Legislative Council Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Bills Fire and Emergency Services (Review) Amendment Bill FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 9 September 2009. Page 3129.) The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS Legislative Council The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (22:43): I am pleased to speak on behalf of the opposition on this bill which, as all members are aware, is an extremely important measure. Every member of parliament wants the best outcome possible from this bill so it has been good to see the high level of community feedback. This bill has involved a lot of work and consultation between the houses, and I am certain that that work will only serve to improve this legislation—again, can I say, a further endorsement for the retention and powers of the Legislative Council. This is a piece of legislation that obviously follows some tragic events, and we have sensed a real desire from people in the community to have some involvement in the legislation to make it better. It was a legislative requirement for this act to be reviewed after two years of operation. Hence, on 1 October 2007 John Murray commenced the review which resulted in 49 recommendations. Additionally, amendments are proposed as a result of the recommendations of the Ministerial Bushfire Management Review in South Australia and the coronial inquest into the Wangary fires. As lead speaker for the opposition in this council, I indicate that we are, of course, very supportive of most of these amendments, but I will touch on some of the concerns that I have, as will some of my colleagues. Our shadow minister for emergency services has met with the chief officers of the MFS, CFS and SES, held discussions with MPs with electorates in areas of high fire risk, and spoken at length with CFS volunteers and residents who live in bushfire risk areas. These individuals have all provided sensible feedback which has helped our party room make decisions on which parts of the bill we support (and I have to say that we support the majority of the amendments) and those parts that need some extra work. As far as amendments are concerned, I will give members some details to help them understand why we are progressing with these amendments. The opposition notes that the SAFECOM board is to be expanded to nine members from the current eight, all with voting rights. The member for Stuart in the other place has indicated in our party room discussions that he would like to see an amendment to include a landowning SAFF representative also on the board. I will proceed with that amendment on his behalf in this place as it is a sensible amendment, and the member for Stuart detailed his reasons in the other place. He, along with the members for Schubert and Hammond, explained that there must be a farmers' representative on the board to represent our farmers who own such vast areas of land in our state. Given that this legislation affects the farming community, it would be a commonsensical move. Our second amendment is to include a subclause to clause 35, part 4A, to minimise the threat to human life on the land from fire. This amendment comes from the member for Waite in the other place who has held public meetings about this legislation and who had a lot of feedback from constituents in his electorate which, of course, extends into the Hills and will affect these people. His reasoning is to reflect that this legislation is about protecting human life, and so it makes sense to us that this subclause be included. Our third amendment is to provide for a review after two years. This is a sensible amendment proposed by our shadow minister for emergency services. I trust all members will support this. It is the Liberal Party's opinion that this bill should have provisions for a further formal review to take place so that we do not just leave it up to the whim of the government of the day to implement a review. The Hon. John Dawkins will also move an amendment relating to commonwealth land. We oppose the clauses in respect of moving industrial disputes from the District Court to the Industrial Relations Commission. Liberal members in the other place have put on the record that our party finds this move to be both unnecessary and inappropriate. The shadow attorney-general has stated that, in relation to the transfer of litigation to the industrial court, she was not satisfied on anything she read, including the review document, as to why it is necessary or appropriate. The Liberal opposition will not support this move. Lastly, we thank the members of the LGA who met with us to discuss the amendments, in particular Ms Wendy Campana, who has shown great leadership on behalf of her organisation. The member for Mitchell in the other place spoke to these amendments and supported the majority of them. We are only concerned about the member for Mitchell's third amendment in the other place relating to the establishment of bushfire management areas. I understand that the Hon. Robert Brokenshire will move some of these amendments and we look forward to lending our support to them. I commend the bill and thank our shadow minister for emergency services (the member for Kavel) for the work he has put in and look forward to the Legislative Council working together constructively to further improve this bill. The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS Legislative Council The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (22:48): I rise briefly to indicate my support for the bill. I commend the Hon. Mr Stephens for his remarks on the bill and also the member for Kavel in another place for his stewardship of the bill for the opposition. A number of weeks ago, the government provided a couple of briefings on this bill. I attended one of them with the chief officers of both the MFS and the CFS, as well as the chief executive of SAFECOM. During the briefing, much information was provided about the way in which this bill would allow those bodies to handle undue fire risk on various categories of property. When we were discussing crown land, I raised the question about commonwealth land. The answer has come back that, as a state government, we cannot direct the commonwealth to do anything with its land. However, I believe that we ought to try to do the most we can to urge the commonwealth to treat its fire risk as we would on any other land in this state. Particularly in my role as the shadow minister for the northern suburbs, I am well aware of the significant landholdings that the commonwealth has in that area, particularly around the Edinburgh RAAF base and also the Defence and Science Technology Organisation at Salisbury. They are significant landholdings, and quite a lot of the land is still in open country. While it has generally been kept in reasonable shape, there is the opportunity for fire risk in close proximity to significant housing. Certain other significant areas in this state are owned by the commonwealth, including all the land under the control of the commonwealth at Woomera in the Woomera Prohibited Area and some of the Army holdings at Murray Bridge, Port Wakefield and other places. I also acknowledge the interest in this matter shown by the member for Davenport in another place. With his experience as a minister in a former Liberal government, he made some suggestions. I have asked parliamentary counsel to draft an amendment to provide that the chief officer of the relevant fire service, whether it be the Metropolitan Fire Service (if it was around that land I was talking about in the northern suburbs) or the Country Fire Service (if it was outside the metropolitan area), if they become aware of an undue fire risk on commonwealth land, to make the person in control of that commonwealth land aware of the fire risk and the reasons for that concern by the chief officer of that particular fire service. I will speak more about that when I move the amendment, but I urge members to consider it. While we cannot require the commonwealth to do anything, I think we would be negligent if we did not do everything we can to make them well aware of a risk in relation to fire. As the fire season approaches, as a result of higher rainfall this year and the present growing period, the fire risk around areas close to the metropolitan area is quite significant. The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Small Business) (22:57): I thank the Hons Terry Stephens and John Dawkins for their contributions to this bill. I also indicate that the Hon. Mr Brokenshire and the Hon. Ms Zollo wanted to contribute to this bill but, by agreement, they will be making contributions when we get to the committee stage on another day. I thank all members for their indications of support, particularly in facilitating this bill's speedy passage. We hope we can complete debate this week because the fire season is imminent and, as the Hon. Mr Dawkins has just said, given recent conditions, there is the prospect of its being a particularly challenging year. Last year was challenging enough, particularly in Victoria. This state faced a situation in February where we were extremely fortunate to miss out on a disaster such as that which occurred in Victoria. Of course, the lessons learned from that particular event have driven us all to re-examine our attitudes in a lot of areas towards fire and how we deal with fire. It is vitally important that we consider this legislation in a speedy manner. I am sure a number of other issues will be dealt with in other legislation that will be introduced in the future as we learn more from the findings of the Victorian Bushfires royal commission. I thank members for their contributions and look forward to dealing with this bill in the committee stage later this week. Bill read a second time. At 22:58 the council adjourned until Wednesday 23 September 2009 at 14:15.