Kangaroo Island Bushfire

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:22): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the minister representing the Premier, the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council, a question about the Kangaroo Island bushfires.

Leave granted.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: As indicated, I have visited Kangaroo Island twice since the bushfires and I have had critical concerns raised with me about the management strategies and operational decisions that have taken place, including:

budget cuts implemented by the state government impacting the number of prescribed burn-offs in the state's national and conservation parks;

the availability and number of water bomber aircrafts dedicated to fighting the fires;

restrictions governing the types and use of sea water and fire retardant by aerial bombing aircraft in our national parks;

the responsibility of local councils in maintaining roadside vegetation and development plans requiring property setbacks of up to 100 metres for buildings;

time-critical delays in response times between on-the-ground firefighting crews, earthmoving contractors and incident command management; and

various laws that may have impacted the planned fire management techniques; namely, the Native Vegetation Act.

One of the main complaints I heard constantly was about the chain of command and that the views of those on the ground on Kangaroo Island were overlooked and/or overruled. My questions to the honourable Treasurer are:

1. Have those same concerns been raised with you personally and/or your office?

2. Are you concerned at such matters?

3. Is the government satisfied that the review it announced, to be headed by former AFP chief Mick Keelty, but which will only receive written submissions, will have the ability and time to comprehensively investigate many disturbing claims?

4. Will those providing submissions be accorded privilege?

5. What is Mr Keelty's fee?

6. Would you support a parliamentary inquiry into the state's bushfire season so such claims and others can be suitably aired and witnesses can be called to give evidence?

7. Finally, what level of support is the government going to provide the royal commission announced by the Prime Minister?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:25): There were 416 questions there, so I might need to take those on notice. I think he was indicating that they were questions directed to the Premier, and I was representing the Premier in this place, so I will take the bulk of those questions on notice. But I think in broad ambit the government's response will be that we have established a process for investigating a lot of these claims.

I am sure the member would be the first to acknowledge that there are many claims made in relation to these issues, some of which might be accurate, many of which we have already heard to be inaccurate. Indeed, when we visited Kangaroo Island last week some of my ministerial colleagues highlighted some of the issues that have been raised, some of which have been referred to by the member, and indicated unequivocally that there was no accuracy in relation to some of the claims.

But the process, I would hope, over the coming weeks and the immediate future is to work together in terms of recovery. There is also a process of learning the lessons of what occurred and what can be done better, but the process of pointing the finger and attributing blame at this stage, which some want to engage in, I think shouldn't be the emphasis at this particular stage. There will be plenty of time—and there is already a process that has been established—for us to allow those particular views to be ventilated and then to be considered.

I think the Premier has indicated—and I will have it checked—that the results of this SAFECOM/Mr Keelty commissioner inquiry needs to be concluded by no later than around about the middle of the year to ensure that any action that might need to be taken prior to next year's fire season—that the lessons can be implemented if they need to be prior to the next year's fire season as well.

So, look, I think there is a process that has been established. There is another process in terms of the commonwealth government's response. The Hon. Mr Pangallo has asked I think in broad terms whether we will cooperate. Well, of course we will cooperate with any properly appointed royal commission. We have royal commissions at the moment into disability and aged care—is it?

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: Correct.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Yes, and we are appropriately cooperating with both of those royal commissions, as we have in the past with royal commissions. So when that process is established I am sure all state governments, but the South Australian state government, will cooperate appropriately. But we are not going to delay, because if there is a royal commission established nationally, it is my experience with royal commissions they will not have concluded their work by the middle of this year.

The Premier took the view, supported by his government that, whilst the royal commission may well be a longer process and may well throw open a whole range of issues nationally, we needed a targeted, specific and quicker process in relation to considering at least some of the issues that need to be considered prior to the next fire season. That is why the government has established the process that is there.

The member has raised the issue of a third inquiry, which is a parliamentary inquiry. I cannot indicate what the government's position would be, but I think the government's initial response would be that there is already a state-based inquiry; let's see what the issues are in relation to that and whether people are comfortable that their views were able to be ventilated and considered appropriately, and they may well be very satisfied that that is one process.

To actually have another process going on contemporaneously with a federal royal commission and a state SAFECOM-initiated inquiry with Mr Keelty, some of these people would perhaps be presenting evidence to three separate inquiries at three separate times. I am not sure all of them would welcome that particular process as an appropriate response from governments and the parliament.

The honourable member is perfectly entitled, as he has done on a number of occasions, to move for parliamentary committees. The government will have to consider that response if and when he moves a motion, but at this stage we are not indicating that we are publicly supporting a parliamentary committee because there is currently a process that is going on in terms of trying to consider most of these issues.