ECONOMIC AND FINANCE COMMITTEE: EMERGENCY SERVICES LEVY

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:32): I move:

That the 66^th report of the committee, on the Emergency Services Levy, be noted.

The committee has examined the minister's determination in respect of the emergency services levy for the financial year 2008-09. The committee notes that the total expenditure on emergency services for 2008-09 is projected to be $218 million, with total expenditure for 2007-08 now expected to reach $208.6 million, an increase of $3.7 million on last year's projections caused, largely, by increases in property values due to a booming economy under the new federal Labor government and continued economic growth under the state Labor government.

The committee notes that cash balances in the Community Emergency Services Fund (CESF) are expected to reach $2.6 million by 30 June 2008, of which $2.5 million is committed to fund the computer aided dispatch (CAD) project, which has been carried over into 2008-09. There will be no increase in the effective levy rates either for owners of fixed property or for owners of motor vehicles and vessels in 2008-09. I do not know whether the member for Bragg owns a vessel, but I am sure she is cheering.

The committee notes that the 2008-09 target expenditure of $218 million has increased by $9.4 million from the 2007-08 estimated outcome. This increase is mainly due to the following:

$7.2 million relates to initiatives approved by cabinet as part of the highly successful 2008-09 budget; and

$2.5 million relates to deferred expenditure on the CAD project carried over from 2007-08.

The Economic and Finance Committee has maintained an interest in the collection of the ESL and has been vigilant year after year in questioning the department on this matter. After this year's hearing, it was apparent from the evidence provided that collection costs appear to have reached, or are near, the minimum level that might be expected from such a stand-alone collection system, which was introduced by the former government. Nevertheless, the committee urged the continued investigation of collection options, such as electronic delivery of bills, which might further reduce the cost of collecting and processing the levy.

The committee was also told that the new integrated IT system being procured by the department would replace the current structure, part of which involves the ESL being run as a stand-alone system. The result of this department-wide integrated system will be further reductions in IT costs associated with the levy.

Finally, the committee notes with approval the operation of the Native Vegetation Council's Bushfire Prevention Plan Subcommittee. The committee was flagged by representatives of the CFS in previous years as a response to problems experienced by landowners in obtaining a timely approval to clear areas of their land for fire prevention. I will give credit to the father of the house for this. He is the one who has educated many members on this side about the urgency of recognising the appropriate time to back-burn and about holding your nerve when you do these things. He tells me it is all about holding your nerve.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: And holding your nerve. The committee was told that a new subcommittee is accelerating the process of obtaining these approvals, and we will wait with interest to see that these improvements continue. As ever, the work of the committee on this matter has been exemplified by a spirit of cooperation and willingness to put the duties and responsibilities of the parliament first. As has been said elsewhere: 'Always give your best, never get discouraged, never be petty. Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.' Do you know who that is?

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: I told you earlier; that's cheating. Words to live by, and words the Economic and Finance Committee lives each week. Given the above, and pursuant to section 6 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Economic and Finance Committee recommends to the parliament that it note this report—and you will not have Tom Koutsantonis to kick around any more.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:37): I must say, that was an amazing performance from the honourable member. I was delighted to hear his quotes and I was most interested to hear the comments in the committee's report. There are a few points I would like to make on the emergency services levy because, as a former chair of a CFS board, along with the current CEO of the Department for Environment and Heritage, it cost us our heads when it was introduced through the dearly departed member for Mawson, who is due to come back into this place in another capacity tomorrow. But that is a story for another day.

The reality (and the presiding member of the committee may care to pick up on this) is that I find it totally and absolutely ludicrous that CFS brigades are still running around raising funds for different things. I find it to be an embarrassment and an area of neglect that they are still required, despite the enormous amount of money that the emergency services levy has brought into the central fund, to raise money at all. Indeed, I think the money that is raised could be better spent on other projects in communities for various organisations.

For the life of me, every time I see members of the CFS collecting, I think we are failing with respect to the distribution of the emergency services levy. Indeed, after the considerable fires that began on 6 December last year in my electorate on Kangaroo Island, the CFS went out of its way to put out donation bins to raise money for more communication equipment—and all sorts of equipment, quite frankly. This is where I think the system is failing. They simply should not have to raise that money.

I hope that the honourable member opposite picks up on that and perhaps looks at it when they look into the emergency services levy at another time, because I think it is foolish. I do not think it is needed. Given the broad spread of where this money goes out of the emergency services levy over the various agencies—and I am picking particularly on the Country Fire Service on this one—I think it is an embarrassment that they still have to go out and raise money. However, I note the report and the comments of the committee's Presiding Member. Thank you for the opportunity to make a brief comment.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:40): Being a member of the Economic and Finance Committee, it is my pleasure to comment on this report today. In the 2½ years that I have been a member of the Economic and Finance Committee, I always looked forward to the hearing days, because I have never seen such a collection of public servants in one room. There would have to be 20 people in attendance. The opportunity to speak is only ever provided to four, five at the most, and everyone else is present just in case they need to provide an answer. Honestly, it must cost thousands. I think it is fair to say that both sides of politics question why so many people are in attendance, but they still continue to roll up every time.

I have noted that, in the past two years, the total expenditure for the Emergency Services Levy has increased by approximately $30 million. The committee's presiding member has noted that, in 2008-09, it is anticipated that it will be $218 million. My recollection from reviewing the initial report is that, two years ago, it was $185 million, but I stand to be corrected on that. I paid particular attention to the one affecting property owners; that is, land-based property owners, but I also noted that the levy also applies to mobile assets such as cars, motorbikes and trucks. This year the cost to property owners will increase by 10 per cent (just under $82 million).

It has gone from $74 million or so to approximately $82 million. I know the committee's presiding member has mentioned the fact that, this year, the increase in property value has resulted in an additional income of $3.5 million (or thereabouts) above the original budget. It goes to prove that windfall revenue from property valuations has not only improved the government's bottom line position in so many different areas but it has also helped emergency services, too.

I am not sure whether everyone supports the Emergency Services Levy, but having previously been a local government CEO for communities struggling to raise revenue but wanting to support the CFS brigades in their area, it was important that an equitable system be introduced so that all property owners contributed to the cost of providing this service. Previously, there was a varying degree of subsidy for CFS purchases based on the disadvantage of an area and its ability to raise revenue. I think that some council areas received a 90 per cent (or thereabouts) subsidy rate for CFS equipment, whereas others received 20 per cent: it depended on the revenue they received.

That has all changed now with the introduction of the Emergency Services Levy. It is still based on priority bids within the regions and the departments responsible for all the emergency services as to who receives the majority of support and to where in each financial year that support goes, be it land assets such as stations, or mobile assets such as firefighting equipment or SES vehicles, but they all do a good job. The member for Finniss referred to the wonderful job performed by CFS volunteers from across South Australia who responded and helped to fight the fires on Kangaroo Island in December last year.

I put on the public record the fact that Yorke Peninsula (the area which I represent) also had fires in early December last year. It required the strike teams to come to the area. My brother-in-law is a captain of one of the brigades in the area in which a fire was fought. We have talked about the incident management on some of those occasions which were not quite as good as they could have been.

However, the important thing is that people respond and they recognise the importance of getting on to a fire straightaway, putting firebreaks in place and ensuring that property damage is minimised and that human loss very rarely, if ever, occurs. In the case of Kangaroo Island, tragedy did occur when one young person was caught in a fire. Luckily for Yorke Peninsula, that was not the case. I am sure that everyone in this house prays that, every time a fire occurs, no-one is hurt. It is important that parliament and the House of Assembly support our volunteers in any way that we can.

I did note that the Emergency Services Levy is not charged on boats. I would not want to suggest that it should be charged on boats because 300,000 recreational fishers would object, but it was an interesting point. In his comments, the committee's presiding member referred to collection costs. My understanding is that, when the Emergency Services Levy was first introduced, collection costs were about 14 per cent of the value received from the levy; that is, approximately $7 million out of a revenue of $50 million.

There is no doubt that it has decreased significantly as efficiencies have come into play. I think it is down to the 2.5 per cent range at the moment. It was interesting in the submissions that we received as part of our inquiry into the Emergency Services Levy that the state government's average collection cost across all departments for revenue is about 0.6 per cent. So, the fact is that the emergency services levy is the more expensive revenue to raise.

Also, in the expenditure areas, I am pleased to see that support is ongoing particularly for the volunteer coastal rescue units that operate across the state. I think Yorke Peninsula has three of those units, and they are wonderful people who do a great job. They have been financially supported in recent years. I know that the Wallaroo Flotilla has recently received a new vessel valued at $180,000, and that is wonderful for that area. In the last few years infrastructure has been built at Port Vincent and also Port Victoria. So, it is good to see that the emergency services levy is benefiting all areas of the state.

Our state has an enormous amount of coastline, and a lot of people enjoy the opportunity to go on the water, whether it be in their own boat, with friends or in charters, and it is fantastic that we have dedicated volunteers out there who are prepared to donate their time. Some people sit in radio shacks for days on end listening for calls that might come in. So, those people really do deserve all the support provided to them.

I note also that that might be the last meeting for the chairman, depending on what happens in the next few weeks—and he is shaking his head. We wish him well, and we hope that the impending announcement from the Premier is a positive one for him.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:46): Being a member of that august committee, I want to make a couple of points in relation to the 66^th report of the committee, dealing with the emergency services levy, but I will keep my comments relatively brief in view of the fact that the chairman and my colleague the member Goyder have covered the issue reasonably comprehensively.

I note that the rate used to calculate the levy has not changed from that used in the 2007-08 year, but there has been a $7.7 million increase in total revenue raised, and that has been brought about primarily by the increase in property values. We know that the percentage contributed by the private sector compared to the contribution the government makes does not vary markedly from year to year. The government contributes about 50 per cent of the total funds raised through the levy, which is held in the Community Emergency Services Fund (CESF).

Having made those points, I want to talk about a couple of areas, one in particular, relating to how these funds are utilised in providing the Country Fire Service with all its firefighting capabilities during our really high wildfire seasons, which arguably run from November (or even October in some years) right through to May, when the season breaks. In particular, I refer to the capabilities of our aerial firefighting units. I have spoken previously about these issues in the house and referred, in particular, to the utilisation of the air-crane helicopter—the Elvis, the Delilah, or whatever the name—

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes, the Goldie, as the member for Morphett says. For three or four years now, I have been a strong campaigner for this state to commit the funds to have an air-crane style helicopter based here in South Australia permanently during the bushfire season. As the member for Morphett has said, it is pleasing that the Minister for Emergency Services (Carmel Zollo) in the other place has seen fit to adopt Liberal Party policy (especially as we know the government is bereft of its own policy on a whole range of issues) by having an air-crane helicopter based here permanently, rather than this state being 'tail-end Charlie', so to speak, at the whim of the other states. My being a strong campaigner for the air crane helicopter being based here permanently, my colleagues have suggested that the name should not be Delilah or Elvis: it should be Goldy. So, hopefully when we get the helicopter there this summer there will be—

Ms Chapman: Mark 2.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Mark 2 or Goldy, but you have to spell it with a 'y' not an 'ie'. There is a definite way of spelling it.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I am not too sure about that. We could go there. That is a point that I want to raise in relation to this. The government has really only moved as a consequence of the coronial inquest into the Wangary fires. We have had an enormously devastating fire on Kangaroo Island since those Lower Eyre Peninsula fires. It is a hallmark of this government, a stand-out feature, that something catastrophic has to happen before it tends to move on its policy. We have to have these horrendous consequences before the government finally decides to commit additional funds to these services. As I said earlier, I intend to speak only briefly, and with those few words I support the motion of the chairman.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens) (11:51): It was interesting to note the two different views coming out. The two members of the committee are financially responsible, I think, with conservative fiscal values. The member for Kangaroo Island, I think, almost called for an increase in the ESL. It sounded very progressive, his calls for more spending in the area of CFS. It is often a problem within the Liberal Party that you have one group calling for more spending (the member for Bragg, the leader) and then you have the fiscal conservatives saying, 'Well, hang on a second. Taxes are evil. Spending is evil. We can't spend money on services; let the market do that.' Then you have the old guard, the old soft Liberals coming out saying, 'Spend and tax, spend and tax, spend and tax as much as we can.'

I think it is a fascinating debate. Luckily for the people of South Australia, they have a fiscally conservative, caring, compassionate and moderate Labor government in office that can weather the calls of the tax and spend Liberals at the back, and the tax cutters and spending cutters in the conservatives. We saw that played out in the Mayo preselection, where you had the conservatives get their WorkChoices man up—

Ms CHAPMAN: I rise on a point of order. Nothing in the response so far from the member has had anything to do with the report that the parliament is being asked to receive. He is now straying into other subjects that are just so far removed that I cannot possibly think how it is even relevant to the parliament, let alone this motion for the acceptance and adoption of this report.

The SPEAKER: Order! I think the deputy leader has made an interesting point. I think that, if the chair were to over-rigorously enforce the standing orders with regard to relevance in debate, the chair would be doing nothing else other than picking up members. I think the member for West Torrens is making a response to points made in the course of the debate. Perhaps the Mayo preselection is pushing it a bit, but the other points he made, I think, are orderly. The member for West Torrens.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, sir, for your wisdom. It is about the ideological divide opposite. You have your tax and spend Liberals who want to spend more than we have. This is not our tax. This was not our idea. This tax was the idea of the former government: it is its baby, and it loved it, it loved bringing it in.

They love taxing and they love spending, and that is why for the entire time they were in government they did not deliver one balanced budget. I always thought, with the Hon. Tom Playford looking down on them, how they let him down so often. The remarks made by you, Mr Speaker, in your maiden speech about the ideological divide are interesting because when the member for Goyder, a future leader, gets up—that is right; he will just jump right over the member for Bragg—and talks about restraint, spending and not wanting to increase the tax base, he is talking about his base. When the member for Finniss gets up, he is talking about this Chris Pyne soft, wet Liberal view of spending more than we have, and that is a debate we saw in the Mayo preselection between the two divides.

Ms CHAPMAN: I rise again on a point of order. We are straying entirely out of the jurisdiction of this parliament, let alone the motion before us.

The SPEAKER: I do not uphold the point of order. I will let the member for West Torrens go on.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: When the members for Bragg and Finniss tried to get a dairy farmer called Basham up, they tried to impose their wet, Liberal tax-and-spend ideology that we have seen articulated today by the member for Finniss onto the federal parliament, but the conservatives fought back. After having been wiped out of the state executive, they have fought back. They did everything they could, including holding the Mayo preselection in Hindmarsh on a Sunday. I hear with great authority that, of over 500 eligible members, over half did not know that they were members.

Ms CHAPMAN: I rise on a point of order. Clearly, we are now moving entirely into a topic which has nothing to do with the motion, and I ask you again, Mr Speaker, to reconsider your previous decisions on this.

The SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order.

Mr KOUTSANTONIS: The truth of the matter is that, if we ever leave the member for Finniss in charge of the state's finances, we will be bankrupt within a year.

Motion carried.