❓ Hon. Tincknell questions the Minister for Regional Development about state funding for Coastcare and other environmental groups following federal funding cuts. The Minister acknowledges the issue, blames federal cuts, and highlights the state's existing NRM commitment.
AnsweredQoN 1177Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
NATURAL RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT — COASTCARE GROUPS
1177. Hon COLIN TINCKNELL to the Minister for Regional Development:
The minister is on record as
supporting WA regional natural resource management groups and those community
groups involved in landcare, environment and agricultural landscape
sustainability, yet, as the minister would be aware, all federal funding for
Coastcare and Coastcare groups from across WA was stopped. These groups have
since applied for state government funding and it appears to be unsuccessful.
(1) Can the minister confirm whether
the state government has funded them appropriately?
(2) Furthermore,
local grower and environmental groups such as the Fitzgerald Biosphere Group,
which do fantastic work, do not receive any core funding for them to keep their
doors open, despite requesting support from the minister. Why is the state
government not supporting these groups?
MANAGEMENT — COASTCARE GROUPS
1177. Hon COLIN TINCKNELL to the Minister for Regional Development:
The minister is on record as
supporting WA regional natural resource management groups and those community
groups involved in landcare, environment and agricultural landscape
sustainability, yet, as the minister would be aware, all federal funding for
Coastcare and Coastcare groups from across WA was stopped. These groups have
since applied for state government funding and it appears to be unsuccessful.
(1) Can the minister confirm whether
the state government has funded them appropriately?
(2) Furthermore,
local grower and environmental groups such as the Fitzgerald Biosphere Group,
which do fantastic work, do not receive any core funding for them to keep their
doors open, despite requesting support from the minister. Why is the state
government not supporting these groups?
AnswerView source ↗
(1)–(2)
I must say that I am quite puzzled by the member's question. Presumably
the member was here when we actually had a debate on this recently. The member
touches on the fact that he might understand that what has happened here has
been a change in what the feds did. The feds have traditionally been the ones
who have provided the core funding for natural resource management. That was
its job. When it set it up subsequent to the Telstra sale, the federal job was to
provide that core funding. It has been slowly reducing the overall amount of
funding, and then also reducing the percentage of the money that is left that
is spent on core funding. This is not just
black and white. There is some critique of the smaller players in NRM that they are concerned that we have created some pretty large bureaucracies with
these regional NRM groups, and much of the funds are going to sustaining
bureaucracy rather than doing the grassroots work on the ground. Therefore, the
issues here are not black and white. But, quite clearly, the federal government
has cut the core funding, and cut that very significantly again in the last
couple of years.
We made an election commitment for
$7.75 million a year for NRM over the life of our government, and we are
delivering that. We are very conscious. We do know that groups obviously have
been writing to us. I must say that I was very puzzled by the Fitzgerald
Biosphere Group's letter—the group the member referred to—because
it did not seem to be able to bring itself to mention that its problem was that
it had this loss of federal government
funding. We are going to have a look at the structure. But I would urge the member to do two things: I would urge the member to get onto people like Rick
Wilson and start agitating to getting some of that federal funding back for
that group.
In the next couple of months, Minister
Dawson and I will be announcing the latest natural resource management grants,
and we have committed to our election commitment. If we have an opportunity in
the next couple of years to see whether we can increase that, we will, but this
is no substitute for the federal government taking its share of responsibility
for funding NRMs.
I must say that I am quite puzzled by the member's question. Presumably
the member was here when we actually had a debate on this recently. The member
touches on the fact that he might understand that what has happened here has
been a change in what the feds did. The feds have traditionally been the ones
who have provided the core funding for natural resource management. That was
its job. When it set it up subsequent to the Telstra sale, the federal job was to
provide that core funding. It has been slowly reducing the overall amount of
funding, and then also reducing the percentage of the money that is left that
is spent on core funding. This is not just
black and white. There is some critique of the smaller players in NRM that they are concerned that we have created some pretty large bureaucracies with
these regional NRM groups, and much of the funds are going to sustaining
bureaucracy rather than doing the grassroots work on the ground. Therefore, the
issues here are not black and white. But, quite clearly, the federal government
has cut the core funding, and cut that very significantly again in the last
couple of years.
We made an election commitment for
$7.75 million a year for NRM over the life of our government, and we are
delivering that. We are very conscious. We do know that groups obviously have
been writing to us. I must say that I was very puzzled by the Fitzgerald
Biosphere Group's letter—the group the member referred to—because
it did not seem to be able to bring itself to mention that its problem was that
it had this loss of federal government
funding. We are going to have a look at the structure. But I would urge the member to do two things: I would urge the member to get onto people like Rick
Wilson and start agitating to getting some of that federal funding back for
that group.
In the next couple of months, Minister
Dawson and I will be announcing the latest natural resource management grants,
and we have committed to our election commitment. If we have an opportunity in
the next couple of years to see whether we can increase that, we will, but this
is no substitute for the federal government taking its share of responsibility
for funding NRMs.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.