PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES (NATURAL DISASTERS COMMITTEE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 March 2012.)

Mr SIBBONS (Mitchell) (10:32): This bill seeks to amend the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 and the Parliamentary Remuneration Act 1990 to establish a standing committee for natural disasters. Pursuant to the bill, the committee's function would be to inquire into, consider and report on such matters concerned with natural disasters as are referred to it and to perform such other functions as are imposed on the committee under this or any other act or by resolution of both houses.

On face value, this bill appears meritorious. I appreciate the importance of this issue and the member for Davenport's ongoing efforts regarding bushfire safety in the state. However, the bill will add very little to the established framework of disaster management in South Australia. According to the bill, the committee is to conduct inquiries when matters are referred to it. This can be distinguished from the functions of other committees which are more proactive such as the Natural Resources Committee which are required to take an interest and keep under review the protection and improvements of natural resources.

The bill does not acknowledge the existing comprehensive arrangements in place for the management of natural disasters. It is, therefore, ambiguous how the committee would contribute to the already comprehensive framework of emergency management in South Australia. The preparation for, and response to, natural disasters and emergencies in this state is governed by the Emergency Management Act 2004. The act was introduced in 2004, replacing the State Disaster Act 1980 subsequent to a review of the State Disaster Act which was undertaken in response to the major bushfires and floods that occurred interstate, in addition to the terrorist attacks of September 11 and the Bali, Madrid and London bombings.

The act establishes an exhaustive framework for the management of emergencies caused by terrorist attacks, storage of hazardous goods, human disease (including pandemic or epidemic), transport infrastructure failure, and natural disasters, including earthquakes, tsunamis, bushfires and floods. It establishes a State Emergency Management Committee which, among other functions, oversees the development and preparation of a State Emergency Management Plan and keeps this plan under review.

The plan is comprehensive, outlining guidelines, procedures, processes, arrangements and organisational structures that come into play in preventing, and responding to, state emergencies. Section 11 of the act provides a mechanism in which the Emergency Management Committee can establish advisory groups to advise the committee on all manner of things, such as:

State Mitigation Advisory Group (Chair, SAFECOM);

State Response Advisory Group (Chair, SA Police);

State Recovery Committee (Chair, Department for Families and Communities);

State Protective Security Advisory Group (Chair, SA Police); and

State Pandemic Influenza Working Group (Chair, Department of Health).

These advisory groups have developed the practice of establishing working groups or task groups to investigate and/or inquire into particular matters.

For example, the State Mitigation Advisory Group established a working group in 2011 to review the Queensland and Victorian flood disasters in the context of South Australia's flood management prevention and response plans. The findings were then reported to the State Mitigation Advisory Group and fed through the structure and out to the relevant agencies, where policies were modified accordingly.

There are also local zone emergency management committees; that is, each identified zone in South Australia has an emergency management committee. These committees are responsible for assessing risks and hazards local to the particular region and establishing an emergency plan to deal with the possible risks. These committees involve local people, local governments, aware of local issues in addition to state agencies, so we are seeing a system of comprehensive review and reporting which feeds in through these working groups and committees, up through the structure and out again into the relevant response agencies.

The plan also identifies hazard leaders. Hazard leaders work with the advisory groups to ensure that aspects of the state's approach are coordinated. They have overall responsibility for the preparation and planning for emergencies, and control agencies have the responsibility when action is required. Hazard leaders are usually the relevant control agency: for example, the hazard leader for floods in SA is the Department for Water and the hazard leader for bushfires is the CFS. This is not a vague, disconnected structure. It is a detailed and integrated arrangement involving local participation and the involvement of experts.

Built-in review mechanisms ensure that all plans and policies are regularly reviewed, ensuring consistency and efficiency. There is an annual whole of government exercise in which emergency plans are executed. I am advised that this exercise can consist of either a discussion or an actual practical training run, involving deployment of operational resources. Each year the focus changes. There have been years where the exercise relates to a simulated bushfire emergency. I understand that in other years it has been a simulated response to an earthquake or flood emergency. The Emergency Management Committee reports all matters to the Emergency Management Council, a cabinet committee, chaired by the Premier and comprising the Attorney-General, the Minister for Police, the Minister for Transport, the Minister for Health, the Minister for Emergency Services and the Minister for State/Local Government Relations.

Emergency management is no doubt an important matter, and I have considered the seriousness with a view to determining how best to facilitate and add value to the existing framework. We do not believe the creation of a parliamentary committee will accomplish this, and we cannot justify the use of public resources to establish a committee that is not proactive, which would likely address issues only after the event, or consider issues that have already been addressed by task groups, advisory groups and/or local leaders.

Support must be provided to the structures that are already in place. The government is committed to improving disaster and emergency management in this state by providing support to these structures. We supported the COAG recommendations, which facilitated a fundamental shift in the management of emergencies beyond response and reaction to anticipation and mitigation. We adopted the national principles of the disaster recovery that identified recovery as integral to emergency preparation and mitigation. We secured $2.8 million from the federal government to boost natural disaster resilience.

This scheme delivers funding to state government agencies, government-owned corporations and local governments for projects which help to minimise the risk and impact of natural disasters and which support the recruitment, training and retention of emergency management volunteers. This funding was provided in 2010 and 2011 and renewed for 2012-13. We have also demonstrated our commitment to bushfire safety, allocating $23 million in funding in the state budget in 2011 to help protect South Australia against the ongoing risk of bushfire readiness and response capabilities of the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources.

This specifically included employing more firefighters, purchasing new equipment and providing additional resources and accreditation courses to CFS and State Emergency Service volunteers. This year's budget saw an extra $8.3 million allocated to the state's emergency service providers over the next four years to help maintain services and equipment; $1.7 million of which is to be invested in developing an emergency alert network to advise residents of dangers in specific areas.

The SPEAKER: Member for Mitchell, I am sorry: your time has actually expired. I know that the clock says 15 minutes, but you actually had only 10—can you quickly wind up?

Mr SIBBONS: The government does not support this bill.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:43): I will be brief because others want to speak. I commend the member for Davenport for bringing forward this matter. The member for Mitchell mentioned the cost. The cost of this would be infinitesimal compared with the cost of a natural disaster, whether you talk about a bushfire, a flood, an earthquake or whatever. I see the role of this committee as a watchdog, not just to look at the past but at trying to reduce not so much the risk of a natural disaster (you cannot prevent some of them) but ensuring that the state and the community is adequately prepared and resourced.

I see it not as a negative thing but as a positive proposal because, if that committee, through its deliberations, activities and hearing from experts and other people in the community, can help avert a natural disaster, help minimise the impact on the community and its infrastructure, and so on, then that is a good thing.

I think it is unfortunate that too often people in the bureaucracy see the role of parliament as a threat. We are not here to undermine the good work that is done by the agencies. This motion would help strengthen the role of the agencies in dealing with emergencies, and I cannot see any sound reason why the government would not want to support it.

The argument is that we already have some committees; we do, but they cannot do every single task. That was an issue that arose yesterday in relation to why I was not putting a proposal to the Social Development Committee in relation to crime. The Social Development Committee cannot look at the current issue of migrants, the issue of hygiene in restaurants and a number of other things as well as look at, say, the issue of crime prevention and crime reduction.

It looks like the government has cast its vote and will vote against it, and I think that is unfortunate because I think a parliamentary committee focused on natural disasters could save the community a lot of pain and a lot of expense.

The SPEAKER: I just remind members that the clock says 15 minutes but you actually only have 10. I am sorry; it is a technical problem in here—they need a lot more time to talk in the other house. So, just be reminded that you do not actually have 15: you only have 10. I am sorry about that, but we cannot do anything about it.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Pengilly: That's discrimination.

The SPEAKER: Order! Member for Finniss, behave yourself!

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (10:46): I stand to commend the member for Davenport for putting this motion forward and certainly appreciate the support of the member for Fisher. I cannot for the life of me figure out why the member for Mitchell, and the government more broadly, would not support this.

This is actually the third time in the last two years that the member for Davenport has put this or a very similar motion forward. He started out focusing on bushfires but now, quite sensibly, he is concentrating on natural disasters more broadly. In the interests of time, I refer the house to the comments I have made on the member for Davenport's motions on 28 October 2010 and 24 November 2011, and I will be brief with the extra things I have to add today.

I suppose one of the most important things I would like to say is that, while the government does not support this motion, the natural resources standing committee of the parliament certainly does support it in principle. I refer the house to recommendation 2 from the Bushfire Inquiry report of 6 July 2011. Recommendation 2 from that report is:

The Committee recommends that Parliament establish a standing committee for natural disasters. The purpose of this committee would be to ensure that Government agencies and emergency services are fully prepared to deal with natural disasters and to provide an opportunity for Members of Parliament, as opposed to Cabinet, to have input into disaster management.

Our committee—and I unashamedly say this as a member of it—is a very responsible, bipartisan committee. I suspect it reflects more accurately than any other standing committee the bipartisan will of this parliament. I think that recommendation is a sound one, so it is very disappointing to have the government not supporting the member for Davenport in this instance.

It is important to point out that this is not just about bushfires: this is about all natural disasters which, of course, would include floods, earthquakes, tidal surges and many others. For people who accept that climate change is having an impact, I think it is likely that, on that logic, we would expect to see more natural disasters and probably more natural disasters that we are not prepared for, so that is all the more reason to accept this motion from the member for Davenport.

It is important to say, too, that nobody expects that we will be able to stop all natural disasters; the formation of a parliamentary committee is not going to stop all of them. I would like to think we might stop some, but it will certainly mean that we are far better prepared for natural disasters.

That is not to say that the people already working in government agencies and a range of other agencies are not doing good work in this area, but I think to get the government, opposition and other members of parliament involved in a standing committee to deal with this will make us better prepared in advance, during and after all natural disasters. Natural disasters can affect metro, peri-urban, country and outback areas. All our state, unfortunately, is at risk from some sort of natural disaster; and, as the member for Fisher said a few minutes ago, the cost of establishing this committee would be nothing compared to the cost of avoiding one disaster, or dealing with whichever comes along, more effectively.

I highlight the fact that floods are the greatest cost of any natural disaster that take place in Australia. I would also like to point out the fact that one of the very important pieces of work that this committee—if it is ever established—could work on is prescribed burns and burning off. Unfortunately, I have to highlight the fact that the most recent natural disaster that we have had in our state was an out-of-control bushfire in the Wirrabara Forest in the electorate of Stuart, which was actually started by a government department.

It was a prescribed burn jointly put together by DENR and Forestry. We will have more opportunity to talk about this on another occasion, but all the information I have is that they were advised by people on the ground not to progress—they did progress, and within minutes of the prescribed burn being started it was out of control. We have a government department which started our most recent out-of-control bushfire in this state, and you cannot tell me that a standing committee looking into natural disasters could not have contributed to making sure that that did not happen.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (10:51): Can I just say that, as the shadow minister for emergency services, this is a very important issue for me, as it should be for everyone in this place. I note that in the gallery today we have Mrs Wendy Shirley from the CFS Volunteers Association and other members of the executive. I congratulate them on the work they are doing in supporting our CFS volunteers and protecting South Australians through the good work they do.

This motion that has been put up by the Hon. Iain Evans is one that this government should take note of. I know that it is opposing the motion. How ridiculous! How many committees do we have in this place that do absolutely three parts of stuff all most of the time? The productivity of many committees is very low yet they are considered vital parts of the democratic process, vital parts of the parliamentary process, and we have a proposal here for a committee that is going to be looking at issues that are definitely going to be on the agenda.

It is not 'if': it is 'when' we are going to have our next natural disaster, and to have a committee of the parliament looking at the ways of heading off these disasters, mitigating these disasters, is something that we need to consider very carefully. As the member for Fisher has said, the cost of this committee is minimal when you consider the potential billions of dollars—not just millions but billions of dollars—in damage that can be brought about by an uncontrolled natural disaster.

If you can mitigate that disaster, if you can prevent that disaster happening by flood preparations and fire prevention preparations, fine, but there are many disasters that you cannot predict. You can build earthquake-proof buildings but there are things that will happen that you are going to have to be prepared to handle. You are going to have to have the resources to handle them, you are going to have to have the protocols in place to handle them, and a committee like this would be an overseeing body for that preparation and the amalgamation of government departments in making sure that, if we do get a disaster, it is going to be at least minimised, because it is not just the floods.

We had floods down at Glenelg North in my electorate in 2003 when about 200 homes were severely affected. Many people's lives were destroyed by those floods. There was one suicide and several divorces in that relatively small affected section of the metro area. It is important that we do make sure that we are looking after even small areas where there can be a natural disaster, and we can put procedures in place to make sure that those disasters are mitigated.

Earthquakes, floods and fire are not the only ones. The big ones—and we are seeing this government wanting to put in place a biosecurity levy—are if we get exotic diseases. If we get exotic diseases in animals—foot-and-mouth disease—it would cost billions of dollars. We would have the CFS, we would have the SES, we would have SAPOL all out there, manning the road blocks, cleaning up and doing the preparation for the disposal of animals and enforcing quarantine. We are using our volunteers to the utmost and we need to make sure we give them every bit of support we can. A committee like this would be doing that.

If pandemics such as those that threatened through bird flu and SARS come here, we will have everybody needing to be on their utmost guard. We will have to make sure we have protocols in place. A committee like this will make sure that those protocols are in place and that we can mitigate the disasters. It is not just the ones we think about all the time—fires, floods and earthquakes. There are far more insidious natural disasters that can affect us that we cannot see coming. They will arrive on an aeroplane and, before you know it, they will affect hundreds and hundreds, if not millions, of Australians. We need to be able to mitigate the effects of those disasters and have procedures in place; and we need to make sure that this parliament has a role in that and this committee is one way of doing that.

I ask those people who are opposing the formation of this committee for the sake of a few dollars to think again, because they will be the ones who will have blood on their hands. They will have the deaths of people on their hands if a natural disaster does hit and it could have been mitigated by more active intervention, more proactive planning, and a parliamentary committee such as this is the way to do it.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (10:56): Briefly, I want to add my few comments to this. We know Australia is a land of contrast and great extremes and, also, we have had more than our fair share of natural disasters, already—fire, floods, storms, cyclones, even earthquakes. Thank goodness we do not have too many of those but, certainly, we have in the past and, no doubt, we will in the future. So it will always happen and we do not know when, so we have to be prepared. A committee like this I think would be very appropriate and very relevant, and I congratulate the member for Davenport for bringing it forward.

A committee that meets regularly can regularly monitor our state of preparedness to promote effective consultation, communication and awareness programs in the community to ensure that we are not caught asleep at the wheel. In the past, we have sometimes been caught out and been ill-equipped, without the right information, and the public has been totally unaware.

Finally, I pay tribute to the bodies that do it at this point in time, particularly the CFS, members of which are here with us today. It is great to see you: you should come more often. Also, I acknowledge the old EFS, which I was involved in many years ago, that looked after, particularly, our country communities very well for generations and we appreciate that very much. I was saying in this house only yesterday when talking about the emergency services levy that I believe it would be an opportunity for us to give some dispensation to those people who are putting in all the efforts to work to be our volunteers: there should be some assistance when they come to pay their levy. I think that would be a very good gesture.

Also to the SES, the police and the ambulance. We are all involved in this. It is an area of great liaison and I think a committee like this could be the watchdog and make sure they get together at least once a year and go through the processes that an overarching committee could do. Again, I congratulate the member for Davenport. He has been here almost as long as I have, and he is a man of great skill and ability and he is a man of the world. I am a bit concerned that the government has not sought fit to support this. I do not think there is too much politics in it.

Mr PEGLER (Mount Gambier) (10:58): I would also like to indicate my support for the formation of a natural disasters committee of parliament. I believe that there are some disasters that we can reduce (particularly fires and floods) by having proper things in place. Of course, there are others that we cannot have any control over but we can prevent a lot of the effects of these disasters by being well resourced and very well organised.

I believe we should have a committee that is overarching what is happening throughout the rest of the state. I might indicate that I have been on some of these disaster committees within my own region for quite some time and they are often well prepared but I do not know that we know how well prepared we are right throughout this state and a disaster committee such as this could ensure that we are prepared right throughout this state for dealing with disasters. If we are well prepared we can certainly reduce the effects. We can make sure that all the resources and all the protocols as to who deals with what are in place, so that, hopefully, we can reduce the effects of these disasters. Without further ado, I indicate my support for the bill.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:00): I thank those members who have offered their support. I will certainly not argue with the member for the Barossa's comments. In my heart of hearts I know that this particular measure is right for the parliament and right for the state. I know the member for Mitchell would have been given a speech by the minister's office and asked to read it. In future years, I would suggest that the member for Mitchell will reflect on that speech and regret it.

The government's position, to me, is unsustainable. It is unsustainable for two reasons. First, if the member for Mitchell and the government actually read the bill, then to say that the bill introduces a non-proactive committee, a committee that cannot be proactive, is simply a false premise. Whoever told the Labor caucus that, in reaching its position, misled the caucus because under 15O(a) of the bill the functions of the committee are:

to inquire into, consider and report on such matters concerned with natural disasters as are referred to it under this Act;

In other words, as defined under the act. So, the committee can conduct inquiries, if it wants. The government, for its own political purposes, has taken a totally different position on that bill. The government's position is this: 'Don't worry about it. We have a process in place. It's called the Emergency Managing Council,' or whatever the committee was the member for Mitchell referred to. That is the speech Anna Bligh would have given prior to the Queensland floods. That is the speech the Victorian government, of any colour, would have given prior to the Victorian fires. It is the speech the New Zealand government would have given prior to the New Zealand earthquakes.

Every single government in the Western democracy has a process to deal with natural disasters. What I am trying to achieve is parliamentary oversight of that process because I am not convinced that the parliament has a grip on the dangers facing South Australia through its natural disasters and the change in demographics and development. I will go back to my own electorate for an example. My electorate, in the Mitcham Hills, is one of the worst bushfire districts in Australia, if not the world, according to my own CFS branches. There has been a significant population growth in that area over the past 30 years. There has not been a bad fire through that district since the 1950s, thanks to the grace of God, a bit of luck and the high skill of the CFS when the fires did occur.

If anyone thinks that the Adelaide Hills and other areas of the state are prepared for a bushfire they are kidding themselves. There is complacency throughout the community with regard to fire. I think there is a great advantage to the state in having parliamentary oversight of all natural disasters so that we can focus the parliament's mind on the dangers that are in front of us and how well we are prepared. Have a look at any natural disaster around the world and here is the pattern: the natural disaster occurs, the government of the day comes out and expresses great grief about the natural disaster, the government sets up an inquiry about the natural disaster, the inquiry reports about the natural disaster, some time down the track the government will respond to that report and then the whole process repeats itself.

My view is that there should be parliamentary oversight of that process so that we can proactively plan for a natural disaster. The parliament should be involved in proactive questioning of the planning for a natural disaster so that we are best prepared. I take the member for Mount Gambier's comment, I think he is absolutely spot on: it is about restricting the damage. It is about better controlling. It is about trying to limit the impact of natural disasters through this committee oversight. I have tried on three separate occasions, as the local representative, to get the parliament to do something.

I thank the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee for bringing the committee to the Mitcham hills in my electorate to look at the issue firsthand. I thank the parliament's committee for recommending that this committee be established; I thank the committee for that. It is unfortunate that this government has poked the eye of its own members on that committee to say, even though you unanimously supported it, even though I changed the bill to reflect the government's position, for their own base reasons they have now decided that they are not going to establish this committee. I think South Australia is underprepared for it, and I just hope that we do not live to regret not establishing this committee.

The house divided on the second reading:

Majority of 4 for the noes.

Second reading thus negatived.