HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-07-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

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

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

That the 28th report of the committee, entitled Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board Levy Proposal 2009-10, be noted.

In so doing, I would like to make a couple of different remarks about this. My first remarks involve the Adelaide Mount Lofty board. The Adelaide Mount Lofty board is by far the largest and wealthiest of the NRM boards. It is therefore in a position to produce materials and undertake exercises which are probably well beyond the financial capacity of the other boards.

That said, it is something of a trendsetter or a leader, if you like, amongst NRM boards in the state. For those who are interested in NRM boards and how they are progressing, it is probably a good place to look to see what a well-resourced board might be able to do. In saying that, I am not saying that what they are doing is necessarily perfect or could not be done better, but it is the best example you will see of an NRM board in terms of being a funded body.

The second thing that I would like to say is that the actual funding increase in the current financial year is above the CPI increase for the last financial year of 5.1 per cent. The committee has always taken the view that increases above the CPI are necessarily something that need to be looked at critically. In this particular case, however, it needs to be understood that the board made a five-year proposal to the committee during the last financial year's round of discussions, and that proposal involved a flattening out of rates across various council areas in the NRM zone.

The increases that have been suggested or requested by the board were, in fact, foreshadowed last year and effectively given in principle approval by the committee last year. For that reason and that reason alone, the committee decided that we would approve, without any complaint, the proposals made by the board. That is really all that needs to be said about the Adelaide Mount Lofty board in particular.

However, I would like to say a couple of more general things about NRM boards and the way in which they interact with the Natural Resources Committee. Members of parliament may or may not be aware—because I guess most members are not as intricately involved with NRM boards as are members of this committee—and they might be interested to know that the legislation which governs this particular arrangement (that is, NRM boards), which is, in fact, the NRM Act, contains a provision which provides that if an annual increase is sought by a board in its levy (which ultimately is a tax, of course, paid by ratepayers and collected by local government) in excess of CPI, the process then requires the board's request to go to the Natural Resources Committee. The Natural Resources Committee has the power to accept, suggest amendments to, or reject any proposed levy increase, and it has suggested amendments on many occasions in the past. Generally speaking those suggestions have been taken up—at least in substance, if not in totality.

However, bear in mind that this is a tax that is, in effect, being imposed by an unelected body—namely, an appointed board. The only scrutiny of it exists, on one hand, at the level of the minister, who must consider what goes on in relation to any proposal for an increase by the board, and, on the other hand, by the parliamentary committee. Aside from that, the ratepayer has no recourse whatsoever and no right of remedy in the event of these rates being increased in a way they consider unfair. So, the parliament has given a very important function to the committee—that is, to be the public watchdog and to make sure that these boards are not excessive in their increases and impose undue burdens on ratepayers.

The second point is that the committee has always taken the view that if an increase is in excess of CPI, and since the legislation says that we must review any increase in excess of CPI, the more the increase is above CPI the more necessary it is for the committee to be critical of the processes underlying that increase, and it has been the case that the bigger the increase sought, the more scrutiny the committee has given to the proposers of those increases. An important factor includes the extent to which there has been consultation with the communities involved in paying the levies. If there has been extensive consultation, and it has been a matter of basic agreement between the board and the communities, then an increase above CPI is fine; however, if there has not been proper consultation and people have not been involved, then the matter looks rather different.

Another point I would like to make about NRM boards generally is that it is very important for the state government to provide them with early advice as to their level of state government funding in the forthcoming financial year so that, when the boards are finalising their budgets towards the end of any current financial year, they know what the state government is offering them. It is no good for the boards to be left in a position where they have to guess what the state government might be giving them, and therefore propose exorbitant rate increases on the assumption that they might not get any state money.

Another matter of concern is that of water-based levies being imposed on ratepayers in circumstances where there is not even a water allocation plan in existence—again, a problem but, hopefully, one that appears to have now been rectified. Yet another matter, which came to light this year (and I will not labour the point much in relation to this board) is the idea of targeting what appear to be wealthy individuals in a potential ratepayer pool and getting stuck into them on the basis that they can afford to pay. The committee does not agree with the attitude that underlies that, but I will say more about that in connection with other proposals that will be coming forward.

The last point is that the committee, of course, has to be cognisant of the general state of the economy and of the fact that people are finding it tough at the moment. For these NRM boards to be able to increase their levies—above CPI in some cases—in the face of present global financial circumstances, seems to me to be a little odd, that they should miss out on the same sort of strictures and constraints being imposed upon them as ratepayers are finding in their own lives—and as governments around the world are finding. Those later remarks do not specifically target the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges board.

Had it not been for the fact that the general proposals contained in the board's requests for increase this year had been foreshadowed and signed off on by the committee last year, the attitude might have been different but, given that they effectively put a five-year proposal to the committee in the last year and we basically agreed to it, in good faith we were in a position where we had to approve their proposals for this year, and that is what we have done. With those few words, I ask that the report be noted.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:11): I wish to comment in relation to the report the member for Enfield has moved concerning to the Natural Resources Committee investigating the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board Levy Proposal for the ensuing 12 months. It is of interest to me, because part of the geographic area that this NRM board looks to manage constitutes my electorate of Kavel. It has always concerned me from the start of the process in terms of the NRM levies that the two councils in my electorate, being Mount Barker and Adelaide Hills, have incurred higher levy figures than all the other council areas, bar one that I can see on the table presented in the report.

Adelaide Hills for the 2009-10 period is $45 and Mount Barker is $47. The only other council area that is higher is Walkerville at $50. When this was first put in place a number of years ago I wrote to the minister for environment and conservation at the time. I do not have a copy of that correspondence with me at the moment, but I got some fairly convoluted and confused response about how that levy component was calculated, and things have not changed over the past three or four years since the NRM has come into operation and these boards have been constituted and working. The reason I say it has not changed is that those two councils areas are still at the top of the table in the dollar amount being levied.

I took note of the comments from the chairman of the committee, the member for Enfield, that there is a plan or proposal that we have an equalisation process over the next five years, and those two council areas basically remain static, if I am reading this table correctly, where the other councils will catch up to that dollar amount in five years' time. That is fine. In five years' time, by 2012 or 2013, we will have some equalisation within all these local government areas, but it is unfortunate that those property owners in the electorate of Kavel have had to pay considerably more than the other councils over the preceding and subsequent years to 2012 and 2013.

That is an observation I want to make and a point I would like to highlight. Those two councils have arguably been dealt with in an unfair and inequitable manner. It also goes to the point (and this occurred when we were debating the legislation three or four years ago now) that I have always maintained that the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges natural resources management district is far too large. On this side of the house, we moved an amendment when we were debating the legislation to divide that area into three regions.

We could have the Adelaide metro area, the Hills and Fleurieu and the northern areas in three separate regions. However, the then minister rejected that, and so we ended up with this very large district encompassing the metropolitan area, the northern parts (the Barossa), all through the Adelaide Hills and the Fleurieu. That is where the vast majority of the population of the state lives; and you could say that there is quite a diverse range of natural resources through that area.

As I said, we have metropolitan Adelaide, which has different issues with the management of natural resources from the northern districts and the Barossa compared to the hills and, obviously, the Fleurieu. I note the member for Enfield's comments that it is a fairly progressive board and that it is a model for the other boards, but I think it is too large an area for the effective management of the natural resources aspect of our state. Also, when you look at the area, the level of population and the diversity in natural resources in the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges district also goes to the issue of on-the-ground management of natural resources.

I know that structures have been put in place where there are different offices with departmental staff in those offices around the district, but I have raised with some officers within the NRM structure this issue of their actual community consultation process in terms of communicating what the regulations and the requirements under the acts are to the community. I had an example where some constituents contacted me. They were doing some remediation work on a watercourse, and it was really good stuff. They were putting in place really good practices in terms of filling in a potentially washed out watercourse with some large rocks in an effort to control the erosion and to rehabilitate the watercourse as that water ran down that creek line into the dam on their property.

They got a letter from the NRM office which basically said, 'Hang on a minute. What you're doing there is what is regarded as a water-affecting activity, and you've got to have a permit and you've got to pay a permit fee of about $40 to rehabilitate a watercourse and to alleviate any further erosion.' I had a look through the act and, sure, it is in the act, so the NRM officers were abiding by the law of the land, I guess you could say. However, those landowners were not aware of the requirement that, if they were looking to control some erosion and doing it properly—not a half-hearted attempt—they were basically contravening the act and they had to apply for a permit and pay a permit fee. To me that is red tape. We on both sides of the house, supposedly, if you listen to the Premier and believe what he says, are committed to reducing red tape.

There is another part to this issue. I did speak to someone within the NRM structure and they are looking to improve on the current act, which is encouraging. I have always said that I will give credit where credit is due. They are looking to improve some of the requirements of the act; that is, if a farmer is implementing best practice and is looking to implement other measures on the property, then they do not necessarily have to apply for a permit, which I think it is a step in the right direction.

Time expired.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (11:21): I wish to make a few comments in relation to this report and I thank the committee for considering this important review of the proposed levy for 2009-10. My understanding is that it has already been forwarded to the Minister for Environment and Conservation. I, too, am a member of this house whose electorate overlaps this district and, indeed, if I have the privilege of representing the constituents of Bragg after the 2010 election, then it not only will be on the plains of the eastern suburbs of Adelaide but it will penetrate well into the Adelaide Hills region, covering such areas as Crafers, Summertown, Ashton and the like, and I look forward to having the opportunity of representing those people.

Unquestionably, the most pressing issue for that area is the question of water prescription. I have noted in a number of meetings that I have had with representatives and employees of the board that that matter is under consideration and that a draft plan will be published some time this month. Well, that is what we have been promised. I am not sure when it will be coming—hopefully, before the end of the year—but at this stage I have had no indication that it will not be published this month. I note that we have only a couple of weeks to go and that a number of people in the constituency are looking to receive that material as soon as possible. I understand that there will be a consultation period. This is important work to which the natural resources management board for this district should and can make a considerable contribution.

The water boards have undertaken important projects which, effectively, have been concluded and are out for examination and inspection under the new natural resources management board. Many of those are welcome, appropriate and excellent. However, the levy which is under consideration by this committee and which has been presented to the parliament is to maintain the work of the new natural resources management board for this area and, if there is to be an increase in the levy (as has already been highlighted, it is a contribution through council districts which are disparate and differentiated), then there have to be appropriate outcomes, especially when the revenue is received from any South Australian.

I think it has been reasonable for this natural resources management board in the last three years to have undertaken its planning work, the collation of that material from departmental sources (largely) and groups such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That has been important for the purpose of setting its direction. It has taken an inordinate time. Some of the draft plans that I have viewed from around the state are fantastic; others are hopelessly inadequate. There are some aspects of the current plan in relation to this district under consideration today which I think are inadequate, but many of them are admirable and the objectives and visions contained in them are to be applauded. However, I note the wholesale inconsistency in the application of funds for projects in respect of the vision and aspirational targets contained in those plans. One of them relates to the spending of this levy money, together with money the board receives by way of a grant for the management of weeds and pests.

I recently read a publication from this board, and I was appalled to learn that new signs, which are illustrated with glorious pictures, have been erected outside public areas and some private landholdings informing the public which weeds might be found in the adjacent area. Hundreds of thousands of dollars has been spent by the natural resources board on signs, illustrated with large pictures, indicating which weeds are a problem. It is a disgrace that these funds are not being applied to the eradication of weeds and pests in these areas but are instead being used to fund glossy pamphlets and large billboards, and it should be the subject for examination by the parliamentary committee. When people pay a levy to be applied to the protection and enhancement of our natural resources, they are entitled to know how the money is being spent. I am bringing this to the attention of the parliament because I am appalled that these moneys are being spent in this way. As I have said, there are other good projects.

In the past, local councils, all of which are listed in the report, have undertaken pest and weed control management to ensure the eradication or containment of pests and weeds in the area. Some of this is done by way of prosecution and by requiring landowners to ensure that noxious weeds, for example, are not growing at large on their property or are not likely to escape into surrounding areas. This is an important instrument in the tool bag of ways in which we manage these things. Historically, there has also been the opportunity (and I think it still exists) for authorised officers either to remove the weeds themselves or to contract others to undertake that work. However, that is not happening in practice any more.

Councils are saying to me, 'That's now the job of the Natural Resources Management Board,' but the natural resources management board is so busy distributing pamphlets, sticking up signs and not doing the job that we have a weed problem out there. It is not enough that we have a problem with bushfires and flooding: we now have a weed and pest problem that needs to be managed but is being completely ignored. When we ask people to pay these levies, the application of those funds should be put under considerable scrutiny, and this house, via the committee, can apply a level of accountability to ensure that happens.

I for one will not endorse any further extension of any levy, other than to bring it into some parity between the councils. I thank the committee for its work. I think the house is well aware that we do not need pamphlets and signs: we need action to be taken by these groups. Well qualified people and the resources of departments are at their disposal. There are thousands of people in the different levels of government (local, state and federal) undertaking work, and they have all the resources available to them. It is not acceptable for them to say that action taken by them deals with an issue when, clearly, that action fundamentally fails the people of South Australia, particularly those residing within the Adelaide resources management area.

Motion carried.

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