FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 3379.)

Clause 38.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

Page 32, after line 7—Insert:

(7) A regulation may only be made under Part 4 Divisions 7 and 8, and Part 4A, on the recommendation of the Minister.

(8) Before making a recommendation under subsection (7), the Minister must—

(a) give written notice of the proposed regulations to the LGA; and

(b) give consideration to any submission made by the LGA in relation to proposed regulations within the period specified in the notice (being a period of not less than 6 weeks).

Proposed subsection (7) of my amendment is important so that the minister has an opportunity effectively to sign off on matters relevant to the regulations. Under subsection (8) the minister must give written notice of the proposed regulations to the LGA and then give consideration to any submission made by the LGA within a period specified in the notice (being a period of not less than 6 weeks).

The reasons for this amendment are fairly straightforward, but clearly a lot of these regulations affect councils with respect to fire and emergency services prevention and suppression, particularly prevention, and the management of bushfire protection. I believe that the LGA on behalf of a lot of council representatives requested that this be considered as an amendment so that appropriate consideration can be made by the LGA and a recommendation or submission made to the minister.

The final point I make is that, like most, if not all, of my colleagues in this chamber, we preciously reserve the right to disallow bad regulation for democratic purposes. I believe that a lot of the time that would not hold up the council if proper consultation occurred with the peak body on the day. In this case the peak body is the LGA. I commend the amendment to the committee.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: The clause in this bill amends section 148 of the principal act by inserting a standard regulation-making power to adopt codes and standards, etc. by reference. Regulations are acts of the Executive Council. This is not a provision that is afforded to the LGA in other regulation-making sections in principal acts. These are standard regulation-making powers that were not included in the original act. This is not a standard provision for regulation-making powers to have in binding consultation with the LGA. Such an unorthodox provision, an incursion into the powers of Executive Council, is not supported.

I should point out the history of this. When these general issues were raised, amendments were made in the House of Assembly which I think addressed the concerns. It is obviously the intention of the government to consult with the LGA in relation to matters that are put before us. However, if one looks at the Hon. Mr Brokenshire's amendment, new subsection (8)(b) provides:

Give consideration to any submission made by the LGA in relation to proposed regulations within the period specified in the notice (being a period of not less than 6 weeks).

As I said, that is an unorthodox provision. It is not included in other regulation-making clauses in principal acts, and that is why the government opposes it. I suggest that anyone who has any concerns talk to parliamentary counsel about such matters.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: The Liberal Party's position is to support the amendment. We believe in the consultation process with the LGA; hence our support.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: It is all very well to have consultation, and we will do that, but that does not mean that one should overturn good drafting practice by inserting sections in the act which I would argue are not necessary. As I said, the government is committed to consultation with the LGA, but to actually insert sections of this type is not good legislative practice.

In the other place, the opposition noted how diligent the consultation process had been in getting to this point—so that was recognised by the opposition in the other place. The history has been one of lengthy consultation. So, the government has delivered in relation to that. However, what we should not have are these regulating powers that are, to say the least, unorthodox.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I appreciate the minister's comments, but I do not see them as being unorthodox. This amendment has been carefully drafted by the parliamentary counsel team, as has the whole bill. The point of the parliamentary process is for members to have the opportunity to move amendments they see either as improving a bill or as being a benefit to a sector that has democratically made representation to the MP or MPs.

My final comment is that, although I acknowledge the minister's point about the Liberal opposition saying that the process has been swift and efficient up to this point, it is not about 'this point': this is about the future and about consultation and integration. Initially, the emergency services levy and all the issues around improving bushfire protection, suppression and prevention management were to sort of segregate responsibilities; they were never fully segregated because it was not possible. Now we see more of a muddying of the waters when it comes to responsibilities, integration, needs and requirements, particularly between local government and state government which, frankly, are the two key areas when it comes to looking after life, property and the environment with respect to fire and emergency services.

I think that, if you were to get cooperation, collaboration and good integration into the future, it would be much more streamlined for the LGA to have an opportunity to comment on regulation amendments, etc. That is why I moved the amendment, and I still support it.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: Parliament should be very wary about putting in any clauses that have profound effects. What they are effectively doing is taking away the power of government, through the Executive Council, in a way you do not see anywhere else. They are saying, basically, when drafting legislation, which is the prerogative of the Executive Council, the measures in question can be disallowed in this parliament. We are saying now that the LGA has to have written notice of proposed regulations and then the minister has to give considerations to submissions made by the LGA in relation to proposed regulations.

One of the problems with that which I can see straightaway is: what happens if you need regulations very quickly? What happens if some situation comes up where you have to do it quickly? Government is giving away its prerogative. We are diluting the powers of this parliament in doing so, and that is why I feel strongly that we should not be supporting it.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Majority of 1 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried; clause as amended passed.

Clause 39.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I move:

Page 32, lines 8 and 9—Leave out this clause and substitute:

39—Amendment of section 149—Review of Act

(1) Section 149(1)—delete subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) The minister must cause a review of the operation of this act to be conducted.

(1a) The review must relate to the period between the commencement of the Fire and Emergency Services (Review) Amendment Act 2009 and 30 March 2013.

(2) Section 149(3) and (4)—delete subsections (3) and (4) and substitute:

(3) The review must be commenced as soon as is reasonably practicable after 30 March 2013 and the report must be submitted to the minister by 30 September 2013.

This amendment calls for a review. For the benefit of my crossbench colleagues, we had an amendment filed calling for a review by March 2012; however, we have withdrawn that and, given that our shadow minister in the other place and the minister have got together and agreed that 2013 would be a reasonable time for a review to be commenced, I have now moved this amendment.

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: This amendment provides for a review in three years. Effectively, with the Greens-Liberal coalition in play again, this council has just effectively delayed the setting up of this because now with that amendment we have just carried we will have to wait another six weeks which will push this way beyond the bushfire season for the negotiations to establish some of the regulations to put all this in place. However, this amendment, in spite of the sector being subject to numerous reviews over the past—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: I'm sorry. What's the problem? The fact is that the Greens-Liberal coalition has again damaged the operations of this state—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY: That is right. It is sabotage, and that is what they are on about. The Greens-Liberal coalition has done it federally with carbon trading and emissions trading schemes, and now here again. In relation to this amendment, the government is happy to accept the review. The honourable member's original time frame would have been much too short, particularly since he has now just added at least six weeks to every time you want to get a piece of regulation up which has fundamentally delayed this. In relation to this amendment the government is happy to accept it.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Remaining clauses (40 to 43), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported with amendments.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.