Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the government response to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee report on natural resource management and conservation challenges. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT REFERENCES COMMITTEE

NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION CHALLENGES INQUIRY

Australian Government response to recommendations

September 2010

The Australian Government has received the Final Report by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into Natural Resource Management and Conservation Challenges.

The Government is committed to the continual improvement of the Caring for our Country initiative and its ability to deliver the best environmental and natural resource management outcomes for the people of Australia. This commitment is demonstrated, among other things, through the changes made to the Caring for our Country business plan 2010-11.

The 2010-11 business plan was developed after extensive consultation with stakeholders across Australia and includes a number of improvements such as; new and revised investment targets, clearer notional budgets for investment in the national priority areas, tailored and flexible investment approaches, and improved operational arrangements.

Response to Recommendations

Recommendation 1

The committee recommends that a more rigorous and comprehensive approach is taken to the identification of national priorities for inclusion in the Caring for our Country Business Plan. This process must include engaging regional and local expertise to ensure that targets established in the Business Plan are relevant at the regional and local level.

Response

The Government agrees with the need for a rigorous approach to the establishment of national priorities. The six Caring for our Country national priority areas identify the Australian Government’s commitment to improve the most urgent environmental and sustainable resource management challenges Australia faces.

The Government recognises the benefits of engaging regional and local expertise to determine the more specific priorities of investment through the Caring for our Country business plans. Accordingly, the Government engaged widely with key stakeholders, including landholders and community groups, regional natural resource management organisations and non-government organisations and state/territory governments in development of investment targets and investment approaches for the 2010-11 business plan.

Key stakeholders will continue to be consulted and feedback on Caring for our Country will continue to contribute to the development of investment targets and investment approaches in framing future Caring for our Country business plans.

A review of Caring for our Country initiative is due to be completed by mid 2011. The review will involve an evaluation of the achievement of Caring for our Country targets and five-year outcomes to date. It will also examine the delivery of Caring for our Country to ensure it is capable of meeting emerging national resource management priorities. Engagement with regional bodies and the community will be an important part of this process.

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government continue to pursue bilateral agreements with state and territory governments to ensure greater investment in natural resource management and the continuation of natural resource management reform.

Response

The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation. Caring for our Country is based on a commitment by the Australian Government to focus its expenditure and effort on national priorities in natural resource management. States also have responsibilities to ensure appropriate levels of resource management and environmental stewardship. Many Caring for our Country initiatives are delivered in partnership with State governments and agencies. To this end, bilateral agreements will continue to be pursued where relevant. The planned review of Caring for our Country will enable further exploration of the need for further reform of the national approach to natural resource management.

Recommendation 3

The committee recommends that the role of regional NRM organisations under Caring for our Country be more clearly defined and that a review be undertaken to assess the adequacy of support provided to regional NRM organisations in this regard. This review must consider the appropriate level of institutional support and base line funding necessary for regional NRM organisations to successfully undertake this role.

Response

The Australian Government agrees, noting that administrative arrangements for the establishment of regional NRM organisations vary between jurisdictions from institutional models with high levels of community empowerment to models where State government agencies retain full responsibility for all statutory functions.

The Government acknowledges these differences between jurisdictions and operates with each regional NRM organisation to accommodate specific needs. The Government continues to liaise with regional bodies through the National NRM Regions Working Group (the working group) and Regional Chairs Forum. The working group organises an annual forum and a bi-annual conference which the Australian Government fully supports to enable regional organisations to discuss emerging issues. The Australian Government actively participates in these events. The regions continue to play an important role in facilitating partnerships and developing collaborative projects which deliver Caring for our Country outcomes.

In terms of financial support, the Australian Government has committed a total of $711 million in regional base-level funding to the 56 regional NRM organisations for the first five years of Caring for our Country.

Base-level allocations are determined to ensure that regional NRM organisations are resourced adequately to assist in delivering of Australian Government Caring for our Country outcomes.

State and territory governments also have a central role in supporting regional NRM organisations. They provide financial contributions to NRM regions to varying degrees, the levels of which are determined by State/Territory governments’ individual circumstances.

‘NRM Governance System Foundations and Principles’ was a topic discussed at the 2010 National NRM Chairs forum and will contribute to ongoing evaluation of the role of NRM regional organisations.

This issue will be explored in the Review of Caring for our Country due to be completed by mid 2011.

Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government consider avenues for providing clearer requirements and incentives to stakeholders to collaborate with a range of project partners on long-term landscape scale strategic planning and action.

Response

The Australian Government agrees with and is implementing this recommendation. Opportunities exist for proponents to work with and secure corporate sponsorship to enhance their funding bids and increase the outcomes under Caring for our Country. The Government is keen to support projects that are delivered by parties working together in partnerships where this adds value and more effectively delivers on our targets.

The Caring for our Country Business Plan 2010-11 provides specific guidance on partnerships between stakeholders in sections 1.4 - Co-investment opportunities and 1.5 - Building Partnerships.

Proposals underpinned by a strong partnership can capture a wide pool of knowledge and skills and bring together those particular networks of people and resources essential to the project’s success.

Caring for our Country has three national coordinators who work at the national level with key Indigenous stakeholders and non-government organisations to improve engagement and broker partnerships that deliver Caring for our Country outcomes. Each coordinator has a specific target engagement area - Business and Industry, Local Government and Indigenous.

Recommendation 5

The committee recommends that the evaluation method for competitive bid applications be modified to give greater consideration to the likelihood of projects achieving defined and measurable environmental outcomes.

Response

The Australian Government agrees with and is implementing this recommendation. The Caring for our Country business plan 2010-11 and competitive bid assessment process was extensively reviewed as a result of significant stakeholder feedback, including recommendations from the Committee.

The contribution that proposals make to the Caring for our Country business plan targets form a very important part of the assessment process. Proposals must demonstrate the ability to make clear and measurable achievements against targets. In addition the assessment process will take into account the following:

• proponents’ demonstrated capacity to deliver results
• proponents’ demonstrated technical feasibility
• relevance of proposed activities to chosen targets
• proponents’ level of engagement with relevant stakeholders
• the scale and degree of proposed intervention
• potential to raise community awareness and enhance skills
• that the proposal is based on the best available science at the time and builds on the collective knowledge of what works best
• the public or broader community benefit derived from the project
• risk level of activities not being able to proceed and risk mitigation plan, and
• overall value for money.

Recommendation 6

The committee recommends that the funding model for Caring for our Country be reviewed and consideration be given to increasing the level of overall funding.

Response

Decisions relating to changes to the Caring for our Country funding model and the overall level of funding are made by Government in the context of its overall Budget priorities. The Government has, through the 2010-11 Budget, maintained its commitment to investing more than $2 billion over the first five years of Caring for our Country.

To help deliver its strategic goal, Caring for our Country investments in each financial year are focused through annual business plans, which define the investment targets for priority areas, and particular investment approaches to achieve these targets. These investment approaches are subject to a process of ongoing improvement to reduce administrative overheads.

Targets for the 2010-11 business plan were developed following a review of targets, which incorporated direct feedback from stakeholders on the previous business plan. This review was undertaken to ensure the continuing relevance of targets to the five year outcomes and the overall strategic goal for Caring for our Country.

For example, the 2010-11 business plan incorporates new investment approaches including Open Call (co-investment) and expression of interest (EOI), and continues the existing regional base-level investment and Community Action Grant investment streams. The co-investment and EOI approaches are designed to focus on specified and significant environmental, agriculture and fisheries issues.

Further opportunities to refine the funding approach will be examined as part of the scheduled review.

Recommendation 7

The committee recommends that the application process be reviewed and that avenues for reducing the costs involved in submitting applications be considered, including the lodgement of expressions of interest.

Response

The Australian Government agrees with and is implementing this recommendation. The application process for the Caring for our Country business plan 2010-11 has been redesigned, taking into account public comments. A streamlined, fully automated online application process is now available for the majority of Caring for our Country components (including open call, regional base-level expressions of interest, and sustainable practices expressions of interest). The new online application forms are easy to navigate and include a large number of drop-down menus. Improved support arrangements have also been included, such as embedded help functions and links to additional information.

These new arrangements simplify and reduce transaction costs associated with the preparation of applications. Section 2 of the business plan clearly identifies for each target what the Government is looking to invest in and provides guidance when developing proposals. Applicant feedback in response to these new arrangements has been positive.

An Expression of Interest (EOI) approach has also been applied to allow for greater negotiation for proposals - for example for the Sustainable Practices larger scale proposals with a value of between $300 000 and $1.5 million.

The Community Action Grants program aims to reduce administrative burden to applicants by streamlining the funding process from application to project acquittal. Examples of this streamlined process include an entirely online application requiring no attachments; a short and simple funding deed by which proponents are contracted; and, a straightforward acquittals process.

Recommendation 8

The committee recommends that a framework be established to provide consistent support and feedback to all applicants for funding under Caring for our Country.

Response

The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation. The Government has established avenues for providing feedback and support services at all stages of the roll out of the 2010-11 business plan, including through:

• Public information sessions on the 2010-11 business plan held in all capital cities and a number of major regional centres in January-February 2010
• Improved web-based support documentation (available also in hard copy for those who require it)
• A 1800 number and email help and support facilities
• Australian Government facilitators in all states and territories.

Recommendation 9

The committee recommends that the NRM Ministerial Council convene a working group to develop a framework and generic criteria which would form the basis for an ongoing process of audit of the condition of Australia’s natural resources. The development of the framework and criteria must involve close liaison with departments and agencies involved in natural resource management at the Commonwealth, state and territory and local level and Commonwealth, state and territory audit offices.

Response

The Australian Government agrees in principle with this recommendation and acknowledges the need to establish a better system of environmental monitoring. In response to the ideas raised at the Australia 2020 Summit, and supported by the recent Independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the Australian Government announced in the 2010-11 Budget the establishment of a National Plan for Environmental Information. The plan establishes the path for the delivery of a set of credible national environmental accounts. This initiative will coordinate and prioritise the way the Australian Government collects, manages and uses environmental information. It will improve the coordination and consistency of environmental information across jurisdictions.

Examination of the ongoing evaluation and monitoring of Caring for our Country and achievements against its five-year outcomes will be included in the review of the initiative scheduled for completion by July 2011.

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

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

I am particularly keen to talk about this government response. It was in fact me who referred this matter to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, which is now called the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee. I got the support of the chamber for this reference because there are a number of members, I will acknowledge, from the coalition who were also very concerned about the progress of natural resource management in Australia with the introduction of Caring for our Country. We were concerned that the considerable progress that was being made under the NHT and Landcare was being undermined by changes to the process in Caring for our Country. I will say from the outset that it was acknowledged that NHT was not perfect, but it had developed through evolution and an iterative process to something that a number of us thought was at least heading in the right direction—in particular with regard to the role of regional natural resource management groups, of which there are 56 around this country. While they are not perfect—and I have never argued that they are—they were evolving to take responsibility for natural resource management and Landcare, particularly at the landscape scale, which is especially important.

I am pleased to see that the government has finally responded to our recommendations, of which we made a number. We are pleased that it appears to substantially agree with a number of the recommendations. However, when you read the detail—as the common saying goes, the devil is in the detail—I do not think it agrees with them as much as it first appears to. Recommendation 1 was:

The committee recommends that a more rigorous and comprehensive approach is taken to the identification of national priorities for inclusion in the Caring for our Country Business Plan. This process must include engaging regional and local expertise to ensure that targets established in the Business Plan are relevant at the regional and local level.

Anyone can read through the 2010-11 business plan and talk to some of the stakeholders. I do not think it is fair to say that there was extensive consultation over the development of that business plan.

We are concerned that the inquiry very clearly demonstrated that there are serious and fundamental issues with the current approach to natural resource management. I am pleased that the government has finally acknowledged that, by undertaking a review of Caring for our Country. I have to put on the record that I am disappointed that it is an internal departmental review. It is the department and the government processes that in fact have taken us to where we are with Caring for our Country. I think it is very fair to say that there has been a significant lack of community consultation and meaningful—and the key word here is ‘meaningful’—consultation with natural resource management groups and Landcare.

The national priorities, which look good on a big scale, are not translating very well into many regional areas, and many regional groups have had their funding cut by a very substantial amount, to the point where you are seeing people leave Landcare and natural resource management. Not only are we losing paid staff from a number of these areas—very good people who we may not get back into natural resource management; we are losing volunteers. I personally know volunteers who have been involved for three decades in natural resource management who have either walked away or are walking away.

So it is imperative that we get Caring for our Country fixed so that we can start delivering against these national priorities and translate them into regional outcomes. What we are seeing in my home state of Western Australia, for example, is that the issue of salinity has been dropped as a national priority. We are going back to the bad old days of trying to treat some problems such as wind erosion in isolation rather than at the landscape scale. One of the issues that came out in the report was the competitive grants process. In theory it sounds really good to have a competitive grants process, but what we found happened was that competition within the regional organisations means that people are not taking a collaborative approach anymore to the way they develop projects, which is what they used to do. They used to collaborate, and now you are finding that small groups within regional groups have to keep their ideas to themselves, without sharing them and thus getting a much better project.

So the review needs to be very comprehensive and needs to do a lot of consultation. I asked about this in estimates. I note that news of the review was released an hour before we were due to ask questions about it in estimates, at 4.30 pm on the first Monday of estimates. While I was very pleased that it had been released, I found the timing quite interesting. It meant the department could say it had been released but none of us could have a look at it and question them about it. So we will be watching this process very carefully. At the time, the department could not tell us their plan for consultation, which I find disturbing given that one of the major complaints at the moment is the lack of consultation and cooperation within NRM groups. But there is an urgent need to get the Caring for our Country program back on track so that we can start getting our natural resource management issues sorted. There are still major natural resource management issues facing this country. We need to make sure that Caring for our Country is refocused, that it is delivering real outcomes and that it is fostering a cooperative, landscape-scale approach that genuinely deals with the issues.

One of the many other issues we addressed was the issue around bilateral agreements with the states and territories, which we used to have under NHT and which required the state and territory governments to come to the party to cooperate with landholders, natural resource management regions and Landcare groups. We no longer have those bilateral agreements, and some of the state governments, in my opinion, are walking away from some of their responsibilities under NRM. While the government in their response say that they are going to be looking at them, I think we need a stronger response by government.

It is clear from this that the government are acknowledging that there are issues, and I am pleased and congratulate them on that. They will be judged now, though, on how they handle the review. It is a shame that it is a purely internal review. I urge them to bring some more independent people in to help with that review, to provide advice on that review, and ensure that they have a thorough, meaningful consultation process so that we get some good outcomes from the review. I then urge them to implement those outcomes as a matter of urgency.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not often that I congratulate the Greens political party on anything—in fact, I will not break my long-held ‘paranoia’—but I will congratulate Senator Siewert, who, without embarrassing her and putting the kiss of death on her future, is the one member of the Greens political party who is a genuine environmentalist and who actually knows something about environmental management. In fact, I humbly suggest that she knows more than practically anyone in this chamber about the issues she was just talking about. I am very pleased to support Senator Siewert in what she has said on the report Natural resource management and conservation challenges, which, as she said, she initiated and which the coalition wholeheartedly supported.

I agree with Senator Siewert that the Caring for our Country program certainly did need review. It somewhat annoys me. The previous government was advised by the same bureaucrats who advise this government. As Senator Siewert mentioned and as I often conceded, when we started on the Natural Heritage Trust there were a lot of different approaches and some things did not work. But, working with the bureaucrats when we were in government and, more importantly, listening to people like Senator Siewert and, perhaps even more importantly than that, listening to the groups on the ground who were at the coalface, we implemented changes over time. Whilst no-one can ever say we had it perfect, I think we had it pretty close to what it should have been.

A new government came into power and—I think for no other reason than that a new government must wipe away anything good that the previous government did, said or initiated and have a new name for a program and new rules—we seemed to go almost right back to where we had started with the Natural Heritage Trust five, six or seven years before. Because of political influence, if I can say that, because of the need for a new government and a new minister to be different and not take on a program which I think had stood the test of time, we had the new Caring for our Country program. Change the name if you must, but do not change the basis of the delivery of the program. But that is what happened, so we have had a hiatus now of almost three years while we have struggled with the new rules and people have demonstrated clearly that it does not work.

I think this is the second inquiry we have had into this sort of thing. We have flown people all around the countryside to give the committee and, through the committee, the government the benefit of real advice. I am told by those close to the ground that the government, through the bureaucracy, now understands that changes have to be made. The bureaucracy—good luck to them—I think have convinced the minister that changes need to be made.

All of the problems that Senator Siewert identified in her contribution are there. The worst one that I became aware of was that, instead of various land management and natural resource management groups working together collaboratively to get a regional approach to natural resource management, they were put into a position where they were competing against one another. Whereas in the past one would have supported the other, they suddenly came to the position that they could not really support that other group because if that group won it would mean money coming off theirs. It was just a complete shemozzle.

Clearly, as Senator Siewert and other senators demonstrated during the course of the inquiry, there has been a reduction of money going to natural resource management. It is all smoke and mirrors. When you try to find it in any budget, the smoke will confuse the mirror and they will lead you round a garden path, but I think it is quite clear that there is less money being spent on natural resource management now under the Caring for our Country program than there was previously.

I regret to say that I have a feeling that the government feels that NRM, natural resource management, is not quite as sexy as it used to be. It is not the flavour of the month. You do not get much media bang for your buck anymore. It gets pushed aside a bit. It is not quite as popular a community activity as it used to be. That is a shame because the best way we can deal with our biodiversity, with our environment in the broad, and, at the same time, the best way we can help our farmers and our producers on the land to grow crops sustainably and well is to get people on the ground in the local catchment areas working together to help, to do what they all know needs to be done.

This is a collaborative effort. It needs farmers who have lived all of their lives on the land and understand that it needs to be protected. It also needs the scientists, it needs those activists and it needs those people who are committed to the environment and are very, if I might say, upwardly mobile when it comes to natural resource management. It is the best environment policy that you can settle upon without all of the hoo-ha, political correctness and political point scoring that usually happens when the environment is mentioned.

I congratulate the committee. I congratulate Senator Siewert on her initiation and on the lead role she played in it. I am perhaps over the time that I allotted myself with my whip, but in concluding I will again put on record the great work the NRM groups, particularly in my own home state of Queensland, do in managing natural resources. I am a Queensland senator and you would expect me to know more about Queensland than elsewhere, but in Queensland we have the situation, which I think is replicated in Western Australia, where community groups actually spend the money, do the work and direct the appropriate management of our natural resources. In some other states they are state government instrumentalities, many of whom do not do a bad job I have to concede, but they are state government instrumentalities and therefore they can be subjected to other influences in how they spend the money and what they do. Certainly in Queensland these community groups do an absolutely fabulous job. They are very professional. They do tremendous work for our natural resources and I never miss the opportunity to congratulate them for the work they do in my state of Queensland.

Question agreed to.