House of Assembly Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1) 53 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Parliamentary Committees Economic and Finance Committee: Emergency Services Levy 2014-15 Economic and Finance Committee: Emergency Services Levy 2014-15 Adjourned debate on motion of Mr Odenwalder. That the 85^th report of the committee, entitled Emergency Services Levy 2014-15, be noted. which Mr Williams has moved to amend by deleting the word 'noted' and replacing with: referred back to the Economic and Finance Committee for further consideration in light of the 2014-15 state budget. (Continued from 16 October 2014.) Mr GRIFFITHS House of Assembly Goyder Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:56): I flag that even though I have been in this place for 8½ years I am not a current member of the Economic and Finance Committee, but I was until the election— The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell House of Assembly The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: And he was a champion, too; one of the best ever! Mr GRIFFITHS House of Assembly Mr GRIFFITHS: Not always. But I have been there for about six years, and I have actually taken quite a sincere interest in its activities and its investigations, but a particular interest in the emergency services levy presentations that occur in Economic and Finance Committee where, without a word of a lie, there must be 25 public servants in the room and seemingly have every possible answer ready for any question that is asked because of the fact that it is a rather serious matter. Indeed, in the last few months it has become an exceptionally serious matter when it comes to concerns put by community and property owners to members of parliament about increases. The reason I stand today is not just to reflect upon my past involvement with the Economic and Finance Committee but to discuss the amendment moved by the member for MacKillop where he seeks to change the motion to read that the report be 'referred back to the Economic and Finance Committee for further consideration in light of the 2014-15 state budget'. On that, I absolutely completely agree. I was not a member of the committee at the time the presentation was made a few days before the state budget was delivered. I have spoken to members who were there and have had a quick look at the agenda and the report that was presented. As a person who normally, in my time, tried to be rather inquisitive and seek clarification on a lot of points, I think there is somewhat of a gap in what occurred about the rebates and remission issues that I believe is missing. That is why I stand before you supporting the recommendation to ensure that now, in the fullness of time, after issues have become known to the members from all sides, and it is very much an all-sides committee, that it has the chance to ask some rather serious questions of the levels of the emergency services team that helped form it, and the government departments that frame it to ensure that the people of South Australia get some questions answered on it. Some might argue that this is a chance for political point scoring, but it is a true opportunity for the parliament to be involved in a very thorough review to ensure that all issues are raised. In the previous years when I was part of the committee the group assembled for probably an hour, and, yes, they answered all questions. If there were any questions they were not particularly conversant with, they ensured that an answer would come back to the committee, so I commend them on that effort. But I think this amendment from the member for MacKillop is raised purely on the virtue of the fact that they want to ensure there is a real scrutiny to occur. I hope that there are other members prepared to stand and support this amendment, and I hope that the government is prepared to vote in support of this amendment which will bring the issue back before a rather important committee—no doubt about that—and one that does good work for the people of South Australia. To me, this is a classic example of where the good work needs to continue and the scrutiny needs to take place, and I hope that some real answers are provided to the people. When an additional $90 million impost falls upon property owners, be it fixed or mobile property without— The Acting Speaker House of Assembly Mr Odenwalder The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Odenwalder): Member for Goyder, would you like to seek leave to continue your remarks. Mr GRIFFITHS House of Assembly Mr GRIFFITHS: I would; I seek leave to continue my remarks, Mr Acting Speaker. Leave granted; debate adjourned.