HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2016-06-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Natural Resources Committee: Natural Resources South Australia Business Plans and Regional Levies 2016-17

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (15:56): I move:

That the report of the committee on Natural Resources South Australia Business Plans and Regional Levies, 2016-17, be noted.

One of the statutory obligations of the Natural Resources Committee of the parliament is to consider and make recommendations on any annual levy proposed by a Natural Resources Management board where a levy increase exceeds the annual rise in the consumer price index (CPI) for the City of Adelaide. Before going further with that, while I am moving that this report be noted, I make it clear that the committee decision to not object to the levy increases was a decision of the majority of the committee and that three members, the member for Flinders in another place, the Hon. Robert Brokenshire and I, voted against the motion to not object. I will refer to that later in my speech once again.

However, it is important to note that all members of the committee strongly supported the terms of the letter that was sent to the minister which outlined significant and serious concerns about the manner in which the levies had been inflicted upon the various boards. I think it is instructive that all members, including all the government members, supported that action. We will await the response from the minister to those significant concerns which I will outline in a moment, and I am sure the Hon. Mr Brokenshire will also do so. This debate will be adjourned today so that the Hon. Mr Kandelaars and others of this chamber can speak further to it at a later date.

This year, of the six NRM regions proposing increases for 2016-17, all of the proposed increases are well above the 1.2 per cent CPI reference rate. The reason behind these uncharacteristically high NRM levy increases was the imposition on the boards of the partial cost recovery of water planning and management charges by the state government.

This round of NRM levy proposals has unsurprisingly attracted unprecedented interest from community members, business operators and elected representatives, including members of parliament—a number of whom have given evidence to the committee—and other elected members of local government.

The committee has been grateful for the level of interest in the respective contributions to its work and to its ultimate deliberations. The Natural Resources Committee received advice in the latter part of 2015 that several of the state's eight NRM regions were planning significant levy increases in 2016-17 in order to pay these charges, along with rises in corporate service fees set by the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources.

The committee heard presentations from seven of the eight NRM regions, with six regions forwarding plans proposing levy increases. Reports on the six individual regions proposing levy increases have been tabled concurrently with this overarching report. As a means of summarising the concerns, I would just like to move through the following.

In its meeting on 6 May this year, the Natural Resources Committee made a resolution regarding the NRM levy proposals sent to them by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation. The resolution was forwarded to the minister in a letter regarding the levy proposals for the following natural resources management regions: Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges, Eyre Peninsula, Northern and Yorke, South Australian Arid Lands, South Australian Murray-Darling Basin, and South East.

Following presentations from all eight natural resources management regions since the beginning of 2016—and I should point out that whether or not there are proposed levy increases, it is a matter of course that the committee invites all the boards to give evidence to us at least once a year, and on a regular basis. We also make regular visits to all of the NRM boards as is physically and financially possible with the resources allocated to the committee from the House of Assembly.

Overall, the committee extends its support to the board members and regional staff—the people who are based in all the regional centres around South Australia. The success of the boards in natural resources management depends on maintaining good relationships within their communities, and the committee acknowledges the work that is done on a broad basis.

After extensive deliberation, the committee remained concerned with the general lack of detail regarding several matters, especially given the relatively short time frame for consideration by the committee. Although the committee began reviewing the draft levy proposals early in the year and has received some clarification of issues, information about a number of matters remained outstanding at the time of writing to the minister, and they included:

the method of distributing water planning and management (WPM) costs across all the regions;

the extent to which WPM costs are recoverable;

which WPM costs are attributable to which impactors;

the removal of the Save the River Murray levy from the DEWNR budget, and how the subsequent appropriation from Treasury to replace it is to be used towards WPM costs;

the marked inequality in available NRM funding across the regions; and

the inclusion of corporate services fees as a sharp increase in proposed expenditures of all boards, and, most notably, the smaller boards.

A number of these matters were raised in the six levy proposals received, as well as in presentations from and meetings with the two boards not included in the list above, being the Alinytjara Wilurara and Kangaroo Island boards. The committee understands that the burden of financial pressure must be shared, but it must be done so reasonably and without hampering the primary work of the boards, which is to manage the state's natural resources in cooperation with the communities and businesses that operate within them.

The expenses imposed on the boards this year are a very heavy burden, and have compromised the ability of the boards to carry out their works effectively, as well as having caused damage to their relationship with their communities. This also has a negative effect of discouraging the next generation of board members, and that is something about which I think all of us who have grown up in rural communities would be most concerned, because the quality of the work you get from an independent board, particularly in rural areas but also in metropolitan areas, is linked very much to the quality of the people who are prepared to serve.

If, as under this whole process, the people who are prepared to serve are hung out to dry in their local communities, if when they go off to the football on a Saturday afternoon they are harangued by people in the local community because it is their board that is putting up these levies, they are getting blamed for something which they had no choice in doing, what happens then? Some of those people say, 'I'm not going to be involved in such a board,' and we then get lesser people appointed to these boards, and quite often they are people less likely to show some independence from government. There has been very little choice in this case, but we need people who are prepared to have some independent advocacy for the community they represent. That will be diminished by this, I have no doubt.

The committee was satisfied that the boards had done their utmost to respond to the challenging circumstances, acting in good faith to carry out the directives of the department and the minister. It is important that we realise that they were directives from DEWNR and the minister, as I will emphasise a little bit later.

It is also relevant to put on the record that the boards have engaged in diligent and thorough consultation, revising their proposals based on feedback in order to minimise any impact on their respective communities. It is another issue that we as a committee have raised with this current minister and the previous one: that the process of consultation that the boards have to go through, and then the time frames of it being referred to our committee, make it very difficult for not only the community but also the boards and then our committee to deal adequately with those proposals.

In fact, some years ago the committee actually received some very good evidence on how to fix that from the Hon. Caroline Schaefer, a former member of this house, who had at that stage been chair of the Northern and Yorke NRM Board. She had evidence in her mind of how it worked from both sides—as a member of the committee and subsequently as the chair of an NRM board. She gave some pretty good evidence that is on the Hansard record about how this potentially could be fixed. The previous minister did not take any notice of it, and neither has the current one. They would be well advised to take the advice of the Hon. Caroline Schaefer.

I will at this point once again highlight the fact that, while at the meeting on Friday 6 May a majority of the Natural Resources Committee resolved that it did not object to division 1 or division 2 levy proposals for the regions mentioned before, certainly the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, the member for Flinders and I did not support that. Under the chairmanship of the Hon. Steph Key, I think we actually worked through these issues very well. There was, obviously, pressure placed on certain people to make sure that this went through. We have no doubt about that, but, as I said earlier, I am very grateful for the fact that all members of the committee were agreeable to the concerns that I have outlined there, and there are some more that I will make note of in a moment. They were highlighted in the letter that went to the minister and, as I say, we will be awaiting his response on that.

There were some other issues that I would like to highlight that were considered significant by the committee in evidence and in our own discussions. They included the inflicting, from DEWNR, on the boards, corporate charges. I am sure my colleagues will go into that at greater length. That, combined with the recent incorporation of the boards totally under DEWNR, has seen the ability for the boards to have local procurement of goods and services disappear.

It was interesting that some of the evidence we got from DEWNR was actually quite open in saying that one of the reasons that DEWNR wanted the boards under its control was so that the boards could not go and get stuff from local communities. How outrageous is that? A lot of the major centres actually have really good suppliers. Why shouldn't the boards be able to procure things in Port Lincoln, Mount Gambier, Balaklava or wherever, if the ability to get those goods and services is in that community?

Of course, DEWNR does not like that, and in some evidence it was quite open that that obviously was one of the reasons. The previous CEO of DEWNR and some other people in that system did not like having the boards being independent bodies. That is something that they could not handle at all. Unfortunately, that is where we are at the moment.

I did refer to some of the issues that we still have not received, I think, proper clarification or explanation of. One of those that I raised on a number of occasions was the issue to do with the restoration of the riverbanks along the Murray River, and also the money that was included under the WPM scenario for the money expended on the wastewater management programs and facilities along the river.

There seemed to be a number of cases, which were also highlighted to us by members of parliament, by Primary Producers SA and others, of double counting. We never really got to the stage of getting proper answers on that. As I say, I am very hopeful that, when the minister responds to the committee, which he must do, we will get further clarification which can perhaps help us adjudicate over the increases in the coming 12 months.

The other issue that I suppose I have pushed in asking questions of the various boards is: when we talk about water planning and management costs, as I see it, one of the greatest causes of money being expended in water planning and management is actually where the populations are of greater aggregation and concentration. Certainly, the growing metropolitan area seems to be paying less money towards the WPM costs than the agricultural businesses and irrigation industries.

While I have had some sympathy expressed to me from within government and from within the boards about that, the reality is that, in general, that is not the case. I think we need to examine that more because there is no doubt that, once you put a large concentration of suburban houses in an area that was previously open land and paddocks, the costs of water planning and management increases enormously. So, I think that is something the government needs to turn its mind to.

The cynic in me says that perhaps they may not want to do that because that impacts on people in more of their own electorates, people who might not like it very much, and so it is easier to put those charges onto irrigators and people who live in seats that the government does not hold. Maybe I am not as cynical as some, but there needs to be, as we go forward with further urban development, a way in which those people who are living in those areas fund more of this, if it is the government's continued wish to get the NRM boards to put this money into the system.

I suppose there are some ironies in where we are today. When I was very youthful in my service of this parliament, I served on the Statutory Authorities Review Committee under the chairmanship of the Hon. Legh Davis. One of the things that committee did was an inquiry into whether soil boards and animal and plant boards should be merged, and at the time the suggestion was that the very good Landcare network across South Australia should also be incorporated into a combined body.

At that stage, we discovered, as we went around South Australia, that there were something like 58 soil boards and 59 animal and plant boards. Some of the boundaries were exactly the same but in other parts of the state they bore no resemblance to each other. We were shocked in some places where the chairman of the local soil board did not even know who the chairman of the animal and plant board was. There were instances on Eyre Peninsula where, obviously, some work had been done to spray some weeds on some very light soil without the animal and plant board getting advice from the soil board as to whether it might be better to leave that weed there until times when that soil would not blow away.

I think we have seen some improvement in that area since the whole NRM process has come together. Certainly, the committee has seen some evidence of that work when it visited the Pinery fireground area earlier this year. However, what we have also seen is that the soil boards and animal and plant boards came together. Sadly, Landcare was sort of left out of the picture for a long time, but I am pleased to say that there has been a reinvigoration of Landcare groups in South Australia and, quite recently, there has been an agreement signed between all of the NRM boards and the Landcare Association of South Australia.

However, by the time the report of the Statutory Authorities Review Committee came in, it was handed to the new Labor government in 2002, and the then minister Hon. John Hill decided that this was such a good idea that he was going to roll water into it as well. I think it was one step too far, and what we have now is a very large conglomerate. There is no doubt that good work is done by many of the people who work on NRM boards, but as has been said in the House of Assembly today when this report was noted, there is a suspicion and a general view in some areas that far too much time is taken up by many of the officers in setting and reviewing plans, and perhaps not enough time making sure that certain weeds are controlled or not enough time spent controlling foxes. Some boards undertake these activities very well, but with others some of those activities have been lost in the large conglomerate nature of those bodies.

I was concerned recently, on the Pinery fire trip, when quite a senior officer of one of the local boards, who was leading the trip and sitting at the front of the bus, would have had us lost on several occasions that day had it not been for someone else on the bus, namely me, who had a bit of local knowledge—and this was an area of South Australia that he was supposed to have known well. I will not go into that, but it was very frustrating. At the end of the day, the bus driver thanked me and said, 'Thank God you were there, otherwise we would have been lost.' This does not go down well as far as having people on the ground who should know the area.

I do not intend to delay the house much longer, but it is a very significant issue. I refer to an excerpt on page 11 of the overarching report. This refers to evidence from the relatively new chief executive of DEWNR, Ms Sandy Pitcher. I give her great credit for coming to the committee on at least two occasions and, I think, as someone new to the scene, answering as candidly as she possibly could. The report states:

The committee heard from Ms Pitcher that the boards did not have a choice in having these costs imposed on them: 'it was certainly not a decision that presiding members had the power to agree or not agree,' she said. 'It is not a question of the boards deciding to lift a levy above CPI. They are the recipients of a government decision to take $6.8 million indexed over the forwards.'

That is from the Hansard of the committee hearing earlier this year. Then it goes on further, in a second appearance before the committee, where Ms Pitcher said the $6.8 million received would likely appear as savings in DEWNR's budget but it would 'go straight to Treasury' as a 'direct budget return. We won't see it.' That is the end of my reading of that passage of the report.

I think that is extraordinary. It emphasises the fact that this has been a decision supposedly by the minister to demand that this money is taken from levies into the board so that the boards can then provide it to the government. The minister has stuck by this throughout but I have no doubt that this is all about pressure from the Treasurer. The Treasurer does not have any regard for NRM boards or anybody who volunteers to do anything in communities—he just wants money on his bottom line. I have a pretty good regard for the fact that he has inflicted this on the minister for the environment. The minister has gone about and done it, there is no doubt about that, but it is one of the most disturbing things I have seen in the parliament.

As I said earlier, you have some very genuine people from across this state who give much of their time to serving natural resource management. The presiding member of the South Australian Arid Lands NRM Board, Ms Janet Brook, travels from Cordillo Downs in the far corner of this state to preside over that committee at Port Augusta, the closest to where she lives. She travels many hours to come down to Adelaide to give evidence to us.

People like Janet Brook are in that role because they believe in natural resources management. However, their position in the community, the reputation of natural resources management boards has been damaged by this action and it has allowed some individuals and some groups in the community to advocate for throwing out natural resources management per se. I do not think any of us in this parliament really believe that that is something that we should tolerate.

I am a great believer, however, that the current system needs to be changed. I think there are some suggestions that were advanced by my party and the Hon. Michelle Lensink prior to the last election and there will certainly be more of that to come. I know the Hon. Michelle Lensink intends to speak to this motion.

Certainly those of us who believe in natural resources management do believe that there is a better way than the current way. What started out as quite a good model—it was not a perfect model in any sense but it was a much better model than we have now—has been subsumed into DEWNR, and the boards are strangled really by the minister and the bureaucracy. It is something that we need to fix because if we do not fix it then the voices who resist any form of NRM structure at all will grow in volume and will get more support across the community.

I have spoken for longer than I normally do on these reports, but it is one that has taken an enormous amount of the time of the committee. The committee has given due deference to all those people who have come in and given us evidence. They have been open and honest, but they have been delivering—and I will not swear—an unsavoury sandwich that they have been forced to make. They have had to come in and try to sell to us something that does not taste very nice because they have been made to make that recipe by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation but, as I said earlier, I think principally the architect of all of this is the Treasurer. Let's lay it at his feet. With those words, I commend the motion to the council.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:31): I rise to advise the house that I will not commend this motion per se because I have serious concerns on behalf of Family First and—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: We are noting the report.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Yes—constituents across the state about what has gone on in recent times. I acknowledge the good remarks of my colleague the Hon. John Dawkins. We have a good committee, we have an excellent chair in the Hon. Steph Key, and we have very good research and executive officer capability. However, whatever the intentions of the Labor government were when they brought in the NRM to replace the pest plant and control boards, water catchment authorities and the like, we now have a situation where the NRM is on a slippery slope. As my colleague the Hon. John Dawkins has said, unfortunately the scapegoats for this are mainly the chairpersons from each of the NRM boards and the board members.

What has happened, if you have a look, is that over several years now there has been a deliberate plan by the government—maybe driven by Treasury, there is no doubt about that. It is actually the government, endorsed by the cabinet in its entirety, and through that no doubt the caucus room, so it is all Labor members who have actually supported this slippery slope to the NRM. Of course, in fairness to Labor members, although I do not agree with the rules, we know that even if a Labor member is opposed to what the government may be doing, if they want to stay with the parliamentary opportunity in the Labor Party they are not allowed to protest, they are not allowed to kick and scream.

I think the Hon. John Dawkins alluded to that when he talked about how possibly some of our colleagues from the Labor Party had concerns about what was going on, and to be fair to them I believe they did. When we sent the letter to have the vote, it was a casting vote that actually got the majority but that was all Labor members. It was not Family First—that is, me on the crossbench—or the Liberal members, the Hon. John Dawkins or Mr Peter Treloar (member for Flinders). The three of us did not vote in favour of these increases, and that was duly noted in the letter, and the minister must understand that. I asked the media to clearly look at that and understand that there were three members on the committee who did not support the significant rises.

I commend the whole committee, including the Labor members, for their input into the letter which highlights concerns that the committee has on behalf of the parliament and on behalf of the boards and the community. But what we have, just for the history, is a government that intended a few years ago to deliberately take the independence of the boards and the staff who were employed independently by those boards and they put them all into the Public Service under the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources.

That was the start of the slippery slope for NRM. I would suggest that as a result of that, and what we are seeing now, this will be an election issue at the next state election. There is no doubt about that. In fact, certainly, I can only speak for our own party, but Family First will be raising the tempo on this as we go to the next election, because we need to have a proper debate on whether or not we have an NRM structure, as this Labor government put forward, or whether, as the Primary Producers SA has requested, there should be an independent review into these exorbitant increases, or whether, further to that, there should be a review through one of the committees, possibly, I would suggest, our own, as to just where NRM is now, where it was intended to be, and where it looks like it is going into the future, so that the parliament, the community and local government, can have a really close, transparent look at NRM.

So, what we saw was DEWNR taking about 300 full-time equivalent staff, and, for all intents and purposes, they therefore control those staff. They are subservient now to DEWNR, technically not subservient to the boards. Also, what we did see was the actual state board of the NRM dissolved. That was removed by this government. I think that was a wrong move. That took the teeth away from NRM, and, of course, the government and the Premier ran out and said that this was all about reducing red tape. While some of the boards that were removed may have reduced some red tape, I think there was a very important, autonomous and fully independent opportunity there for NRM when they had the state board. That was then the second part of the demise, as I see it, of NRM.

Then, of course, what we have seen now are the grubby fingers of Treasury and the department, that is DEWNR, getting directly and deliberately involved in taking money that I am not convinced is money that they are entitled to take under the act, and I must say that none of the evidence that was put to us—none of the evidence—convinced me that what they are doing is correct, according to the act.

I support the Hon. Rob Kerin, on behalf of primary producers across South Australia, through PPSA, for calling for an independent review, because the minister can come in here every time we ask him a question and say, 'Well, I have offered the books to be looked at by whomever has a concern.' We have had Ms Sandy Pitcher, the CEO of Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources in. I am not convinced that they are complying with the act. I am not convinced that they are complying with the National Water Initiative agreements that were signed off by ministerial council meetings sometime ago, and it is not black and white, and it never will be black and white, that every state collects a proportion of money back to offset state finances when it comes to the National Water Initiative.

We know that different states do different things. If this state government had chosen not to rip $6.4 to $6.8 million out of the levy to help offset their input into National Water Initiative—and that is $6.4 to $6.8 million this year, and indexed every year into the future. And the reality is that this is not a one-off hit. This is the start of what will become perpetual for as long as we have an NRM levy, and that is that it will be $6.4 to $6.8 million next financial year, and indexed every year thereafter. So this is a big hit to the budget.

I want to put on the public record that this was confirmed time and time again by the board chairpersons who presented to us. Because of time constraints I do not want to spend too much time at all talking about what their plans and strategies are, because, as my colleague the Hon. John Dawkins said, there are comprehensive plans and comprehensive strategies, and perhaps some of the red tape is the nonsense within the act that says they have to review and report each year. We could streamline things for them by having probity/accountability on finances reported each year and the rest of the work tri-funded so they can go on with their plans and concentrate on rolling out projects, because one of the things that most people are critical of at the moment is that they are not rolling out projects because they are too bogged down trying to come up with documentation to sustain their efforts year in, year out.

When the minister says that this is a small take back of the $43 million that allegedly this state government spends on water allocation, planning and management, I do not believe him, and I challenge him to be 100 per cent transparent. I think there is sleight of hand funding coming across there. At the end of the day, the net bottom line to the government says they are getting a significant return on their $43 million. On another occasion we will talk about that when it comes to what is happening with Save the River Murray levies and funds and the amount of money that comes back through the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to the state.

When we look at this other money, I would suggest to the community of South Australia that the government are actually underhandedly going to end up much better off—net bottom line—than they are saying. I do not support this $6.8 million, because if that $6.4 to $6.8 million indexed year in, year out into the future was left in the wallets and purses of the property owners of this state and in the farmers' accounts, it would actually help the economy and it would help these people at a time when it is very tough.

On top of that, we have also seen a situation which another one of my colleagues says is a low figure compared to private benchmarking and that is this so-called corporate services charge. I do not have the luxury in my business as a farmer of actually being able to fund a corporate services charge for each of the people who we employ at home on our farm. We do not have that luxury and I would suggest that most small businesses in South Australia would not have that luxury. However, what we have seen to offset budget cuts in the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources is a further amount of money, which is, as best as I can work out, at least $6 million a year for what they call corporate services charges for $21,000 per the full-time equivalent going back into Treasury.

They say that is to offset the cost of some training and to offset the cost of providing them with a vehicle, a computer and all the other things that they provide them with, such as uniforms and the like. Let's say that the average full-time equivalent employee of DEWNR and NRM is on a gross salary of $45,000 to $50,000—I would expect that to be the sort of money they would be on. I struggle to see that you can actually be taking nearly 50 per cent on top of that for corporate services charges.

On top of that, what we also as a committee have not seen yet—and at some point in time I would be asking that we do see this—are the other charge backs from DEWNR to the boards for other advice, services and support that they give, particularly when they are developing a water allocation plan or, indeed, when they are reviewing a water allocation plan. There is a sleight of hand rip-off of money that the good people of South Australia paid for what they thought would be to look after natural resources management that is actually now coming out of the global fund and going into Treasury and DEWNR.

Whether or not the boards agreed with this is irrelevant because all the evidence that came to the committee from any board member that we asked, and particularly the presiding officers, was that they had no choice in agreeing to this. So for the minister or the government to say that these boards were supportive of this approximately $13 million per year, plus indexation, coming out of their funds is untrue. It is absolutely incorrect.

The only thing the presiding officers were able to do was to collectively sit down and work out how they would accommodate the government's instruction—and that is what I saw it as: an absolute instruction that this money would be syphoned from the NRM levies—and how they would divvy up the allocation of drawback from the fund.

I will come to where it is really hitting hard at the moment, but I also want to say that these boards have done a good job in trying to manage an instruction from the government and also still try to put programs together. We have had evidence to the committee that, in one of the cases, there is a reduction of nearly 10 per cent, meaning that one in 10 projects will not be delivered next year.

Over and above every other way that they have looked at trying to cut their budgets, and cut their cloth to accommodate the government's instruction, they still have to withdraw over 9 per cent of their program funding and commitment. That is a real worry, because I know that there is already a lot of criticism in the community about a perceived lack of delivery of on-ground projects.

When it comes to the water levy, the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges, South Australian Murray-Darling Basin and the South East Natural Resources Management boards are the three areas with the highest water levies and land levies—there are two components to the levy: there is the land levy and the water levy.

A lot of the irrigators who pay the water levy have just started to pay water levies and water licences for the first time. To hit them with the outrageous amounts of money that the government have inflicted on those particular boards would have been an impost that they could not have accepted, and it would have been very hard for the government politically. They actually amortised the money that they had to save to hand to Treasury by significantly increasing the land component, so everybody paid there.

Even in the more remote areas, such as the South Australian Arid Lands NRM Board, they had to have a division 1 (land) levy increase of 48 per cent and a water levy increase of 118 per cent. I am advised that the water levy increases in the South-East are going to be higher than that. In consideration of evidence, as outlined in the South Australian Arid Lands NRM proposal report, the committee heard a very good presentation by dedicated presiding member Janet Brook, who stated:

…that the quantum increase of the board’s water levy comes largely due to the removal of an exemption for water produced via oil/gas production in the region ('co-produced water'), which was exempt from a levy charge prior to 2016–17.

The report continued:

In essence, this meant the board would be collecting a new levy, with no net increase to regional income.

The report also states that:

During consultation for the changes to its plan, the board received a submission from the South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy which did not support the increase as it would mean 'an extra $638,000 in costs for water that would not ordinarily be used by other industries or private users.'

It is ironic that when the government are trying to develop a mining industry in this state, and struggling enough with that—a lot of that is now out of their control; nevertheless, they are looking at that, as it is one of their agendas for driving our economy—they are prepared to hit that economic opportunity in the Arid Lands, for a start, to the tune of that exorbitant amount of money, heading up well over $0.5 million per annum.

The farmers in the South-East have been in drought for three years. I am working with some of those farmers and they are doing it really tough. The banks are reviewing their structured loans at the moment. Financial councillors and drought assistance councillors down there are working flat out trying to help these people, and this government does not care because this government is hitting those South-East farmers for a huge increase.

I believe the backlash will be incredible, and I am saying to all the rural people, 'Between now and the next election, when you're talking to your city cousins and your city friends, ask them what they think of this NRM levy increase, and then tell them what it is doing to those farmers, the food producers of this state, and remind them of the colour of the government that has instructed that these exorbitant increases occur.' It is the Weatherill Labor government, and I will be doing whatever I can to get that message across between now and the election on the third Saturday of March 2018.

I come to my final couple of points, and these relate to local government. Local government is also a victim. The Local Government Association had a meeting at Coober Pedy about three weeks ago. I met with one of the senior officers from the Local Government Association since then, and I am advised that the resolution from that meeting was that this would be the last year that local government will collect the levy. I have already asked the minister on a couple of occasions what he is going to do if local government says that it will not collect this levy, and the minister's answer is that it is in the act. I said, 'Well, what are you going to do if local government breaks the law? Are you going to gaol all the councillors, gaol the mayors, build a new gaol for them?'

The point is that these councils are getting hammered because four times a year they put out their rates notices—and there is enough criticism about the rates notices as it is for general council rates, and then the NRM on top of that. I could never understand why councils agreed to this in the first instance, because I know that when I was trying to collect—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: They wouldn't do it with the ESL, Robert.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: No. I know that when I was trying to get them to agree to collect the ESL, they flatly refused. The upside of that is that the government has the computer programs and it would not be hard for them to make a change to a software program to collect themselves, but councils fell for the three-card trick, and they agreed when the NRM levy came in that they would collect.

But, they are sick of being attacked because of this collection. Therefore, I have advised the Local Government Association that we are very happy to have an amendment come into this parliament to remove the obligation of collection by councils and to put it fairly and squarely where it should be, and that is at the feet of minister Hunter and future ministers on behalf of their governments. That is where it should be. I am now getting that bill drafted, and I look forward to introducing it to the parliament.

In summary, the act says that, unless there is a very good reason, the levy increases should be no more than CPI, and that is how it should be. People on wages are battling to get a salary increase at CPI. Farmers rarely see commodity prices increase at CPI.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens: Any prices going up by more than CPI?

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Farmers are battling to get any commodity increases at CPI. As my colleague, the Hon. Terry Stephens says, is anything going up above CPI? Well, yes, there is: state government charges. State government is the only one I am seeing putting up costs above CPI. Enough is enough, and the community is saying that enough is enough, and when they get their first bill after 1 July I encourage them to contact particularly Labor members of parliament and tell them that they are not going to forget this one. They have just had the big ESL increase, and now they are about to get another whammy from the government.

With those words, I look forward to further contributions. We are not voting on this today, I understand. There is plenty of time for other colleagues to contribute. They have broken the NRM system, it needs reviewing urgently, and the government need to come clean and be honest with the people of South Australia.

I am very disappointed to see that the government, notwithstanding all the evidence that has been put before our committee, notwithstanding the reports that have been tabled today, is prepared to go its merry way and hit people unnecessarily with exorbitant increases. We do not support these increases. We note the report. I make that clear—we note the report at this point in time. We reserve options into the future based on what other members may contribute, but we do not support these exorbitant increases. They are not able to be funded by the community, and this government has to learn to cut its cloth, just the way that every citizen of this state has to on a daily basis.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. S.G. Wade.

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