HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-07-02 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Parliamentary Committees

Economic and Finance Committee: Emergency services levy 2014-15

Debate resumed.

Mr MARSHALL (Dunstan—Leader of the Opposition) (11:15): As I said, we are very disappointed, on this side of the house, that the government concealed their plans to remove the remission provided to households in South Australia for the emergency services levy. This concealment amounts, essentially, to nothing more than the imposition of a new land tax on the family home.

Let us be quite serious about this: removing that remission puts a land tax on every single household in South Australia, on the primary place of residence and, of course, most importantly—and the part that I would like to highlight today—on primary production properties here in South Australia which have enjoyed no land tax in the past. This is a sneaky new land tax which has been put in place and it will have widespread ramifications right across South Australia.

I only met this morning with a dairy farmer who has done the analysis on his property. This is the situation that exists right across regional South Australia, and it is a pity that the member for Frome, the Minister for Regional Development, does not seem to be here and listening to what I have to say, making eye contact as I speak at the moment.

I make this point: many people in regional South Australia are asset rich and for this they are going to pay a very heavy penalty with the changes that the government has made to the emergency services levy. This particular farmer said to me this morning that his property was valued at $3 million, so he will be paying $802.10 for the emergency services levy as of this year. That is a massive increase—it is an increase of 173 per cent in a single year.

He is lucky in a way, because he has multiple titles. If that property value were all on the single title there would be an increase of 541 per cent in a single year—a 541 per cent increase. I ask you, Mr Speaker, in what jurisdiction is that increase in an emergency services levy fair on people in South Australia? They did not ask for it, and the government did not come clean with it. They did not tell people what they were going to be voting for before the election but, importantly, they had considered this before the election. In fact, immediately after the Henry tax review came out it was reported in The Advertiser—and this is four treasurers ago, because they mix them up a bit here in South Australia—that the then treasurer, Kevin Foley, said:

A broad-based land tax bid on commercial or industrial will be levying taxes on people who have not previously paid them and we don't think that that's the right way to go.

He also said, as reported in The Australian on 4 May:

A broad-based land tax would be a punitive tax on families and households and won't be supported by this government.

Interestingly, after those comments were made by that treasurer we had a new treasurer in South Australia and we know for a fact that the member for Playford, the treasurer before the last treasurer, went to some length to have his treasury model up the likely impact of a new land tax on the family home. Importantly, he made it very clear that this would be something that he would do after a 'conversation' with the people of South Australia. In fact, he said that this would be something that he would take to an election.

Let me tell you, sir, there was no conversation with the people of South Australia. There was no clear indication of what the government was going to do before the election—no clear indication whatsoever. The first indication that was received by members of this parliament was when the Economic and Finance Committee brought down their report which basically said they were looking at removing that remission. I say this is something that should have been made abundantly clear to the people of South Australia before the election because it amounts to a very significant increase in cost and is going to be particularly and unequally felt in regional South Australia. They have not had a land tax on their primary production facilities or properties in the past, and that is exactly and precisely what they are going to have going forward.

As the member for Davenport said, one would not mind if this money was going to go to increased services in terms of provision of money for emergency services in South Australia, but let us look at the facts. There will be $384 million worth of additional revenue introduced to the South Australian budget as part of this measure. How much of this $384 million in new revenue will be spent on projects associated with emergency services in South Australia? I will tell you. There is a miserly $8 million worth of new emergency services programs identified in this budget. So out of $384 million worth of new revenue, only $8 million will be allocated to new projects in this emergency services levy. It is an absolute shame that this is the case. Make no mistake about it: this government is running the books extraordinarily poorly here in South Australia.

We learnt from the budget that was handed down just two weeks ago that there has been $311 million worth of unbudgeted expenditure last financial year—$311 million worth of unbudgeted expenditure last financial year, and guess who will make up the difference. It is the taxpayers of South Australia, the people who are struggling, households, small business and, in particular, our primary producers here in South Australia. Yes, they are asset rich, but as one person pointed out to me very recently they do not have two bob to rub together, and this is a real problem. They will be hit with this tax, a massive increase in their costs as a business, and they will be struggling.

The government immediately after the election said, 'Well, we need to listen. We need to listen to the small business sector, we need to listen to regional South Australia’. They need to be judged on their performance since they made that announcement. They said they would be focusing on small business and regional communities right across this state. How appalling is it then that the first opportunity to reset the cost basis in South Australia that they did not do one single solitary thing for those communities whatsoever? In fact, what we saw were new taxes, new fees, new charges and, quite frankly, a budget that was heading in the wrong direction for both those groups.

The government needs to go back to the drawing board and needs to understand that much of our growth, much of our wealth and much of our prosperity in the future will come from regional South Australia. It is great they have made a trip to the Riverland. It is great they got up there; people were very pleased to see them, but you cannot just make one visit and con the people in the regions that this is a government that cares. The increase in the emergency services levy will disproportionately hit the people in regional South Australia. The Minister for Regional Development should have something to say about it. I hope he makes a contribution to this debate this morning.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:22): I rise also to talk about the tabling of the emergency services levy report 2014-15. It is an absolute disgrace what is happening here. This is a land tax, an absolute land tax, on our primary producers and I am standing here as a proud primary producer, but having had my land leased out for about 10 years now for the interests of the parliament. This is just a backdoor tax on our primary producers who are already struggling. I asked in the house yesterday what a $1.5 million property near Murray Bridge would pay in land tax, the emergency services levy. It would be $420. That would be a farm that would be barely viable.

We just had the leader, the member for Dunstan, talking about a property worth about $4 million, and their tax has increased to over $800. It is just crazy stuff. As with farming, the saying is that people have to get big or get out. This is because of cost pressures on the industry and the efficiencies of having larger properties, so that means there will be many family operations (and some of these family operations have become family semi-corporate farming operations) will be paying thousands extra for this emergency services levy.

What will they get back for it? Next to nothing. Yes, some of this funding goes into paying for emergency services vehicles, but many of our farming friends are those same volunteers who man those vehicles and valiantly give their time to fight fires and pick up and look after the road accidents that happen on our highways and lesser known roads. There are some horror stories. One particular friend of mine has been with the Coonalpyn CFS for many years but is having a year off because he is sick of seeing the trauma and death resulting from high-speed accidents that happen on the Dukes Highway. He is just having a bit of time out for 12 months to get his head together—that is how this affects people.

The issue here is this is a backdoor tax. It will make farmers that little bit more unviable. We have a budget that has been stripped down to $59.8 million for PIRSA. We have a government that supposedly wants to ride on agriculture's back, yet every year they take more and more money out of the Primary Industries' budget, and now we see another tax on our great primary producers.

Especially in regard to where the emergency services levy goes, I have been quite disheartened over recent years to learn that a lot of our fire trucks are not even manufactured locally. They have been manufactured in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, and the latest lot were made in New Zealand by Fraser's. They bring the Isuzu trucks out from Japan. They do some import/export arrangement where I think they even unload the trucks here in Australia then put them straight back on and take them to New Zealand to put the fire truck bodies on—in New Zealand.

This is a government that does not even support our local industries with this emergency services levy, and it is shameful—it is absolutely shameful. I have a great manufacturing company, Moore Engineering, in my electorate in Murray Bridge, who manufacture fire trucks. They work for All Fire Services. They have some contracts with the CFS, but they pale into insignificance compared to what Fraser Engineering are building in New Zealand.

There are many, many hundreds of thousands of dollars—in fact, it would run into millions of dollars over time—that are not being spent in this state and that could be spent in my electorate on building quality fire trucks. What I have seen happen over time with some of these trucks that have come in from interstate and overseas is that, as soon as there is a problem, the trucks shake apart, they need—

Dr McFetridge: Plastic fantastics.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes, that's it. They need some maintenance. Well, hello? Where is the maintenance done? Moore Engineering. They come in to fix some of the problems that have occurred with these trucks. I have seen two brand-new trucks—one from Ceduna, that was detailed to Ceduna, and one that went to Meningie—that were basically falling apart on their first runs and had to come to Murray Bridge for a refit.

We are stabbing our primary producers, many of whom are our CFS volunteers out there in the field, with a huge impost with the massive rise in the emergency services levy, which will just be another thorn in the farmers' sides, making them wonder why they are doing it, especially when they look at the lower amount that PIRSA gets in the budget lines. We see budget cuts to research and development and budget cuts to biosecurity. It just goes on and on, and it smacks our primary producers in the face.

I find it so unacceptable that not only are they paying this backdoor tax—this land tax—but then this emergency services levy is being used to fund vehicles and trucks that are put together in New Zealand. This is a government that supposedly supports this state. I cannot see how that is supporting our state. All members on the government side should be ashamed of that, and the Minister for Regional Development, the Minister for Trade, and others, need to have a good, hard look at what is going on when ordering vehicles and equipment for this state's use. Why are we not supporting our local industries?

We hear all the carry-on and outrage about the support or non-support for Holden, depending on who you talk to in this place, but Holden's always were going to go. They made that decision in Detroit. They said, 'You could have thrown as much money as you like but we are out the door. We are going.' We have people who could be building equipment in this state yet they are overlooked by this government, who only look at what I believe is the bottom line but then they get an inferior product and it costs a lot more in the end to maintain.

Not only are we getting vehicles that I do not believe are up to scratch but also people are paying a lot more in the emergency services levy, which just makes it harder for their way of life in the bush. When people finally realise, when the accounts arrive in the mail, I can just imagine the amount of anger coming from throughout our rural electorates to us in this place when they voice their concerns. I think it is an absolute disgrace. It is a backdoor tax and a real impost on our great farmers and primary producers.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (11:31): I too rise to comment on the 85th report of the Economic and Finance Committee, entitled Emergency Services Levy 2014-15. I would like to make it very clear that I have recently been appointed to the Economic and Finance Committee. I have not attended a meeting yet because there has not been one since my appointment. I was disappointed to shift away from the Natural Resources Committee, but that is just how things go. I do look forward to my involvement with this committee. I was not a member of the committee when this report was tabled but I do take a very serious interest in this matter not only as a new member of this committee but also as, until very recently, shadow minister for emergency services.

My main purpose in my contribution today is to debunk the rubbish said by the Treasurer in question time yesterday and also by commentators in the media about the opposition's response to this levy increase—that somehow we should have known exactly what was coming and the phrase 'hidden in plain sight', which is completely inappropriate. To be really clear, so that everybody understands, let me read directly from a section of the report that came out in mid-June. I am reading from section 4, Legislative Overview:

…the levy proposal consists of a charge to owners of both fixed and mobile property. The charge is determined in accordance with a formula using prescribed rates as declared by the Governor.

Once these prescribed rates are established, remissions to the levy may be granted. When remissions are granted the government declares effective rates of the levy which are used in the calculations of levy bills.

The remissions are paid into the Community Emergency Services Fund established under the Act, directly from Treasury's consolidated revenue account. Remissions paid to the account represent the difference between the declared rate and the effective rate of the levy.

As per the minister's statement, details of the remissions provided by the Government on fixed-property ESL and mobile property liabilities for 2014-15 will be provided on 19 June 2014 as part of the 2014-15 budget.

It would not have mattered what question any member from the opposition or anyone else asked. The answer would have been, 'Not going to tell you a thing until the budget is released.' To say that questions went begging is absolutely ridiculous. We all know, because they are the answers we got to every other question about things that might be coming in the budget. Essentially, the report said there might be some changes in the budget. We had no choice but to wait until the budget was released to know what those changes were, and any suggestion to the opposite is clearly false and misleading.

Now what we got, of course, was a new tax. Let me be very clear about this: the increase in the emergency services levy is going to net the state government an additional $384 million in extra revenue. The state government in the budget gives the emergency services sector an extra $8 million. Let's be very clear about that. This is not about increasing the emergency services levy so that the emergency services sector can have all of this extra money. This is an extra tax and all of it except for $8 million will go to another sector. If you take the $8 million off the $384 million, you get $376 million—that is $376 million of extra tax being charged under the guise of the emergency services levy that is going to go to a completely different sector.

As it turns out, it is going to the health sector which had already, previously to the budget, announced that the government was going to cut $932 million out of the health sector. So the government made a decision to cut nearly $1 billion out of health—and, by the way, it is trying to blame all of that on the federal government which again is completely inappropriate—but is now going to take $376 million out of the emergency services levy and put it into health. This tax which is on households, properties, mobile properties is a tax which affects every component of our society which is linked to those properties. Every household pays it and every tenant in a rented property is going to pay it because eventually the landlord will pass it through in the rent at the next rent review opportunity.

Every small business is paying this extra tax. It is a tax on business which makes it even harder for businesses to employ people, which should be the key focus of any government and any opposition. One of its highest priorities must be to try to increase employment. Any business that works out of owned premises will pay this tax, any business that works out of rented premises will pay this tax. Guess what? They will pay it immediately because they will get it from their landlord under outgoings which is the normal way in a commercial tenancy.

Residential properties will have to wait a little bit until the next rent review and the landlord decides to pass it on. However, immediately, a business that works in a rented property, as soon as the landlord gets the extra charge on the ESL, the landlord as part of the outgoings will pass it straight on to their small business tenant. So it is a tax on business; that is what we actually have here.

Another dreadfully concerning thing here is the negative impact that this will have on the public perception of our emergency services workers because, as I said, of $384 million being taxed here only $8 million is going to the emergency services sector, but every household that gets the extra bill is quite likely to think that it is going to the emergency services but they are not going to get any extra service from the emergency services sector, whether they be professionals or volunteers. They are not going to get any additional service because of this levy. They are going to get a levy—an extra charge, an extra tax, extra money out of their household—but the emergency services sector will not be able to provide them with any better service than they already do, so it is harming the reputation of the hardworking volunteers and professionals in our emergency services sector as well.

Another extremely concerning issue here is the fact that the government is trying to bypass the very important parliamentary scrutiny of issues through parliamentary committees. I think every member here would have to accept that the work that parliamentary committees do in interrogating some of the decisions that the government makes is valuable and important and is usually done in a bipartisan way.

The government here is bypassing the Economic and Finance Committee's opportunity to interrogate this decision by just including in the report before the budget that it is likely to make changes in this area but, for the first time ever, not actually say what the changes will be so that the committee's Liberal and Labor members do not have the opportunity to scrutinise that decision. It would be akin to the Public Works Committee getting a report for a significant piece of public infrastructure but we are not going to tell you what it costs. We want you to interrogate every single thing about this project but we are not going to tell you what it costs and, by the way, we want you to tell us whether you approve it or not and, by the way, the committee is dominated by government members. We will tell you everything about it, except the price tag.

It would be akin to the Natural Resources Committee having natural resources management board levy increases hidden from it. The boards would come to the committee, and they would say, 'Here's all of the work we want to do, these are the challenges we have, these are the goals we have set ourselves, and this is what we would like to do on behalf of the committee. We are seriously considering increasing our levies—we may or may not—and it will come out in the budget, but we're not going to tell you what it is. Can you tell us, please, Natural Resources Committee, will you approve this report?' Well, of course that would be ludicrous. It would be ludicrous for the Natural Resources Committee to be asked to accept a report from the boards that work around the state and to say that their work and their levy increases were okay without their being told what the increases would be.

It would be ludicrous for the Public Works Committee to be asked to approve a government-planned piece of public infrastructure and to tell the parliament that they support the development of this infrastructure, with a significant price tag, but not know what it costs, and that is exactly what we have here. The Economic and Finance Committee was asked to approve this report and, with a majority of government members on it approved it, but the committee itself had no idea what the change in the remission rate would be, yet it had to support it anyway.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:41): This report by the Economic and Finance Committee is an interesting report that is done every year under legislation. I have read this report. I think that I have a reasonable level of intelligence. Having three science degrees and having done veterinary science, you do tend to learn to comprehend quite complex situations. Having read this report and then for the Treasurer to say that the removal of the remissions rebate was there hidden in plain sight is just ridiculous.

As the member for Stuart, who should be a minister in a Liberal government, said, there is no way that, had we asked questions about this report, we would have had any more information than we had for other answers: it would have been, 'You will have to wait for budget day.' I have told people in this place many times that they should read these reports, because a lot of us sort of gloss over them or might read a bit about them and some of the recommendations from them. I tell people in this place that they should read the whole report and see whether they can be enlightened as to where this is hidden in plain sight because it is not. Unless you are familiar with reports in the past, you may have no indication that there is a change in the remission rates and, as I have said, if we had asked questions, it would not have happened anyway.

I have to give the government one thing, though: they were fast off the gun. As soon as the gun went on the budget, they were out of the blocks. If you go to the RevenueSA website, there it is: taxes, duties, emergency services levy, remissions and concessions, and the first question is: Why is my ESL liability significantly higher compared to last year's liability?' The answer states:

As part of the State Government's Budget handed down on 19 June 2014, it was announced that the Government's contribution to the Community Emergency Services Fund would cease for certain levy payers.

It goes on to state:

In prior years, the State Government contributed approximately 50% of the funding required…

We have heard several times in this place that this extra money raised by the ESL is going into health. My understanding is that you cannot do that; it cannot happen. The money that is raised in the ESL has to be dedicated—hypothecated I think is the correct term—for use in emergency services. The emergency services levy never ever raised as much as was spent on emergency services, and I will talk about spending on fire services in this state in a moment. You cannot take this extra money out of ESL.

What the government is doing, I suppose, is that the money they used for remissions they are now not providing those remissions, so that money is going to then be available to be put across into the health budget or whatever budget or area they have which is out of control and needs propping up. Taxpayers in South Australia are going to be hit with this tax, whether you call it a land tax or a toll on transport because that is what it is: it is not driving on a new road, but you have to pay it before you drive your car and you have to pay it on any property you own. This is going to be a serious impost on people who are struggling in this state, where the highest tax regimes exist in the history of the state.

Everybody should go to the RevenueSA website and inform themselves about the way the emergency services levy is calculated, subject to revision and examination of who actually gets these remissions because, let me tell you, some of the people who are not getting these remissions are a huge proportion of South Australians who hold a state Seniors Card. On page 7 of 16 of the Frequently Asked Questions on the RevenueSA website, the question is asked:

I am a State Senior Card Holder, why have I lost the General Remission?

It says there:

Essentially, holding a State Senior Card does not qualify a levy payer to the General Remission. Rather, a levy payer must hold a Commonwealth Senior Health Card—

If you have a state Seniors Card, bad luck: you are going to pay the money on the whole lot. And if you have been wise and you have invested in this state and invested in properties as part of your superannuation or part of good management in looking after yourselves and building for your retirement, the general remission has been restricted to a levy payer's principal place of residence only, so there will be a hit for all those people with investment properties and, certainly, businesses out there will be paying a lot more than they are now.

So, for Business SA to say that there has been no impact on business from this budget is clearly wrong. We have seen the massive increases in screening fees for employees through the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion and now we are seeing Treasury with its hand in the pocket of the thousands and thousands of small businesses and medium-size businesses in South Australia to get more money out of them through this land tax—this emergency services levy.

The way the emergency services levy is calculated exemplifies this even more. There is a reasonably complex way of calculating this but, to give RevenueSA their due, they actually have an online calculator and you can go and punch in the numbers. If you can work out which regional area you are in, which is not too hard, you can actually work out what your levy is going to be. I know that on some of my properties it was doubling—or more than doubling, in some cases—and that is something that everybody is going to have to face but, in particular, businesses. There is a land-use factor that you calculate. I will just read it for everybody:

The Emergency Services Levy on your property is determined by the following formula:

Effective Fixed Charge + (Capital Value x Effective Area Factor x Effective Land Use Factor x Effective Levy Rate) - Concessions.

There are four regional areas which are numbered 1, 2, 3 and 4 as you would expect. Some of them are the rural and regional areas, including Mount Gambier, Murray Bridge, Port Lincoln, Port Pirie, Renmark, Victor Harbor, which are in regional area 1. Others are parts of the state outside regional areas 1 and 4 and but still within a council area. Region 3 is those parts of the state not within a council area and region 4 is land within all metropolitan areas.

The area factor that you factor in for regional area 4—in other words, metropolitan people—is 1, so there are no concessions there. In regional area 2, which is the Adelaide Hills and those areas, there is some reduction there of 0.5. But then when you come to the land-use factor—and this is the bit that Business SA wants to have a look at—for residential, there is a multiplier factor of 0.4, so it brings the final levy back down again; for commercial, it is 1.044, so it is a multiplier to increase the levy; for industrial, it is 1.815, so you are not quite doubling the multiplier effect there on industrial land.

For commercial and industrial land in South Australia, you are paying an additional multiplier effect on calculating the levy. Rural and vacant land is 0.3, so there is some hope that the farmers will not be paying the massive amounts that the commercial and industrial properties are, but when you multiply that all out and add it all up and you work out what the South Australian taxpayers are going to be paying, it is a massive increase.

As for spending on emergency services, let's just refer to the Report on Government Services 2014. Table 9.1 on page 9.4 lists real revenue of fire service organisations in 2012 dollars, and every state, including the ACT and Northern Territory—so, every state and territory—has increased their fire service funding other than South Australia. Every one of them. So, where is the money going from the emergency services levy?

It is not going into front-line fire service organisations. In 2008-09, South Australian fire services revenue was, in 2012 terms, $193.4 million. What is it in 2012-13—$178.5 million. Of all the states and territories, we are the only jurisdiction where fire service funding has been reduced. What do we see in this budget? Virtually no improvement at all, and virtually no increases at all. The efficiencies are being demanded. We are seeing nothing keeping up with CPI. We are seeing the volunteers again having to struggle.

I was talking to some volunteers the other day about training for advanced first aid. They still have to run chook raffles to run those advanced first-aid courses. That is a disgrace in 2014, where we have this massive ESL increase, the money is coming in, and you still have CFS volunteers having to run chook raffles to do advanced training courses so that they can go and do their job and save lives. What have they saved South Australia? What have they saved this government by providing those volunteer services? Millions and millions, and what do we get?

Certainly, they are not being valued by this government, and this emergency services levy shows that this government is so out of touch with the real position out there. They should go out—they went up to the Riverland but they told people up there, 'Give us your ideas.' I think they offered a $50,000 reward or bonus if you gave them some good ideas, so I have been told. They are bereft of ideas, they are bereft of any good policies and what do we see? They are gouging volunteers, they are gouging emergency services, they are gouging the whole of the taxpayer base in South Australia to prop up a dud budget and this is just another example of it.

Time expired.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:51): I will make a few remarks on this report. I actually feel sorry for the member for Lee that he had to bring such a report into the parliament given the—

Dr McFetridge: Little Para.

Mr PENGILLY: Little Para, I beg your pardon, sorry—given the treachery he had perpetrated on him and on the people of South Australia by the Treasurer's budget. Regarding the emergency services levy—and I go back a fair way actually, I was on the CFS board when it was introduced; it took over from various other funding mechanisms such as fire levies and whatnot which were put to bed—it was seen as a progressive way forward.

Since that time in 2005 or 2006, I think from memory, it has proven to be successful in funding much of the emergency services requirements, but I would point out that it is not funding all of those requirements by a long stretch of the imagination. Something that comes to mind immediately in my electorate is the fire station at Delamere, which has been on the backburner for some time and has been duckshoved and pushed around. Meanwhile, the good people who man the volunteer Country Fire Service at Delamere/Rapid Bay are still surviving in a shed that is seriously out of date, and that seriously does not cater for the needs of that area, which seems to have an increasing number of fires.

Likewise, over on the island there has been a plan for some years to put in a substantial station adjacent to the Western Districts oval. I think that is finally coming into fruition. I know that I have had approaches from CFS volunteer personnel on the island about the hiccup. I have written to the minister about it, and I have had responses from him to which I have written back because one of the most stupid things that the bureaucrats wrote was that it was waiting on a native title decision. There is no native title on Kangaroo Island, which I pointed out to the minister. He would not know that. I would not expect him to know that. I think this was through the auspices of the Kangaroo Island Futures Authority, which has been around for two or three years and should know these things but clearly does not.

Hopefully that will have a happy ending but, more to the point, I listened with interest to the leader this morning and his remarks on this report. He talked about the impact of this emergency services levy increase, this disgrace that has been inflicted on the people of South Australia, this return to a land tax on the family home abolished by the Tonkin government (1979-82), which I spoke about yesterday, and the complete fabrication of putting this levy up to the extent where it will not go into emergency services, which the emergency services act was designed to do.

This will be raised again in the Economic and Finance Committee, I am sure, by Liberal members in that committee, but it is outrageous. It is now a tax on families and a tax on primary producers. The leader this morning talked about the impact on a dairy farmer, who happens to be from my electorate, and other farmers from that community in the electorate of Finniss have raised this issue with me. They are outraged by it and so they should be, as should every home owner in South Australia, at how this government has got itself into such an appalling mess through its own ineptitude and by spending money it did not have. The rivers of gold from the GST revenue has been spoken about in the last couple of days. The government has just spent and spent and the bank has run out of money.

I find it has the authority to raise the emergency services levy through being the government of the day but, in my view, it has dismally failed the people of South Australia morally in inflicting a land tax back on the family home and on property owners which is to the great detriment of many South Australians. It is no wonder that young people are leaving the state in droves. Why would they want to hang around? With those few words, I express my extreme annoyance at the action of the government over what it has done in the budget with the emergency services levy and put it on the record.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Gardner.

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