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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 21 February 2013.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (10:33): I rise to support this important move by the member for Davenport, the Hon. Iain Evans. I am currently on the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee, and I am also on a select committee that is looking into the rules and regulations surrounding the welfare of companion animals—a very worthy committee to be on. Certainly, the Aboriginal Lands Parliamentary Standing Committee is one of the areas that I am very keen to be involved with in this parliament, as all members will know.

Can I say that I have been a member of the Country Fire Service since 1985 I think it was I joined and the captain of a very busy brigade at Happy Valley, and I am currently a member of the Kangarilla brigade and try to help whenever I can. My wife and I own a property between Meadows and Kangarilla, next to Kuitpo Forest, and we are very aware of the potential for a disaster in our Adelaide Hills.

This natural disasters committee that has been proposed by the member for Davenport is a committee that this parliament should consider most seriously. It is not if we are going to have another disaster in South Australia such as Ash Wednesday, the 1956 flood and the earthquake back in, I think it was 1956 as well, but when, and we had better be prepared for that.

On the ABC this morning I was listening to some reports about how volunteer groups are not getting the continuing support they require to look after people after the Tasmanian bushfires and the need to make sure that all volunteer groups are getting the support that they need to do the job that governments cannot do. Their job is not for the first five or 10 minutes after an earthquake or bushfire: it is for five days, five weeks and, sometimes, five months after we have had a natural disaster. So it is very important that we make sure that we are aware of all the ramifications, complications and permutations that are going to face this government and parliament should there be a natural disaster in South Australia.

We are earthquake prone, we are certainly bushfire prone, and we have seen floods. In fact, in my first year in this place we had floods at Glenelg North that, while considered relatively minor in area, affected 200 homes, and some of those people were impacted for months afterwards and, in fact, years in some cases where insurance issues were still being fought out and argued over.

We need a standing committee of this parliament to look at all the issues that we are going to be faced with should there be a natural disaster. To say that that is not necessary I think is being very naive. The cost involved in running this committee would be a fraction of what could be saved should this committee be able to do what it is intended to do, that is, prepare plans, talk to people and make sure that we are prepared.

The government last year set up the Community Safety Directorate to oversee our emergency services. It was put into the Department for Communities and Social Inclusion. I think that was an interesting move by this government. It simplified the reporting to the minister by the various emergency services, but it is still not enough to prepare the parliament and the departments that this government controls. It is still not enough to make sure that they are well and truly prepared for the next looming disaster.

We hear a lot of talk about climate change and its long-term effects. Whether that is disease, drought or climate chaos (as some people are calling it now), it is something we have to be prepared for. It is the Boy Scouts motto of 'Be Prepared'. If it is good enough for the Boy Scouts, I think it is probably good enough for this parliament to be prepared.

The Hon. C.C. Fox: Scouts.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The Scouts, sorry, not the Boy Scouts. I am corrected by the member for Bright. The Scouts motto is 'Be Prepared'. If it is good enough for the Scouts, it is good enough for this parliament to be prepared, and a natural disasters standing committee of this parliament I think is the most effective and efficient way of being prepared.

It is going to take a lot of preparation, a lot of investigation and a lot of planning, and it will also involve putting in place protocols and procedures to make sure that when we have a natural disaster, not if, this parliament and government can react just the way we have in smaller cases in the past, to a lesser degree, say, with the 1956 floods, the 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires and the Wangary bushfires. There have been good responses but it has not been as planned as it possibly could have been.

This committee is something the government should consider. It should consider supporting the member for Davenport's bill, and I think it is a move that will be supported not only by members of the emergency services—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: —the need to make sure that we are all prepared—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Morphett will be seated. I call the member for Torrens to order. She is making it almost impossible for the member for Morphett to be heard. Member for Morphett.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. This committee is vital for the future and safety of South Australia. To anybody on the government benches who says that this is something that is already being covered, just go and talk to your emergency services. Go and talk to your volunteers in the SES and CFS. Go and talk to the Salvation Army and the Rotary clubs who pick up the pieces after these disasters; go and talk to them. We should be as prepared as we possibly can, and this is a step we should be taking today to make sure that when the next disaster happens we are prepared.

The Hon. P. CAICA (Colton) (10:40): I do not want to be disrespectful to my colleague the member for Morphett, but I have never heard anything so silly in my whole life with respect to that contribution. What the member for Morphett did was just tell us how it is critically important that we have a standing committee of parliament to properly prepare for natural disasters. The member for Morphett did not give any other reason as to why it should be convened or how they should do it, only that it is critically important to do so.

I had some time in the fire brigade—19 years—and my view at that stage was that the further a politician could be away from any critical incident, the better it was for those people on the ground. I cannot for the life of me see what contribution this parliament would make with respect to preparedness for natural disasters. It is like transposing partisan political views in the place of professional people who are currently charged with the responsibility of ensuring that that preparedness is there. The other thing is that I think—

Mr Gardner: So, you're going to abolish all the committees then?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Well, maybe that is something that should be discussed as well because there are a heck of a lot of reports collecting dust around this place—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Would the member for Colton be seated.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: I call the member for Morialta to order; he has a habit of interjecting at a volume just below the threshold for being warned. The threshold will be lowered today. Member for Colton.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Thank you very much, sir. I think I was at the point of suggesting that what this motion is about is substituting partisan political views for the professional approach that is taken by our emergency services with respect to better informing government because they are the professionals, whether paid or not, in regard to how to properly prepare for those natural disasters.

The reality is that it is going to be very difficult, as I think the member for Morphett might have said—and I will stand corrected if he did not say this—to earthquake-proof a place. It would be very difficult, but we can do it by getting expertise that does not lie in this place to better inform the decision-makers (being the government) about where those funds and resources should be best allocated based on that expert advice.

One of the other points I would like to make is that during this time in government we have seen a significant increase in the number of paid personnel who are directly responsible for the preparedness and the management of natural disasters in this state—unprecedented in the time of this state's history. We have also seen unprecedented increased levels of support with respect to volunteer organisations. We have seen that level of professionalism adopted by the CFS and the SES, unheralded in the history of this state.

We have seen, I think as recently as this week—and I will stand corrected—an announcement to establish a training centre and centre of excellence for SES volunteers down towards the airport. For the life of me, I cannot see what benefit will arise from this motion whatsoever; I think it is a nonsense.

We also have a system of select committees that can be convened at any time to undertake any role directed by this government. I have not heard one good reason from any of the speakers today—do not look so worried, Iain, it's alright; not everyone agrees with what you are putting forward—

Mr Venning: You're supporting professional firefighters, aren't you?

The Hon. P. CAICA: Professional firefighters, that's right. And the reality is—

The SPEAKER: Would the member for Colton be seated.

The Hon. P. CAICA: Yes, sir.

The SPEAKER: The member for Davenport looks like he would like to make a point of order.

An honourable member: He hasn't even had the time to sit down.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, I haven't had time to sit down; you're right. The member is referring to members of the opposition not by their electorate, but by their name, sir.

The SPEAKER: I am appalled. I call the member for Colton to order, and I never want to hear it pass his lips again.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I am as ashamed of myself as I know you are of me, sir—and it won't happen again. For the life of me I do not understand what members of parliament would be able to contribute with respect to such a standing committee. I note the interjections of the member for Schubert who said something about a former professional firefighter, and that is right. Leave this work to professionals to advise parliamentarians, not parliamentarians who suddenly feel like they are the panacea and the answers to everything. It is just nonsense.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The Hon. P. CAICA: Sir, I remind you that the member for Chaffey is interjecting, but I do not mind that. It is just that we have standards here and he is breaching those standards at this time, sir. To me, this motion is absolute nonsense. The member for Davenport has the right to put forward anything he wants with respect to matters being considered by this parliament. I urge everyone here to take a dose of common sense and vote against this motion.

The SPEAKER: The member for Schubert. I apologise to the member for Chaffey but the member for Schubert 'barsed' the next speech.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (10:46): I rise to support this motion put forward by the member for Davenport and refute the comments just made by the member for Colton. I cannot agree because we need to have at least a watching brief and, as a parliament, to be a conduit between the people of South Australia and the people who protect us from these natural disasters.

We have a history of pretty serious natural disasters in this state. I remind the house of some of them. On Black Friday in January 1939, the South-East of South Australia, Victoria, southern New South Wales, ACT and Tasmania all experienced fires. Overall, 36 people died in Victoria on Black Friday alone. The total number of deaths was 71. Fires destroyed more than 700 homes, 69 sawmills, many businesses and farms and other buildings. Approximately 1,300 buildings were lost.

In the Mount Lofty Ranges bushfires in 1980 which most of us would remember, and I am sure the member for Colton does, the fire burnt 8,000 hectares in one day, destroying 51 homes, the Anglican church at Longwood and 75 farms along with orchards and market gardens. The damage bill was estimated at more than $30 million. Ash Wednesday occurred in 1983. In total, 28 people died, including three CFS volunteer firefighters. More than 1,500 people were injured; 383 homes and 200 other buildings were destroyed, and 160,000 hectares were burnt.

On Eyre Peninsula, Black Tuesday in 2005 was the worst fire in South Australia since the 1983 Ash Wednesday fires. Nine people died, more than 110 were injured, approximately 82,000 hectares were burnt. Essential services were destroyed with loss of electricity, telecommunications and water supply; 79 houses were destroyed, 26 extensively damaged; 139 vehicles were destroyed; 325 sheds were destroyed; and 66,300 kilometres of fencing was destroyed. Livestock deaths totalled 46,500. One aircraft worth $100,000 was destroyed.

These were serious events in South Australia. There were also other natural disasters, including earthquakes and local flooding. We also have unnatural disasters, and I think that the member for Davenport would include this. I was in one—a train derailment. It involved a vital bridge at Crystal Brook about 22 years ago. It took out the bridge, and the railway line was rendered useless. We lost our access to the east and west.

I cannot see any reason why this bill should not be supported. I cannot agree with the member for Colton. It is pretty rare that he and I disagree as vehemently as this, but knowing his background he should understand mine. I have been a member of this house for many years. I have been on committees and I have to say that some of the committees do not do too much, but in this instance this one could be proactive. I do not think the member for Davenport has this as a highly paid committee, but even if it just sat there and was in existence briefly for, say, two or three times a year and was briefed by the heads of our emergency services, it would be of value alone. So when we had these crises this group could certainly oversee, listen to and be the conduit between this place, the people of South Australia, and the emergency services.

Again, this is not new: the member for Davenport has raised it before. He is passionate about it and I agree with him, and I think the house should, certainly in an apolitical manner, support it. We are always going to have natural disasters and we need to be the best equipped we can be. I congratulate the member for Davenport, and I certainly support this motion.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland—Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Small Business) (10:50): I rise to oppose the bill. It is not something that—

An honourable member: Typical.

The Hon. P.F. Conlon: What, typical? Common sense, yes, is typical of this side—stupidity on that side.

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Will the Minister for Manufacturing be seated. The member for Chaffey is not to insult people across the chamber. He is not to obstruct the business of the house and, accordingly, I call him to order. I give notice that all these warnings will be carried over into question time, therefore lowering the threshold for removal from the house.

Mr GARDNER: Can I ask for a point of clarification, sir?

The SPEAKER: Yes.

Mr GARDNER: I am not aware of you so far issuing any warnings so that members may correct their behaviour in the manner you desire. Can you clarify if there have, in fact, been any warnings this morning?

The SPEAKER: Yes, the member for Morialta is correct. They were callings to order—pre-warnings. He is right again. The Minister for Manufacturing.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Thank you, sir. Neither were you wrong, sir; you were merely giving notice of your intention to carry through warnings.

Mr Gardner: Don't tell the Speaker what to do.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: No, I wasn't; I was upholding his honour. As many speakers have said before, this bill seeks to establish a permanent natural disasters committee with various functions but essentially to inquire into, consider and report on such matters concerned with natural disasters.

It is my opinion, and I think that of the government, that it is not something that another committee cannot do; it is not something that, for instance, the Environment, Resources and Development Committee could not do in this parliament—and I will come to that at a later point. Natural disasters have come in the past, particularly bushfires. I was a child in 1983 and living at Norton Summit when the Ash Wednesday bushfires went through. My sister and I pretty much just sat in the lounge room as that fire went past. That was an interesting experience for me at age 11, and for my sister who was nine at the time.

Obviously, since that time there have been other fires in the state and most notably, of course, as the member for Schubert said, the Eyre Peninsula bushfire. That bushfire occurred for various reasons and there has been an inquiry into that, of course, or there was certainly an investigation into the matters surrounding that fire. However, I suspect there was nothing or very little there that could not have been investigated previously by the ERD Committee of this parliament. I think that is not something that a committee of this parliament could have prevented.

My understanding of that fire was that it was about decisions made on the ground, combined with weather conditions that were not necessarily anticipated and that caused the fire to jump out of control. It is unlikely that a specific committee of the parliament would have been able to prevent that disaster—and it was a disaster. It was also shown at the time that the government's response to that situation was very good.

I think many members of the government are proud of the way that the government managed to arrange affairs over there in the immediate aftermath of that fire to assist the community. I think it has been regularly remarked upon that that was, in the scheme of things, a well-run response to a disaster. It is unlikely that a committee of the parliament would have improved that.

As we saw, as part of the Emergency Management Act, there was a comprehensive structure set in place (this is in 2004) to set up a framework for how government and the organisations around government—the police and the fire and emergency services—would respond to various incidents including terrorist attacks, hazardous goods incidents, disease, human disease (I imagine that means an epidemic style), transport infrastructure failures, and natural disasters including earthquakes, tsunamis, bushfires and floods.

So, we had quite a significant act passed by this parliament in 2004 and is in place on the statute book. It allows the state to organise its affairs and organise itself to respond effectively to natural disasters. It establishes a State Emergency Management Committee which oversees the development and preparation of a state emergency management plan, and there are committees of the parliament that could inquire into the processes of that committee.

The ERD Committee could take part in that, of course, and I will come to the terms of that later as to what it can and cannot do. I suspect the Economic and Finance Committee, which has a broad purview, could look into the operations of the State Emergency Management Committee. When I was chair of that committee, we managed to have fairly broad questioning of witnesses on various topics from time to time. I imagine that continues under the current chair, as it has previously.

There is the ERD Committee, as I mentioned before; and there is also the Economic and Finance Committee, the committee in another place that inquires into the operations of, specifically, the finance, I suppose, but it can inquire widely into the operations of various government bodies including—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: The Budget and Finance Committee.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: The Budget and Finance Committee, thank you member for Davenport. It can look into the operations of the State Emergency Management Committee. There is no reason why it cannot do it. Further, I would have thought that it could look into the development and preparation of a state emergency management plan.

As a member of cabinet, we have an Emergency Management Committee, and I have attended a number of meetings. It meets regularly, and there is fairly comprehensive planning that goes on as part of that. It has held exercises, both in my time in cabinet and previously, on how to respond to various situations and scenarios. So, the planning goes right up to cabinet and right down back through agencies and everything else. The plan outlines guidelines, procedures, processes, arrangements and organisational structures for the prevention and response to state emergencies.

The Emergency Management Committee can also establish a number of advisory groups, such as the State Mitigation Advisory Group, with the chair of SAFECOM; the State Response Advisory Group, whose chair is a member of the South Australian police force; the State Recovery Committee is chaired by a member of the Department for Families and Communities; the State Protective Security Advisory Group is chaired by the South Australian police; and the State Pandemic Influenza Working Group is chaired by the Department of Health. All these advisory groups are set up to prepare the plans to deal with these various contingencies.

Evidently, the framework of the Emergency Management Act 2004 provides a comprehensive structure around which the government has put in place a series of preparatory structures and plans. So, the implementation of a parliamentary committee for natural disasters would not greatly enhance or benefit the existing legislation for the management of natural disasters. There are certainly committees within the parliament that can do the job that is being suggested by the member for Davenport.

The terms of reference are there, for example, the terms of reference of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee, and there are four main points, including that they can investigate any matter concerned with the environment. For example, they can investigate matters of controlled burns and fuel load. They can investigate any matter to do with the environment, so immediately bushfires, floods and any natural disasters come under that purview.

They can, in fact, investigate any matter concerned with the resources of the state. Again, that has a wide and broad application. They can investigate any matter concerned with planning and land use—again, a lot of the effects of natural disasters which, as the member for Morphett said, are always going to happen. A lot of the effect depends on land use at the time. Planning decisions made many years earlier—perhaps 10, 20, 30 years earlier—always seem to be, with hindsight, interesting decisions. So the land use aspect of that is certainly well within the purview of the ERD committee. Finally, there is any matter concerned with general development of the state.

So within those broad arrangements and within the flexibility generally allowed in these committees by their chairs—I admit that there are many other members of this parliament who have been around longer than me, but my experience of this parliament has been that the chairs have allowed fairly broad questioning on matters that come before them—there is no reason to think that the ERD committee or any other number of committees could not make a contribution to the preparation for natural disasters in this state.

As someone who has experienced the effect of natural disasters, I am not at all concerned with voting against or arguing against this bill from the member for Davenport. I am completely satisfied that the committees in this parliament have the power to investigate the matters at hand.

Mr WHETSTONE (Chaffey) (11:01): I rise to support the bill brought before this house by the member for Davenport, and also to support comments made by members on this side of the house. I too would like to declare my interest, I guess, in being part of starting quite a large grass fire as a young fellow out bringing in lame sheep during the shearing season. It really is something that lives with you forever, to watch large amounts of country burn—and all started by an exhaust system on a brand-new ute.

Watching the fire burn underneath the ute, moving the ute and trying to put it out was a terrifying ordeal, and then seeing what came away from the grass fire. Nearly 3,000 hectares were burnt. Again, it is something that I live with forever. Fortunately no one was hurt, but a lot of livestock was fire affected and smoke affected, and there were sheds and one homestead that were impacted.

In my electorate of Chaffey we have been fortunate enough not to have endured any large-scale natural disasters for some time now, but the scale and impact of natural disasters that can be experienced across this state cause me real concern. Establishing a permanent natural disasters committee is certainly a concept I am willing to support; being prepared for any potential disasters is the best approach. As I said, in my electorate of Chaffey potential disasters include flooding, in particular, and the threat of bushfire. These have both been of major concern for many years.

We have seen instances where prescribed burns and burn-offs have gotten out of hand, and that is too often an issue. To hear the member for Colton this morning come out and say 'Leave it to the experts'; well, as I recall it the member for Colton was the minister responsible for allowing prescribed burns, and then we watched them get out of control and impact on significant farmland, on significant regional communities.

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: I notice that the member for Newland is trying to interject. I do not think there are too many bushfires in Newland and I do not think there are too many bushfires in Colton, so for anyone to interject—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Point of order.

The SPEAKER: Would the member for Chaffey be seated. There is a point of order from the point of order specialist. Member for Davenport.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Mr Speaker, I wonder whether we could get the acoustics checked, because there seems to be an acoustic curtain where the Speaker can hear interjections from this side of the house but not the other side of the house. I am just wondering if there is an acoustic curtain, Mr Speaker. However, I draw your attention to the minister, who is interjecting, which is clearly against standing orders.

The SPEAKER: I will listen carefully, and ruthlessly deal with members on my right. Member for Chaffey.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I do have the curtain up and I cannot hear a word that the member for Newland is saying. Again, the impacts of prescribed burns that get out of control are well documented. They have had a significant impact, particularly on the regions here in this state, and I think that needs to be put on the record. Chaffey has also been the destination for people affected by natural disasters in their own home. People from the electorate have moved from their own home to interstate and overseas after natural disasters have occurred in their areas in recent times. I can certainly appreciate the impact that such disasters have on families and communities and the need to ensure that they are prepared for any natural disaster.

When something like a natural disaster has the effect of tearing apart communities, destroying family homes, threatening lives on such a significant scale, I believe that the parliament has a role to look at what it can do to minimise the those harms. I would like to initially touch on the threat of bushfires and the many issues that Chaffey and South Australia must be prepared for, including such things as training volunteers and funding for equipment that seems to disappear on a regular basis through budget constraints. Again—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Would the member for Chaffey be seated, please. I call the Minister for Manufacturing to order. The member for Chaffey.

Mr WHETSTONE: As I said, maintaining the training of volunteers and the funding for equipment is vital particularly when looking at budgetary constraints and the defunding of those departments. Evacuation plans, house design and communication strategies are vital for preparedness and dealing with natural disasters. We need to look around this great state, the country as a nation and all around the world and at our preparedness for natural disasters, including the communication that needs to be put out to prepare people, to evacuate people and to get people ready for any impending disaster that is potentially on their doorstep.

During the drought many irrigators in the Riverland decided to exit their properties or, in recent times, have stopped watering their fruit trees and vines. That is creating fuel for a potential bushfire disaster on those windy, hot days that potentially put houses on the outskirts of those vacant properties at real risk. This situation has seen blocks of land infested with weeds, dead dry fruit trees posing a major bushfire risk. In fact, a patch of dead citrus trees in the town of Renmark, located in the middle of the town, was burnt off previously, and embers blew into backyards lighting up shade sails, lighting up anything that was flammable.

I can speak from firsthand experience from watching a neighbour burn off trees. I pleaded with him not to light the fire; so he lit the fire. My synthetic tennis court caught on fire and my trampoline caught on fire. My kids' toys were smouldering in my backyard. They are the sorts of things that can get out of hand. That is just an example of what can happen in the regions.

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr WHETSTONE: Exactly. Imagine what impact this would have if all those dead trees on the property were on fire, which then set fire to a lot of the vacant neighbouring properties that had dead piles of trees.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Would the member for Chaffey be seated. I call the member for Taylor to order and I warn the Minister for Manufacturing for the first time. The member for Chaffey will be heard in silence. He deserves that much.

Mr WHETSTONE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think we really need to be more proactive when it comes down to the issues that can be prevented before they turn into situations where lives are placed in danger. There is no detailed plan or system about how we govern fire risks. That is something I envisage a natural disasters committee could oversee. The member for Davenport put it well in his previous second reading speech on this matter. It is concerning that for so long South Australia has lacked a committee specifically designated to reviewing and proposing ways in which we can deal with natural disasters, especially when there are areas in the state which are so prone to disasters, like bushfires.

The member for Davenport's proposal of a natural disasters committee would include responsibilities of obviously actively reviewing our processes in the instance of a natural disaster and proposing measures by which we could mitigate the damage done by natural disasters, both before and after the event.

Some of the examples are not just about bushfires but about natural disasters. It has obviously been very well documented that the last major flood here in South Australia almost totally wiped out Riverland towns back in 1956, particularly when Renmark was flooded due to high rainfall in the catchment areas, with all the rainfall accumulating at both the Murray and the Darling rivers and then coming into the state and almost washing us out to sea. The flood is actually considered to be the biggest flood recorded for the River Murray and led to the construction of the Menindee Lakes.

Many Chaffey residents remain concerned about the preparedness for flooding. For example, as the member for Colton may well know, the issue of the levee bank in Renmark became very topical in 2012, but we still have seen nothing done to prepare that town for the instance of a flood because those levee banks are obviously in very poor condition. It is almost leaving a community, a town, at risk if we were to be inundated with high floodwaters.

That levee bank with its rabbit holes almost looks like a piece of Swiss cheese. It has been tampered with, it has been moved, it has been shifted, and they are the sorts of issues that this committee could deal with. Again, part of the problem in this issue is that no-one knows whose responsibility it is to maintain the banks. Is it the state government's? Is it the council's? At the moment, it has become a real blame game, and that is of real concern.

Bushfires are also a risk in Chaffey, and the sheer volume of vegetation in South Australia gives us an even stronger cause, so it is essential for us to have a well thought-through system. No-one who has been through Chaffey could any more support the member for Davenport's idea of putting a committee together, so I welcome it.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:12): I, too, join with my colleagues on this side of the house to support this particular piece of legislation the member for Davenport has brought to the parliament, and I just want to make some comments in relation to this bill. Let's look at this for what it is. Let's look at what is going on here in the parliament for what it is. The government does not like it. The government is not supporting this bill because they did not think of it. It is not their idea. They do not like it because it is not their idea: it is an idea that has come from the opposition and so they do not want to support it, and they have form. The government has form on this, and they are looking at any and every reason not to support it.

We have heard a number of speakers on the government side with pretty thin, frail and flawed arguments as to why they are not prepared to support it. The member for Colton's argument for not supporting it is extremely flawed and, if you expand his argument, why have any parliamentary committee in this place? He says it is not necessary. Well, I can tell you that the Natural Resources Committee made a recommendation that this natural disasters committee be established.

I know that the member for Colton himself, prior to being a minister, was the chairman of the ERD Committee and that he currently sits on two parliamentary committees. So, if he thinks it is such a bad idea to have a parliamentary committee established to look into and oversee in a parliamentary role, then why does he not resign from the two committees he currently sits on? I would like to know the answer to that.

Be that as it may, the member for Ashford stood up in this place a couple of weeks ago and (basically) spoke in support of the establishment of this committee, but she is locked in by the intransigent rules of the Labor government, where if she uses her own free vote then she will be expelled. If she votes against what the party policy is then she will be expelled from the party. I will quote from the Hansard of 7 February. The member for Ashford, who is the presiding member of the Natural Resources Committee, said:

As I said, I am not in a position—

I wonder why—

to support this proposal from the member for Davenport, but I think it is a really good idea.

What does that tell you? It tells you that the presiding member, who is a member of the government, thinks it is a good idea but because her colleagues collectively (the Labor government) does not think it is a good idea, because it is not their idea, it is a member on this side of the house's idea, they are not supporting it.

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Kavel will be seated. I call the member for Florey to order. She is making it very difficult for the member for Kavel to get his point across. The member for Kavel.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. While I am quoting from Hansard I would also like to highlight a couple of other points that the member for Ashford made in her contribution on 7 February. It goes to the point that the member for Newland, the Minister for Manufacturing, made that he thinks that some of this work can be taken on by other committees. I will quote again from the Hansard and it knocks the member for Newland's idea out of the park for a six:

I think that the Natural Resources committee and the Environment, Resources and Development Committee have more than enough work to do.

It is not those two committees' focus to look at matters of natural disaster in this state. I will quote from the presiding member's foreword when the Natural Resources Committee brought down its final report on the bushfire inquiry. It was published in 2011 and it is as relevant today as it was a couple of years ago. I will quote this paragraph, which is a direct quote from the committee report:

The Committee strongly supports Iain Evans' call for a Standing Committee on Bushfires recommending that it may be opportunistically broadened to consider all Natural Disasters, including bushfires, floods, earthquakes, riverbank collapse, tsunamis, extreme weather events, hazardous material and pollution emergencies, pest plagues and agricultural diseases.

So, they are all very important points that are raised in that paragraph from the report brought down by the Natural Resources Committee. Given that argument, I strongly support, together with my colleagues on this side of the house, the bill that has been brought to the parliament by the member for Davenport.

Mrs VLAHOS (Taylor) (11:19): I would like to speak on this because it is something that concerns my electorate directly, with some of the rivers that are in the Taylor catchment. Certainly, the Gawler River has previously (before I was the member) flooded and affected many of the horticultural areas in the area. The thing that concerns me about the Liberal proponents of this amendment bill to set up a natural disasters committee, which is yet another paid parliamentary committee within the parliament, is it seems sometimes that people are more concerned about their pay rates than they are about doing their jobs.

Members interjecting:

Mrs VLAHOS: No, no. I sincerely think that sometimes people fight to go on committees simply so that they can get the—

Members interjecting:

The SPEAKER: The member for Taylor will be seated. I call to order the member for Kavel, who was particularly rowdy yesterday in question time and has been rowdy again today. I warn the member for Morialta for the first time, and I call the member for Davenport to order. I hope never to see an outpouring of interjections such as I just saw on my left, at least not before lunchtime. The member for Taylor.

Mrs VLAHOS: Thank you for your protection, Mr Speaker. I also would like to say that, in my time as the member for Taylor, I attended a CPA conference for the Asia-Pacific region relating to disaster management planning. In fact, many things came up at that very informative and educative forum I attended in Brisbane with some of our Pacific neighbours, who do indeed encounter a lot of natural disasters—inundation, floods, tsunamis, all sorts of things are visited upon them that we do not experience, with good grace, at this point in time.

One of the things that came up was the need for national disaster management, which will not be addressed by this parliamentary committee. The assumption that, within Australia, South Australia alone has all the information to be able to deal with this information is plainly arrogant and full of hubris. We need to work in a nationally coordinated approach. We send people across to other states to help them when they are suffering the misfortune of natural disaster, and we need to make sure that we consult with other states in a national plan, and the federal government is pursuing this course. Sandy Holloway, a well-known person who coordinated the Sydney Olympics and who has gone on to become somewhat of an expert in disaster management, has written on this issue at a national level, advocates for this approach.

Rather than having a piecemeal state approach, we would be better off leaving it in the hands of the professionals and letting them work out a national disaster management approach that balances all the things we on our side of the house have spoken about today—rather than having another paid committee of the Parliament of South Australia, so that people can feel good and make namby-pamby statements on committees so that they can go back to their electorates and say, 'I was defending my patch even before something happened,' which is what some people on committees do, not to say that they do not do other good work on committees as well.

In closing, I am against this Parliamentary Committees (Natural Disaster Committee) (No. 2) Amendment Bill 2012 on several grounds, most of which have been raised by the member for Colton and the Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, and I will be voting against it.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (11:23): I want to make some comments in relation to this legislation. Clearly, the government is not supporting this. This is a sector that is already very heavily scrutinised—

Mr PENGILLY: A point of order, sir.

The SPEAKER: The Minister for Education will be seated. The member for Finniss.

Mr PENGILLY: I seek your clarification, Mr Speaker. The member for Taylor spoke and then, as I understand it, the call should have gone to our side. The member for Davenport was on his feet before the minister, sir. Can I ask for a—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: He closes the debate; that is why he stood up.

The SPEAKER: The answer to that, as members have helpfully voiced from the floor, is that, if the member from Davenport spoke, he closed the debate and then no-one further on the government side would have had an opportunity to speak. The second point to make is that earlier, after the member for Chaffey spoke, I gave the call to the member for Kavel, so there were two opposition members in a row. So, on those two grounds, I see no argument, on principle, against having two government members in a row speak. I hope that explanation satisfies the member for Finniss. He's nodding; he must be satisfied.

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The SPEAKER: I am glad that he gets some satisfaction in the house. The Minister for Education.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you, sir. This is an area that is already heavily scrutinised by some significant and legitimate bodies. We think this proposal has the potential to be, at best, another unwarranted distraction for our emergency services but, at worst, an opportunity to politicise the good work our emergency services undertakes. I understand that new members in this house who saw the video of the Canberra fires (I understand it was presented to the select committee) would have been horrified by that, but in the last 10 years this government has responded in a proactive and strategic way to disaster management and bushfire risks. Some of the examples are:

in 2003, after the Canberra bushfires, we had the Premier's Bushfire Summit. I attended that summit, and the fires and how we could do things here in South Australia as best we could to prevent similar occurrences were a strategic focus of that;

the 2003 Emergency Services Review, chaired by John Dawkins;

the 2005 independent review of the Wangary bushfire by Dr Bob Smith;

the 2007 Minister for Emergency Services Review of Bushfire Management in South Australia;

the 2008 Review of the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 by Mr John Murray;

the 2008 Deputy Coroner's inquiry into the Wangary bushfires; and

the 2009-10 South Australian bushfire task force.

The emergency services sector has followed and responded to other bodies of work from around Australia, including the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, the Canberra fires report and the Perth Hills fire report. SAFECOM has advised me that all these reviews and reports undertaken by independent and expert people have one thing in common: not one of them recommended the establishment of a parliamentary standing committee for bushfires or natural disasters. There was not a single recommendation out of hundreds of recommendations contained in all these reports spanning over 10 years.

This government has continually worked towards making our state safe. Another process duplicating this work will do nothing but divert our agency staff from getting on with the job. The current standing committees, such as the Natural Resources Committee, can adequately inquire or investigate matters relating to bushfire and natural disasters. Parliament also has the estimates committee, question time and the Auditor-General's Report, all providing specific overview.

There are also other bodies that provide a forum for bushfire and disaster management and governance: the board of the Fire and Emergency Services Commission; the State Emergency Management Committee and the Emergency Management Council, chaired by the Premier; the State Bushfire Coordination Committee; zone emergency management committees; and bushfire management area committees.

In short, the sector is already closely monitored and this would add another taskmaster for agency heads to answer to, in particular the CFS, SES and MFS. Quite often, we hear in here the opposition attacking the levels of bureaucracy in the sector, and going down this path will simply add to it. There is also a major risk that our emergency services staff and volunteers will be so tied up with responding to another committee that they will be distracted from their very important roles. A standing committee would just put further pressure on front-line firefighters and rescuers if they have to try to predict how their decisions may be perceived by a parliamentary committee. Would it not be much more preferable to have them focusing on dealing with an incident?

Already we have seen this with the recent report of the Natural Resources Committee requiring the Minister of Police to recommend that the Mitcham council have a zero tolerance policy on illegal parking in fire prone areas. I do not say this to ridicule the suggestion, but surely the existing committee or its members could approach the council directly on this, rather than compelling a minister to perform something outside their core duties? At the same time, the committee also asks that a doorknocking campaign be considered.

What the committee seemed oblivious to were the large resources already directed at the Mount Lofty Ranges. This involves 12 CFS community education officers spread around the state, with five focused on the high-risk area of the Mount Lofty Ranges. Over the past three years, in the Mitcham council area alone, the CFS has run over 120 meetings with a total attendance of around 3,000 people.

In 2010, over 200,000 bushfire survival kits, including information, a DVD and a bushfire survival plan template, were mailed to residents in high-risk areas across the state. The majority of these were sent to those living in the Adelaide peri-urban interface. Fifty per cent of the CFS multimedia campaign budget goes specifically towards raising awareness of bushfire danger and survival strategies in the peri-urban area. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.