Parliamentary Committees

Economic and Finance Committee: Emergency Services Levy 2015-16

Adjourned debate on motion of Mr Odenwalder (resumed on motion).

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (15:48): There are two points that I want to make in my remaining time. The first relates to quite an odd statement made by Mr Jackman under questioning in relation to his salary. Mr Speirs asked him, 'Are you able to advise the committee of the total value of your salary package?' He said, 'Yes, it's on the public record: it's $375,000.' Mr Spiers said, 'Is any component of that paid for by Defence SA?' He said, 'Yes, there is: $75,000 out of that package is paid for by Defence SA.'

I find it quite an extraordinary situation that a man in a role is getting paid by another organisation that I would suggest does not have too much direct correlation. There is no direct correlation between Defence SA and SAFECOM. I am sure that the government can pretend to try to find a link.

I find it quite extraordinary that part of his salary package is still being paid for by Defence SA. I wonder why it is happening that way. Is it because it was cheaper to do that than pay him some sort of redundancy? Was it the case that SAFECOM was not able to provide the total remuneration of what he was expecting and so Defence SA kicked in the last of it? It seems an extraordinary situation that Defence SA, which has nothing to do with emergency service provision, is paying $75,000 so that SAFECOM can have the privilege of Mr Jackman's position.

The last point I want to wrap up on is that South Australians have a very strong feeling and a strong affection towards their emergency services, and I would urge this government not to abuse that goodwill in seeking to find ever more ways to plug the holes that they have in their budget bottom line.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (15:50): I will not keep the house for very long. I want to commence by reinforcing points that have been made by other speakers and to acknowledge, thank and show my gratitude to those people who work in the emergency services sector, both volunteer and paid personnel. I also acknowledge the good working relationship between the various sectors and, indeed, I acknowledge the support that the people of South Australia give them and certainly the gratitude that they feel when they are the recipients of the services that they provide.

A couple of things came out of the hearing last week. One was some questioning in relation to some problems that had occurred previously in relation to the computer aided dispatch system, and of course the point has been made quite regularly by the member for Morphett. I was very pleased to learn through Chief Crossman, and indeed it was reinforced by other chief officers, that the computer aided dispatch system is working much better than it was before, and they believe that it is certainly on track to not create the problems that it had previously.

As I understand it, a lot of those problems related to some maps and the inability to be able to read those maps properly. Last time I rode around in a fire truck, you would always carry the latest street directory as well to make sure that you knew where you were going. It was very heartening to hear the chief officer say that they believe they have this nailed and that they believe it will deliver an excellent service in regard to ensuring that they get the appropriate number of appliances and the closest appliances that can attend there, under both a single response and a dual response responsibility between the services. I thought that was very important, and I want to put that on the record following the hearing.

The other point that I would like to make is this: the member for Schubert made a couple of statements during his presentation here today that I think need to be challenged and, in my view, corrected. One was his view of the failed reform processes and the two personnel who he believed were sitting there doing nothing and not being utilised effectively. I think that was a disgraceful thing to say because the evidence that we were given was that they were gainfully employed and doing responsibilities connected to their core responsibility of working within that sector of SAFECOM. I think that he is somewhat misleading when he asserts that people were sitting around on their wages doing nothing at all.

The other point that he made, I think just a moment ago, was about the $375,000 that is paid to the executive officer and saying things like, 'For the life of me I can't understand why Defence would be paying $75,000 there', trying to intimate that there is something crook in Tobruk through this particular process. I chaired that hearing, and I thank the member for Little Para for the honour of being able to do that, notwithstanding the fact that I did not get higher duties, but we will let that ride.

The point I want to make is this: the member for Schubert sat through that hearing and never asked a question in relation to this particular matter, which I know Mr Jackman would have been more than happy to answer. It is a bit rich to come in here and assert these things, which is really pretty poor politics, without ever taking the opportunity at the hearing to front Mr Jackman and have the courage to be able to say what it is he is saying here in this parliament. I think that reflects more on the member for Schubert than it does, certainly, on Mr Jackman.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: If you want to know, you have to ask. If you don't want to know, don't ask—it's as simple as that. There is $282.2 million being expended on the emergency services this year, and that is going to be of great benefit to the emergency services but also to the people of South Australia who rely on these emergency services.

I am going to be controversial, and my colleagues here will not like this or maybe they will, but this certainly will not see the light of day during my period of time. I believe, in a modern country like Australia, we need to have universal coverage of emergency services, which we do have, and have them available to the people of South Australia, in this instance, and Australia, at the minimum cost, knowing full well these are always going to be user-pay services—they always have been.

If we go back to bygone days, if you did not have a little plaque on your house that showed you were insured, the fire brigade would not come to your house. Under the emergency services levy, everyone pays. I would love there to be remissions back in place, but we know why those remissions were removed. If the federal government returns the money that it removed, that we have had to install into health and education, those remissions, I understand, would be returned.

My point, which might be seen to be controversial, is this: we have a very good ambulance service that, again, provides coverage to South Australians. One day in the future, and I might be dead and gone, I would like to see that coverage extended universally to all South Australians, in a similar form that an emergency service is in regard to it being available, with a user-pay system, to give them universal coverage of the ambulance services. It happens in other parts of the world. I think the time will be right in the near future—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Here in Australia?

The Hon. P. CAICA: —even here in Australia, Deputy Speaker. I hope that one day we will have a debate on that. I expect I might cop a bit of flak, but I would see that being a way by which every person in metropolitan Adelaide, in South Australia, will have available to them, save and except for the user-pay costs that are collected, universal coverage of an excellent ambulance service that rates as well and as high as any ambulance service in the world. With those few words, I commend the report to the house. Again, I just congratulate and thank all emergency services personnel—that includes the police and others, of course—for the role that they play in protecting life and property and making South Australia a safer and better place than it otherwise would be.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (15:57): I will come to a couple of comments the previous speaker just made, but let me first start off with some numbers in the report that the Economic and Finance Committee have made. They have published the figures which were given to the committee by RevenueSA or Treasury.

I would have liked the Economic and Finance Committee to seek a much better breakdown of the expenditure of these moneys. It has been a controversial area over the last couple of years, ever since the rebates were withdrawn by the Treasurer, and I will come to that in a moment, but can I say there has been a dramatic turnaround, according to these figures, on where the emergency services expenditure is being spent in South Australia.

If you look at the report, South Australia is divided into basically four different regions, and there is a breakdown for the amount of money spent in each of those regions. Region 4 is land within any metropolitan council—so, the greater metropolitan area—the Adelaide Hills Council, Corporation of the Town of Gawler, the City of Onkaparinga or the City of Playford. Basically, it is the greater metropolitan area and includes the Adelaide Hills Council. That is region 4.

Since the financial year 2015-16, when the expenditure on emergency services in region 4 was $221 million, it is now projected that, in year 2016-17, there will be a reduction of expenditure back to $194.3 million, so that is a significant reduction of well over 10 per cent in money spent in region 4—the metropolitan area.

If we look at the other regions, which are obviously regional South Australia, region 1 is the areas of the cities and towns of Berri, Goolwa, Kadina, Loxton, Millicent, Mount Barker, Mount Gambier, Murray Bridge, Naracoorte, Nuriootpa, Port Augusta, Port Lincoln, Port Pirie, Renmark, Tanunda, Victor Harbor and Whyalla. I have always made the assumption that they are towns that have an MFS presence, but that is not the case because I certainly know in my home town of Millicent there is no MFS presence.

Notwithstanding that, region 1 comprises major regional centres, and the expenditure in region 1 on direct emergency services has gone from $27 million, in the last financial year, to a projected $31 million. In the financial year prior to the last financial year, it was only $18.5 million, so over two years the expenditure on emergency services in those towns has gone from $18.5 million to $31.3 million.

In region 2, which is the rest of regional South Australia not included in the two regions I have already referred to or not included in the unincorporated areas of South Australia, the expenditure has gone from $10.7 million, two years ago, to $18.2 million to $52.1 million, so over two years it has gone up by a factor of 500 per cent. I do not know where the money has been spent, but it is not in my part of the state. I would guarantee that there has not been a 500 per cent increase in the expenditure in rural South Australia.

The reality is that I suspect that the books have been cooked because the amount of emergency services levy raised in rural South Australia, because it is a property-based tax, has increased dramatically. I think the books are being cooked to try to justify the huge increase in the levy take from rural South Australia. I would like to see the Economic and Finance Committee of this parliament undertake a much closer investigation into exactly where the money has been spent.

I can tell the house that at the estimates committee last year I asked questions of the Minister for Emergency Services, and his answer was we should ask them of the Treasurer because the numbers come out of Treasury. I had some questions asked of the Treasurer and all he did was repeat the numbers. Both answers were unsatisfactory. I do not believe the figures that have been published in this report. I do not believe they accurately reflect the figures, and that is not the committee's fault: it is the information that has been provided to the committee. I wish that the committee would investigate it further and get to the bottom of it because I think there is a need for that to happen.

Let me come to another point that has been raised by the previous speaker, the member for Colton, about how he would love to see the rebate reinstated, if only the commonwealth would come back and reinstate the payments to the health budget. Let me read into the Hansard what the Bevan and Abraham show put on the record on 24 May. This is from the ABC's Fact Check. I never thought that the ABC was on the side of the Liberal Party or the Coalition. They have never been great friends of ours, but this is what Fact Check said:

…16 hours ago they ran a ruler over the Coalition's promise of 'no cuts to health' and they say that promise has been delivered. This is just a synopsis but there's quite a long analysis of it—they say that the budget promise has been delivered—there have been no cuts to health. Budget documents released throughout the Coalition's term show health spending increased above the pace of inflation and population growth year on year in 2013/14 and 2014/15. Spending on health was projected to increase significantly above the CPI and population growth in 2015/16.

The ABC's Fact Check says that there have been no commonwealth cuts to health in South Australia. There is another quote that talks about the future funds that our Treasurer claims have been cut. The Fact Check says:

But the changes are not due to begin until July 2017 and it is far from certain that the Gillard promises would ever have been fulfilled because they were far into the future and never budgeted for.

Something cannot be taken away if it was never given in the first place.

That is from the ABC's Fact Check unit. We have been lied to. We have been lied to by a government that has made certain claims about federal cuts to South Australia and they have never occurred. Indeed, GST payments to South Australia have increased dramatically over the last couple of years. This state is receiving half a billion dollars more than it expected, but what the Treasurer tried to argue on that program on Tuesday morning a fortnight ago was that the money coming to South Australia was not health funding.

Does the Treasurer want the federal government to say, 'We will give you some specific funding. We will cut your GST payments and make it specific to health, and will you then be satisfied'? The reality is that the decision to cut the $90 million rebate on the emergency services levy was based on a lie, and the lie has been shown up by the ABC Fact Check.

The reality is that this government was always going to cut the rebate. Indeed, they made contact with the company that does the IT work that sets up the program for the sending out of the notices before that federal budget back in 2014 even came down. They had started the process to cut the rebate. I remember a question being asked in the house and the Treasurer confirmed that. I remember saying 'snap' at the time.

This is an outrageous thing that this government has done. As the member for Colton said, there should be a cost across the board for everybody to pay for this so that we enjoy a high level of emergency services. This government has transferred a lot of that cost to the people who are not actually receiving the service, and that is people that I represent in rural—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

Mr WILLIAMS: That is a great pity, Deputy Speaker, because I would like to say more.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is unfortunate. The member for Light.

Mr Whetstone: This will be good.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (16:07): Actually, it will be good; thank you. It is unfortunate that some of the members of the committee on that side and members in this place who are not members of the committee did not actually bother reading the Hansard of the committee. Not only did they not read the Hansard but they did not actually read the answers to the questions asked by their own members.

The member for MacKillop raised the question about the increase in the expenditure, that country and regional areas had been dudded. That question was actually asked by Mr Knoll, the member for Schubert, and it was answered as well. The explanation is this—

Mr Whetstone: Was it answered though?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It was answered.

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Davenport is already on one warning.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It was answered by Mr Jackman. If the member for Davenport had bothered reading before he opened his mouth he would see the answer.

Mr Whetstone: Is that why you are still a minister?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That's correct, and that's why you are still in opposition.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is on one warning and I will not hesitate to—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Member for Chaffey, you are already on one warning and I will not hesitate to name you again. The Speaker drew your attention today—

Mr Duluk: You have to sit down to say that.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You are warned for the second time, member for Davenport.

Mr Whetstone: What about over there? She is standing up to interject.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can't hear them; I can hear you. The Speaker has asked—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Speaker has asked you all today to comply with standing orders 131 and 142, and I insist that you do that now.

Mr Whetstone: And Muriel does matter.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: She will matter more to you in a minute if you are out the door. You can go and read all about her. The member for Light.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: When the member for Schubert asked a question, he asked that very question which the member for MacKillop actually raised, and it was quite clear. The answer provided by both Mr Raymond, the Treasury official, and Mr Jackman, the SAFECOM chief executive officer was as follows:

…SAFECOM has gone through and tried to do a re-evaluation of where the expenditure, especially some of the head office expenditure, is actually spent.

For example, because training, until recent times, was actually all provided by head office, it was all charged to head office, but a lot of that training is actually for volunteers out in the regions. They have actually allocated the cost of that training for those people in the regions where they live, which is appropriate. A whole range of other expenditure has now been properly allocated. In fact, Mr Jackman says:

The accounting teams have actually gone through in areas such as the aerial resources that Greg has on call and tried to split it out a lot more specifically.

Previous figures were inaccurate to the extent that they were not showing the true expenditure in the regions. They have gone through it and through proper accounting, which will be audited by the Auditor-General, and showed that a lot more has been spent in the regions.

One of the criticisms was that the ESL is being collected out in the regions but not spent in the regions. Quite rightly, the CEO has gone through it to make sure that the income is matched against the expenditure. The explanation is quite simple; there is no mystery to it. In fact, it is good practice to make sure that you match up the incomes and the expenditure, and particularly, that you allocate expenditure where it is incurred.

The other point the member for Schubert made was that somehow this is a 4 per cent increase rather than a 1½ per cent increase which is really just a nonsense. The reality is that the ESL is set in the same way council rates are set. It is exactly the same process. You work out what you need to expend, you look at what other fixed income you have from other sources of income, and then the gap is filled by the varying amount, by general rates for councils or in this case by the ESL, which is applied across the state according to a rate in the dollar.

Mr Whetstone: Wealth tax.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Well, if you are saying your council rates are a wealth tax, so be it because they are calculated in the same way and on the same basis. What this means is that it is a $4 increase for the median property value in metropolitan Adelaide. More importantly, this year, it also represents a modest decrease for rural and regional South Australians in regions 1 or 2 as appropriate.

The regions are: region 1 is a range of country townships, region 4 is essentially the city areas and then what is in between is region 2—all the other rural areas. You will note that there is a reduction in actual revenue expected from those two regions, so in this financial year 2016-17, we will be collecting less from rural and regional South Australia than we did in this financial year, which is very important.

The second thing is that all of it is actually spent on emergency services, bar the amounts that are actually concessions. Because under the act every dollar collected for emergency services has to be spent on emergency services, any concessions given, like pensioner concessions, cannot come from the emergency services fund itself, but are provided by general revenue, so the other forms of taxation provide for that. Those discounts for regional areas represent somewhere between 20 to 90 per cent in regional areas depending whether the landowner owns their property. In addition, there are also pensioner concessions.

I would also like to highlight where some of this extra money is being spent this year. Some $9.3 million will be spent over the next four years to accelerate the government's fire truck replacement program as well as funding the retrofitting of safety systems to existing fire appliances to provide burn-over technology including water spray deluge systems and in-cab breathing systems. Additionally, the funding will see three new CFS appliances added to the fleet and 30 CFS appliances retrofitted with safety systems in 2016-17 alone.

Over the next four years, $6.2 million will be spent to ensure ongoing provision of trainers for CFS and SES volunteers. I am acutely aware of the importance of providing accessible training for those who want to serve our community, so we need to make sure they are properly trained. Also over the next four years, $5.5 million will be spent to enhance SES flood response and incident management capabilities, and that is about making sure we have the necessary data and can plan and also respond to situations when floods occur. There is also $4.6 million over four years to ensure SAFECOM can continue to provide key emergency management support functions, including volunteer support, work health and safety, public information, procurement support, etc.

This is something which is very important for the regions: $2 million over the next four years will be provided to fund the continuation of the Zone Emergency Risk Management System (ZERMS), the committee of which, last time I looked, was chaired by the CEO of the Barossa Council, from memory. I do not think that has changed in recent times. That money is used in the regions to make sure that various agencies, including local government, do the planning and preparation work for their regions to plan for and respond to major incidents. That is very important in relation to making sure that we minimise any danger from a fire or flood, etc.

In addition, funds also go to Surf Life Saving South Australia; $4 million will be provided. That was an election commitment in 2014, and that money will continue. Also, there will be money to Volunteer Marine Rescue SA. In this coming financial year, $1.2 million will go into Volunteer Marine Rescue. There are about 1,200 to 1,400 volunteers in Volunteer Marine Rescue. It is probably the one volunteer group which perhaps does not have the profile of the others, but they do very important work along our coastline to make sure that people who go out to sea are safe.

I have met a number of those rescue squads and they do a wonderful job. They are probably the least resourced group because they had, until recently, half a person allocated (half a resource) to manage them from the SES and the rest is all volunteer work. They do a great job in that. There is also some money to SA Police, Ambulance, DEWNR, Shark Beach Patrol, State Rescue Helicopter, etc. These are all things that require money in emergency situations.

I would also like to raise a couple of other things the member for Schubert tried to suggest. Firstly about the reform process, the figures he gave actually are quite incorrect. He clearly was not even listening to the answers that were provided to him by Mr Jackman. In the period of June, the additional expenditure from the old reform office to the new continuing improvement program which was started by Mr Jackman and the CEOs was a cost of $16,333 in that month. It is in the record; people can read it for themselves.

Secondly, I would also like to mention that—it was very interesting that the member for Schubert decided not to mention it—in terms of the reform process and continuing process, Mr Jackman made it very clear that both processes are leading to major savings and improvements to services. For whatever reason, the member for Schubert neglected—

Mr Knoll interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Well, you could have asked questions.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Time has expired.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Deputy Speaker, I actually lost a minute to the interjections.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I did so.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I may have to insist that you save that for a grievance if you have extra, unfortunately. Are you standing up, member for Morphett? Trying to attract my attention?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am—waving, not drowning.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: In that case, I will have to call you.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (16:18): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The emergency services levy was introduced by a former Liberal government. It was a very good initiative. There were remissions put in place because the basic argument was put that, because your house might burn down but the land is still there, the land retains its capital value. That is perhaps a very simplistic expression of the argument that was put, but that is why the remissions were put in place: to give South Australians a fair go.

What this government has done by removing these remissions is impose a wealth tax, an extra land tax, a levy, a charge, on South Australian taxpayers who are already doing it very, very tough. The cost of living in South Australia is very high. The bit that I find really despicable is how they are using the CFS and SES volunteers and our MFS firefighters as human shields to try to protect themselves from the real shame that is involved in the gouging of South Australians through their emergency services levy.

The member for MacKillop points out, quite correctly, that this state is receiving more money for health and education than it has ever received. There is no reason that this government would be imposing this massive increase on the ESL on South Australians other than the fact that, for the last 14 going on 15 years, they have mismanaged the state budget and we are now in a state of despair, with the highest deficit and the highest debt we have ever seen.

They have spent the rivers of gold that were coming in the early days, and now they are saying, 'Well, we've got to pay for these services: the user has to pay.' They have been paying. They have been paying in the past and they will continue to pay in the future. However, with a future Liberal government you will find that there will be balanced budgets—there will be budget surpluses.

Where else can it happen, as it happened in the past, that the emergency services levy is topped up out of general revenue? I read this week that as well as collecting funding for emergency services from the fire service levies and the insurance levies, the New South Wales government then put in another $90 million on top out of general revenue. They did not go and slug the users of their services for that extra $90 million because they know they have already paid. They have paid through their other taxes, rates and levies that they are already paying in other areas. The government has managed the budget there. They have produced a budget that was balanced and had surpluses, and then they were able to reinvest that in the areas that are a principal state government responsibility.

You do not keep gouging at the taxpayers for more and more because of your own incompetence, yet that is what we are seeing over and over and over again. I refer to the Hansard dated Tuesday 24 May. I was absolutely staggered to hear the Treasurer say that the emergency services levy is going down. He said that if you live in regional area 1 and you have a residential property in regional area 1, you will receive a 1.3 per cent reduction in your ESL bill. If you live in regional area 2, you will receive a 1.1 per cent reduction in your ESL bill.

According to the briefing documents of this year and last year, the prescribed variable rate has actually gone down. It has gone down from .001283 to .001266, but then if you look at other areas of the report it shows how property values have increased. So, there has been no real reduction in the take in the emergency services levy. In fact, it has gone up. What we are seeing here is a government that is using volunteers as a human shield to try to protect themselves from their own mismanagement; criticism about their inability to provide services which are core government services.

When you see CFS sheds out there that have no toilets, no wash facilities and no change facilities for firefighters, particularly now that there are male and female firefighters, it is a disgrace. We hear that money is going to be spent on upgrading firetrucks and retrofitting firetrucks. Our CFS volunteers deserve more than that. They deserve to be valued to the extent where they are not having to still go out and raise money to do additional training, to do the training that they know they need to serve their communities.

The SES men and women who do so much work for us in floods and storms, and other rescues and searches across this state, deserve better than to be in old sheds. You see the occasional new shed, and there is a lovely new one being built out at Salisbury. Congratulations to the Salisbury SES on the new facilities they are getting next to the new MFS station out there, but we see so many other examples where facilities are still substandard, and it should not be the case.

I remember that as a CFS volunteer at Happy Valley we got a new truck—fantastic! The fact that we had to cut the concrete to dig the floor out so that the truck would fit into the station was not really ideal. Yet we still see that scenario being presented in South Australia in 2016. Some of these outdated and old open-backed two-fours being used by CFS brigades are going to be replaced with bigger vehicles. They are higher, heavier and wider, and they do not fit. I suppose the excuse is, 'We'll delay the delivery of those.' That cannot happen. You cannot keep our volunteers hanging on.

This government knows that our volunteers will never walk away from their communities, and they are abusing that sacrifice made by our volunteers. Their families see their loved ones go off into danger—life-threatening situations—for days at a time in some cases, particularly when they travel interstate to help our fellow Australians. They see their loved ones getting up in the middle of the night and then going to work very tired the next day. The employers who back our volunteers deserve the plaudits they get in spades—but receive in very limited amounts by this government—because they save this state millions and millions of dollars.

The service that is being freely given by our volunteers could never be paid for if we had to pay for the fire service, so providing the training, providing the facilities, providing the appliances and equipment that volunteers need is so necessary. It should never, ever be taken for granted, and our volunteers should not be used as a human shield.

Regarding MFS firefighters, the other day I had the pleasure of going to a graduation ceremony for 18 new firefighters. They were looking forward to getting out on the trucks, and 'putting the wet stuff on the red stuff' as they say. They were looking forward to doing that, and good on them. My father was in the MFS for many years, and I should put on the record that I am still a registered CFS firefighter and I turn out whenever I can. There is no conflict of interest; trust me, there is no conflict.

I will do everything I possibly can to make sure that our CFS and MFS firefighters and emergency workers get everything they need to do their job. They cannot have everything they want, but certainly we want to give them everything they need, and we should be able to do that with the funding the state government has received over the years.

We need to make sure that our farmers, who also supplement this, when they are paying the emergency services levy on their farm firefighting units get some rebate. I would like to see that completely removed from the farm firefighting units but, no, we do not see that. We see Treasury saying, 'Oh, well, we would have to put the emergency services levy up somewhere else.' Well, no, if you managed the budget you would be able to do that and give these guys and girls a bit of appreciation for what they do.

Getting back to our MFS firefighters, I understand that a new EB is being negotiated. Eighty-five per cent of the MFS budget is in wages, so it will be interesting to see how minister Malinauskas handles this, as a former union organiser, to see that they do get a fair go and a fair outcome. My father was heavily involved in the unions and the MFS for many years, so it is certainly not anti-UFU. It is a matter of making sure that we value our firefighters in the MFS and give them the very best reward for the job. They are the ones who are running into the danger when most people are running away, and they are the ones who put their lives on the line to make our state a safer place.

We need to make sure the organisations behind the volunteers, the CFS and SES, as well as our paid firefighters, the MFS, are able to work the way they should. That is imperative. We have seen the deep and savage repeated cuts into SAFECOM over the years, and the Ernst & Young review showed this: the deep and savage cuts to the SAFECOM budget were having an effect on volunteers was laid out in the May 2014 report. This government seems to have ignored that.

We need to make sure that we continue to value our volunteers. It is so important. I think there are still some questions about the way we split the ESL into various spends and about why the police budget is able to draw $20 million from the ESL. I find that a bit of an issue. Why can they not have that out of the police budget? Sure, the STAR Force does some search and rescue, but so do the SES, the MFS and the CFS. We need to value our volunteers and make sure that we spend this money where it needs to be spent—that is, on the volunteers. Do not dare use them as a human shield because, through your own government incompetence, you cannot raise the money and you cannot balance the budgets.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (16:28): I would like to speak on the 19^th report of the Economic and Finance Committee in regard to the emergency services levy. This is obviously an issue that affects some more than others, and the government speakers have highlighted the issues: that is, that the remissions that were in place are now affecting a certain set of people, those people with an average household (and an average household is about $430,000 here in South Australia). They face a $268 emergency services levy bill.

However, what about the people who are a little more affluent, people who, in some instances, have a million-dollar property? They are in line for a $556 ESL bill. With all the wisdom that came from the former minister and other members, what about people who are asset rich, finance poor, farmers who have large properties who are now going to be hit with astronomical ESL increases? They have farms, large landholdings with a shed and a house.

I listened to the member for Colton, who said that he would like to see universal coverage at a universal cost. Would that not be something to behold? Imagine if everyone in South Australia paid a universal cost. I bet we would hear a lot of yelping and squealing from government members on the other side of the chamber today. At the moment, this is just another wealth tax that has been introduced in South Australia in recent times. It is the third increase in the emergency services levy over consecutive years. The latest, at 1.5 per cent, is lower than the previous two.

I remember listening to the Treasurer saying that it would have no superficial impact on people in South Australia. The Treasurer might have been eating Polly Waffles for lunch because he certainly was not putting the facts in place. The ESL tax does not just hit home owners; it is also levied on sporting clubs, community organisations, churches and independent schools. I know a number of sporting organisations that are absolutely livid at this government's attitude about the emergency services levy. They are absolutely livid, and they have said that they are in some ways asset rich, but they are staffed or supported by volunteers.

We heard the member for Light talking about volunteers. Imagine how you would feel if you were a volunteer, a CFS, SES, or emergency services volunteer. You are giving up your time, and your employer is giving up his or her business time so that they can go out and attend emergencies, such as fires, vehicle crashes, flooding, life-saving, police, the lot. All of a sudden, they are getting an increased bill as well. They are not only giving up their time, they are not only volunteering, they are not only being supported by their employer but they are also going to cop it in the back pocket because they are going to get an increase in the ESL.

I think it is absolutely outrageous, but there is good news. If the South Australian taxpayers want the ESL remissions reinstated, they should vote Liberal at the next state election. Vote Liberal because we have already put out a policy that states that we will reintroduce the remission.

Members interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: People over there are looking and no doubt saying, 'Oh, that's not a bad initiative. It's more money in my pocket. Maybe I'll vote Liberal.' The ESL increases have added to challenges already facing the everyday cost of living. The everyday high cost of living is something that every person in South Australia faces under this current government. Every day there is an increase in the cost of living, whether it is from the ESL, some form of tax, levies, reintroduction of something that is going to get a little bit higher, or the NRM levy—again, another wealth tax.

I would like to say that volunteer firefighters are some of the hardest hit by these levy increases. Volunteers in general are the gift horse whose mouth this government is looking into at the moment. It is absolutely outrageous. I think that the Treasurer has made a point that he will continue to increase the ESL. He is going to continue to increase it until the 2018 election so that we will uphold our pledge, our promise, one of our policies that we will reinstate the remission. It will cost us more money but, mark my words, we will reinstate it. We will look after the South Australian taxpayers who are being absolutely targeted by this current government.

I like the style of the member for Colton's universal coverage. It gives equity back to people who are propping up this government's lame inability to look after their own budget, and that is why we are seeing this cost shifting exercise. We are seeing a government that cannot manage its own budget, so they are again introducing another tax, another levy, another cost to the cost of living.

It is making South Australia less competitive. For those businesses that do want to be a part of our economy, it is just making it harder and harder for them to live in South Australia. I say, shame on you, government. This increase in the ESL again is another hit to the hip pocket. It is another distraction for businesses that want to start up in South Australia. I know that the member for Hammond is dying to get up on his feet.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope it will not be necessary for me to defend the member for Hammond.

An honourable member: Never!

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (16:35): Thank you for your protection once again, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak to the 90^th report of the Economic and Finance Committee, entitled the Emergency Services Levy 2016-17. As has been indicated by the member for Chaffey and others on this side, this is purely a land tax—purely a land tax.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Stop the clock.

Mr PEDERICK: Chuck them out, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we will just wait until everyone has finished. Okay, start the clock.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is just a land tax, a pure land tax. What gets me is this: how many events will we have until we are taxed into total oblivion? This is tied directly into fire events, so what happens if, God forbid, we have 10 major fire events over summer? We will just keep getting hit and hit and hit, as the Treasurer sees fit, just to keep belting people with the levy. It does not take into account the valuable work of our CFS, of which others on this side and I are members, or the work of our Metropolitan Fire Service volunteers and our State Emergency Service volunteers, who all do vital work in the emergency services field.

Around the Rockleigh area, about three electorates merge—my electorate, the member for Schubert's electorate and the member for Kavel's electorate. It looks like finally, after a farmer has been basically hosting—

Mr Knoll: I've just got the email.

Mr PEDERICK: You've got the email right there—a fire truck, an old local fire rig at his farm, they will be getting a new fire truck and, hopefully, they will be getting a new fire shed. I must say that I have had excellent discussions with minister Malinauskas from the other place. He is a very approachable minister, and I commend him for that. We have had some good discussions offline and directly, and he personally made sure that I received the appropriate correspondence. I certainly appreciate that; it does not happen all the time.

This process has been ongoing. We are all aware that there have been about four or five very serious fires in the Rockleigh area only in the last few years. With the resilience of the community, and the resilience of the firefighting services, and obviously the aircraft that came in as well, all but one dwelling was saved, and that was due to a sudden wind change. It was magnificent work. I drove around the area not long after the fire had occurred and I just take my hat off to them. I certainly learned where a lot of the hidden driveways were in Rockleigh. 'Rockleigh' almost sums it up—it is a very rocky and hilly area. I really do commend the people who put everything on the line, put their lives on the line that day, to preserve life and save property.

They deserve the proper facilities but, from what I gather, when the department was doing all of this work and found the site for the Rockleigh fire shed, someone forgot to do the native title check. You would have thought, with the number of people in government departments, tens of thousands of them, someone would have made the right call and got that check going a long, long time ago, as soon as the site had been identified. From what I understand, finding a new location is the reason why it is being held up, and I am hoping that work is being fast-tracked because this community, like every other community in this state, deserves good facilities for our volunteers because they have—

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Are you blokes alright? They have had some major fires, but we have seen what has happened at Sampson Flat and also at Pinery with the aftermath of those fires and, sadly, the tragedy of losing two people in the Pinery fire and also some terrible injuries from fire. I hate to think what it is like to be burnt in that situation, as the fire goes over the top of you because you are doing your best and you just cannot get out of the way. I also look at where I think some major blunders were made in regard to Cherryville, just at the back of the Adelaide Hills. I think it is in the member for Bragg's electorate.

Ms Chapman: No.

Mr PEDERICK: Anyway, it is up in the Hills. It was interesting that the planes were not called in. From what I understand, there has been a policy change in more recent years where the planes go up not just for asset management, which is a good thing because they are the first responders that can get to that fire front, whether it is in scrub or infrastructure, and put those initial doses out, then the land crews can come in and pull the fire up.

We had all sorts of excuses why the planes were not deployed, and I think it just got as simple as this: it was a budget decision because it was on the cusp of the season. They had demobbed the planes for firefighting from Aerotech, who I believe have the contract, and the government obviously made a decision that, 'No, we will not pull out emergency procedures and get those planes back in the air.' It would have taken a minimum of one or two hours to get those planes changed over, back into firefighting mode. I know that the pilots and the ground crews would have done all they could to get them up as quickly as possible.

We had all the excuses under the sun on talkback radio about why they did not go up and why they should not have gone up. What a joke! Yes, planes are not the be-all and end-all, but they are a large part of it. I know families who have been saved by having water and foam dropped on their house while they are hiding in a bathroom because they have been caught without a chance to get out of their property. If it was not for the planes dropping water, who would know what the outcome would have been. It is absolutely vital that all of our firefighting equipment is activated appropriately, especially when we see that emergency services funding of about $290 million goes into this, and the vast majority of this is funded from the emergency services levy/land tax.

We heard the member for Morphett talking about farm firefighting vehicles, which are absolutely essential. I had a farm fire going back about 16 or 18 years ago, and I only had about an 800-litre fire tank. I had the house and shearing shed under threat and, if it were not for locals and the CFS, I may not have had anything left. I have now graduated since that fire to 4,600 litres on the back of an old Ellis trailer built in the early 1900s, and that is a great source of water. You can hook that up to any kind of tractor. You put it onto a big four-wheel drive, and you can go wherever you like. You have a lot of water, and you can get in place and also pump from that to CFS units if you need to.

People have all sorts of farm firefighting units. Whether they be small 200-litre, 500-litre or 1,000-litre tanks, they are absolutely vital on a fire front for, in a lot of ways, being the first responders and sometimes the only responders. We have had fires where there have been so many spot fires with lightning strikes that all of the CFS were tied up 30 kilometres away. I happened to be on Kangaroo Island when a fire was lit by lightning on our place, and I was panicking and trying to monitor it from several hundred kilometres away. If it were not for the good neighbours who just blew in and blew it out, and grabbed my fire unit as well, we would have had a much bigger problem.

We need to respect all the people in our emergency services. I take my hat off to them all and I take my hat off to the farm firefighting people. As the member for Chaffey said, if you want to make a saving to your budget, and I urge Labor members over the other side to think about this, vote Liberal. It is the only way to go. If you want to save money in this state, the only way to go—

Members interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I might get a new roll of Liberal voters over here yet. You can only live in hope!

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: You can drive his water tanker.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, you can come home and drive my water tanker and I will give you free instruction. But I am serious—the people of this state need to know that if they want relief from the emergency services levy the only way to do it is to vote Liberal.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (16:45): I think we have debated this excellent report long enough. I want to thank everybody who has made a contribution to this year's emergency services levy report from the Economic and Finance Committee. I will not go over all the contributions and I do not intend to use my full 10 minutes or whatever it is. I enjoyed everyone's contribution, particularly the contributions from the member for Light and the member for Colton.

The member for MacKillop says that he would have liked to see the committee digging down into the details of some of the financial information that he claims the department either erroneously or deliberately used to mislead us. The member for Schubert was at that hearing, the member for Bright was at that hearing and the member for Hartley was at that hearing, and, as far as I know, none of those good members did what the member for MacKillop claims should have happened. Perhaps he needs to have a chat with his colleagues and coordinate before the next hearing and perhaps we might tease out some of the information he is after.

In any case, I commend the report. It is an excellent report full of detail. I for one believe the figures provided by the department until I am shown some evidence that they are in fact false, as the member for MacKillop claims. I commend the report to the house.

Motion carried.