HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-05 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES (BUSHFIRES COMMITTEE) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 February 2009. Page 1640.)

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (10:43): This bill, moved by the member for Davenport, seeks to continue the task of investigating all matters relating to bushfires following the 2010 election, through the formation of a standing committee to look specifically at the issue. This task will be undertaken up until that time by the Natural Resources Committee if the other motion the member for Davenport has before the house is agreed to.

The aim of the bill is for parliament to take a proactive role with legislation in relation to bushfires. The Australian people and our economy have suffered greatly because of the Victorian bushfires. The question we must ask ourselves is whether we are prepared to look hard at and learn from the lessons it teaches us. Through the formation of a standing committee we can, as from 2010 and as outlined in the other motion the member for Davenport has before the house, take over from the Natural Resources Committee the task of investigating the wide range of issues associated with bushfires.

It is a logical and responsible step for this parliament to take, and there are many legislative areas that relate to bushfires, including planning, native vegetation, emergency services and infrastructure, among many others. To have one committee examine all areas relating to bushfires would be not only beneficial in preparing a uniform, well thought out approach to dealing with bushfires, should they occur, but may also save lives.

Also, it will keep the issues alive, as we are all guilty of becoming very blasé We get lulled into a false sense of security as we have not had a fire for almost a year and we forget what has happened. If we have an active standing committee of the parliament consciously and diligently looking at this matter all the time, it will serve well both the parliament and the people of South Australia.

While it was Victoria's turn in February, the tragedies of Eyre Peninsula and the Adelaide Hills are not just a distant memory. More importantly, there is nothing more certain than that South Australians will face a fire emergency again. How much we pay in pain, loss and suffering will be determined by what we learn from the Victorian experience and how much better prepared we can make ourselves to minimise the impact of any bushfire.

As the member for Finniss said in this house yesterday about the risk of the Mount Lofty Ranges, which does include my electorate, with the Barossa Ranges as part of that, we will be seeing a serious bushfire event there, not if but when, because it will happen. We have to make sure that we do all that we can to minimise that.

This is a very good initiative, and I believe there will be many members in this parliament keen to serve on this committee, including me, if given the opportunity. I pay tribute to all of our CFS and SES volunteers, their officers and supporters. The forgotten people in all this are those who employ CFS and SES volunteers; they are the ones who wear the cost. They pay these people while they are out there fighting fires for us, for the community and for the state, and there ought to be some compensation for the people who do this. So, I pay tribute to them.

Finally, I commend the member for Davenport. He is certainly very much affected by this legislation, and that is why he has brought it in here. He has a large section of the Adelaide Hills in his electorate. He is a very compassionate member, and he, like the rest of us, certainly felt the emotion, the anguish and the anxiety of the recent Victorian fires, and he does not want to see his constituents suffer in the same way. I commend the member for Davenport on bringing this initiative to the house and I hope that we all support this bill.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (10:47): I will make a brief comment. I am supportive of the member for Davenport in trying to ensure that the parliament is more closely involved in the whole aspect of bushfire prevention, management and control. As members know, only yesterday we debated the motion of the member relating to the NRM committee having a look at this issue.

The bill before us now would set up a specialised committee, as I understand it. The reality is that we live in a country and a state that are prone to bushfires. The worst thing we could do, after what has happened recently in Victoria and what has happened here previously in 1983 and so on, is to fall asleep at the wheel or to become apathetic. So, anything that keeps the issue in front of members of parliament and, in effect, the Public Service, the better.

The member for Schubert made a couple of valid points, which I wish to add to. I pay tribute to the people of the CFS, not only the actual members but also the many employers who allow the members of the CFS to take part in fighting fires. I think that is a very generous thing for them to do.

In relation to getting young people involved, many years ago when I was minister for youth, what became the Activ8 program when John Olsen was premier was actually an idea that was formulated under my ministry. It got a different name when he became premier, and that is fine. One thing that I envisaged was that in schools we could have CFS cadets, or have an arrangement where young people in schools in those areas that are prone to fires could be part of the CFS in a junior way, because it is not only an opportunity to learn useful skills and awareness of bushfires and so on but also character building exercise. As a parliament and as a community I think we should look at how we can involve young people more actively at a very early age in bushfire management and control.

I make one final point: I know that the member for Stuart is very hot (pardon the pun) on the issue of native vegetation. I remind members that when we are talking about native vegetation it is probably more accurate to call it habitat because, if you get rid of the native vegetation, you basically get rid of many birds and other animals, and this is an issue we need to manage. We are not simply talking about some euphemistic plants, we are talking about habitat. The Minister for Environment yesterday mentioned that the state government has a 'no lost species' policy. If you get rid of the native vegetation on a broad scale (which we have already done in many areas), you get rid of the species not just temporarily but permanently.

To return to the main point, this is something that we should focus on and, in some ways, it dovetails in with the proposal I have put before the parliament for a foresight committee, where we look at issues that are likely to confront us, and we deal with them well in advance. If we had been looking at bushfires in the context of a foresight committee, we might have helped prevent some of the tragedies that have occurred in this state.

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (10:51): I strongly support the Parliamentary Committees (Bushfires Committee) Amendment Bill. I want to continue to put on the record the issues I am aware of that require scrutiny. The recent fires in Port Lincoln in January this year highlighted the valuable lessons that are finally being learnt, with cooperation between services, better equipment, training and communication making a huge difference this time. The fantastic cooperation between all our emergency services, air support and police resulted in a far better outcome than we might have had with such a fast-moving fire.

However, there still needs to be improvement, as it was obvious that a number of private and public landholders' preparations were substandard. In some instances, native vegetation, open grassland and rubbish on properties were not cleared up and made safe. From my own observations, and numerous contacts with the public since the fire, I have put together some of the issues that might be addressed to make further improvements in fire response across the state.

The following are some issues that should be looked at. In my view, fire prevention preparations could be improved if burning was allowed after 3pm into the evenings, when the wind often drops. It is generally cooler and sometimes even damp, and it is safer to burn. Extra hours for burning, once people have finished work or sport, may encourage more people to put in the required effort. Currently, there are only limited times when people can burn, and these may not coincide with the safest times.

After fire bans come into force each year, burning off is allowed on suitable days with a permit from an authorised officer. This system, from my experience, is not working well, as authorised officers must be readily available. People are more often able to undertake their fire prevention work on weekends, and burning rubbish depends on weather and winds being suitable, which cannot be forecast in advance. Obtaining a signed permit from the council during working hours days before it may or may not be able to be used is not practical, even if the authorised officer is available to sign it and, in my experience, they are not.

In an interview with the ABC on 15 January 2009, the mayor made the following comments regarding backyard burning in the non-fire danger season, and I understand his questions were mainly taken from the Port Lincoln Community Guide 2008/09. He stated:

...backyard burning in the non-fire danger season May to September must be in accordance with the EPA burning policy? What is the EPA burning policy? Where do you get it?

...burn materials using an approved incinerator in your backyard. What is an approved incinerator and where do you get one?

...burning is permitted Monday to Saturday between 10 and 3pm but not allowed on Sundays and public holidays. Now remember, we function on daylight saving, OK so that means between 9 and 2pm. Now any firefighter will tell you in terms of burning off, the best time to burn off is towards the cool of the evening...somewhere to say between 4 to say 7 o'clock in the evening with daylight saving that is 5 until 8pm.

But not allowed on Sundays and public holidays. Now they might be the best days to burn. When are we supposed to clear our blocks? You burn your material in the most appropriate day and time, not according to some bureaucratic rule.

...should your fire smoke it is probably 'illegal' you can be prosecuted by the EPA for your fire smoking, that's how stupid the system is.

Does the information need to be changed and/or should guidelines be altered? I think so. If private citizens do not or will not clean up their holdings, then others must and send landowners the bill. I understand this used to be undertaken by city councils but in recent years it appears not to have been actively enforced. Perhaps an official method to enable the public to draw councils' attention to properties that need fire prevention work would help. A council inspector could then inspect the site and, if they agree, send the owner a warning letter. If the prevention work is not undertaken within a specified time the council, MFS or CFS could be asked to do the work and send the landholder the bill.

Government-owned land—federal, state or local—must not be exempt from rules that apply to the public. Many Housing SA homes were reported to have long grass in front and back yards that would have made it very difficult to save those houses had spot fires occurred, and these could have pulled the fire directly into city housing. It is Housing SA's responsibility to ensure that its properties are maintained by tenants or do it for them and charge for it. I am aware of some large pieces of government-owned grassland within the city which used to be well maintained and burnt off every year but which have not been burned or mown for a number of seasons.

In terms of native vegetation, the Greater City of Port Lincoln bushfire prevention plan must be implemented as soon as possible. The sector that burnt in the most recent fire was the next to be dealt with, but that was too late to help. We have to speed up that process. National parks have improved their fire prevention, equipment and training significantly since Wangary but, again, I understand that they have not done everything in their plan. This could be a time factor with the huge number of parks for which they are responsible, but one would have thought that Kathai Park, which burnt, should have been a priority (Kathai Park is on Northside Hill overlooking the city of Port Lincoln.) It appears it was not, and that is surprising, as the Port Lincoln city dump is so close, and fires at dumps are renowned.

It is time for another fire truck and crew to be allocated to the city—MFS or CFS. Relying on volunteer CFS crews to travel from other areas of Eyre Peninsula is not ideal, particularly on bad days such as 9 January. Fire trucks from up country are not always immediately available, and there is the very real issue of leaving other areas without adequate protection. The outskirts of the city are being developed, resulting in a larger area and an increased number of houses to be protected. The Puglisi development alone is 272 blocks on the northern perimeter of the city, and the third stage of the marina has had another 280 blocks recently approved. These two subdivisions will considerably increase the number of properties within the city boundaries.

I am aware of problems relating to the dumping of rubbish, tyres in particular, on the roadside in areas near the dump. Was this an issue for crews when they were fighting the fire? Is it something that needs to be addressed? Sightseers posed a significant problem for residents and fire crews during the recent fire, and after the Wangary fire looting occurred. Should a penalty be introduced for sightseers and looters? There was one reported case of a family's evacuation from their home being prevented by a car blocking their driveway.

The MFS attended a fire at the Incitec Pivot site on Monday 12 January and experienced problems sourcing a water supply to refill their trucks. Was this a problem at this fire? If so, what needs to be done to improve the situation? Expansion of housing will compound the existing deficiencies.

Port Lincoln is very dependent on the power line from Port Augusta. If problems are experienced the diesel generators at the back of Winters Hill can be used. What arrangements can be put in place to reduce the risk of power failure in the city?

The situation with approximately 2,000 tonnes of pilchards being buried on site demonstrates the need for a management plan for the safe disposal of frozen pilchards, etc. A number of years ago a similar situation occurred when tonnes of dead tuna had to be disposed of. It would therefore be a reasonable assumption, because of the location of many of the fishing industry buildings and the nature of the industry, that this type of incident could happen again. A system needs to be put in place to handle imported fish and the disposal of fish to ensure that inappropriate ad hoc measures are not taken. Quarantine issues are a federal responsibility and would need to be taken into consideration. A desktop exercise with members of the fishing industry would be a good way to identify the risks, problems and possible solutions and would be an opportunity to identify any equipment that could be made available in an emergency situation. Emergency management plans could be drafted.

I am pleased that valuable lessons have finally been heeded following the Tulka and Wangary fires, and I particularly note the use of aeroplanes. However, there are still many things that must be addressed. Any changes that are required that are not within the jurisdiction of the city councils, CFS and MFS need to be addressed by the state and federal governments to ensure that any necessary changes to policies, procedures, regulations and laws are made.

A standing committee of this parliament, with the responsibility to investigate what is done and needs to be done, should help to avoid the delays in implementing recommendations that we saw after the Tulka fire and that I believe resulted in the deaths and destruction that we saw from the Wangary fire. I commend the member for Davenport for proposing this bill.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (11:00): The member for Davenport has proposed legislation to create a bushfires committee of the parliament to take effect after the next election. This is a very worthy proposal. I reckon that it might be better to have a committee that is actually broader to cover all manner of natural disasters.

Bushfires are very much in the front of our minds at the moment because of the horrific Victorian experience these last few weeks. Indeed, South Australia has suffered seriously from bushfires in the past and, no doubt, will again in the future.

The member for Davenport is quite right to focus, then, on bushfires and to insist that there be some careful review and planning for future eventualities. I do think, however, that the committee could have a broader focus and consider other natural disasters, even if things like earthquakes and floods are a smaller part of their considerations.

I support the bill. If it gets through to the stage where amendments might be considered, I shall consider amending it to broaden the scope somewhat, but I appreciate that bushfires will be the main focus, probably, in South Australia.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:02): I, too, am pleased to speak in support of the proposed bill that the member for Davenport has brought to the house to specifically establish a parliamentary committee that covers the issue of bushfires.

I said yesterday, in a contribution to the house in relation to another motion that the member for Davenport brought before the parliament, that bushfires are really part of our life. They are part of life in South Australia, particularly in those areas, obviously, that are prone to fires: for example, the Adelaide Hills. I represent part of that region in this place.

I have listened to other members' contributions, and they have outlined their concerns in relation to the threat and the damage and devastation that fires bring. We have obviously witnessed the extreme devastation and destruction of those fires in Victoria on Black Saturday.

Speaking about fires specifically here in South Australia, we witnessed what could have been a horrific fire in Port Lincoln where we saw considerable infrastructure in relation to the fishing industry destroyed as a consequence of that fire. It was only through an act of nature—an act of God, if you like—that the fire did not push down onto the town of Port Lincoln.

The South Australian community tends to focus on fire threats in those communities in the Adelaide Hills and the South-East, down on the Fleurieu Peninsula. I know that the emergency services do look at this and assess these risks, but I think, as a general community, we do not take into consideration the actual threat that metropolitan Adelaide is under as a consequence of bushfires.

One only has to think about those peri-urban areas of metropolitan Adelaide, the outer suburbs, particularly those that come up to the foothills, that is, the areas that the members for Newland and Morialta represent. The electorate of Morialta does actually come up into the hills some way.

I think the majority of people who live in metropolitan Adelaide do not regard their residences as being under threat from fire. If that is the case, they are mistaken. You would only need to get the climatic weather conditions prevailing in a certain manner so that, if there was a fire in Upper Hermitage, Anstey Hill or further along in Ashton, or anywhere in those near Hills districts on the outskirts of metropolitan Adelaide, the fire would push down into suburbs like Tea Tree Gully, Golden Grove and Athelstone and along the escarpment. That is a very serious situation we face. I know from my short time as shadow minister for emergency services, in talking to the chief officer and other senior officers of the CFS and MFS, that they are aware of these risks and have a strategy and plans in place to deal with that possibility.

I may be wrong—and I will stand corrected if I am—but I get a feeling that residents of metropolitan Adelaide do not identify with the risk of bushfires as perhaps the residents of the Adelaide Hills do. However, bushfire can threaten anybody and everybody at a particular time, and it is a compelling argument for the establishment of a parliamentary committee, as proposed by the member for Davenport.

Parliamentary committees look at a whole range of issues involving administration and management for which the state government is responsible, and I think that bushfire risk must also be considered via these means. Given the fact that climate change is upon us which arguably will increase the level of bushfire risk, the parliament needs to embrace this issue seriously. I think we do treat it seriously but we need to take further steps in dealing with it, namely, by establishing a parliamentary committee for this purpose.

The member for Schubert is quite right in saying that in the winter months our focus as a community turns away from the risk of bushfires. In a year of average rainfall, our environment greens up and there is plenty of green grass around and, clearly, the risk of bushfire in those winter months is significantly reduced, not to zero, but significantly reduced for obvious reasons.

When October and November come around and things start to dry off, not everybody implements their bushfire action plan, but a section of the community does and starts to take measures to minimise that risk to their property. We tend to switch off in the winter months from the risk of bushfire because the risk is minimal.

It is incumbent upon this place—the parliament being a body responsible to the South Australian community—to embrace the member for Davenport's proposal. There are compelling arguments for the establishment of the committee. I understand that it will not occur immediately; it will be after the March 2010 election in the next term, which is a reasonable proposition. I am pleased that the member for Davenport has brought this matter before the house and, obviously, I have pleasure in supporting the proposal.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

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