Emergency Services Levy

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (14:46): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Emergency Services questions about the emergency services levy.

Leave granted.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: According to the State of the Climate report, which was prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO and released late last month—and according to minister Hunter, who always goes on about it—Australia can expect hotter days and an increase in extreme fire weather and longer fire seasons going forward. This information backs up the 2014 Climate Council report on the South Australian bushfire threat. That publication showed that South Australia's fire season was starting earlier and lasting longer and that fire danger weather was extending into spring and autumn and that the total economic cost of bushfires in South Australia during 2014 was expected to reach $44 million.

The report forecast a 2.2 per cent growth in these costs annually ongoing into 2050, with the total economic cost of bushfires in South Australia to reach $800 million by mid-century. The Labor Party, as we have heard recently in this chamber from minister Hunter, are certainly climate embracers, and we all know how quick they are to blame climate change every time the wind blows and the power goes out, so we are apt to believe the honourable member. However, relevant to the overall reports, my questions to the minister are:

1. Does the minister agree with his colleagues about climate change and as such accept these two reports?

2. If this government really believes in climate change and it agrees with these reports, then why does it refuse to re-establish a contingency fund in Treasury to underwrite the cost of natural disasters, rather than acting surprised and raising the ESL every time there is a declared state disaster?

The Hon. P. MALINAUSKAS (Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (14:48): I will answer those questions, hopefully, concisely. In answer to the first part of your question, do I stand with my colleagues in believing in climate change? Absolutely, I do. In fact, I passionately believe in it. I like the idea of policy being informed by science, and I think even for previous cynics and sceptics regarding climate change, of which I have to say I was not one, most people are now willing to accept that the verdict of science is in and climate change is real. It is being informed by human behaviour, and thus I think we have a fundamental obligation to try to do something about it.

So, I am very proud to be part of a government that acknowledges that and wants to introduce policies to do something about it. I commend minister Hunter, amongst others, for vigorously pursuing that policy and the Premier for being such an advocate of the pursuit of a policy to do something about it. In regard to the second part of your question, in the full acknowledgement that I, along with, I think, every Labor member of the parliament who sees this issue as being a real one, will keep an eye on and have our thoughts to future policy settings regarding a whole range of different issues that climate affects. They are numerous, and emergency services is all but one of them.

However, a particular part of the question pertains to the structure of the emergency services levy itself. Our objective, as a government, is to keep the emergency services levy as low as possible in order not to put too much of a burden on ordinary working families. At the same time, we have to balance that with making sure that we are providing our emergency services, both paid and volunteer, with all the equipment, training and support they need to be able to go out there and keep our communities safe, to be able to protect assets and agricultural industries, to do all the work they do without putting their own lives at risk.

That is a difficult balance to get right but it is one we are in pursuit of, and I think this year's state budget is probably a good example of getting that right. I don't think there was too much community angst regarding the 1.5 per cent increase that applied to the ESL. That 1.5 per cent is probably still a significant burden on a lot of low income families and I am very conscious of that, but the expenditure of those resources went to important needs, things like investing in burn-over technology for the CFS, amongst others. That is a balance we want to continue to get right.

Regarding the contingency component, the Hon. Mr Brokenshire would be all too familiar with the structure of the ESL and the way it is set up because, of course, his former Liberal government was the architect of it. I think the ESL model works relatively well when it comes to the provision of the services and equipment required for our emergency services volunteers and employees. It is a balance we aim to get right. It is always difficult when you increase what is essentially a levy or a tax on families, but these are important investments to make sure that we can pursue a safer community for our outstanding emergency services.