HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-03-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Natural Resources Management Levy

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:55): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Environment and Water and other portfolio areas a question regarding the NRM levy.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Every day now there is growth in the community across South Australia of concern about the potential massive hike in NRM levies and concerns about both division 1 and division 2 levies. If the minister is insistent upon what I and others see as possibly $13 million being ripped out of the NRM funds across the state—$6.84 million of them in the 2016-17 year directly going to Treasury and from my calculations, based on the corporate services charges of his department of $21,000 per employee, another $6 million based on the equivalent of 300 FTEs, that is $13 million plus that the minister and the government are intending to rip out of the NRM levies that will not be going to look after the environment. My questions are:

1. Has the minister had legal advice to ensure that the government are correct when they start pulling this money out of the NRM levies and, if so, will he table that legal advice?

2. How does the minister expect people to be able to afford a massive increase as a result of the money that the minister is ripping out of the NRM levies?

3. Does the minister expect the NRM boards to still be able to deliver the projects that they have in the past if they are instructed to take $13 million plus out of their NRM levies?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (14:57): I thank the Hon. Mr Brokenshire for his most important question, although I have to admit that I don't understand how it is even possible, how it is entirely possible, that he still doesn't understand how NRM works, how he still maintains that money is being ripped out of NRM and going directly to Treasury. I just don't get that he doesn't understand this. I have gone through it for his benefit and the benefit of the chamber many times, and I will take another half an hour to do that again now.

I have said in this place many times before that water planning and management costs the state government approximately $40 million statewide per annum. The government is only seeking to recover $3.5 million from the NRM boards in 2015-16 in regard to this. In 2016-17, this increases to $6.8 million, approximately 16 per cent of what we actually spend in water planning and management.

Items defined as water planning and management costs are set out, as I said, in the user-pays principle under the National Water Initiative agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments in the NWI's national blueprint for water reform in Australia and represents a shared commitment by governments to increase the efficiency and sustainability of Australia's water use.

The amount to be recovered from NRM levies relates to water management activities required under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004, including water licensing, compliance activities, science to support the development and management of water resources, development, review and amendment of water allocation plans and, of course, debt recovery.

In line with the user-pays principles, and a recommendation made jointly to me by NRM presiding members, the regions where most irrigation takes place—the South-East, the SA Murray-Darling Basin and the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges—will cover 95 per cent of these costs. I have agreed with the NRM board presiding members that from 2016-17 water planning and management costs will be apportioned in accordance with their recommendation taking into account where the water planning and management costs are incurred and where the beneficiaries of the sustainable water management reside.

Abiding by user pays principles is the fairest way to recover the costs of these activities. Even with these principles, as I said at the start, we are only recovering a small proportion of these costs from beneficiaries and, compared to other states, we offer significant subsidies to our water users. When all water-related charges are taken into account, the NRM water levy rates paid by irrigators in our major food and wine producing areas, such as the South-East and the Murray-Darling Basin are, and they will continue to be, much lower than our interstate competitors. We think it is fair that some of these costs are recovered.

NRM water and land-based levies play a crucial role in enabling NRM boards to fulfil their statutory responsibilities and support community participation to sustainably manage their region's natural resources and deliver on the outcomes of regional NRM plans. It is important to stress that levy funds can only be spent on projects and activities within the region in accordance with an NRM board's regional NRM plan approved by me and prepared in consultation with their community, councils, government agencies and industry.

The allocation of money to particular programs is a transparent process and includes substantial local input. Each natural resources management board sets out program expenditure within its business plan, which is part of its regional NRM plan, for the following three years and these plans are reviewed annually. Consultation with the community is fundamental to the NRM planning process and key stakeholders from agriculture, tourism, natural resources management, emergency services management, health care, community services sectors and traditional owners, are all engaged through the development of the regional NRM plans. I should emphasise, as well, that under the NRM Act, NRM boards are required to assess the potential social impacts of opposing NRM levies.

As part of the NRM boards' business planning review process, the majority of the NRM boards engaged an independent company to provide a social impact assessment report assessing the levy options to inform their decisions. NRM boards have consulted on their business plans. They take into account the reduced subsidy. The boards' business plans are comprehensive and provide for a range of resources and support to help landholders and primary producers. The programs range from sustainable farming practices, pest plant and animal control, grants provided to primary producers for work on their land, education and supporting volunteer networks.

NRM boards' plans are available on board websites and from natural resources regional offices and these demonstrate clearly where levy funding is being spent. Everyone, including the Hon. Mr Brokenshire, is encouraged to view these. In South Australia, these costs provide for the support of the water management requirements of the Natural Resources Management Act which includes water licensing, compliance activities, science and the development and review of water allocation plans, as I said earlier. These activities are central to sustainable water resource management. They support our priority for South Australia to be recognised for its premium food and wine produced in our clean environment and exported to the world.

There are a number of important projects, which I have mentioned previously, and I will go over them again for the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's benefit. I have some examples at hand, as I always do. Our NRM levy funding will support 10 monitoring sites across the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges. These collect ecological, water quality and hydrological data. The information gathered provides a basis for validating the science in existing water allocation plans. This data is collected manually or through automated telemetered stations, depending on the site. The initiative involves a number of stakeholders, including the South Australian Research and Development Institute, the Environment Protection Authority, Hydro Tasmania and community landholders.

Another water science project in the AMLR region, which is supported by levy funds, provides hydro ecological studies to better understand the distribution of environmental assets in the region and their responses to changes in water flows. These investigations provide a strong understanding of the distribution of environmental assets and risks, the current level of surface water use and demand, and the connections between service water and groundwater.

In the South Australia Arid Lands region, the SAAL NRM Board has directed the NRM water levy be used to support sustainable water management in the driest part of our state. One of these activities is funding an audit of 289 artesian bores in the Far North Prescribed Wells Area to establish a comprehensive picture of their condition in South Australia. This will give those industries which rely on Great Artesian Basin water the ability to sustainably manage this water source into the future.

In the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin region, the SAMDB NRM Board and DEWNR are working with communities and industry to update the River Murray Allocation Plan. Some of the water levy in this region is being used, I am advised, to work through a review of the existing policies with a view to developing new policies for managing the River Murray, including the management of the river during dry times.

I can go on with examples from Eyre Peninsula, the South-East and other parts of our state, but let me just come back to the point I have made a number of times in this place about how we compare to other jurisdictions. Why on earth is the Hon. Mr Brokenshire coming to this place and ignoring that important facet of how much better we do in South Australia compared to the Eastern States?

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire: Not interested in them.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: No, he is not interested in the facts. The Hon. Mr Brokenshire is never interested in the facts. He is only interested in those bits of the story that support his arguments on the wireless when he goes on the radio and spruiks non-facts.

The NRM boards have considered the options on the fair and equitable apportionment of water planning and management cost recovery. The costs have been included in the regional NRM business plan revision process. I am advised the NRM boards have completed the community consultation on their individual regional NRM plans. The boards have considered the submissions made by their communities to inform their business plans before continuing the review process.

As I have said in this place before, the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin water levy rate for 2016, at $6.30 per megalitre, is well below the equivalent charges in New South Wales and Victoria. In the New South Wales Murray, the equivalent charge has been around $10.51, I am advised, per megalitre, assuming a full use of entitlement. In the Victorian Murray, the lowest equivalent charge has been around $11.05 per megalitre. All of this is set out, I am advised, in the ACCC's most recent water monitoring report and, again, I encourage the Hon. Mr Brokenshire to have a look at those comparisons.

I am also advised that the $2.58 per megalitre water levy rate proposed in the South-East for 2016-17 is less than most of the comparable groundwater charges in both New South Wales and Victoria. In this respect, Victorian groundwater use attracts charges between $2.53, I am advised, and $5.72 per megalitre, and New South Wales groundwater use attracts charges between $3.53 and $6.95 per megalitre.

I finish by stating this important fact again: we are recovering a very small proportion of the amount of money that this state spends on water management and planning, and yet the Hon. Mr Brokenshire comes into this place and pretends it's the end of the world, and that we are doing things in a terrible way. He never talks about our successes. He never talks about how much we are moderating this compared to the Eastern States where the proportion of costs—

The Hon. R.L. Brokenshire interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Well, they are up on the ACCC's website, Mr Brokenshire. Go and use those many, many staff you have been provided and do some research for yourself instead of coming in here and asking the same question month after month, week after week, day after day.

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