Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Matters of Interest MATTERS OF INTEREST Flood Levy FLOOD LEVY The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA Legislative Council The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (15:22): 'Unity in disaster and disunity in recovery' captures the nation's mood as the public and politics respond to the federal government levy initiative to rebuild after the disastrous summer floods in three eastern states. In a recent poll across the country and across political parties by Essential Research, roughly 40 per cent approved and over 50 per cent disapproved of a one-off levy, the voting in each category following party lines with the total vote across parties in Queensland itself evenly split on the issue. This poll was taken prior to the passage of Cyclone Yasi. The then tepid response to the proposition suggests that, apart from being the best of mates on Australia Day and together celebrating all things Australian, the admiration of all things green and gold does not necessarily extend to the hip pocket for those in extreme adversity. This comment, of course, requires qualification, but the contrast between this proposal and past levies is noticeable for the lack of strong public support and bipartisan support across the major federal political parties. This is not meant to deprecate the strong contribution by many generous Australians to the tune of about $17 million, but the planned introduction of a levy has now seen battle lines drawn up between voluntary contributions and a mandatory levy, no matter the qualifications of tax deductibility or protection for low income earners. The debate has become particularly political and venal, given the many perceptions of political debate. At the moment, public support has grown in favour of a levy to the tune of around 55 per cent. The passage of Cyclone Yasi has no doubt further coloured the debate, but it is clear that considerable help is required from the federal government to alone meet the flooding in Queensland and the damages in other states. It appears, at least in the minds of the Coalition members, that a levy is unnecessary, a product of poor fiscal management and a great big new tax and that the costs can be met from savings and contingency funding. It seems that not even a conservative economic analyst like Henry Ergas can find a clear path between the two. In fact, the development levy, together with cuts and deferrals, has been seen by others as a significant and positive approach. All of the carping illustrates the degree to which the calamity has become politicised and, to my mind, what we can rightly ask of insurance companies and banks, the big end of town, in regard to future financial reform to this end, apart from the question of whether or not we should have a permanent natural disaster fund. The annoyance felt by voluntary contributors is understandable but misplaced, considering the cost of the recovery and the real plight of the victims, and has been fed by the opposition raising the political stakes. This is not to suggest that there is no debate to be had. The responses from the federal opposition leader, however, are reactionary and becoming true to form, like the Murdoch press, which seeks to continually undermine public confidence in the government sector. Six months ago, Mr Abbott led the charge for a levy to pay for his paid parental leave scheme, his own great big new tax. His hypocrisy is bold and breathtaking, and the media, as always, shies away from pulling him up. Let us list the levies under the opposition when it was in power and Abbott was a player: 1996-97, the guns buyback levy; 1999-07, the stevedoring levy; 2000-01, the East Timor levy; 2000-07, the milk levy; 2001-03, the Ansett levy; 2003-06, the sugar levy. All in all, six applied levies with a budget mainly in surplus throughout and one proposed levy under the Liberal banner. Let us not forget the bailout by the then prime minister, John Howard, of his brother's business. In concluding, let us frame the debate in a climate of reason and compassion and not allow it to be hijacked by short-term interests and hypocrisy.