HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-10-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

ECONOMIC AND FINANCE COMMITTEE: EMERGENCY SERVICES LEVY

The Hon. P.L. WHITE (Taylor) (11:48): I move:

That the 69th report of the Economic and Finance Committee, entitled Emergency Services Levy 2009-10, be noted.

The Economic and Finance Committee has examined the minister's determinations in respect of the emergency services levy for the financial year 2009-10. The committee notes the total expenditure on emergency services for that year is projected to be $216.3 million, with total expenditure for 2008-09 expected to remain unchanged from the original estimates of $218 million, which is a decrease of $1.7 million on last year's projections. The reason for this is that the 2008-09 estimated outcome includes $2.5 million of funding for the Community Aided Dispatch (CAD) project which was carried over from 2007-08.

With respect to the Community Aided Dispatch project, the committee was told that tenderers have been appointed to the CAD project, and delivery of the final project is estimated between the second and third quarters of 2010. There will be no increase in levy rates either for owners of fixed property or owners of motor vehicles and vessels in 2009-10.

The committee notes that the 2009-10 target expenditure of $216.3 million on emergency services is made up of the following:

$115.5 million of contributions from private owners of property including land, buildings and motor vehicles;

$97.9 million of government contributions as remissions and levies on government property; and

$2.9 million on interest earnings and revenue from the sale of certificates.

The Economic and Finance Committee has maintained an interest in the collection costs of the emergency services levy and has been vigilant, year after year, in questioning the department on this matter.

The committee has been advised that the contracts for the proposed new integrated IT system being procured by the department to replace the two systems currently in place have been signed and the design stage of the system is proceeding. The committee has also been told that there is an expectation of reduced IT costs on an ongoing basis arising out of the one system.

Finally, the committee notes with approval the signing off by the Minister for Environment and Conservation earlier this year of the Native Vegetation Fire Management Code of Practice. The committee was also told that the Minister for Environment and Conservation has announced a further review of fire and native vegetation with a view to making it easier to carry out fire prevention works when native vegetation is involved.

As ever, the work of the committee on this matter has been exemplified by a spirit of cooperation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members of the committee and the departmental representatives who have worked together to assist the committee in fulfilling its statutory obligation in a timely manner.

I would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank, for his significant contribution, Mr Rick Crump, who has, in an acting capacity, filled a breach in the executive officer position of our committee. He has been with us for the last so many months, and has worked on a number of inquiries, and he leaves our committee shortly to return to his substantive position as Deputy Clerk.

This is not the first time Rick has acted in that role for the Economic and Finance Committee. Many years ago he was also the executive officer of that committee when I was on that committee in another parliament. He does a good, professional job, as always. On behalf of all members of the committee, I thank him sincerely for his contribution. I know that he will miss us, and we will certainly miss him.

Given the above discussion on this particular report and pursuant to section 6 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991, the Economic and Finance Committee recommends to parliament that it note this report.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (11:54): I would like to comment on this motion as a member of the Economic and Finance Committee, even though I was not on the committee for the bulk of its inquiry into this particular term of reference, because I think this report has value and adds something to the political debate in this state.

In fact, looking into issues to do with tax is a very appropriate thing for the Economic and Finance Committee to be doing. In fact, it is exactly what the Economic and Finance Committee and the public accounts committee of the parliament should be doing. It should be looking at ways to improve the government's financing arrangements, looking at both the income and expenditure of government, trying to make constructive suggestions on how things could be done better, and allowing stakeholders to come in and give evidence and comment on the state of the state's finances.

That is why I am disappointed that the Economic and Finance Committee has not been more active in inquiring into taxes and taxation arrangements in this state. I was on the committee from 1997 through to 2002 and again for a period during the last term, but upon my arrival back in the committee it seemed that not a lot had been happening in the Economic and Finance Committee. That is another reason why I am delighted to speak to this report.

I just want to make a couple of observations. I think the tempo of the committee, when it is not a hung committee, as it was from 1999 to 2002, is very much set by the government members of the committee. The government members of the committee have a clear choice: they can close down the committee and keep it out of the public limelight; they can have it address superfluous motions or motions that are outside of its normal ambit on whatever they like. The committee can explore, for example, energy issues, environmental issues, or dogs and cats. It can explore euthanasia. I suppose it can explore the legalisation of prostitution. It can explore anything it likes if the government members take it there, because they have the numbers when it is not a hung committee.

Of course, the result is clear, and that is why I am surprised that government members have not used this committee more effectively. The result of this is that the upper house picks up the cudgel. The result of this is that the upper house, which is hung, which is a minority house from the government's viewpoint, has established a Budget and Finance Committee. The upper house is now doing the job that the Economic and Finance Committee should be doing; so, the government is wearing it anyway. Not only is it wearing it, it is wearing it in a forum where it does not have the numbers to control, in any way, the agenda. As a result, the government has taken a number of punches.

It seems odd to me that the government might not choose to take on some of the roles presently being performed by the Budget and Finance Committee in a forum such as the Economic and Finance Committee, where it does have the numbers and could guide, to some extent, those discussions and inquiries.

I have a concern about this more broadly, and I think this is something that needs to be considered in a non-partisan way, because there is a real danger of governments (Labor or Liberal) closing down the House of Assembly committees to a point where they become ineffective and have no media profile, relevance or use at all. This house and its committees will be diminished to the point where the media and the people of South Australia will dismiss them as irrelevant.

That raises serious questions about whether or not the public expense of maintaining these committees is warranted in such circumstances, or whether the committees should be wrapped up and save the taxpayers the cost of having to pay the members of those committees, and whether the staff could be redistributed to the upper house where they could work more effectively with other committees in the upper house that are able to do their work. I think this is a very important thing for this house to consider.

I note that, like me, the member for Enfield has been to Westminster on a parliamentary workshop. He would have observed—as I did—that in Westminster, albeit a much bigger parliament, government backbenchers on the committees of the House of Commons use those committees to establish their credentials very effectively without fear or favour of the executive.

I know it is much more difficult in our parliament—a much smaller parliament with a majority of a bare 24. Now that we seem to have grown the executive to the ridiculous size of 15—where, arguably, a state of this size with a budget of this size would manage with an executive of perhaps 10, as it was in the Playford and Dunstan periods, but, certainly, as the opposition believes, 12—the executive can almost govern the governing party like a council. You could have a majority of 24 with 12 of them—so 12 and 12—and cabinet or the executive could have its way in the government party room.

In this government that is not the case. There is a decent majority and the non-executive, particularly in the House of Assembly party room for the government, outnumbers significantly the executive. That is why I am surprised that government members have not been a little more forceful.

Debate adjourned.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT