ECONOMIC AND FINANCE COMMITTEE: EMERGENCY SERVICES LEVY 2012-13

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Lee) (11:41): I move:

That the 77^th report of the committee, entitled Emergency Services Levy 2012-13, be noted.

The Economic and Finance Committee has an annual statutory duty to examine the minister's determinations in relation to the emergency services levy. The committee has 21 days in which to inquire into, consider and report on the minister's statement after it is referred to the committee pursuant to section 10(5a) of the Emergency Services Funding Act 1998.

This year was no exception, with the committee receiving the minister's statement on 29 May. As required by the act, the minister's statement included the determinations that the minister proposes to make in relation to the emergency services levy for the 2012-13 financial year. Section 10(4) of the act requires these determinations to be made in respect of:

the amount that, in the minister's opinion, needs to be raised by means of the levy to fund emergency services;

the amounts to be expended for various kinds of emergency services; and

as far as practicable, the extent to which the various parts of the state will benefit from the application of that amount.

On 6 June the committee heard from representatives from the Department of Treasury and Finance, SAFECOM, the Metropolitan Fire Service, the Country Fire Service and the State Emergency Service. The witnesses provided the committee with details on the proposed levy for the 2012-13 year. The committee notes the total expenditure on emergency services for 2012-13 is projected to be $233.4 million. There will be no increase in levy rates either for owners of fixed property or for owners of motor vehicles and vessels in 2012-13.

The committee notes total expenditure for 2011-12 is expected to be broadly in line with the original budget estimate. The committee also notes that cash balances in the Community Emergency Services Fund are expected to reach $2.7 million by 30 June 2012. The committee notes that the 2012-13 target expenditure of $233.4 million on emergency services is made up of the following components:

the emergency services levy inclusive of remissions will fund $230.2 million. Private owners of property are expected to contribute $126.4 million, with the balance of $103 million being met by government;

interest earnings and revenue from the sale of certificates will fund an estimated $2.9 million; and

$0.2 million will be funded from the Community Emergency Services Fund's cash balance.

The committee also notes that the 2012-13 target expenditure of $233.4 million is $4.6 million higher than the 2011-12 estimated outcome. The committee was told that this is mainly due to:

a full year of funding for the State Fire and Emergency Communication Centre;

supplementation for the firefighters' enterprise bargaining agreement; and

2012-13 budget initiatives that provide additional funding for capital replacement for front-line services and for training for the safety of front-line community emergency responders.

The committee was also told of initiatives recently introduced into the emergency services sector by the witnesses who appeared before the committee. These included:

the adoption of an emergency warning system to the community, including website development and interactive voice recording system and messaging systems;

a state emergency call centre;

the extension of the MFS road accident program;

the introduction of the SES community education unit;

extra training for volunteers in occupational health and safety;

CFS community educators on bushfire preparedness; and

website development on the use of social media as a way of communicating information relating to emergencies.

The committee has fulfilled its obligation under the Emergency Services Funding Act 1998. I take this opportunity to thank the members of the Economic and Finance Committee and the departmental representatives who assisted the committee in reporting on the minister's determinations for the 2012-13 emergency services levy. Therefore, pursuant to section 6 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Economic and Finance Committee recommends to parliament that it note this report.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:46): While no longer, sadly, being a member of the Economic and Finance Committee, I will seek the opportunity to comment briefly on it, having taken part in many of the previous reviews of the emergency services levy.

There was a lot of political capital used at the time of the introduction of the emergency services levy, and some concerns—there is no doubt about that—because it was another impost upon property owners. However, it is very clear to all of us that there is a great need for a regular source of funding to be available to fund all the needs that exist across the emergency services spectrum.

I learnt a lot from those briefings. I was truly amazed at how many people would attend a meeting, sometimes. Quite often, there were about 25 people in the gallery and only about three people who ever answered a question, but they had to be prepared for any question posed by a committee member. The Presiding Member, in my observation, has been a very fair person and, indeed, all of those who preceded you were very fair and allowed the opposition to ask a range of questions in any area.

Mr Venning: Like my dad.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Like his dad. It is appropriate, indeed (and the chairperson, in submitting the report, highlighted the fact), that $126 million comes from the purse of the South Australian taxpayers; and it is appropriate that there is a good level of scrutiny on that and a range of questions to ensure that not only the amount of money that has been received is appropriate (and I note that there is no change in the levy rate this year) but also the areas in which it is expended are the best they can possibly be.

In the absence of opposition members of the Economic and Finance Committee, I also acknowledge the submission of the report and look forward to further considerations by the Economic and Finance Committee in future years, in similar detail, about the scope of the emergency services levy.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:48): I want to commend the Economic and Finance Committee. We do not hear enough of it in this place and it is quite a rare event to get a report.

The Hon. R.B. Such: They are modest.

Mr VENNING: Modest, absolutely; but it is a most critical and senior committee of the parliament. I commend the committee, and particularly the Presiding Member, on the work it is doing.

In relation to the emergency services levy, that is a topical thing and a very relevant issue to be assessing, and I appreciate what the committee has done. I think the report should be widely read by at least all the members in this place and also circulated to the regions, particularly where the CFS is very active.

I commend the volunteers and also the officials for the work the CFS does because we certainly would be lost without them. I am very concerned that, bit by bit, as occupational health and safety things come in, we are getting fewer people offering themselves as volunteers—not just for the CFS but also the SES and all the other bodies that are reliant on the volunteer ethic.

That brings me to the point: I was just wondering whether we could create a special category of person who puts their time and effort into volunteering, and should they not get some assistance in relation to this levy? I know it would be pretty hard to administer, but I believe it would be a good gesture of behalf of the people of South Australia, particularly from the parliament, that certain people who volunteer at a high level and also those businesses who allow their employees to go as soon as the siren goes to leave work, irrespective of the job at hand, and attend the emergency, whether it be a fire, whether it be an air incident, a road accident, or whatever. I believe it would be a very good gesture.

This levy is paid by all of us, including all those people who attend the fires. I believe they should get some recompense or some recognition that we as taxpayers will say that they ought to be exempt from this, and I think there ought to be work done to make that happen. I know it would be difficult to administer that, but I think in certain cases where there is no doubt of the service these people have been doing, and doing it for a long time, we ought to make that classification.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: You can join up—

Mr VENNING: The member for Stuart says—yes, exactly right. After I leave this place I will certainly be involved in this. I do not think I will be on the back of the truck, but I certainly would be in the office, because I used to be a radio operator before, and I did that in the Army for two years, so I have some expertise in that area. Thanks for the advice; I do appreciate that. Again, I commend the committee, but, to the relevant minister: I would love to recognise these volunteers by giving them some assistance in relation to not paying this levy.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:51): I think it is important to reflect on why we have the emergency services levy. We used to have a hotchpotch of funding arrangements for emergency services. They were inadequate and there was an unfair burden placed on some, no burden at all on others. Victoria is trying to emulate what we have already done here, so people should have a look at what is happening in Victoria and they will see the merit of continuing with the emergency services levy.

I will just issue a couple of cautionary points, that is, that these levies—whether it is the NRM levy, Save the River Murray levy, whatever—do not become an easy way of taking the load off the budget. There is always a temptation for governments to use these as an alternative budget provision when some of the things that are provided out of these levies should have come out of normal budget allocations.

Putting that aside, I think the emergency services levy is a good scheme and it has served South Australia well, but from time to time it will need to be finetuned to make sure it is doing what the community really wants it to do.

Motion carried.