Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 11 February 2016.)

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (15:35): I can tell the house that I am the lead speaker on this bill and that the opposition will be supporting it unamended. When people talk about the driest state on the driest continent and think about emergencies in South Australia, they immediately go to bushfires, but emergencies here vary across the whole spectrum of meteorological, geological and human health events. We have animal and plant disease, earthquake, escape of hazardous materials, extreme weather, flood, human disease, rural fire, urban fire and, of course, terrorism. The emergency management plan in South Australia is designed to have arrangements in place to manage that range of emergencies.

The Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016 was introduced in the House of Assembly on 11 February 2016 by the Premier. The bill provides the legislative framework for the management of emergencies in South Australia. It seeks to ensure that South Australia has the capability to properly manage any state emergency by articulating the key elements of the state emergency management arrangements, including roles and responsibilities under these arrangements.

As outlined in the minister's second reading speech, the bill seeks to clarify the authority of the State Emergency Management Plan, enable the efficient operations of the State Emergency Management Committee, ensure the emergency management arrangements are clearly defined, provide for protection from liability, provide objects and principles to address clarity on role and function, clarify powers that may be exercised in relation to disconnection of water and drainage, and clarify various emergency management definitions. The bill follows a legislative review undertaken of the State Emergency Management Plan by the emergency management committee, and I will give some information to the house about the emergency management plan and some of the background on the committee.

The State Emergency Management Plan outlines responsibilities, authorities and the mechanisms to prevent or, if they occur, manage and recover from incidents and disasters within South Australia. The SEMP will be updated as required and reviewed by the State Emergency Management Committee. The SEMP relies on strong, cooperative, coordinated and consultative relationships amongst state government agencies and local government. State government agencies and local government will also be required to maintain effective relationships with other services and equipment owners and operators to ensure that an efficient and coordinated response can be made to an incident or disaster.

The state government agencies and local government acting to prevent, respond to, investigate and recover from incidents in Australia will base their plans on the SEMP. This plan does not assume a particular incident or event and is based on all-hazards principles as endorsed by the Emergency Management Council and Emergency Management Australia. The plan is intended for use by senior members of state and local government, including commanders, controllers and other senior coordinating officials.

The plan is issued as both public and government versions. The public version, which is the government version minus restricted contact details, is freely available on the government's websites. The review of the Emergency Management Plan, as I have said, is a responsibility of the State Emergency Management Committee. Sitting above that committee, though, is the Emergency Management Council, and this is a council which particularly has a role if there is a declared disaster. It sits there and is the supreme management authority for emergencies in South Australia.

The Emergency Management Council is a committee of cabinet chaired by the Premier and comprising the Attorney-General, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, the Minister for Regional Development, the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, the Treasurer, the Minister for Health, the Minister for Police and Minister for Emergency Services, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy and the Minister for Communities and Social Inclusion.

Its objectives are to ensure the adequacy of the State Emergency Management Plan. Then responsibility for the actual plan comes down to the State Emergency Management Committee, and the State Emergency Management Committee is a strategic planning committee that reports to the Emergency Management Council on matters that relate to the preparedness of the state against identified hazards or protective security matters.

The SEMC is chaired by the Chief Executive, Department of Premier and Cabinet, and the committee members include the chief officers of the emergency services, the Commissioner of Police, the chief executives of state government agencies with emergency management responsibilities and a local government representative. The various levels of control and command that come under that, then, are divided into 11 management zones across the state and they are: the Adelaide Hills, Fleurieu and Kangaroo Island; Barossa; Eastern Adelaide, Eyre and Western; Far North; Limestone Coast; Murray and Mallee; Northern Adelaide; Southern Adelaide; Western Adelaide; and Yorke and Mid North.

The state is divided into these zones to allow particular arrangements to be put in place depending on the particular risks and threats that exist in those areas. Within the emergency management zones, and also across the state in some cases, there are arrangements put in place for control and command when a particular hazard arises or is encountered, and we have hazard leaders there. A hazard leader is the agency which has the knowledge, expertise and resources to undertake a leadership role for the planning of emergency management activities pertaining to the prevention of, preparedness for and responding to and recovery from the appointed hazard.

The need to make sure that South Australia is well and truly prepared for emergencies that may arise—and will unfortunately will arise at some stage—is something that we have to be very well aware of. It is all well and good to have an emergency arise, such as the Sampson Flat bushfire, and if we are not prepared not only to combat the emergency when it arises and then also to have plans in place to provide for the recovery and to maintain the resilience of communities, then that would be a sad state.

That is why this plan is such an important document. It is freely available, as I have said, and the people involved at all levels, I know, are very dedicated and diligent. The recent bushfires we have had in South Australia have been horrific for everybody concerned and all those who have been touched by them in any way. Certainly I would like to thank the former minister for emergency services for his level of cooperation and keeping me informed on what was going on there in his role, and I know that he undertook his role with great diligence and conscientious application of effort.

There were issues around the management of the Sampson Flat fire that were investigated by AFAC, the Australasian Fire and Emergency Services Authorities Council. There were 18 recommendations, and one of them was that the South Australian Bushfire Plan should be put in under the State Emergency Management Plan and then also clearly define the role of the Country Fire Service.

That was one of the concerns that I had when I received a briefing on this bill and can I thank the minister's staff for the briefing on the bill. They gave me responses to my concerns, and there are a couple, and I will talk about the AFAC recommendation for a start and then a couple of others. The response that the minister's advisers gave me when I asked about this inclusion of the bushfire management plan was:

The AFAC review recommended a review of relevant Legislation associated Acts and Plans to establish a consistent approach to fire and emergency management to minimise duplication and risk of contradiction, and that the Hazard and Functional area plans be amalgamated and establish a SA Bushfire Plan, under the SEMP, which clearly define role of SACFS.

The CFS CE, Greg Nettleton advises that he has noted the recommendation of the AFAC review. The recommendation relates to the fact that there are requirements for a Bushfire Management Plan in the Fire and Emergency Services (FES) Act and a Hazard Plan (fire) in the Emergency Management (EM) Act, and questions why there are two separate plans.

Chief Officer Nettleton has said that:

…the CFS is currently working towards amalgamating these into one single plan covering the requirements of both Acts. Future amendments to both Acts may be required to reflect this change, however this matter cannot be considered by the current bill as the planning phase alone (i.e. amalgamation) could take in excess of 12 months to work through.

I understand that that is going to be a thorough process and we will watch this space.

The Functional Plan is a separate document and subject to a different process under the [Emergency Management] Act—i.e. all Functional Services have a functional services plan as a stand-alone document. The Rural Fire Functional Service Plan outlines comprehensively [and] describes the SACFS role and function when responding as per the State's emergency management arrangements. It builds upon the role that the SACFS carries out pursuant to the Emergency Management Act 2004, State Emergency Management Plan and Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005. The CFS will not be amalgamating this plan with the other two.

I also had questions about how an incident is declared, whether it is a major incident or a disaster, and the response from the minister's adviser is:

There are three declarations available under the State Emergency Management Arrangements: a) Identified Major Incident, b) Major Emergency and c) Disaster. The Police Commissioner as the State Coordinator can declare an Identified Major Incident and a Major Emergency. The Governor can extend a Major Emergency and can declare a Disaster.

I assume that the Governor is doing that on the advice of the minister, who I would imagine would be then acting as part of the cabinet emergency management committee. There were some concerns from the Local Government Association initially when this bill was first put out for consultation about the arrangements between local government and the state government, particularly over the workers compensation arrangements for local government workers acting under direction as part of the State Emergency Management Plan. Again, I will put on the Hansard the response from the minister's advisers:

From late 2013, the Local Government Association (LGA) have utilised Natural Disaster Resilience Program funding to develop (with the support of emergency services) a framework for engaging councils in emergency operations which emphasizes safety. This is known as the iResponda program.

In April 2014, the President of the LGA wrote to the Minister for Emergency Services expressing concerns about workers compensation liability where local council workers are injured while acting under the direction of Control Agencies. These concerns were also expressed in a subsequent meeting between LGA representatives and the Minister.

In response to these concerns the State Emergency Management Committee (SEMC) has overseen the 'Local government workers compensation risk management project'. This project has clarified that local council workers participating under the iResponda framework are covered for workers compensation under the Return to Work Act (2015) where their activities carried out with local council equipment are considered ordinary council business conducted at the direction and control of the Council.

Those were the few points of clarification. We do not have any amendments on this legislation; it is a sensible piece of legislation. The act will need to be reviewed, depending on everything from the technology that becomes available in managing hazards, to any other jurisdictional arrangements that may come up through COAG or through the federal government wishing to have further input in the management of emergencies, such as terrorism, or having to be handled and approached on a national basis. There are the speakers from this side of the house, and I will now pass over to them. If there are any concerns that need to be clarified, I look forward to the minister's winding up in the second reading speech.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light) (15:51): I rise to support this bill, and I thank the member for Morphett for his comments, and also his indication of his support for the bill in an unamended form. I also thank him for the generous comments he made about my role as previous minister for emergency services, and I acknowledge that. I would like to make a few comments in support of the bill, and also draw on some of the experiences from the Pinery fires which are relevant, given that a third of my electorate was actually affected by the fires.

The Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016 is a positive step by this government to ensure continuity of community safety, and also to develop resilience or, I should say, to further develop resilience. It has been 12 years since the Emergency Management Act 2004 was enacted. Since this time, the state's emergency management arrangements have held us in good stead. They have seen us through the disaster and loss that was Black Tuesday in 2005, the one in 20-year flood of Virginia in 2005, the heatwave of 2009, and through to the fires that ravaged Sampson Flat and ultimately took life at Pinery late last year.

Particularly in the last major disaster, the Pinery fires, which affected my electorate very much, I would like to make a few comments. This is where this act is important in terms of planning and research in terms of future disasters. If you like, one of the ironies, when I was speaking to farmers about the nature of the fire, was that the improved farming practices which have been very good for farmers and very good for our economy—good for everybody—have actually meant there is more—

Mr Pederick: Fuel.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Fuel—thank you; that is the word I was looking for. So, the challenge now is: how do we maintain those very good practices, because we need to produce food in the most effective way for the world, and also deal with these issues. Whether you believe in climate change or not is not relevant. As the farmers say to me: it is changing—the patterns are changing. What you call it is irrelevant; the fact is that things are changing, and we need to respond to those changes.

Ms Chapman: Tell the Fraser Institute.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The point I was making, member for Bragg, was that it does not matter what you call it; the reality on the ground—

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: You are agreeing with me, okay, thank you. The farmers tell me that things are changing: our summers are getting longer, and there is variation in heat, which does impose a lot of pressure. And particularly with our summers getting longer, the issue where we actually lease planes from overseas in the off season to provide protection for our communities in Australia—putting aside for a moment the fact that the commonwealth has withdrawn some of its funding for that support—does pose a challenge to our communities to provide that air support for our firefighters on the ground. In the northern hemisphere, when their seasons become more unpredictable and longer, they need the planes there longer as well.

One thing the farmers in my community have made very clear to me is that they believe that air support—and increased air support—is very important to fighting fires in the very early stages. I would endorse those comments, and I would actually say at this point that both the commonwealth and the state governments need to get together to make sure we find a solution to make sure we have that air protection and air support for our communities.

The other thing I need to also mention related to that is that one of my communities which was affected very severely by the fires was the Wasleys community. The challenge there was the lack of mobile telephone coverage. That is something I have taken up with Telstra and have also taken up with the relevant ministers. Again, that is one of the things I think is very important. Again, it is a commonwealth responsibility, but I would say that both the commonwealth and the state—

Mr Pederick interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: If you let me finish, what I am about to say is that both the state and the commonwealth need to sort that out. It matters not to the communities on the ground who has responsibility. This is not to give a free pass to the commonwealth, but we need to make sure that, as a state government, we do what we can to make sure we get rid of these blackspots in our communities.

I certainly have made it very clear to the ministers in the government that I will be supporting any moves to make sure there is budget provision—a co-payment, if you like—to make sure we get that improved mobile coverage. It is not only about safety, which is very important, but it is also very important for those rural communities to have access to appropriate internet services, etc., to support those communities. I would like to put on record my support for both improving our air support for our firefighters on the ground and also improving the funding available for blackspots to ensure we have good coverage in those communities.

This act has ensured that our state's emergency management arrangements are cooperative and integrated, meaning that we are fully prepared for preventing, responding to and recovering from emergency situations and disasters as best we can. It brings together government agencies, emergency services, local government, non-government organisations and the community in a collaborative approach, ensuring community safety and resilience. I would agree with that. If you look at any major incident in our community, it is when all those groups get together and the community get together that we actually stand up and fight those disasters together.

This bill is important because it takes our already effective emergency management framework and strengthens and enhances it. Constant learning and experience have provided us with improvements and clarifications which will ensure the act can continue to provide for community safety and resilience into the future. Specifically, the bill will clarify emergency management arrangements around roles and responsibilities. This is of particular interest to the government, given the importance accorded to these matters during inquiries into some of the largest and most recent disasters in Australia, namely, the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission and the Queensland floods inquiry.

The bill also addresses the efficient operation of the State Emergency Management Committee, which has a leadership role in emergency management planning in South Australia, which the member for Morphett alluded to in his contribution to this place. The bill will widen the strategic management functions of the SMEC to allow it to examine and review any emergency, not just one which has been a declared event, including interstate and international events. This will allow the government to expand on lessons learnt, improve its knowledge base and identify improvements to state arrangements. Ultimately, this will be reflected in the development of community resilience to emergencies and disasters.

The updated act will contribute to South Australia's Strategic Plan vision, 'We are safe in our homes, community and at work,' which makes specific reference to the potential impact of natural disasters and notes that, 'Everyone has a role to play in being prepared for such events.' That is certainly something I would echo. I believe these changes will ensure the purpose of the Emergency Management Act 2004 is fully realised, and that is to have clear, integrated emergency management arrangements to reassure the community that this government is proactive in its approach, and to encourage community resilience and reduce vulnerability to emergency events. With those comments, I would commend the bill.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (15:58): I rise to support the Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016. This bill was introduced into this place on 11 February by the Premier. Its focus is to provide the legislative framework for the management of emergencies here in South Australia. It seeks to ensure that our state has the capability to properly manage any state emergency by articulating the key elements of the state emergency management arrangements, including roles and responsibilities under those arrangements. What the bill seeks to do is:

1. clarify the authority of the State Emergency Management Plan;

2. enable the efficient operations of the State Emergency Management Committee;

3. ensure the emergency management arrangements are clearly defined;

4. provide for protection from liability, and I think that is vitally important;

5. provide objects and principles to address clarity on role and function;

6 clarify powers that may be exercised in relation to disconnection of water and drainage; and

7. clarify various emergency management definitions.

This bill has come about because of a legislative review which was undertaken by the State Emergency Management Plan and formulises the role of hazard leaders and zone emergency management committees within the structure of South Australian emergency management arrangements. The Local Government Association have been consulted. The concerns they initially had with the bill regarding the acknowledgement of their role have been addressed, and they have no concerns with the current bill.

I am also pleased that, as part of this bill, it is for the government to absolutely ensure protection from liability for those people who act in good faith in accordance with the act. The bill will extend appropriate coverage of individuals executing directions in accordance with the State Emergency Management Plan, and this option will allow any group of persons carrying out directions or requirements issued under either the act or the State Emergency Management Plan to be provided with appropriate protection.

I think, certainly in relation to this liability protection, and I have spoken of it several times in this place, it is absolutely necessary that people are aware of the protections they have, especially when they are out fighting fires and need to address local issues on the ground, at the fire front, and make the right decisions when the fire is in progress. I have indicated before that there was a poor decision made somewhere up the chain when a back-burn was not done in Ngarkat not that many years ago and a fire came out towards Parrakie and Parilla. If the burn-back had been lit that Sunday morning, it would have pulled that fire up before it reached the farming land.

That is the type of decision that we need made on the ground by local commanders. They could be in touch by radio and mobile phone at times, depending on the coverage, to advise what they are doing, but we need people to take appropriate, direct action. I think we live too much in a world where people are so concerned about what the consequences are. The consequences of not doing that burn-back that day were that many hundreds of acres were burnt out, and we had farmers on ploughs trying to pull it up, and then people out on the land trying to stop the fire from getting further.

We have to make sure that the individuals on the ground are covered, whether or not they are in a farm firefighting unit. We cannot operate in our emergency situations without those farm firefighting units. I think of the recent fire out in Billiatt towards Lameroo, where there were many ploughs run into the ground and many utes driven to extinction in trying to keep ahead of the blaze that essentially burnt out very close to 100 per cent of Billiatt Conservation Park.

This is not to detract from our formal emergency services like the Country Fire Service, of which I am a member as are many members in this place as well, but it is all a combination. As the member for Light said, our air assets are vital to firefighting. We have seen so many times that, when the air assets have been used appropriately, we get great results.

The air assets have better direction. I think the direction generally used to be to protect only assets, but now I believe they will be sent to many more fire fronts to try to contain the blaze before it gets anywhere near assets, which is a much better role. I have spoken many times in here of the role that Aerotech and the McCabe family and others who join them play in these programs of fire suppression.

You only have to look at fires like Sampson Flat, Pinery or smaller fires. I have certainly been involved in a lot of firefighting; I have done plenty of burn-backs. We have had to put out accidental fires, and you soon get to learn the nature of the beast. One thing you do learn very quickly is that it can be very unpredictable sometimes, and you need to get those air assets in, hit it hard and knock it out, then get in the ground crews, whether they are CFS trucks or farmers with their own private vehicles, who can do the clean-up and do a great job.

We do need to be absolutely certain and not make excuses when, I believe, sometimes poor decisions are made. I think poor decisions were made in relation to Cherryville. For the next few days after that event, the government was making excuses about why the planes did not go up: 'Oh, it wouldn't work.' Obviously the edict was drilled down through the MFS and CFS, who said, 'Oh, no, it was just not going to happen,' for whatever reasons.

I cannot remember the myriad of reasons now; there was a range of reasons why the planes would not have worked. I diverge well away from that. I think the planes should have gone up and, if they had, I do not think we would have lost anywhere near the amount of scrub and farmland and dwellings that were lost in that fire. I believe it was firmly the government's problem in regard to the fact that they would have had to spend money to get those planes back out of contract and into firefighting mode at the end of the season. I believe it would have taken less than an hour to convert back those planes that had been converted for crop-spraying or for other jobs.

I know in relation to the Wangary fire, which was right near the member for Flinders' properties over on the West Coast, some decisions were made where some private operators did not take off because of the contractual arrangements. I would like to think that there are better plans in place so that, if for whatever reason the contracted planes cannot be there at that minute, and if there is the option for private contractors to go up, there can be arrangements in place so that if the plane is available and is loaded with water and gel, they can do the job.

And they do a great job. I heard only the other day about the special fire equipment that is based at Keith for fighting in the parks. One of the blokes operating it down at, I think, Messent Park needed a fair few loads of gel dropped on him and, in the end, he could not see out of the machine because he had so much gel over the tractor. And it protected him, which is the role of the planes, and that is fantastic.

In a smaller fire we had at Coomandook several years ago, which was nowhere near the size of Pinery or Sampson Flat, a friend of mine and his family for whatever reason did not get out quickly enough. They went into the bathroom and filled the bath with water and, luckily for them, when it got pretty hot outside, a plane came over the top and dropped a load of gel on the house and that fixed that. They do great work. I think, especially in relation to Cherryville, we just cannot be nitpicking about what these planes cost. They save many lives. It is great to think of the number of lives they have saved.

They have also saved so many assets. One issue in relation to firefighting is that people cannot get into their homes if they have left or have been away for the day because they cannot get past the police roadblocks. I can understand that the police do not want to have loss of life, but I think there needs to be some flexibility around that where people are caught by accident. I was up around Hamley Bridge around sections of the Pinery fire—

Dr McFetridge interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: I'm on a roll, Dunks; don't tell me—with the Natural Resources Committee. We heard some interesting stories. I think it was the Bubner property where the wife actually made what would have been a heartbreaking phone call to her husband, who was playing bowls, and said, 'I think my time has come,' because the car would not start and she could not leave. It was probably a blessing that the car did not start because she was in the house when the fire went over the top. She managed to get out and use buckets of rainwater to put the fire out because the other pipes had melted. I am sure John Bubner could not have had a better sight than to see his wife putting the fire out when he got there.

There is also another story that came out of there about Peter Angus and his family. You hear these almost bizarre stories. His father was doing such a great job in rounding up stock. This is one of the harder hit areas up past Mallala. It is a lot sandier country. The country is just drifting. There is nothing you can do; there is no management. You cannot hit it with a cultivator or rough it up, as they have in some of the heavier country, because it is just blowing away anyway.

Peter was not at the farm. His father was doing something with fighting the fire and Peter got in touch with him on the phone and said, 'Well, don’t you think we ought to save the stud stock?' 'Oh, that would be an idea.' So, he rounds them up, gets them out of the path of the fire and gets them into the yards. Then he was trying to save some of the commercial sheep. The fire was essentially following him down the roadway and eventually he had to cut and run himself and get out of there.

The fascinating thing is that Peter Angus ran into his uncle by chance in Mallala (I think); it was outside away from the farm. Peter was just in a vehicle, but his uncle had a tank of water on the back of a ute. Somehow he managed to get back into the fire zone and put out his neighbour's house and then got to his house. We saw the damage where the fire had actually taken out the hessian-type pergola area on the side of the house and had started burning the woodwork up against the stonework; it was that close. He said that if he had not run into his uncle and had not managed to get back there, they would have lost their house.

There are other stories of very historic homes that have been lost because people were not there. I know it is a matter of risk and a matter of what you think you can manage, but I have had reports from people in the hills who have said that if you are going to stand and fight, sometimes that is the best method. You just stay inside, wait until it goes over the top and then put it out, but that takes a bit of courage and I certainly would not have my family on board; I would tell them to go and I would stay there and wear the consequences. Something that needs to be weighed up is letting people back in and how we manage that. There needs to be a bigger discussion about that because I do acknowledge the risks and what could happen in the confusion, but we do lose a lot of assets.

I would like to acknowledge all of our emergency services people, whether they be paid or volunteers. They do such a great job. This bill is about putting in a management committee to be in charge of a state management plan for these major events so that there can be a coordinated response, and not just the response after an event has happened, but the mitigation and planning for what could happen into the future.

As the member for Light indicated, with the upgraded farming methods we have had for over 20 years and things like no-till, where you can grow a pretty handy crop on not much rain, you probably have what is essentially a five tonne to a hectare stubble. You do not get much rain, so then you grow a two tonne to the hectare crop, but you have all this fuel there, and that is exactly what happened at Pinery. It was like the perfect storm. Whether the crops had been reaped or not, there was still such a huge fuel load and away it went.

Since then there has been some discussion about whether we have one of those big planes that can suck up straight out of the sea and that kind of thing for fighting fire. That is something that needs to be addressed, but, as I said, we cannot take it away from the air elements we have now. Elvis and all of the operators like Aerotech that are in the air do a fantastic job. Perhaps it might mean that more of those type of planes need to be contracted for that quick hit at the fire front, that quick hit to save people who are in dire straits, especially in their own homes, and other associated incidents.

I would certainly support this bill. I hope we get the right outcome and let us hope we do not have to invoke it too many times into the future.

The Hon. J.M. RANKINE (Wright) (16:14): This government is committed to ensuring that South Australia's emergency management and protective service measures continue to be appropriate and in the interests of community safety. This act, the Emergency Management Act 2004, provides the legislative framework for the management of emergencies in South Australia. When we look around the world at recent events and local events, whether in the context of a natural disaster or terrorism, they all remind us of the need to maintain effective emergency management arrangements.

I think it is fair to say that, in South Australia, we have been leaders in emergency management and, importantly, I think, in recovery following those emergencies. It is a fact of life in this country that we will always face the forces of nature, whether it is fire or flood, and the consequences can be catastrophic and we very much need to be prepared. We are always facing different circumstances. With every major event there comes some surprise. You can never calculate exactly what a fire might do.

I have lived through the horrific fires of Ash Wednesday. I was in government when the North Shields fires occurred around Port Lincoln and then, more recently, Sampson Flat, where parts of my electorate were evacuated and then, more recently, the Pinery fires. When I was Minister for Emergency Services, Stockport flooded as well as areas of the Clare Valley and many Riverland towns, and to see the devastation caused was quite heart wrenching.

I note the comments of the member for Hammond expressing his view about how he thinks fires should be managed and, can I just say, thankfully, it is not us in this house who make decisions around direct operational matters, nor should it be. There are always lessons to learn. It is the job of the expert emergency services to be making decisions as we live through these disasters.

I understand his concern about people not being able to get back to their homes but there are protocols in place in relation to that and, quite frankly, people going back to their homes when they think they can save them, when they do not have the necessary expertise and equipment and a clear understanding of what the emergency services are facing, is a recipe for people to die. The most important thing is that people are kept safe, and that is why the police do that.

The State Emergency Management Committee initiated a review of this act to enable considerations of those important lessons that we have learned from previous events in the interests of ensuring our emergency management arrangements continue to be relevant and effective. The review was aimed at ensuring South Australia has the capability to properly manage any emergency; that is, as we have heard, including roles and responsibilities—making sure that they are clearly articulated.

The act and the arrangements were found to be substantially sound, I understand, but a number of improvements were identified to improve the clarity, certainty and operation of the act in order to support best practice—that is what is important, best practice—emergency management arrangements. I understand it is a very emotional situation when your home or business is under threat, but we have to ensure that we have best practice in place, not what someone wants when they are simply upset when an event is occurring.

The suggested amendments include more comprehensive definitions of emergency management arrangements and a clearer outline of the roles and responsibilities. The recommendations to update and strengthen the emergency management arrangements align with the South Australian government strategic priority, 'Safe Communities, healthy neighbourhoods', and also the South Australian Strategic Plan vision, 'We are safe in our homes, community and at work', which makes specific reference to the potential impact of natural disasters and notes that everyone has a role to play to be prepared for such events, and that is really important. When we say that everyone needs to be prepared we mean each individual.

Every person has a responsibility if they live in an area that is subjected to fire, and I deliberately do not use the term 'bushfire', but potentially subject to fire. Each individual has a responsibility for that. The process will reassure the community that South Australia's emergency management arrangements are being updated to ensure, as I said, best practice and encourage community resilience through coordinated planning and disaster preparedness activities.

There was extensive consultation undertaken on the review and the preparation of the draft bill with state and local government stakeholders, members of the SEMC and chairs of the SEMC advisory groups. The SEMC is chaired by the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet and comprises 19 members, including the Commissioner of Police, chief executives of South Australian government departments, SA Water, the Local Government Association of South Australia and chief officers of the emergency response agencies.

Changes specific to local government were arrived at following extensive consultation with the Local Government Association and with the agreement of SEMC. The government believes that the proposed changes will strengthen South Australia's emergency management arrangements, providing reassurance to our community and encouraging community resilience through coordinated planning and disaster preparedness activities.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (16:21): I rise to speak on the Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill and note the government's bringing of this bill after a period of extensive consultation; and, obviously, having conducted the review. I also commend our representative and lead speaker for his contribution to the development of ensuring that our emergency management is the best it can be.

I want to commend both the government and those who are involved in the review for the extensive consultation on this bill. It is particularly important because unless we have a bill where everyone has been able to have a say about it before it gets to the parliament, then we waste a lot of time. Also, we have people who feel aggrieved that they have not had a chance to make a contribution, and, frankly, when people do make a contribution they may make a statement which identifies the expected response.

They may have a strong objection to it, but at least it is clear and at least they have had a chance to be able to put their view; and if they are able to make a constructive comment about the bill and improve it then we can deal with it more rapidly through this process in the parliament and start with a bill which is as best it can be given the policy development, area and structure in which it wants to go.

It is also important to ensure that we do not have an approach which effectively uses this parliament as a means to push a new initiative through without anyone knowing about it and then find out about it later. Just this morning I spent time at The Advertiser building in Waymouth Street meeting with senior members of the The Advertiser and Sunday Mail to confer with them about the contents of a bill which we are about to consider debating in this parliament and which we were forced to debate and consider.

They had no knowledge of when the government introduced the bill. They had no knowledge or information given to them once it had been introduced that it was going to be progressed and, indeed, progressed this week, the very week after it had been introduced. They had no information other than the fact that, fortunately, it was able to be identified on reading of the bill by me, and I am sure others would have eventually had a read of it and identified that.

What has happened as a result is that everyone has had to rush around and be consulted in a hurry. That both denies the opportunity for stakeholders to have discussed it with the government before and also to be able to make some improvement. I commend the government and minister, as I say, in properly presenting this bill after proper consultation. I think that is a precedent which ought to be followed, and the Attorney-General might want to take note.

The second thing I want to say about this bill is that for once I actually agree with the member for Wright on one thing that she said today—not everything she said, you will be pleased to know—and that was that people who do not know what they are doing should get out of the way when they are in an emergency situation, and she used the example of fire. I could not agree with her more.

If you live in the Adelaide Hills, in the beautiful part of my electorate, and a firewall comes down the side of the gully in the Uraidla Valley and you are living in a dwelling at the bottom and you have young children, aged parents or pets and you do not have a clue what to do in relation to it, then my view is to get the hell out of there. Let the people who know what they are doing manage it.

However, I do not agree with the member's comment today, which I found to be rather churlish and insulting, and that was to suggest that members of the parliament did not have the expertise to be able to make some assessment when dealing with emergencies and again, in particular, fires. The member for Hammond gave a contribution today outlining his concerns in respect of the resources available in a fire situation. Our lead speaker is someone who has had experience in this area, and so have a lot of people in this parliament and plenty of them who sit on this side of the house and, I do not doubt for one moment, others who sit on the other side of the chamber who have had experience in this area.

Sadly, in my lifetime, I have been in situations of dealing with fires, probably 10 or 12 serious fires in country South Australia. In January, a fire started adjacent to our property on the northern side and I had to spend a couple of hours with a wet wheat bag and deal with it with one of my other neighbours until the CFS arrived. Fortunately, we were able to at least manage a grass fire along the top of the properly until they arrived.

A few hours later—unfortunately my fishing trip was delayed again—we had a fire start up on the southern side of the property and, sure enough, other local people had to come and manage it and deal with it on that person's property. It is something that we live with; it is something that we need to be experienced in and/or trained for. It is not something that you should get involved in, or try to get involved in, or stay in a situation where you put yourself, your family, your pets or other stock at risk, if you do not know what you are doing. I totally accept that. However, please do not make statements in this parliament that there are members here who do not know what to do in those circumstances and who are not experienced. Frankly, they are very capable and very much appreciated to make a contribution to the debate in relation to the matter.

However, the important aspect of this bill, which I do commend, is that it appears to at least be looking at a more streamlined and efficient structure. I hope that it helps us to deal with, through the plan, a proactive program of cold burning and all sorts of other things to ensure that we minimise having to read coronial reports and reports after fires, and reviews of shockingly costly—in life and dollars—fires that the government then has to mop up, the taxpayers have to pay for, and the parliament has to then make further provision for. I hope that this new structure is helpful in doing that.

However, if it simply just changes the chairs on the Titanic and it says, 'We are going to draw another plan,' and it does not follow through—that is, the government is not prepared to implement the necessary action to ensure that there is an improved and protected area; resources and funding of course are all parts of this—then it is not going to make a scrap of difference. I remember that Sir Eric Neal said to me once, 'You know, it doesn't really matter what the structure is, Vickie'—when we were talking about the reform of universities—'it's the people who are on the boards. It's the people who are going to activate the policy or initiatives that are to be done.' I think that is a fair comment.

I commend the government for doing the review of a restructure. It was always important to review what we are doing, and make it better if we can. However, it is going to be utterly useless unless it undertakes the initiatives that are recommended by the boards and committees and that are highlighted in the plans.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (16:30): I rise to support the Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2016 and congratulate the minister who brought the bill to the house and the shadow minister, who has done a tremendous amount of work, for his contribution today. The bill provides the legislative framework for the management of emergencies in South Australia. It seeks to ensure that South Australia has the capability to properly manage any state emergency by articulating the key elements of the state emergency management arrangements, including roles and responsibilities under these arrangements. It is particularly looking at defining those roles and responsibilities. As outlined in the second reading speech, the bill seeks to:

clarify the authority of the State Emergency Management Plan;

enable the efficient operations of the State Emergency Management Committee;

ensure the emergency management arrangements are clearly defined;

provide for protection from liability which, of course, is a key issue, and the member for Hammond talked about that at some length;

provide objects and principles to address clarity on role and function;

clarify powers that maybe exercised in relation to disconnection of water and drainage; and

clarify various emergency management definitions.

I understand that extensive consultation went into this, and I know our shadow minister raised several issues at the briefing which the minister's staff took on board and which I would expect will provide answers to the shadow minister in due course.

It follows the legislative review undertaken by the State Emergency Management Plan and formalises the role of 'hazard leaders' and 'zone emergency management committees' within the structure of South Australian Emergency Management Arrangements. This is all very well and, of course, it remains to be seen how it will work in practice. Until we are confronted with an emergency, that cannot be tested, of course, because you can only make decisions and react in an emergency based on the experiences you have already had. Every emergency is different: we talk about bushfires; we talk about possible earthquakes; and possible terrorism—and any other sort of disaster that might arise.

Normally, in South Australia our emergencies are bushfire related, or fire related; it is the nature of the landscape we live in. Although I will tell you that my mother was resident in Adelaide in 1954 and experienced a not insignificant earthquake at that time—I think it is probably the biggest one that Adelaide has ever experienced. But Adelaide and other parts of the state reside on a fault line, although it is not a particularly active geological site—but you can never know what emergencies might confront us.

The bill will also include the high-level role of local government in relation to emergency management, and we will reflect the emergency management functions of a council as described in the Local Government Act. Of course, local government is right at the frontline; here in state parliament we are more removed from our natural disasters with the day-to-day tasks. When there is an emergency, the council needs to swing into action and, of course, all inquiries generally go to the council. They are charged with not only handling an emergency, but often the clean-up afterwards.

A lot of our ability, our capacity and our success in managing disasters relates back to our preparedness, and I would hope that this new bill adds to that preparedness. It cannot ever be foolproof; we do not always know when emergencies are going to confront us, but we do know there are high-risk days and high-risk situations that could occur.

I might just touch on one particular issue that has concerned me for a little while, and that is the lack of firebreaks in our rural landscape. I have farmed for 30 years, before coming into this place, and when I first began farming there was a significant effort by landowners and farmers, land managers, to have firebreaks in place. It was not necessarily around every single paddock, but a lot of property was protected, usually by cultivated firebreaks of some width (I think it has to be a minimum of four metres).

As cropping has become more intensive these firebreaks have all but disappeared from our rural farming landscape, and I think that with wall-to-wall crops, much more stubble and much more fuel, a higher fuel load and fewer firebreaks, it creates almost a perfect storm when we get a searingly hot day and a north wind—as we do see and as was experienced recently at the Pinery bushfire. That burned about 80,000 hectares in around six hours, I think; it burned with extraordinary ferocity and speed.

I am not saying that firebreaks would have helped at all that day, because they probably would not have, but there are situations that arise in other parts of the state on other days where firebreaks could very much be used to burn back against it as a tool to combat the fire. It is a bit of a hobby horse of mine, although I am as guilty as anyone because we have fewer firebreaks than we have ever had on our property as well. I do not think anyone or anything is particularly to blame, but we just need to be aware of that.

I was involved with the Wangary bushfire in 2005 and while I know it is not proper to reflect on the gallery, the granddaughter of one of my neighbours at the time is here today visiting. My neighbour's property and one of our properties were completely burnt out on that day, and I am sure Jemima would well and truly remember that day. I think what is different now is that we have aircraft available to us that can be used as water bombers or fire bombers; for whatever reason, those planes, in that capacity, were not available to us in 2005. I know there was a local spraying contractor who volunteered his aircraft and his time but that offer was not taken up, for better or worse.

Ultimately, as a result of the review of that Wangary bushfire and other reviews, the state government has quite rightly seen fit to have a long-term contract with an aviation company, a crop dusting company, to provide aerial support should bushfires occur. I know for a fact that they are on standby over all of the summer, and on the very hot days, the high risk days, the pilots are based at the airport. In fact, one of my sons is learning to fly at the moment and his ambition is to be a bomber pilot, as in a water bomber or a fire bomber, and a crop duster. So good luck to him with that; it is a young man's game I suspect, you would need to be pretty sharp. I am particularly impressed with the work they do and I want to make a particular mention of it.

The other things that occur regularly in my electorate, of course, with a high number of national parks and large areas of still intact native vegetation, are the controlled burns that occur within national parks. I am a great supporter of this. I suspect it is the toughest job in the world because you never please everybody, and occasionally fires do get away. I know that; as I said, I have been a farmer and I have been involved in burn-offs and, despite best efforts, sometimes they do get away. However, I think that is a really important part of not just fire management but of vegetation management as well.

All of those things are going into the mix, I am sure, and I think this is a step in the right direction. Depending on whose predictions you listen to, I guess the risk from natural disasters, particularly bushfires, will become greater and greater and our capacity to manage that is very important. I commend the bill to the house and congratulate everyone who has been involved with it for the contributions that have been made and the work that has been done. I look forward to it coming into place and it being administered in a practical way.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (16:39): I thank the member for Morphett for his support and his party's support for this important legislative reform. I also thank members for the contributions they have made in the passage in this bill, particularly the ones we have heard today from the members for Light, Wright, Flinders, Hammond and others. They have all expressed not just an interest in this area but very genuine, heartfelt and experienced care and concern about the matters that the framework of this bill seeks to address. I appreciate the contributions of the parliament and the approach that people have taken.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee—Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Housing and Urban Development) (16:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.