Bills

Fire and Emergency Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr ODENWALDER: I want to thank the minister again for bringing this bill back to the house eventually. I note that there have been some changes along the way. I noted in my contribution to the select committee stage—which I think is the first time I have ever been involved in a select committee stage with a bill so, thank you, sir, for providing us with that opportunity—some of the deficiencies in the minister’s approach to consultation. I was briefed very late in the day. Indeed, I was briefed after the forums in which I would normally come to some conclusions about how to proceed with the bill.

Nevertheless, we find ourselves here. I have been briefed by the minister's advisers. Almost a week ago, through the minister’s office I requested a briefing from SAPOL. I have not received the courtesy of a response to the email let alone a briefing from SAPOL. We will get to some questions. We may not get there today but we will see. I just want to put that on the record so that my contributions later regarding SAPOL are based on the utterances of SAPOL on the public record and my anecdotal knowledge rather than a formal briefing provided by the minister. I have a question on clause 1.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Can I have a say on clause 1, too?

The CHAIR: You will get the opportunity. Perhaps if the member puts the question you can respond and answer the question at the same time.

Mr ODENWALDER: Still on the theme of consultation, I think I will just ask at this point: can the minister confirm that before tabling the bill in the house he consulted? I will list some organisations for him to make it easier: the CFS Volunteers Association, the UFU, PASA and the SES Volunteers’ Association. Also, can he confirm that he had the support of his entire party—that is, the party room and the cabinet—before bringing that bill to the house?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I will begin by making a few comments of clarity for the member for Elizabeth's benefit. I know that he has been in this place for a long time, but he is only new to the front bench, so he may not have been privy to a lot of the work that was done in the background for the 16 years that Labor were in government.

Unfortunately, and I will talk more about this in a second, a lot of this work was not covered as thoroughly as one might have expected in this situation. To add to my comments and just to clarify, this bill seeks to amend the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 to incorporate long overdue legislative changes, and I stress the words 'long overdue legislative changes' and again remind the member for Elizabeth of that fact. These issues, I remind this house, which the bill seeks to address include:

employment and security of volunteers who are absent from work to respond to an emergency, which is an important point;

breaches of permit conditions imposed by authorised by officers;

various technical issues raised by the emergency services organisations relating to apparent anomalies or ambiguities within the act; and

providing power to direct the cessation of hazardous practices that, due to weather conditions, may cause a fire if ignited to get out of control. Based upon the recommendations of the select committee, these powers will now be conferred upon SAPOL.

This bill as tabled will be amended to recognise that legislation was successfully passed on 5 June 2019 to recognise the volunteers’ charter in the Fire and Emergency Services Act. We are proud as state as to have the CFS and SES charters now enshrined in the act to ensure that consultation processes are effective and provide confidence that the views of emergency volunteers are treated seriously, something that did not happen under 16 years of a South Australian Labor government.

We have also taken the opportunity to consider further feedback to ensure that we have the best possible legislation to provide protection to the communities of South Australia. These amendments will regulate the introduction of industry brigades to assist in protecting our communities, particularly in the state's South-East where our forest industries are an important part of our economy.

Through this amendment we will ensure harmonisation with Victoria, which has been operating under similar legislation for a number of years. This bushfire season has reminded us all of the bushfire threat. With this in mind, the government is keen to ensure that complete and effective powers are available to ensure that the risk of bushfire is minimised. So today we are amending the original proposal of the 2013 Holloway review.

Holloway suggested removing certain powers and standards that are prescribed in the Fire and Emergency Services Act. These standards relate to hazard reduction. These are all important powers, and we as a government are now not proposing their removal from the act. They will stay, and this government will expect that they are acted upon.

Again, the advice that I had previously received was that the previous management had looked to amend these. That work was not done. I was led to believe that a lot of this work had been done under the previous government, but it came to light that it has not been done, so I have just outlined the course of action we are taking. I will welcome further input and review to better streamline and coordinate these powers and functions.

However, at the moment we need to be able to assure the community that we are presenting the best possible legislation to protect our community from the threat of bushfire. The key objectives of this bill are to improve the ability of the emergency services to deliver key public safety outcomes at minimal cost to the government and community and to demonstrate the government's appreciation of the commitment of emergency service volunteers to the safety of our community.

In answering the member for Elizabeth's question, and I outlined some of it there, this all stemmed from the 2013 Holloway review. That was when Labor were in government. A number of recommendations came out of that review and one might have thought that Labor would have put forward those recommendations and acted on them, but they did not. The advice I received at the time we came into government was to put these amendments forward. I was informed that extensive consultation had happened under the previous government.

Again, I note that the member for Elizabeth was not in the cabinet, not on the front bench, so he may not have availed himself of that consultation. I am not sure at what depth or level the Labor Party were consulting with their backbenchers on that, but I was informed that extensive consultation had taken place on the back of this review and that Labor had not acted on that consultation and those recommendations. I am not sure why, and the member for Elizabeth may not be able to answer why. Was it incompetence? Was it not wanting to do it? Was it not having the intestinal fortitude? Were they just kicking the can down the road? Why did they not act on this?

I also outlined in my second reading explanation that we would work through this with Grain Producers SA, as a key stakeholder in this area. We are more than happy to do that and I could not have been clearer in my contribution to this house. To your credit, one way of doing that consultation was through a select committee, and you did a fine job, along with all the members who were involved with that. It was great to do that and to revisit that consultation with the community, not feeling that enough had been done from 2013 when it was originally put forward under the previous Labor government.

We are happy to admit that the perception out in the community was that the consultation work had not been done despite the information that I had received, so we went and did that. Again, I reiterate that point. I thank the member for his work and all members on both sides of this house. I did outline that we could potentially do some of this work through regulation but, to really be clear, the select committee did an outstanding job and really cemented down what I was probably thinking anyway. So it landed us in a really good place.

As such, we have amended the legislation and we are working very closely with Grain Producers SA. I note that they are very happy with where it lands. Probably an underlying theme from the work the select committee did right around the state—and a lot of people came out, and I thank them very much for that—the underlying consensus, especially when it comes to harvesting, was that 99.9 per cent of people arguably do the right thing.

There is one person out there who does not, and nearly every community actually nodded in agreeance by saying, 'Yes, we know that person. What can we do?' As it stood, there was no power, so the person who was doing the wrong thing could snub their nose at anyone who questioned them on it. We wanted to put in place a system, if it is needed. I think I made it very clear in my initial contribution that I do not think it is needed. With the way that technology is moving and the way these communities are coming together and working together, it probably is not needed.

Making sure that we have that protection and the cover that is needed by having these powers as outlined will give everyone that reassurance. As I said, if a neighbouring landowner is doing the wrong thing and you want to go and question them on the activity they are doing, you can do that, but they can snub their nose at you. Now you can say, 'If you have done it, I will follow the process and do something about it.' That will mean that people who are doing the wrong thing will stop, so that in itself will be a really big win. If there is a situation where people are doing the wrong thing, again, the authorities can be called.

The big thing to note about this and the thing that really drove this forward is the situation where police could only act after someone had started a fire. After someone has started a fire and potentially damage has been done, someone can then be prosecuted, but there was no way you could actually stop the action before a potential disastrous situation unfolded. That is where we have landed with this.

Again, I thank all the stakeholders who were involved. I reiterate the point once more that from the information I was given, all this consultation had been done. I am not sure whether the member for Elizabeth can enlighten the committee any more about whether Labor actually did that consultation, whether in fact it was not done and whether or not he was included in that consultation, but that is where it stands.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will need to clarify.

The CHAIR: Just before you do, member for Elizabeth, do you want the minister to address your initial question, which was around consultation?

Mr ODENWALDER: I would like the minister to address that and perhaps I should be more specific. Since the end of the select committee process, the formulation of the bill and its tabling in this house, has the minister consulted with PASA, the CFSVA, the UFU or the SESVA and did his backbench get a chance to peruse the bill before it was tabled in this house? My time is limited, so the other part of my question is: was everybody on the backbench happy with it to go through? Did it pass unanimously through the party room?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, it did pass the party room, otherwise we would not be here. As I outlined, consultation was done across a very long period of time. Again, I ask the member to maybe go back and determine when this work was done and when, under the Labor government, they—

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Down, down. Let me finish.

Mr ODENWALDER: Point of order: my point of order is relevance. My question was very specific. The time frame was specific about the consultation.

The CHAIR: I am sure the minister is getting to answering that question.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am. As I outlined and made abundantly clear, this is a body of work that has carried over since 2013—the Holloway review, which happened under the previous Labor government. The advice I was given was there was a big body of work done—

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Hang on, hang on, zip it. A big body of work had been done is what I was informed. If you are telling me that the Labor government did not do any work on it, that would be news to me and I would be interested to hear that. But, with that, we moved the piece of legislation and consulted with a number of groups.

In my speech, and I will repeat it again for the member, I did outline that we were happy to consult with grain producers, who are one of the key stakeholders, around the specific context of the regulations. If I remember rightly, the VAs were sitting in the chamber as we moved this legislation. I know the VAs were here and present at the time of moving the legislation. You are right: some people were concerned about how it would actually roll out, so to be really clear the select committee was formed.

Mr Chair, you could maybe even answer this as well. The consultation for the select committee was thorough with anyone and everyone who wanted to have an input. Everyone was written to and given the opportunity to have an input and the select committee could not have been more robust or more thorough. Again, I commend to the house the work of that select committee. I think it has landed us in a really good place. Right throughout all that process, the invitations were there—

Mr Odenwalder: What happened next? What happened after the select committee?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: We have tabled the amendments in the parliament.

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, you have asked your question. You are interjecting at the moment.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: They have been on the table for everyone to see.

The CHAIR: And, minister, you will direct your comments through me, please, and not respond to interjections. You were answering a question.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Thank you, Chair. As I outlined, we tabled the amendments in the parliament. They have been on the table for everyone to see. This is no great surprise. This happened 12 months ago. There has been significant consultation right the way through. They are sitting there for anyone to look at. Members of our house have had a look at it; everyone has had a look at it. Two weeks is not long enough for you?

Mr ODENWALDER: I am not asking about that. I am asking specifically about PASA, I am asking about the CFSVA, I am asking about the SESVA and I am asking about the UFU. Have they been consulted on these amendments?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The UFU, on this amendment?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, on these amendments.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Around volunteers?

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, it was laid on the table and it was very clear. Everyone was written to to be able to have a say and to be able to have their input. They were given ample opportunity.

The CHAIR: Do you want another question on clause 1?

Mr ODENWALDER: No, but I will just conclude some remarks, though. If you want me to phrase it as a question, I will, but I want to make it clear—

The CHAIR: No, you do not have to.

Mr ODENWALDER: Excellent. That would have been difficult, I think, because what I am about to say is that, notwithstanding everything I said before about the consultation, or lack thereof, with the opposition—not the other people who were not consulted with—I do not intend to necessarily delay the bill through the lower house. Because of the lack of consultation, we do—what is the word?

Mr Pederick: Reserve your right.

Mr ODENWALDER: Reserve our right; thank you, member for Hammond. I do reserve my right to examine certain amendments between the houses and continue consulting with these organisations, which I do speak to and I do consult with when I come in here and try to effect legislative change. But I do hope to approach the bill, believe it or not, minister, in a bipartisan way. I think some of the changes do make sense. I have read the Holloway review. I think there are some good changes to be made, but it is the nature in which those changes are made. This is the root of my question about the amendments—

The Hon. C.L. Wingard interjecting:

The CHAIR: With all due respect to you both, it probably does not matter too much about that. What we are dealing with is the bill today.

Mr ODENWALDER: Thank you, sir, for your protection. I was being nice. He interrupted me being nice.

The Hon. C.L. Wingard interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: In any case, I was on bipartisanship. I was on the fact that this bill, with its amendments, may well make perfect sense and may be a perfectly good bill. Given the Holloway review and the other work that has been done over that time period, I am sure there are some good ideas in the bill. I do reserve the right, however, to make amendments following that consultation, as I said, but hopefully we will emerge from this process in this house with a bill that we can all support. However, I cannot guarantee the opposition's support at this stage.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr ODENWALDER: Obviously, this is a pretty standard clause, but when is this intended to commence? Assuming this passes the house before prorogation, when is it intended that this will pass? If the consultation was right last year, a bill in a different form could have passed at least in the middle of last fire season. We are now well into this year's fire season. Considering how important the minister sees these changes, I wonder when he intends that the bill is proclaimed?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank the member for the question and note the 16 years of government and they did not get this done. I have mentioned that, and I am keen to chat with the member offline about what work was done in 2013 just to get clarification around that. What I will say is that the regulations need to be formulated around this. We have established a working group with the CFS and SAPOL to work through those regulations and make sure that they will be effective and efficient. We will work through that. I hope that we will have that all ratified before next harvest season.

Clause passed.

Clause 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 3, lines 16 to 18 [clause 4(2)]—Delete subclause (2)

Amendment No 2 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 4, lines 3 to 5[clause 4(5)]—Delete subclause (5)

The CHAIR: Did you want to speak to those amendments?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, I am happy to take questions if the shadow minister would like.

The CHAIR: Any questions on the amendments? Just so we are clear, if we pass the amendments we still get to consider clause 4 as amended, so it is up to you how you handle it.

Mr ODENWALDER: As I said, I do not intend to delay the committee in any particular way. My questions are genuine. The amendments to this clause interrelate to other amendments later on, so perhaps I will ask the minister at this point to explain why these provisions were inserted into the first bill. What was the need for them in the first bill, and why were these amendments removed from the bill? An explanation—and it might save us time later on depending on how fulsome the explanation is.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank you for the question. Just to clarify, I outlined this somewhat in the comments I made on clause 1, so hopefully there is a little bit more detail here for you, and I am happy to flesh it out as you see fit. The Holloway review recommended alignment of bushfire area management committees and council regions. The government supports greater alignment but also recognises the need for local committees to determine the necessity of this. Therefore, an amendment of using a legal instrument to push them together is deleted and instead CFS will work closely with councils and other stakeholders to best align boundaries of committees.

I think I outlined in my comments earlier that I was led to believe more work had been done in this space, but it had not, so as it stands I think leaving it as it is and continuing to work with those communities which, again, we always do. I stress the number of regional communities I have been to since coming into this portfolio: I think it is upwards of 77 CFS stations that I have visited and more than 100 brigades that I have met with, so we will keep engaging at that level, as one would expect, but that is the reason for that amendment, that change.

Mr ODENWALDER: At what point and following which consultation with which groups did it become clear in the minister's mind that these changes were not necessary or desirable?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: This did play out post the select committee. GPSA and the Nature Conservation Council were the key stakeholders that we engaged with around that, again identifying that the work had not been done and that staying with the status quo and continuing to work together would be the best outcome.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 5.

Mr ODENWALDER: Clause 5 inserts a provision allowing the recording, possessing or using or moving of still images for the purposes of operations activities, including for training. Can you outline why and when the MFS would need to use these powers in some detail?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: A very good point, and I thank the member for this question. I am informed that as part of fire cause investigation and damage assessment MFS may be required to collect digital imagery to assist in investigations and determinations. Digital imagery may also be used to support incident controllers to gain rapid situational awareness to support decision-making processes. It will give them a heads-up. It has those sorts of capabilities.

Mr ODENWALDER: Will there be guidelines around how these can be used and how they will be disseminated and stored, etc., and will these guidelines be publicly available?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that that is an operational matter for each of the agencies and it will be determined through each of the agencies.

Mr ODENWALDER: What about if these images, whether they are still or moving, are images of people? Will there be guidelines around whether people can or cannot be in those images, whether they can or cannot be identified and how those particular images will be stored or disseminated?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, that will be an operational matter for each of the agencies.

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The CHAIR: You have had three questions, I think, member for Elizabeth.

Mr ODENWALDER: Have I? I thought my third question was a reiteration of my second question.

The CHAIR: I will just check. My apologies. My record keeping has not been good. I have been reliably informed that you have only had two, so, member for Elizabeth, go for it.

Mr ODENWALDER: My obfuscation was unnecessary then, sir. It is really a reiteration in a sense. Has there been any work done on whether these guidelines might conflict with any public sector privacy principles?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Again, it is an operational matter and it is a matter for the chiefs to conform to any of those regulations that they are obliged to conform to.

Clause passed.

Clause 6 passed.

Clause 7.

Mr ODENWALDER: This amendment obviously refers to—

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, clause 7 does not have an amendment attached to it.

Mr ODENWALDER: I meant this clause as an amendment to the act. Sorry, I beg your pardon. This clause obviously refers to the powers of the MFS, in terms of safeguarding buildings: making it clear who can and cannot enter buildings at certain times. I think that, on the face of it, it looks like a pretty good change. My question, though, is: did these come at the instigation of the MFS or were they recommendations of the Holloway review, and why were they necessary?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am led to believe that it came from the MFS and the idea is to harmonise them so that there is continuity between the MFS and the CFS.

Mr ODENWALDER: My understanding is that currently the CFS do not have these powers; do they? This bill may give them to them, so in that sense there will be a harmonisation at the end of this process, but at the moment, no-one has these particular powers in terms of orders, do they?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: That is correct.

Mr ODENWALDER: So my initial question stands. The answer to my question cannot be that they want to harmonise with the CFS. My question is: what instigated this change, whether it is the MFS or the CFS later on?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: It may help if I can read the following. The definition of closure did not stipulate that persons were either required to leave or enter the building, although that was the intent of the closure order. The 48-hour period of closure meant that, if a closure order was implemented on a Friday afternoon, the closure order would be lifted some time on the Sunday, enabling re-entry to the premises even though the reason/danger for the closure order being implemented could still be present.

Changing the 48 hours to two full business days would ensure that an extension to the closure order would be sought from the Magistrates Court without the possibility of re-entry to the premises, where the danger may still be present, during Magistrates Court's opening hours. Subclause (7) allows the CO to lift the closure order if the danger has been alleviated and not have to make the owner of the premises wait until a court appearance with a magistrate if the danger is rectified providing the order was not issued by the Magistrates Court in the first place.

Mr ODENWALDER: Are there any legal or administrative mechanisms for owners or residents of buildings or any other premises to challenge these orders or the basis on which they are made? Can they be challenged within that time frame? Perhaps as an adjunct to that question, were there any instances which resulted in confusion that prompted these changes?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that it was put forward to strengthen the legislation in the benefit of public safety, as I outlined. The 48-hour rule means that someone could re-enter their house on a Sunday, whereas if you have two business days, it just means that it gives operations a chance to make sure that the premise is safe for people to re-enter in the case of some devastation to their property.

Mr ODENWALDER: I think I understand that change and I do not have any argument with it particularly. I just wonder if there is any legal or administrative mechanism for owners who disagree with the decision made by the chief officer or is the chief officer's decision beyond any challenge? I am not being tricky. I just want to know.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I cannot answer that. I would have to get legal advice to get clarification on what the pathways would be. I could suggest it would be through some legal avenue but I cannot give a definitive answer. But I am happy to get an answer and bring that back to you, yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: The second part of the question—

The CHAIR: I am cutting you some slack now but it may not continue.

Mr ODENWALDER: I just want to know—and it is a supplementary to the previous answer—if there were any—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes, indeed, sometimes. Were there specific instances which resulted in confusion that prompted these changes or was it simply a policy change that was identified?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am not aware of any, no.

Clause passed.

Clause 8 passed.

Clause 9.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I move:

Amendment No 3 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 6, lines 9 to 38—This clause is opposed

Clause negatived.

Clause 10.

Mr ODENWALDER: This obviously is a reiteration of the MFS powers clause and my questions are the same. When and why would the CFS use these powers?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: You are asking when they will be used? The answer is that as part of the fire cause investigation and damage assessment the CFS may be required—are we talking about the digital imagery?

Mr ODENWALDER: Yes.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The CFS may be required to collect digital imagery to assist investigations and determinations. Digital imagery may also be used to support incident controllers gain rapid situation awareness to support decision-making processes.

Mr ODENWALDER: I imagine that the guidelines, etc., around dissemination would be, as you discussed in your previous answer, down to the individual agency to assess. Can you guarantee, though, that images of people, in particular, but also other identifying matter like numberplates, for instance, and those sorts of things will not find their way into the public domain?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The short answer is yes, as with the previous answer I gave around the MFS. The point to this is that there are public sector protocols and each operation will make their own decision around that operationally. That will be their decision, but there will be protocols that they have to meet and that will be met.

Clause passed.

Clause 11 passed.

Clause 12.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I move:

Amendment No 4 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 8, lines 21 to 25 [clause 12, inserted section 69C(4)]—Delete subsection (4) and substitute:

(4) If a prescribed person to whom a notice under this section has been given fails to comply with the notice, the Chief Officer may—

(a) establish an industry brigade for the designated area; and

(b) recover the costs of supplying and maintaining the plant, equipment, apparatus and devices specified in the notice from the prescribed person as a debt due to SACFS.

Mr ODENWALDER: Just for some clarification, I understand the purpose of this is that it sends it from a negative to a positive. Instead of issuing a fine or an expiation for contravening the notice, the CFS can recover costs afterwards. That is my understanding of this. Can you just explain why that change was made? What is the difference?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Just to clarify again, the bulk of our forestry industry is obviously in the South-East. The intent with this was to harmonise the legislation, if you like, with the Victorian legislation, given that it is so close to the border and there is so much interaction across the border within this industry. That is what this does.

Mr ODENWALDER: Still on the amendment, in the original iteration of the bill where would that money, as a fine or expiation, have gone under the previous model? Would it have gone to general revenue or would it have gone to the agency?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I cannot answer that question other than to say that that fine is no longer there.

Mr ODENWALDER: Well, it is there still because we have not voted on the amendment yet. Where is it intended for that money to go? Does it go to general revenue or does it go to the agency?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Obviously, in those situations that is a negotiation with the Treasurer. My preference would be to see it go back to the agencies, but if you want to come with me when we talk to the Treasurer, I welcome you.

Amendment carried.

Mr ODENWALDER: This is all about industry brigades, obviously. This is a new provision, as I understand it. I am obviously not a country person. I have had some discussions with the member for Mount Gambier, and I understand this most directly affects his part of the world and, presumably, that of other members, too. For a suburban boy like me, can the minister outline the need for these industry groups?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: For the sake of the city slickers who maybe need to get out into the bush more often and get their shoes dirty—

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: And I know that you would with your kids. I know your kids would love to go down to the South-East. They are great young fellows—

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: You should. Get them down to the South-East. You closed it. Get them down to the South-East; it is a fantastic place, a great part of the world. There are many, many people down there. You could go to the new sports club; we put a lot of money into that. We put a lot of money into their sports club. It is sensational. After years of your neglect, they are very happy to have the expansion there, too—a great community. I tell you what, the afternoon tea I had there at Kalangadoo sports—

The CHAIR: Minister, we are running out of time.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I do digress, but the member did ask. What I can say in answer to this question is that it enables the Chief Officer of the SACFS to require a prescribed person in a designated area, at their own expense, to form a suitable industry brigade for that area and apply to the SACFS for registration of that industry brigade.

It also requires the provision of such officers and members for the industry brigade as are determined by the SACFS and the provision and maintenance of the industry brigade with operational equipment for the prevention or suppression of fires, saving of life and protection of property at fires as determined by the SACFS. This will provide legislative power for the SACFS to require a prescribed person in a designated area to form and maintain an appropriately staffed and equipped fire brigade and penalty provisions for instances of noncompliance.

Mr ODENWALDER: Can you outline the consultation that has been done—

The CHAIR: Member for Elizabeth, looking at the time, we are due to go to the Auditor-General's Report at 4.30, so we will come back to this, obviously.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.