Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Senator Wong. It relates to the future of natural resource management in Australia under Caring for our Country. Is the government aware of the number of staff already leaving catchment management organisations, regional natural resource management groups, other groups and networks previously funded under the NHT?  Don’t these people represent three decades of investment and capacity building within natural resource management? Has the government conducted an assessment of the number of people working in the NRM and landcare sectors who will lose their jobs as a result of Caring for our Country? If so, how many? And if not, why not?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about caring for our workers?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection, Senator Abetz. I recall you were the one who steered the Work Choices legislation through this. Through you, Mr President, as the chamber would be aware—

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, I would ask you to address your remarks through the chair, not across the chamber at Senator Abetz.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Mr President: the government has announced our Caring for our Country arrangement, a $2.25 billion initiative which is intended to bring leadership, accountability and an integrated approach to the protection of Australia’s environment. I am aware of the issues that Senator Siewert has raised, and to her credit she has raised them consistently both in this chamber and through the estimates process. I indicate to her that it is the case that Caring for our Country will refocus natural resource investment, but regional groups and others will continue to be supported and partnerships with states and territories will be maintained. I make the point that over the first five years over $636 million will be provided as secure baseline funding for regional NRM organisations and additional funding of up to $75 million will be available to help overcome transitional problems. Funding to regions, as the senator would be aware, is a mix of Commonwealth and state funds as well as investment secured from other sources. In March, the relevant ministers announced the amount of Commonwealth funding to regions, and the government has moved quickly to ensure a smooth transition to Caring for our Country.

The government is currently working closely with the states to ensure that the necessary state arrangements for funding to regions will be in place in July 2008. In relation to the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality—which I think the senator was alluding to—I make the point that many projects funded under NHT and NAP were scheduled to end on 30 June 2008. It is logical that contracts for staff attached to these projects would also cease at the same time. This is a normal part of program management. In 2008-09, regions and others can seek funding for any staffing positions they need to help them contribute to Caring for our Country priorities. As part of this, funding of $189.2 million has been allocated for Landcare over the first five years and volunteers will be supported through existing components.

We make the point that, unlike the previous government’s programs, regions, states, local governments, NGOs and others will be able to access the broader pool of program funding this year and a range of more targeted small grant activities will be available.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary Assisting the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order, again on relevance. The question was very specific. Is the minister aware of the number that will be thrown on the unemployment heap? Has she conducted an assessment of the number that will be without a job? If so, how many is it? If not, why was it not done? All of what the minister is talking about is very interesting, but it is not the question that was asked by my colleague in the Greens. Could I ask you, Mr President, to insist upon the minister actually answering the question and not just raving on about something that is of no relevance to the question asked.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Why are the Greens their friends and not Family First?

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fielding, I would remind you of standing orders and how they relate to frivolous points of order. Senator Macdonald, I have listened carefully to Senator Wong and, as senators are well aware, ministers both past and present have been allowed to expand their answers considerably. If Senator Siewert were to have taken the point of order indicating that she was not happy with the answer, I might have looked upon it differently. But I think that Senator Wong is in order.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order, Mr President. I cannot let that invitation go. Senator Macdonald jumped to his feet prior to me being able to take the point of order. I note that the question is not being answered and that is specifically: how many people will lose their job? And has the government done an assessment?

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having heard Senator Siewert’s point of order, I would remind Senator Wong of the question.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is an interesting alliance across the chamber between Senator Macdonald and the Greens. It is a bit like yesterday between Senator Abetz and the Greens. It is a new approach from those on the other side, one I am sure that Senator Brown and Senator Siewert might look upon with a little bit of consternation, some might say!

Senator Siewert, what I can say to you is to remind you that a number of these programs were only funded to the conclusion of the current financial year. As I said, it is obviously natural that staff contracted or attached to such projects, which were only funded under the previous government till 30 June 2008, would also cease at that time. As some senators might be aware, the government has provided some transitional funding to regional bodies. As you would be aware, Senator Siewert, we have provided all regional bodies with 60 per cent of their historical funding level for 2008-09. I can advise the Senate that in terms of additional transition support funding each of the 56 regional bodies has recently been advised of their share of the 2008-09 transition support funding, which totals $31.8 million. Senator Siewert, this means that on average regional bodies will receive around three-quarters—that is, 75 per cent—of their historic funding level in 2008-09.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I would like the minister to note there are staff already leaving these organisations. I can give a specific rundown on the numbers that I know that have already left. Secondly, there are projects that are not being funded that do not finish on 30 June and groups who have not been informed. What I would like to know is: is the government going to fund SeaNet, the Marine and Coastal Community Network and the Threatened Species Network, whose funding does end at the end of July? They have been funded for many years, not just recently.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was outlining and as I have outlined previously, there has been a focus on and a prioritisation of the Caring for our Country funding in accordance with the approach that Ministers Garrett and Burke have outlined. Obviously, reprioritising for issues of national priority has meant the government has focused its funding in those areas. I reiterate that regional bodies will receive approximately 75 per cent of their historic funding level in 2008-09 and I indicate that decisions on each body’s share of the available transition support budget took into account principles such as equity between jurisdictions, local transitional pressures, regional capacity and level of funding support from other avenues, operational overheads and the level of carryover in regions. On the specific three organisations the senator alluded to I will undertake to see if I can obtain further information.