Emergency Services Levy

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:32): I move:

That this house—

(a) condemns the state government for removing the emergency services levy remissions and then further increasing the levy; and

(b) acknowledges the impact of the levy increase, particularly on sport and recreation clubs and organisations, which are already battling the high cost of utilities.

I bring this motion to the parliament today after many concerns have been raised with me in my role as shadow minister for sport, recreation and racing and also for investment and trade, particularly by export businesses and sport and recreation clubs across the state, which have been severely impacted by the ESL increases. Not only do they find increases with ESL, not only do they deal with high electricity prices to run their clubs, to have the lights on their ovals and stadiums, but there is also the cost of water. This is a cavalcade of challenges that every sporting club here in South Australia faces, unlike clubs in other states in the nation.

The current Labor government has hit households with increase after increase in the emergency services levy. In 2014, the levy increased about $150 for people with a $400,000 home and about $370 for people with a $1 million property, after removing the rebate on that levy. Farmers were hit especially hard. Many have multiple property titles under their care and some say that they had faced increases beyond 1,000 per cent.

The Wine Grape Council of South Australia summed up the view of many on the land at the time of the rebate removal in 2014. On ABC radio, the executive officer of the WGCSA, Peter Hackworth, said that with the current state of the wine industry it is yet another cost growers will find difficult to bear. He said:

I think it's very unfair for the Treasurer to try to use a bit of emotional blackmail, saying that this is about…Government cuts to health and education.

Mr Hackworth points to the loss of car and ship manufacturing, as well as stalled mining projects like the Roxby Downs expansion, as reasons why the state government should not be placing more pressure on the primary industry sector at the moment. He said, 'Agriculture is one of the most productive sectors of our economy. You've got to support it, not hit it.' I am fully aware that selected regional towns get a 20 per cent discount and if you live outside that regional town you get a 50 per cent discount, and if you live outside any incorporated area you get a 90 per cent discount. What is not mentioned is the fact that most of regional South Australians are cash poor but asset rich, and this is where the ESL hits hard.

We saw fingers pointed by the government when it made its decision to remove the ESL rebate, yet it received an additional $857 million in unbudgeted GST revenue from the federal government. In response, there were protests from CFS volunteers, many being farmers, who refused to fight fires on government-owned land. Despite these protests last year, the state government again raised the intake from the levy to $285.7 million in the 2015-16 year, a $19.8 million increase in that financial year.

This equated to $23 or a 9 per cent rise for a metropolitan residential property worth $426,400 and then once again this year we saw a smaller increase—but still an increase nevertheless—to the ESL following the Pinery bushfires. The state Liberal government will return the ESL remissions that Mr Weatherill and Mr Koutsantonis cruelly removed in 2014 and provide it to South Australians with much needed tax relief.

The Hon. L.A. VLAHOS: Point of order: you are not to refer to people by their names but by their electorates.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sure the member for Chaffey will not do that again. Member for Chaffey.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you for your protection, Madam Deputy Speaker. The ESL rise is another cost-of-living hit for South Australia where householders pay the nation's highest utility charges. The Premier and his government's massive increases in the ESL do not just hit home owners, it is also levied on sporting clubs, community organisations, churches and independent schools. One aspect of the levy increase that has been understated is the impact on sporting and recreation clubs and organisations. Many of these clubs were already facing financial stress before being hit by the ESL increases, including increasing electricity bills, increasing gas bills and increasing water bills.

As I have already said, sporting clubs are supported by volunteers and emergency services are supported by volunteers and yet this government continues to look a gift-horse in the mouth, over and over again. As if it was not bad enough to remove the remission, we continue to increase, we continue to blame someone else, something else for these increases. I think enough is enough. The taxpayers of South Australia are fed up with this state government continuing to point the finger at someone else for its mismanagement of the state's finances, for its mismanagement of running the state in general.

I have spoken to a number of organisations and sporting clubs, including in the areas of netball, basketball and golf, that have been hit hard by increases to the ESL. Many of their bills have increased by thousands of dollars. For example, following the initial removal of the ESL rebate by the state government there are a number of examples of the initial impact. A group of metro basketball stadiums went up from $1,711 to $4,016. A local basketball club went from $425 up to $1,953.

There are diverse examples: a yacht club went from $4,200 to $18,500; a golf club in the metro area of Adelaide went up from $1,252 to $5,500; and a golf club in the country went up from $300 to $1,200. A key metro racing venue went from $12,900 to—and get this—$27,000, which is just outrageous. Under a South Australian Liberal government, these above costs will be reversed—that is, tens of thousands of dollars just in these examples that I have raised. Some of the impacts will be on sporting clubs. They provide a valuable community asset, and many cannot afford to wear these costs. As I said, they are supported by volunteers who are getting absolutely slapped.

How are these volunteers going to work harder to raise more money so that these sporting clubs can provide a community service? They can give grassroots sports opportunities to our young. They can give the social fabric of every community and every town of every region and metropolitan sporting team hope and opportunity. What about the state government encouraging our volunteers? We know that the work of volunteers in South Australia is worth a reported $14 billion to the state's economy. Again, this is a state government not just looking the gift horse in the mouth, this is the state government kicking the gift-horse. I think it is just outrageous.

Export businesses face another cost in their bid to remain globally competitive, particularly SMEs, which are critical to our exports. The 176,000 SMEs that drive South Australia's economy are being hardest hit. They are the ones that are the shining light in the state's economy and they are the ones that are having to dig deeper into their pockets yet again and question the viability of their business in South Australia, question why they want to expand and employ more people. Why would they want to do that if they continually get smashed around the back of the head by this government's careless increases in taxes and levies and their lack of consideration for driving the state's economy in a productive way rather than in a taxing way?

The Treasurer is offering $10,000 grants for small businesses to employ more people, but how many of these grants are basically being offset to cover the ESL cost? In a transitioning economy, we should be supporting our exporters, not continually taxing them into the ground. In conclusion, there is no doubt the impact of the increase in the ESL has been profound. The state government can point the finger and play the blame game, but the reality is that the ESL tax is nothing more than revenue raising.

The impact on the likes of sporting clubs and businesses will be everlasting. The South Australian Liberals will reinstate the ESL rebate, giving all of these organisations some relief, giving all of these businesses, all of these exporters and all of the South Australian taxpayers some relief. What will Labor do? No doubt, they will keep increasing the ESL levy. The reason I put this motion to the house was the overwhelming concern I have at the impact this continual ESL increase is having.

Once upon a time, we dealt with disasters, we dealt with bushfires, floods and those natural disasters, but today we have a government that continues to look elsewhere to prop up those ESL expenses. As I said, once upon a time the government would recoup and recover, they would provide the emergency services that are needed. They would be great Samaritans. They would drive an economy. They would look after grassroots sport. They would give those volunteer bases the comfort and support they need. But today, again, the state government is looking the volunteer gift-horse in the mouth.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (12:43): I think it was in 1998 that former Liberal leader Iain Evans, a minister at that stage, introduced this tax that the member for Chaffey says is a revenue raiser. This was a time when the Liberals actually had policies, as opposed to this day and age. The now released cabinet submission states:

Everyone in the community has the right to expect access to affordable services (universal access) for the protection of life, property and the environment, and everyone has a responsibility to make a reasonable contribution towards the cost of doing so.

He was right then, and the same situation applies today. It is something that we should all be contributing to. I remember from my time in the fire service, before the emergency services levy came in, that if you insured there was a certain component of your insurance that went to the fire services. Of course, what that meant was that those people who didn't insure got the service without having to put their hand into their pocket, so it was generally covered by those people who insured and, of course, the government of the day with respect to funding of the emergency services.

It is safe to say that I am not going to agree to this motion today. The government's removal of the general ESL remissions for most property owners was a response to the commonwealth government's savage and severe budget cuts to health funding as part of the 2014-15 commonwealth budget—the horror budget that saw so many backflips thereafter, but not in this area. I will touch on that a little bit later. I also want to refer to an article that was written by my colleague, the member for Kaurna, for InDaily.

I do not often read InDaily, although I might have a flick through it—not that you can flick through it on the computer: you press a button to change the page, or whatever it might be. It was off the bench in support of the ESL, and it was a very good article. I notice that the member for Schubert was meant to respond to it—I have not bothered to read his because I probably could not find it anyway—but certainly the member for Kaurna made some very good points. One of the points that he made, which I think is right, was that if we did a straw poll of my electorate and said, 'Put up your hand everyone who likes paying tax,' I do not think we would get too many people putting their hand up.

The Hon. S.W. Key: I support tax.

The Hon. P. CAICA: So do I, but what I am suggesting is that the majority of people do not like paying it. It is not popular. The majority of people understand that if we are to have the level of health that we have in South Australia, a First World health system, if we are to have the roads that we enjoy, if we are to have the education system that we enjoy, and if we are to have the emergency services that we know are there to protect life and property and operate as efficiently and effectively as any emergency services in the world, it has to be paid for, and it is generally paid for through taxes, and that is the right thing.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: If I had my way, and I know that some of my colleagues might hate this, and I do not care or at least some of them would. I would throw the Ambulance Service into it. We should have universal coverage for ambulance services, which should be paid in a similar way to the emergency services levy, but I will not hold my breath for that to occur. I know that it will one day—and it should.

Mr Bell interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Queensland has it, most of the world has it, and no-one should be excluded from ambulance coverage because of their inability to pay for it or their fear to be able to pay for it. It should be universal coverage in a similar way to this. Anyway, no tax is ever popular, as I have said. This was a levy that was brought in by the Liberal Party and, as the member for Kaurna said, he was defending it because he does not believe it deserves its bad reputation.

What we do know about the emergency services levy is that a lot of people think that it goes into government general revenue, but every cent collected is directed towards the emergency services in its various forms: from surf lifesaving through to the rescue squadrons, through to the CFS, the MFS, a component for police, and a component for other organisations that provide a service in the delivery of emergency services. That is a good thing and it is appropriate. Touching on the commonwealth budget, the horror budget of 2015—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: It is a fact. I am not blaming anyone; I am saying it is a fact. It is very interesting that one of the few policies that the opposition have is to reinstate the remissions. I wonder what they are going to do with respect to where that money will have to come from in the areas of health, education and those other areas. But that is okay; you will do that. You will have to find that money from somewhere, and it will be to the detriment of where that money is being provided.

The 2014-15 budget cut funding to the state's health budget by $1.25 billion between 2016-17 and 2019-20. What we as a government have continued to do is argue that the previous funding arrangements should be reinstated in full, with the commonwealth being a partner in meeting the nation's growing health costs. We have publicly said that if that was the case we would reinstate those remissions.

At the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) meeting in April 2016, the commonwealth agreed to continue activity-based funding for hospitals beyond 2016-17, but at a much reduced rate than was agreed before the 2014-15 budget cuts for South Australia. This agreement will provide $187 million over three years to 2019-20. This only restores 18 per cent—I will repeat that, 18 per cent—of the commonwealth budget cuts to health care over those three years. Even with the removal of the ESL remissions and the extra health funding agreed at COAG, there is a major substantial shortfall of over $700 million over the period 2016-17 through to 2019-20.

The changes that were made to the ESL in response to the commonwealth government's brutal cuts protected the community's most vulnerable. It is true and will continue to be the case that general remissions continue to be provided to eligible concession holders, and that is something that this government will always continue to support and make sure is in place. In 2016-17, the remission on the prescribed residential ESL rate reduces the effective rate for concession holders by 80 per cent. In addition, eligible concession holders are also provided with a $64 remission on the flat fee, known as the pensioner concession.

ESL increases in the past few years have been driven by two main factors, and they will continue to be driven by those particular factors. First, there is additional expenditure on our professional and volunteer emergency service personnel and organisations. Those who sit on the Economic and Finance Committee would have seen where that money is being allocated to provide greater levels for both our professional and volunteer emergency service personnel and their organisations. Secondly, there are additional costs arising from major bushfires. Every dollar, as I have said, raised by the ESL goes towards funding vital emergency services, and as a former member of the emergency services, I support every cent that is collected going into our emergency services.

In 2015-16, we provided additional funding to extend workers compensation entitlements to CFS volunteers who are diagnosed with certain types of cancer and for training services and equipment for workers and volunteers. In addition, we also recovered costs for the Sampson Flat bushfires. In 2016-17, additional funding is being provided for retrofitting fire truck safety systems, accelerating the replacement of CFS fire trucks, enhanced flood response and incident management capabilities for the SES, and increased training for CFS and SES volunteers. Costs associated with the Pinery bushfire will also be recovered.

This year, households should experience only a very modest growth in their ESL bills, I am told. Median-valued metropolitan houses should see an increase of around $4, while average regional households should experience a small fall in their bills. I would like to comment again on the member for Kaurna's contribution some time ago, but I am running out of time. The government acknowledges the impact of these increases on all levy payers. The removal of general remissions and subsequent expenditure increases were not decisions that were taken lightly.

The government has done its best to protect pensioners and other vulnerable people from the impact of these changes and the decisions of the federal Liberal government. While the government will continue to explore avenues in which we can reduce the tax burden on the community, it is also conscious of the need to balance this with the provision of adequate community services and the achievement of the state's economic priorities. Indeed, it was a bloke who was on Channel 10, I think, who was quoted as saying:

But if it was really needed by emergency services and it all went there, probably OK sure, that's the way it's got to be. But from what I can see the Labor Government's just putting it in their own pocket.

Well, it is not. It is all going to emergency services in this state.

Mr Bell: You put the general revenue back in the pocket, though.

The Hon. P. CAICA: No, it's not.

Mr Bell: Yes, you did.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Mount Gambier!

The Hon. P. CAICA: Outrageous, he is, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Colton.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Who is not outrageous, ma'am.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are all wasting the house's time. Member for MacKillop.

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (12:54): May I draw the house's attention to the Hansard of Tuesday 21 July 1998, page 1,483 and the then member for Ross Smith—I think that was the electorate—one Ralph Clarke. In debating the introduction of the bill when the emergency services legislation was brought to the parliament, he said:

…because when we get into government we will use it in a progressive manner and to the best effect by taking from those with the greatest means for the benefit of those in the greatest need.

We made a big mistake when we were in government in not locking down the emergency services levy and the way it is collected to prevent this government from doing what it has done with it.

I did some exercises on what has happened with the emergency services levy and the impact it has had on my electorate, and I can tell the house that, between the budget years 2014-15 and 2015-16, the collection of the emergency services levy in regions 1, 2 and 3—those are the areas outside greater metropolitan Adelaide—increased from $30.1 million to $48.4 million. That is a 60 per cent increase.

The budget papers failed to show that there was any increase in expenditure in the non-metropolitan areas in the period between those two budgets, let alone a 60 per cent increase. The reality is that this government has blatantly extracted an extra tax burden, principally on the people who live in those electorates where they have no representation, other than the member for Giles. This is a shameless exercise by a Labor government, which was predicted by Ralph Clarke at the time the legislation first came into parliament.

It took the government a long time to do it, but they did it, and shame on us for not making the legislation much tighter to prevent them from doing it. Can I urge all members on this side of the house that when they are next in government—and I expect that will not be a long way away—to actually go through every piece of legislation on the statute book of this state with a fine-tooth comb and tighten up the criteria to prevent future Labor governments from doing what this government has done in the last few years.

I do not have my notes with me but, from memory, on Tuesday 23 April this year there was discussion on this matter on ABC radio, on the Bevan and Abraham program. The ABC is not noted for supporting our side of politics, but if that was the correct date, and I suspect it was, the ABC fact check, which was still in operation then, actually supported the position that we have argued for a long time—that you cannot take away something that was never there.

The nonsense just expressed by the member for Colton was that the federal government took away some largesse of funding that was promised to our health budget in the wild blue yonder if a federal Labor government was returned, but it could not have been taken away because it was never there. It was never budgeted for; it was never there. I remember that the Treasurer on that particular program was fumbling for an explanation in the way he normally does when he gets caught out, which is something that happens regularly to him.

The reality is that the government intended to raise this tax to do away with the rebate to hit the people who have no impact on the vote for its members and to hit the people in those electorates who do not support this government and just to use it as a blatant taxation measure. Lo and behold, they got the excuse that it was done because there was some cut in federal funding. The reality is that that was and remains a nonsense. This government indeed had started to put into action the increase in the emergency services levy before that federal budget was handed down—that is the reality. They had started to put into train the removal of the rebate.

This government stands condemned for a number of things: one is the mismanagement of the state's budget and the second one is the way in which they tried to cover that up by increasing taxes in the areas of the ESL and the NRM levies—the levies that impact highly, with great burden, on those people who are asset rich and generally income poor, particularly the farming community and the people who are represented almost exclusively by members of this side of the house. This is a shameful government. It does not govern this state for all the people, and it even makes a mess on behalf of the people it does claim to govern for. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00