Motions

Emergency Services

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:29): I move:

That this house—

(a) condemns the state government for increasing cost of living pressures on South Australian families and businesses; and

(b) supports significant reductions in the impact that emergency services levy charges have on South Australian families and businesses, whilst at the same time ensuring proposed budgets for emergency services are maintained.

South Australia is an absolutely wonderful place to live—it really is—and that is why I am in this place representing the good people of Morphett and that is why I want to move this motion today. I am not going to read the motion; members can read it for themselves. It will become clear during the few minutes I have to put what I have to say on the record.

I have been very privileged to be the member for Morphett for 15 years, and I intend to be the member for Morphett in March 2018, not only contributing to this place but also supporting the good people of Morphett. In terms of the suburbs in the seat of Morphett generally, the perception is that Morphett is a very wealthy, highly affluent area, but there are some significant issues that are a reflection of the broader issues in the state. Once you start talking to the locals, going to the churches, going to the schools and talking to the service groups, as you do as a local member, you see the problems being faced by all the people who live in South Australia and, in my case, particularly those constituents in Morphett.

The schools in Morphett—church, independent and state schools—are wonderful. Glenelg Primary School is a wonderful school. They are struggling with so many kids there now; it is becoming quite a large school. People think Glenelg Primary School is doing very well, but about 30 per cent of the kids who go there are on School Card, which is a reflection on the family circumstances.

If you go down to Jetty Road, there are 106 restaurants and cafes within walking distance of my office. If you talk to those restaurant and cafe owners, people in the fruit and veggie shops and those people who are selling food, cups of coffee, shoes and all the wonderful clothes and other things you can buy there—the member for Adelaide could spend hours and hours just walking up and down Jetty Road—you will find that the store owners, the mums and dads and the families who are running those shops, are working extremely hard.

They are not afraid of competition. They are not afraid of taking a risk and accepting the challenge, but when I talk to them they are telling me, 'The money is still there, Duncan, but you have to work three times as hard to get it.' The overheads have gone up. The competition is there and, as I say, they are not afraid of that, but the costs of doing business in South Australia have really punished them hard.

As I said about the kids who are on School Card, it is the costs of living that are punishing the families in South Australia. It should not be so. This state has wonderful opportunities but, unfortunately, after 15 years of hard Labor, what have we seen? We have seen a huge increase in the number of people who require support and concessions and who are calling out for some relief. There is no long-term solution for long-term problems on the economic front in this state coming from this government and I hope that will change in a bit over 12 months' time.

The best example of what is going on is to look at the Cost of Living Concession, energy concessions, water concessions, transport concessions and the emergency services levy concessions being paid to South Australians. They have gone up and up, and the total cost of those concessions is now about $161 million a year. The Cost of Living Concession, which is a concession of $200 per year for pensioners and low income earners, is being paid to183,000 South Australians at a total cost of nearly $33 million. Over 200,000 people receive energy concessions for emergency electricity payments and the Medical Heating and Cooling Concession Scheme, with a total bill of over $40 million, and 170,000 people are claiming water concessions, totalling nearly $50 million a year.

In relation to sewerage for home owners and occupiers, 127,000 people are claiming those concessions now. When we owned a house at Somerton Park, we looked at the rates and we calculated that it cost about $8 every time we flushed the toilet because of the capital value of the house. The amount of water we used was very low. The water and sewerage rates being charged in South Australia have a significant impact on everybody, particularly when people have valuable homes and are income restricted. There are some real issues there, with no relief on the horizon from this government. In relation to the emergency services levy, 140,000 recipients are getting some form of relief. That totals only about $6½ million, and I will talk about the dollar amounts of the emergency services levy in a few moments.

South Australians are really doing it tough. We need to make sure we show some leadership in this state and recognise that it is not just about making our roads look good, with our transport corridors working more efficiently—it is much more than that. It all contributes, we all know that, but it is about the mums and dads out there who want to pay the mortgage—with interest rates probably going up, that mortgage stress will increase—and afford to clothe and send their kids to school, and hopefully not rely on the School Card to get those kids to school. The good education that is provided by the public education service in South Australia is second to none, but we need to make sure those kids have that opportunity and are not in any way penalised because their parents cannot pay the add-on fees that are part of the system.

We need to make sure that South Australians are able to proceed and look forward to a long stable future, that businesses in South Australia are able to look forward to having a business where they are not seeing their margins reduced and reduced so they are not having to continue to work three times as hard for the same amount of money, as we are hearing now.

Part of the cost of living in South Australia is the emergency services levy. The emergency services levy was introduced by the Liberal government and was designed to replace the fire services levy that was on insurance premiums so that it would be equally spread across the population base, and it was a good thing. There was a recognition then, though, that if your house burns down the land is still there, so perhaps there is an argument that there should be some form of remission on that levy.

I am putting it very simply, but that is my understanding of how the argument came about of applying remissions on the emergency services levy. So, those remissions were put in place. But, what did we see this cash-strapped government do? It took away those remissions. I am really surprised that not more people require emergency services levy assistance because this government has pushed and pushed. The emergency services levy remissions being removed is another indicator of how callous this government is, how desperate it is to keep the impression that it is balancing its budget.

This government has sold everything from the forests to the lotteries to the Lands Titles Office. I understand it will sell WorkCover—that is the next thing it will sell off. It is selling off the farm. If it is able to revisit some of these decisions and be honest about it, they were decisions that I do not think were in the best interests of South Australia. Certainly, to say that you have balanced the budget because you sold the Motor Accident Commission is a very misguided view on the South Australian economy.

The emergency services levy budget for the 2016-17 year was a total of $292.4 million. It is being raised across all forms of fixed and mobile property. We heard for a little while last year that there were plans to remove the remission from caravans, boats and trailers. That has not happened; I hope it does not happen. The emergency services levy on those moving vehicles—caravans, boats and trailers—is not a lot in terms of a real thing, but it all adds up to being some relief for South Australians.

The $292.4 million that has been raised through the emergency services levy and is being paid for completely by South Australians now, with the removal of the remissions, is split up amongst the South Australian Country Fire Service, the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service, the State Emergency Service, Surf Life Saving SA, Volunteer Marine Rescue, South Australia Police (and I will have a bit more to say about that in a moment), the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, SA Ambulance Service, State Rescue Helicopter Service, shark beach patrol and other (the 'other' is something else I will have more to say about).

The emergency services levy is an hypothecated fund; in other words, it is all supposed to go into delivering emergency services in South Australia. That cannot be just buying fire trucks and more hoses and more boats for the Volunteer Marine Rescue. We know it is much more than just providing the equipment they not only want but also need to be able to do their job. I know that everybody in this place—not just those on this side—thanks all our emergency services workers who do what they can every day of their lives to make our lives safer.

The problem I have with the way the emergency services levy is being spent is that it is also being used now to prop up the budgets of some departments. The Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources gets $3.5 million. They might try to justify that by saying they are helping prevent bushfires and they have contract firefighters during the bushfire season, but is that not their job? Are they not protecting the environment? Is there not a massive budget to do that without hitting the emergency services levy?

The 'other' section of spending is the $0.9 million. I would be very disappointed and quite distressed if our fire safety programs aimed at children, such as the burns trust, were being targeted for cuts. We need to keep them going, but does that money need to come out of the emergency services levy or should it come out of the health budget? Keeping those kids safe and keeping them out of hospital is something we do, but it is saving the health budget money, so why is the health budget not contributing towards that so that the emergency services levy is not being used as a means of paying for something that should come out of another area and taxpayers are being slugged twice?

The big issue for me, though, is that the budget of the State Emergency Service—those 16,000 men and women who have done such an absolutely sterling job this year, as they have every year—is $17.6 million out of this, but the South Australian police get $21.8 million out of this. They get more than the SES. Why is that not coming out of the police budget? Their attitude is that, 'We are doing some of the emergency service search and rescue work and marine rescue work.' They are duplicating and in some cases triplicating work that is being done by other emergency services.

The STARies go out and do a wonderful job of getting the crims and so on, but is their primary role to go out on cliff rescues and some of the other things they do? No, you have Metropolitan Fire Service personnel trained, CFS personnel trained and SES personnel trained. Why do you need to quadruple the delivery of that service? Save the taxpayers of South Australia significant costs in their emergency services levy. Sure, they gather information and prepare contingency plans for public safety, attend emergency incidents and attend motor vehicle accidents. Is that not what the police do, investigate an accident? Why does that come out of the emergency services levy and not out of the police budget?

There are numerous examples where the emergency services levy needs to be reviewed. Under the emergency services sector reform—the paper that was put out by former minister Piccolo, under Operation Darwin or Project Darwin—there was going to be a review of where the emergency services levy was being paid. An audit was being done. I do not know whether that was completed. If it has been completed, I would like to see it tabled in here or a report somewhere so we can see where that emergency services levy is going exactly so we can see what is the 'other'. We can see how the spend on shark patrols and helicopters is being justified.

Certainly, in my beachside suburb, I love the shark patrols, but let's just make sure we are getting bang for our money. Let's make sure that Surf Life Saving South Australia, if they can offer an aerial shark patrol service, is being looked at and not overlooked when it comes to letting out the tenders because surely they have a vested interest in providing the best service.

There are numerous examples in South Australia where people are being pushed to the absolute limit, both personally and, in this case, on a hip pocket issue of paying more and more tax. They cannot continue to do this. When we have another major disaster, whether it be a Sampson Flat or a Pinery, will the emergency services levy go up again? What happens if we have two or three? What happens if we have an earthquake? What is going to happen then? Emergency service delivery in South Australia is a core service obligation of a state government. Do not keep taxpayers paying and paying and paying.

Mr PICTON (Kaurna) (11:44): I rise to speak on this motion moved by the member for Morphett. Perhaps it will not be surprising that the government indicates that it will not be supporting it. I start by acknowledging the importance of dealing with cost of living issues generally. I think most members, in particular on this side of the house and probably the country members on the other side, encounter a lot of people in our electorates who do it tough from time to time and struggle to make ends meet.

I think it is incumbent upon all levels of government to do everything we can to make the cost of living easier and to address that. However, I do not necessarily think that the prescription enunciated by this motion or by the Liberal Party is a way of doing that. When it comes to the emergency services levy, there are a few important facts: one is that this was a Liberal Party levy. This was introduced and passed under the previous Liberal government—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: As were the remissions.

Mr PICTON: Time after time, members of the Liberal Party come into this house to talk about the emergency services levy, and I think it is incumbent upon us to remind them that this was a levy introduced by their previous government. The member for Stuart says 'with remissions'. When it was originally introduced, it was not with remissions; it did not have remissions in place to begin with. This was introduced in the same way that it is currently being used. In actual fact, the cabinet submissions that deal with this are now public, and you can see that the former Liberal leader, Iain Evans, when he was the relevant minister and introduced it to cabinet, said:

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.

That is exactly what the then member for Davenport, Iain Evans, said when he and the Liberal Party introduced this. The second point is that this is a levy where every single dollar goes into the emergency services fund and it is used for emergency services. People can be reassured that when they are paying this levy, it is paying for firefighters and it is paying for the SES. In particular, the SES have done a remarkable job over the last year and have had one of their busiest years ever on record. It certainly has affected my electorate. I know it has affected lots of country electorates and the northern suburbs as well, and full credit to them and the hard work that they do.

Anybody who has visited their local SES will see the equipment which this levy has funded which they would not otherwise have. I, along with the member for Fisher, the member for Reynell and the Minister for Emergency Services recently visited the Noarlunga SES in my area before the Old Noarlunga floods happened and saw a demonstration of the swiftwater rescue crew that they have funded. It is one of the best in Australia at providing swiftwater rescues. Little did we know that within a month or so of visiting and seeing that in action, it was actually being used to save people in the evacuation of Old Noarlunga. No doubt it saved the lives of people that night when the water was rising quite quickly. These are important services to be funded and this levy goes directly to funding those critical services.

Thirdly, it is really important to note that low income earners and pensioners are protected from high emergency services levy rates. The remissions that the opposition talks about are still in place for those people. Those people who have the most limited fixed incomes in our society and low income earners are protected by remissions, and they have not faced significant increases in their emergency services levy. We know that the people who face the biggest emergency services levies have quite significant property holdings. Therefore, it is not the same people who might come to my office, or the member for Torrens' office, or the member for Fisher's office for assistance and to talk about how they are struggling to make ends meet because they are on a pension or a very low income. They are not facing significant costs through this levy; it is protected through the system.

The fourth issue that is very important to note about the levy is that the changes to the remissions were made—and this is where the rest of the state government budget and other taxes that people paid were going into top up the emergency services fund instead of the levy—because we had very significant cuts to our health and education funding agreements from Canberra. We had signed agreements with the commonwealth government that were torn up in the 2014-15 federal budget. We faced the challenge of whether there were going to be significant cuts to health services that needed to be made, or whether we would take this change to the emergency services levy and use the levy to fund emergency services so that other money could be freed up to fund public hospital services.

I think all of us on this side are very committed to making sure that our public hospitals are funded to the fullest extent possible. Opposition members, when they continually claim that if they win the next election they will reintroduce the remissions—however much that is going to be now, I think that will now cost well over $400 million—have absolutely no plan for how they are going to fund that. They have no plan for where they are going to get the money to do that. Are they going to cut hospitals? Are they going to close country hospitals? Are they going to close schools? Are they going to close schools in the country?

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sit down member for Kaurna. If members on my left want to have a turn speaking and want to be heard, they need to respect the standing orders of the house. I remind you that the Speaker has already drawn up the book for this afternoon's question time, and it would be awful if the bases were loaded before you got there, wouldn't it?

Mr PENGILLY: Deputy Speaker, I do not want to enter into any debate with you—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: But you will anyway. Go on.

Mr PENGILLY: If opposition members are goaded, we are going to react.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No; I'm sorry, member for Finniss, please sit down. The house's time is precious. The member for Kaurna will be heard in silence.

Mr PICTON: The member for Finniss, who is on his way out, does not want to hear it—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. Order!

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, the member for Finniss! Member for Kaurna, back to your remarks.

Mr PICTON: It is important that, in the public policy debate that should be happening in this house, if someone is going to announce they want to reintroduce a remission that is going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars, then they should announce—

An honourable member interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PICTON: —to the people, where—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PICTON: —in fact they are going to get the funding to do that. They have not done that. There is going to come a time, before the next election, when they are going to—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Unfortunately I will have to start warning people.

Mr PICTON: —have to do that, to announce to people what their plan is to fund the promises they are making. To come into this house continually—

Mr PEDERICK: Point of order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond will have a relevant point of order, I am sure.

Mr PEDERICK: It is a relevant point of order. The member for Kaurna, unless I am under some illusion, has nothing to do with what the Liberal Party will do in government.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is frivolous. Member for Kaurna.

Mr Pederick: I don't think so.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hammond, you want to be grateful he has nothing to do with you.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are wasting the time of the house. The member for Kaurna can have an extra minute now.

Mr PICTON: Thank you.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No; I am not going to have it. You are grown-up people. I will be warning you from now on. He is entitled to be heard in silence. You will have a turn and I will protect you as well.

Mr PICTON: It is a very clear and very important public policy point that if you announce that you want to spend some money, or you want to save some people some tax money, some high-income earners—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is warned.

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Hammond is called to order and warned. I have done them in reverse, but it is the same thing.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Newland is not in his spot.

Mr Pederick: Chuck him out.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hammond, don't press your luck.

Mr PICTON: They have to announce where that funding is going to come from. We are hearing howls of protest—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Finniss is called to order.

Mr PICTON: —but that does not dispute the fact that if you want to announce something—

Mr Bell interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Mount Gambier, I can see your lips moving.

Mr PICTON: —you should announce where it is going to be funded from. I look forward to further debates in this house on this motion and to hearing where this will be funded from. That is going to be a key question for them at the next election, not only on this issue but also on a whole range of other significant promises—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Finniss is warned for the first time.

Mr PICTON: —that have been made where there is no announcement as to where the funding will come from. I worry, and I think a number of my colleagues worry, that this means that their secret plan is to cut hospital—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Kaurna, sit down. I just want to remind members on my left that Speaker Bishop gave a rule on audible laughter. I do not want to hear any more audible laughter or I will have to refer to Speaker Bishop's ruling on that. Member for Kaurna.

Mr PICTON: When you are announcing a policy that is going to cost $400 million over the forward estimates, you should announce to people what other areas you are planning to cut that funding from. The budget of the state is not a magic pudding; it needs to be found from somewhere. We are all very worried that that is really going to mean—

Mr Treloar interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Flinders is called to order.

Mr PICTON: —cuts to essential services, cuts to hospitals, cuts to schools, cuts to a whole range of very important areas of services for the kinds of people that this motion is saying they are concerned about. They are saying they are concerned about people's cost of living pressures. If you are cutting public schools—

Mr Duluk interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: He gets an extra minute because you were all naughty. Sit down.

Mr PICTON: —if you are going to cut people's concessions—we have increased concessions considerably under this government. We introduced a cost of living concession that has helped people on pensions and low incomes to the tune of $200 a year. Maybe that is in the firing line, if this policy comes through, to help high income and significant property owners in this state. That is something that needs to be announced, that is something that needs to be debated, so that people have the right to choose at the next election what their policy proposition is. You have ask, if we are going to spend up to $400 million over the forward estimates, where is the money going to come from? There is no plan to do that.

Mr Bell: You guys have done such a great job of balancing the budget, haven't you?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mount Gambier is called to order.

Mr PICTON: We saw exactly the same thing happen in federal parliament, when Tony Abbott promised a whole range of things and then came in with dramatic cuts in the 2015 budget. We are very worried that the same thing will happen here. The pressure will be on the Liberal Party this year to announce where the money is coming from.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bearing in mind that we have a very important motion, No. 2, the member for Stuart is going to speak.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:56): I rise to very earnestly support the member for Morphett's motion. He addresses both the fact that there is a huge and growing number of people in South Australia who are suffering cost of living pressures and also the very important example of ESL. My thoughts and heart are primarily with low income people under cost of living pressures. Cost of living pressures can affect everybody across all spectrums—all incomes, all backgrounds—but people on low incomes, of course, are under more pressure than anybody else.

In fact, I was listening to an interview on ABC radio the other day when it was quantified that in Australia, across the whole nation, people below an $80,000 per year household income were under growing and extreme pressure. People above that amount were under pressure but not nearly to the same extent. That would make great sense to all of us. I hope that everybody here has their hearts and minds particularly focused on people on low incomes when it comes to the cost of living because those people in South Australia have been treated incredibly badly by this government. This is the highest taxing state in the nation, and ESL is a prime example of that. Taxes are increasing all the time, and people have to deal with it.

The member for Kaurna, who is a capable and intelligent person, is completely lost on this topic. He has been sent down here to talk about something that he actually knows absolutely nothing about. For him to say that the government chose to remove the remissions because of the federal health cuts is absolutely ridiculous because the potential cuts that he is talking about, even if they were real, had absolutely no impact on the current federal or state government budgets.

The government decided to put in these ESL remission removals immediately for some fictitious cut that may or may not have come down the track.

Mr Picton: There were immediate cuts.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Kaurna is reminded.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN: It was absolutely factually correct that the federal government's contribution to the health budget was going to increase across the forward estimates of the state government's budget. It is an absolutely pathetic excuse to say that that is why the state government removed the remissions.

The other thing that the poor old member for Kaurna said was that it would not hurt the emergency services sector. Keeping in mind that remissions is the section of the emergency services funding that the government paid for instead of private people paying for it, when those remissions were removed, the emergency services sector did not get one extra dollar. So, $90 million per year was taken out of the public taxpayers' pocket for absolutely no benefit whatsoever to the emergency services sector. There was not one extra fire truck, there was not extra surf lifesaving rubber ducky, not one extra SES trailer, pump or chainsaw—not one extra piece of equipment was bought because these remissions were removed.

Essentially, the public had to pay money straight to the Treasury. The emergency services sector did not get one extra dollar out of those remission cuts. The member for Kaurna completely misunderstands and/or misrepresents that. To me, the most concerning assertion that the member for Kaurna made was that they do not affect low income people because the low income people are protected from the remissions is absolutely laughable. Every low income person who rents a home is affected by the removal of the remissions because the owner of that home has to pay the emergency services levy fee.

The owner of that property pays more and so, naturally, down the track that flows through to rent. Low income people are not protected. Every time a low income person wants to purchase something, whether for personal consumption or a service, when the provider of that good or that service has paid more in emergency services levy because the remission was removed, that extra cost is going to flow through to that low income person as the consumer of that good or that service. It is completely inappropriate to say that the removal of the remissions do not affect low income people.

This is a very important motion by the member for Morphett. Low income people particularly are affected by this government's increases in fees, taxes and charges over the life of the government, over the last 15 years. Other people are affected as well. The emergency services levy and the government's removal of those remissions, under an inaccurate claim regarding the federal government budget, which had no impact on their state government budget in the forward estimates, is wrong.

To say that the emergency services sector is not affected is wrong. There are people out there who think that the emergency services are receiving all this extra money, so even their reputation is affected. People just assume that they are getting extra support when the sector is actually not getting one extra dollar from the government through the removal of the remissions. To say that low income people are not affected is a dreadful shame and, if the member for Kaurna reflects on that, I am sure he will agree with me.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (12:02): I rise to support the member for Morphett's motion. It is quite interesting that when the member for Kaurna starts talking he shows how limited the information that he has is about how businesses work and, more to the point, Liberal Party policy. To be clear, we are talking about putting $90 million back into people's pockets and this will be $150 for the average household going back into people's pockets.

Members interjecting:

Mr BELL: It will all be detailed before the next election. Do not worry, the people of South Australia will have a very clear choice when it comes to the next election. They can continue to support a government that is not listening, that does not care about cost of living pressures, or support a Liberal government that has a vision for South Australia's future and a real eye to getting the costs of living down. The emergency services levy is one of those key planks—in fact, a very expensive policy—but we think it is worthwhile because the people of South Australia are certainly hurting.

It is not only the people: it is the organisations. If you go into your schools, which I am sure most members do and go through a bit of fanfare, just ask the bursar or the principal how much their emergency services levy has gone up in their school. Go and ask them how much is basically coming out of the pockets of their school that could be going into many other things, including extra teachers or directed support for literacy and numeracy but is now going into emergency services. It has been reported that schools have seen increases of 400 to 500 per cent.

To put that into a dollar term for the member for Kaurna in case he cannot work it out, some of their bills went from about $6,500 to $30,000 just for the emergency services levy. This is on top of increasing power prices. Of course, the way the government has the power set up with schools is that it is on a rolling three-year deal, which sounds great until the three years comes up and the money they get in will only be paid at what their bill was three years previously.

It is almost a reverse incentive to save power and to be efficient because in three years' time, if you drop your bill by $5,000, the amount you get in for electricity is $5,000 less. That is great if you can make continual improvements. Of course, sometimes there are blips on the screen and the bill goes up, but you are being paid less money than is coming in.

It is not only schools: it is our service clubs and our sporting clubs that are seeing these massive emergency services levy increases, and that is an area we want to focus on—not just on the people of South Australia but the community groups and sporting clubs as well. I leave it there because we have a number of speakers on this matter. I support the member for Morphett's motion and commend it to the house.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:05): I rise to support the motion of the member for Morphett:

That this house—

(a) condemns the state government for increasing cost of living pressures on South Australian families and businesses; and

(b) supports significant reductions in the impact that emergency services levy changes have on South Australian families and businesses, whilst at the same time ensuring proposed budgets for emergency services are maintained.

Let's reflect on what has been going on in this state over the last 15 years, but more so in recent times—the increased impost on the poor citizens of this state in regard to high electricity, water prices and state taxes and charges.

High electricity prices are bad enough, but we also have the least reliability of any state in the nation and we are the laughing stock of not only the nation but the world. We are supposedly a First World economy, but we are below Third World status in the way our power supply has been managed by this government.

Sometime in the not too distant future—and they may have had these thought bubbles in the Labor government cabinet—the offer by Alinta to keep the Northern power station going and to support the Leigh Creek coalmine to keep that plant going, and what was offered, was probably a cheap exercise. We have seen carnage to our community since the Northern power station has shut down over 500 megawatts of base load power supply to our state. Not before, but ever since then we have seen unprecedented breakdowns in the electricity supply to this state.

Who in their right mind would have one circuit-breaker for the whole state that blows out the whole state when some pylons blow down 250 kilometres north of Adelaide and are lost? It is outstanding in its idiocy, but that it is what happens because of this green ideology that we must be striving for 50 per cent wind power. We saw what happened last Wednesday, when there was load shedding—and my community suffered load shedding—

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: Rationing.

Mr PEDERICK: Is it called rationing now?

The Hon. L.W.K. Bignell: You could do with a bit of load shedding.

Mr PEDERICK: You're a rabbit, Minister for Agriculture. You are a rabbit.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sitting down. I am on my feet.

Mr PEDERICK: We'll give him a bit of calici, I think.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet. I am not sure that animal names are in order in this place.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, the clock will keep ticking and you will waste his time. The member for Hammond is entitled to be heard in silence, and I have asked you all to respect the standing orders. Member for Hammond; I have protected you yet again.

Mr PEDERICK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I was just trying to defer the feeble attempt of having a crack at me from across the chamber.

There are many areas in my electorate, including Murray Bridge, that were part of that load-rationing process, and they were angry. It was 42°, and for about 40 minutes they could not have their air conditioners going. It is not unusual to have temperatures of 42° in this state, it is not unusual at all—and this was the first day. This shows the sheer incompetence of a government policy that has driven this state into the darkness for investors, for businesses and for people just trying to live, including retirees who need their vital electricity just to stay alive. It is completely outrageous.

Hazelwood, the power station in Victoria, is shutting down at the end of next month, and I warned about this before in this place late last year. It is stipulated in their forward contracts that their power prices are going up between 100 and 150 per cent because of the ideology that is killing off the base load power we are connected to that supplies, from Victoria, about 23 or 25 per cent of our current electricity needs. I am afraid that after March comes along we will all be living in caves. As I asked the other day: what came before candles? Electricity.

This is what this government has driven us into: the dark ages. Not only that, they slug us for the emergency services levy, which goes up every time there is a major fire. Every time, the Treasurer uses it as an excuse to suck more money out of the populace of South Australia. It keeps being ripped out of their pockets. When we get into government, by $90 million a year we will reintroduce the remission, saving the average household up to $150. This will help ease the unemployment rate in the country, put money back into the pockets of South Australians and help create jobs. This is what we need to do going into the future.

This state is heading into an even bigger black hole as we watch what is happening with the power crisis and as people are taxed into oblivion. Another tax that people are being taxed to death with is the natural resources management levy. Instead of coming out of general revenue, we are paying for the staff at the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. It is absolutely outrageous that the people of this state are being taxed into oblivion. In March 2018, they will vote and they will have their say.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:12): I rise to support the motion moved by the member for Morphett. It is a good and useful motion and should be agreed to by the house in its entirety, in my view—but it probably will not be. The reality is that cost of living increases are slaughtering South Australian families financially and making it increasingly difficult for them to go about their businesses. They are making it extremely difficult for businesses to operate. A great drift of our young people is getting out of South Australia because they simply cannot afford to stay here. They cannot get good enough jobs, there is no hope for the future, they want to give their children a chance and the cost of living here is making that nigh on impossible.

We only have to look at three items that have been mentioned here this morning: the cost of electricity and its reliability, the cost of water and the continual breakdown in the city of the reticulation system, with pipelines blowing up everywhere on a regular basis. That has been picked up by the media well and truly with some degree of mirth. Of course, there is the emergency services levy, which was never designed to be ramped up just to prop up a government that is financially inept and running out of money fast. The Treasurer can stand up in this place and talk about surpluses, but anybody who can count from one to five can tell you that the surplus was arrived at by the sale of MAC (the Motor Accident Commission). It is not through his good management, I can tell you.

The good old rural sector is having a reasonable season despite low prices in grain and cereals, although the price of oil seeds is not quite so bad, but the fact is that it is just so difficult for South Australians. They come into my office, one after the other, with their complaints, almost in tears over the fact they cannot pay their bills. With that, I will conclude my remarks. I completely support the member for Morphett.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (12:15): I rise as well to speak in support of this motion put forward by the member for Morphett that condemns the state government for increasing cost of living pressures on South Australian families and businesses and supports significant reductions in the impact that emergency services levy charges have on South Australian families and businesses while at the same time ensuring proposed budgets for emergency services are maintained. As has been pointed out by numerous members before me, we know that the emergency services levy, and the way it slugs families and businesses, is a very big impost in this day and age.

What we have seen from the state government on the other side for 15 years now is their irrational spending being responded to with increased fees and charges, and the emergency services levy is an exact case in point. It is hard enough doing business here in South Australia. When I get out and speak to many small businesses and businesses across the board, right across the state in the city and country regions, they tell me that these fees and charges—the emergency services levy, high electricity prices and water prices and other fees and charges—are inhibiting businesses from growing, which is preventing jobs growth in South Australia as well.

We have talked in this place about the high electricity prices. Quite simply, the lack of reliability in the supply of electricity in this state is hurting businesses and families. It is pretty straightforward as to what the problem is. We know in South Australia that, when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, we are very vulnerable in the electricity market—that is the bottom line. We know water prices have increased drastically by 233 per cent from 2002-03 to 2016-17. These are massive hikes and, again, the hikes in the emergency services levy are hitting everyone, every day.

What we also see with this emergency services levy increase is no additional funds going to emergency services, and that is the case in point here. South Australians are paying more, but they are getting no more as far as emergency services are concerned. This is really just another way for the Labor government in South Australia to rip money out of the back pockets of South Australians. What they are doing is taking money from South Australians and putting it into their own coffers. The money was there, the budget was there, for emergency services. That is not increasing, but more money is coming out of the pockets of South Australians.

What we on this side have proposed to do is put $90 million a year back into the pockets of South Australians by returning the remissions, and that will put money back into the economy. I stress that that money goes into the pockets of individuals and businesses, which will get the economy moving and help generate jobs for South Australians.

We had some good news on seasonally adjusted unemployment figures in this state, but we are still the worst in the nation on trend data. We still have the highest unemployment rate on trend at 6.7 per cent in South Australia, which is the worst in the nation, and we know Holden is going to close later this year. What we are here to do is grow jobs in South Australia. We are here to help businesses, we are here to help them grow, and we are here to help generate more opportunities for South Australians to stay in this state and live a wonderful life.

We know it is a great state. We are being chastised by the eastern seaboard. At the moment, we know South Australia is a great state, but when those on the eastern seaboard look at the figures and the raw numbers, they probably have reason to criticise where we are going as a state, and that is after 15 years of having a state Labor government.

I will be brief so that other members can speak, but these fees and charges, such as the ESL and the high electricity prices, are really hurting businesses, hurting industry and hurting South Australian people. As we look at jobs in South Australia, the underutilisation rate from ABS figures that are out today, it has gone up in South Australia—that is people who are in work, looking for work or people not in work. South Australia has the highest underutilisation rate in the nation at 17.2 per cent, up from 16.4 per cent the previous month.

SA has the highest underutilisation rate in the nation and it is getting bigger. The national average, for what it is worth, is 15.3 per cent. Again, we have the issues of people looking for more work, wanting to work more and the opportunities not being here in South Australia. Increases in fees and charges—I stress the point again, like the emergency services levy, like the electricity and water prices—are causing a big part of this impost on South Australians.

The other concern I have is youth unemployment, people aged between 15 and 24 years of age. When you drill down and look at those figures it is 69.9 per cent up from 15.1 per cent the previous month. Again, South Australia is the highest in the nation: 12 months ago it was 16.2 per cent so, again, youth unemployment is growing here in South Australia. I come back to that point once more, that it is the cost of fees and charges.

When I go out and speak to businesses and talk to people in the community and around the state about small business and industry in South Australia, as the shadow in those portfolios, they tell me that it is the cost of fees and charges here in this state, emergency services levy, electricity—we know the electricity story and the unreliability that we have in South Australia—and water fees and charges are what drive businesses out of South Australia and with that go jobs. Many I speak to have an operation here in South Australia and one outside of our borders and they are constantly asking, 'Why do we stay in South Australia when it is so much cheaper to do business interstate?'

As they leave—and they are, with Pfizer recently moving out of South Australia and a number of other businesses moving out of the state—they take jobs out of South Australia leaving fewer jobs for our young people and hence we see that the youth unemployment rate in South Australia is the highest in the nation. It is alarming. This government is not doing enough to generate more jobs in South Australia. That is why I support this motion: fees and charges like the emergency services levy are doing real damage to the prospects for employment in South Australia, prospects for all South Australians but more specifically for our young people. I commend this motion to the house.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (12:22): I would also like to make a contribution to the member for Morphett's motion. The high cost of living pressures here in South Australia are a huge burden on South Australian households and businesses. These cost pressures are shifting our economy and making it worse. The high cost of living is impacting on business growth, expansion and job creation as well as investment in this great state. That is why we have the highest unemployment rate in mainland Australia and our population growth has gone backwards.

In 1998, when the then minister Iain Evans introduced the ESL, the cabinet submission, and the line previously quoted by Labor MPs, stated that everyone in the community has the right to expect access to affordable services for the protection of life, property and the environment, and everyone has the responsibility to make a reasonable contribution towards the cost of living in doing so. The key word here is 'reasonable'. I think the member for Kaurna forgot to mention 'reasonable' when it comes to the ESL levy. Labor's continued hikes on the levy certainly make it no longer a reasonable levy.

The ESL hikes three years in a row impacted upon families and businesses struggling to make ends meet here in South Australia. Recently I received a FOI document showing that more than 4,700,000 emergency service levies were still outstanding as of 30 June 2016. That is 103,000 people who were served with final notices, an increase from 95,785 in 2013-14. More than 23,000 people were referred to debt collection agencies in 2015-16 to chase up outstanding ESL bills. Households and businesses cannot afford to pay this increased tax by a government that is obsessed with tax and it is driving people away from this great state. People are already struggling to pay their water, electricity and gas bills and it just shows how out of touch they really are.

I want to touch on the disadvantage that export businesses here in South Australia face with another cost to their bid to remain globally competitive, particularly our small to medium enterprises. It is critical that we remain competitive at a world export level. In a transitioning economy, we should be supporting our exporters, not continually taxing them. Again, the high cost of living and the high cost of running a business in South Australia seem to be a real handcuff on progress.

The state government exporting target of $18 billion by 2017 is about to be missed, and this ESL increase is another contributor. We are more than $3 billion away from that target. Cost of living pressures, not only on households but also on businesses and people wanting to export to be part of our state's economy, are a threat. In conclusion, the South Australian Liberals will reinstate the ESL rebate to the tune of $90 million per year, giving households and businesses much-needed relief. This will put money back into the pockets of South Australians to help create jobs and grow our economy. I commend the motion to the house.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (12:25): I rise today to support this motion. It is extremely important and an extremely important piece of the fabric of South Australia, especially in terms of the services provided with the funds that are used. The emergency services levy is one that has a noble history and a noble beginning to its existence, but it is one that this government has used for its own purposes. I think the government has actually used up the goodwill that exists within our community for emergency services to essentially hide ever-increasing tax grabs.

What we have seen since 2013-14 is that every single year we have an increase in the emergency services levy. We had the $90 million increase in the 2014-15 year, we had another $20 million increase last year and then we had another 1½ per cent increase in last year's budget. Obviously, the $19 million increase is disgusting because it is basically the government saying, 'We are going to withdraw any general revenue that goes into funding our emergency services, and we are just going to levy the taxpayers of South Australia.' That has the practical effect of creating an added land tax on Australians.

I think it is dishonest to use the emergency services levy in this way because, if the government wanted to propose increasing the land tax, they should go ahead and do it. They have tied it to emergency services to try to put a nice gloss of paint over the fact that this is just a naked tax grab—a naked tax grab from South Australians at a time when they are struggling under the highest power prices that are set to increase even more in South Australia. We have the highest water prices, and our taxation charges, our fees charges and our speeding fines are the highest in the country, and all this government seeks to do is take extra dollars out of South Australian pockets.

It is disgusting. I find it reprehensible, and it is something the Liberal Party will not stand for. From the outset, I would like to say that the state Liberal government will reduce by $90 million the amount of emergency services levy income we get from South Australians. The average house of somewhere just over $400,000 will save around $150 a year. That is $150 that can otherwise be spent at the local cafe, at the local clothes shop or for any other use that South Australians feel is much more important than handing over that money to the South Australian government. That money can be used to stimulate and help create jobs within our communities all across the state.

The reason I say that this government is being dishonest and trying to use up the goodwill that exists amongst our community towards our emergency services is this: in 2014, we had the Sampson Flat bushfire and that raged for a couple of weeks in the foothills of Adelaide, much of it within my electorate. It was an extremely expensive fire to fight over very difficult terrain and a long time period.

Naturally, the government sought to recover the cost of the fire through an increase in the emergency services levy of $7½ million. In the 2015-16 year they said, 'We have had the Pinery fire, which cost $7.5 million; we are going to seek to recover that money by increasing the emergency services levy.' I think that is well and good. I think that South Australians would say, 'Yes, this is a worthy cause. This is exactly what we need to be spending our money on, and we are happy to pay our fair share.'

What happened this last year was that that $7.5 million, which was a one-off expense to our emergency services operations, has basically been banked as a yearly increase by this government. So, instead of giving back that $7.5 million, to create a lower baseline, and then simply seeking to get the $2.8 million to recover the cost of the Pinery fire—again, which burnt within my electorate—they basically banked that $7.5 million increase and then went and asked for more money to recover from the Pinery fire.

The truth is that those expenses are one-off expenses. They should be recovered as one-off expenses through the emergency services levy. When the next year rolls around, those figures should not be calculated in the baseline from the previous year's emergency services levy. I find it disgusting that this government would use the pain and suffering of people who lost homes, lost livestock, lost livelihoods within the Sampson Flat bushfire, and the subsequent goodwill of the community to help those people in need. One of the fantastic things about South Australians is how we came together after these fires. All this government did, in a cynical tax grab, was bank that $7.5 million increase, and it has become an annual increase, every single year, year on year, in the budget. It is absolutely disgusting.

That is why I am so proud to be part of a Liberal Party that is going to put $90 million back into the hands of taxpayers. I know they deserve that money, they will spend it so much more wisely than this state government ever will, and we can actually foster the goodwill within our community and not abuse it, not merely use the goodwill of South Australians as a naked tax grab. We can actually be honest, fair and transparent about what our emergency services levy gets used for.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:31): The contributions by members on this side are ones that every member on the other side should read and digest and understand. The impacts on South Australia of 15 years of hard Labor will have consequences. It is something that South Australians cannot continue to bear and I hope in 2018 they see that there is some light on the horizon, not just the $90 million we are going to put back into the ESL but a real economic future for this state.

Motion negatived.