Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I present the final report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Natural Resources Management and Conservation Challenges, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report

Natural resource management and conservation are of great significance to a number of people across the country. We have a history of around three decades of Commonwealth investment in resource management. Firstly, I thank the secretariat for the work that they did in preparing the report. It was quite a lengthy period of inquiry and their attention to detail in working with the committee was very much appreciated. Also, I thank my colleagues. There was a very collective effort on this inquiry, as there is on many of our inquiries. I particularly want to acknowledge the expertise of Senator Ian Macdonald in this area and the contribution he made during the inquiry.

We looked at a range of areas. The terms of reference were rather lengthy, but we particularly looked at the history of Commonwealth involvement in the natural resource management area and the capacity of regional NRM groups and other organisations and networks to deliver the natural resource management outcomes they were trying to. We looked very closely at whether the Caring for our Country program was a comprehensive approach to meeting future NRM needs. The committee believed it fell well short in meeting those future NRM needs.

The Caring for our Country program has been described as aiming to ‘move to achieve an environment that is healthy, well managed and resilient’. The committee’s opinion is that falls well short in achieving those aims. The transition period to Caring for our Country really was a very anxious time for all involved in trying to work for better outcomes for natural resource management. It came through very clearly that there was a real struggle between trying to maintain the physical and human resources that had been built up over time in working in this area and trying to gain the financial resources to sustain them into the future. That created some real angst, because we are talking about people who cared very deeply about what they were doing in trying to reach these natural resource management outcomes. They felt that that transition period was not managed in an optimum way.

They worked very hard. It came through clearly that there had been a lot of hard-won gains out in the community in working with other groups and networks. They really believed that a lot of those project outcomes were going to be put at risk because of the disruption in the changeover to the program and the way the program itself was being managed. One real concern was around the business plan for Caring for our Country. Initially there was a delay in the release of the business plan itself. The program commenced on 1 July 2008 and the plan was not released until the end of November 2008. This created some real difficulties for people who were trying to put together those projects but did not have any kind of plan to work to. That created some real issues for them. Also, the priorities and targets that had been identified in the business plan had been developed in isolation, mostly with Commonwealth agencies. There was a feeling that those stakeholders who really had that practical, on-the-ground understanding of the best way strategically to make this work had not been consulted. There was a feeling that there had been a lack of a strategic approach and a lack of synergy between Commonwealth, state and regional bodies throughout all of this and that that had prevented an integrated landscape management approach.

There were nine recommendations in the end. We obviously felt that a more rigorous and comprehensive approach was important to make sure national priorities were identified that were going to be optimal in terms of Caring for our Country. There were a range of other recommendations that the committee believed would improve the management of these programs and ultimately lead to better delivery of natural resource management in the future. I will end with those brief comments. I know that my colleagues from the committee want to make some statements around this. I again thank the secretariat and my colleagues on the committee for the work that went into the inquiry.