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

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 April 2013.)

Mr GARDNER: I rise today to support the bill and congratulate the member for Davenport for looking out for his constituency—

The SPEAKER: I am sorry, but apparently the Minister for Education has another four minutes remaining from her previous contribution on this matter—

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright—Minister for Education and Child Development, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (10:51): Thank you sir, I do, yes.

The SPEAKER: —and is it your intention to take them?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you sir, I will only take a minute or two to complete my remarks. Clearly, the government is not supporting this legislation and with very good reason. This is a sector that is held to very high account—appropriately so. As I have said previously, we have had review after review into our emergency services and none of the recommendations out of any of these reviews was that we should set up another committee of this parliament.

In my remarks on the last occasion, I was going through some of things that have already been put in place that perhaps the committee had not been aware of, and I have outlined two of those. I also point out that in fact 50 per cent of the Country Fire Services' annual multimedia campaign budget goes specifically towards raising awareness of bushfire danger and survival strategies in the peri-urban areas.

A successful Bushfire Safety Expo was conducted in Eden Hills, I think last year, when residents in the area accessed information on bushfires and engaged with experts. Over 900 people attended. Senior CFS officers have actively participated in a number of community bushfire readiness forums organised by the Blackwood/Belair and District Community Association in 2012.

The government does not dismiss the recommendations of the committee but is somewhat critical that this request appears to have been made without consideration to the efforts that I have outlined. Putting these into context, the request to go doorknocking, whilst it may have some merit, is out of step with the current planned and ongoing efforts already underway.

This is a perfect example of the potential an ongoing committee may have to reorganise priorities that have been considered thoroughly and professionally. Because of these risks, we are not prepared to let politics hijack our emergency services any further, nor are we willing to adopt a suggestion that has not been suggested by literally hundreds of expert recommendations relating to this subject. If I am to choose who I put my faith in to protect my home and my community, it will be our professional fire and safety experts—not six people sitting in this house.

The SPEAKER: Is the member forgoing the two minutes?

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE: Thank you, sir.

The SPEAKER: The member for Morialta.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (10:54): Thank you very much, sir. I rise again today to support the bill and congratulate again the member for Davenport for looking out for his constituents, along with many of mine and those of other members, by introducing this bill into the house. The government has indicated on a number of occasions that it will not support this bill. I believe that is disappointing, especially given recent events which occurred predominantly within my electorate of Morialta and which I will touch on today.

On Tuesday I contributed to the grievance debate to discuss the fire around Cherryville and surrounding districts which began last Thursday and which then burnt through approximately 650 hectares of land and destroyed one house over the ensuing days. The issue of burn-offs was raised and what the best way is to achieve a balance between reducing fuel loads while mitigating the risk of burn-offs getting out of control. It is a topic worthy of serious consideration and there may well need to be some reform to the rules surrounding burn-offs outside of the fire danger season, but we must not make hasty decisions.

I am very concerned that without an informed debate, such as would be carried out within the committee proposed by the member for Davenport in this bill, we might end up with responses that resulted in increased fuel loads come summer that might lead to catastrophic unintended consequences down the track.

Questions have also been raised in public debate over the use of water bombers and whether they are appropriate for a fire like the one that occurred in Cherryville on the Thursday afternoon. If this motion was supported by the government and this bill was put into place, I am sure that a natural disasters committee would be able to undertake seriously informed debate having investigated the way the bombers were utilised, hearing from all relevant parties and understanding the likely effectiveness of them in the situation confronting firefighters last Thursday afternoon.

We have also heard, in relation to the Cherryville fire, other issues raised, including how local brigades were and weren't fully utilised, meaning that valuable local knowledge, such as local understanding of the fire track network, was not always necessarily capitalised upon. The natural disasters committee could determine whether this was an issue or whether the use of resources was suitable and would be emulated again at future incidents and disasters, and it would do so in a space where, again, all views and expertise of locals, experts, paid staff, volunteer brigades, and other interested parties and expert parties, could be called upon.

We should be looking always to achieve best practice in our responses to bushfires and other natural disasters and, having this committee in place as a permanent committee of the parliament would ensure that this body—the parliament—has ongoing access to the best information as we frame the regulations, the laws and the things associated, such as the supply and the resources, relevant to dealing with these issues.

We will have access to new ideas and both departmental and non-departmental advice and when significant incidents occur, as happened on the weekend, it would be the natural place for volunteers, locals and others with relevant information arising from the incident to provide that information.

We know, again in relation to the Cherryville fires, that there is a CFS internal review and debriefing process and that information will be provided to the minister and that is all well and good, but I would like to ensure that residents in Cherryville, the CFS volunteers and the local brigades and others, all have the opportunity for their point of view and their local knowledge to be taken into consideration in a review of the matter.

The Minister for Emergency Services got a taste of why this is important when he told the public briefing in Uraidla on Saturday that the government was well disposed to extending the fire danger season. The raised tension in the room at that time was palpable and a number of locals were eager to make their feelings known, which they both did publicly at the meeting and also personally to me on the day and since. Members who are interested can have a look at the TV coverage on Saturday night to see the issue play out.

In the absence of a natural disasters committee, the opposition has called for a separate parliamentary review into the weekend's fire, the details of which I believe are being dealt with in the other place. The aim of that review was to (1) determine the circumstances of ignition and immediate CFS response, (2) evaluate the effectiveness of the deployment and procurement of aerial assets, (3) assess the fire danger season process, and (4) evaluate the communication of emergency response.

The Premier responded to that call by saying and I quote, 'We don't want a bunch of politicians sitting around actually running the ruler over this; I think we let the experts carry out their work,' and it is a similar view to that proposed by the Minister for Education just a moment ago.

That comment came just two days after the Minister for Emergency Services announced at a public meeting in Uraidla that he would consider extending the fire danger season. That was despite the fact that the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 clearly states that such a decision rests with the chief officer of the Country Fire Service—so much for letting the experts carry out their work. Before this parliament, or even worse an individual minister, runs off and starts making populist changes based on kneejerk reactions, we need to hear from all of the experts.

We need to consider all the evidence available so that we can make informed decisions and be accountable for those decisions, because it is this parliament and the members of this parliament who must be accountable for the final decisions. We need to make sure that any changes made in this place to legislation, regulations or anything else are of assistance and not a hindrance to the emergency services and their operations and that they do not cause unintended consequences. That is why we have committees in this place.

Future ministers and governments which announce policies which conflict with the recommendations of a natural disasters committee would be required to explain to stakeholders and the electorate more generally why they have diverged from the evidence based findings. All stakeholders would have a say in how a disaster has been managed and when fault is found in legislation then that can be readily addressed and in a timely manner.

In the case of the Cherryville fires, for example, volunteer firefighters involved in every level of the operation could directly have input into the committee. The risk is that in an internal review major issues which occur at lower levels of operation might be breezed over and not addressed as the debrief focuses mostly on the macro problems considered important by those conducting the review. It is obvious to the volunteers in our SES and CFS and to those working on the front line in the MFS that their organisations are built from the ground up. We want to make sure that they get to have a say in the issues that they have had to deal with at incidences. No issue would be too small or too large for this committee.

I have heard in the debate, which has happened over a number of months, now a number of statements made by government members which have caught my attention. We just heard from the member for Wright. She talked about the review after review after review that we have had into this matter. I note that the government is having another review into the broad issues related to emergency services at the moment. It strikes me that a standing committee of the parliament can undertake reviews at a time when things are brought to their attention suggesting that such reviews are necessary but would alleviate the need for extra and outside reviews to take place at such regular intervals.

I note the other debate that was brought forward by the member for Colton which was completely disparaging of contributions made by members on this side and those in support of the bill. He said things like 'for the life of me' about three times and that the parliament does not have anything to contribute with respect to these issues. But, of course, it is the parliament that is accountable to the public for the management of these issues, so it is important that the parliament is fully informed and the committee system exists to make such recommendations to the parliament, hopefully in a bipartisan manner with the heat taken out of the politics.

I conclude by drawing members' attention to the sage words, as they always are, of the member for Ashford who, in relation to this bill, on 7 February talked about the suggestions that I believe some of her other colleagues had made that these matters can be dealt with by the Natural Resources Committee or the Environment, Resources and Development Committee. The member for Ashford pointed out that the Natural Resources Committee and the Environment, Resources and Development Committee have more than enough work to do. She said:

I think there is an opportunity to look at natural disasters in this parliament, not to interfere with what is already in place by the different emergency services and the police, who I understand meet regularly and have a plan, but also to provide some focus and probably some pressure with regard to funds in this particular area. I think it is important that parliamentary committees do not interfere but, if we look at the track record of our other parliamentary committees, it is an opportunity to have a forum to discuss particular issues. It seems to me that it would be a good idea, as initiated by the member for Davenport, to have that fora in this place.

The member for Ashford went on to identify that while she was not in a position to support this proposal, she thought it was a really good idea. I commend her for making those comments. The fact of the matter is that this is a good idea, and I commend the member for Davenport for bringing it forward, and I hope all members will support it. I want to put on the record yet again my admiration for all our emergency services, their staff and volunteers.

It is a worthy calling. We, the opposition, do not want to get in their way or dictate how they should do their jobs. The volunteers and staff of the CFS, SES and MFS already know how to do their jobs and have proven their adeptness. We, the opposition, want to make sure that they are properly supported and that rash decisions are not made which impact on their ability to get their jobs done. Such a committee will assist in that task. I commend the bill to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:04): My contribution will be brief. Firstly, I thank the member for Davenport for bringing this yet again to the house's attention and the importance of it. The member for Morialta has detailed at length the events of the Cherryville fire, which is probably the most recent disaster that we have had to face, occurring only in the last week or so.

I will come back to it, but I think what is important is that, certainly in the time I have been here, the member for Davenport has been repeatedly pointing out to the parliament the importance of having a body which these matters can be referred to, properly looked at and reported back on, giving us a chance to act on them. Having a standing committee enables that to occur.

I wish to make the point however that, in South Australia, the benefit of this committee would not just be for bushfires, of course, it would be for health pandemics. We have seen, certainly again in my time in the parliament, the preparation for potential major influenza pandemics. Plans have been prepared. I think there was an acquisition of hundreds of thousands of facemasks that were to be distributed to various points around the state and structures were set in place to ensure that, in the event of a state emergency, we had dealt with legislation here to be able to have the chain of command altered and to be able to have special powers in operation.

We sit on fault lines here in major metropolitan areas in South Australia which, of course, can attract major disasters if and when we do have earthquakes. We certainly have tremors. I do not know about tidal waves, although the Speaker might recall the occasion when one of our premiers, I think stood down—

The SPEAKER: In 1976.

Ms CHAPMAN: In 1976, he reminds me—I am sure that is right—when the then premier of the day stood on the jetty to say that he was going to bravely protect South Australians. Of course, nothing happened; he put his pink shirt back on and went home. In any event, I make the point that this committee would be available there for all these matters to be dealt with.

The other aspect is this: it is quite easy, I think, for ministers who are responsible for these matters to come into the parliament, give an assessment, thank the volunteers who work hard in whatever emergency service—ambulance, fire, State Emergency Service, MFS and police—give them a pat on the back, say that there have been lessons learnt and various things have been implemented, and then the reality is that very little happens. We have major inquiries, we have royal commissions, we have all this activity which does not deal with two things, in my view.

They do not deal with the true cost of the event that has occurred—incident sometimes but serious events. They may identify the tragic death, the contribution made, the direct cost of emergency services to provide anything from sandwiches from the Salvation Army across to the fighting, cleaning up, repairing of roads and the like. What they never add in and tell South Australians is: what is the cost to the families who are burying loved ones? What is the cost to the people who spend weeks, sometimes years, rebuilding from the damage that results from these events? What is the cost in insurance, or lack of, and the public cost in having to then pay increased insurance costs for loss of infrastructure? What is the cost to people who spend weeks and years to put back fences and rebuy stock? These are all costs which never get added in.

People can come to this place and express their concern and their distress even about areas where animals might have died, etc.—all of these things—but none of this results in any clear understanding of the actual cost to the state and even, indeed, the economic productivity that is lost as a result of these events. I think we get a very sanitised version of what comes into this parliament in the reporting of what happens during these major events and we need to have a thorough look at what the real cost is to South Australians as a result of us not addressing many of the very good recommendations that have come out of the multitude of reports that have been undertaken.

Finally, I make the point that there is sometimes an opportunity to refer these issues to other bodies, as has been highlighted by other speakers, including the member for Morialta. Sometimes they are already overloaded and overburdened, sometimes they do not have the full jurisdiction to be able to undertake all aspects of the event that has occurred, and therefore it would limit what they report.

There are a couple of aspects I raise on that issue; one is that sometimes you can do that—the Cherryville fire, for example. There is a motion in the other place to refer that aspect to an existing committee, and it is an existing select committee that is currently dealing with the community and emergency services review, and extend its terms of reference to add in the Cherryville fire.

That is an existing select committee; it is able to take instruction from the other house as that motion is passed in due course and deal with the matter. It is just opportune that at the moment it is able to do that. In ordinary circumstances, that would not be available, and there would not be an ongoing select committee for that particular incident that is described as the Cherryville fires, but nevertheless it is available. I would certainly hope, at least while we are trying to secure a continuous committee to deal with emergency events and disasters, that at least the government would support that motion in the other place because, clearly, we do need to look at those aspects.

Let's remember that we are talking more about the very significant other disasters that can happen in our state. Let's understand that there is a massive cost socially, economically and environmentally, about which we do not get the full response and data from ministers coming into this house. Let's appreciate that we have a committee structure at present which, except on occasions when there might happen to be a coinciding select committee, is really not available or resourced to be able to deal with these matters.

I strongly commend the motion to the house and would hope that on this occasion, the third or fourth the member for Davenport has brought this important matter for consideration, they will not listen to the current Minister for Education and will appreciate the significance of this motion.

The SPEAKER: Bragg brevity. The member for Goyder.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (11:12): I will have to remember that term; I like that one. I have only been in this place for seven years, but it appears to me that the parliament works best when the parliament works together, and that is what frustrates me a bit about this motion for a bill from the member for Davenport, because it is actually a good one that allows the parliament to work together to improve things for the community.

I am lucky that my family has never felt the effects of a fire. I know that there are many in this chamber who have family who have. The member for MacKillop experienced a terrible fire in the South-East which resulted in the loss of a family member, which he has told me about. It shows that fire, no matter where it occurs, can impact on people. There is a responsibility for the parliament, as the house of the people and the house of review, to have involvement in ensuring that the processes are always right.

In making comments about this, I level no criticism at all at emergency services—what they do, the improvements they have made, the resources provided to them and the way in which they conduct themselves—but there is an opportunity to learn all the time. That is why I stand before you today in support of this bill—because it is an opportunity to learn.

We come in with various backgrounds, levels of expertise and interest areas, but on the basis of a community being established, be it seven people or so, that exists, I think is a good idea to ensure that processes are as good as they can be, to ask the right questions, to ensure that the correct answers are given, to petition for resources if necessary, to recommend where changes can be made or considered, to listen to people who have been directly impacted by it and therefore have first-hand experience of it, to give us what their thoughts are and where things might be improved and therefore feed that through to professionals.

The Wangary fire at Port Lincoln, with the terrible loss of life and property that occurred there, is still a court case. That shows me that there are questions raised about issues in that. That will be proven in the course of time as to the validity of the court case that is occurring there and the damages claims that have been lodged for that, but it shows that the parliament has a responsibility to be involved in a process, to ensure that it has the emergency services response and the way in which is managed in the absolutely best possible way. These people will tell us the time lines of it. They come with no political background on it. They come with a real person background on it to try to make it better, and that is what the committee will do.

There are some committees that exist in the parliament that work very diligently and are exceptionally busy and there are some that have a little bit more time available, but there is an interest from all members (that I have seen) to try to get things done properly.

So, this is not that radical a choice, I would have thought. It is an opportunity for members who have an ability and an interest to be involved and for a committee to be established in the long term to ensure that the process is right so that when resources are allocated there is a confidence that exists amongst all taxpayers and, indeed, the 1.6 million people in the state that it is going to provide them with the best possible opportunity for protection. It takes away a lot of the political debate, it ensures there will be bipartisan support on things and it gives us some hope for the future.

I stand before you as someone who does not look at this as a political issue, I look at it purely as a basis of recommendations being made and an opportunity for the community to come and speak in a very candid way, with some level of security, to ensure that the issues they put forward are considered quite seriously by the people who make the policy and allocate the dollars, and that we only get an improvement. I hope there is an opportunity for a vote on this and I hope there is an opportunity for a reconsideration of the position put by the Minister for Education on behalf of the government and that it is supported because there are a lot of people who want to talk about this. No matter where you come from there is an impact felt, so it is our responsibility to reflect the community's expectations, and one of those is for a parliamentary committee to look at these natural disasters.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (11:16): It seems to me that every time there is an issue of urgency—

Mr Pengilly: Do you have a lot of bushfires down your way?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: That does not mean I do not have a point of view. I do not think the solution is another committee. I do not think the solution to problems is not to use the existing structures within the parliament. I think it shows a level of not so much contempt for the institutions of the parliament because that would be unfair and unparliamentary to say that about members opposite, but what I think it does show is a lack of confidence in the committees. I think the committee structure is a very important one. I think the committee structure serves this parliament and the people of South Australia well. I know that the work members do on the committees in this place is valuable. I know that I often read (you are not approving of my remarks, sir?) the reports that come out of the committees. Indeed, there have been some very important reforms that have come out of our committees.

I know of the work done on the Economic and Finance Committee to establish the Small Business Commissioner and the investigation into franchises, which the member for Goyder and I were on together. It was presided over very well by a young and ambitious presiding officer who wanted to make sure that small businesses were looked after and given the voice that they so desperately needed. We came to a unanimous position on the establishment of a Small Business Commissioner but when I turned around there was no-one from the opposition standing behind me, which is a great regret that I have because I know that the member for Goyder, deep down in his heart at night when he is by himself, thinks about when he voted against the establishment of a Small Business Commissioner and perhaps maybe that is one he regrets.

In terms of natural disasters, I think the hardworking people of the Environment, Resources and Development Committee—a very good committee, a committee that I have served on—can do a lot of good in this area. I have to say that we live in a state that has, unfortunately, become accustomed to bushfires. It is something that is very hard for us to stamp out. Indeed, I think the term 'bushfires' is not the appropriate one, it should be 'wildfires' because they are sometimes very difficult to contain. Of course, it is a very emotive issue, given that people's properties are at risk, people's livelihoods are at risk and, indeed, people's lives are at risk. Given the level of anxiety in our community about this issue it does deserve greater scrutiny. If we went out to the people of Cherryville and the people of the Adelaide Hills and said to them that our solution is one more committee, I think there would be groans.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No, that's not right. The member for Davenport is a very fierce advocate for his local community and he often talks in this place about the dangers of bushfires and their impact on his community. I know that other members in this place are concerned about this as well, but I think the proposal by the opposition perhaps is not the best way of dealing with this issue.

While the member for Davenport is to be commended for taking an interest, as he should as one of the local members affected, I think the CFS and the people who are tasked with protecting home and treasure and life are the ones from which we should be taking advice, and the institutions we have in place can adequately deal with this matter.

If we are not careful we could descend into a partisan debate, and we should not. I think it is fair to say that we all want the same outcome, and that outcome is that we want the very best responses available to protect people in their homes. I think the response should be a whole-of-government response. I think the response should come from consultation with local government, with emergency services and first responders and with departments like mine (DPTI) and departments like Emergency Services and, of course, other users, such as the Department for Education. I know that there has been a lot of concern about how we manage getting schoolchildren in and out and the inconvenience it causes during bushfire season, about whether or not we allow children to attend school in the morning and, when they are at school, do we keep them there or do we try to get them out. These issues are very complex.

I think the worst thing we can do in natural disasters is have a political overlay into decision-making, because when you get political overlay in decision-making you get mistakes, and when you get mistakes in wildfires it can cost lives. We need to be very careful that we do not do anything—anything—that may jeopardise one life. I understand the concerns that members have. I understand the concerns that the parliament has. I think the government's response is prudent. I think the government's response is wise. I accept the concerns that members opposite have, but I think perhaps somewhere in the middle there is a compromise that we can reach.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:23): It is obvious that the government is going to vote this particular measure down again. I will just make some points. The Minister for Education's contribution, I think, is illuminating as to how ill informed that minister and the government are about how fire works and how natural disasters work. Read her contribution. She suggests that the opposition have the chance to be involved in bushfire planning and preparation because we can question the Auditor-General. Really. We can raise questions in estimates which are, of course, about financial matters, not matters to do with natural disaster policy issues.

The government's view I think is naive. I think it is ill informed. I think the government's attitude actually puts people at risk, because what the government is saying is, 'Don't worry, parliament, the government has everything organised in relation to natural disasters, and how dare you think that the parliament, full of members who have electorates that are affected by natural disasters every season, might actually have some contribution to make by questioning the authorities about how we prepare and respond to natural disasters.'

Let me give you one classic example of how dumb the current situation is: the state government has introduced a system of a thing called 'places of last resort'. These are the areas that you are meant to go when you have nowhere else to go. Guess what they are? In the Mitcham Hills, they are the open parks—they are the ovals. The reason they are not school halls and recreation centres is that the government and the owners of those facilities cannot come to agreement about legal liability.

Rather than let people go into a sheltered area, which is the safest place to be in fire—no, our current policy says, 'When the fire is coming and you have nowhere else to go, you can't go into the local recreation centre because we can't organise who is going to take liability in the middle of an Ash Wednesday. What we want you to do is go and stand in the middle of an oval and be subject to ember attack through 70 kilometre winds blowing ashes all over you.' That is the policy we have today—and this government says, 'Don't worry about it, the government has it organised.' And the member for Colton says, 'How dare the parliament seek to have an input into that sort of policy. How dare the parliament want to raise questions on behalf of their community.'

We have the member for West Torrens, who is passionate about his community. Well, let me say this: when the next flood occurs in the western suburbs, as it certainly will, do not come at Her Majesty's opposition about why it was not fixed, because this committee could have looked at that natural disaster situation about why that flooding area in the western suburbs is not yet fixed.

The government can have its way on this bill, but go to the Cherryville fire. The CFS put out a press release on 1 May saying to the community, 'Be aware that there is still a bad fire danger and there might have to be more fire bans.' Then on the day the Cherryville fire occurred, the CFS did not issue a fire ban. Why not? Then when the CFS rang and asked for aerial support, we find out that the contract for the firefighting planes has not been re-signed. Well, if the fire danger still existed, as the CFS press release claimed, can anyone explain why the firefighters' aeroplanes contract was not still live?

The government says that the parliament has no role in sorting out those issues—'We are not interested one bit in interfering in the day-to-day activities of the agencies on the ground doing their job.' But in the planning, preparation, resourcing, training, equipping and the community education side of it, there is certainly a role for the parliament, and I think that it is a shame and a disgrace that the government is so naive on this issue that it is leaving the community exposed by voting against this measure.

The house divided on the second reading:

Majority of 4 for the noes.

Second reading thus negatived.