PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES (NATURAL DISASTERS COMMITTEE) (NO. 3) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:45): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill comes from the other place, which supported the bill. This bill seeks to set up a parliamentary committee into natural disasters, and this bill has had a long gestation. This is the fifth attempt, I believe, to get the parliament to set up a standing committee in relation to natural disasters. A little bit of history: this originally was an idea to set up a parliamentary committee into bushfires. The government opposed that idea and sent a reference to the parliament's Natural Resources Committee, which did an inquiry under the now Deputy Premier's stewardship, which continued under the member for Ashford's stewardship as Chair.

That committee, made up of Labor, Liberal and minor party members, unanimously recommended to set up a parliamentary committee into natural disasters. So, it would not just deal with bushfire, flooding or earthquake but it would deal with natural disasters in the broad. The government has voted this down at least three times, if not four times, so the Hon. John Dawkins—I thank him for his effort and support—moved this bill in the other place, and the other place has supported it. That is why we are debating it here today.

The reality is that in my electorate and other electorates there are natural disaster issues that should be put front and centre of a parliamentary committee. If you want evidence of that, have a look at what is happening with the select committee into the Cherryville fire, where there are a whole range of issues that have come out of that particular select committee that could easily have been dealt with by a standing committee of the parliament.

The government's argument has been that you do not want to put the bureaucracy under the extra burden of having to answer to the parliament on every issue in regard to their agency. The answer to that is: have a look at what happened with the Cherryville fire. Look at the parliament's response. The parliament's response was to set up a select committee just to look at that fire.

This becomes the problem: that select committee will look at the issues around one single fire but it will not look at system issues across the whole of the departments on a whole-of-government basis: the police's power to evacuate, SA Water's provision of appropriate standards and volumes of water, the planning system, building design, being able to evacuate and the road capacity. All those issues are whole-of-government, whole-of-system issues.

What we have had—and the parliament has done it consistently—is a fire in Port Lincoln, let's have an inquiry; a fire in the Adelaide Hills, let's have an inquiry; a fire at Cherryville, let's have an inquiry. It is a nonsense, in my view and, indeed, the opposition's view, that we continue to set up these individual inquiries on a one-off basis that look at just one incident when many of the issues are systematic.

If you have a look at every single report into bushfires the same issues will come up. It will talk about communications on the day, the capacity and training of the volunteer/professional staff, was the provision of equipment adequate, what is the media message, should they have been evacuated or should they not have been evacuated? All those questions come up in every single inquiry.

There is no doubt in my mind that by not having a standing committee into natural disasters the parliament is doing a disservice and ultimately putting lives at risks. I think anyone who lives in the Adelaide Hills would be concerned—having had a very wet winter and what is going to be a spring with lots of growth—about the level of bushfire risk this particular summer.

I will give you an example of the things this committee could deal with. It has taken me nearly 15 months to deal with one issue about a house fire in Penno Parade North, which is one street outside my electorate. When the CFS arrived, there was not enough water capacity to fight the house fire. There was not enough water capacity in the mains to fight a single house fire. Having dealt with that through the then minister for water, the member for Colton's office, and then ultimately the new Minister for Water having followed it up, it has taken something like 15 to 18 months to have that investigated and finally have the mains replaced in that street.

The pretty obvious question is: if there is not enough mains water in that street to fight a single house fire, is there enough mains pressure in the district to fight a bushfire of the Ash Wednesday-type capacity? It is those sorts of issues the committee could sit down and look at, but the government—I think through political belligerence—is deciding not to open up that avenue of questioning for local members in the form of a parliamentary committee. It should not take a member of parliament 15 months and six or seven letters to try to work out whether there is enough water capacity in one street when ultimately you could do it through a parliamentary committee.

As I say, this is our fifth attempt to try to get this piece of legislation up. I am hoping that the government might have seen the error of its ways, given the fire danger that is going to be upon us this summer, which I think will be one of our worst for a long time in terms of potential danger. I am hoping that the government can see the error of its ways. Whether you are talking about a bushfire, an earthquake or flooding—and I know the member for West Torrens has an issue in his electorate, as do a lot of the western suburbs—it is interesting that the government does not want the parliament to have a committee overseeing those sorts of issues, even concerning matters in their own electorates. I am not sure why you would not want parliamentary oversight of that.

The government says you do not want to tie the bureaucrats answering to a committee. What is the parliament for if not to ask the appropriate questions? A parliamentary committee provides a broader range of experience sitting around the table to ask the appropriate questions, and every member of parliament comes to the table representing a different electorate with a different set of experiences, and to have them quiz the bureaucrats I think puts pressure on the system to make sure that we are properly prepared.

I have given this example before, but again I raise this for the government's consideration. The evidence from the CFS given to the Natural Resources Committee, when they had the bushfire reference, from the CFS in my electorate, was that my electorate does not have the capacity to evacuate at the time of a fire; the road capacity is not there. When talking to the CFS about who will give the instruction to evacuate, they said, 'Don't worry about it, that's the responsibility of the police.' I am intrigued because if the CFS professionals say that there is not the capacity to evacuate, what plan is in place to deal with 30,000 people in the Mitcham Hills (and a lot more in the Adelaide Hills) in regard to evacuations?

The government says that the policy is, 'Leave before the fire starts.' For 120,000 people, the policy is, 'Leave before the fire starts.' Even if that could occur, and even if they were prepared to do it, my view is they will do it when we have these long stretches of seven, eight, nine or 10 days of 40° heat—and we get those in Adelaide every now and again. I think six or seven years ago there was one run of 13 days straight.

I suspect that the diligent people, who are going to leave before the fire starts, will do it on day one and, when there is no fire, they will do it on day two, maybe, but by days three and four they will not evacuate before the fire starts. There is going to be a large pool of people, and the CFS policy is, 'Leave before it starts,' and at that point, if they have not left, what then?

What the government knows, because it is on the formal record of the evidence, is that the view of the CFS is that there will be something like 7,000 to 8,000 cars on the road, and the road does not have the capacity. I have tried to get the Old Belair Road upgraded many times; this government took funding away from the upgrade as one of its first actions under the Rann government.

I have put everything I can on the record about this issue in the best interest of my electorate and the government has point blankly stonewalled it. I can do no more than raise the issue and pray there is not a press conference at some point in the future saying, 'I told you so.'

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.