Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [1.59 p.m.]: The establishment of the new Livestock Health and Pest Authorities in New South Wales under the Rural Lands Protection Amendment Bill 2008, which reduced the number of rural protection land boards from 47 to 14, can be described as nothing short of a public relations disaster. During the alleged consultation period, my office received over 1,100 letters objecting to the forced Rural Lands Protection Amendment Bill 2008 amalgamations. Many other country MPs were similarly inundated. When the member for Monaro introduced the bill, he said:

The reforms are designed to secure the future viability of the board system, and renew its purpose relevance across the rural sector.

He then attempted to support the changes at the time by saying:

It is no secret that some boards are struggling to remain financially viable in a time of growing demands for their services.

The Government justified the new system on the basis that amalgamations would streamline activities and make more money available for frontline services. However, for many landholders the first contact they had with their new Livestock Health and Pest Authority was a rate notice containing a massive increase to charges. My office has been deluged with queries and objections about these rate notices. The best way I can highlight these concerns today is to quote directly from some of the correspondence I have received. The following letter covers many of the concern. I have received:

I have property in both the Armidale and Tamworth regions. I am writing to express my anger at the recent rate rise. Tamworth LHP A rates have increased 47% (pest insect levy excluded) and Armidale LHPA rates 24%. I also take issue with the notional carrying capacity of the Armidale area property. Its capacity is rated at 3/Ha, which is in excess of the Tamworth property, but is much lighter country with timber belts and rocky outcrops—features the Tamworth property does not possess. It is beyond my belief that the LHPA could possibly justify any increase, let alone one that significantly exceeds the CPI, having only recently amalgamated the RLPB's into larger areas under the guise of spreading overheads and reducing costs. I guess I was under the misapprehension that the reduction in costs would be to me, not our destitute State Government. Additionally, having property in both regions, documents the disparity between areas in making these assessments. This is nothing but a money grab. Be assured that I am far from impressed and will now be supporting the movement that proposes to dismantle the RLPB's, now LHPA's, due to the excessive charges and lack of relevance in modem agriculture.

Another example is:

Reference is made to a Rural Lands Rates Notice that I received, concerning our property on the outskirts of Tamworth. My concern is that the Rates have been increased to $128.20, from the previous year of $66.43; which in real terms is an increase of 94%. After speaking with a staff member at the Tamworth Office yesterday, who was very helpful, I decided to appeal this major increase in fees, for which I believe we get very little in return. I can't seem to fathom the Notional Carrying Capacity of my 41 hectares, and, in fact, purchased this property, to mainly use as a residential address, on the outskirts of town. Our cats and our dog help with the eradication of the vermin and to date, I have had no assistance from the RLPB. I am sure that if I, as a local business operator, increased my prices, by 94% in one year, I would be laughed out of town, and would soon be out of business. A change of name from Rural Lands Protection Board, to the Livestock Health and Pest Authorities, and a glossy brochure that was enclosed with the rate notice, certainly don't justify a 94% increase in fees, for one year.

One of the saddest letters was from a 70-year-old aged pensioner, whose husband is in hospital with dementia, so she is living on her own on her 40-hectare hobby farm. Her rates were $66.75 last year and this year she is being charged $137.45. She is not happy that the Government continually changes things to save money, while allegedly making things more efficient. She said that most changes have a negative affect on her ability to continue living on her property. She has been trying to sell because she is now on her own, but it is not the right climate at present and she is truly struggling to make ends meet. On top of this, there are anomalies, with landowners right across the State being charged for the reintroduction of a pest insect levy, yet in northern parts of the State ticks are the issue, not locusts. These farmers have to pay a locust levy when they do not get locusts, but are left to deal with ticks without a similar level of coordinated support.

Every country representative, Labor, Liberal, National or Independent, would be well aware of the anger generated by the changes to the board system. My office is receiving daily complaints regarding rate increases of up to 100 per cent. I feel extremely sorry for the staff in Livestock Health and Pest Authority offices, as they have to wear the anger engendered by these changes. This has been a textbook lesson in how not to introduce a new system, which from the word go was a widely unpopular move. Sadly, it seems clear that the Government will not back away from these ill-advised changes to what was formerly a very well run RLPB system in the Tamworth district. We had good management, excellent people with very strong local knowledge and it was a financially sound organisation. I think that the anger coming from local farming communities is both understandable and fully justified.