Bills

Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. B.I. BOYER (Wright—Minister for Education, Training and Skills) (15:37): I am pleased to have the opportunity to continue my remarks about this very important piece of legislation. As I observed before the lunch break, there are a lot of very important reasons that governments take action to update the legislation that governs how we respond in emergencies, but one of those I think which is often overlooked is the importance of making sure that we maintain public confidence in our systems and give South Australians a very strong sense of confidence and reassure them that we are constantly updating that legislation that does govern how we respond in emergencies.

There are a lot of reasons why we need to do that, of course, because these situations change. Sometimes we might see a jurisdiction across the border do something different that we might want to adopt. I might give the example, of course, of the COVID pandemic as a very recent and real example of where we might face an emergency situation that we had not really foreseen and where we do not even have a historical template, if I could put it that way, in terms of how we might respond to a situation like that.

Of course, it meant that in what almost felt like the blink of an eye we were forced into trying to respond to very challenging circumstances, the likes of which we had not seen before. There was a great deal of, I think it is fair to say, panic amongst the public around what COVID would mean and what they should do to protect themselves and their loved ones. There was probably a lot of consternation and debate around what the appropriate powers were for government and for police commissioners, who were, in most states, tasked with the responsibility of being the chief responder, along with the chief of public health, in this case Nicola Spurrier. So it is important and timely that this work has been done by PEG Consulting.

I know the people behind PEG Consulting very well. They did an excellent review, I thought, into the Construction Industry Training Board or Construction Industry Training Fund Act, and made a whole lot of recommendations there, almost all of which we adopted and have now put through this place and have enacted. Those two people are Tahnya Donaghy and Ingrid Haythorpe and, as a government, we have relied on their services again here in terms of the work that has been done around reviewing the Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill and looking at things that we can put in place to make sure that we are best practice here in South Australia in terms of how we respond and proposing in this amendment bill some sensible reforms.

There have been a number of speakers who have taken the time to make a contribution on this bill and again I would like to take the opportunity to thank them for doing that. It is great to see bipartisanship in areas like this. The public like to see different sides of politics, for the most part, come together and agree on things for the betterment of the whole state. It is hard to think of too many areas where that is more important than emergency management. As I observed earlier, there is really no place for political squabbles when it comes to how we respond in times of emergency.

Some of the key amendments that are being proposed in this bill include introducing new elements to support responding to future known and unknown events, including the introduction of a new category of emergency declaration. If a politician in this place had used that line about future known and unknown events five years ago, people might have shaken their heads and rolled their eyes, but now that we are in a hopefully post-COVID, post-pandemic world, we all know that it is a very real and live possibility that we do face something that we have not faced before and where there is no template in terms of how we respond.

The state of alert style of declaration may be used prior to or following a major emergency declaration to assist with the scaling up and down of emergency management activities and better support public messaging. The public messaging thing, of course, is always important. I have used the example a number of times already about how important it was during COVID, but in situations where it is a faster moving emergency, perhaps a bushfire, obviously it is absolutely critical that we get that right. It is not just about providing information to the public about how they might prepare in the long-term sense against whether it is an oncoming flood or perhaps a pandemic, but in the case of a fast-moving bushfire it is critical and it needs to be timely that we provide advice to people about how they protect themselves and their loved ones in the immediate future, what they should be doing and give them up-to-date advice about what we are seeing in terms of where the fire is moving, how fast it is moving, where it is spreading and where they can go to get support.

Any work that we can do around not just assisting with the scaling up and down of the emergency management activities but also supporting better public messaging I think will be very welcomed by people outside this place, on that note, improving clarity, including aligning the process and timeframes for extending electricity supply declaration periods with major emergency declarations. It is timely that we are speaking about this, given the events that have happened on Yorke Peninsula in the last week or so with power outages.

I had a question today from the member for Narungga in this place during question time around the challenges that posed in terms of keeping communication systems up and running and operating, not just in terms of between emergency service personnel and the use of the Government Radio Network (GRN) but also how the CFS for instance, or the SES, might actually contact their volunteers to make sure they are able to respond in a time of emergency when perhaps the power is out or a mobile phone tower's signal is down and there is no 4G or 5G network

I thought it was a very good question by the member for Narungga and it brings into sharp focus the challenges that we can face in times like that when power might go out. Including aligning the process and timeframes for extending that electricity supply declaration with major emergency declarations is really important, and I am pleased that we are suggesting changes there. These changes overall will strengthen the act and ensure our legislative framework provides a basis for effectively managing all stages of an emergency into the future.

Some previous historical examples that I have not touched upon that are worthy of mention in my comments here include: the statewide blackout of 2016, which we all remember very well; multiple bushfires, including the Wangary fires of 2005; I have mentioned the COVID pandemic; I would also point out the floods that we had in the Riverland, with incredible scenes that none of us will forget.

I certainly will not forget seeing those vast tracts of water and parts of towns and areas completely submerged and the way we were trying to respond. Sometimes where governments do not get it right is that you do need to treat an emergency, like a flood or like a fire or like a pandemic, once you get into the post-response phase, as a genuine opportunity to do things better. There is nothing like having lived through some kind of crisis like that to be able to take the learnings from that and then apply them to legislation in parliament and make sure that things are updated appropriately to reflect whatever we saw in that emergency. We need to make sure we make improvements so that, if we are to face it again, we are in a better position to actually respond.

In the case of this Emergency Management Act, it commenced 20 years ago, which in the scheme of the life of a piece of legislation is a very long time, and this was the first full-scale review of the act since that commencement 20 years ago. If you think about all the things that have occurred in that 20 years in our state alone, right back to the Wangary fires, but also the statewide blackout, other significant fires, the Riverland floods, the COVID pandemic—a whole range of things that this state has had to face in the 20 years since this act was put in place—it really speaks to how important it is that we use the opportunity that a review of the act provides us and the expert advice that PEG Consulting has given us in terms of making important changes.

I acknowledge that the speakers from the other side of this chamber have provided positive comments as well around the need to do this and to provide bipartisanship, mostly because I think we are largely in agreement in terms of the things we need to do. I think we understand on both sides of politics that it is not really going to instil confidence into the public if they hear the government of the day and the opposition of the day squabbling over what we should do in terms of how we respond during an emergency. It is not likely to fill someone with confidence to think, when the rubber hits the road and we are actually in an emergency, whether it is a bushfire or flood or whatever it might be, that instead of our politicians spending their time responding they are arguing over exactly how it is that we should respond.

I will conclude my remarks by thanking all those who have taken the time to make a contribution. I want to thank not just PEG Consulting but all those stakeholders—and there were many—who made submissions here, which is really important. Given that we rely on so many people, many of whom are volunteers, to support us in times of emergency, it is vital when we go about doing this work as legislators to review an act and make amendments to an act that we do not just assume that we have the answers ourselves. We need to give those people out in those stakeholder groups, the people who are out there holding a hose during a fire or fixing up a roof during storm or filling sandbags during a flood, the chance to be heard as part of this process. The things that they see can then be reflected in the recommendations that a consulting firm like PEG makes and in the recommendations that ultimately the government of the day makes to this place.

I want to thank all those who took the time to be a part of that stakeholder consultation. I can reassure you that you have been listened to. A lot of the recommendations that are being proposed here in this bill have stemmed from the consultation that we have done with stakeholders, and I think that is really important. I hope that goes to providing to them a bit of confidence and optimism when they see, ideally, these changes, if it is the will of the parliament, brought into effect, and that they see that actually the government will listen, that we do appreciate their efforts as volunteers, that we do understand that they are often the experts in terms of what is needed on the ground when an emergency occurs and that in the process we have gone through as part of the first full-scale reviews of this act in 20 years since it was first enacted we have genuinely listened to them.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Clauses 1 and 2 passed.

Clause 3.

Mr WHETSTONE: Clause 3, subsection (2). Recommendation 1 of the review was that the EMA guiding principles should include reference that 'specific planning for vulnerable people is required'. How does this amendment require specific planning?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Thank you, member for Chaffey, for your question. I might just clarify. Is your question: when we refer to 'specific planning for vulnerable people is required', what do we mean by specific planning or what specific planning do we think might actually be needed?

Mr WHETSTONE: Recommendation 1 of the review was that the EMA guiding principles should include reference that 'specific planning for vulnerable people is required'.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: My understanding is that it will be inserting a requirement into the act, but when emergency planning is being put in place by agencies, they need to take into account that something specific in each of those cases needs to be considered for vulnerable people in those communities, separate to a more one-size-fits-all plan, that there needs to be a kind of carve-out or special consideration given in those plans to what is being put in place to protect vulnerable people in those communities when the emergency hits.

Mr WHETSTONE: The review also states that in the 2009 Victorian bushfires nearly half of the people who died were considered 'vulnerable' because they were under 12, or over 70 years, or suffered from a chronic illness or disability. Given the broad definition of 'a person at risk' during an emergency, how does the amendment ensure that the guidelines encompass those vulnerable people?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I thank the member for Chaffey, and I am very happy to have another go at this if this does not get to the nub of your question. You use a good example here of the Victorian bushfires, and half being under 12 or over 70. My understanding is that we are not suggesting within this that the plans should assume at each point or at each different emergency that everyone under 12 and everyone over 70 should be considered at risk, because that is not necessarily the case. Those people are not automatically captured, but the planning around vulnerable people in an emergency still needs to be considered and be a bit more specific.

For instance, in a bushfire in a certain area, ask who the people are who might be at risk there, instead of having a cookie cutter or an overlay to say, 'In every single case, what's your plan for everybody under 12 and what's your plan for everybody over 70?', even if responders push back and say, 'But people in this case under 12 or over 70 are not necessarily at risk.' That would not achieve the aims of the act. I think it is more about making sure that we consider in each case who are the people at risk, who are the vulnerable people, and to have a plan for them, but of course taking into account—yes, you are right—in the case of the Victorian bushfire a number of the people who fell into that category were under 12 and over 70.

Mr WHETSTONE: Again, referring to subsection (2), recommendation 1 also suggests reference to volunteers as key contributors towards SA emergency response. How does this amendment fulfil that recommendation?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Thank you, member for Chaffey, for your question. I think what we are getting at here is perhaps doing something that we may not have done well as governments in years gone by, which is actually using this legislative instrument to formally acknowledge the role that volunteers play. I think there was a sense that that had been missing. The recommendation from PEG Consulting that there should be recognition actually in black and white within the Emergency Management Act would be an appropriate step to take to make it clear in the document that guides how we respond that goes through this place that we do acknowledge the very significant role that volunteers play in emergency management, and that is what we are proposing.

Clause passed.

Clause 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, I refer to clause 5(3). What other acts is this amendment intended to extend to?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I think I have an answer to your question. Instead of me listing all of the acts that it will have an intersection with, because I understand there are a lot of those, I am told that this will have an overriding effect over any other act. So if the commissioner, for instance, wants information-gathering powers from another area of government or from an area of government that might be governed by a different act, the power that we are proposing and given here in clause 5 will override all those acts and provide that power for the commissioner, I think in this case, to seek information from that part of government.

Mr WHETSTONE: The amendment applies to part 4 of the act. Are there any sections besides section 24B and section 25 that require disclosure of information?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Sorry for taking a bit of time. The advice I have is that, for example, it might not just be the police commissioner seeking to access the information-gathering powers under clause 5 but it might be other ministers of the Crown. I think a good example might be that the Minister for Energy might seek to use these during an emergency to gather information that would pertain to what we do about keeping the power going during a time of emergency. So it is not just exclusively for the use of the police commissioner, who might be the state emergency coordinator or controller at the time, but it could be used by other ministers to seek information relating to the role they would play in an emergency response.

Mr WHETSTONE: Section 27B is a similar section but it protects an obligation to keep the identity of an informant secret. Why was this protection not included here?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Which clause was that?

Mr WHETSTONE: Clause 5(3).

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Member for Chaffey, if I could just clarify: is your question why those protections are not included or why they are?

Mr WHETSTONE: Why was this protection not included?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Around informants, essentially?

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Okay, thank you. The advice I have is that it was thought not to be necessary to include those protections in this act. That is the best advice that I have. Apparently, it was considered whether or not it would be needed. The advice I have is that although it is included in some other acts of parliament, including, I think, the ICAC Act, it was not thought here that having those protections would be needed.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Stinson): That was your third and final question on that clause.

Mr WHETSTONE: That was clause 5.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Stinson): That is right.

Mr WHETSTONE: We are moving on to clause 6 now.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr WHETSTONE: Minister, at clause 6(3), which website will the guidelines be published on?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The DPC website, I am advised.

Mr WHETSTONE: At subclause (4)(a)(ii), what will the terms and conditions of the members be?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Perhaps if I could just clarify: this is a question on clause 4(3); is that right?

Mr WHETSTONE: Subclause (4).

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Subclause (4) of clause 6?

Mr WHETSTONE: Subparagraph (ii). Would you like a bit more clarity to it? Can you confirm that the guidelines will include term limits of office, eligibility for reappointment, terms of vacancy, allowances, and expenses of members?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I understand; yes.

Clause passed.

Clauses 7 to 13 passed.

Clause 14.

Mr WHETSTONE: Has the government decided who will be appointed as the State Recovery Coordinator?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I understand our intention, or the government's intention, is it will remain as the Chief Executive of the Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Mr WHETSTONE: Can the recovery coordinator's position be held by a volunteer?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am told no.

Mr WHETSTONE: Will the recovery coordinator have staff directly employed under them and, if so, how many FTEs?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I understand they currently do and they will continue to do that. The most specific figure I can give you is the current team is under 10, but that will continue in terms of the changes being made in this act.

Mr WHETSTONE: Clause 14, section 18A: what will the recovery coordinator's salary be?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I might just clarify, in that last question are you referring to the community recovery coordinator, like an Alex Zimmermann as opposed to the DPC?

Mr WHETSTONE: Yes.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I understand the current level for that role is about a SAES 1, which I think is—and I am being as specific as I can—off the top of my head about $200,000.

Clause passed.

Clause 15 passed.

Clause 16.

Mr WHETSTONE: What is the reason for the title change in clause 16 and why is it not consequential? I guess the explanation of the clause says that the change is consequential, but it does not provide why.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am told it is because we are adding in this state of alert, which is a change the bill is proposing, so it is consequential to that.

Clause passed.

Clause 17.

Mr WHETSTONE: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Whetstone–1]—

Page 6, line 37—Delete 'in which' second occurring

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 18.

Mr WHETSTONE: New section 21A: will all section 25 powers be granted during a state of alert?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clauses 19 to 22 passed.

Clause 23.

Mr WHETSTONE: New section 24B: how will it be determined what information the State Coordinator reasonably requires?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I think the best example is if a control agency were to go up to the coordinator and say, 'We think we need this information,' or, 'We think something might have happened that precipitates us needing that information.' I think that would pass the reasonableness test.

Mr WHETSTONE: Does all the information obtained under this section immediately become immune to FOI, even if it was not immune before?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: The answer is basically no.

Mr WHETSTONE: Why are these powers listed under section 24B instead of section 25, given that section 24 is about disasters and section 25 is about powers?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: It is a good question. As it is explained to me, if we were to have it in another section that would potentially force the government of the day to make it public. There is the risk that if we were already in a vulnerable state, as the state of South Australia, and then had an act that forced us to make something public that could increase that international vulnerability. That is the reason it was put in this section.

Clause passed.

Clause 24.

Mr WHETSTONE: Re section 25, what is the reason for the title change?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I understand that the change from 'power' to 'general powers' is because 'powers' might make it appear as though that is an exhaustive list of the powers they have, whereas in fact there might be other powers from outside of that clause. It is to more accurately represent that fact.

Mr WHETSTONE: Section 25(2) clarifies that powers are subject to both the regulations and this section the act. Can you explain the reason for the addition?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Which clause was that, sorry, member for Chaffey?

Mr WHETSTONE: Can you just explain the reason for the addition to section 25(2)? There is an addition to subclause (5).

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Stinson): Just so I follow you, member, are you talking about on page 10?

Mr WHETSTONE: I am talking about page 10.

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Stinson): Yes, subclause (5)?

Mr WHETSTONE: I am referring to section 25(2), subclause (5).

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Stinson): And the words 'but subject to'?

Mr WHETSTONE: I am referring to:

(5) section 25(2)—after 'but subject to' insert 'this section and'

The ACTING CHAIR (Ms Stinson): Is that clear to you, minister?

Mr WHETSTONE: The change is 'but subject to', or 'this section and'.

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I understand it is a technical change to make clear the interactions between that section and other sections.

Mr WHETSTONE: Alright, so in section 25(3) the removal of subsection (3) ensures the State Coordinator can take advice from whomever they deem necessary; however, does the State Coordinator still have the power to authorise the provision of certain goods and services that were part of that section?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Yes.

Clause passed.

Clause 25.

Mr WHETSTONE: Regarding section 26AB, is there a mechanism or a safeguard that prevents the minister from overturning an act or law prescribed by the regulations under subsection (3)?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: Member for Chaffey, I am told that, yes, there are circumstances in which ministers are able to have powers to make temporary arrangements during a declaration. The example that was just given to me was around community visitor schemes, perhaps, where powers are put in place—probably the COVID pandemic is a good example of where people might not be permitted to leave their home or move outside a certain radius—and it prevents important functions like community visitor schemes. There is provision in the act for a minister to have the power to make what would only be temporary arrangements during a declaration to make sure those functions could still occur.

Clause passed.

Clause 26 passed.

Clause 27.

Mr WHETSTONE: With restrictions of recovery operations on private property being removed, is the State Coordinator under any obligation to inform an owner of a property of the work being undertaken?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: I am told that although this act does give power to the coordinator to go onto private land without the permission of the landowner, which of course in some emergencies would be necessary, particularly if they cannot, for instance, get hold of the private owner in time, our intention is to include in regulations that the coordinator would inform the landowner of their intention to go and do that.

Mr WHETSTONE: Will the government commit to having guidelines for the recovery coordinator to follow before carrying out operations on private property?

The Hon. B.I. BOYER: My advice is that the intention is to have in regulations some guidelines around what powers the coordinator will have when they go onto private land in an emergency like the ones that we are, I guess, envisaging here, if that makes sense.

Clause passed.

Clause 28 passed.

Clause 29.

Mr WHETSTONE: I move:

Amendment No 2 [Whetstone–1]—

Page 14, line 6—Delete '—delete subsection (2)' and substitute:

and (3)—delete subsections (2) and (3)

Amendment No 3 [Whetstone–1]—

Page 14, line 13 [clause 29, inserted subsection (2)(b)]—After 'the Governor' insert:

(provided that any such approval must also be in writing and published in a manner and form determined by the Minister)

The first amendment is just streamlining.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.