HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2019-09-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Landscape South Australia Bill

Final Stages

Consideration in committee of the Legislative Council's amendments and suggested amendments.

The CHAIR: The house is in committee on the Landscape South Australia Bill 2019. We have 50 amendments and a further five suggested amendments; is that correct, minister?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Yes.

The CHAIR: Really, we are in your hands as to how you would like to handle this. You can move one or all or some of. I will give you the call.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Thank you, Chair. Are you comfortable with me making some remarks on the process thus far?

The CHAIR: Yes.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Before we begin to look at the amendments in full, I would like to make a few overall remarks about the process thus far and the passage of the Landscape South Australia Bill 2019 through the House of Assembly and into the Legislative Council. I would like to thank all those members in this house and the other place who have made contributions to this bill. We certainly believe that it is an important bill, and I know that there are many land managers, community members, farmers and conservationists watching its progress through this parliament.

We have made it very clear in the lead-up to the 2018 election, during our time in opposition as we were developing policies to take to that election, and then since forming government that this is a key reform priority for the Marshall Liberal government. We saw a great opportunity to take what was good from the Natural Resources Management Act and the integrated framework that it provided for natural resources management in South Australia.

We supported the integration. I think it is a good thing that a whole-of-landscape approach is taken across issues such as water management, sustainable agriculture, pest control, biodiversity, climate resilience and so on, taking the aims and objectives of the Natural Resources Management Act and embedding them into a new act that is much closer to the community.

I received criticism and feedback from my colleagues, members of the community and all different types of peak bodies. From peak bodies representing the agricultural sector to peak bodies representing the conservation side of the debate, a consistent message came that the Natural Resources Management Act had drifted from its purposes, drifted too far from the community and required substantial reform.

People managing the land, people involved in conservation, people involved in the productive aspect of the regional economy, people involved in agriculture, people involved in tourism and people living in our cities and towns across South Australia felt that under the centralised and bureaucratic situation that had become natural resources management in this state they were not able to have the same level of interaction and engagement with the system and ability to shape the system that they might have liked.

The Landscape South Australia Bill sought to change that and position this piece of legislation and the government structures that come from it much closer to the South Australian community. I think we have that balance right. I think the decentralised model that we have proposed and have seen largely passed through both houses will enable future Landscape South Australia boards, subject to the final passage of this legislation, to have a much more immediate impact on the environmental challenges facing the land across our state.

I hope that board members in particular will become more representative of the communities for whose regions they are charged with environmental responsibility. It is not across all boards, but my assessment is that certainly some boards currently do not necessarily represent the interests of landowners and land managers. They have climbed into ivory towers where they have been unable to connect effectively with the communities that they are there to represent.

They ought to keep in mind that they are there to represent the communities and not themselves. I call out some board members who have seemed to show through this process that they have not been there for the communities but have actually been there for themselves and their own egos. This has been disappointing, but of course those people are unlikely to continue under the new system should it pass this place.

The new legislation proposes not only decentralisation but also a number of boundary changes. I think these boundary changes are very important to help communities become more connected to the boards that are managing their environment. I think engagement between boards, governments and the communities they seek to work for is important. Creating opportunities to connect people in a geographical sense is an important part of that engagement, so we have a number of boundary changes.

In a minor sense, we are proposing that the town of Port Augusta move into the South Australian Arid Lands region rather than being in the Northern and Yorke region. The landscape that city occupies is much more of an arid landscape and lends itself to being found within the SA Arid Lands region. The most significant change is around metropolitan Adelaide. We have proposed the abolition of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board and its replacement with a Hills and Fleurieu region. There are some boundary changes to the north of Adelaide, taking areas such as the Barossa, Gawler and the plains north of Gawler and putting them into the Northern and Yorke region.

I think one of the most significant reforms is the creation of a body called Green Adelaide. Green Adelaide is specifically created within this legislation as a body that will be in charge of the bold greening of metropolitan Adelaide, not only recognising the specific environmental challenges faced by a large capital city but specifically looking at the opportunities that a city can have in terms of being a biodiversity hotspot.

We have encapsulated in this legislation the opportunity to create a body called Green Adelaide, which will have this bold greening agenda. It will look at issues such as urban rivers and wetlands; our metropolitan coastline; nature and nature education within the city; dealing with pest plants and animals within the metropolitan context; and the greening of our streets, our Parklands and also our buildings.

An area that I am very keen for the Green Adelaide body to explore and really pioneer across the city is the greening of buildings in a really practical sense. This includes green roofs, green walls, creating habitat and of course cooling our city in the face of a changing climate. There is absolutely no doubt that the greatest environmental challenge facing our capital city is our changing climate and increasing temperatures.

The urban heat island effect, which comes from heat being attracted to and magnified by a whole range of hard surfaces, such as concrete, glass, metals, etc., within the metropolitan environment, obviously pushes up our temperatures. That becomes even more pressing in the face of a changing climate. Everyone in this place will remember the day in January this year that reached 46º Celsius and how very unpleasant that was. Green Adelaide really needs to be at the forefront of cooling our city by bold plantings across our city.

They will be working very closely with local governments and also non-government organisations, but particularly local governments, to maximise the dollar, to maximise the planning and coordination, the mapping of canopy cover, the mapping of the impacts of the heat island effect and really working in what I think is a world-leading sense to cool this city through increasing our canopy cover.

Of course, that does not happen overnight. That is one of the great challenges we face; it does not happen overnight. It will take several generations probably, although we need to go faster than that in some ways. We have to give Green Adelaide the imperatives, the legislative functions and the mandate from government to get on and green this city to create habitat here but, more than anything, to cool it in the face of a changing climate.

Another reform is the redistribution of the levy collected within metropolitan Adelaide so that it can be used for environmental benefit in regional South Australia. When we consulted on the creation of the landscape bill there was no pushback at all around the concept of taking some of the levy collected within metropolitan Adelaide and placing that within a special fund that can be used to advance large scale, landscape scale, projects within regional and rural South Australia.

One of the great motivations for that, from my point of view when creating this policy—and this was agreed with, I think, by the vast majority of the people who were involved in the engagement processes around the landscape bill—was the idea that people who live in metropolitan Adelaide and who enjoy and benefit from the regions in terms of food production or travel for work or holidays put pressure on the regions and on the environments of the regions. As a consequence, perhaps they should be putting their hand in their pocket through their metropolitan-based NRM levies, or landscape levies as they will progress to be called, and be contributing financially to large scale, landscape scale—

The CHAIR: Minister, can I interrupt here. I have given you some latitude. I might ask you to turn your mind to the amendments themselves now.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I could do. I thought it was important that the house got lots of—

The CHAIR: You have given us good background.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: —good background as to how we got to this place, Chair.

The Hon. S.C. Mullighan: Chair, I missed it. Will he start again?

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I am happy to. I am disappointed that the member for Lee was not paying close attention. I want to reflect very briefly on the process of this legislation through the houses because, by and large, I think that many of the amendments that were made have enhanced this legislation, and that is what you want from your legislative process.

There are 50 amendments before the house and a number of suggested amendments as well. I will be accepting the vast majority of those amendments. There are some, for very clear policy reasons, that I seek to reject today, but the vast majority of the amendments that were made enhance the bill and really demonstrate that good engagement processes through the preparatory stages of this bill have taken us to a point where we were able to put a piece of legislation into this place that more or less hit the mark.

However, through further engagement and through the parliamentary process we have been able to accept a range of amendments that we believe continue to enhance the bill. Some of those amendments were made in this house and some were suggested by the opposition in this house and, while not necessarily agreed by me in this house, I made it very clear at the time that, because of internal party processes in terms of getting approval and endorsement of those amendments, I would be happy to look at many of those amendments in the Legislative Council. That is exactly what we did, and that has seen us agree to a significant number of amendments that were then put forward in the Legislative Council.

In total, the Legislative Council has made 50 amendments to the bill and also suggested five amendments. These suggested amendments relate to money clauses and seek to transfer responsibility for collecting land levies inside council areas from councils to regional landscape boards, with the assistance of the Commissioner of State Taxation.

The government opposed a number of these amendments in the other place. However, in the interests of moving towards consensus, the government, as I have indicated, will support the passage of 39 of the Legislative Council's amendments. To be clear, those remaining in contention concern regional boundaries, the timing for the first elections to the landscape boards and land levy collection arrangements in council areas. There may be an opportunity to go through some of these amendments as clusters, while others should be focused on so that we can discuss them in more detail at an individual level. I turn now to amendment No. 1.

Amendment No. 1:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 1 be agreed to.

This amendment reinstates the term 'peak body' from the Natural Resources Management Act and relates to amendments that require consultation with peak bodies ahead of making certain decisions. I can advise the house that the government supports the passage of this amendment.

We have absolutely no concern whatsoever in consulting with peak bodies ahead of making certain decisions under the Landscape South Australia act. A removal of that requirement was part of one of our overarching aims for this legislative reform, and certainly an aim that was backed up through consultation, which was to simplify the quite onerous and bureaucratic consultation processes that were built into the Natural Resources Management Act. We did not want to be in a situation where we were throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I am certainly convinced through this process that reinserting the term 'peak body' from the NRM Act before making certain decisions should be supported, so I seek to support amendment No. 1.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 2:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 2 be disagreed to.

Amendment No. 2 is consequential to suggested amendments moved by the Hon. Frank Pangallo in the other place. This would transfer responsibility for collecting land levies inside council areas from local councils to regional landscape boards with the assistance of the Commissioner of State Taxation. The government's position has been very clear on this and, in fact, mirrors the position of the South Australian Labor Party during its four terms in government, that is, that local councils should continue to collect the land levy as this is the most cost-effective way to collect the levy and maximises the funding available for on-ground delivery.

The government has received preliminary advice that it would be extremely expensive for a change in the circumstances of levy collection here, and that would take funds directly from environmental works on the ground and, in particular, from regional South Australia. We strongly believe that we should continue to see local governments collect the levy through council rates bills, maximising the funding available. The government therefore disagrees with amendment No. 2.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos 3 to 13:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment Nos 3 to 13 be agreed to.

Amendments Nos 3 to 8 concern the bill's objects and related principles of ecologically sustainable development. Amendments Nos 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 largely insert concepts from the Natural Resources Management Act's objects and principles of ecologically sustainable development. Amendment No. 6 amends the existing object on climate change to specifically reflect the need for mitigation and adaptation. Amendments Nos 9 to 13 include express references to biodiversity in matters to be considered in determining whether someone has breached the general statutory duty found within the act.

We believe that all these amendments enhance the legislation that has passed through the two houses of parliament. Again, I reiterate our real openness to accepting amendments that enhance the legislation, particularly focusing on the need to include more references to biodiversity in matters being considered within the act. This was raised on a number of occasions by particularly the conservation sector when the proposed act was undergoing its very extensive engagement process across the state during the month leading up to the introduction of the bill.

We strongly believe that the landscape act should pay close attention to the sustainment of biodiversity. I see biodiversity as a concept which really is laid over the bill and the hoped-for outcomes of the act and, as a consequence, strengthens reference to biodiversity throughout the proposed act and ensures that landscape boards pay close attention to undertaking activities which enhance biodiversity in their particular region is something the act should certainly pay close attention to.

We also have an amendment here, amendment No. 6, which amends the existing objective on climate change to expressly reflect the need for mitigation and adaptation. It is my view that the proposed bill did in its original form make very significant efforts to ensure that climate change was built into the planning and delivery work of landscape boards, but there have been amendments put forward to say that that could be strengthened. I am certainly supportive of that.

We know that these are largely regional boards and that regional South Australia will really be the first place to—well, is already experiencing the effects of a changing climate. We want landscape boards to have that the forefront of their minds. The best way to do that is to build it into the act, so to see amendment No. 6 strengthening that existing object on climate change to flesh out the objective around mitigation and adaptation is important and valid, so we are also keen to support amendment No. 6. The government supports the passage of this cluster of amendments.

Motion carried.

Amendment No. 14:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendment No. 14 be disagreed to.

Amendment No. 14 provides that in recommending regional boundaries to the Governor the minister must give particular attention to water catchment areas in recommending proposed landscape regions to the Governor. In recommending regional boundaries to the Governor, the minister will still be required to consider the nature and form of the natural environment alongside other factors. Water catchment areas are an aspect of nature and form of that natural environment. As a consequence, we do not think that water catchment areas should be specifically highlighted. We have tried to take a more generalist approach to this.

We have also tried to create a situation within this legislation where communities of interest are placed above geographical concepts. We have some unusual situations in our state because of where particular towns have grown, particularly around Mount Barker and around the towns that form the final stages of the River Murray: Goolwa, Meningie and the Coorong communities. These, in a communities of interest sense, perhaps find themselves in a different board under our proposals from might be the case if you were looking at water catchments.

That is also the case for the town of Burra in the state's Mid North, with Burra currently being in the SA Murray-Darling Basin Natural Resources Management Board but having little direct relationship in a communities of interest sense with the other towns that find themselves making up the vast majority of the population within that particular region. So the town of Burra, in a communities of interest sense, would find itself more naturally suited to the Northern and Yorke board.

Because of the disconnect between the current Natural Resources Management Act's functions and the communities that the act seeks to benefit, one of our criticisms was that it had drifted too far from communities of interest. Communities of interest must trump every other aspect. Notwithstanding that water catchment areas do find themselves as part of the nature and form of the natural environment, which is embedded into the act anyway, we do believe that this is covered in the language of the act. The government therefore opposes amendment No. 14.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos 15 to 39:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 15 to 39 be agreed to.

Amendments Nos 15 and 16 require the minister to consult with peak bodies on certain decisions relating to regional boundaries and boards respectively. I covered this when I was referring to the earlier amendment, which I believe was amendment No. 1, in that it certainly was not our intention, as a consequence of developing this legislation, to shut out peak bodies from their involvement within the administration and the engagement around the landscape act.

We are more than happy to see peak bodies given the respect that they perhaps ought to have in this legislation and be consulted when decisions are being made by landscape boards in relation to regional boundaries and boards. Amendments Nos 15 and 16 will be agreed to by the government.

Amendments Nos 17 to 21 require board members to have specific skills, knowledge and experience and for there to be consultation with peak bodies on proposed appointments to landscape boards. Amendments Nos 22, 23 and 24 are government amendments that were brought in following analysis showing that minor technical drafting issues had to be tidied up.

Amendment No. 25 concerns public access to board meetings and meeting agendas and minutes. Again, we have not been as prescriptive in the bill around public access to board meetings and meeting agendas and minutes. It certainly was not our intention to see this not enshrined in legislation. It had previously been our intention to use regulation to structure and outline the requirements around public access to meetings and meeting agendas and minutes, so we are more than happy to agree to amendment No. 25.

Amendment No. 26 concerns the outcomes to be achieved by boards in the exercise of their function of undertaking, promoting and integrating the management of natural resources. Again, this is an amendment that we believe enhances the overall act. I indicate that the government will support amendment No. 26.

Amendment No. 27 concerns the relationship between board plans and policies and the Native Vegetation Act and the National Parks and Wildlife Act, ensuring that the aims and objectives of those two acts are taken into consideration when landscape boards are establishing their plans and policies. I indicate that we see a value in this amendment and we will be agreeing to amendment No. 27.

Amendment No. 28 concerns collaboration with local councils by landscape boards. This further enhances what the government wanted to achieve through this legislation, in terms of building partnerships across a whole range of non state government organisations. Through this legislation, we really want boards to be looking for partners across the landscape, particularly local government. We see them as an absolutely critical partner in effective environmental management.

As a consequence, the draft bill proposed by the government included a range of strengthening clauses around the role of partnerships with non state government bodies, placing particular emphasis on local councils. Amendment No. 28 further strengthens that, seeking collaboration with local councils by landscape boards, so I indicate we will agree to amendment No. 28.

Amendment No. 29 would include ecosystem health as part of Adelaide's seven legislated priorities. Green Adelaide, as I mentioned in my introduction, is a body that we want to focus on the vibrant greening of our city. Ecosystem health is a key part of that. We accept an amendment in this house in relation to creating a biodiversity-sensitive city here in Adelaide. Including ecosystem health as part of Green Adelaide's seven priorities is something we are quite comfortable with, so I indicate our intention to accept amendment No. 29.

Amendments Nos 30, 31 and 32 require the state landscape strategy to assess the state and condition of the state's natural resources and to provide for monitoring and evaluation. These are all amendments that again make sense to the government and enhance the act, so we are happy to agree to amendments Nos 30, 31 and 32.

Amendment No. 33 concerns the role of climate science in the development of the state landscape strategy. We see an importance in ensuring that climate change, as I mentioned before, and the need to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change form a key part of the landscape boards' work. Having climate science as part of the development of the State Landscape Strategy underpins that objective, so I indicate that the government will be agreeing to amendment No. 33.

Amendments Nos 34, 35 and 36 concern consultation and development of the State Landscape Strategy. They are minor in nature and again enhance the engagement side of the bill, which we are very comfortable with supporting. Amendments Nos 37, 38 and 39 require regional landscape plans to include or address additional matters and to take into account climate science. Again, without repeating myself, we are happy to include those three amendments. So I indicate for that cluster, which was amendments Nos 15 to 39, that the government supports all of them.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos 40 to 44:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I move:

That Legislative Council's amendments Nos 40 to 44 be disagreed to.

These are consequential to suggested amendments that would transfer responsibility for collecting land levies inside council areas from local council to regional landscape boards, with the assistance of the Commissioner for State Taxation. As I mentioned in my earlier comments around other amendments, I think in amendment No. 2, the government's position is that councils should continue to collect the land levy as this is the most cost-effective way to collect the levy and maximises the funding available for on-ground delivery. As a result, the government opposes these amendments.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos 45 and 46:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments Nos 45 and 46 be agreed to.

Amendment No. 45 provides for the act to be reviewed after three years of operation. This is a very worthy suggestion. This act is a substantial piece of legislative reform and ought to be reviewed at some point in the future. There was discussion with crossbenchers about whether this should be three years or five years. We landed on a three-year review and that is what was passed by the Legislative Council. I indicate that the government is more than happy to agree to a review after three years of operation. Amendment No. 46 is a government amendment addressing a consequential change to the National Parks and Wildlife Act. The government supports the passage of both these amendments.

Motion carried.

Amendments Nos 47 to 50:

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I move:

That the Legislative Council amendments Nos 47 to 50 be disagreed to.

Amendments Nos 47 to 50 concern one of the government's key election commitments, and that was to insert into the NRM Act or the replacement legislation, the Landscape South Australia Bill, the need to have community elections for a number of positions—three positions out of seven—on each of the regional landscape boards, so excluding Green Adelaide.

We saw this as a very important amendment that would instil a level of grassroots democracy into boards and give levy payers and community members the confidence that they had an elected voice on these boards, which were not simply appointed by the minister of the day, and that it would enhance the democracy present within Landscape South Australia as an entity.

The amendments before us seek to delay those elections until 2022. That would essentially align the first elections to the boards with the 2022 local government elections. It was always the government's intention to align board elections with local government elections simply because of efficiency in terms of cost delivery but also in terms of enhancing voter turnout for landscape board elections. We felt that when that ballot paper was part of a pack for local government elections it would be much more likely to be filled in than if it were a standalone election.

Notwithstanding that, we had planned to have an initial election, a one-off election, to get elected members onto the landscape boards in 2020, subject to the passing of this legislation, to enable that community voice to be part of the landscape boards from day one. The amendments that were passed in the other place seek, for financial reasons I am told, to delay those elections until September through to November 2022 in order to align them with local council elections. That would result in the minister of the day appointing the full seven members of the board first off and then those expiring around the council elections.

It is our view, because this was a very clear election commitment and it was popular when it was consulted on as part of the detailed engagement process, that it is unacceptable for communities to wait until November 2022 to be able to elect community representatives to be effective in shaping and influencing the future directions of boards in terms of their planning and business priorities. The community's voice should be represented in board decision-making from the very outset. This is a large piece of reform. I believe it is a piece of reform that is being asked for by South Australian communities, particularly in our regions where these elections will be focused. As I have previously stated, the government's election commitment is about giving those regional communities a voice about who sits on their regional boards.

The commitment was backed by the findings of a 2017 statewide survey, with 95 per cent of survey participants believing local communities should be able to nominate board members in their own region. By aligning eligibility to vote and stand with local government election arrangements, the bill has provided scope for elections to be conducted in conjunction with local government elections, if it is cost-effective to do so, from 2022 and beyond.

Providing for a combination of elected and appointed members provides a mechanism to ensure there is a good mix of skills on boards. The bill also enables all members to be appointed if special circumstances arise, such as if for some reason it is not practical to hold community elections in a given region. Statutory boards comprising all or some elected members are not uncommon in South Australia or elsewhere. For example, in New South Wales the Local Land Services Board, which plays a similar role to landscape boards, has a mixture of minister-appointed and elected members.

I understand that the most recent local land services board elections held in 2017 were conducted by an external provider using online voting technology. Here in South Australia, the South Eastern Water Conservation and Drainage Board is just one example of a board comprising a mix of minister-appointed and elected members from the community.

In line with developments around elections nationally and in other jurisdictions, the state government is looking at how technology and other innovations can be used to encourage participation whilst minimising costs. Efficiency and cost-effectiveness will be key considerations in engaging the services of a provider equipped to run the elections. Deferring the elections until the 2022 local government elections is a missed opportunity to test out these arrangements.

Holding the first elections separately from local government elections will enable lessons learnt to inform ongoing election arrangements. We see this as a breach of faith in what the South Australian community was after when it came to inserting a democratic voice onto the proposed landscape boards and so for that reason the government opposes the amendments which seek to delay those elections until November 2022.

Motion carried.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I move:

That the Legislative Council's suggested amendments be disagreed to.

The suggested amendments before the house, made by the Hon. Mr Pangallo in the other place, are largely around the collection of the levy. I covered this in my discussion earlier, but I will go into them in some detail now. It is the government's primary concern that the collection of the levy should remain with local councils. We acknowledge that the local government sector has not always been fond of the collection of the levy. Part of that lack of fondness, I believe, has been because local councils have not felt that they are a central part of the administration of natural resources management in South Australia.

However, we made it very clear, and have done through the creation of the landscape bill, that local councils will be part of the system going forward and that they are a key, critical and fundamental partner within the future administration of landscape boards and the day-to-day business, whether that be on-ground works through to strategic planning being undertaken by landscape boards. I have continually acknowledged and repeatedly emphasised since becoming the shadow minister in January 2017, through to becoming the minister and during my time as minister for the last 18 months, that the role of local government in landscape boards and the work of landscape boards are fundamental.

My message to local councils across this state is that their work is valued when it comes to environmental management, conservation, biodiversity, protection and so on and that they are a partner across all the aims and objectives of this legislation. While it is the government's position that landscape boards should not collect the levy with the assistance of the Commissioner of State Taxation and that it should remain with local councils, we have also made a very clear commitment and transferred that commitment into legislation to ensure that councils—local governments—become and are a fundamental part of the administration of this act. They will not just be a levy-collecting instrument; they will actually be embedded into this business.

We have preliminary advice that the shifting of the collection of the levy suggested in these amendments made by the Legislative Council will cost South Australia's environment considerable money because the advice suggests that the funds that would be required to do this—to change the billing procedure and move it to the state government, to landscape boards—will be highly onerous from an administrative point of view and take money directly away from the environment.

It will lead to reduced environmental outcomes on the ground and it will reduce the effectiveness of landscape boards. It will undermine the ability of landscape boards to achieve their aims required under the act to care for the environment, to deal with water management and to deal with sustainable agriculture, soil protection, pest management, biodiversity conservation and ecologically sustainable development. This will all be undermined because, by state government taking on the collection of this levy, it will take a big chunk out of the funds that are available, and that will have a direct environmental impact. On that basis, we just do not believe that it is efficient to do so, so it is the intention of the government to reject the suggested amendments.

Motion carried.

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