Parliamentary Committees

Select Committee on the Fire and Emergency Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Adjourned debate on motion of Mr Treloar:

That the report of the committee be noted.

(Continued from 4 April 2019.)

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (12:01): It is my pleasure to take this opportunity to speak in relation to the work done by the select committee earlier this year after the bill first introduced into this place on 28 November last year was, on 5 December last year, referred to a select committee to consider, in particular, the matter of proposed powers to direct.

The Chair of the committee, the member for Flinders, has spoken in relation to the work of the committee on the occasion of his having brought up the report of our committee on 4 April this year when he moved that this house note the work of the committee. I certainly commend that motion and the report and recommendations contributing, as they do, to what is an amended bill that is now brought before the house for its consideration.

It was one of the more significant and enjoyable opportunities for me to participate in the work of the select committee in January and February of this year. It provided one of those opportunities for this parliament to go about engagement with the wider community. That is, in my view, one of those particularly valuable aspects of the work we can do in this parliament.

The select committee certainly took up that opportunity to engage thoroughly and in a widespread way across the state. There were four public hearings that took place and they occurred across South Australia, as well as one of them being in Adelaide. The committee had a hearing at Port Lincoln and also at Balaklava and at Keith. It took the opportunity on those occasions to hear from 62 witnesses in all. Those witnesses are set out on pages 37 to 39 of the report that constitutes appendix B of the report. That is in addition to the 39 written submissions that the committee received. Those are set out at page 35 of the report in appendix A.

The select committee's work, as I have indicated, was focused on an examination of clause 23 of the bill, as it then was, in relation to proposed powers to direct. The report made a number of recommendations in relation to those proposed powers and how they might be amended more appropriately to reflect the work that volunteers in the CFS do and the nature of their engagement.

Before I turn to the 10 recommendations that we ultimately made, I want to highlight in particular that the parallel work, if you like, that really loomed large in the course of the committee's hearings alongside the bill was the pre-eminent code of practice that is relevant in this space, the Grain Harvesting Code of Practice. That is set out at page 5 of the report for reference purposes.

It is a code that has been in place for many years and has been refined over the course of its life. I want to highlight in particular the work that has gone into the development of that code, its adoption and use on a voluntary basis by growers over a period of time, and the cooperation in the work in relation to that code that has gone on between the CFS and Grain Producers SA, as well as the government.

The existence of the Grain Harvesting Code of Practice was something that we returned to regularly in the course of committee hearings in all the locations. It is, I think, a fair summary of the sentiment to say that the code of practice was really regarded as the gold standard by growers throughout the country. In terms of framing best practice in this space, we had a voluntary code of practice that is highly regarded and we heard was applied and respected by growers throughout the state.

In terms of the recommendations that the select committee made, first and foremost it was clear from all the evidence that there was widespread support for the introduction of the proposed powers to direct. That is number one. Secondly, what we heard from volunteers was that there needed to be some consideration of the role of volunteers in relation to those proposed powers.

I just highlight here that, if there was a consistent theme coming through in the evidence, it was that we are dealing with people who are volunteering as firefighters in their local area. They are likely to be, as often as not, also themselves engaged in harvesting activities. It was very clear that we needed to think carefully about the burden that comes with a power to direct actions of fellow community members. We heard, for example, that it was one thing to volunteer in a local brigade and to work with neighbours in the harvesting industry; it was another thing to then be regarded as someone who was exercising mandatory powers.

There was a consistent view across the board that the power ought to be there but that it ought to be exercised properly by the body that is responsible for enforcement in other areas as well and that South Australia Police were best placed to take the lead role in exercising those proposed powers. We will have an opportunity to consider what is being brought now in terms of the amended bill.

Suffice to say, for present purposes the committee heard on the one hand from the volunteers about their not wanting to have the burden of what they regarded as an inappropriate responsibility for them and, on the other hand, a positive desire for there to be powers and that they be exercised by the responsible enforcement power in the form of South Australia Police, so I am pleased to see that that has found its way into the bill. As I say, I look forward to the opportunity to debate those aspects more fully as the bill progresses.

The corollary to the power being exercised properly by South Australia Police was that we also wanted to consider the need for police to have reference to relevant codes in terms of enforcing those powers. As I said at the outset, the Grain Harvesting Code of Practice loomed large as a leading exemplar in this space. The committee heard that the code of practice ought to be considered in terms of exercising the power, but more than that, the committee heard that there were a number of ways in which codes of practice might be more fully developed along the lines of the Grain Harvesting Code of Practice. In strongly supporting the development of such codes, the committee was of the view that codes that might be developed in this space will continue to be a necessary guide for police as they properly enforce powers to direct.

I also want to emphasise that the committee heard a considerable amount of evidence on the extent of private investment in measures to mitigate harm by those who are in the harvesting and grain growing industries. We bear in mind that in considering these matters we are considering events that are very much affecting the lives and livelihoods of the growers who are also the volunteers and who as often as not have more to lose personally through things not being managed as best as they possibly can. There is a very thorough ongoing personal investment in this area, and in good policy accompanying and supporting members of the community for all those reasons.

Sadly, we have seen that on display in recent weeks, as recently as last Wednesday and before that in the environs of Port Lincoln. Where a fire gets away, it will burn through rural areas, it will burn through crops and it will affect the lives and, more particularly, the livelihoods of those who live in rural and regional areas. They are invested in a very real sense in this policy space being the best it can be, and they see the consequences of fires more than any of us. It would be remiss of me not to note as well the development of legislation in this space and the committee's work and the communications that go on in the CFS and throughout the organisation.

The committee found it was necessary to observe that relationships between the CFS administration and the volunteers need to be very much to the fore and could benefit from improvement. That is a matter that is addressed specifically at page 33 of the report, where the committee observed that to a relevant extent there had been, in relation to the formulation of these powers, an unfortunate disconnect between the CFS administration and the regional communities that they serve. The committee observed that there was a contrast between what the CFS administration at the time was proposing and the evidence that we were hearing on the ground from volunteers.

To illustrate that, the evidence of Mr Max Wilksch to the committee on 31 January at Port Lincoln was very clear insofar as, on the one hand, the commitment of volunteers to serve their communities in an effective and practical way and what might be a broader administrative agenda from the CFS hierarchy on the other. In relation to this question, I had the opportunity to question the then chief officer Mr Nettleton on 4 February about what appeared to be an approach that would adopt for the CFS parallel powers to direct along the lines of those described in section 36 of the act as applying to the MFS.

In that sense, just touching on what was, on the one hand, apparently the purpose or object of the administration, it did not accord with either the desires or the needs of volunteers on the ground. Having referred to Mr Max Wilksch's evidence on 31 January, I emphasise, as he did, that the morale and commitment of CFS volunteers is as strong and willing as ever, and what we need to do is to be ever better at listening to and engaging and working with those volunteers so that we deliver the best possible policy outcomes through legislation. With those brief words, I commend the motion.

Mr BASHAM (Finniss) (12:22): I, too, rise to make a few remarks in relation to the select committee inquiry into the Fire and Emergency Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. It was very much a privilege to sit on that committee and listen to particularly farmers and their concerns about what fires do to them and how managing the risks around fires can also cause difficulties for them.

As a farmer in a previous life, I certainly have dealt with several fires over my time on the farm at Mount Compass. One of them was as recent as last summer. Not many days after we heard the evidence in Port Lincoln, there was a fire at Mount Compass, on 3 February, that was heading towards our farm. I went out to the farm and moved cattle around and prepared for the fire that was heading our way. It is quite daunting to sit in your car, just watching and getting prepared, because that is all you can do once the fire is going. The worst thing about fires is that once they are going they are relatively hard to stop.

I think, though, of how much of an improvement we have seen over time in firefighting. The fire that started in February of this year started in almost exactly the same place as one that started in 1997, from memory, and that fire did reach our property. The big difference between the two days was that there was no aerial support back in 1997, whereas for the one this year there certainly was great aerial support and they did a fantastic job of limiting the spread of the fire.

The key thing about this select committee inquiry was very much about making sure these fires do not actually start, and trying to stop risky behaviour from individuals leading to fires starting. Looking at this particular issue, we had to examine that risk, but we also had to allow farmers, particularly, to continue their business, and make sure we do not put their businesses in jeopardy by restricting their ability to do what they need to do to harvest crops, etc.

The old saying of 'make hay while the sun shines', in my experience as a farmer, is not quite true for making hay: the best time to make hay is at night. That seems strange, but it means we are minimising our risk of fire because we are doing it when the dew levels are a bit higher. We are trying to limit the risk of fire, but it is also an easier time to make hay, unlike for grain growers, who need the humidity and moisture levels in the grain to get down to a level suitable for harvesting. They actually need it to be a little bit on the drier side, so they do need to work on days when it is a bit warmer.

The key issue is to know when not to work. The industry, the grain growers themselves, must be commended for the work it has done in putting together a code of conduct. Grain growers are able to operate under that code and work out whether or not it is safe to operate. A key thing out of our report was that it was recognised how important that code is, and making sure that farmers understand—by putting in some data and working at what the fire danger index is for their particular location—whether it is appropriate to be harvesting or not.

Then comes the dilemma of those who choose to ignore that—a very, very small percentage. Farmers do not want to put their crops at risk and they do not want to put their neighbours at risk. They try to do the right thing. Occasionally people make mistakes, and occasionally rogues will go even beyond making mistakes and just operate recklessly. That is what we need to address, those rogues. It is about trying to find the right balance in how to do that.

As we went around the different regions there was very much a concern, and the message was quite clear across all the inquiry sites we went to, that it was about wanting to make sure we were putting in what was right for them to keep operating and also making sure we stop that very small percentage who actually puts others at risk. There was concern about who should be the person who tells them to stop. A very common view right across the state, from all the people we spoke with, was that it should not be the CFS themselves.

The CFS should not be out there enforcing the rules: they should be out there making sure that things are safe, not out there demanding someone stop. They are not trained to deliver that sort of message, and it was felt it was much more appropriate for that responsibility to be held with SAPOL. South Australia Police give directions to people to do other things, and it seemed quite logical to those giving evidence to the inquiry generally that SAPOL was the logical party to hold that authority.

I think we have very much landed in those recommendations that have come from the report, that we want to see that authorised power being given to South Australia Police officers. They are able to go out there with the authority and under the guidance and expertise held by the CFS and others. They are not acting on their own in this case: they are actually looking at what is needed, what needs to be assessed.

There are many tools out there now. I was just looking at an app which you can download and which gives you an indication of what the fire danger index is by entering a few pieces of weather data: what the crop level in tonnage is, what the wind speeds are, what the temperature is, what the humidity is and how much the crop is actually cured. So, with a few numbers being entered, you get a very good indicator of what the fire danger index is. We need to make sure that once it gets up into those extreme levels that people are not operating.

Now that the intent is to give the South Australian police this authority, we will see these codes of conduct—the first being the grain producers code of conduct—as a great model. There are many other activities that occur on farms and on dairy farms in particular. I know from my experience that there are many things that we have to do on total fire ban days, and we need to make sure that we do them safely.

Often we will have to take the tractor out to feed cattle on a total fire ban day. We need to make sure that our tractors are operating well and do not have a risk of starting fires, but we still need to be able to operate them. As long as we do what is required, they are safe vehicles to operate in those circumstances. Likewise, before milking we have to get the cows in, and on those really hot days I do not want to walk. We have to get out on the motorbike. Again, we need to make sure that our motorbikes have good exhaust systems, etc., so that we are not putting the community at risk.

There is very much a responsibility on farmers and others to do the right thing, but we need to make sure that we also give the police the power to direct these people to stop if they are doing the wrong thing. We do not want those people out there continuing to put others at risk and put themselves at risk. It is very much about helping the whole community. The key objectives of the bill are to improve the ability of emergency services to deliver key public safety outcomes.

The Marshall government has already acted to improve the capacity of the emergency services to fight fires, committing almost $10 million to purchase more firefighting aircraft and another $5 million over two years for CFS stations, appliances and equipment upgrades. We have also ensured the passage of legislation to recognise the volunteer charters into the Fire Emergency Services Act. Every South Australian is responsible for fire safety, and during the select committee inquiry into this bill we were very impressed with the high level of community initiative, leadership, innovation, cooperation and support for fire prevention.

This bill in which the key recommendations of the committee have been adopted is very much in keeping with the spirit of the community's fire safety efforts. I strongly believe that we will meet the community's expectations about the role of government and key agencies in preventing fires. As we have seen recently, both in our state and across Australia, bushfires have been and always will be an ever-present threat to life and property. Our emergency services professionals and volunteers risk much when fighting these fires, so we must do all we can to reduce the risk to them where possible. I commend the bill to the house.

Mr BELL (Mount Gambier) (12:34): I rise to make a few brief comments on the Fire and Emergency Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I guess that it was a bit of footage from the Yorke Peninsula fires quite recently that triggered memories I have of Ash Wednesday. Maybe they were suppressed, I do not know. The ferocious winds that were whipped up, seeing a camera crew talking to a farmer on Yorke Peninsula with fire burning in the background, hearing that wind and seeing the ferociousness of the fire brought back memories of 1983 and Ash Wednesday. I think we need to remember just how deadly that fire was. It was fanned by winds of up to 110 km/h an hour. There were 500,000 acres burnt, 75 deaths and countless injuries.

In fact, the dad of one of my best friends at primary school was out on his farm when the fire front came over. He survived by shooting a cow and lying underneath the cow—lying under the ute with the cow blocking it. He was severely burnt and had years of bandages and horrific scarring all over him, but at least he survived. It was that memory and seeing that footage last week or the week before that really brought home to me the importance of fire prevention and having good policies and procedures in place.

When the original bill was put up, I had CFS people come to talk to me and tell me that they did not want to be directing farmers. They wanted to be out fighting fires and not pitting themselves against their neighbours or their friends. As the member for Finniss quite rightly said, 99.9 percent of people do the right thing and are sensible. If there is an element of people who are not doing the right thing, we need to have a mechanism to direct them, and I fully support the move towards SAPOL having that role.

Down in the South-East, we have another complicating factor, namely, pine plantations that are privately owned. There is a huge acreage of privately owned plantations that have their own firefighting ability, and of course it is in their best interests to make sure that they have preventative programs and adequate resources. On a catastrophic day, which may lead to a catastrophic event, the ability to coordinate private resources to form a united front is really important. I am glad that has been addressed as well so that the command or the people in charge will have the authority to direct private brigades to give the best defences we can provide.

What most people forget about Ash Wednesday—and I would hate to see that occur again—is that it is not perhaps the initial fire that does a lot of damage. If a northerly is blowing, obviously a fire will travel north to south and extend out over a distance of hundreds of metres, if not kilometres, and as the front progresses forward the fire is burning behind. With the unpredictable nature of fires, a lot of the damage occurs when the wind shifts. The worst wind shift is a 90° wind shift from north winds to an easterly or westerly wind.

Once you have the front going forward one, two or three kilometres and you have a 90° wind shift, you then have a front that is not 50 or 100 metres wide but one that is perhaps 10 or 15 kilometres wide and blowing in a totally different direction. A lot of loss of life occurs because fire crews are predicting forward of the front what is coming and then, when it turns at 90° or variations of 90°, you have a massive front burning in a different direction, and it is very difficult to prevent that as it unfolds in front of your eyes.

I also want to talk about where we need to focus our attention coming out of this bill, and that is around volunteers. As we head into a very busy bushfire season, I have spoken at length to Grant Fensom, the Kingsley CFS Group Officer. He has told me that over the years the numbers of volunteers have dropped off quite considerably. Just in his group section, numbers have dropped from about 140 members a few years ago to about 80 this year, with only 50 of those members active firefighters.

Grant says that brigades such as Blackfellows Caves and Mount Schank are facing the possibility of not having enough members to staff trucks this year. His area takes in Allendale East, Blackfellows Caves, Donovans, Kongorong, Mount Schank and Port MacDonnell. The Tatiara group in the Upper South-East has also told Grant that they may lose a brigade due to dwindling numbers. This of course is deeply concerning.

The current situation we have seen on Yorke Peninsula, as well as in Queensland and New South Wales, demonstrates how serious this year's fire season is going to be. Whilst most visitors come to the South-East and see pretty, lush green paddocks, the CFS officers tell me that the index they use for soil moisture shows that it is the driest it has been in decades. In fact, the soil moisture of the pine plantations is extremely dry.

Blackfellows Caves got a brand-new $300,000 truck this year, which we are obviously grateful for, but they have only three members. In recent years, there has been funding for new trucks, equipment and station upgrades, which again is fantastic, but there is none for regional volunteer recruitment and support. This is a critical area that needs to be addressed. There is not much point having the equipment sitting there if you do not have trained volunteers able to use it at a time of need.

Grant said that around 10 years ago many regions had a paid role for recruitment and volunteer support. He works hard as a volunteer to get the word out and to recruit people, giving presentations at breakfast meetings and visiting local schools to educate students. I can attest to Grant Fensom's work. He is a dedicated community member. He did a fundraiser for our philanthropic organisation, Stand Like Stone, and raised tens of thousands of dollars for a bus for the Port MacDonnell community.

The problem of dwindling volunteer numbers is a story I hear time and time again. It is a sign of the times in which we live. Everyone is time poor, with lots of commitments for young people, and they are not replacing older volunteers. Grant wants people and businesses to understand that the job adapts to the time that you have, not the other way around. At a recent breakfast meeting, he gave a presentation to a group of local businesspeople and said that he was surprised at how little understanding there was of the involvement of a CFS volunteer.

Employers have misconceptions that volunteers have to devote every waking minute to the job, but of course this is not the case. Grant is involved in four businesses and employs eight CFS volunteers, so he understands the impact on businesses. We need to ask ourselves: what is the cost to our communities if people do not sign up and get involved? Volunteers give up their own time at odd hours of the day or night and during summer holidays while the rest of us are enjoying time off with families.

All told, South Australian volunteers contribute three million hours each year for the 425 CFS brigades to attend road crashes, bushfires, grassfires and hazardous material spills. When we call 000 in the time of an emergency, many of us take for granted that the help we need will arrive. As Grant says, you can have all the bells and whistles in the world, but if you do not have people the best equipment and facilities are useless.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD (Gibson—Minister for Police, Emergency Services and Correctional Services, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (12:45): I rise also to speak on this motion and note that on 28 November 2018 I introduced the Fire and Emergency Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2018. The bill enacts a range of long overdue technical issues identified from previous reports to government, some dating back as far as 2013.

In summary, the bill aims to improve building fire safety provisions, recognise command structures of the SES and protect volunteers called to emergencies so they are not liable to be dismissed or prejudiced in their employment. Following the introduction of the bill on 5 December 2018, it was referred to a select committee of this house.

The terms of reference for the inquiry directed the committee to inquire into proposed additional powers for the South Australian Country Fire Service outlined in clause 23 of the bill, which relate to section 82 of the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005—Power to direct. Clause 23 of the bill was predicated on recommendation 16 of the 2013 review of the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005, completed by the Hon. Paul Holloway.

This was a recommendation made following submissions to Mr Holloway at the time by South Australia Police. The committee was ultimately tasked with considering two main questions: firstly, whether section 82—Power to direct, should be amended to include the power to order the cessation of harvesting or any other activities that, because of the weather conditions, may cause a fire; and secondly, if the power is to be amended, who should be given the power of direction.

The committee was chaired by the member for Flinders and I thank him very much; he did a marvellous job. The other members of the committee were the members for Finniss, Heysen, Mawson and Giles. I thank them for their contribution to this committee. The committee received 39 written submissions and heard from 62 witnesses over four public hearings in Adelaide, Port Lincoln, Balaklava and also in Keith. The committee handed down its report on 4 April 2019.

The committee ultimately concluded that the proposed powers outlined in clause 23 of the bill to be introduced with the power to direct be provided to South Australia Police. In line with the recommendations of the select committee, on 14 November 2019 I filed amendments to the bill. In addition to the amendments, as a result of the select committee a few additional changes are proposed, which I also filed as amendments. At this juncture, I recommend the passage of the bill with minor government amendments.

Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (12:47): I rise to also make a brief contribution to the motion to note the select committee report. It is worth reflecting, though, on how we got here. I will not dwell too much on the bill itself. I think there is plenty of time for that; hopefully, this afternoon we will get to that. As the minister said, we received the first iteration of the bill in this house on this day exactly a year ago.

At the time, I made note that there was a significant lack of consultation with particularly the opposition, which was my main concern, but also with various bodies directly affected by the bill: the volunteer associations and the unions that were involved. At the time, it seemed there was a distinct lack of consultation with the minister's own party room. This culminated, of course, in the select committee report. That was about this idea that became known in the media as 'the harvest ban', which is section 23, the power to direct cessation of certain activities. It is in and of itself not a bad idea. As we all know, prevention is better than cure, as SAPOL have made clear in their contributions and submissions to the Holloway review.

As the minister said, the Holloway review back in 2013 recommended that we consider the amendment of section 82 to include the power to order the cessation of harvesting or any other actions because the weather conditions may cause a fire if igniters get out of control. Again, it is a good recommendation. The question revolved around who should have that power.

There was a lack of consultation, as I said, and the member for Flinders knows this well. He moved to establish a select committee, the select committee met, as has been outlined quite thoroughly by the member for Heysen and others, and reached certain conclusions, one of which was that SAPOL should have the power outlined in section 82 of the act, which was initially granted to the CFS. We will be debating this later this afternoon.

It is worth noting, though, at this point (and we will be debating this later) that on 4 February Assistant Commissioner Bamford appeared at the committee. He is responsible for security and emergency management. At the time, he was also SAPOL's representative—I note there has been some movement in the upper ranks—on the State Emergency Management Committee and Chair of the State Response Advisory Group, which feeds up into that committee.

If we take his words as reflective of SAPOL's view at the time, I think it is fair to say that he was particularly lukewarm about the police being the lead agency and having these powers conferred on them by section 82. He was asked by the Chairperson of the committee, 'Do you see CFS coming in at a point before the police need to be involved?' This is in relation to the cessation of activities on harvesting land and so on. Assistant Commissioner Bamford replied:

Yes, we do. Just as the Metropolitan Fire Service have a range of authorities that they use themselves. I see that it is absolutely sensible that the same thing applies to the CFS. There are authorities that the police have, and some of them are openly used by all and sundry—

I assume he means other police officers—

others are limited to people of higher ranks. A lot of this I see as a matter for the Country Fire Service to determine at what level these powers are used. We certainly don't see it as a police role to be the first people to turn up and tell someone to stop using a header.

He goes on to say:

We don't see it's appropriate for a police officer to be driving around the countryside trying to measure local indicators and then giving instructions.

He goes on to make the point that sometimes police do have deep connections with the community, just as the criticism was made of CFS volunteers. That would be one of the concerns, of course, the same as the concerns raised that CFS volunteers are the friends and neighbours of the people who they are suddenly required to instruct on how to do their business or not. He then goes on to say:

I think it comes back to asking a police officer to make a decision based on some measurements and a number of indicators at a time and place, which is really not police core business. We are not really in the business of determining what the fire danger is and whether it is appropriate.

I was not privy to the committee's deliberations, but it presumably considered this evidence and made their recommendation that SAPOL should be the lead agency. One of the amendments we will be debating this afternoon reflects that recommendation. I will have plenty of questions on that later this afternoon, but I thought at this juncture it was worth reflecting on how we had arrived at this point.

It is worth noting, too, that the lack of consultation displayed last year by the minister was echoed this year. I do note that the amendments we are debating this afternoon were filed on 14 November. Perhaps I was remiss in not following the procedures of the house so closely. This committee reported in April, I think, and we have been waiting for this bill to come on since then. I was perhaps remiss in not following the activities of the house and noting that those amendments had been filed.

I certainly did not become aware of it until last Friday, when I was offered a briefing. In fact, the only slot I was offered for a briefing was half an hour before our own shadow cabinet deliberations. It is extremely difficult for me to form an opinion on those amendments, having just seen them late Friday afternoon, and equally difficult for me to make a recommendation to either the shadow cabinet or to my party room, which met the next day.

I have since been briefed. I think the amendments are relatively simple, particularly the one around section 23. I do note that the consultation with me was not adequate, but we will go into consultation with some other groups in the committee stage of the bill. I inform the house that we reserve our right to amend or oppose sections or the entirety of the bill as it becomes appropriate later in the committee stage or between the houses.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:54): I rise to make a contribution in support of the Fire and Emergency Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill in light of what we are directly discussing now, that the report of the select committee on the bill be noted.

Coming off the land and as a CFS member, I have had plenty of experience with harvests and plenty of experience with fires—with controlled burns, uncontrolled burns and controlled burns that may have not stayed controlled entirely. It does give you a wealth of experience and it helps you understand the vagaries of fire and how you need to be absolutely switched on, especially in permit time after harvest when you are burning off stubble. Not much of it happens anymore, but it is good snail control if farmers get sick of spending tens of thousand dollars on snail bait to control a pest that infests cropping country later on.

Fire can be a very useful tool, but it can also be a very bad enemy, as we saw last week, on 20 November, at Yorketown, at Angaston and in the Mid North, and certainly in some recent fires in the Mallee and on the neighbouring property at Kildare at Coomandook, where, as I indicated the other day, a pile of pig manure spontaneously combusted, which can happen.

The matter of where property owners are directed in regard to a code of practice to manage whether or not they operate their harvesters or whether they operate in paddocks was addressed over a decade ago. It has been a voluntary code of practice which in the main is followed pretty well by people across the board.

As a primary producer, I understand when you are up against it and you just want to get your crop in before it gets spoiled by rain damage or something else. You try to do as much as you can, but you also have to deal with the realities of the risk of fire. I remember that terrible day of the Wangary fire on the West Coast. We were actually harvesting in the morning, but we pulled up pretty quickly because it was getting too nasty. We were on the other side of the state on my lease property at Tintinara.

You do have to deal with the reality of what can happen. That is why we as a government have looked at this legislation and at the powers to direct. As has been explained by other members, there are significant issues around the CFS in general having that direction because you do have people who are friends and neighbours. Everyone is very close in communities and everyone knows who's who in the zoo and who is doing what, but there is also that technology that comes to bear.

For example, people spend significant amounts of money on weather stations so that they know when the fire danger rating gets to the point that they should pull up. I commend those farmers who have done that. I think in one case you can spend $5,000 on a weather station unit so that you know exactly where you are on a fire danger index, whether it is wind speed, heat, etc., and know when you need to stop. These weather stations are also used to guide farmers in their spraying practice, which is absolutely crucial in this day and age. With those remarks, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.