HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Third Parliament, First Session (53-1)
2014-09-18 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Grievance Debate

Emergency Services Levy

Mr WILLIAMS (MacKillop) (15:10): I wish to spend a couple of minutes today talking about the emergency services levy and a very bad government. You can always pick a bad government because they make bad decisions, and we have a government before us that has made a number of bad decisions. The most recent one was the decision about the emergency services levy and I want to bring to the attention of the house some of the reasons why I believe it is a bad decision.

I had a phone call from a constituent this week who gave me the details of his emergency services levy obligation last year and this year, and by his calculations he is looking at an increase of 840 per cent—840 per cent. This is a farming property of relatively low risk and there is a local CFS brigade, but, by and large, like most farmers, this constituent of mine provides for his own fire cover. He ploughs firebreaks, he maintains and operates his own firefighting equipment, and he has water points dotted around his property. He has already spent a large amount of money as most—invariably all—farmers do to provide their own fire cover and the cost of maintaining a CFS emergency network is relatively small per property. But his obligation is going from $153.70 per year to $1,235.95.

I decided I would go back and look at a little bit of the history of the emergency services levy and one of the things I looked at was the original second reading debate. The then minister, the former member for Elder, had this to say to the house on 21 July 1998:

Apparently this bill comes before the house based on the government's view that the current system of funding for the emergency services is inequitable. The opposition agrees with the government on that matter.

He said that was one of the few things where the opposition might agree with the government. He went on to say:

The simple truth is that this bill represents a major redistribution of the responsibility for emergency services funding away from the government and towards the taxpaying public of South Australia.

What the Labor Party said when the emergency services levy and the legislation was first introduced is the exact opposite to the decision they took quite recently to shift any obligation from the Consolidated Account for emergency services in South Australia and back to the general population.

The reason I would argue that this is a dumb or stupid decision—a decision of a poor government—is I believe that one of the things the emergency services levy has always sought to do is to make sure that the cost of providing emergency services was reflected reasonably closely in the amount that each individual was obliged to pay towards the service. I think on analysis we will find that nexus has been completely broken.

One of the other things that the then shadow minister said was, 'We want to make sure that the parliament has some ability to see how much is being raised, whether it is being raised for the right purpose and whether it is being spent properly.' Isn't it interesting that the Economic and Finance Committee, which does that very work on behalf of the parliament, was only provided with half of the story this year, and the very day that the committee tabled its report in this parliament was the same day that we all learn that the remissions were being withdrawn to the tune of 100 per cent. How on earth could the parliament be reasonably informed, as the Labor Party in opposition decided it should be?

The bit that really interests me from the debate back in 1998 is the contribution by the former member for the then seat of Ross Smith, one Ralph Clarke. I think at one stage he was deputy leader of the opposition. I am not sure whether that was the case at that particular time—from memory I think he was—but he said of the emergency services levy:

When we get into government we will use it in a progressive manner and to the best effect by taking from those with the greatest means for the benefit of those with the greatest need.

He said that the government would use this to tax the people who are not their own natural constituency, and that is exactly what this government is doing.

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