HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-06-23 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

ECONOMIC AND FINANCE COMMITTEE: EMERGENCY SERVICES LEVY 2010-11

Mr KENYON (Newland) (11:14): I move:

That the 72nd report of the committee, entitled Emergency Services Levy 2010-11, be noted.

The Economic and Finance Committee has examined the minister's determinations in respect of the emergency services levy for the financial year 2010-11. The committee met with witnesses from the Department of Treasury and Finance, SAFECOM, the Country Fire Service, the Metropolitan Fire Service and the State Emergency Service in late May to hear evidence on the proposed levy for 2010-11. This is an annual function of the committee.

The committee notes that the total expenditure on emergency services for 2010-11 is projected to be $218.1 million. The total expenditure for 2009-10 is estimated to reach $225.5 million, which reflects the funding boost for the state's volunteer-based emergency services and the Prepare. Act. Survive. initiative. There will be no increase in levy rates for owners of either fixed property or motor vehicles and vessels in 2010-11.

The committee notes that the 2010-11 target expenditure of $218.1 million on emergency services is made up of the following components: the ESL (inclusive of remissions) will fund $214.3 million; private owners of property, land, buildings and motor vehicles are expected to contribute $120.4 million; with a balance of $93.9 million being met by the government. Net expenditure of $800,000 carried over from prior periods will be funded by running down cash in the fund, and interest, earnings and revenue from the sale of certificates showing the ESL status of individual properties will fund an estimated $2.9 million.

This marks the first completed report for the current Economic and Finance Committee membership, and I am pleased to relate that it was marked by cooperation and diligence on the part of my colleagues. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members of the committee and departmental representatives who have worked together to assist the committee in fulfilling its statutory obligation in a timely manner. Given the above 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 GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:16): I rise on behalf of the opposition to support the member for Newland, the Presiding Member of the Economic and Finance Committee, in the presentation of the report to the house. This is one of the yearly obligations of the Economic and Finance Committee. Any member who has sat on that committee has no doubt enjoyed the opportunity of having some 15 to 20 public servants in the room with us. I must admit that it would seem to be a gross over-demonstration of need to be in attendance, but I respect enormously the fact that it is important that there is an ability to provide answers to any questions asked as part of the committee's discussions. That is why a reasonably large number of people are in attendance. My observation on, I think, three occasions has been that usually only five people (at most) answer questions.

A spirit of bipartisanship exists, because we all recognise the important role that is played with the funds that are derived from the emergency services levy. Much need exists in the community for a lot of support for our Metropolitan Fire Service, police, ambulance and emergency services people who have an enormous number of volunteers operating within those groups. The support they receive from this levy, which has been in place for some time now, is important. I know that, within my own community, whenever there is an initiative that results in, say, a new CFS station being funded from the proceeds of this levy, there is great rapture. The community always looks forward to that, because it is a sign of support for those people who volunteer many hours.

Some of the questions we asked related to the fact that the levy has been put in place now, whereas the state government is not presenting the budget until 16 September. Our questions were along the lines of: if this emergency services levy identifies the level of funding that the government will provide from resources to bring the fund up to the $217.2 million in revenue that has been talked about, will that have an impact?

While my memory is sometimes a bit challenged, I am fairly sure that the member for Davenport's question to the panel of people who were providing the answers was that if that actually occurred, the Community Emergency Services Fund would actually increase somehow. I am not sure how that actually relates to that. There was a series of questions that tried to provide some detail on that. Admittedly, some of those questions were hypothetical, because they related to whether or not the government's contribution was less, and there is no knowledge about whether that will be the case.

However, given that the budget, as we understand it, will be under considerable pressure with the Sustainable Budget Commission trying to identify $750 million in savings over the next three financial years, I certainly hope that this area of government support to the community is not affected by budget cuts but, potentially, it may be.

It might also be relevant to put on the record the break-up of some of the expenditures, and there is no criticism from any member of the opposition about where this money goes. The Country Fire Service will receive, as proposed for the 2010-11 financial year, some $59.1 million, a slight increase from last year of $1.2 million. The Metropolitan Fire Service will receive $96.7 million, which is a reduction of $1 million.

The State Emergency Service is receiving $12.6 million, an increase of $300,000; Surf Life Saving SA Incorporated is receiving $2.5 million, up by $100,000; and the Volunteer Marine Rescue organisations in SA—there are quite a few of those that operate throughout the state, and I have at least two that operate within the electorate of Goyder—are receiving $800,000, which is identical to last year's allocations.

South Australia Police is receiving $18.9 million, up by $500,000 from the previous year; the SA Ambulance Service $1.2 million, which is identical to the previous year; and the Department for Environment and Heritage $2.4 million—from memory that was for the fire control operations within national parks and environment and conservation areas. The State Rescue Helicopters are receiving $600,000, which is identical to last year; the shark patrol, which is certainly very important for metropolitan beaches, and a high profile and very visible sign of support to enable our community to enjoy our beaches, received $300,000 (the same as last year); and Other Expenditure, which was only $100,000, down from $2.6 million the previous year.

However, we did note (and the member for Kavel picked up on this point in his questioning) that the payment to the South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission has gone up to $15.9 million, whereas previously it was $12.9 million, a 23 per cent increase. We are advised that that is primarily about advertising, and the need to ensure that the community of South Australia is fire aware. With the terrible fires that have occurred over the past five or six years in South Australia and Victoria, the importance of educating our community is something we all support, as well as ensuring that every home has a fire management plan, that they are indeed ready, that they have a collective knowledge within their family unit about when is the time to evacuate or stay, and what is the trigger point for each of those decisions being reached. So the opposition does respect the need for additional funds to go towards that.

I would like to thank all those who presented before the committee. Collectively, they are a group of people who are faced with some enormous challenges. From both a volunteer and professional sense, the people who support the 1.6 million people of South Australia with an emergency services response do a wonderful job, there is no doubt about that. Equally, we pay tribute to the volunteers and the people who work underneath them. We look forward to the swift passage of this presentation and report.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:22): I think the first thing to point out is that the emergency services levy was a big step forward when it was introduced. It is not perfect, but I believe it is better than what some of the other states have and I think it is preferable to what we used to have. I would like to make a couple of points. I do not believe it should be used as a substitute for funding which would otherwise have come out of general revenue. There is always a temptation for governments of any persuasion to say, 'Well look, here's another money source. Let's milk that for a bit and ease the pressure on the general revenue.' The concern I have relates to the cost of administering some aspects of this. I think that has been an issue since I was on the Economic and Finance Committee—which was a while ago, when Adam was a boy I think—so it needs to be closely monitored.

The CFS through what we call the Hills/Valley—that is Blackwood, Belair, Happy Valley and, I guess, right through to Tea Tree Gully—the ones in the Mitcham Hills area have indicated that they do not believe they are getting a fair share of the emergency services levy. That is an issue I am taking up with the minister. I am not arguing for an MFS service to replace the CFS—although I would have no problem if the MFS wanted to create a station further east from where they are currently. I am certainly not suggesting that we get rid of the CFS, but we want those volunteers to be adequately equipped, to have adequate uniforms, proper training, and so on. The CFS units in that general area, which also goes into Davenport, tell me that they are not getting a fair share, or are not getting enough resources to do what they believe is necessary. In essence, they say that people in that area pay a lot, pay the same as people who get a full-time MFS service, but they get a volunteer service and do not get the requisite amount of funding to go with it.

As I emphasise again, people are not arguing—and I am certainly not—for the MFS to replace the CFS, because they have two different roles, although the MFS and the CFS can support each other. They are arguing that those units from Tea Tree Gully through to Mawson get a fair share of the emergency services levy, so that they can do their job.

We obviously appreciate what they do, but we are currently relying on the goodwill of volunteers. Even the local paper this week gave recognition to someone who has been in the Blackwood CFS (which was my old unit when I was a youngster) for 27 years, or something like that.

Some of these characters put in tremendous effort, but I think it is unfair and unreasonable to expect them and their employers to give up their time if we do not support them adequately with the necessary resources. I ask the minister to have a look at that in particular; and maybe the Economic and Finance Committee, next time it looks at this issue, can make sure that the CFS units and the SES, throughout the Mount Lofty Ranges area, get a fair share of the levy collected.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:27): I want to make a few brief comments in relation to the 72nd report of the Economic and Finance Committee, of which I am a member, concerning the emergency services levy. I would also like to make a few comments as the shadow minister for emergency services, the opposition spokesperson on emergency services. I do not think I need to necessarily outline the statistical information—I think the member for Goyder did that extremely well in giving an outline of the information—but there are a couple of points that I would like to make more broadly, if I may, concerning funding for the CFS in particular.

I know that prior to the election the government announced a funding package of $9.4 million, from memory, to assist with improvements in IT, pagers and some building maintenance within the structures of the CFS, particularly at brigade level. That was fine. There was some question over whether the direction of that funding was going to address the priorities that were paramount in the CFS, and in particular the IT component. Certainly, issues concerning pagers and the efficiency of the paging system and the paging units themselves had been raised with me; so, the government was quite correct in channelling funding to improve this area of the CFS's operation. We all know that building maintenance is also a critical area.

The state Liberals, as part of our emergency services policy, announced an additional $13 million on top of the $9.4 million, totalling $22.4 million. We pledged an additional $13 million, as I said, to the CFS and the SES, particularly to look at addressing the shortfall in training needs within those two services. We know that there is a chronic need for meeting training needs within both the CFS and the SES. I think it is a deficiency of the government that it is not addressing those specific areas.

In addition, I am receiving information from the brigades, groups and the like that there is an ever-increasing load of paperwork and of red tape demands being placed on brigades. The volunteers are consumed with meeting the government's red tape requirements and are not able to carry out their volunteering duties, for which they joined the service. They are consumed by paperwork. They actually joined the CFS and the SES to fight fires and to maintain some safety and security in the community as a result of storm and flood damage and the like. This is an area that the government really needs to focus on and again adopt the opposition's policy of increasing funding to those two services to meet those ever-increasing demands.

In relation to the report that has been moved by the member for Newland, as a member of the Economic and Finance Committee I am happy to support the motion.

Motion carried.

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