Emergency Services Levy

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (15:32): I rise today to discuss the item of levies. Once upon a time, levies were a quite deliberate method of raising money for a specific purpose. The NRM was a classic example. A levy was charged to landowners to help fund the newly-formed natural resources management boards right across the state.

There was also an emergency services levy, which was raised quite specifically to fund the emergency services right across this state: the CFS, the SES and so on. It was generally well-received and people were happy enough to pay it, but what we have seen in this last budget is that it has turned into something else.

The emergency services levy has turned into something else. It has become a land tax. In many cases, the emergency services levy that will be charged to each and every landowner in this state, whether they own a home, a house block or a farming property, will increase by some hundreds of per cent on last year. It has become a tax on the land that people own.

By the government's own calculations, this tax, this levy, is expected to raise over $300 million in the forward estimates. It is a lot of money; it is a lot of new money. The problem with this is it is not necessarily going to go and help fund the emergency services. Are the CFS or the SES going to see any of this new money? I doubt it.

A lot of money is going to be raised from people who own property, and it will go into general revenue. All of a sudden, the government are looking to the people who own property in this state and have made a commitment to improve their lot to help get them out of the mire that we are in at the moment.

I want to talk a little bit about estimates because I left off not quite finishing my contribution the other day. I spent a little bit of time with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in his particular committee and we talked a little bit about cost recovery—we asked questions about cost recovery because I hear from the fishermen in my part of the world that the cost-recovery fees are absolutely crippling their businesses. There is very little transparency in how or why those fees are charged, and there is very little idea, in many instances, as to what those involved in fishing and aquaculture are getting for their fees.

I have a theory about how this government raises its funds: it has a business model and the government begins by providing a service—and let's use fishermen or aquaculture as an example—that it believes that that particular sector or industry may well benefit from. Oftentimes, that particular sector has not necessarily requested that service but government decides to provide it anyway.

After a while it becomes a little bit expensive to provide that service, so the government says to the people, 'Well, we can't continue providing this service even though you haven't asked for it. We feel now that it is necessary for the ongoing benefit of your sector so we're going to have to charge you for it. We're going to charge you for a service that we've invented and that we now have decided that you need. You may not necessarily get anything for it, but you're going to pay anyway.' So that is the business model I see being rolled out right across many sectors.

What we have seen, of course, in the fishing industry are some significant changes that are about to occur: in October the marine-park sanctuary zones are going to come in, and very soon in this place we are going to be debating a bill that is coming from the upper house looking to change the sanctuary zones. We are going to support that and I urge the Independent members of the government to consider carefully their positions for this, because I have heard the government say that sanctuary zones have nothing to do with fishing. Well, Deputy Speaker, it has everything to do with fishing. Like or not, it is all about fishing—and you talk to the people who live and work and raise families on the West Coast—they are fishing families and they are going to be foundering as a result of these changes.

I will give you a ridiculous example of the impact—simple things like including Pearson Island in the sanctuary zone. Pearson Island is not only great for cray bottom and abalone-bottom fishing, but it provides shelter to fishermen. If it is contained within a sanctuary zone and a storm comes and boats cannot take shelter at Pearson lsland, then their very safety is at risk.