PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES (NATURAL DISASTERS COMMITTEE) (NO. 2) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 7 February 2013.)

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (10:56): I will be fairly brief because, as this house knows, I have spoken passionately in support of this issue a few times already. I think this is the third time this has been brought forward in my three years in parliament, so I commend the member for Davenport for progressing it, and I wholeheartedly support him. Again, this is not about how we would deal with a natural disaster when it occurs. This is about trying to establish a standing committee in parliament that could help with regard to preparedness and help with regard to potentially avoiding natural disasters—that really is the key.

I take my hat off to the volunteer and professional emergency service workers who are already doing very good work in this state but, quite understandably, their focus is on dealing with issues as they arise. This is a different matter: this is about trying to do whatever we can to be more prepared for disasters in advance and, ideally—and quite possibly—help to avoid some of these natural disasters.

While we focus on fire—and I will say a few more words about fire because it is really our greatest threat here in South Australia—the issue here is natural disasters more broadly so, of course, it could include floods, earthquakes, tidal waves and potentially even plagues and pests. There is no end to what might be considered, and some of these things are definitely not considered in the current regime.

With regard to bushfires, though, we all know that it is 30 years since an absolutely devastating bushfire ripped through South Australia in the Adelaide Hills. Tasmania has seen devastating fires recently, as has Western Australia. Overseas, Greece, California and many other places in the world would have benefited from having this sort of focus in their parliaments, that is, a cross-bench, bipartisan standing committee working on this issue.

About 1½ years ago in my electorate of Stuart, and crossing over the border into the Northern Territory, a bushfire burnt out an area approximately the size of Tasmania. Obviously, if that happened in a more densely populated area (which it certainly could) it would be a disaster of a magnitude that we have not seen before in this nation. We would be asking ourselves, 'Why didn't we listen to the member for Davenport the first time, the second time, the third time, the fourth time—as long as it takes?' It would be disgraceful and shameful—and we would all be devastated personally and also as a parliament—if a truly uncontrollable natural disaster occurred and we had not done what we could, as the member for Davenport is suggesting, and tried to prepare ourselves better for it.

It is important to put on the record that the parliament's standing committee into natural resources supports a standing committee to be looking into natural disasters. They are not the same thing. It would be shallow and ill-conceived to just say that the Natural Resources Committee can look into this issue. It is a different issue and the Natural Resources Committee has done some very good work looking into the potential risk of bushfires in the Adelaide Hills specifically. I will not go back over the information that is available for all members in the report and on the debate on that topic, but it is truly scary what could happen there.

So, let me just wind up by saying there really is no excuse for this parliament not to take the proactive step to be responsible and to try to address preparedness for natural disasters. I will conclude by saying thank you personally, and professionally as a member of parliament, to all of the volunteer and professional emergency service workers who do everything they possibly can to help us when a natural disaster is right in front of us.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.