Bills

Fire and Emergency Services (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 12.

Mr ODENWALDER: How many questions do I have left?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Two.

Mr ODENWALDER: Well, that is more than I need. I think there will be more to interrogate about industry brigades between the houses. I have a lot of questions, but perhaps I will ask about the consultation generally. Was there consultation with mining interests, with the forestry owners conference and farming interests in the framing of this clause?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank the member, and again I do not want to go over old ground, but I reiterate the point that I was led to believe a lot of consultation happened from the 2013 Holloway review, and right the way through the process that was the information that was given to me. More consultation has taken place. Everyone was invited to be part of the select committee that toured the country regions in the state, and there was great input there. Everyone was invited to be a part of that, and every industry had a chance to have their say.

Mr ODENWALDER: Does the designated area in proposed section 69B include farms?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am led to believe that early consultation as far as 69B is concerned was led by the CFS volunteers. I might clarify a couple of points. As you would understand, in the South East, with forestry and the assets down there, it is really important that the industry also plays a role in this as far as protecting that asset to make sure that it is looked after as best as possible, to make sure that there are not substantial losses as well. So this is two organisations working together to get the best outcome for a local community, including the forestry industry.

Mr ODENWALDER: Can it include farms? I am just reiterating the same question. I want to reassure the minister that as with my previous statements, I am not trying to be tricky here; I am trying to understand the bill so that I may further advise my party before it gets to the upper house.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I appreciate where you are going and it is not intended for farms. This is about industry brigades and the forestry industry specifically, as I outlined in my previous answer. So, no, it is not intended for farms.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 13 passed.

Clause 14.

Mr ODENWALDER: These provisions relate again to the CFS. Can the minister advise if these provisions are more or less a direct replica of those powers conferred on the MFS under section 38 and, if not, can he explain what the differences are?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, I am informed, the same powers as the MFS.

Mr ODENWALDER: So it is a direct replica of those powers, is it?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Yes, as I am informed, that is correct.

Mr ODENWALDER: Are there any geographical boundaries to these powers and indeed the powers enjoyed by the MFS under section 38? Do the geographical boundaries correspond to the general operational boundaries of the CFS and the Metropolitan Fire Service, or can those boundaries be blurred? I guess my question is: does the CFS have these powers broadly across the state?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: If I have your question right, the intent is that it matches with their designated area.

Mr ODENWALDER: Well, the intent is, but is it spelled out? I am being a devil's advocate here, obviously, as it is unlikely to happen, but could the CFS chief officer exercise these powers in the metropolitan area?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: As outlined in proposed section 70A(2), 'This Division applies only to a building, vehicle or place in the country,' which means it would be the CFS because the CFS are in charge in the country.

Clause passed.

Clause 15.

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): We have two amendments: amendments Nos 5 and 6 on Schedule 1. Minister, would you like to move them individually or en bloc?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am happy to move them en bloc, sir. I move:

Amendment No 5 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 14, line 39 [clause 15(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

Amendment No 6 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 14, lines 41 and 42 [clause 15(2), inserted subparagraph (i1)]—Delete ', who will be appointed as the presiding member of the committee'

Amendments carried.

Mr ODENWALDER: My understanding of this is that amendments Nos 5 and 6 work together. That was not my question, sir: it was preamble. I guess my simple question is: can you explain this change, both the initial proposal and then its abandonment in these two amendments? I think there will be some amendments following this, so you can either have a fulsome answer now or we will just ask questions of each amendment. I want to understand what the initial impetus was for this change in the bill and then the partial change back.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Without going over old ground, it is stuff that I have touched on, in that it is an element of the bill that we were going to look to change. I was led to believe from previous management that work had been done in this space. The work had not been done in this space, so we opted to stick with the status quo and go down that path, so that is why it is being removed.

Mr ODENWALDER: But what was the initial change? Assuming we are still debating the initial clause—

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): The clause was amended by amendments Nos 5 and 6.

Mr ODENWALDER: But we have not voted on the amendment yet?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): I put the question on the two amendments.

Mr ODENWALDER: But we have not voted on it yet. We are still debating that, aren't we?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): You had three questions.

Mr ODENWALDER: The amendments have been passed?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Amendments Nos 5 and 6 have, yes.

Mr ODENWALDER: I beg your pardon, my mistake. We are whizzing through it then. I have no more questions on clause 15 then.

Clause as amended passed.

Clauses 16 to 20.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will ask a general question now. I realise we are going over some of the same ground but I just want to be clear about this. All these things do is relate to the boundaries, the zones, and the conflict between this act that we are amending and the Emergency Management Act. There is a conflict in there. There was a change to resolve those conflicts and now those have been abandoned. Is that what we are doing?

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

Amendment No 7 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 15, lines 3 to 16—This clause is opposed

Amendment No 8 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 15, lines 17 and 18—This clause is opposed

Amendment No 9 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 15, lines 19 to 22—This clause is opposed

Amendment No 10 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 15, lines 23 to 26—This clause is opposed

Amendment No 11 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 15, lines 27 and 28—This clause is opposed

Fundamentally. I will see if this clears it up. There were some proposed changes but they have been removed because the work had not been done to facilitate them. We are going back to the status quo. To clarify, deleting the original amendment will ensure that the State Bushfire Co-ordination Committee has effective functions to prepare a state bushfire plan and review bushfire area management plans to ensure such plans and policies are consistent with the state bushfire management plan. It is going back to the status quo. As I said, the work was not done that I was led to believe had been done previously. By opposing these measures with amendments, we will go back to the status quo.

Clauses negatived.

Clause 21.

Mr ODENWALDER: Here we are talking about broadening out—and correct me if I am wrong—how the chief officer can publicise a total fire ban. It seems like a pretty reasonable measure on the face of it. What is the minister's understanding of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's obligations to broadcast total fire ban and related information? What is the nature of their obligations? Do they have any obligations under any state act?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that, no, they have no obligations as such, but they are an excellent broadcaster that always broadcasts the emergency warning message. I am on record—and I think you are on record as well—letting the public know that it is really important to make sure that they are getting your information from a number of different sources, not to rely on one. If they rely on the radio and something goes wrong with their radio, they do not have extra sources of information and it can put them in a vulnerable position. We are very strong in making sure people have a number of different ways to get their information, particularly bushfire information, so that if something does fail, they have a backup plan in place and they are getting their information from a number of sources. The ABC do a great job.

Mr ODENWALDER: I agree, minister. I think the ABC do a fantastic job. They have some excellent journalists working very close to us. I will not name them. I will not do that. I wonder, arising from your answer, if they have been consulted and if you envision any change in their role going forward, or whether you would expect them to perform exactly the same role as they do now?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: No, my understanding is that they will continue to do the same role that they did. All those fine journalists you spoke about will keep doing their wonderful work and they will keep relaying the messages as they always have. That is the expectation.

Mr ODENWALDER: And were they consulted?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Not to my knowledge because there is no change.

Clause passed.

Clause 22.

Mr ODENWALDER: Clause 22 maintains that each rural council 'must appoint at least 1 person as an authorised officer'. Were the LGA or any regional councils consulted, and what were the results of that consultation process, beyond the minister's previous answer about all the consultations since 2013?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I am informed that this is as was proposed under the previous government, so there has been no consultation on that front.

Clause passed.

Clause 23.

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

Amendment No 12 [PolEmerCorr–1]—

Page 16, lines 27 to 35 [clause 23(4)]—Delete subclause (4)

Amendment carried.

Mr ODENWALDER: Hang on, as a matter of process, do we get to debate the amendment?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): I have just put it, but I am happy to take some questions on clause 23 as amended. The amendment has been passed, member for Elizabeth, but we can take questions on the amended clause.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will ask, then, minister, in relation to the amendment and the clause it amends, before the select committee process the member for Flinders instigated why was consultation not properly conducted with the CFS Volunteers Association, the grain growers, notwithstanding all the praise we have given the grain growers since that point? Why was the consultation not done with them and, perhaps most importantly, apart from with the opposition, with your own backbench?

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: Just to be clear again on a couple of points that I have already made but will make again for the sake of clarification, these were things that were instigated, that I was informed of coming into government, that had already been progressed under the previous government.

That was the information I was given from the 2013 Holloway review, so I was told that a lot of work had been done in the background. Again, I welcome your enlightening us on that. I am interested to know whether you are going to say that that work was not done, or it was done and we are not being informed of it. I am keen to hear the outcome of that. As far as that is concerned, that body of work had been done.

What I can say about this amendment is that it has been superseded by the outcomes of the parliamentary select committee, which has recommended these powers be vested in SAPOL. This leaves SACFS in the situation where it can, as an agency, direct a fire to be extinguished after it is lit under section 82(1) but cannot direct that the fire or an activity that may cause a fire to occur to be stopped. It has recommended that clause 23 is removed.

The other point I would like to make is from the information I was given under previous management that came through the CFS and SAFECOM. Again, I refer to the work they had done under the previous government on the back of the Holloway review. This goes to maybe a few of the questions you were asking before. Just to clarify, the CFSVA, the SESVA, the SES, the CFS, the UFU and the MFS are all part of the SAFECOM board. Those recommendations came through SAFECOM, which engages with the board that has all those stakeholders on there, so they are very much part of that conversation.

Mr ODENWALDER: I will take on face value what you have said about the volunteers associations, etc., but the second part of my question was about your own backbench. What we saw last time when this clause was initially put was your party room clearly being taken by surprise. The reason that this bill did not pass quite quickly through the house last time was no fault of the opposition; it was the fault of your own party. We can talk about democracy within your party, but surely there should have been some consultation before putting the bill before the house.

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: I thank the member for that question. Again, just to clarify the process we have gone through to get to this point—and it was outlined very clearly in my second reading speech—we were happy to negotiate with stakeholders like Grain Producers SA and to work that process through. Again, through the select committee it was done exceptionally well. People got more say than ever before. That did circumvent the consultation that I was told had taken place under the previous Labor government. We still do not know what happened there, and again I am happy to be enlightened on that. I know that they were not here; you were. You have been here for a long, long time, so you are part of what went on there. I am happy to hear what you had to say.

Mr Odenwalder interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Duluk): Order, member for Elizabeth!

The Hon. C.L. WINGARD: The point is that if you look at where the select committee has landed it has landed exactly where we brought this in with grain producers. We have worked through and found a better solution, and I am very happy to do that through the select committee process to now have SAPOL involved. The principle of what we were trying to do was to have the power to direct so that there would not be, as I outlined earlier in this conversation, a situation where someone doing the wrong thing would have no recourse, or no-one could actually stop them or have the power to stop them.

In the consultation process, which turned out to be the select committee, we have landed with the power to direct sitting with SAPOL, but the principle of what we were doing is where we have ended up. I think everyone is in agreement with that; in fact, I think there were two select committees. It was a bipartisan select committee, and everyone is happy with where it has landed, giving the result we all wanted.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.