessary bureaucracy, focusing regional planning on clear priorities and making way for more community involvement on ground and through representation on boards.

A key aspect of this new reform is that the boards will be decentralised, putting the decision-making authority in the hands of the community. Under the legislation there will be eight new regional landscape boards plus Green Adelaide. To provide greater community confidence that a community voice is present in board decision-making, for the first time regional communities will have a say on who sits on a board through community elections. We will move away from the minister appointing all members. In future, three board members will be elected democratically by their local community and four members will be appointed by the minister, also coming from within the community.

Boards will exercise greater control over their workforce and budgets, improving the ability of boards to manage their own business. There will also be greater transparency for communities as to how their levies are being spent, with boards reporting on their activities and the expenditure of levy funds annually.

Another real game changer is the landscape priorities fund, which is taking some of the levy collected in the Adelaide metropolitan area and redistributing it into regional and rural South Australia. This fund will ensure that big funding projects can be delivered in regions through partnerships between the boards and others, delivering investments that will make a real environmental difference and increase resilience in the landscape.

The distribution of a proportion of Adelaide's levy base to the fund gives us the opportunity to see what Adelaide's levy base can contribute to regional projects. This initiative was supported through the consultation process, recognised as an understanding and appreciation that people living in Adelaide enjoy and benefit from the regions too. By providing for simpler, more efficient planning, engagement and operations, this bill will enable regional landscape boards to spend less time planning and refocus their efforts and resources on delivering outcomes on ground for the benefit of the community.

Regional planning requirements under the NRM Act require boards to address a long list of matters in their regional plans, complete prescriptive consultation processes and service an extensive planning cycle. Going forward, each board will have a high-level five-year regional landscape plan that sets out five priorities for managing the region's landscapes, or seven priorities for Green Adelaide. Rather than prescriptive consultation requirements, each board will have flexibility as to how they engage, taking into account consultation guidelines.

Having high-level plans and greater flexibility is about doing the right amount of planning so boards can get on and deliver on the ground, going about the consultation they need to do in a manner that is right for the community and in their circumstances. Importantly, it is a requirement of the bill that boards and other decision-makers are informed by the local knowledge and expertise that is held within communities, together with the best available science when they are planning and making other decisions. In other words, genuine participation and engagement with the custodians of our natural environment is a must. This is to ensure that the priorities and on-ground outcomes being delivered are informed by the experience and knowledge of land managers, Aboriginal people and industry alike, as well as scientists.

Regional communities will be more empowered to deliver natural resources management outcomes as well. The bill enshrines the principle that the boards will work collaboratively and forge strong, enduring and productive partnerships with land managers, volunteer groups, industry experts, Aboriginal nations, other tiers of government and advocacy organisations to deliver practical on-ground works that address local priorities. Boards will also be giving back through providing education and a helping hand where needed, and sharing the knowledge and understanding that experts and governments have to support local communities and land managers to be directly responsible for sustainably managing their regions' natural resources.

At the moment, board grant programs come and go and operate inconsistently across regions. The grassroots grants program under this bill will give a guaranteed legislated stream of funding to go toward on-ground projects led by the community for the community. This will provide the opportunity for local communities and groups to work together to come up with solutions for environmental problems and strategies towards sustainability. Regions with smaller levy resources will also draw from the state funding they receive to fund their grassroots grants.

Green Adelaide is another key initiative. This board will focus on seven key priorities and work towards Adelaide becoming one of the most ecologically vibrant and climate-resilient cities in the world. The reforms in the bill have also achieved our government's commitment to cap increases to levy rates to CPI and to reduce cost-of-living pressures on our community. The government's position is that councils should continue to collect the land levy as the most cost-effective way to collect it, maximising the funding available for delivery on ground.

I am advised that previous reviews have concluded that local government provides the most cost-effective levy collection option, a recommendation that has been supported by Treasury. There is a low administrative cost of collection through the use of the local government rating system. Further, I am advised that discussions with RevenueSA in 2003 on the costs associated with incorporating the collection of the NRM levy via the emergency services levy indicated that it would likely be more than double the cost of the current system of collecting through council rates notices.

The government is taking steps to address issues underlying council concerns around collecting the levy, including introducing a cap on levy increases and requiring boards to report annually on how levy money is spent. I understand that the Local Government Association's position is driven in part by concern that councils are left out of pocket for the costs of collecting the levy. Clause 68 of the bill provides for councils to be able to recover both set-up and ongoing collection costs from regional landscape boards. These arrangements will be prescribed by regulations that will be the subject of consultation with the Local Government Association. In practice, around half a million dollars was paid to councils for levy collection costs in 2018-19.

The Hon. Frank Pangallo has indicated that he will suggest an amendment to the bill which ensures that unrecovered land levies written off by local councils will be paid by regional landscape boards to local councils upon application, using the current provisions of the Local Government Act. In this manner it is proposed that local councils will not be out of pocket for unrecovered land levies, and the government will support such an amendment.

Given our focus on changing arrangements for board governance, regulatory arrangements for soil and land management, water resource management and pest plant and animal control have not changed significantly from those in the NRM Act. However, the opportunity has been taken to enhance and modernise certain features to deliver better outcomes, reflect advances in our understanding and knowledge from that when the NRM Act was enacted in 2004, and streamline and reduce red tape in the system.

We see this in the express recognition of the significance of climate change. We also see this in a 'broadened concept of landscapes' in the bill, which incorporates an integrated hills to sea approach to natural resource management and captures social, cultural and economic values in landscapes, as well as natural resources. This broadened focus will shape decision-making and planning outcomes and be reflected in what boards and other decision-makers deliver on the ground.

While opportunities for further reform have been raised in these areas, feedback has highlighted that by and large these arrangements are working well for NRM delivery in communities, and our intention is to come back and look at areas such as water in the medium term so that we can ensure this complex area is carefully considered and thoroughly consulted.

Importantly, this bill provides a framework to manage the landscape to ensure it is sustained to deliver environmental, social and economic outcomes for the benefit of everyone. It provides for the management of private lands and resources used by farms in an environmentally sensitive and environmentally sustainable way.

It is also about sustaining resources for other industries, including mining and tourism. In this regard, I note the bill's objectives have a broader purview than the NRM Act. The bill supports a broader range of other industries, such as nature tourism, in response to feedback received during development of the bill.

Critically, the bill is about sustaining and protecting the landscape and natural resources. In doing so, this bill will operate alongside other legislation that delivers biodiversity and other outcomes for the environment, including the Native Vegetation Act and the National Parks and Wildlife Act. This will not change the important role these other pieces of legislation play. As part of the government's future reform agenda, we are planning to come back to explore improved interactions with other state legislation that intersect with landscape management.

Together, these reforms will deliver a fundamental change in how natural resources are managed in this state for the benefit of all South Australians. Again, I thank all members for their contributions and reiterate that these reforms will move South Australia towards a productive and sustainable natural landscape.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: At clause 1, there are some general questions I want to ask. Questions at clause 1 include: will the minister advise which stakeholders the Minister for Environment and Water directly consulted with and what was the nature of those consultations? What further consultations were undertaken by the department?

I understand that an independent consultant was engaged for the purposes of undertaking a consultation process in the development of this bill. I would be grateful if the minister would briefly outline the nature of the consultant's work on that process and the time frames in which that occurred. What was the total cost to the government for engaging that consultant? What specific efforts were made to consult with Aboriginal communities in developing this legislation? What was the nature of those consultations and who were those consultations with?

Noting that the bill was in part a response to the Liberal Party's pre-election commitment outlined in a document entitled 'Natural Resources Management—Empowering Communities', I would be grateful if the minister would explain whether the bill and related materials differ in any way from the policy outlined in the document and the reasons for any of those differences. Also, in relation to a couple of questions asked at the second reading, I seek responses to a number of questions that were put on record regarding Aboriginal partnerships and the costs of unrecovered NRM levies to local councils.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: I thank the honourable member for a number of questions. We will get some detailed responses for him and provide those when we next debate the bill.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.