HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: ANNUAL REPORT

Mr RAU (Enfield) (11:02): I move:

That the 24th report of the committee, entitled Annual Report 2007-08, be noted.

In moving this motion I would like to say a few words in general about the activities of the committee. During this 12 month period the committee has undertaken a number of different investigations and visits. In particular, its time has been occupied with consideration of matters concerning the Murray River system.

Members of the committee have travelled to as far away as the Queensland headwaters of the river in the area around Cubbie Station. We have gone through places such as Burke and Shepparton, in fact, all through the upper reaches of the Murray-Darling Basin and the Murrumbidgee Basin as well, around Griffith.

I think every member of the committee has been very impressed by the fact that people across the entire Murray-Darling Basin are experiencing difficulties. They are not necessarily exactly the same difficulties that we have in South Australia, but the cause of them is the same: a shortage of water. Communities up and down the river have been affected by that.

The committee is now in the process of preparing a series of reports on the River Murray Basin, which will probably be a three part trilogy on the river. I am sure members cannot wait for the first instalment, which we hope to be able to produce to the parliament on Thursday when we next return. It will have a very interesting title, as the committee does spend some time thinking up ways of engaging with the community by providing interesting and exciting titles.

The other thing that the committee has been involved in during these last 12 months is consideration of the Upper South-East Drainage Scheme. That has proven to be a very difficult question for members of the committee and, I think, for the communities involved, because there are so many competing points of view and competing interests. Again, we have produced a report in relation to that, which I think is item 8 on the list. That particular report, which is entitled 'To drain or not to drain' (we left off 'That is the question'), really does sum up the whole issue very well, and that is something we will no doubt come to in due course.

During the last 12 months, the committee has had a great many meetings. Those meetings are detailed in the committee report, so I will not bother members with the statistics about how many meetings we had. We met with a great many individuals, and we gave a lot of active consideration to matters relating to natural resource management boards. The committee has, in fact, recommended in the case of several of those boards that their initial recommendations be reviewed. I am pleased to say that, in every case where that recommendation was made, the boards reviewed their decisions and the levies they had imposed were reduced, largely in accordance with the recommendations of the committee. So, it does seem to me that the committee's work is of some value both to the NRM boards and to the communities they represent.

Again, this is pretty well set out in the report, but I want to thank each and every member of the committee for their tremendous support and cooperation in the activities of the committee over the last 12 months. I have not been in this place for as long as many other members of the parliament, but I have to say that the level of cooperation and bipartisanship displayed by members of this committee is something with which I am very pleased to be associated. I sincerely thank each and every member of the committee for their tremendous goodwill and support for the work of the committee. Everyone on the committee has been an industrious, supportive and collegiate member of the committee, and that is something of which I am very proud indeed.

I thank the staff of the committee, Knut and Patrick, both of whom have done terrific work for the committee. We are not an easy committee to deal with because our travel schedules have involved them in matching up a great many members of parliament from both chambers, finding times when it is convenient for all of them to travel (as we know, members of parliament are busy people), and Knut and Patrick have been very patient in finding times when all of us can travel. As a committee, we all think it is important that we do not just turn up in ones and twos but that we turn up en masse, otherwise it is not really worth doing.

A particular example of that involved the arrangements we made to visit the Lower Lakes earlier this year, when we invited people from the upper basin to come down (and they did, in fact, come down at their own expense) to have a look at the lower basin and to meet with people down there. We were very pleased to be involved in that process. Again, the staff did a fantastic job, with all the logistical difficulties involved in that. We could not possibly do the work we do without the great support we have from the staff.

The staff have also been very helpful regarding the preparation of our reports, although I have to say that each and every member of the committee reads those draft reports very carefully. Those reports are very much a product of the work of every member of the committee. Some of the reports have been very thoroughly reviewed by members of the committee and, again, I thank the members of the committee for that.

The last thing I want to say is that the Hon. Sandra Kanck was a member of the committee from the beginning of this parliament up until the time of her recent retirement, and I place on the public record my appreciation of her contribution to the committee. It was not always the case that the Hon. Sandra Kanck agreed with each and every other member of the committee. However, I have to say that there were times when the Hon. Sandra Kanck introduced matters to the committee of which certainly I was not really aware. Upon proper investigation, we found that she had raised very important issues, which turned out to be of great interest to other members of the committee, and for that I sincerely thank her.

I think I can say on behalf of other members of the committee that we all wish the Hon. Sandra Kanck well in whatever she does—I will not call it her retirement because I do not expect Sandra is the sort of person who will retire in the sense of sitting at home watching Days of Our Lives. I am sure that she will manifest herself in some other place in some other form in the years to come. I wish her well in what she does.

To some extent, I would like to echo the remarks the Premier made yesterday when the Hon. David Winderlich was appointed to the upper house. He said that he has not always agreed with the Hon. Sandra Kanck, but he has always had respect for the fact that she has sincerely held the views that she has held and she has been a vigorous campaigner for the matters she felt deeply about. I think there is little more you can say of a member of parliament in a testimonial than that: that is a great credit to anybody, whether or not you agree with them.

Finally, I would like to welcome the Hon. David Winderlich onto the committee. I understand that he was appointed by the other place yesterday. He will attend his first meeting of the committee tomorrow, and it should prove to be an interesting taste for him of what lies ahead. We will be hearing from Mr Ferguson from the CFS, Mr Brooks from Mitcham council and possibly from Mr Mutton from the Native Vegetation Council. For those members who do not understand the code in which I have been speaking, if you combine those elements with the Hon. Graham Gunn, it promises to be a very interesting meeting.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

Mr RAU: I would welcome other members who have an interest—particularly in the issues relating to fire prevention—to come along to that meeting because, as members would know, the Hon. Graham Gunn has been passionate about this throughout his entire career, and he knows what he is talking about. The member for Giles, I am sure, has strong views about this, and I know that there are other members on the other side of the chamber who know a great deal about this issue and have a very deep concern about it. I would welcome those members, too, because, as members know, our meetings are open to the public, and we welcome people taking an interest.

As I have said, I greatly appreciate all the cooperation, support, work and good humour that has been offered to this committee by all of its members throughout the last 12 months. We would not have been able to do the work we have done without the support of all of the members of the committee, and that has been given unflinchingly throughout the 12 month period.

The same can be said for the tremendous work of the staff, who have been a great support to the committee. I look forward to a further period of 12 months up to the 2010 election where the committee can continue the very good work that it has been doing. I commend the report to the parliament.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (11:13): I support the comments made by the member for Enfield, the chair of the Natural Resources Management Committee. I agree with him: it has been an interesting and challenging 12 months. I think a number of public servants have not enjoyed their appearances before the committee, but it is a very important safety valve for the community. When these people have their own agendas and are slightly naughty, and are not actually sticking to the facts, they are given a lesson. They remind me of naughty schoolchildren: having been caught with their hand in the till, they then tried to worm their way out of it, but they got spanked a second time. So, it has been a lesson, and I think that lesson should go through the bureaucracy.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Well, we are looking forward to tomorrow. Parliamentary committees are there for the sole purpose of ensuring that the taxpayers and citizens of this state are treated fairly—nothing less, nothing more. That is what anyone would expect. In my limited experience in this august place, I have found from time to time that they need a little counselling. When I sit in my office at Port Augusta, I sometimes think that there is some sort of a contest between certain elements of the bureaucracy and myself and, as the day goes on, my fuse gets a little shorter. I am then forced to go in front of a television camera and have a bit of a talk about it. I reluctantly do that, of course—and I think I am about to do it again shortly. Nevertheless, in my view the parliamentary committee has acted in the best interests of this place.

The River Murray trips have been most educational and were of great interest to the committee. One thing that came out of them was the fact that the story depends on which side of the river you are on: you get a completely different story in Victoria from the one you get if you are in New South Wales or Queensland. However, at the end of the day, those of us here in South Australia have a responsibility to ensure that our citizens are properly treated. I do not believe we have had a fair cut of the cake, and I sincerely hope that is going to change.

Our inquiries in relation to drainage in the South-East have been another interesting exercise, where the story also depends on where people are located. People hold their views passionately, and it has been an interesting exercise and an education for the committee. There have been other issues, such as dealing with native vegetation and the difficulties experienced by councils. I firmly hold the view that in a lot of these areas it is the elected members of councils who should have the final say because the community can get rid of elected officials but not appointed officials. I believe there is a very strong need to ensure that parliamentary committees continue to have oversight in many of these areas.

It has also been interesting having discussions with some of the regional committees in terms of their attitudes and accountability. In some cases, their consultation processes have left quite a bit to be desired, and they seemed to take umbrage when they were questioned by members of the committee. At the end of the day, we have a responsibility to see that the money they raise is properly invested and, unless we ask the questions, we cannot be assured of that before we agree to these things. I think the committee has done a good job, and it has been interesting, but there is a lot more work to be done in the future.

Like the member for Enfield, I wish the Hon. Sandra Kanck the best for the future. I know she sometimes found my views interesting, and that was challenging. She often did not realise I was actually teasing her a bit; nevertheless, we come from different backgrounds. I have a firm belief in the rights of people in rural and regional areas of this state. I want to see agriculture, the pastoral industry, and the tourism and the mining industries allowed to continue to develop and prosper because they bring great benefits not only to their own localities but also to the people of South Australia. I am very unhappy when unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape get in their way, or when there is excessive regulation which is expensive and time consuming.

I am looking forward to the next 12 months on the committee; it has been one of the best I have sat on. I think the people involved in administering the forestry industry in South Australia have probably learnt a lesson, and I would think that the message they were sent has probably permeated throughout the Public Service; if it has not, then one or two more of them have a lesson to learn. I hope we do not have to resort to the action I was forced to take on a select committee when I sent the Serjeant-at-Arms to the minister's office. I can tell you that that was an interesting experience, and it was interesting for the bureaucrats. I must also say that I did not endear myself to that minister or that premier; nevertheless, I believed I was doing what was right.

An honourable member: One of theirs or one of ours?

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: It was one of my own! I got a 20 past six phone call in the morning from someone who was about one metre off the ground who was very unhappy with me. All I said was, 'You appointed the fool of a minister, not me.' That was my comment and I put the phone down. I realised at that stage that my opportunity for promotion was fairly limited. Nevertheless, I have slept well at night and I have done what I believed to be in the best interests of the people of this state. It was a case of the parliament exercising its authority over the bureaucracy and the executive—and there should be more of it. I support the motion.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:20): I would like to support the report that has been given by the chair and by the member for Stuart regarding the Natural Resources Committee. I was hoping that the Natural Resources Committee would be half as good as the Environment, Resources and Development Committee that I was on when I first joined parliament, which was chaired by the member for Schubert. It was a brilliant committee, and I learnt a lot on that committee. I was hoping that if it was half as good as the ERD Committee had been, then it would be a good omen.

Because of the disparate backgrounds of people on that committee, it has been interesting to see how well we have got on, and with the very important and high level debate that has taken place on many issues. I did look around at the meeting and felt a little sad that this great committee was going to be changed. I am sure the new member, David Winderlich, will fit in very well. We have had the benefit of Graham Gunn, member for Stuart, Lea Stevens, member for Little Para, and the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, from the other place, all of whom, as I understand it, are not going to be in the next parliament. I might not be, either, if I am not re-elected, but they have indicated that it is not their intention to be in the next parliament. So from my point of view I am really making sure that we have the benefit of the wisdom of these people because we will not be serving with them in the future.

I have been very surprised that on most occasions I have agreed with the member for Stuart and the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, and their experience as people from country regions, and also being agricultural producers, has added a very positive element for those of us who are, basically, city slickers.

We have also been accompanied on many of our different trips, particularly to the Murray-Darling Basin, by the member for Torrens. She has added in a very positive way to our committee, and I know she has a real interest in the committee. It has been fantastic that the member for Torrens and the member for Norwood have accompanied the committee on some of the different field trips that we have done, and that has been a positive addition.

When we have visited specific regions in South Australia the local members have been of great assistance to us, and particularly the member for Finniss, in making sure that we see the issues from his perspective. They have assisted in making the connections with different local people, who obviously as a local member you get to know, and can perhaps explain some of the local politics that go with having those field trips. So, thank you to those members who have also assisted our committee.

Something that I never ever thought would happen was that Sandra Kanck, the member for Stuart and I appeared on Stateline together. Because our committee is very much into titles for our reports, I was a little concerned that we were called 'the good, the bad and the ugly', and I am not sure who fitted into what category—other than I knew that I was 'the good'.

The issue was the real concern that people have raised regarding the fact that there are so many koalas on Kangaroo Island. I think that everyone who lives there could probably have eight each as pets. In fact, as I understand it, the koalas on Kangaroo Island outnumber the humans living on Kangaroo Island. Of course, there are many other issues, including the amount of food that is available for the koalas.

I do not particularly hate koalas, but I think this is an issue that no government (Liberal or Labor) would be brave enough to tackle. However, I have to say that the good, the bad and the ugly from the Natural Resources Committee are very determined to ensure that some proper research and arguments are put forward regarding what is a very big problem, as we see it. We understand that various environment ministers have not been able to make recommendations for those koalas either to be shifted or disposed of.

I remember when the Hon. Dorothy Kotz was the minister for the environment that she was famous for euthanasing pelicans. I do not want to become famous, along with the member for Stuart and Sandra Kanck, for euthanasing koalas, but it is certainly an issue that does need to be dealt with. I know our Stateline appearance caused quite a bit of unrest in the nation. I understand that a number of Japanese environmentalists were making comments about our views about koalas.

The Hon. R.B. Such: What about their whaling?

The Hon. S.W. KEY: Yes, the point that has been raised about whaling certainly comes to mind. Suffice to say, it is an interesting committee. I think we have looked at some quite difficult references, but we have managed to work together to ensure that we make some recommendations that, hopefully, the respective ministers and departments will find useful.

Finally, I have to say to the member for Schubert that although the ERD Committee does remain my favourite committee, the Natural Resources Committee is getting very close. Assuming we are around in the next parliament, maybe the member for Schubert and I will have to see whether we can get onto a parliamentary committee together again, because we certainly had a good time.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:28): I note the 24th report of the Natural Resources Committee, which is its annual report. I commend the presiding officer (the member for Enfield), the member for Stuart and the member for Ashford for their input to the house this morning. I note the comments of the member for Ashford and I would agree. I probably did my best seven years in this place when I chaired that committee. We met every week and I think we did a lot of good work. When we look back, we often get those old ones out and go through them. It was a committee that worked well.

I got on well with all the committee members. Certainly the member for Ashford was a favourite and so was the late Terry Roberts—he gave me very good advice. When the chips were down, when they were really down, he was so honest and straight, and I always rely on that, particularly when you are playing cross-politics. As the member for Stuart just said, we had a little bit of a problem with one of our own ministers.

I understand the committee is required to consider any levy proposed in the NRM plan where the rise of the levy exceeds CPI. The annual report states that, for 2008-09, the relevant CPI figure was only 1.4 per cent, so it is anticipated that a number of rises above CPI increases will be received. To me this is of great concern at a time when many are doing it tough because of the drought and difficult economic times. I am disappointed that the various NRM boards are considering raising the NRM land and water based levies above the level of this CPI.

I was extremely concerned to read in the report about the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin NRM board levy proposal for 2008-09 being a 62.6 per cent division 1 increase, which is absolutely ridiculous. I am pleased that some common sense prevailed and the committee decided that it could not support the increase, particularly as the increase could not be justified by the board, and that the recommendation to the minister was for the rise for this board to be in line with CPI—which was agreed to. No doubt, the member for Stuart strongly represented us on this matter, and I have confidence that the Chairman and the member for Ashford did, as well. It was good sensible advocacy.

I am pleased that the committee decided not to support the levy proposed by the Northern and Yorke NRM board for 2008-09, with the committee stating that consultation needed to be improved and, in particular, consultation about the water component of the levy was unsatisfactory. This resulted in the committee recommending that the division 2 levy (the water component) be removed; and the amendment was subsequently agreed to by the minister. That is good committee work—and that is what it is all about. Ministers appreciate committees that work like this.

I think this report indicates that there are severe problems with the funding of NRM, particularly in relation to the levy. It seems that some boards want to increase the levy astronomically. I am grateful that this committee has prevented this from happening. I think it illustrates that the funding models need to be looked at in detail and that any increases in levy must be fully explained to the community and be justified. People must see their money going into work on the ground, not into a burgeoning government system.

I say again—as I have said many times in this house over many years—how disappointed I am to see that this has happened, that this is the final result of a board and committee structure that used to look after our land management. One of my early ideas was that we should consolidate these into single bodies—which has been done—because we did not control the bureaucracy and costs that went with this. Now we have a massive burgeoning bureaucracy. I was told this could result and I said we should watch it: well, it has happened.

I say to the committee: thank you very much for being there and for being the only safety valve we have in order to curb the burgeoning excesses that the bureaucracy puts in place. I hope that in the next 12 months, while the member for Stuart in his last year and the member for Ashford are members of this committee, we can set in place guidelines for these boards for the future, saying 'Whatever you do, you just can't come to a committee and say, "We want a 60 per cent increase in the levy." You have to cut your cloth to fit your budget.'

Government has created this excess bureaucracy. It is now up to us to trim it down and get back to what we do: we are looking for service and jobs on the ground and at the task at hand. It is not about building bureaucracies. We all can be accused of it at times; we all have been part of it. I thank the chairman (member for Enfield) and the other members of the committee. I appreciate the words of the member for Ashford because she gets very involved in the process, particularly in relation to the environment. She has been passionate about the environment for many years. I look forward to serving again on a committee with her. I am sure, as a result of her remarks this morning, a bottle of red would be appropriate.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:33): I want to make a contribution to this debate. I have watched with great interest the work of the committee. I think it does a sterling job, with a very capable chairman. The committee members work well together—as do members of the Public Works Committee. Some of the issues with which the Natural Resources Committee deals are close to my areas of interest and within my electorate. I have had occasion a couple of times to go with them (as indicated by the member for Ashford), most noticeably to Deep Creek—and we know about the debacle that came out of that—and also to Kangaroo Island some 12 to 18 months ago.

The committee is very much a watchdog, which acts in the best interests of all members of parliament and the people of South Australia. It is a job which needs to be done properly and which needs a great deal of attention to be given to it. I know that the exposure it brought to the Foggy Farm debacle at Deep Creek, and the subsequent recalling of the witnesses and the dressing-down they received on the second floor one morning—which I witnessed—probably put a few things into context and straightened out a few people fairly quickly. It is fairly interesting to note that some of those people who were witnesses on the day are no longer in the jobs they were in; they have been moved on quite rapidly, and I think that is a good thing.

Likewise, it also follows the affairs of the levies that are imposed by the natural resource management boards around the state under the act, and I think that is a critical area for it to watch and to watch very closely. I know that it assesses each of those levies with a great deal of scrutiny. I go back to a position I held formerly in another life when I was chairman of the Animal and Plant Board. I was involved in the initial meetings and whatnot.

I think it was the Hon. John Hill who called a meeting at the Tollgate at which we were told that basically the levies that would be collected by councils (if they agreed) would, in essence, be no more than what was required at the time to fund the animal and plant board, as well as the other small contribution. There were boards that decided that it was a licence to print money. Indeed, I think that some of them still think that it is a licence to print money. I know that the community will watch with a great deal of interest what does happen there and pull them into gear. Recently, I wrote to the councils in my electorate asking them what they were doing by way of their rate setting this year.

Given the world's financial situation, I asked whether they were considering lowering their rates and a host of other questions, because, at the end of the day, we must recognise people's ability to pay. I believe that there are those within the bureaucracy—whether that be at council level, natural resource boards, or whatever—who really have no idea of what the man in the street, the man in the paddock or the people in the paddock have by way of funds to pay these multiples of levies, rates and everything else. I am very pleased that the committee does take that job very seriously, and I am aware that it will continue to do that.

I have sat in on some rather animated and interesting discussions with my colleagues the members for Stuart and Enfield about things, and they leave me in no doubt that they will continue to do that. Currently, I am involved with the progress of the Kangaroo Island Natural Resource Management Board's draft plan for the island. There have been plans, plans and more plans. It has taken several trees to produce each copy of this document, it has been pointed out. I do have some major concerns over the water policy that is included in that plan, and I intend to speak and write to the Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, as well as providing a copy to other members, on where this plan is going.

I do not think that the KI board really understands the implications. I have no great problem with many aspects of what its policy is in other areas. Much of it is really not outcome based; it is a lot of words without really stipulating what the outcomes will be. The Natural Resources Committee of the parliament needs to pick up on this issue of the water policy. It is a policy that has been framed without any substantial science whatsoever. It is a plan that will prove disastrous for the economics of Kangaroo Island—not only the economics but also the environment and everything else, which it should be trying to get into context.

I attended a public meeting on Monday night at Parndana at which approximately 140 farmers were present, as well as a couple of officers from the Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Those officers freely admitted that they had been sent to the island. They knew what they were talking about with respect to water in the Adelaide Hills and the Fleurieu, but they had absolutely no idea of the issues relating to the water policy, the geography and the climate of Kangaroo Island. They had been sent there; they had no choice but to go. Mr Graham Allison, who is a water expert, was on the board but resigned in disgust; he chose not to go on. He spent many decades in the CSIRO, and he gave a 15 minute outline and just tore the board's plan to shreds, quite frankly—tore the plan to shreds.

I know that the committee will be most interested in this, and I invite it to tour Kangaroo Island and talk to the people whom this will affect. I do not think it is good enough. I will also be communicating with the minister directly on this. It is my view that this water policy and plan for Kangaroo Island should be removed forthwith. The presiding member has said on a couple of occasions that the minister will not accept a plan without a water policy in it. I know well enough that the minister (and any minister in their right mind) would not accept something that is a dog of a plan—which this is, quite frankly. So I will be seeking that the minister have this removed.

Indeed, at the conclusion of this meeting on Monday night, the chairman of the meeting, who is from Agriculture KI, asked for a show of hands on who thought the policy should be removed. Two people abstained, one was opposed and, without hesitation, everyone else in the room asked that the policy be removed. They have no problem with a water policy whatsoever. The problem is that it has been drafted by people who do not know what they are talking about. They have clutched at a few figures. There has been no scientific data and analysis. This thing should be pulled out. It does not matter if it takes two, three or four years; we have been doing pretty well until now without a plan.

This is something the Natural Resources Committee of parliament will be very interested in in the next 12 months. This thing should be removed. They should go back to basics and put in the science, investigation and research and come back in one year, two years or three years. It does not matter how long it takes. People on Kangaroo Island value and look after their water. What applies on the Fleurieu Peninsula does not apply there, what applies in the Mallee does not apply on the Fleurieu and so on. It is all different. This nonsensical 25 per cent rule that may fit well in some cases does not fit into the western end of Kangaroo Island. It is not needed—as, indeed, prescription is not needed, either, but we are only talking about prescription around the Middle River dam, not for the rest of the island.

There are some very irate people on Kangaroo Island—great numbers of them, let me tell members—who are counting on me as their local member of parliament to stand in this place and report on the nonsense that has taken place with this water policy. I have spoken to the minister and will speak to him again. He is very receptive to listening to local members, and I applaud him for that.

I commend the work of the committee, and I look forward to having much more interchange with its members, appearing before them if necessary and also accompanying them on a tour. It has done koalas, as the member for Ashford said; and it has done Deep Creek. We still have no answers to Deep Creek, I might add. Nothing has happened, still. No-one seems to be listening and, meanwhile, the creek does not flow, despite the best efforts of the committee.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:43): I commend the work of the Natural Resources Committee, but I will make what I think are some key points. There is often a lot of criticism about the NRM boards in the community. I think many of them are doing good things. One of the problems is that every time governments change their structure they have to reformulate. They need a different type of staff profile in many cases, and you bring in additional responsibilities. It effectively means that those boards will take some time to get reorganised, restructured and refocused and then deliver what all of us want to see, that is, some work on the ground.

So I make the point that, I think in fairness to the NRM boards, they have been refocused, reformulated and changed from the days of the old catchment boards. It takes them quite a while to get back on their feet, get focused and get on with doing on-ground work, which is what I want to see.

I believe that one of the great roles of the Natural Resources Committee is to scrutinise those NRM boards but, in a sense, what those boards are dealing with in the context of overall taxpayer/ratepayer funding is peanuts. However, the principle that we scrutinise those agencies and put them through the hoop is important. The unfortunate thing is that we do not do the same thing for the departments and agencies that spend hundreds of millions of dollars and, in some cases, billions. We never put them through the hoop in the same way that we put the NRM boards through the hoop, and I think that we should. It is not the role of the Natural Resources Committee to do that: it is the role of other committees—the Economic and Finance Committee, and so on.

I look forward to the day when parliament has a major say in decisions that are made by the bureaucracy, in terms of increasing levies or taxes, or whatever you want to call them, because at the moment we do not, and I think that we should.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:45): I rise in support of this motion. I would like to draw the attention of the committee to the AW (Alinytjara Wilurara) NRM board that is involved with the APY lands. I understand that this board has not been able to carry out some of its activities because a memorandum of understanding needs to be drawn up between the board and the APY executive. It is my understanding that that is happening, and the delay has occurred because of a backlog in the Crown Solicitor's Office.

The need to properly manage what is some of the most beautiful country in South Australia is something that I would strongly encourage the committee to take a personal look at. If members of the committee have not been there they should go and have a look at some of this country. Mount Woodroffe, the highest point in South Australia, is situated there. As I said, it is some of the most beautiful country in South Australia: it really is the Albert Namatjira colours. The potential for managing that area with a land or an NRM type management is huge, not only to put in place careful management but also to foster an economy based on ecotourism. There is a huge potential.

The AW NRM board is keen to get on with its work. It is keen to work with the APY executive and the communities. As the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs and a member of the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, I would be very keen to see the committee liaise with the lands committee and also with the APY and visit the lands and have a look at what is going on there, and to make sure that the AW NRM board is able to do what it wants to do and also what the APY communities would like it to do.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT