BUSHFIRES

The Hon. C.V. SCHAEFER (16:00): I move:

That the Natural Resources Committee inquire into and report on any proposal, matter or issue concerned with bushfire.

This is the same motion that the Hon. Iain Evans moved in another place. I move the motion as a member of the Natural Resources Committee because we have, in fact, already had a number of witnesses with regard to bushfires and bushfire management come to our committee, and the majority of us, I believe, would like to continue at least an oversight role. However, because the Hon. Iain Evans moved this in another place, I will use a number of quotes from his original speech.

This motion has been moved as a result of not only the Victorian bushfires but I guess also as a result of the Eyre Peninsula and Canberra bushfires. I think it is easy for us to imagine that bushfires are going to affect heavily wooded areas away from dense populations, but we need to remember that not so very long ago Canberra lost a number of homes and, I think also, tragically, some lives. I think the tragedy in Victoria brought home to all of us that we are not prepared for what is almost inevitable in South Australia again. As the member for Davenport said:

Parliaments all round Australia tend to wait for a bushfire to occur, express great sorrow and regret about the impact of the bushfire, and then basically let the agencies proceed along their merry way without the parliament having any great oversight of what they are doing and why they are doing it.

He talks in his speech about a community which is generally becoming de-skilled with regard to bushfire management, and a parliament which is becoming de-skilled and ignorant of the measures needed to prepare for bushfire and to work against that happening to our communities again. Indeed, I agree with the Hon. Iain Evans that as people become more urbanised they are, indeed, de-skilled and almost immune to the effects of bushfires and lacking any real understanding of how they should manage if we were to have the misfortune of experiencing another major bushfire in South Australia, particularly in the Adelaide Hills.

The Natural Resources Committee recently had the mayors from two of the most affected councils—the Mitcham and Adelaide Hills councils—speak to us. They showed us some overhead slides of homes with native bushland growing not just up to but actually over the top of the roofs of these houses. They spoke of the assumption of a lot of those people that they would be saved by the MFS or CFS. Frankly, they could not be saved. In a bushfire there would be no way that anyone could possibly save them. As Iain Evans points out, in Belair there are 15 CFS units and 9,000 homes.

Again, the CFS and the MFS do a wonderful job, but they cannot be expected to defend dense populations against a bushfire unless people have done some preparation themselves. The two mayors spoke to us of areas where there is only one road in and out and chicanes and where people live very comfortable and beautiful lives. However, if people are in fact asked to vacate, to leave those areas—and we are constantly being told that you must decide whether you are going to stay and fight or leave—they have a genuine fear that they could not get those populations out in time because there are simply not the double-sided roadways for them to get out.

There is a popular view at the moment that bunkers installed in many of those high risk homes may be the answer and, indeed, they may be. I have seen patterns of bunkers which are very impressive but, again, unless there are standards met and unless the people understand not only what those standards are but what they have to do in order to use the bunkers should they have one, those very same bunkers could have the effect of being ovens and slowly cooking the people who are inside them.

I believe that there is a need for a committee (and this particular reference is to the Natural Resources Committee) to take an oversight, to find out where, if you pardon the pun, the hotspots are, to find out what can be done, to look at our facilities and our education opportunities, to speak to the relevant departments and services, and to report back to the parliament so that we may at least be informed as to how we can get a proper response and proper planning.

One of the other issues that the Hon. Mr Evans has raised is the fact that each local council has a fire response plan, but fire, like other natural resources, does not recognise local government boundaries, and he believes that there is a need for a much broader regional plan to be invoked in times of high risk.

As a member of the committee, I believe that we have an opportunity to make relevant inquiries and report back to the parliament so that we can indeed have both a state-wide and region-wide plan that, while it may not save every life (and it probably will not), will hopefully see us better equipped when—it is when and not if—we have another major bushfire in South Australia.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:08): I rise on behalf of the government to oppose the motion. This government has in the past seven years demonstrated an ability to respond in a proactive and strategic way to bushfire risks. Examples that are relevant to this proposal include the 2003 Premier's Bushfire Summit, the 2003 Emergency Services Review chaired by the Hon. John Dawkins AO, the 2005 independent review of the Wangary bushfire by Dr Bob Smith, the 2007 Minister for Emergency Services' review of bushfire mitigation and management and the 2008 review of the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 by Mr John Murray.

As you can see, there is a long history of activity in regard to this issue. The 2003 Premier's Bushfire Summit called on South Australians to provide ideas and raise any concerns about bushfire preparedness across the state. Out of that, 15 initiatives were identified, all of which have now been addressed by the government.

These included the establishment of a Native Vegetation Council fire subcommittee, which has resulted in the streamlining of permit requests for native vegetation clearing for fire risk management. CFS representatives are on this committee, including the deputy chief officer. This representation enables clearance approvals to be expedited for the fire risk management works.

In relation to development and land use matters, the initiatives recognise the need to review the bushfire policy framework and development plans, to update development controls in designated bushfire prone areas and to consider extending the number of bushfire prone areas. It was also recognised that the Country Fire Service should have powers of direction on development proposals in designated CFS referral areas to ensure development is appropriate for the bushfire risk in those areas.

Subsequently, a development assessment framework has been established comprising planning policies, building rules and powers of direction to the CFS in high risk areas for determining the appropriateness of development in these areas. Other significant initiatives to come out of the summit included the following:

an extension of the Community Fire Safe program. In this program encourages residents living in high risk areas to form small action groups. Within these groups people learn how fires behave and how they destroy lives and homes. With this understanding they are able to develop the best strategies for themselves and their local community—strategies that work because they have communicate ownership and support;

the introduction of a rural addressing system across South Australia; and

the development of strategic bushfire management plans by regional and district bushfire prevention committees.

I am pleased to say that, of the other reviews I have mentioned, all recommendations from them are complete or close to the final stages of completion. Since the devastating fires in Victoria, the state government has also announced:

a review of current arrangements for managing the interaction of native vegetation and bushfire, with a particular emphasis on developments near urban areas and townships;

a review of bushfire protection areas to determine whether the risk ratings need upgrading; and

fast tracking the implementation of an all-risk telephone based warning system.

In addition, most recently the government announced the formation of a specialist task force consisting of experts in various fields who will be working side by side to bring South Australia to a new level of bushfire preparedness. They will analyse key issues arising from the Victoria bushfires and look into immediate, medium and long-term solutions needed to improve bushfire management practices and strategies in South Australia. The task force is headed by CFS Chief Officer, Mr Euan Ferguson, and will focus on:

defining 'upper extreme' bushfire risk;

improving timely and accurate information to the community during emergencies;

investigating new technologies and ways of providing up-to-the-minute information such as SMS;

identifying the new vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure which could be at risk of bushfire in upper extreme conditions;

engaging the local government agencies to coordinate timely messages;

considering Victorian bushfire royal commission findings as they emerge before the next bushfire season;

considering any evidence and lessons from the Victorian experience and royal commission as they emerge;

analysing our readiness for upper extreme bushfire risk events;

revising the state's bushfire hazard plan to take into account new risk; and

developing standards for the construction of bushfire bunkers.

This government is in partnership with local government, and the community at large is getting on with the task of bushfire management and mitigation. There is no need for a further inquiry by the Natural Resources Committee. Additionally, I point out that the Natural Resources Standing Committee already has the powers to inquire into bushfire mitigation if it so desires, as evidenced in its recent deliberations on the safe management of bushfire risks, and a referral to it on this matter is superfluous.

This motion, if supported, has the potential to place significant workload burdens on our fire and emergency services, forcing them to use their valuable resources in preparing for committee hearings rather than getting on with their primary tasks, which are the protection of life and property. I urge all members to vote against the motion. I noticed that during the whole speech the actual mover of the motion was not listening; they were over there lobbying for support, so they are obviously not interested in the good work that is being done.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. C.V. Schaefer.