PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES (BUSHFIRES COMMITTEE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 5 March 2009. Page1865.)

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Lee—Minister for Police, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (10:51): The member for Davenport has introduced a bill seeking to establish a standing committee of the parliament to deal with bushfires. This government has, in the past seven years, demonstrated an ability to respond in a proactive and strategic way to the bushfire risk.

The 2003 Premier's Bushfire Summit called on South Australians to provide ideas and raise any concerns about bushfire preparedness across the state. This included the establishment of the Native Vegetation Council Fire Subcommittee, which has resulted in the streamlining of permit requests for native vegetation clearing for fire risk management. CFS representatives are on this committee, including the deputy chief officer. In relation to development and land use matters, the initiatives recognise the need to review the bushfire policy framework and development plans, update development controls in designated bushfire-prone areas, and consider extending the number of bushfire-prone areas.

Subsequently, a development assessment framework has been established, comprising of planning policies, building rules, and powers of direction to the CFS in high-risk areas for determining the appropriateness of development in these zones. Other significant initiatives to come out of the summit include the extension of the Community Fire Safe Program, the introduction of a rural addressing system across South Australia, and the development of strategic bushfire management plans by regional and district bushfire prevention committees.

I am pleased to say that, of the other reviews I have mentioned, all of their recommendations are complete or close to the final stages of completion. Since the devastating fires in Victoria, the state government has announced a review of current arrangements for managing the interaction of native vegetation and bushfire, with a particular emphasis on developments near urban areas and townships, a review of bushfire protection areas to determine whether the risk ratings need upgrading, and fast tracking the implementation of an all risk telephone-based warning system.

In addition, most recently, I informed the house of the formation of a specialist task force, consisting of experts in various fields, who will be working side by side to bring South Australia to a new level of bushfire preparedness. They will analyse key issues arising from the Victorian bushfires and look into immediate, medium and long term solutions needed to improve bushfire management practices and strategies in South Australia. The task force is headed by CFS Chief Officer, Mr Euan Ferguson.

I have been advised that no other state has a bushfire standing committee. That is not to say that there is not a role for parliament in bushfire mitigation and management. A number of parliaments around Australia, including this parliament, have in the past formed select committees to deal with contemporary issues, and I suspect that we will continue to do so in the future. Further, the Natural Resources Committee, an existing standing committee, already has the powers to inquire into bushfire mitigation, as evidenced in its recent examination of the management of native vegetation in South Australia.

I am sure this bill has been brought forward with good intent, and, although well-intentioned, if supported, there is a potential that agency heads, in particular the heads of CFS, MFS and DEH, will have another taskmaster. This could become a significant workload for them and their agencies and, in turn, place pressure on their precious resources. For those reasons, although I think this bill has been brought forward with good intent—and I have spoken to the member for Davenport about it—the government does not support the bill.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (10:56): I rise in support of this bill, which the member for Davenport has put before the house, for a number of reasons. The most important reason is the fact that, from my experience with the aftermath of the Victorian bushfires, having talked to people over there and trying to contact people over there, it has been an absolute dog's breakfast.

People are trying very hard, but I think there is a real need to overhaul the whole of the management of bushfires, bushfire prevention and the aftermath of bushfires. The need for a parliamentary committee is genuine. The agencies may say that they have things in train and in place. I have a lot of faith in them, and I personally know a lot of them; but, at the same time there is a real need to have not a fallback position but a body that we can refer to when problems arise from bushfires and, hopefully, to prevent bushfires in the first place.

Let me just tell you about what is going on in Victoria. When the fires occurred, there was a lot of devastation through loss of property and life. An urgent call was put out by various groups for livestock fodder. The response was not forthcoming as a general response, and that, in some ways, is understandable because it was a catastrophic event. However, we should learn from that. What happened was that some groups in Victoria (the Victorian and South Australian farriers associations) started coordinating, and they had hay going to Victoria within days. Unfortunately, the South Australian Farmers Federation and the Victorian Farmers Federation were not as quick to act. I am not apportioning blame at all, but systems need to be put in place. This is what this committee will look at; this is what this committee has been doing.

As recently as last week, I was still receiving requests from the Alpine Shire in Victoria. The senior ranger phoned me to tell me that they were getting snow that weekend and that they had cattle with no feed, and he asked me if we could send some across. Yet the messages we were getting (rightly or wrongly) from the Victorian Farmers Federation was that no hay was required. I have had two other requests from individuals over there to supply fodder for cattle and horses and other hobby farmers.

I contacted the Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction Recovery Authority. The poor girl on the other end of the phone had no idea at all. I asked if I could speak to Christine Nixon's office. She could not give me a phone number; she could not give me anything other than an obscure email address to the Department of Premier and Cabinet in Victoria. It is just not good enough. When you have people who have gone through a lot of stress and trauma, they should be given help if help is available. In particular, the volunteers at this end should be able to give their time, resources and materials if they want to and not be encumbered by what appears to be a dysfunctional process.

Hopefully, the Royal Commission in Victoria will sort out a lot of this, but it will happen here in South Australia one day. It is not if this will happen, it is when. So, we really do need to have a committee that will look at the consequences and outcomes of bushfires in South Australia—the Ash Wednesday fires in the 1980s, the Eyre Peninsula fires and now the Victorian fires.

We need to have in place a system so that, when a bushfire happens in South Australia, we will be in the best position, with protocols and systems, to make sure that everything that is needed for reconstruction and recovery—and, hopefully, prevention—is in place. My experience with the Victorian situation is that that is not happening, and I feel so sorry for those people in Victoria at both ends, because being responsible for quelling this fire and then organising a recovery and reconstruction is a mammoth task. So, it needs to be made smooth and protocols need to be put in place. There needs to be systems there that will reduce the trauma and outcomes for all of the—

The SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member for Morphett. The gentleman in the gallery is not allowed to take photographs. The member for Morphett.

Dr McFETRIDGE: There needs to be systems in place that will make sure that the trauma that is suffered as a result of the bushfires will be reduced and, hopefully, prevented, but also, when it does happen, that it will be minimised. To have a standing committee will not be too much of an onerous task on members of this place. I think that people would volunteer, quite gladly, to be part of this committee. I do not think that heads of departments in emergency services should feel in any way affronted. I do not think that any committee in South Australia should feel affronted in any way about this.

The whole intent is one of goodwill, to make sure that the outcomes will be the best for all South Australians and, hopefully, it will be about preventing bushfires in the first place, because I do live in fear. I have a property at Meadows. I live in fear down there when the bushfire season comes. I am looking forward to a good winter this year to grow some hay, but I am not looking forward to each summer because we know that the risk is there. Let us do what we can to prevent it; let us do what we can to reduce the stresses on South Australians. A committee will not weigh too heavily on the burdens of members in this place.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:01): I also rise to support the member for Davenport's bill. I believe that it is incumbent on this parliament to establish a committee to look into this issue. Members are listening to someone who had 100,000 hectares as part of their electorate burnt out just over 12 months ago. Members are listening to someone who has seen the full effects of bushfire and the loss of life, that is, the loss of Joel Riley on 6 December 2007; so, I am not speaking off the top of my head on this. I also point out that I spent five or six years as the presiding member of the former CFS board, and we grappled with this sort of thing all the time.

Indeed, I make the point that it is an ideal situation for the honourable member's bill to pass through this house and for the committee to look into this matter. What we are seeing, particularly at CFS level, is a steady decline in the number of volunteers. I am still a volunteer. In fact, on Sunday I took the truck for a drive and did the radio test, and I will continue to do that.

I am concerned about where we are going with the handling of firefighting in South Australia. I have absolutely 150 per cent confidence in Mr Euan Ferguson. I would never doubt his capacity in any way whatsoever. He is an extremely good operator and we are very fortunate to have him. However, what I do see is an increasing amount of frustration, a situation of being fed up and a lot of other stuff with the volunteers, whether that be in the CFS, the SES or other organisations. They are bound up in bureaucracy; and, then, the bushfire prevention situation is becoming hideously over-bureaucratised.

What we are seeing in South Australia is the precedent for people being absolutely scared stiff of lighting a fire, so we are losing the experience in lighting fires and losing the experience of burning. I am sure that the member for Stuart, sitting back there, fully understands what I am talking about.

There are a few of us around the traps who are familiar with burning large patches of scrub. We are familiar with burning stubble (not that we do a lot of that these days), pasture or whatever. We are familiar with dealing with fires. However, just a fortnight ago, I needed to do a small burn of some material on my own property that I could not work back into the ground, unfortunately, for one reason or another. I was required to fill in a three-page permit to do this burning. Well, I have only been messing around since I was about 10 years old (about the last 50 years), running around helping to burn, burning scrub, burning pasture and burning whatever. So, I do know a bit about it.

But, no, the bureaucracy has got that crazy now that we are required to put in a three-page permit to burn—where the winds are going to be, what will happen, how many people I will have, and this, that and everything else. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, that I have no intention of going out and burning and endangering anyone where ever possible, as other members in this place would know, particularly on this side of the house—because there is little, if any, experience on the other side. I recognise that and that is not their fault. When you are going out to do a burn you put everything into place to make sure that that burn does not get away.

If you get a whirly-whirly, a wind gust or whatever sometimes it defeats you. As the member for Morphett said, we have every sympathy for what has happened in Victoria. As the member for Davenport knows only too well, this will happen in the Adelaide Hills. I do not know when it will happen. It might happen next year. It is not going to happen this summer now. It is autumn, it is gone. However, next spring or next summer it could happen. It could happen in 10 years, but, when it happens, members in this place will need to have a pretty good look at themselves if they try to stop this committee looking into this situation.

We should be supporting this bill, and the government should come in behind because, I tell you what, if it happens next summer and we get another Ash Wednesday Mark III in the Adelaide Hills and we lose property, life and animals—stock losses, the whole lot—I will be looking straight back over that side of the house and saying, 'Well, we did tell you so. You wouldn't support it. You wouldn't support the member for Davenport.' It will rest on your heads, trust me. You can have all the bomber aircraft in the world and all the people in the world, but you have got to have commonsense, and there is no commonsense in this place by the Rann Labor government as far as rejecting this bill is concerned. It is an absolute nonsense. The government should rethink the situation. It would be acting in the best interests of South Australians if it did so and take on board what the member for Davenport wants to achieve.

I am hopeful that the member for Stuart and the member for Hammond will have a few words to say. As I said earlier, there are people amongst us who are familiar with these situations. We are getting into this over-bureaucratic, over-ruled, nonsensical world. You have to stop everything and employ more bureaucrats: you have to put laws in place and do this, that and everything else. Development is being stalled by over-bureaucracy and ridiculous planning laws and councils that have a problem dealing with them. Let us fix this one up. Let the government rethink and support the member for Davenport, and let us get on with doing something sensible that will produce a commonsense outcome for the people of South Australia.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (11:07): I also rise to support the member for Davenport's motion to elect a standing committee from this place after the next election. I think it is very wise that he has portrayed it in that light.

We have to be very aware of the threat of fire. My own house has been at risk. However, it is on a farm, and we surrounded it not only with CFS units but also farm units and we managed to save it. It was 10.30 in the morning on a 45º day, and a fire was accidentally lit in a 14 bag per acre (or almost three tonne per hectare) wheat crop. If members have never seen a fire burn through a wheat crop, it is something to see, especially with a bit of wind behind it. We tried to catch it before it reached any native vegetation on our property but we could not get to the front in time.

Fire management is absolutely essential in this state. We have seen what has happened interstate recently. There was obviously a major problem with respect to notifying people, but there is a major problem with educating people in a broader sense about the risks and threats, especially in relation to where they live. If you live on the side of a hill, fires race uphill. I certainly acknowledge where the member for Davenport has come from in putting forward this motion. I have relatives who live at Blackwood and, if we experience anything like the fires in Victoria, God help them all.

Where I live on the Dukes Highway, anyone who travels through there (I know the Hon. Bernard Finnigan from the other place does) would know that you can go along a small section (about 25 kilometres) of road between Coomandook and Coonalpyn. A lightning strike lit up the scrub next to my property three years ago, and other fires have started from wheel bearing failure on trucks or trailers on the Dukes Highway. I am a member of the Coomandook CFS and, to their credit, my CFS colleagues get out there every time this happens and deal with it.

We must also acknowledge the contribution of farmers and their own units, and I hope that how farmers can fight fires does not get tied down in bureaucracy. I know there is talk about compensation for this and that. I have seen farmers' units get to a fire, because they are right there, and put out the main blast even before the CFS can get there. So, there has to be proper synchronicity between the CFS and farm units. After I had the fire on my own property 10 years ago I upgraded from an 800 litre firefighting unit to 4,600 litres and, I tell you what: you can put out some fire with that.

Mr Pengilly: Especially if the pump starts.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes; as the member for Finniss said, especially if the pump starts. I must admit, I have a very good little Honda pump on that unit. I remember that fire. I was a candidate and I was in my campaign office in Murray Bridge (so, it was in February three years ago), and it was all happening. I got Hayden, the man who leases my place, on the phone and he hooked up an articulated tractor and we had quite a unit, not only for access but also for hitting the front of the fire. The roadside trees on the Dukes Highway were blowing flames 25 metres into the air, and it was something to fight. The aircraft were flying straight down the highway putting it out, and semi-trailers turned around and got out of there because they could not see for the smoke and ash.

I certainly think that we should establish a standing committee on bushfires. As I indicated earlier, we have seen the carnage that happened in Victoria and we should never underestimate the threat of fire. It was not until we had the major event on Kangaroo Island that the government believed it needed to have an Elvis style air-crane in the state. It looked at bringing one in from Melbourne when we need it, but that is just too far away.

I read in the press recently that a 747 quick-loading fire tanker will be trialled. I know Bob McCabe and his team at Aerotech and other crop-duster pilots who are contracted. I know that Bob is contracted to the CFS, and there are other pilots around the state who have the ability to get off the ground quickly and get up there and fight fires.

However, in saying that, I also acknowledge the issues we had with the Port Lincoln fire, where a crop-dusting pilot who wanted to get off the ground became tied up in the bureaucracy, and he could have done a lot of work. I think we have to make sure that these people can act, and worry about the bureaucracy later. That is the biggest problem with fighting fire: the bureaucracy gets in the way and people become fearful of the consequences.

In the same period when my place burnt there was a fire at Ngarkat, which burnt for about eight or nine days. If only we had personnel—and I acknowledge that we had tired personnel on the Lameroo side of that fire. New South Wales units were brought in, but those people were used to fighting fire on hard ground and were getting bogged on the sandy tracks and paddocks and on the edge of the park. Essentially, we were better off without them, because we had to go in and rescue their vehicles.

The issue was whether we could have back-burned that morning, but people were wondering where they fitted in with the Native Vegetation Act and that sort of thing. They did not realise that, if they really needed to, they could have overridden that act as long as they went through the chain of command. It needed to come from the fire ground, because 90 kilometre winds were forecast, and that fire ripped out of the Ngarkat Conservation Park. The reserve line was the Lameroo road; the Mallee Highway. I have seen a few fires and I have seen 90 kilometre an hour winds: a highway was never going to stop that fire, let alone save the thousands of acres that would be sacrificed before it got out of there. We need sensible native vegetation management, and not just in the parks. More work has been done in recent years, but I ask whether it is enough. We need firebreaks of a decent width—firebreaks of at least 60 metres around the edge of national parks. Ngarkat Conservation Park—

Mr Pengilly: Six kilometres, I reckon.

Mr PEDERICK: Six kilometres. Ngarkat is like a magnet for lightning strikes. It is a natural event, and up it goes. The issue is that, when it does burn a fence line with farm land next to it, there is no guarantee at all that the farmers will get any compensation for fixing that fence. It is up to the government's discretion, so I think that rules it out. A property owner at Parrakie has a six-foot high fence, which is basically vermin proof, with netting on the bottom and cyclone and barbed wire on top of that. It costs probably $10,000 to $20,000 a kilometre to erect, and he had quite a few kilometres of that fence burnt.

I want to talk about what happened on Kangaroo Island. I went over there a week after those fires with a mop-up team from the Murraylands Strike Force, and those fires affected a massive amount of Kangaroo Island, as the member for Finniss has rightly acknowledged. There was a terrible loss of life with that young lad, yet we still get tied up in the bureaucracy. Many people were keen to help out on Kangaroo Island. They flew in from interstate. As to my team—which I did not lead, by the way—we were fine on the Saturday; we went over there for a weekend and put out quite a few spot burns around Vivonne Bay, but the next day we got turned back three times and, in the end, the crew just got cranky. When we were given the option to stay or go, because a plane was waiting to bring us back to Adelaide, they just said, 'Let's go. There is no direction.'

I acknowledge that it is very hard to sort out the amount of men and vehicles, but it has to get better because the numbers of CFS people has declined in recent years. We certainly need them on the ground; we do not want to put people off. These were people who were more than happy to give up their weekends (longer, in some cases) to go over there and do their bit for their fellow man, as I saw when I had my own fire three years ago. People from all over the South-East, including Strathalbyn, were only too happy to assist.

With those few words, we have to make sure that we do not put off our volunteers. We need to get rid of the inane bureaucracy that ties everything up and get on with the job, because we have put off our volunteers and we do not have a fighting force. I commend the bill.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (11:18): I want to make some brief comments because I have attempted for a long time to get some sensible debate and discussion on this issue. The time has now arrived where no-one can say they have not been warned. If we get one of these terrible fires, everyone has had fair warning.

On the Natural Resources Committee, we have heard some most interesting evidence from people like the Mayor of Mitcham, the Mayor of the Adelaide Hills and across South Australia. The time is now for action. We do not need any more talk: we need action. If anyone gets in the way of people wanting to take preventive measures, they ought to be removed from any decision-making ever again.

The absolute nonsense of having laws in place that only allow a five metre fire break around a shed or a tank is an act of gross stupidity and only a fool would continue to insist upon it. In the past, people from the Native Vegetation Council have measured fire breaks put in by the CFS after the fire has been out and issued summonses to landholders. That is the sort of stupidity, arrogance and nonsense we are dealing with. They are endangering the public of South Australia. In certain societies they would be flogged. They are fools of the highest order.

We have to give those hardworking, dedicated volunteers who are attempting to protect the public all the tools they require. As the member for Finniss pointed out, the first thing is to let farmers and land managers reduce the hazard effectively by burning at the right time. I understand that some burning off was done on Lower Eyre Peninsula last week and the fire got away. I wonder why it got away. Were the people experienced in these matters?

I might not know a lot, but I have had experience in lighting large fires, and I have done a lot of land developing in my time. Part of that was that you burnt the scrub. How do you do it? You make sure that you have decent breaks. You light against the wind; you make sure the wind is set. You do not do it at two o'clock when the wind is going to shift, you wait and then, once you make the decision to do it, you do it quickly and efficiently. You have to hold your nerve because, once you get it alight, it is quite safe. It will make smoke and a lot of noise, but you will do it. However, unless you have effective measures in place before you start, it will get away. A five metre fire break is insufficient, and it is unfair to expect people to go into fight fires unless they have the ability to get out.

I think the councils should be given more authority to make people clean up and accept their responsibility. It is unfair to expect firefighters to go into dangerous areas unnecessarily. So, this proposal put forward by the member is a very good opportunity to ensure that this parliament pays attention to these issues, but we need to take appropriate action. I am concerned that the minister has set up a committee comprised solely of public servants. As I said once before, I have no trouble with Euan Ferguson—we are lucky to have him. He is hardworking, dedicated and very responsible. I have all the confidence in the world in him.

I even said nice things about my good friend Allan Holmes. He has been a forester, so he understands. I told him the other day at a parliamentary committee meeting that he had been born again with his attitude. Why have they not included people such as the chairman of the Mount Remarkable council—they have had tremendous fires at Mount Remarkable. and they understand when fireballs come off the mountain—the Mayor of Port Lincoln and the Mayor of Mitcham? These people understand; they know what is going to happen. Put some outside influence on it. It is difficult when Sir Humphrey is talking to Sir Humphrey—not always do you get the best result.

The only thing I want to see is the right result, the public protected and taxpayers' money not used unnecessarily when the money could be better spent on doing other things. We spend a lot of money on fire trucks. As one of those who took a lot of flack when the emergency services levy was put in place—it was the right decision—let us make the other right decision: give the landholders and the land managers the powers and tools that they need to protect themselves, but, more importantly, do this for the public. I support the motion.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:23): We are debating whether the parliament should set up a permanent committee to look at bushfire. I say to the minister, I think your position is wrong, and I think your position is wrong for these reasons. You have said that the Natural Resources Committee can look at the bushfire issue. I have the terms of reference for the Natural Resources Committee and they deal with only two things: the River Murray—and I have not seen a fire on the river yet—and natural resources, as in native vegetation and the natural ecosystem.

I say to the minister that the CFS will tell him that my electorate is the worst bushfire district in the world, and I am representing that district in moving this bill. These are the issues that relate to fire which the Natural Resources Committee cannot deal with: housing design; an early warning system; the broader issue of disaster planning; the question of when and where to evacuate; who has the authority to evacuate; and the capacity of the road infrastructure to evacuate my suburbs. I can tell the minister that the advice from his agency is that it does not have the capacity to evacuate. That is the advice that it has given me and, indeed, the council.

Other issues include: the question of whether the police or the CFS should have the power to evacuate; reinstating sirens as a community warning system; whether there should be tax incentives for bushfire prevention and preparedness for bushfire; and the training and development of volunteer and professional firefighters and emergency service volunteers. There is a whole range of issues that deal directly with the question of the community's preparedness to fight fire that cannot go before the Natural Resources Committee.

The position the minister put to the parliament is fundamentally wrong, because that committee cannot deal with all those issues, and that is why I have suggested setting up this committee after the next election so that the parliament can become educated about what the issues are through questioning the agencies. The minister says that the agency heads might have a second master, they might have to come before the parliament. Minister, that is happening now. Euan Ferguson comes before the Economic and Finance Committee and justifies the emergency services funding regime. He says to that committee, 'We need changes to the Native Vegetation Act.'

We can call the agencies before the ERD Committee and talk about planning issues, we can call the heads of the departments before the Natural Resources Committee and talk about native vegetation laws, but there is no overarching coordinating body. One set of MPs is getting this information and another set of MPs is getting other information. We are not properly planning through one committee to prepare the parliament and the community on all the issues associated with fire.

My belief is that the minister's position is fundamentally wrong. I know I will lose this vote in this chamber because the government has 30 and we only have 15, but, minister, I will do you a favour. I will have it reintroduced in the upper house and we will win the vote there, and we will have the debate in here again. I am with the member for Finniss because, when there this a fire next summer—and there will be a fire somewhere next summer—this will come back to bite the people who voted against it.

I am going to give the minister and the government a chance to reconsider this issue. I am happy to speak to the minister privately and go through every issue in my electorate, because it is my electorate that is in the gun as far as fires are concerned and I will do everything I can to bring the parliament and the cabinet up to date on all the contemporary issues on fire, and this committee is the way to do it.

The house divided on the second reading:

Majority of 11 for the noes.

Second reading thus negatived.