Emergency Services Funding (SACAT) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (16:08): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Emergency Services Funding Act 1988. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (16:09): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

First of all, I commend the government for the amendments it made to the SACAT bill in the other place following the debate in this house. As you may recall, I made suggestions that we amend the SACAT bill to allow for any disputation regarding property valuations to be dealt with in the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal rather than at its current ultimate point of dispute resolution, which is of course the Supreme Court here in South Australia. I must say that I was delighted when the government took up this suggestion in its own amendments to its own bill, and of course that was approved in the other place.

In the contribution that was made by the Hon. Gail Gago regarding the amendments in relation to valuation, the honourable member went on to say that the Liberal member of the Legislative Council asked whether the amendments would mean that the appeals under the Emergency Services Funding Act 1998 would also be able to access SACAT. The Hon. Gail Gago suggested that, no, over or under payments would automatically be recovered following a review of valuation in the SACAT; however, other issues currently in the Emergency Services Funding Act 1998 would not be dealt with within the SACAT.

So, consequently I bring this amendment bill, the Emergency Services Funding (SACAT) Amendment Bill 2014 to this place. I do so for very good reason, and that is that we need to make sure that people who are paying the emergency services levy here in South Australia—the recently extraordinarily increased emergency services levy—have a very effective way of dealing with disputes which may arise.

When we read through the current act we note that there are many areas that relate to the potential for disputes and it points to different dispute resolution methodologies. My bill seeks to make the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal the ultimate determining jurisdiction for disputes under the Emergency Services Funding Act. I just wish to go through a couple of those disputes identified in the bill that is before us today.

Clause 5 deals with disputes which relate to aggregation of non-contiguous land. In South Australia, if there is a dispute between a landlord and the minister, currently the jurisdiction which presides over that dispute is the District Court, and we see that as inappropriate now that we have finally established a civil and administrative tribunal here in South Australia. Of course, we are the last jurisdiction in the country to establish this, but that is why we say that now that it is established, let us use it.

The second area, which I deal with in clause 6, is to do with land uses. Again, if there are disputes regarding land uses, where somebody might say, 'This is a rural property' and somebody else might say, 'Well, it's a commercial property,' there are different levy rates that apply to the two. If there is a dispute, currently that dispute is dealt with in the Supreme Court. Again, this bill would rectify that situation or redirect that jurisdiction to the SACAT.

The third area that is contemplated in this bill under clause 7 is alterations to the assessment book, and this is something that I was not particularly aware of before I read this. But there is an assessment book and applications can be made to the commissioner for an alteration of the assessment book by a landowner on a range of grounds.

If there is a dispute in this area, my bill seeks to have that ultimate determination made in the SACAT. Clause 8 deals with the recovery of the levy, which the commissioner may try to make from time to time. So, this relates to section 21 of the Emergency Services Funding Act, and in this situation where the commissioner seeks to recover a levy, if there is a dispute regarding the recovery of this levy, then that would also be dealt with under the SACAT rather than the current arrangement which, I believe, is the District Court of South Australia. Finally, clause 9 deals with objections regarding the classification of a vehicle. Again, this is something which I understand is currently dealt with in the District Court, and we would seek to have that dealt with under the SACAT.

We essentially move this amendment bill to fully utilise the excellent attributes of the newly established SACAT which provides a cost-effective remedy, but, most importantly, a timely remedy for people who may have disputes with the government around a range of issues. In particular, this deals with disputes arising from the emergency services levy, and this is an issue which, of course, is capturing the imagination of the people of South Australia at the moment. Everybody is putting a great deal of scrutiny on their emergency services levy, and well they might, because in recent months people have been receiving the latest copy of their emergency services levy bill. For many people, they have gone up very significantly. I note that some people have even claimed they have had increases in excess of 1,000 per cent in a single year.

Consequently, people are looking very carefully at every element of their emergency services levy bills here in South Australia. That is why we are suggesting to the government they ensure that disputes regarding the emergency services levy are dealt with in a timely and cost-effective manner, not through the South Australian District Court or the Supreme Court, but through the new SACAT. With those words, I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.R. Kenyon.