HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-06-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Natural Resources Committee: Levy Proposals 2016-17

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:11): I move:

That the 109th to 115th reports of the committee, relating to various natural resources management board levy proposals and plans for 2016-17, be noted.

One of the statutory obligations of the Natural Resources Committee is to consider and make recommendations on any annual levy proposed by a natural resources management board where the levy increase exceeds the annual rise of the consumer price index (CPI ) for Adelaide. This year of the six NRM regions proposing increases for 2016-17, all have proposed increases well above the 1.2 CPI reference rate.

I am advised that the reason behind these uncharacteristically high NRM levy increases was the imposition of a partial cost recovery of water planning and management charges. Cost recovery of water planning and management charges is in line with South Australia's ongoing commitment to the National Water Initiative agreement and its objectives. This round of NRM levy proposals attracted unprecedented interest from community members, businesses and elected representatives.

I would particularly like to acknowledge the submissions by members in this house, particularly the members for MacKillop, Chaffey, Hammond, Stuart, Bragg and Finniss. We would like to thank them for making those presentations to us. I know there has been a lot of discussion out of committee time and also in this place on this issue. The committee would like to thank all of the people who contacted our committee for their interest and their respective contributions to our committee's deliberations.

The Natural Resources Committee received advice in 2015 that several of the state's eight NRM regions were planning significant levy increases in 2016-17 in order to pay for these changes, along with rises in corporate services fees set by the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. The committee heard representations from seven of the eight NRM regions, with six regions forwarding plans proposing levy increases.

Reports on the six individual regions proposing levy increases have been tabled concurrently with this report. Following discussions with all eight resources management regions since the beginning of 2016, the committee determined to extend its support to the boards and the regional staff. The boards' success in natural resources management depends on maintaining good relationships with their communities, and the committee acknowledges their important work. Can I just say that the Natural Resources Committee feels that it is really important that, while we do have this responsibility, we also make sure that we show support to the representatives on the boards and also to the staff. We really appreciate the hard job they have and we really appreciate their work.

The additional expenses imposed on the boards this year are a heavy burden. The committee has detailed its concern in its recommendation to the minister, which is included on page 20 of this report. I might say that we spent a lot of time on the concerns we had, and we thought it was important that we identify them to the minister. The committee's concerns included that this additional cost recovery burden may have compromised the ability of boards to carry out their works effectively.

Also, the concern is a potential cause to damage the boards' relationships with their communities. The committee was also concerned that this significant above CPI increase to levies might have the unintended effect of discouraging the next generation of board members. We sincerely hope that this does not turn out to be the case.

In this instance, the committee is satisfied that the boards have done their utmost to respond to these challenging circumstances. The committee believes that the boards have acted in good faith to carry out the directives of the department and the minister while attending to their NRM responsibilities. The boards have also engaged in diligent and thorough consultation, revising their proposals based on feedback in order to minimise any effect on their respective communities.

After extensive deliberation, a majority of the Natural Resources Committee resolved at its meeting on Friday 6 May that it did not object to division 1 or division 2 levy proposals in the following regions: Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges, Eyre Peninsula, Northern and Yorke, South Australian Arid Lands, South Australian Murray-Darling Basin, and the South-East. In minority were the Hon. Robert Brokenshire MLC, the Hon. John Dawkins MLC and the member for Flinders.

I commend the members of the committee—the member for Napier, the member for Elder, the member for Flinders, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire MLC, the Hon. John Dawkins MLC and the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars MLC—for their contributions. All members have worked cooperatively on these deliberations and this report. Again, I also thank the members particularly in this house for their discussions and presentations to our committee.

Finally, I would like to thank the parliamentary staff for their assistance, Mr Patrick Dupont and Ms Barbara Coddington. I particularly note the very heavy workload that our research officer, Ms Barbara Coddington, has in trying to get all these reports done and the work ready for this house. I commend this report to the house.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:18): I rise to acknowledge the presentation of the report from the Natural Resources Committee to the parliament that encompasses all the different NRM boards, but I do so with a level of concern. I listened very intently to the member for Ashford's words, and I commend her for the fairness of the presentation of the deliberations of the committee. I am not a member and I was not in a position to present on positions I hold on the Northern and Yorke NRM Board when invited to do so. However, I have listened to it and I have been engaged in conversations about it with others for probably the last six weeks at least and I want to put some things on the record.

I respect the board members who are on the Northern and Yorke NRM committee. They have been good enough to invite me on a very regular basis when they hold their meetings. I am not able to attend at all times, but I believe I have met with them in Clare twice and in Maitland once. I do review the documentation and I am very interested in what they are doing. For me, it probably stems from not just being a member of parliament but in having respected for a long time those people from the communities who become involved in environmental management issues in their regions.

In my early days, I was a local government officer and on the animal and plant control boards, as they were then, so I understand completely the dilemmas attached to the collection of the levy and the provision of services. I am very concerned, though, about the increases that are occurring this year which I understand are in the range of $10.2 million across two financial years of an additional cost that NRM boards are being required to collect based upon what I think the member for Ashford referred to as 'partial cost recovery'.

I have been in this place long enough to remember another significant change from my era in the collection of the Northern and Yorke board fees when they went from a flat charge for all assessed property owners to one based upon capital value. Minister Gago from the other place was the minister responsible for the portfolio area at that time, and the review was being undertaken by the Natural Resources Committee, particularly where it was above CPI. In estimates questions of that year I made it obvious to the minister that it was necessary for that review to take place in the Northern and Yorke board because the increases to the five council areas within the Goyder electorate that year were 335 per cent, because of the complete change in how the levy was to be based upon individual properties.

That has passed—I understand that—and we all live with that fact, but this is an issue that has been brought to me a bit, not just as a regional member of parliament but from the perspective of the shadow local government portfolio. Councils across the state, in the negotiations and discussions that I have had with them about rate capping, have brought to me the concerns they hold about the continued collection of the NRM levy.

I had been around long enough at that time as a local government officer to have supported the change in structure that came about in the early 2000s. Certainly, there was a significant attraction of the potential dollars that were going to come to communities as a result of it and the administrative processes that were put in place. However, as I understand it, and from the discussions I have had with people, it has changed amazingly in the last 15 years to a completely different structure. Now you still have well-intentioned community people who become board members, but they are driven so much on what the practical outcomes can be that it no longer becomes the focus.

All across the communities that I have the honour to represent, they support the principle of it but they want to see the on-the-ground impact of it. Others tell me that they are concerned that of the expenditure provisions within NRM areas, it seemingly has changed from on the ground being the majority to administratively being the minority, completely. There has been a swap on that. Communities want to see actual benefits occur from the levies that they pay.

When they hold that frustration that that is not the existent outcome but they continue to receive bills based upon a government decision for an increased amount of cost recovery, they get angry about it; that is only natural. Those who collect the levy are rather upset by it, too. Councils, as part of their wide range of feedback given to me, are really looking at opportunities to identify on the rate notice that they will be about to send out—and they have been responsible for 15 years to collect the levy—the fact that this charge is the responsibility of others, it is not theirs.

It has been determined by government, flowing through to the board who have to do it in effect because they do not have reserves to use up in other areas. They have to collect this money to continue operations, and they are going to make a specific campaign on the fact that this is a government decreed cost. I support them on that because that is where accountability comes into it, but it is part of the anger and frustration that has existed out there.

I do not intend to hold up the house for a long time on this and I commend the Natural Resources Committee for the opportunity provided to NRM boards to make presentations and the opportunity for members of parliament to make submissions. I commend those members who did. However, it is with a level of frustration that I note—and the member for Ashford referred to this—that a majority of members of the committee chose not to object. I know that the minority of members of the committee were not prepared to support that, and they voted against not objecting, which means that they did not support the increases, but things have to occur sometimes.

It shows that there is going to be a considerable political debate that will occur about this over the next few months at least, particularly as the bills are starting to be received by people. I think it is a responsibility to ensure that the political debate that occurs ties back to those who are responsible for that decision. When I talk to people, I am going to say it is not the NRM boards; they are being forced in many ways to make these challenging decisions. They recognise the impact it is going to have on property owners. It is purely a decision of government, and that is where I hope the people of South Australia realise their anger needs to be vented to, and I have no day no doubt that it will.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Colton.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (11:24): Thank you very much. Given my back, ma'am, I will not be holding the house for very long—I just hope I can hold up myself. I am very pleased to stand today and speak about this report, most ably provided by the member for Ashford. It has always been fairly controversial, the natural resources management levy, and it will always be controversial. Under statute, it is required to be collected by council, and in my previous discussions with council they would be more than happy to collect it if they kept it, but that is not what is the case. That is not what is on offer, so they will continue to collect it and that is the appropriate mechanism by which it will be collected.

I note the comments of the member for Goyder about the outcomes that people within the community would like, not being seen in relation to the projects that are being undertaken. I am not going to suggest that is not true because I have not been out in the regional areas for a long while, but, in my most recent memory, it was a process by which the community would be engaged as to what were the priorities in regard to how that money should be spent and on what projects. I would be very disappointed if that were not the case now.

But I would temper that also by saying that, in my memory, it was people looking at projects that were their priority but not necessarily the priority of the vast area that is covered by the NRM boards. That will always be the case where you would say, 'It is not money being spent on the ground.' To paraphrase that, it often means, 'It is not money being spent on the ground in the area that I want it to be.' It is the role of a board, with the responsibility of making decisions, as to how best to spend that money in the broader interests of the community, the broader interests of the environment and, indeed, I expect still from a whole of landscape perspective, because that is the way in which we should manage our landscape.

On the matter of the costs incurred, which, again, are required under the National Water Initiative and there is a requirement to recover all those costs, what I would say is that I hope the NRM boards are making sure that the people who are providing that—and generally it will be DEWNR, I expect, under what was once the department for water—that their pencils are sharpened and that it is audited properly to ensure that they are getting the best value they can possibly get from that service that they require.

It does not make sense for all of our NRM boards to have water specialists that will do all the modelling and do all of this. It should be done by other organisations. It does not have to be the government department. As I understand it, they have the right to go out and get other people to engage it, but they have a requirement to make sure that that money is paid. I just say that, without creating any problems for myself or others, I hope they are requesting that their pencils are sharpened and ensure in the proper audit that they get good value for the money that they are paying for those services that they require in their statutory role of developing water management plans in the various areas in what is seen as another controversial issue.

To finish, I want to congratulate those people who represent their areas on the NRM boards. They do a very good job, but also there are some outstanding staff who are employed by the NRM boards and the importance of that is that, not only are they representing the communities in which they live but also they are the frontline and the interface between natural resource management and the people they represent in the community, and I commend them for the job that they do.

Sometimes it can very difficult, as I said earlier. You cannot please everyone and sometimes there are difficult processes and decisions that need to be made, but I do know that they are the best people placed to engage the community, to work through those issues and to get an outcome that the significant majority of the people within that particular region and even beyond will agree with.

I actually think we get pretty good value out of the NRM boards. I have had a look at some of the projects by my NRM board (Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board). I think they do very good work and some might say that it is really on the smell of an oily rag. Some of the projects they undertake and the outcomes they get are very good. That is just a reflection of one of the boards, but I say that that is the case with all of the NRM boards that exist in this state.

We know that no-one likes paying taxes and no-one likes paying levies. No-one likes paying any money, but it is responsible for all of us to do that. It is then the responsibility of those who are collecting and spending the money to make sure that the outcomes that are being achieved are those that are required and ultimately supported by the community.

I think that the NRM system in South Australia is one that, to a certain extent, sets us apart from the rest of Australia, and I think that it does a very good job. The working relationships between the boards have improved significantly over the years. The working relationship between the boards and the councils have improved significantly over the years; indeed, the working relationship between the boards, the communities and the state government agencies has improved significantly over the years as well.

I commend the report to the house. I think that the member for Goyder said—and he will correct me if I am wrong—that a number of people on the board did not vote against the majority—

Mr Griffiths: They were not supportive, but were not objecting.

The Hon. P. CAICA: They were not objecting. If you are not objecting, I think you are supporting it. The people who were not supporting it were actually those who opposed it, and a minority report came about. I think you are being a bit too cute with your words there; notwithstanding that—

Mr Griffiths: I was just repeating what the member for Ashford said.

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, I do not think she said that; you might want to check the Hansard.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. P. CAICA: Anyway—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! My protective side is coming out for you, member for Colton.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Thank you very much, ma'am.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I cannot hear what the member for Colton is saying.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hammond, your voice does boom. I remind you all that standing orders require silence for speakers. Member for Colton.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. Without being disrespectful, I am glad that you are protecting me, but I can protect myself. I will just finish off with this point. If you vote with the majority, you support it. If you do not vote with the majority, you have opposed it, and the majority is supporting this report. I commend the report to the house and I further commend the role and the function of the natural resources management boards and their employees across this state.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:31): I would like the opportunity to say a few words about this report. I thank the member for Ashford for the opportunity to discuss by phone a few matters with the committee. I was not able to be there, but I had quite a lengthy discussion over the phone and raised quite a few matters. There is a need to do something about the NRM. It is working in some areas and not in others. I have two boards: a very small board and a very large board. It has been put to me—and I agree with this—that the problem is that the smaller boards raise a minuscule amount of money and the amount of money that the big board raises is gigantic.

In my view, the income that is collected across South Australia needs to be levelled. The board in the Adelaide Hills, which has enormous revenue, should be able to distribute some of that revenue to the smaller boards to enable them to do more. You can say that that is a rationalisation of public moneys and spreading the load, etc. You cannot expect a small board, such as the one I have on Kangaroo Island, to do anywhere near the amount of work that should be done with no money to do it.

The major complaint of many people from my electorate, indeed from officers themselves who have spoken to me privately, is that they spend far too much time sitting in offices filling out bureaucratic paperwork than they do getting out and doing things that they want to do and should be doing. In a couple of cases, some officers are attached to the board, and the feral species people go out and deliver a certain amount of lead, and by other methods, to species. They are out and about pretty regularly doing what they need to do, but other methods need to be put into practice to free up staff.

The board that controls much of the Fleurieu in my electorate has a multitude of people working for it, but even there I get the regular complaint that not enough is seen to be done. People want more done. My view is that there are aspects of the NRM legislation which took over animal and pest control, plant and soil boards. I think (and I speak as a former chair of an animal and plant board) that we actually got a lot more done when it was attached to the council and there was a much smaller group involved in directing what happened. It was more hands-on and there was more local interest in it.

So, my view is firmly that that side of it is not working and that something needs to be done about it. NRM puts a substantial amount of work into our rural electorates and collects a huge amount of money, as I said earlier, from the metropolitan area in particular. We have to get it so that some of that money that is in these larger boards goes to smaller boards—and the member for Flinders knows all about it; he has boards out his way, I am not sure how many he has. I put the case for getting more done, more on-ground works done, and not so many people filling out endless paperwork in offices.

I am lucky, as the board on the island is a particularly good board and I very pleased with the make-up of it; I have regular contact with it. The one in the Hills and the Fleurieu is a little more distant and it is a little bit harder to get information from it—and that is not being overly critical. It is just that never the twain shall meet between the big outfit and the small outfit, which is much more personal. I am interested to read the report that has been put forward by the member for Ashford and I will listen with interest to other members.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:36): I will make a contribution on the 109th report. I acknowledge the good work, the hard work, that the Natural Resources Committee does, but this massive increase in levies is something that has gone past or through the committee and has been underwhelmingly endorsed by the committee. It was the state's responsibility and now has been really targeted at a much smaller constituency in South Australia.

It is quite clear that the minister has made a directive to the natural resources boards, and in some instances committee members on some of the boards were not aware of this massive impact that they were going to have to pass on to their constituency, and it really has hit my electorate in Chaffey as part of the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board. I want to put on the record that the member for Flinders, the Hon. John Dawkins MLC and the Hon. Robert Brokenshire MLC voted to object to these proposals, but they were overridden as it is a government-weighted committee, sadly. No disrespect to the Presiding Member, but I think we have to acknowledge the impact it will have on the greater productive areas in South Australia.

I would like to start by raising a few points from a letter. I receive many letters from constituents in my electorate because of the mammoth task and burden that the majority of particularly the farming sector are going to have to incur from levy increases. I was speaking to one constituent only on Thursday, and he is getting a $2,000 increase, so it is clear that it is a cost shifting exercise to the most productive part of the state. It is outrageous that the minister has come out and given us all this polywaffle about justification on why his directive went to the boards when they really had no say.

One of the letters I received was that one of my constituents was at a consultation workshop hosted by the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board and options were given to this consultation workshop: no increase, 50 per cent, 100 per cent, 200 per cent, and obviously the highest preferred option was no levy increase. Of course that is the way people are going to vote.

People are always going to accept the Natural Resource Charter and that it is a responsibility of the state to have these programs, to have environmental programs in particular. In the Murray-Darling Basin, almost every South Australian is a beneficiary of good river management and good land management. What we are seeing now is that we are going to encompass a 10½ per cent increase to the levy, and it is important to note that inflation is around 2 per cent: it is not 10 per cent.

I would also like to touch on a couple of issues along the way. I did give evidence to the committee because I thought it was important that I speak on behalf of my constituents. One of the notable pieces of evidence that came before the committee was given by the CEO of DEWNR. I quote from the report:

The committee heard from Ms Pitcher that the regions did not have a choice in having these costs imposed on them: 'it was certainly not a decision that presiding members had the power to agree or not agree,' she said. 'It is not a question of the boards deciding to lift a levy above CPI. They are the recipients of a government decision to take $6.8 million indexed over the forwards.'

That is a quote from the CEO. That is a damning quote, that this minister has laid the heavy hand on the natural resources boards. I think it is a damning indictment of the minister, who continually bats away that this is a cost that needed to be forwarded on.

I want to touch on the impact and a few stats behind the NRM region in my electorate and what it means to South Australia. The Murray-Darling Basin NRM region extends from the Riverland area south to where the River Murray meets the sea at the Coorong, including Mount Barker at its western border and extending to the South Australia-Victoria state border. The region covers 70,000 square kilometres and includes six districts: the River Murray, Coorong Lower Lakes, Murray Mallee, Murray Plains, Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges and the South Olary Plains.

The region is home to more than 120,000 people living and working in 15 local government areas, eight of which are shared with the NRM regions. Regional natural resources support tourism, recreation and manufacturing, as well as the most productive agricultural area in South Australia. Eighty-two per cent of the regional land is used for primary production.

I think that is where we need to take note—that 82 per cent of the Murray-Darling Basin area is used for primary production. It is used for sustainable food production and it is used for supporting a healthy environment. Many of those people who are the eyes and ears of our natural resources are being hit with this hefty increase. I do not speak on behalf of them when I ask: will they walk away from their volunteer work, will they walk away from using their eyes and their ears as a great conduit to the natural resources boards, to the government? This directive is clearly inflammatory.

Within the region, the ecosystems are of national and international significance. We have three Ramsar sites that are all backed up by some government support, but the majority is volunteer support. These people are almost being driven away from something that is invaluable and an invaluable contribution. It just shows that this government is looking a gift horse in the mouth.

This region alone contributes $2.2 billion in gross food production and generates about $200 million worth of tourism, much of which is based around the river and its environment. Along the way, the evidence I gave to the Natural Resources Committee was a little overlaid with a lot of other good contributions. I notice the member for Hammond gave evidence as well. If we look at the councils at the moment, we see that they are furious that what was once an affordable levy that they accepted to pass on to their ratepayers is now a burden, and they are the bearers of that bad news. I met with three of my six councils on Thursday, and one of the main topics of conversation was the impost they were having to endure in collecting the NRM levy. They felt that it was unfair and that it unfairly targeted their ratepayers, just as I feel it unfairly targeted my constituency in Chaffey.

Along the way, there were also calls from Primary Producers SA for an independent inquiry into how the government could justify collecting and raising these ever-increasing levies. When South Australia is really under the pump economically, the government is clearly shifting responsibility for costs away from the state and onto some of the most productive areas in the state—just giving them another whack and poking the needle in that little bit further. It is making people more and more angry.

This cost shifting exercise has seen a small population of South Australia picking up the tab for the majority of South Australia. The electorate of Chaffey is picking up a large majority of this NRM levy increase, as are the South-East and the Mount Lofty areas. It is a cost shifting exercise that every South Australian should be aware of because those areas are the most productive in the state, yet they are being penalised the most.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:46): I rise to speak on the 109th to 115th reports of the Natural Resources Committee relating to various natural resources management levy proposals and plans for 2016-17. I will be echoing comments from my colleagues on the side of the house that this is an outrageous fee rise. I note my interest in natural resources, as I did when I presented to the committee. My wife is an environmental scientist and she helped set up integrated natural resources management maybe over a decade ago now, so I have a little bit of inside knowledge of what happens and I am still fed some information from some good people.

Natural resources management is vital to our productive state, but the frustration continually vented to me is that it appears that about 80 per cent of the levy money is spent on office work, reviewing plans which, subject to the act, are required to be reviewed on a three-yearly or a five-yearly basis. Volumes and volumes of work are being done every year right across the state by people just reviewing plans. It frustrates the practical people, the practical producers of our state who just want to do things on the ground and get them happening.

Interestingly, some feedback via a question I was asked during my presentation to the committee was that I did not support any of the work. No, that is not right. I do support the on-ground projects, but the issue for me is that it is almost like going to a crop trial site. Every time you go to one, there are always the same farmers and they are good operators—don't get me wrong.

They are the same operators whose good work you go and visit whether it is on the River Murray swamps, a dryland area or at Lake Albert. It is always the same people, so no-one can tell me that it involves thousands of properties in that manner across the region. In fact, I am going to see one on Friday morning in Murray Bridge. I think what cuts to the bone for people is the fact that, as is stated in the report:

Additionally…DEWNR intended to begin full cost recovery for corporate services ($21,699 per FTE) from all regions commencing in 2016–17.

So not only are people paying this levy, their emergency services levy, they are straight-out funding the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. This is where it really sticks in the craw of the electors of this state: instead of these departments being funded, as they have been from general revenue in the past, now there is this so-called cost recovery that will again just beat up the good constituents of the regions and throughout the urban areas and take this funding from them.

In regard to the Murray-Darling Basin area, the 2015-16 budget was $2,253,752 rising to $5,827,400 in 2018-19, and in division 2 the water levy goes from $7,079,782 to $8,050,792. We are seeing these gross rises right across the board that impact on the producers of our state who contribute around $20 billion a year to this state, especially in the light of the downturn in mining and manufacturing.

There has been some discussion about the attitude of councils to collecting the levy. I would like to note a motion that was put forward by the Mid Murray Council to the Murraylands and Riverland Local Government Association. It reads as follows:

That the Murraylands and Riverland Local Government Association:

(1) Note the significant cost increase proposed in the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin NRM draft Business Plan 2016/17-2018/19 in the amount of levy raised through the NRM levy (land levy proposed to be increased by 136% from $28.00 to $66.00 and water levy by 10.5% from $5.70 to $6.30 per megalitre).

(2) Considers that such a significant increase in the NRM levy may have a detrimental effect on the payment of council rates and council operations.

(3) Request that the South Australian Regional Organisation of Councils (SAROC) consider the removal of the requirement by the state government for the collection of the local government Natural Resources Management Levy due to the reasons outlined.

It is sad to think that it has reached this level because I have had constituents ring me to say, 'Well, we're just not going to pay it. We're just not going to pay it.' I said, 'That's up to you; that's your call.' However, what is going to happen is that councils will have to pick up the slack because they will get the direct bill from the government.

While I am talking about natural resources management, something I presented in my submission was the effect of both corellas and the New Zealand fur seals in my area. Corellas are having a devastating effect on communities around the state, yet there is only one council, the Coorong council, that has put in a proper relocation program that permanently relocates some of these corellas so that they never offend again. It is the only way to manage these birds, yet NRM flatly refuses to be involved. You would have thought that this was something that natural resources management should be involved in.

However, there is also the seal issue. I note a letter from Julie Jones, the daughter of the great Henry Jones who stood alongside so many environment ministers and environment shadows over his life, especially the last decade of his life, in fighting for the River Murray—a true champion. After a visit by the federal Minister for the Environment, Mr Greg Hunt, only the other day, Julie wrote a letter, and I quote from it:

Dear Minister Hunt,

Thank you for visiting Clayton Bay today and for listening to the concerns of our community. I reiterate what I said at the meeting through print as you requested.

Re: Destruction caused by the New Zealand Fur Seal & introduction of the herpes strain cyprinid herpesvirus-3 for carp.

PLEASE LISTEN!

We are distraught watching our fishing business and industry suffering as it has at the hands of the destructive New Zealand fur seals. And in total disbelief that despite the constant and desperate cries for help (through the right channels) we are not getting the right intervention from Government to rectify the problem.

As listed below…all trials have failed.

My name is Julie Jones and my son, Justin Phillips, is a Fisher in the Lower Lakes, mostly South of Lake Alexandrina. My sister is also a fisher, after taking over my father's (Henry Jones) fishing licence 2 & a half years ago. Prior to being employed by my sister, Justin fished with Henry since he left school (10 years ago). Our family has held fishing licences in this region for over 50 years.

At this time, my son is NOT working due to the horrific daily impact the NZ fur seals are having on the fishery. We are very concerned about the exhausted physical and mental health of the fishers in our Southern Fishermen's Association. There are fishers in our Association on suicide watch.

We see seals every fishing day. We see the destruction they wreak daily. The seals bite the pelicans' neck and feet and leave them to suffer. We are not seeing other species of birds that we used to see (i.e. the musk duck). New nets have enormous irreparable holes in them, the fish in the nets are NOT saleable as they are bitten in half. Our income has been highly affected making it impossible to meet the cost of licence fees, let alone daily living expenses. This, of course, also has a rippling social impact on businesses in our communities.

We have been asked for photos of the destruction, damage statistics, stock numbers, etc., and all of this has been collated and sent. We continue to send accurate information and statistics as requested.

This fishery is generally concerned for not only our own livelihoods...but for the Ecosystem that we fought so hard to resurrect in our fight for water post the recent destructive drought.

They go through the list of points that were made at the meeting about the destruction of alternative fishing styles. Fyke nets and crackers were no good. Eighty metres of fencing around the barrages was no good. Seal counts have indicated that seals have certainly increased after they went out to breed in December to January.

My call is that, instead of the government taking all this money from our community without giving too much back, this is the time they should be standing up for our communities, whether it be on issues like land and water management, corellas, or some sort of decent management on seals, which are destroying our native environment and our fishers' livelihoods.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:56): I rise to speak on the 109th to 115th reports of the Natural Resources Committee. I listened very closely to the member for Ashford, the Chair of that committee. She is a person I have a great deal of respect for, and in fact I gained a lot of that respect while I was on the committee myself. I appreciate the thoughtful way in which she described the way in which the committee's final decision was arrived at.

Let me make it clear to the house that I certainly made a very brief but direct submission to the committee, asking the committee that it not support any levy increases in excess of CPI. The committee as a whole decided to go in a different direction, and I note that certain members of the committee voted one way and certain members voted another, but at the end of the day majority rules with regard to the committee position.

Let me also say very clearly that I am not an NRM board basher. I do actually value the work of the boards. We have very capable, decent and skilful people as board members and I value, in the overwhelming majority, the work that the staff do as well. What I do not agree with is the fact that they can ask the public for more and more money every year in excess of CPI. The reason is that, as I have said in this place many times before—and when I was on the committee myself I spoke to this effect and voted against levies in excess of CPI. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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