HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-03-24 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (17:20): I rise to speak briefly on this bill and to support the remarks made earlier today by the Hon. Michelle Lensink, who is the shadow minister for the environment. She is also someone who, throughout the years I have known her—and that is, despite her tender years, a little while—has always demonstrated her passion for the environment and preserving the wonderful things that we have in this state.

I suppose that in relation to natural resource management I should put on the record that during the term of the previous government as a member of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee I served on an inquiry into the then animal and plant control boards and soil boards. The Hon. Carmel Zollo participated in that inquiry as a member of the committee at that time.

As a result of that inquiry, where we travelled around the state, the committee recommended that animal and plant boards and soil boards should be amalgamated and that there should be other consolidation with other land care groups that were scattered around the state of South Australia.

We all know that, once the current government came to power, while it responded to that report, it went considerably further and, as well as putting animal and plant and soil boards together, it brought catchment bodies into that as well. Some would say, I think, that maybe we travelled a bit too far too quickly, and that may well be why we have got some of the issues that we have today that need to be—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: Yes; thank you for your guidance. I think many people in country areas of South Australia would say that it would have been wiser to have hastened slowly with the moves that were being made to bring together natural resource management bodies. It is still my view that the area of water was put into the mix too soon. However, that is what we have. As I said, I commend my colleague the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her remarks and support everything she said.

I would particularly like to refer to the role of local action planning groups. I am not sure to what extent members are aware of the work of these groups, but they rely very much on volunteer involvement in areas surrounding the length of the Murray River in South Australia and extending, I believe, into Lower Lakes region. They are well known in the Riverland and nearby places as LAP groups, and they are backed up in some cases by associations of volunteers who provide guidance to the limited number of paid officers that these LAP groups have attracted over the years. In my knowledge of working in the Riverland over a number of years, the LAP groups have done a wide variety of valuable work in a range of locations along the river corridor and close to it.

I understand that LAP groups have recently been informed that the security of their state government funding would be removed as of 30 June this year. Last week, I received communication from Mr Nick Bakkum, who is the chairman of the Renmark to the Border Local Action Planning Association and who passed on the views of his association members. You will be pleased to know that I am certainly not going to read the whole letter, Mr Acting President, although it is not a lengthy letter, but I do bring these points to the council:

We believe LAPs provide the following values:

Proven capacity building—credible independent conduit between science, government agencies and the community. Committee members provide strong representation of local businesses, industry boards, landholders and the community.

He goes on to say that they are a reference point for community research. Further values include:

Proven expansive volunteer network at a cost advantage with direct communication links within the community including local youth through school projects providing continuity of local knowledge.

Education and awareness within the community of local environmental issues. Ability to reinvigorate and achieve on ground results of which the community takes ownership.

In conclusion, Mr Bakkum indicated:

The recommendation from the Renmark to the Border Local Action Planning Association Committee is for a commitment to long term secure funding for LAPs and...to specify Sub Regional Community based funding.

I appreciate the indication that Mr Bakkum has brought to me to bring to this chamber. I have some questions relating to the LAP groups, and I would be grateful if the minister would bring back a response in summing up this bill.

My questions are: how many local action planning groups exist in South Australia and what individual areas do they cover; secondly, what level of funding is provided to the LAP groups, firstly, from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and, secondly, through the relevant NRM board; and, thirdly, is it accurate that secured funding for LAP groups has not been extended beyond 30 June 2011?

I would appreciate it if the answers to those questions could be brought back in the summary of the second reading. With those words, I reiterate the Hon. Michelle Lensink's summary of the position of the Liberal Party towards this bill. There are a number of areas that we will consider significantly in the committee stage, but I am quite happy to support the second reading.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:30): I rise to speak to the second reading of this bill, which seeks to amend the Natural Resources Management Act as the result of a review process. Whilst convention has it that we support the second reading, I am supporting it with caveats. I say from the start that constituents I have spoken to were not aware that there had been a review. Here again we have a government saying that it has consulted broadly, yet the review has not touched on concerns raised by constituents.

I understand the opposition may also have amendments. If colleagues have not had a chance to see them, I advise the house that I have amendments that have been tabled earlier this week with respect to this bill. As I said, I understand the opposition has some, too. I think it is fair to say the review extends into this house where, clearly, there is desire to amend the act to improve its operations.

The feedback I have received from community organisations commonly in receipt of NRM funding to provide environmental programs is that they were not consulted in the review process. The information coming in via email virtually hour by hour at the moment from many constituents, representative volunteers and environmental program community-minded people is that they simply were not even aware of the review.

In fact, not one constituent from community organisations who has contacted me or whom we have contacted seemed to be aware of the review. I will put on record a couple of comments from anonymous constituents to illustrate their viewpoint and that, at least in part, leads to the questions I ask the government in relation to this bill. One constituent stated:

We would love nothing more than to be allowed to have access to some funding for the day-to-day activities that we, as a non-government organisation, perform for the state government departments that are responsible for—

and I will not name the environmental sector. It further states:

Furthermore, we have watched on several occasions the NRM fund other government departments that have misled the NRM by way of their abilities to perform the job that was funded. In addition to that, these government departments have received large amounts of funding by the NRM and employ people to perform a job they are not qualified to perform. This is not only extremely frustrating but is considered a slap in the face to organisations like ours that do have the ability to perform these tasks by professionals and provide an in-depth report to the NRM but are overlooked due to departmental friendships.

That quote is about a specific frustration and not a general comment about NRM staff and professionals, I believe, but it gives an indication of how some constituents in the community organisations feel about the way NRM policy and funding is applied. Another constituent states:

We have not been consulted or asked to be involved in the review of the NRM Act and our local NRM committee has been extremely frustrated by previous consultation.

I want to touch on cost-shifting consultancies. I have been concerned for some time and have investigated for several years the extent to which NRM levies are being used as a cost-shift to pay public servants for work the state government should be paying out of general revenue.

As one constituent inferred in the quote I just read, this robs the community organisations of funds to do their work. A considerable amount of NRM levy funding is used to pay the former department for water, land and biodiversity conservation, now the Department for Water, the Department for Environment and Heritage, other NRM boards, Planning SA, Rural Solutions SA, SARDI, PIRSA and some of the universities. This cost-shift runs into the millions.

I ask the minister to advise the house during committee or during the minister's summing up—and I put it on notice so that the minister has time to get this information for the house—the amount that has been paid out of NRM levy funds in the last three years to each of the bodies I have just mentioned. I also place on record that I was involved in the debate when the newly-formed government at the time introduced legislation to set up NRMs. I cannot recall that the intent or purpose of the NRM levies was to fund government departments. I also cannot recall that the intent of the natural resources management bill was to set up another big layer of bureaucracy, and certainly we are seeing that now.

Whilst I have respect and appreciate the good work that our volunteers—who may be on an honorarium-type funding arrangement—do on the boards (I have great respect for them and their genuine intent), I have lost nearly all of the support I had initially for the principles of NRM boards when it comes to delivering services efficiently and effectively. I am particularly concerned that the volunteer organisations, like the Local Action Planning (LAP), and volunteers are getting next to nothing from these levies, and that is why I have now moved amendments to ensure, if supported by my colleagues in this house, the other house will see some of that levy money going directly to the volunteer organisations.

From experience I believe that, when you give a volunteer organisation a dollar, you get back tenfold in value; in other words, for every dollar you give them, you get a benefit equivalent to $10. I am concerned and have spoken to the minister about this, and I acknowledge and congratulate the minister in saying that he understands my viewpoint and I believe that he may be having a close look at this in the forthcoming months. You do not have to drive through many country towns to see an office with an NRM logo, etc., and quite a lot of cars and people working there, but you ask the volunteer groups what they see in the way of delivery of services on ground and you will get some fairly frustrating responses from those volunteers.

The Hon. J.A. Darley interjecting:

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: As my colleague says, at the same time that we are seeing these offices opened up, we are seeing primary industries offices closed, the classic example being Keith. I support the comments of my colleague the Hon. John Darley. I have raised the issue of the closing of PIRSA at Keith and the reduction of services—it is just wrong.

I finish by putting on the public record that the minister is looking at my concerns about the expenditure of NRM boards on office rental, cars and staff, and I will watch closely to see the minister's final response to the discussions we have had on this important issue. I do not believe that the purpose of the NRM levy, when levies were brought in, was to pay departments for work the Treasury should be paying them to do anyway. Family First values the work all those bodies do without a doubt, but they should not be paid out of an NRM levy that we believe was intended to pay community organisations and to do natural resource management work and pay for other environmental initiatives, such as buying water for river environments.

I will mention another cost shift briefly, that is, a matter I have written to the Auditor-General about, being some questionable allocations of money under the Save the River Murray levy. If you look at the Waterworks Act and what the relevant section says, and the press releases from the government about what the Save the River Murray levy was for, we find that money must be spent, to a large extent, on river health. What we are seeing, however, is a levy used to pay for bureaucracies, and I argue that we see it again with the NRM levy.

To sum up, I have a question on notice that will take some verifying by government. The point is that time and again we are seeing levies brought in for a stated purpose and then departments and Treasury deciding to use them to prop up budgets or other unrelated or spuriously related programs. I will turn shortly to the levy of rainfall. Levying is a sensitive subject at the moment because, first, on Tuesday, federal parliament passed a Queensland/Victoria flood/cyclone levy from 1 July 2011; and, secondly, we will potentially soon have a carbon price, that is a carbon tax, and an admitted broken federal Labor government election promise. So, levying is a sensitive issue at present, and I see this sensitivity wherever I travel around the community.

It was no surprise to me to see an article in the print media on a weekend not long ago, where it stated that South Australia is the highest taxed, charged, rated and levied state in the nation. People are hurting and they have had enough of these levies, but they have particularly had enough of them when they do not see the delivery of what was is in the glossy press release and brochure put out after the levy was set up by the government.

As I said, levying is a sensitive issue at present, especially on questions of how long they will last and whether they will always be used for the stated purpose. In relation to that, I recently came out and said that it was time we got rid of the Save the River Murray levy, because nature saved the Murray. I know the minister for water in the last government and the Premier used to say that they could not make it rain. Well, we always knew that; nature has allowed it to rain.

We have a lot more work to do on the River Murray. It would be a good idea if the government got rid of the levy, because it has $6 million unspent in the bank, and it has raised about $140 million. To try to illustrate what it has done, it is claiming investment in projects which were completed prior to their coming to office or which had been done by this government prior to the introduction of the Save the River Murray Levy.

So far, the minister has said that he will not be removing the levy. However, I put on the public record that I believe that levy will be removed, and I forecast that it will be removed some time in 2013. What the government wants to do is rip a heap more money out of the community for a couple more years, and some time in 2013 the government will get rid of the Save the River Murray levy. That is my prediction. I think people are becoming wise to this. No wonder people are cynical when there are so many of these levies around that are not delivering.

As I have said, the levies need to be used for the stated purpose. One issue that comes up in the debate is the levying of rainfall that God or nature provides, depending on your world view. The minister and acting minister have made some interesting comments in relation to the metering of rainfall. Of course, you would only meter rainfall for two reasons: first, to know what is being extracted before it can run into watercourses; and, secondly, to levy it, that is, to put a charge on it.

They are the only two reasons I can think of why you would do it. The first reason is a reasonable one in the circumstances of large rainfall capture. In our view, the second is certainly not. I declare that my family are irrigators, and we have our meters on now. For significant irrigators, I see merit in meters on there, only to ensure that we know what sort of extraction is coming out, but that is merely to ensure that we have sustainability. However, I do not like the idea of a meter going on and then a licence and levy and a fee on top of that.

As I pointed out on the radio on 18 February, if for instance a farmer builds a new dairy or other shed infrastructure, under the act as it presently stands there is no incentive for him to capture and re-use rainfall. I have been saying since day one in this place that we have to get the right focus on our water security, and we have to encourage stormwater and rainfall harvesting wherever we can.

On 18 January 2011 (not that long ago), as acting minister, minister Gago appeared on the FIVEaa morning program. I will not go through everything that was said, but the exchange was of such concern to the Premier that he tweeted later in the day to reassure the masses that rainfall was not going to be metered. Yet here today we still do not know what the government's plans are, and the amendment I tabled this week makes it clear that no levy can be charged for that water collection.

I want to put on the record some extracts from the interview between minister Gago and the presenter, Leon Byner. Minister Gago said:

But in terms of what's being proposed, if they have a licence allocation to use water from that dam then they will be required to put a meter there and the purpose of the meter will be to ensure that they comply with their allocation...

I do not have a problem with that. Moving along:

The licensing will involve a charge for the use of water for commercial purposes, not for domestic and stock use though.

I skip ahead again to Leon Byner, who said:

You see, there is a slight problem because there was a Twitter from the Premier today, which we received, which suggested that it was a nonsense that we were going to charge for water coming out of someone's dam ... clearly, it isn't a nonsense, that's exactly what is being proposed.

Minister Gago replied:

Two issues that you raise, first is the Twitter from our Premier, Mike Rann. I don't exactly know what the wording of that was but I understand he talked about the collection of water. What I'm talking about is water use. But also—

Leon Byner said, 'That's a semantic.' Minister Gago said:

You're absolutely right but the second and most important issue is the Twitter is a very brief comment, what I'm supplying is a much fuller explanation with more detail. So I believe what I'm talking about is consistent with what the Premier has said, it's just a more fuller explanation.

Skipping ahead again, Leon Byner asked:

Are you planning at any stage to put meters on people's rainwater tanks? Now, he said no. Will you say that same no?

Minister Gago replied:

The government has no real intention of metering or charging for water from either rainwater tanks or dams for the use of domestic or stock purposes.

I know that is the correct answer from the minister, but I want to reinforce 'domestic or stock purposes'. Subsequently, on 2 February, minister Caica spoke to the FIVEaa program. As I said, minister Gago was doing her best as acting minister while minister Caica was taking some well-earned leave, but here minister Caica is speaking about it again on FIVEaa. In part, the transcript states:

LEON BYNER: In the draft plan for rainwater all surface water is prescribed...what this means in effect...at any time a future or current government can meter all rainwater tanks...you've said you won't to do this.

MINISTER CAICA: That's right.

LEON BYNER: I take you at your word, but you may not always be the Minister for the Environment...if you say you won't do it why don't you amend the act to remove this provision so that all water isn't prescribed, which gives a government the power to do this?

MINISTER CAICA: Well, the act will allow for metering of tanks...500 kilolitres, which is a fairly large amount of water, will be collected...collected for commercial purposes. Under 500 kilolitres will get exemptions, but certainly we've got to know how much water falls, we've got to be able to meter and know how much is being used if we're to manage that resource effectively.

Having heard all that, let's go back to what the Premier said on Twitter on 18 January. Twitter statements are not throwaway lines or statements off the cuff: the Premier announced his cabinet reshuffle on Twitter. In the absence of a ministerial statement from the Premier, a clear statement of the government's policy from the very top is these days on Twitter. Here is what the Premier said:

Farmers know that we will not be charging them for their entitlements. Nor will we be charging people for the water in their rainwater tanks.

Again on Twitter, the Premier said:

And no, just in case anyone believed it, we won't be charging farmers for water that falls from the sky onto their land, into their dams!

So there is the Twitter message from the Premier saying he will not be charging farmers for water that falls from the sky onto their land into their dams, yet we are told by subsequent briefings that they will be. I want the Premier to categorically rule this out by supporting my amendment because the Premier is the head of the government. He said no; the department and the minister are saying yes. We need a ruling, and it needs to come from the Premier, from the top.

There is no ambiguity there. There is no talk of commercial purposes or exemptions. Acting minister Gago claimed, on the same day on Adelaide radio, that the Premier's tweet was ambiguous and that she was providing further detail. We have kept the Premier's tweet, we have it here right now; I have just read it out. Acting minister Gago claimed, on the same day on Adelaide radio, that the Premier's tweet was ambiguous and that she was providing further detail. Well, the Premier made 11 tweets to announce the cabinet reshuffle so that he could get around Twitter's 140-character limit per tweet. Minister Gago's own reshuffle was tweet three of 11, alongside minister Portolesi.

Here, on 18 January, Premier Rann made two tweets on this rainfall issue. So there is no ambiguity at all. It is clear. The Premier's tweets on Twitter are as clear as clear; there is no doubt about it. The statement is clear, and I am seeking to legislate the Premier's promise to the South Australian people through Twitter, as the official government voice these days.

This amendment does not stop the metering. I have said that for irrigators I see some merit in metering; I certainly do not see it for stock and domestic. Farmers and rural residents reliant on rainfall capture to provide for their home needs can rest assured that through this amendment (if passed) the rainfall will never be levied. I take it that may also remove any incentive to meter extractions, because they can never be levied. We have to get away from hitting people who have paid good dollars in rainfall areas where they can catch water from then having to pay a licence, and not only a licence but also an amount of money per megalitre that they extract.

Let me add this: the government failed on a clear statement that I sought to legislate once before. It made a 'Premier CPR' guarantee on the front page of The Advertiser in July 2008 regarding country health, saying that no country hospital would close and that country health services would improve. I sought to legislate that guarantee, and I am in the process of doing it again. But what happened at that time? The government never supported the legislation and look at what is happening now at Keith, Moonta and Ardrossan.

So the government blinked once: I am moving to stop it blinking again. I recall hearing elsewhere on radio a government representative saying that the government would be crazy to meter and levy rainfall. It was one of its own representatives who said that. Here is the chance to end the craziness and accept the amendment.

I now want to turn to cash inflows to NRM boards. Following on from that topic, and the question of whether revenue collections might need to be expanded to rainfall, let us look at what they have coming in at the moment. The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM has about $27 million, including $19 million from the regional NRM levy, $2 million of state funding and $2 million in federal funding.

The South Australian Murray-Darling Basin NRM has the next highest receipts, with $1.5 million in regional NRM and, naturally, with the Murray River in that area, by far the highest water levy receipts in the state of $5.7 million, $1.5 million of state funding, and almost $5 million in federal funding. Across all the NRM regions, some $37 million is collected via regional NRM levies and water levies, with state funding of some $10 million and federal funding of some $24 million.

I would like to finish on police powers. I will speak more on this in the committee stage, as I have amendments being tabled to curtail the powers the NRM authorised officers hold that exceed the powers available to South Australian police—I might add, not only to South Australian police but also to federal police. They exceed those powers in that they do not have the checks and balances that are imposed on our South Australian and federal police through their chain of command, and I will ask this council to support rectifying that.

I have further questions on notice for the minister. In addition to the earlier question I asked about payments to the Department for Environment and Heritage, etc., I also ask that the minister provide, for each NRM board, what percentage of their income, as a percentage of total income and levy income, is paid to community organisations such as local action planning groups, Landcare groups, progress associations, local government, environmental groups, and any other community-based organisations. I have touched on only a few controversial subject matters, but I am astonished that these have not come up during this review of the act.

If a review occurs in a vacuum and the bureaucracy simply gets what it wants in a bill, that is an internal review only. I am asking the government to leave this bill open on the Notice Paper, let the council continue the review process and get this act into shape on the question of rainfall metering, which the Premier and the community expect of the NRM Act. I make no apologies for my remarks on where NRM is up to at the moment. It needs, basically, to be rubbed out and started again. Certainly, it needs a thorough investigation; and, in my opinion, it needs quite a lot of cleansing.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.

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