THE Local Government Association of SA has unanimously passed a motion at its last meeting to lobby the state government to cease the collection method of the Natural Resources Management levy.
Subscribe now for unlimited access to all our agricultural news
across the nation
or signup to continue reading
LGA chief executive officer Matt Pinnegar said councils required to contribute to the levy under the NRM Act 2004 were uncomfortable passing on increased financial pain to their communities at the time when there was a decrease in on-ground services.
It comes as the government has directed the state’s eight NRM boards to raise an additional $10.2 million by 2017.
The LGA’s next step is to write to Environment Minister Ian Hunter and seek wider support for legislative change to remove the NRM levy from council rate notices in 2017-18.
It wants government to collect the revenue directly.
In a statement, Mr Hunter said councils were required to collect the levy under law, and in doing so ensured it went to managing natural resources, not administrative costs.
“The LGA arguing they will increase administrative costs to ratepayers strikes me as a little short-sighted,” he said.
The act enables councils to recover the full cost of levy collection.
Family First MLC Robert Brokenshire says he is willing to push for legislative changes to the “unpopular state government tax” collection.
“People are blaming their local councils because they get the bill for the NRM levy on their rate notices, and as a result councils are growing sick and tired of being the government’s scapegoat,” he said.
Primary Producers SA NRM committee chair Fiona Rasheed says they share the concerns about the impact of the increased levies on the community.
They are continuing to work through the water planning and management figures made available, and the commodity groups will meet with senior Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources staff again next week.
“We are trying to understand more about where the $43m is going and the different income streams that are contributing to the costs,” Mrs Rasheed said.
“The government is saying the levies are paying for 16 per cent of the $43m but we need to clarify where the money for the rest of the costs is coming from.”
The Natural Resources Committee is expected to respond soon to amended plans it has received from six of the state’s NRM boards.
