House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Question Time Algal Bloom Algal Bloom The Hon. V.A. TARZIA House of Assembly Hartley Leader of the Opposition Algal Bloom The Hon. V.A. TARZIA (Hartley—Leader of the Opposition) (14:08): I would say it's a supplementary, but I will leave it to your good judgement. The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: Thank you much; very kind of you, leader. The Hon. V.A. TARZIA House of Assembly Hartley Leader of the Opposition The Hon. V.A. TARZIA: Pleasure. Can the Premier inform the house if declaring the harmful algal bloom a natural disaster under state legislation will unlock additional access to additional federal funding and support? The Speaker House of Assembly The SPEAKER: It might not surprise you; that's not a supplementary. The Premier. The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS House of Assembly Croydon Premier The Hon. P.B. MALINAUSKAS (Croydon—Premier) (14:08): We have no advice to suggest that is the case at all. In fact, let me provide a bit more detail around the prospect of a disaster declaration on a commonwealth level, and this is a point that has been lost in some of the discourse around this. The first thing is I don't resile from the fact that there is a point of difference between us and the federal government on this issue. We have stated our position and we have maintained it. That's clear. With respect to natural disaster declarations, as distinct from national disaster declarations, they are arrangements that sit at the commonwealth level. I will make sure I get my acronyms right here: I think it is NEMA that's responsible at the federal level for making judgements around those declarations, and then there is a funding arrangement that sits, and there are categories A, B, C and D funding. In the event that a decision was made to apply that declaration, then it would automatically be categorised as category D, the reason being that those categories are associated to the scale of the impact on human life—that is to say, loss of life or injuries or loss of homes, for instance. Thankfully, as tragic as this event is—and it is tragic—no-one is losing their lives and no-one is losing a home in the same way you would see in a fire or a flood. As a result it would be category D, and category D brings with it potential funds, but also a whole range of requirements that sit around those funds, including the types of things that they can be expended on. What that would mean in practice, with respect to the algal bloom, is that it would act as a constraint on the types of supports that we are able to provide in the community, such as those we are delivering at the moment, whether that be industry or economic support, commercial fee relief or small business downturn grants. Some of these types of activities would not be eligible under category D funding as a result of a natural disaster declaration at a commonwealth level. I think it is lost on some people that, perversely, a declaration of that nature that would result in category D funding would actually result in a worse outcome in terms of getting support to those people who, in the government's view, need it most. It is also true to say that these types of events—namely, the algal bloom—and the fact they don't currently sit neatly in a declaration that might exist in the federal government, will invite consideration at some point necessarily by the commonwealth about whether or not the current arrangements are able to adapt to the challenge that climate change represents. That will need consideration. Now, to the federal government's credit, the Prime Minister has contemplated this and obviously established the categorisation of a significant ecological event, which this falls under the auspice of, which speaks to a need to reform or adapt with the growing changes. But for people who simply cite a natural disaster declaration as somehow unlocking funds that will result in a better community response, perversely, if those categories are strictly adhered to and the criteria is strictly adhered to, it would actually not result in a better outcome for the people that we are seeking to assist on the ground. What we want is unencumbered contributions from the federal government so we can deploy those resources and make a difference where it matters most.