Emergency Services Levy

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (14:23): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for Emergency Services. Will the minister give a commitment to the house that the government will not raise the emergency services levy again in the Mid-Year Budget Review in order to cover the financial cost of the Pinery bushfire and other potential fires in the future?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Treasurer, Minister for Finance, Minister for State Development, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (14:24): Since the Liberal Party introduced the emergency services levy there has never been an increase in the Mid-Year Budget Review, and the architects of the tax sitting opposite should know that.

Ms Chapman: How about an answer?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am giving you an answer.

The SPEAKER: The deputy leader is warned.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: You've got 13 votes, it's okay.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: She's got a majority?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Oh, yeah, it's over.

The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will return to the substance of the question.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Since the Liberal Party, the architects of this tax, introduced it, there has never been an increase in the ESL, to my knowledge, in the Mid-Year Budget Review but, of course, if they can provide the evidence that there has been, I will stand corrected. The ESL is calculated every year in a way that the Liberals designed it, and the way they designed it—

Mr Pisoni interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Unley is called to order.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —the architects of this tax, is that they work out the total budget of what it costs to deliver our emergency services every year and then they retrospectively set a rate according to property values to raise the money necessary to fund the emergency services. The reason they introduced this tax when they were last in government is that people were underinsuring. Because they were underinsuring, the Liberals opposite felt the need to introduce the emergency services levy to cover the cost of providing emergency services in our rural areas.

What they did, quite sensibly, was offer regional communities discounts in terms of their distance from metropolitan Adelaide. If you live in regional communities outside of Adelaide, you get a 20 per cent discount; if you live outside those regional centres, you get a further 50 per cent discount; and, if you don't live in an incorporated area, you get a 90 per cent discount. On top of those discounts, they want to offer a further remission, and they offer that to people who, quite frankly, understand the need and the value of the emergency services levy because they are the people who see it in effect every year. They are the ones who see their volunteers in their regional communities having state-of-the-art equipment, PPE, health coverage that they deserve in terms of work health entitlements and, of course, the latest backup with aerial bombing and the like. All of that, of course, costs money.

What members opposite are asking us to do is use our other source revenues (payroll tax, land tax, our other source revenues) to subsidise that. They want the business community—the party of business—to pay more so their constituents can pay less. I think that is, quite frankly, an unfair way of doing that. Of course, I would have thought the architects of the emergency services levy would have known exactly how it operates but, of course, when the remissions were first removed, given that members of the Economic and Finance Committee who were on the opposition benches (like the member for Unley) didn't read the report leading up to it and didn't realise—

Mr PISONI: Point of order, sir. The minister is debating the substance of the question and imputing improper motives to other members.

The SPEAKER: What is the improper motive? Could you state it?

Mr PISONI: That I did not read a report in my role as a member of the Economic and Finance Committee.

The SPEAKER: I do not follow the member for Unley's reasoning on the second point. On the first point, I uphold his point of order. The Treasurer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What the member for Unley would have us believe is that he got hold of the Economic and Finance Committee report—

Mr PISONI: Point of order, sir. The minister is debating the substance of the question.

The SPEAKER: I am sorry, member for Unley?

Mr PISONI: Debate, sir. Referring to me is purely debate.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: What the opposition would have us believe, Mr Speaker, is that when the remissions were removed they received it in an Economic and Finance Committee report in advance of the budget, read it and kept it secret until the budget.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Point of order, sir. I ask you to bring the Treasurer back to the substance of the question, which is: does he intend to increase the ESL in the wake of the Pinery fire? It has nothing to do with the Economic and Finance Committee.

The SPEAKER: My understanding is that, if you are going to increase the ESL, that would go to the Economic and Finance Committee, so I would have thought it is germane. Treasurer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am just waiting for the new deputy leader to make a statement.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: He'd be a better leader.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, he'll be deputy.

The SPEAKER: The Treasurer will not bait the member for Stuart.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: Sir, before it goes to the Economic and Finance Committee, the Treasurer would have to decide if that was his recommendation and what his wish was going to be. That is what the question was about.

The SPEAKER: All the member for Stuart is now doing is arguing. I ruled that the Economic and Finance Committee is relevant in an answer about whether the ESL is going to be increased, and I stand by that ruling, and I won't have any more dissent from it. Treasurer.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and I will explain to the future deputy leader, because he will probably take the role on the Economic and Finance Committee, that there are—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Newland is warned.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have said this before and I will say it again. The architects of this tax, the parents of this tax, the people who invented this tax, know that there were never increases to the ESL in MYBRs.