HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-02-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES (BUSHFIRES COMMITTEE) AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:35): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Parliamentary Committees Act. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (10:35): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill seeks to establish a standing committee of the parliament to deal with bushfires. The intent of this bill is that the standing committee would take effect three months after the next general election. Members will note that in another motion on the Notice Paper I have indicated that another committee of the parliament would perform this role between now and the election. I am doing a two-step process to suggest that, first, we have one of the parliamentary committees between now and the next election look at the bushfire issue, and, secondly, after the next election, we have a standing committee.

The reason I move this bill is as follows. Other parliaments, such as New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, have standing committees on road safety. The reason that those committees have been established is to try to educate the parliament about what government departments are doing and the issues that are confronting them in relation to road safety in order to try to develop policy and legislation to respond to those issues of concern in relation to road safety.

It seems to me that the parliament has a duty to be proactive about bushfires. We all were involved in the condolence motion this week regarding the tragic Victorian bushfire. Fire is nothing new to South Australia and, indeed, nothing new to Australia. There is a pattern to the government's and parliament's response to fire; that is, 'Shock, horror, we have had terrible fires,' and we express, quite rightly, our deep heartfelt sympathy for those involved. There is a huge effort by government and the community to rebuild those areas affected by fires—and that is all quite right, but it seems to me that parliament should take a more proactive role in trying to prevent as much damage as possible from occurring as a result of fire.

There is a role for the parliament to have a standing committee that looks at fire. As we have seen, following the Victorian fires, the fires in the member for Flinders' electorate and the fires in the Adelaide Hills in previous years, fire and fire policy is a highly complex area. It covers a range of legislative areas with which the parliament deals. It deals with planning issues, building design, road infrastructure, water infrastructure, native vegetation clearance, community education programs, what local councils are and are not doing, what government departments are and are not doing, the funding of emergency services agencies and the training of emergency services volunteers and personnel—and the list goes on.

What has happened over the years is that the parliament has introduced legislation at various times, all of which has had an impact on fire in bushfire-related areas. What happens is that a layer cake of legislation and regulation is put across the areas that are affected by bushfire, without anyone standing back and taking a holistic view and saying: 'What are we actually doing to those people who live in the bushfire-prone area? What are we doing to the people we expect to defend and fight fires? How are we impacting on those areas when we pass the various pieces of legislation?'

For example, the CFS has a policy that you should decide early to either defend your home or leave early. What it means by 'leave early' is to leave before the fire starts. Here is an example of why I think the committee needs to look at this issue. In March last year South Australia had 18 days straight of high bushfire danger. There were 18 days above 36° or 37°; and there were prohibitions on fire throughout the state for 18 days straight. If you take literally what the CFS is saying, its policy is: leave early before the fire starts. In my electorate alone there are 22,000 people and 9,000 homes. If the majority of those people decide that their policy is to leave, as a parliament do we really think for one minute that that number of people will leave their homes 18 days straight on the basis that there might be a fire?

I suspect that the answer is that probably they will not do it. Some will certainly do it but the majority I do not think will. So, what is the most likely response? The most likely response is that many people will decide to stay and try to fight the fire. They will then see that the fire is of the Victorian-type fire in both its ferocity and its speed, as well as the heat at which it burns. There will be panic, people will try to leave and then we do have a problem. I think that the parliament needs to talk this issue through, and it is not the type of issue you can talk through during a debate on legislation. This is the type of issue—fire I am talking about generally rather than the evacuation policy per se—that will need a lot of detailed briefing from agencies and a lot of education of the MPs involved.

I think that parliament should be proactive. I think we should have a committee dedicated to bushfire and that we should be far more proactive in looking at the issues concerned so that we are crystal clear about what we are doing in relation to legislating and regulating bushfire-prone areas. The government this week announced a range of policy measures post fire. All those ideas, or most of those ideas, I suspect, were sitting in top drawers of agencies prior to the fire, but, because it was not necessarily a focus at the time, they have not weaved their way through the decision-making process.

I think that a committee asking questions and seeking the answers to a range of policy matters that will flow from the Victorian fires makes a lot of common sense to me. I hope that the government will support the two measures, that is, the principle of setting up a standing committee, which is the purpose of this act; and, as I mentioned, I have another motion that fills in the interim period between now and the 2010 election. With those few words, I seek the support of the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT