PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES (NATURAL DISASTERS COMMITTEE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 July 2013.)

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (18:01): I rise to provide the government's response to this bill. On face value this bill appears meritorious. I appreciate the importance of this issue and the ongoing efforts regarding bushfire safety in this state; however, this bill will add very little to the established framework of disaster management in South Australia.

This bill does not acknowledge the existing comprehensive arrangements in place for the management of natural disasters. It is therefore ambiguous how the committee would contribute to the already comprehensive framework of emergency management in South Australia. The preparation for, and the response to, natural disasters and emergencies in this state is governed by the Emergency Management Act 2004.

The act was introduced in 2004 to replace the State Disaster Act 1980 subsequent to a review of the act, which was undertaken in response to the major bushfires and floods that had occurred interstate, in addition to the terrorist attacks of 11 September and the Bali, Madrid and London bombings.

The act establishes an exhaustive framework for the management of emergencies caused by terrorist acts, storage of hazardous goods, human disease (including pandemic and epidemic), transport infrastructure failure and natural disasters (including earthquakes, tsunamis, bushfires and floods). It establishes a State Emergency Management Committee which, among other functions, oversees the development and preparation of the State Emergency Management Plan and keeps this plan under review. The plan is comprehensive, outlining guidelines, procedures, processes, arrangements and organisational structures that come into play in preventing and responding to state emergencies.

Section 11 of the act provides a mechanism in which the Emergency Management Committee can establish advisory groups to advise the committee on all manner of things:

the State Mitigation Advisory Group (Chair, SAFECOM);

the State Response Advisory Group (Chair, SA Police);

the State Recovery Committee (Chair, Department of Families and Communities);

the State Protective Security Advisory Group (Chair, SA Police); and

the State Pandemic Influenza Working Group (Chair, Department of Health).

These advisory groups have developed the practice of establishing working groups or task groups to investigate and/or inquire into particular matters. For example, the State Mitigation Advisory Group established a working group in 2011 to review the Queensland and Victorian flood disasters in the context of South Australia's flood management prevention and response plans. The findings were then reported to the State Mitigation Advisory Group and fed through to the structure and out to relevant agencies where policies were modified accordingly.

There are also local zone emergency committees—that is, each identified zone in South Australia has an emergency management committee. These committees are responsible for assessing risks and hazards local to the particular region and establishing an emergency plan to deal with possible risks. These committees involve local people and local governments aware of local issues in addition to state agencies. So, we are seeing a system of comprehensive review and reporting which feeds in through these working groups and committees up through the structure and out again into the relevant response agencies.

The plan also identifies hazard leaders. Hazard leaders work with the advisory groups to ensure aspects of the state approach are coordinated. They have an overall responsibility for the preparation and planning for emergencies. Control agencies have the responsibility when action is required. Hazard leaders are usually the relevant control agency. For example, the hazard leader for floods in South Australia is the Department for Water. The hazard leader for bushfires is the CFS. This is not a vague, disconnected structure, it is a detailed and integrated arrangement involving local participation and the involvement of experts.

Built-in review mechanisms ensure that all plans and policies are regularly reviewed ensuring consistency and efficiency. There is also a whole of government exercise in which emergency plans are executed. I am advised that this exercise consists of either discussions or an actual practical training run involving deployment of operational resources. Each year the focus changes. There have been years where the exercise relates to a simulated bushfire emergency. I understand other years it has been a simulated response to an earthquake or flood emergency.

The Emergency Management Committee reports all matters to the Emergency Management Council, a cabinet committee chaired by the Premier and comprising the Attorney-General, Minister for Police, Minister for Transport and Infrastructure, Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Emergency Services, and the Minister for State/Local Government Relations. Emergency management is no doubt an important matter and we have considered this seriously with a view to determining how best to facilitate and add value to the existing framework. We do not believe that the creation of a parliamentary committee will accomplish this.

This government is committed to improving disaster and emergency management in this state by providing support to these structures. We supported the COAG recommendations which facilitated a fundamental shift in the management of emergencies beyond response and reaction to anticipation and mitigation. We adopted the National Principles of Disaster Recovery that identify recovery as integral to emergency preparation and mitigation. We secured 2.8 million from the federal government to boost natural disaster resilience. This scheme delivers funding to state government agencies, government owned corporations and local governments for projects that help to minimise the risk and impact of natural disasters and projects that support the recruitment, training and retention of emergency management volunteers. This funding was provided in 2010-11 and renewed for 2012-13.

We have also demonstrated our commitment to bushfire safety, allocating $23 million in funding in the state budget in 2011 to help protect South Australia against the ongoing risk of bushfire readiness and response capabilities of the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources. This specifically includes employing more firefighters, purchasing new equipment and providing additional resources and accreditation courses to CFS and state emergency volunteers. Last year's budget saw an extra $8.3 million allocated to the state's emergency services providers over the following four years to help maintain services and equipment; $1.7 million of that is to be invested in the development of an emergency alert network to advise residents of danger in specific areas.

I would like to point out that no other state has established such a parliamentary committee, despite the disasters experienced in other states. That is not to say that a select committee cannot be established to deal with contemporary issues that may arise, as has been done in the past. I appreciate the member's intent but fear it is misplaced, and the government does not support this bill.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (18:11): I thank the Hon. Mr Kandelaars for his contribution on behalf of the government. I also thank the other members of the chamber who indicated their support for the bill without wishing to speak on the matter today.

I should note that I think it is curious that the Hon. Mr Kandelaars, during his time on the Natural Resources Committee, supported this measure, like all his ALP colleagues on that committee, including the Hon. Mr Wortley, and that he has now stood in this place to oppose the bill. I know that the Hon. Mr Kandelaars was on the committee for a period of time while the Hon. Mr Wortley was a minister, but I think both of them have probably supported this measure at least once and maybe more than once. It was always supported unanimously by the whole committee which, as many would know, has nine members—four members of the government, two members of the opposition and three from the crossbenches. So, I do find that a curious position.

I should reiterate that the bill I have prepared does not make this a remunerated committee. As I said on 3 July, when I introduced this bill, there were suggestions from some sections of the government in the House of Assembly that this measure is just trying to put more 'feathers in MPs' nests'. That is certainly not my intention. I also put a measure into the bill that provides that the membership of the committee would be an equal number of members from each of the houses, rather than the notion that it would be four from the House of Assembly and three from the Legislative Council. With those words, I commend the bill to the house.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: Briefly, I think this bill makes a lot of sense. I was not in a position to support the Hon. John Dawkins earlier, but I want to put on the public record that Family First supports this bill.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 and 3) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (18:17): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.