Additional Comments by Government Senators
1.1
Government Senators note the recommendations and make the following
comments.
1.2
The Rudd Government designed Caring for our Country in response to
criticisms, namely from the Australian National Audit Office, that the funding
programs under the previous Government did not clearly demonstrate real,
measurable on-ground outcomes. Therefore funding was targeted to tackle
serious environmental challenges, such as those faced by the Great Barrier
Reef. Were it not for this targeted approach, it would not have been possible
to deliver the highly successful and widely welcomed $200 million Reef Rescue
program, for example.
1.3
Witnesses that appeared before the Committee have recognised that the
targeted approach under Caring for our Country was a sound policy-response.
For example, Mike Berwick, [position] of the Queensland Collective of NRM Groups,
said:
“We support the need for national priorities and a targeted
outcome. That was clearly a deficiency of the previous program and it is an
improvement”[1].
The Minerals Council of Australia also supported the new
approach under Caring for our Country:
“The MCA strongly supports the Commonwealth being more
proactively involved in developing and establishing long term strategic
approaches to natural resource management, especially natural resource
management that is integrated across the landscape.”[2]
1.4
The introduction of certainty of funding for regional NRM bodies has
also been praised as a significant positive change introduced by Caring for our
Country, as Kate Andrews, Chair of the NT NRM Group, recognised:
“I would like to acknowledge the positives in Caring for our
Country. It is fantastic that we have guaranteed minimum funding for regional
bodies, it is great that national priorities have been established and the
government has been really good at giving us an opportunity to provide feedback
on Caring for our Country. It is also good that there has been recognition of
the range of players and their needs to assess funds.”
1.5
The opening of up funding to any organisation that wishes to apply
through the competitive process was also welcomed by industry:
“With improved alignment between government and industry
initiatives, there will be increased capacity to deliver on-the-ground
outcomes...The acceptance under Caring for our Country that funding is available
to any party that can demonstrate nationally significant outcomes is an
important first step to developing better integrated approaches.”[3]
1.6
A simpler grants system that combined programs such as Natural Heritage
Trust or National Landcare Program has also been seen as a further improvement
introduced by Caring for our Country:
“ACF, WWF and HIS were especially pleased to see in the CFOC
package announcement the integration of a number of previous programs; the
clear identification of priority areas; and the increased focus on national led
action and on outcomes”[4].
1.7
Various other significant improvements were also commended by witnesses
and submissions, including the focus on indigenous engagement[5]
and designating northern and remote Australia a priority[6].
1.8
However, whenever there are significant changes to Government grants
programs, it is always beneficial to review and improve in light of feedback
from the community. Since the release of the 2009-10 Caring for our Country
Business Plan, the Department and the Government have consulted extensively
with the natural resource management community and other stakeholders such as
primary industries to ascertain areas of Caring for our Country that can be
improved or strengthened[7].
A number of witnesses during the hearings commended the consultation process
and the support of the Departments involved.
1.9
However, the commentary in this report is excessively and unduly
critical of Caring for our Country, even to the point of being incorrect. For
example, it is incorrect to say that projects that address salinity are not
eligible for funding under Caring for our Country. In fact, as Mr Ian Thompson
explained during the hearings:
“Salinity can be addressed under Caring for our Country
insofar as it impacts on the national priorities, for example, salinity that
might be affecting agriculture, wetlands or waterways or rivers or coastal
spots.”[8]
1.10
Another example is the statement the report[9]
that base level funding to regional NRM bodies “is a source of great
uncertainty”. Given Caring for our Country provided certainty of funding by
providing guaranteed funds until 2013, this statement is incorrect and
contradicts submissions referred to above.
1.11
The recently released 2010-11 Business Plan has clearly attempted to
respond to feedback received. The joint media release by Minister Peter Garrett
and Minister Tony Burke states that the application process under the Business
Plan had been improved to reduce transaction costs and greater flexibility
regarding activities eligible for funding had been introduced as a result of
feedback received from the natural resource management community.[10]
1.12
In addition, the report ignores the new Community Action Grants – the $5
million small grants program under Caring for our Country. These grants are
available to community groups who missed out on contestable funding under the
Business Plan to enable them to continue to take action to conserve and protect
their natural environment. A further round is expected to open in July this
year.[11]
1.13
Labor Committee Members generally support the recommendations made in
this report but we note that Recommendations 4, 5 and 7 have already been
achieved.
Senator Glenn Sterle
Senator for Western Australia
|
Senator Kerry O'Brien
Senator for Tasmania |
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page