HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: EYRE PENINSULA NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT BOARD

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.P. Wortley:

That the report of the committee, on the Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Board Levy Proposal 2009-10, be noted.

(Continued from 15 July 2009. Page 2869.)

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (20:02): Again, the Eyre Peninsula Natural Resources Management Board is one that has had the attention of our committee for some time. We have visited on a number of occasions, and I believe it has been educational for those members of the committee who are, perhaps, not as familiar with the area as I am to recognise the vast distances and the vastly different problems of that particular area.

I am sure you would be aware, sir, that our committee has the right to review only board budgets which propose levies above the CPI; so, unless their levies are above CPI we have no right to review them. The criticism we had on this occasion was that the Eyre Peninsula committee proposed a division 2 levy (again, a water levy), an increase of 50 per cent for reticulated water supply—that is, SA Water. Of course, that was much higher than CPI. As the presiding member, Mr John Rau, has said, even without that increase it represented the highest water levy in the state.

Members were directed to a board minute noting the need to clearly justify the basis for the division 2 levy increase, and it was probably wise that the board did minute that, because we have been very critical of boards across the state who have introduced increases in their levy without justifying them. Sadly, the rationale behind that increase was proposed to us well after we had made a decision, and Mr Rau commented that it may have been helpful if board staff had identified and explained the proposed increase as part of their evidence.

The 50 per cent levy increase was not discussed, and members were unaware of this until they received copies of the regional NRM plan. So, we were left in a position where, even though we probably had some sympathy with that proposed very large increase—and I am very well of the cost of supplying water to Eyre Peninsula—the proof that we needed was offered to us long after we had made a decision.

We note within the report that the committee has been frustrated by boards—and this is not solely in relation to Eyre Peninsula but boards generally—ignoring repeated requests to provide the committee with draft proposals, inclusive of proposed levy increases, well in advance. Failure to do this by any board increases the likelihood of its proposal being rejected and places the committee under time constraints which, although consistent with the legislative minimum requirements, are incompatible with the thorough and fair consideration of any levy proposal by the committee.

We have made a recommendation at the end of this report that I hope will be taken into consideration—and it will, I think, require legislative amendment. Our recommendation is that the minimum consultation period of at least 20 days, as required under the act, be increased to 35 days to facilitate a more comprehensive consultation process that includes the public and the Natural Resources Committee. I do not wish to dwell on that, and I do not wish to be overly critical of the Eyre Peninsula board, because my criticisms are general across the state.

I think we have mostly very hardworking boards, which have accepted with good grace our criticisms as a committee over the years I have been on that committee and attempted to meet our requirements. Having said that, we believe that we are a conduit between the boards and the public and the boards and the minister.

We as a committee—and I have said on a number of occasions in this place that, without a doubt, this is the best standing committee I have served on in my time in parliament—cannot fulfil our obligations if we are not provided, either legislatively or by the boards, with the information we require. I hope my criticisms are taken on board by the boards across the state and that they continue to work towards a transparent process that is embraced by the public they serve.

Motion carried.

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