HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-07-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Natural Resources Committee: Levy Proposals 2015-16

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:08): I move:

That the report of the committee, on the Natural Resources Management Board Levy Proposals 2015-16 for Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges, Eyre Peninsula, Kangaroo Island, Northern and Yorke, and South-East, be noted.

One of the Natural Resources Committee's statutory obligations is to consider and make recommendations on any annual levy proposals by the Natural Resources Management Boards where the levy increase exceeds the annual CPI rise.

Of the six proposed increases in the Division 1 land based levies for 2015-16, only two were higher than the 3.1 per cent CPI reference rate. The four remaining division 1 levy proposals were equal or less than CPI. Of the five division 2 water levy proposals considered only one was higher than CPI. The remaining four division 2 water levies were either equal to or less than CPI.

The committee was very pleased to see the boards acting with restraint and generally keeping levy increases at or very close to CPI. Whilst committee members are always sympathetic to the desire of NRM boards to increase their funding bases, the committee believes that increases above CPI should be the exception rather than the rule.

The Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board sought a 23.4 per cent division 2 levy increase. Initially, this sounded like a large increase, however, the committee accepted the board's explanation that the increase was due to the inclusion of levies from approximately 2,300 additional licensees in the Western Mount Lofty Ranges Prescribed Water Resources Area and the funds raised will be allocated toward properly managing this important resource.

Furthermore, the committee heard that existing levies for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges area for other licensees under the region's water allocation plan have actually been reduced. Members also heard that the inclusion of the additional licensees have, as I said, seen an overall increase that would have been limited to CPI.

The Kangaroo Island board has sought a 12 per cent division 1 increase. The committee accepted the board's reasoning that the proposed increase, while exceeding CPI, represented only $3.96 per assessment per annum due to it being a fixed rate and that the increase was needed in order to carry out the board's functions as required under the NRM Act and to meet community expectations.

The South Australian Murray Darling Basin NRM Board sought a 5.1 per cent division 1 levy increase. In this instance, the committee accepted the board's reasoning that the levy proposal was amended following consultation with affected community members. The board, in response to this feedback, chose to offset this increase by reducing its division 2 levy increase to 1.1 per cent below the year's CPI increase.

At its meeting on Friday 15 May 2015, the committee determined not to object to any of the proposed NRM levy increases for the 2015-2016 financial year. Members were pleased to hear from the various boards on the important role played by NRM officers in South Australia's regional communities. For example, members heard of the important role the natural resources management staff played in fighting the Sampson Flat fires back in January of this year.

Professor Chris Daniels, presiding member of the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, estimated that 60 Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges regional staff were among the DEWNR employees involved in fighting the Sampson Flat fires, and that following the fires many DEWNR staff were also involved in working with individual landowners to help them regrow their farms and properties and doing such things as managing weeds, conserving soil, identifying bits of remnant vegetation that had survived and even identifying individual trees to either be removed or retained.

One point particularly concerning to the committee regarding the future of NRM in the state were the future funding projections for nearly all of the NRM boards. There is a rapidly approaching sharp fall in overall NRM funding expected.

The impact is particularly well illustrated by the Kangaroo Island NRM Board's submission. The KI submission—and there are graphs in our report that we tabled yesterday that show this—indicates a sharp drop in the overall NRM funding over the next few years, particularly under the federal government's national landcare program (formerly Caring for Our Country), which is being cut across the board.

Even with the modest increase in the KI division 1 levy, the KI NRM Board projects that its income will contract from $3.4 million in 2014-15 to $1.1 million in 2017-18. In that very short time two thirds of the Kangaroo Island NRM Board's funding will simply evaporate. This is very concerning, to say the least. I commend the members of the committee: the Presiding Officer, Hon. Steph Key; Mr John Gee MP; Mr Chris Picton MP; Mr Peter Treloar MP; the Hon. Robert Brokenshire; and the Hon. John Dawkins for their contribution to this report. All members have worked cooperatively on this report. Finally, I thank sincerely the committee staff for their assistance. I commend the report to this council.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (16:16): I rise to support the motion and I largely concur with the comments of the Hon. Mr Kandelaars. Certainly some of his reflections upon the changes in federal funding were interesting. While that does impact on some boards, particularly the Kangaroo Island board, certainly we have seen over the time I have been in the parliament, with various federal governments of different flavours (even in the time the Hon. Mr Kandelaars has been here), that there will always be different programs from the federal government of the day in supporting local communities.

Whether those programs under the names that he listed quite rightly here are not continuing, there certainly will be other forms, and we will well see some of the initiatives by the federal minister, Greg Hunt, come to fruition. I am sure the NRM boards that are reactive in seeking other moneys will be out there seeking some of those funds.

I commend the honourable member for his excellent summary of the work that the committee does. In examining the entreaties that we get from the various boards around their NRM board levy increases—and there will always be great differences in the nature of the boards and the way they need to adjust their increases—certainly the message has got over since a number of years ago, when the Adelaide Mount Lofty Ranges Board put in an increase of over 11 per cent. I have mentioned this in this place before, but when the committee knocked that back certainly it eventually got the attention of the minister's office and they become a bit excited about it, because they had never contemplated the fact that we would knock back a board. The correct adjustment was made, and I think other boards have taken notice of that.

I think it is shown in evidence given to the committee. The honourable member would probably see the difference between the two periods that he has sat on our committee, that now the boards go to great lengths to justify any variances from CPI. The Hon. Mr Kandelaars has outlined, I think quite well, some of the changes that have been proposed and agreed to by the committee.

One of the strengths of having the various NRM boards is that they can deal with local issues and with the particular situations that occur in the great diverse nature of the different boards: some of them are based totally in the outback; we have Kangaroo Island, which has a very small population base; and then we also have a board that covers about 80 per cent of the population of South Australia. The nature of those boards is quite diverse.

I am very pleased at the way the committee works through those, and I think part of the benefit in the way we do that is the fact that we as a committee make it a very regular part of our program to go and visit all the boards as often as we can; that is something that I think most of us look forward to doing. We actually get to see some of the work that is being done out on the ground.

I do say again that one of the things that has disturbed me more in recent times is the fact that the boards now are part of DEWNR. The CEO of each of the boards is actually the regional manager for DEWNR, so in effect those offices have two masters. They have the government and the department under the minister as one master and they have the local board, which of course in large context is appointed by the minister, but is an independent body, as another master. I have always struggled with the way that concept was developed. It certainly was not the model that was developed under John Hill when these boards came in, but it is certainly one that has evolved under more recent ministers, and it is one that I have some concern about.

However, having said that, I think overwhelmingly the calibre of the people who are on those boards and who come and give evidence to us is extraordinary. They certainly represent their various regions very well. With those few words, I am very happy to support this motion, which of course covers the levy proposals for Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges, Eyre Peninsula, Kangaroo Island, Northern and Yorke and South-East, and in saying so I would like to again thank my colleagues on the committee, the staff, and particularly the Hon. Steph Key for her leadership of the committee as presiding member. I support the motion.

Motion carried.

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