HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-09-08 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES (REVIEW) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 July 2009. Page 3500.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:02): It is my pleasure to be the first cab off the rank after the winter recess and also to be the lead speaker for the opposition in relation to what is really an important piece of legislation that has been brought before the house. This bill is the result of the legislative requirement that the act be reviewed after two years of operation. The review was conducted by John Murray and it resulted in 49 recommendations.

At the outset, I indicate that the state Liberals are pleased to support the bill. However, there are some issues that we want to highlight along the way, and there will be some provisions that we will seek to amend and perhaps oppose, but we will canvass those during the course of the debate. In essence, however, I can tell the government that we support the intent of the legislation.

The key issues raised in the bill include the SAFECOM (South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission) board being expanded to comprise nine members. Currently, there are eight members of the board with only a number of those eight having voting rights. It is our understanding that the board is to be expanded to nine and that all nine members of the board will have the right to vote on whatever issues come before it.

Under the current structure, there is an advisory board as well. It is our understanding that that advisory board did not necessarily operate at the level of efficiency and effectiveness that had perhaps been initially anticipated. That board will be dismantled and an advisory committee will be established in its place. That is good.

At this juncture I will flag that it has been raised within our ranks that a land-owning representative from the Farmers Federation should be included on the SAFECOM board. We will look to move an amendment in relation to that. I just flag that at the beginning, in speaking about the composition of the SAFECOM board.

As we know from the minister's second reading explanation, the focus of the SAFECOM board will be on strategic responsibilities, with the day-to-day administration becoming the responsibility of the chief executive. As I mentioned, the two former board structures are no longer necessary and the advisory board is to be replaced by an advisory committee.

One of the other major structural reforms is a change to the current three-tier structure. We have in place the South Australian Bushfire Prevention Advisory Committee, the CFS regional committees, and also the district council fire prevention committees; that is the three-tier structure in place. It is being compressed into a two-tiered structure, with the establishment of the South Australian Bushfire Coordination Committee. That committee has the power to recommend to the Governor the establishment of bushfire management committees and, hence, bushfire management areas. We understand that there is a proposal for 16 committees to be established and, obviously, 16 management areas to be established as well.

It is evident that the structure has been flattened from the current three-tier structure to two. The belief is that the lines of communication will be improved. There has been some concern, in particular from the volunteer sector, the CFS and those levels of service, that the lines of communication were not necessarily as open and as clear as we would have liked them to be, and this new structure is looking to achieve better communication up and down. We all know that we need a two-way flow of information, both from senior management and from the board, through the structures of the volunteers and, obviously, the other way as well. Through effective corporate management, that is important.

In addition to that structural reform, the commission is able to identify what is regarded as urban bushfire risk areas, which extend into the Metropolitan Fire Service (MFS) areas, with the various controls and responsibilities traditionally associated with the CFS areas extending into those designated urban bushfire risk areas. I think it is another important step in the right direction. In particular, the suburbs to the east and the north-east of the metropolitan area, which are within the auspices or the control of MFS districts, are certainly exposed to bushfire threat. That is evident just from the geography, in terms of the location, the proximity of the escarpment, the foothills, and the higher bushfire district of the Mount Lofty Ranges.

You only need to have the right weather conditions—perhaps the wrong weather conditions, depending on which way you look at it—prevailing in a certain manner and for the wind to come from a certain direction to put those suburbs under threat of bushfire. It would come down over the hills, over the escarpment and into Banksia Park, Redwood Park, Tea Tree Gully in the north-east into Highbury, Athelstone, Rostrevor and right along the eastern side of the metropolitan area. Those suburbs are at real risk, so I think this is a step in the right direction in relation to dealing with those issues.

The bill proposes another measure: to move appeals for disciplinary matters within the MFS from the District Court to the Industrial Relations Commission. These issues have come before the house previously and, on this side of the house, we have not supported those measures. We have debated other legislation in the house that we have not supported which contained provisions for moving those matters from the court jurisdiction to the Industrial Relations Commission. I highlight that we will oppose that for a number of reasons and other members, in their contribution to the second reading, will also highlight this issue.

No legitimate reason has been given by the government to substantiate why those matters are to be moved to the Industrial Relations Commission. On this side of the house, we are aware that the government is proposing to move more to the federal system and, in essence, that will reduce the workload of the Industrial Relations Commission, as we understand it. Other members have a better understanding of those matters than I, so they will elaborate on that. I reiterate that no legitimate reason has been given for that proposal. I want to flag to the minister: consistent with the Liberal Party's position on these matters, we do not support that measure in the legislation.

In addition, we understand that amendments are proposed in relation to local government fire prevention officers aimed at providing greater flexibility in the amount of resources that the council can attribute to the risk factors for fire in their specific districts. It is my intention to elaborate on those issues later in the debate. I think that the government could look to resource local government in a far greater manner to assist the work the fire prevention officers undertake.

Another area that we have some concerns about is amendment No. 39 relating to the repeal of section 149 whereby the clause deletes the spent provision. In the current act, that relates to the provision that the review of the structure had to take place after two years, hence the reason for us debating this bill today. As I said earlier, the bill is a result of that review. It is the Liberal Party's opinion that this bill should have provisions for a further formal review to take place so that we do not just leave it up to the whim of the government of the day to implement a review. The Liberal Party proposes to move an amendment that a formal review take place in March 2012, with the report to be ready in September 2012. That is something that I want to highlight to the government.

In essence, that is really the intent of the legislation. As I said, we certainly appreciated the quite comprehensive briefing which was headed up by the Chief Officer of the CFS and which also involved the Chief Officer of the MFS, Grant Lupton, the Commissioner of Fire and Emergencies, Mr David Place, and some other officers.

The state Liberal Party supports the intent of the legislation. We think it is a step in the right direction. Obviously, bushfire management control and all the issues that relate to bushfires here in South Australia are vitally important. This is a significant issue that the state faces, not only through the bushfire season but also through the autumn, winter and spring months in preparing for the season. As I said, we certainly believe that these are good measures that are proposed in the bill.

I want to expand on some of my comments in relation to the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. The interim report has been made publicly available and it contains 51 recommendations. While it is not my intention to go through every one of the 51 recommendations, because some relate specifically to the Victorian situation, some quite important areas are covered in the recommendations in relation to warnings. There are chapters about warnings, information, relocation, the stay or go policy (I will talk a little bit about that in a minute or two), risk and refuge, incident management, emergency management, commonwealth response and emergency calls. I understand that the senior management team within our emergency services sector has had a fair degree of involvement in the royal commission proceedings.

In relation to the stay or go policy and warnings, my parliamentary colleague the member for Davenport has prepared a bill, which he has put out in the community for public consultation, directly related to warnings. At the moment, we have a memorandum of understanding with two media outlets, the ABC (Radio 891) and FIVEaa. My understanding is that the proposal is for that to be expanded to all other media outlets, in terms of regional radio and television, and that as soon as the Chief Officer issues a warning and it goes to all the different media outlets it will be compulsory for those media outlets to immediately broadcast the warning. We do not allege that the media should delay issuing a warning. However, there may be circumstances in which that could occur, although there is no such allegation. It might happen during the broadcast of the last over of a test cricket match before tea and a bowler might be on a hat-trick—

Mr Griffiths: Steve Waugh is on 96.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Not Steve Waugh—he has retired. There may be some reason the media may want to continue the broadcast and delay issuing the warning by a minute or two. What is proposed is that that cannot happen. As soon as the chief officer issues the warning it will be compulsory that the media outlets broadcast that warning. I want to highlight that issue, because we think that is important. As I said, that is out for public consultation. The member for Davenport also has highlighted that issue and, obviously, he represents a very high bushfire risk area, as do a number of members on this side of the house. I also represent an electorate in the Mount Lofty Ranges, as do a number of members on the government side. So, I wanted to highlight that in the course of this debate.

The other issue relates to some discussion that is again in the public arena about those homes and streets in locations that are indefensible on an extremely high-risk bushfire day. There are some areas within the Adelaide Hills and the Mount Lofty Ranges that are more defensible than others, but there are some streets and locations that, when objectively and critically assessed, really are indefensible against a fire of the magnitude and ferocity of the Black Saturday fires in Victoria. It is the government's responsibility to do some more work in educating those respective communities and residents in terms of the risk they face when a severe fire incident comes their way, and the fact that they have little or no chance of defending their home and, as a consequence, their life. There has been a considerable level of discussion in the public arena about that, and I think it is the responsibility of the government to do a lot more work in relation to that.

I come back to my initial point of better resourcing local government and fire prevention officers. I know the fire prevention officers in the Mount Lofty Ranges personally, and they are literally run off their feet carrying out their duties, particularly during the bushfire season. There has been some suggestion that residents in the densely populated streets of Blackwood and Belair and the areas where there is dense residential development in the hills district should be individually called upon and the risk they face spelled out to them, not in an intimidatory manner but in an objective, factual manner.

We know that people move into the Hills district, obviously being attracted to that environment because it is a beautiful place to live. You experience the four seasons distinctly in the Adelaide Hills region—hot summers, calm autumns, then cool, cold, wet winters and lovely springs back into hot summers. Obviously, people are attracted to that. I live there because it is a beautiful place to live.

However, people must understand the environment in which they live, and I am not confident that every resident does so. People arrive in late winter and spring when everything is in blossom. They buy a home and think the area is beautiful. As I said, it is beautiful but, when the middle of February rolls around with temperatures of 40° and a hot north-westerly blowing, everything is tinder box dry and it is a completely different environment from that which is experienced in the middle of winter.

The Adelaide Hills in the middle of winter is wet and foggy. Unless you experience a summer in the Hills, you would not necessarily understand the change to the environment when the winter months finish, spring arrives and we then experience a long, dry summer for which South Australia is well known. It is a completely different environment as a result of the seasons, so there needs to be improvement in the way in which the government addresses those specific issues.

We have received a submission from the Local Government Association which highlights concerns with the bill. We received that submission yesterday afternoon so we have not had time to formally consider the proposals that the Local Government Association has put forward, but I advise the house that we are happy to consider those proposals between the houses. When the legislation is passed by this house, we will consider those proposals between the two houses and have a formal position in relation to them when the bill moves to the other place.

I want to conclude my contribution by recognising and acknowledging the vitally important work that the emergency services sector—the CFS, MFS and SES—carry out for the safety and security of our respective communities, particularly the work carried out by the volunteer sector. The CFS would not be able to function without the significant contribution made by its volunteers. It is vitally important that we always recognise and acknowledge the contribution that those people make to the safety and security of the state.

We experienced a catastrophic fire event in 1983, 26 years ago. Obviously, we learnt some lessons from our experiences with that fire, the catastrophic fires on Eyre Peninsula and the Victorian fires at the beginning of this year, but the emergency services sector and all South Australians need to be mindful of continually improving our bushfire program. That has to be at the forefront of our mind. We need to look at ways, measures, procedures and all the mechanisms that are available to us as legislators in the parliament and the emergency services sector—MFS, CFS and SES—to continually improve on how we deal with these very important matters.

As I said at the outset of my contribution, we are pleased that the legislation has come before the house, and we are pleased to support it with some amendments. I make the point that we are presuming that the restructure of the two-tiered system—the bushfire coordination committee, the bushfire management committees and the 16 areas, and so on—has been completed and that, as soon as this legislation has passed through the parliamentary process and is assented to by the Governor, the restructured system can be implemented and put in place so that it is functioning, operational and up and running (whatever description you want to use) before the bushfire season is upon us.

If we try to implement these changes through December, January, February and March, then we can see some problems occurring as a result of the restructuring process. During the bushfire season, the focus has to be on incident management, coordination and all those other key issues. That draws my contribution to the debate to a conclusion and I look forward to the swift passage of the bill through the parliament.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (11:32): I wish to make a brief contribution. I will deal with some areas that are of particular interest to me and also reinforce the comments made by the shadow minister (the member for Kavel) who, living in a bushfire prone area, would have a deep appreciation of the impact that bushfires can have upon communities and our society. He has a real understanding of the fact that we (as a government, an opposition and a parliament) need to ensure that the best possible system of management and resources is available for the fire prevention needs of South Australians.

I have never lived close to where a bushfire has occurred, so I have not been involved in the resultant tragedy, but all of us in this chamber and the state can reflect upon the television images of the Victorian fires, the Wangary fires, and fires in Sydney, America and so many nations in the world which demonstrate the tragedy of bushfires and really bring home to us what they do to people. However, we cannot be there to appreciate the noise of a fire when it roars through, the burning of people and animals, the devastation of the land being destroyed, homes being wiped out and whole communities being obliterated, as was the case in Victoria.

We consider legislation such as this with the desire that it never again happens to us. Tragically, history has shown that, no matter the best intentions of people, it will occur. Management principles that have been put in place will try to minimise the impact as much as is humanly possible, and that is why it is important that legislation be continually developed, that management systems and policies are put in place and that the dollars are provided to emergency services volunteers who perform such wonderful work to ensure that they have everything they need, but we have the responsibility to ensure that we devise the best possible system.

I will refer to a couple of points made by the member for Kavel, especially the issue he raised about an amendment that the opposition intends to move about having additional representation on the board, namely, someone nominated by the South Australian Farmers Federation who is a property owner. I want to support that amendment on the basis that, in many cases, property owners have a generational interest in the land.

I was recently in McLaren Vale, and I talked to some property owners there who are fifth generation and whose family has lived in that area since 1841—and that demonstrates to me a connection that cannot be lost. They are the sorts of people who need also to be involved in management; they bring the practical experience of many years of burning on their land for the control of weeds and snails and those sorts of things, as well as protecting their other property. I believe it would be a positive step forward for SAFF to appoint those sorts of people, with their experience and qualifications. The extension of the board by one more person to allow for that should not be overly onerous, and the physical input these people could have to the preparation of plans and policies in future years could be important. I know that the opposition—including the member for Stuart, who has suggested this amendment—will be pushing for that, and I hope the minister agrees.

The great problem for many is that they are not prepared for a fire, and that is a tragedy. Too many people live with a complacent attitude and think that it will never affect them, but we all need to accept that the potential exists, be it a bushfire or a house fire. No matter what our circumstances may be, tragedy could affect us, and families need to discuss that. I know that Mr Euan Ferguson, when he speaks in the media, continually tries to reinforce the message about the need for people to prepare plans and have a system in place so that every member of the family understands the implications and what they have to do. There can be no separation of age in this; we need to make sure that our young kids are aware of it as well as our teenagers, adults and grandparents, and that no-one is left in circumstances where they could become a victim of a terrible tragedy through fire. Any effort that helps to achieve that is a good one.

Public information is also an important issue (and the member for Kavel also referred to this). It is fantastic that we now hear warnings on two radio stations, but we need to ensure that there is the greatest possible chance for everyone—no matter what they are doing—to be aware that there is a dangerous situation in their immediate vicinity, and that they need to respond. It would be terrible if people were to innocently drive in an area, or remain in their home, without being aware of the circumstances around them. Sadly, I suppose there are a lot of people who are not overly connected with the neighbourhood in which they live, and people who live by themselves may not have the radio on or may not be watching the television; they may be inside reading and aware that it is warm weather outside, but they may not be aware of a fire. As a society we have to ensure that our neighbours are also aware of these issues through whatever means possible.

I would like to take up one point. In his briefing paper, the shadow minister referred to the increased responsibility placed upon private landholders to prevent or inhibit the outbreak of fire on their land, including council-owned land and crown land. I will declare a personal interest in this matter, as my father-in-law, a farmer on Lower Yorke Peninsula, has a substantial amount of land that directly adjoins a national park. He continually comments to me that the firebreaks he is able to create there are not enough, because of the adjoining national park and the need for the national park to consider its clearing methods. From a personal perspective, he is very concerned about what will happen on his property because of something that may start in a national park.

The Hon. R.B. Such: It might start on his property, too.

Mr GRIFFITHS: It could start on his property, that is true; but that is where both sides of the fence lie. Both property owners need to ensure that plans are in place and that they have done the necessary work to minimise, as much as possible, the risk of fire travelling from one property to another. I certainly support that, and it is important that federal and state government departments and property owners ensure they have policies in place that give the greatest possible protection.

I raised a small point in the shadow minister's briefing paper in regard to council fire prevention officers and providing greater flexibility in the amount of resources that councils can contribute to the risk of fire in the district. Having previously been an employee of local government, and having had a good relationship with the fire prevention officer who worked in that council area, I know that they are very dedicated officers. These people do build the relationships within communities that they need, in order to ensure that plans are in place, that property owners are aware of their own obligations, that burning-off permits are provided only where it is appropriate, and that people who do the wrong thing when burning off and who cause some level of fire are well and truly told that unless they get it right they will not get another permit.

I note that councils devote as much as they can. Certainly, some people who work as fire prevention officers within councils hold joint roles, and a common one would be some level of general inspector, and that sort of thing. In regional communities, I suppose that is the only way that a council can afford to have that position. There can be no debate about the need for the position; local government will always certainly support fire prevention officers. I just wonder whether the minister, when he speaks in relation to the opening comments, could provide some clarification on the intention of the amendment in relation to local government's commitment to fire prevention officers. The minister nods his head, so I am grateful for that.

As an opposition member, regrettably, I could not attend the briefing that was held on this matter, but I know there was considerable debate. Many of our members attended and, certainly, regional members, who have a direct and long-time interest in fire prevention, were there and had input into the debate and what our position would be. There can be no doubt that the opposition will support the bill, because it improves the system, and that is what we are all about: learning from the tragedies that have occurred in the past and making sure that we do not repeat those same mistakes.

I know that many members will make a contribution. Many members who have a greater personal involvement in fires and have been involved in fighting them in the past will stand up and make a contribution. It is important that we consider that, because the input of all people will actually result in better decisions being made. That is how the parliament works. The principle is a good one. Let us hope that these policies are implemented as quickly as possible. The shadow minister has made the point that it needs to be in place before the next fire season. It will provide greater surety to 1.6 million South Australians that they will not be subject to a fire in future years.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:41): I would like to make a brief contribution. Overall, I welcome this bill. I think it is important that we know that, following Black Saturday in Victoria, there has been a bit of a knee-jerk reaction in some quarters, particularly in Victoria. Nevertheless, we need to make sure that we do all we can in a reasonable and sensible way to minimise the risk of fire and protect human life.

I want to make some comments about what has happened particularly since Black Saturday. As I said, many of the knee-jerk reactions we have seen have been in Victoria. We have had people like the federal member, Fran Bailey, saying that we should clear the side of every road by 10 metres because, when she went to Germany, she found that they clear the roadside—along the autobahns—by 10 metres.

Mr Hanna: You wouldn't have many bushfires.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Well, you wouldn't have much vegetation left if you did it here, because only a few bits of vegetation remain here on the roadside as a lot of it has been cleared. I think we need to maintain a balance. Premier Brumby got a bit carried away and has now implemented a clearance policy, which one of the universities in Victoria analysed. It said that, if it was implemented, we would have no trees in those tourist areas that people want to go and see. If people want to see the Little Desert in Victoria, they can do so. However, if Premier Brumby has his way, we will have the big desert of Victoria, because people overreact. What they are trying to do is shield any responsibility away from shortcomings by particular individuals and others. So, you come up with a knee-jerk reaction which, as a consequence, when it is analysed, shows that, in some of those areas, we will end up with no vegetation at all. Who wants to visit Kinglake if it looks like Wingfield North?

There are a lot of other issues that need to be explored. Why do we allow people to build in areas which are of such extreme fire risk? It is crazy. It is madness. We are still doing it, and we hear people pontificating—mayors and so on—of councils that have allowed people to build in the most high fire risk areas in South Australia. Then they come out and say, 'We'll have to clear a few trees from the side of the road.' People have just been allowed to build along a road—Sheoak Road, for example—next to a national park. It is madness. It puts CFS volunteers at risk, and we are still allowing it to happen. The government should have the spine to say, 'You cannot build in certain areas of the Adelaide Hills,' for example. There are some areas where you can build, obviously, but what we are allowing those people to do is commit a delayed suicide. They will be wiped out.

Many years ago, back in the 1830s, my family settled in Upper Sturt. They were a bit smarter back in the late 1800s because they built a school out of stone on the south side. DECS came along and built a school made out of tin plate on the north face, right next to Belair Park. We have not learnt from the pioneers, who had a bit of sense, some of those simple, sensible things.

We hear people say that the Aborigines burnt the land. They did not burn all of Australia; they burnt selected areas to encourage green feed for kangaroos so that they could more easily kill them. They would have incinerated themselves if they had set fire to the whole countryside. Recently, I heard some character on radio saying that the Aborigines burnt Australia for millions of years. The Aborigines have not been here for millions of years. We are hearing a lot of exaggerated, knee-jerk nonsense from people.

It is fine, as this bill sets out, to have various plans. A plan is necessary, but people should not delude themselves that this will necessarily save them on a day like Black Saturday: virtually nothing will save you on a day like Black Saturday if you are in one of those areas. It is important that we review policies like 'stay or go', and I know the government is looking at that. You would be a fool to stay in an area where you have an extreme fire like Black Saturday, where the chance of surviving is absolutely minimal and is based on luck.

I have taken a keen interest in what happened in Victoria, and we know that some of the properties that were saved had vegetation right up to the house and some that were lost did not have vegetation for hectares around. So, it is simplistic nonsense to say that, if you just clear a firebreak, you will be okay. The latest Australian building standards give people a false sense of security. They will not protect you in a fire. They will not save you if you are somewhere like Upper Sturt or Iron Bank; you will be wiped out.

It is good and necessary to have a plan, although I notice that the coordination committee has 18 members, which is a very big group. I understand the politics of it—everyone has to be represented—but it is a very big group and I hope that it is manageable.

Naturally, people want to blame someone; they never want to blame themselves, and that is what happened in Victoria. In Victoria, they blamed the head of the CFA. However, a lot of these people do little themselves. I am a great supporter of cool burns (prescribed burning), but the average farmer does not have the resources to carry out a prescribed burn without creating somewhat of a significant risk and, if the fire escapes—and this is an issue we have to address—that person is liable for the damage that is caused. If you own a property, you might want to cool burn it, but God help you if it gets away, which is what happened in New South Wales last week. The bushfire in New South Wales last week came from a so-called cool burn: it became a hot burn and then a bushfire.

So, we have to be very careful that we do not get into this mantra of thinking that a firebreak here and there will save the day. If you have a Black Saturday bushfire, which melts aluminium, you will not have a hope in hell. They could not even start their petrol pumps because the fuel had vaporised.

What I am saying is that, sure, we need a plan—and I commend the government for that—but I think the community has to really get hold of this issue and apply what I would say is a bit of common sense and not allow people to build in areas where they put their life and the life of volunteers at risk. We do not let people build on a flood plain, and we do not let them build out in the ocean, so why do we let them build in areas where it is inevitable that their properties will be destroyed and they will be killed?

I grew up in a bushfire area, and I live in one now. I can remember as a kid that two young police officers were burnt to death not far from where I lived. So, I know first-hand what it is like to be in an area where you cannot see the end of your street because of the smoke.

We have to get fair dinkum in the Adelaide Hills. People would not get out in areas such as Coromandel Valley. You cannot even get past Craigburn Primary School on a normal day when mums and dads are picking up their kids, so how would you go on a bushfire day? Sometimes, you have to wait there for minutes. When a freight train, some of which are nearly two kilometres long, goes through the Adelaide Hills, it takes five minutes to pass through a crossing. If a couple of freight trains are going through on a day when people are trying to escape, it would be absolute panic and pandemonium.

We have the situation where people are saying, 'Where can I go that is safe?' There is nowhere you can go that is safe in an area like that: you have to get out long before the fire gets to a point where it threatens your life. When I was the chairperson at the local school, we used to tell parents that we would put their children on the oval. No-one wants to say that now because they know from the experience in Victoria that you can be on an oval and still be incinerated.

The schools in the Hills are not adequately prepared. We do not teach children about bushfires. There are a lot of people living in the hills who have come from overseas and interstate. They would not know a bushfire if they fell over one. They have no idea about what you are dealing with with the heat and the smoke: you cannot see and you can hardly breathe. There are going to be all these people rushing out to pick up their kiddies from school or trying to escape the hills on roads which are clogged at any time, let alone on a bushfire panic day.

I wish these committees well in trying to address those issues. I am sure the issue of sirens will come up. I think they are a form of comfort blanket, because they tell people that there is a fire, but they do not tell you where the fire is, how big it is or how urgent it is. I know there is a move afoot to have sirens brought back. I grew up with sirens, which had a bad effect on people who had come from London; that is, it reminded them of the Blitz and sent them and their dogs whoopee.

Unless you plan it properly, a siren does not tell you anything. What does it tell you? There is a fire. Where is the fire? In Mrs Smith's toilet, or is it a big fire that is about to engulf your house? And there are other sirens going. Coromandel Valley CFS has used a siren for fires for years, but also for accidents. If you are going to have a siren policy, you need to make sure that it actually tells people something so that they know what it means.

Mr Pengilly: It alerts them, Bob; that's the idea.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The member for Finniss says it alerts them. It alerts them to what? It is a comfort. I am not against sirens; I am just saying be careful arguing that they are the answer. We have a lot more modern communication techniques now that could or should be used.

Mr Pengilly: That don't always work.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: But you should not rely on any of them as the sole awareness-raising issue. People are clinging to anything because in some ways they are not addressing the fundamental issues. There are going to be more and more people building in areas in the hills who will expect the local CFS—to which I used to belong—to come out and save them. You cannot even turn a truck around on some of those roads. You are not going to save the people, but they will expect to be saved.

There are people who do not even insure their properties. If I were the insurance companies I would go out and check those properties, and their premiums should relate to the degree to which people have prepared and cleared around their property and maintained it. Why should the rest of the community such as the people of Henley Beach subsidise some idiot living in the hills who is careless and does nothing about branches growing over their house?

I live in the hills and there are people living in my street who have branches growing over their house, and they do not clean their gutters. It is just idiocy. I think that people should be required by council on an annual basis to indicate that they have tidied up and that there should be random inspections by council officers or the CFS, and there should be some teeth to back them up in saying, 'You haven't cleaned up around your property. Do so now,' and there should be some consequence.

I think the measure before us is good, and I think it is good to have local input. As I say, I am a great believer in prescribed burning, but it is not as simple as people think, because the weather can change, and winds can suddenly come up. The average farmer has some equipment, but most people do not have enough resources and personnel to manage a significant prescribed burn-off.

I conclude by saying that in response to fires—and this is not the only one—it is important that we do not simply have a knee-jerk reaction but that we have a response which is based on science and common sense. I think this measure will help, but people should not delude themselves that having a plan will save them. A plan is only as good as the effort that is put in at the critical time.

People should desist from blaming (here) the CFS, or (in Victoria) the CFA, especially those volunteers who put their lives on the line to defend other people, and have a look in their own backyard at what they do or do not do in respect of causing fires or allowing a fire to spread because they have not done their own homework.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN (Stuart) (11:55): I support the bill and would like to make a number of comments on this measure. Let me say to the member for Fisher, before I go any further, that there are people who have had considerable experience in hazard reduction burning. The honourable member would probably be the only one left in this house who would be aware that I have actually burnt large areas of native vegetation, up to 500 or 600 acres in one go. It is a matter of common sense, and there are a couple of fundamental principles involved. The first thing is not to do any back-burning until you know that the wind has settled down. It has to be done later in the afternoon; if it is done early, when the wind is liable to chop around (as is the case where I live), you will get into trouble.

The next point is that you have to have decent firebreaks and you light up against the wind. Once you make the decision to light it you have to hold your nerve and get the lot on fire, otherwise you will have a problem. Once you get it going it will be gone. In relation to hazard reduction, I am someone who is concerned and who has made ongoing criticism about the inability of farmers to take positive steps. What do you do? If you have a large patch of native vegetation and you want to reduce the hazard, you light it and let it burn back against the wind. That is what you do—use a bit of common sense. Do not do it in the middle of the day; do it later in the evening when will burn slowly and then go out. If you light it at the wrong time, of course, it is going to get away. If it is broombush, that is like kerosene—whoosh, and up she goes!

The Hon. R.B. Such: A lot of hobby farmers have no idea.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: I am not really keen on hobby farmers full stop! I think it is a waste of natural resources. People do all sorts of irresponsible things on hobby farms. Some of my constituents sometimes wonder what their purpose is, and I think the police are interested in some of their activities. However, that is a debate for another day.

In relation to people being able to protect their properties, I agree that they should not rely upon the Country Fire Service and other organisations to protect them if they themselves have not taken appropriate measures. The NRM parliamentary committee has had all sorts of evidence given to it about people who are quite irresponsible: for instance, having on their property structures with wooden-shingled roofs and tree boughs hanging over them.

The Hon. R.B. Such: There still are; I can show you in the Hills.

The Hon. G.M. GUNN: Then the council should be issuing them with an order. In my constituency, Goyder council was proactive in employing an efficient officer who issued a very large number of notices to people, who got very upset, but the reaction was good. The council let off everybody who responded and did the right thing, whereas those who ignored the notice got a fine. Most people thought it was a very good program. There were well over 100 notices put out which got some action.

We have to allow landowners and property managers the ability to protect themselves. In this bill one of the clauses (on page 24) is headed 'Duties to prevent fires'. That is well and good but people must have the ability to do this. I still argue most strongly that the more permits and red tape and action that people have to take to get permission, the less preventative work that will be carried out. Common sense dictates that you ought to be able to put a decent firebreak in around native vegetation, along fence lines and boundaries without having to go through a program of Sir Humphrey Appleby's red tape. It is a nonsense because, at the end of the day, it is far better to have people carry out this work at the right time of the year than to try and do it when the fire is coming towards them.

The best way of doing this is by people playing their role with these firebreaks so that they or the Country Fire Service can get along there, back-burn effectively and not get punctures. The only way to stop large fires is to back-burn at the right time because, if there is a fire along tens of thousands of hectares of native vegetation, I know exactly what will take place—and there is already one monument to a person who was burnt the last time it all caught fire.

My ongoing argument is: for goodness sake, let these people take some sensible measures to protect themselves. Last Saturday afternoon, I actually got bogged ploughing firebreaks and had a considerable walk. I suppose the exercise did not hurt me and did me a fair bit of good; I did not feel so at the time, but the dog thought it was all right. When I am there next time, I will have to take steps to finish that job. However, I felt so strongly about it that I went out and did it, and I hope that other people do it, too.

The bill provides that the owners of private land must take 'reasonable steps to prevent or inhibit the outbreak of fire on the land and to prevent or inhibit the spread of fire to the land'. That is good, and I agree with all that, but they must have the tools at their disposal to do it, and that means giving them the ability to put in decent firebreaks.

If you have a narrow firebreak and you have to back-burn, one of the difficulties is that there is too much heat and you cannot drive along it with a fire truck. You cannot expect volunteers or other people to go in and attempt to extinguish a fire if there is any risk that they will be trapped and cannot get out. That is always my concern about this crazy business of five metre firebreaks drawn up by a group of people who, in my view, obviously need medical examination. I do not know what is wrong with them. They have no common sense, but they have been advising governments, harassing people who are trying to do the right thing (and one of my colleagues will have a bit to say about some of these people), endangering the public and inhibiting the volunteers.

I support the bill, and I will move an amendment because it is important that the people whose property is involved are entitled to have some say, as they will bring a measure of common sense to some of these discussions. In my view, the best way of solving most problems is to apply common-sense solutions to them. There has been tremendous growth this year in the paddocks around South Australia and sometimes you cannot see the sheep. If there is a lightning strike—and lightning can strike anywhere—you will have problems.

It is all very well for the member for Fisher to say that people were overenthusiastic because of what took place in Victoria, but he has to bear in mind that 170 people lost their life, and in my view any government that did not take responsible action to ensure that they took preventative measures would be lacking in due diligence. I thought that was a crazy comment to make. Where people in some of those spots in Victoria were prevented from taking preventative measures and were fined, I think those who inflicted the fines and not the landholders should be put in gaol.

I appeal to the minister to bring forward some of these changes as soon as possible so that people can take protective measures (particularly those who have large amounts of native vegetation), do some controlled burn-offs and take other steps—for example, spray Roundup to knock down the growth—protect themselves and assist the volunteers in the great work they do in sticking up for people in this state. I support the bill.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:04): I, too, rise to support the bill. This is certainly a step forward, but we have to see that the planning process actually goes through to realities on the ground especially when it hits the fan, so to speak, and volunteers are right at the forefront of fighting fires.

I note that in the material provided to us by the government it looks like there has been consultation in regard to the Deputy Coroner's recommendations from the Wangary bushfire, recommendations from the ministerial review of bushfire management in South Australia and recommendations from the review of the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 which has brought us to where we are today.

The government has indicated that external consultation took place through the Local Government Association, the CFS Volunteers Association, the SES Volunteers Association and the United Firefighters Union. The South Australian Farmers Federation was part of that consultation process, and it also involved the Native Vegetation Council. The government also indicated that there has been consultation throughout the government departments.

The government has indicated that the act is to be reworded to reinforce the role of the commission, and this will include the role of the commission and the governance, accountability, strategic and policy aspects of the emergency services sector. It is to be noted from the briefings that the emergency management role of SAFECOM is to be incorporated into the functions and powers of the commission. The role of the board will be more focused on strategic responsibilities for the whole sector and less concerned with the day-to-day administration of the commission.

In regard to the constitution of the board—and I note that our side of the house will be moving an amendment in line with this—the board will be reconstituted and the voting members will include the Chief Executive of SAFECOM, Chief Officer of the MFS, Chief Officer of the SES and Chief Officer of the CFS. There will be a representative from the CFS Volunteers Association, the SES Volunteers Association, one nominated by the United Firefighters Union and two ministerial appointments involving experience in commerce, economics, finance, accounting, law or public administration.

It is interesting to note that there is not already on that board someone from the South Australian Farmers Federation. Given the vast area of land in this state owned by farmers, I think that would be most appropriate, but I do note that the Hon. Graham Gunn will be moving an amendment to that end. Part of the new bill advises of the disbanding of the advisory board through the deletion of this section in the act, and I note that the Chief Executive must submit a workforce plan to the commission on an annual basis.

With regard to fire management, the powers to inspect and undertake mitigation activities will be streamlined and made consistent throughout the act for both the fire services and local government fire prevention officers. It has already been recorded in this place that the current three-tiered bushfire committee structure will come down to a two-tiered structure and, hopefully, that will reduce some of the bureaucracy and there will be a statewide bushfire coordination committee with the power to recommend to the Governor the establishment of bushfire management areas with respective committees for those areas.

There will be flexibility in the amount of resources that a council can ascribe to the risk factor of fire in its district. Urban areas will have bushfire risk areas to be established following consultation with the MFS and CFS chief officers, any minister whom the emergency services minister deems has a significant interest in the matter and the Local Government Association.

In terms of the bushfire management framework, essentially there will be a state bushfire coordination committee, and that will go down through the relevant bushfire management committees, which will then flow through to local government bushfire management, the Department for Environment and Heritage, forestry bushfire management, and SA Water bushfire management, through to the fire prevention officers.

The interim report on the Victorian bushfires has been published, and what terrible fires they were. I think that part of the problem with what happened in Victoria is that some people make lifestyle choices, but then they do not understand the environment in which they are living. It is not until you experience the horror of what happened in February this year that people fully understand the impact of living in some of these beautiful areas, and they are beautiful areas. But when you lose over 200 people you realise that fire management is not as it should be; or, even more so, the preparation and mitigation activities that are necessary in these types of areas are not in place.

I note in regard to the bill the duty to prevent fires. It addresses owners of private land and the obligations they have in protecting their land by having firebreaks and taking other relevant action in the case of a fire. There is also similar legislation in regard to council-owned land. I note with real interest that crown land also comes under this measure.

I will make some comments about crown land. The member for Goyder made some comments about this earlier. There is a real problem in seats such as mine, Hammond, and the seat of MacKillop in relation to Ngarkat National Park. It is generally a huge park of mallee; that is, where it has not been burnt. Ngarkat seems to be a magnet for lightning strikes. I think the last big one was about four years ago. Even from my place at Coomandook—we are not that far from Ngarkat—we can see the red glow in the sky, when you know that thousands of hectares are on fire.

I go back to what happened almost four years ago, and the fact that this fire was burning towards the Mallee Highway. In fact, it could have put the town of Lameroo at risk. Essentially, the CFS fallback line was the Mallee Highway. From my experience at that very same time, because I had a fire across the road from a property which was lit by lightning in the scrub, I can assure members that a highway is barely a fire break for any major bushfire. It just does not happen, and especially when temperatures are around 45°.

With respect to park management and the Department for Environment and Heritage—and it is indicated in the legislation—the government must take control of its land; and it must have adequate firebreaks, whether that is 20 or 30 metres, or even more, around the edge of the park. We need to make sure that the obligations are carried out by everyone, as they should be, under this legislation. Also, in saying that, private landholders must put in their firebreaks. However, I am afraid that if a private landholder abutting a park has scrub right up to his fence line, or within a few metres, he does not have much of a show.

During the government briefing, the Chief Officer of the CFS indicated that there will be some more flexibility as to what clearances of trees and scrub can be around homes, and I hope that comes to fruition. I do not think you can have a standard amount of clearing—not in the vast diversity of the way people live in this state.

I note the comments from the member for Fisher that we should not have people living in these high fire risk areas, but the problem is that they are already there, well up into the Hills in Blackwood, Belair and right across the hills face zone. Unless you are going to shut down those suburbs, we need to manage them properly and make sure that people have the appropriate clearances. Quite frankly, if there is a big fire up in that area, I believe it will be a death trap because there is so much growth up there. We need to make sure that people have flexibility, that they take notice of what they need to do around their properties and get on with it.

I am not just referring to private land but also to council land because sometimes some of that land gets left; this also relates to crown land, and that is one of the sticking points. It is about working with the lifestyle choice that some people have made, but they have to understand the environment they are living in and that they must have proper clearance. They cannot have trees overhanging their house or it becomes an absolute death trap. Proper clearance management has to be employed, otherwise we will see a massive death toll from fires in these areas.

I have already mentioned the Liberals' amendment to put a South Australian Farmers Federation member on the board and I have been talking about the responsibilities of government. There has also been some talk about slow burns and managed burns, and I think this is a program that should be kept up and there probably should be more of it in our parks. I know that, at times, the government and the services overachieve; sometimes it does not get out of the park. It probably should be applauded. During the fire several years ago in Messent near Keith I think they were going to burn 25 per cent of the park and I think they got 75 per cent—great result!

Mr Venning: That's probably controversial.

Mr PEDERICK: No; we have to get some reality into the world. Some of these fires that have gone up in recent times have got over 60 years' worth of undergrowth—dry sticks and twigs that have built up—and, when it takes off, it really takes off. Sections of the parks through Victoria that abut Ngarkat would not have been burnt for that time. There has to be some common sense. We are not talking about rabid clearing and burning. It has happened for thousands of years: lightning strikes have burnt out thousands of hectares of this country. We need realistic management.

Also, it has to be indicated to firefighters on the ground that they have protection, and the Chief Officer indicated that three acts can come into play to protect firefighters. I remember that fire that came out of Ngarkat towards Lameroo. People indicated that they needed to do a back-burn because this fire was going to come out at 90 km/h. Between the communications, that never happened and that fire did come out. People were concerned about who was liable, and it burnt quite a few acres.

It also burnt a lot of fencing, and this is where the trouble starts with the government. It needs to take control over the fact that it is written into the Crown Lands Act only that the government may assist with the repair of fencing. I know one man who had his fence burnt who built a two metre high fence, and it does a great job; it keeps everything out. He has veldt grass and feed growing right up to the fence, and it keeps the rabbits, kangaroos and emus out of his property, which should stay in the government parklands.

I applaud our volunteers in this state and right throughout this country. They do a fantastic job. I remember going to Kangaroo Island (which is in the electorate of the member for Finniss) and doing a bit of work there with a crew from the Mallee. It was great to see so many people there helping out. Victoria came on board, and there were literally hundreds of fire trucks around the place. A lot of them did not go back in anywhere near the condition in which they landed on the island, but they did the job well. The only problem is that, as with everything, sometimes bureaucracy gets in the way. However, I guess when you are managing that size force sometimes these things happen. At the end of the day, it showed that people are committed to getting these fires under control.

I note that recently my own brigade at Coomandook received a new fire truck, which I think was built in New South Wales. I am just glad that it was not built in Queensland, for a whole lot of reasons, which I have brought up in this place before. Some trucks that came from Queensland had so many faults it was not funny. I know that there are sometimes difficulties when people are negotiating contracts, but there is certainly a very good manufacturer and repairer of fire trucks in Murray Bridge.

I indicate that I support the bill. People need to be aware that fires can start anywhere. They can be caused by lightning strikes or, when you live right next to a major highway as I do, fires can be started by wheel bearings on trucks and trailers; they let go and next thing you have a major fire. I remember ringing people down our way when I was in Murray Bridge one day and I said, 'Where is that fire?' They had not looked out to the south-east of their property and did not even know there was a fire coming at them. So, people need to be aware.

With respect to this bill, people have talked about the fact that radio stations will have to make announcements. However, I stress that these announcements must be accurate. I recall the big fire at Coomandook almost four years ago. The wife of the bloke who leases my property was out on the back road watching the gate because there was stock in the paddock, and her father from Adelaide rang and said, 'What are you doing?' She said, 'I'm just watching the gate, letting people in and out.' He said, 'I've just heard on the radio that they've evacuated Coomandook.' She said, 'Well, they'd better not, because I'm going in to the shop to get some milk shortly.' I can assure members that the fire was very close to Coomandook. I guess it is better to have a slightly inaccurate report, but it does create some panic amongst friends and family of people who are experiencing a fire.

In general, we need to have far better management; right across Ash Wednesday, Wangary and the fires in Victoria, we have lost far too many people. A friend's father was found in a sheep trough at Coonalpyn in 1983. Thankfully, he survived that event, but I think it shortened his life quite a bit. At least he had the sense, when he got caught out ploughing a break, to jump into a trough. In general, this side of the house supports the bill, but I note that we will be moving some amendments.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:24): Along with the rest of my colleagues on our side of the house, I also indicate that we will be supporting the bill. Hopefully, the government will see the wisdom of and accept some of our amendments to the bill, most of which have been spoken about.

I will take perhaps a different slant on aspects of this bill. We debate at length a huge amount of legislation in this place, much of which I sometimes shake my head at in disbelief. Given that much of this measure involves administrative changes and changes to various parts of the organisation, I sincerely hope it is outcome-based. If those people out in the paddock, so to speak, are not getting the best deal possible from the changes and we are not putting in place a better system of managing disasters—incidents, fires, or whatever—I think we are probably wasting our time here today.

So, I would like to look at it from perhaps the bottom up and briefly talk about the frustrations felt by particularly the emergency volunteers (CFS volunteers) and the fact that they are seemingly eternally hampered by bureaucracy in higher places that frustrates their actions in going about their general business. I am not in any way, shape or form implying that anyone here is trying to make it more difficult to put out fires or attend accidents or anything else: that is not my point. However, at the end of the day, if you are sending volunteers or paid staff to incidents or fires, etc., they have to be able to go about their business in an easy manner. They should not have to put up with the fear of bureaucracy and everything else coming down on them from a higher place. They should be able to get on and go about their business.

There has been quite a bit said this morning about dealing with fires, and I will come back to that shortly. However, my point is that if you go to a scrub fire, grass fire or a fire in regional areas, you have to have the ability to put out that fire. I know that we have terrific resources available to us, but you cannot beat men on the ground for putting out fires. You can have all the planes in the world but you cannot beat having people on the ground in difficult spots to put out fires. Regularly I see in The Advertiser letters from certain people suggesting that we get a Super Scooper or two in South Australia. We went into this matter a number of years ago when I was on the CFS board. It is not a practical possibility. You have to have water to pick up to use those things, and we know that water is hard to find and you cannot expect to pick it up out of the sea when there is a fire 150 kilometres inland.

In addition, let me also say for the benefit of those in the chamber that, currently, we are going through a change in dispatch systems for, in the main, the CFS volunteers. They are all going to be called out from Adelaide, as I understand, although I need to get more information on this. There is a great deal of frustration in my electorate in CFS brigades that do not trust the system to work—they think the system will fall down. They are losing their phone connections, where they can have a party line, so to speak. That is all going by the bye, and they are worried about that.

The topic of prescribed burns was talked about by a number of members. If the legislation that is put forward by the government is going to assist in any way, shape or form to perform these prescribed burns better, no-one will be happier than I. It was mentioned a while ago by the member for Hammond that in one place they attempted to burn out 10 or 15 per cent and they burnt out 70 per cent. In September 2007 we successfully burned 100,000 hectares of chiefly national parks on Kangaroo Island, which some of us will recall well. The fact that that area burnt is errant stupidity. It is bureaucratic madness. It should never have happened.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Errant—'e' or 'a'?

Mr PENGILLY: You are back, Mick. We don't really need you. It is absolute arrant madness: it never should have happened. I applaud the actions of those within the CFS and other organisations who wish to undertake more prescribed burns, and they should be able to get on with it. Do as the member for Stuart said a while ago: do it sensibly and get on with it. The experience is out there. I noticed in The Advertiser this morning that the spin doctors have announced we are burning 17,000 hectares in the next 12 months. Given that we burnt out 100,000 hectares in seven days, it pales into insignificance.

The member for Fisher made some comments, some of which I disagree with, but I hope the government is aware of these comments as it works through this legislation and the planning processes. The member for Fisher made a comment about the high rainfall country. Particularly this summer, after the winter we have had in the high rainfall areas—in the South-East, Fleurieu Peninsula, Kangaroo Island, Lower South-East and other places—the amount of moisture in the ground, which will provide an enormous boost for native vegetation to grow this spring and summer, is absolutely frightening. On my own property on Kangaroo Island I have not seen water running out of the ground like this for seven or eight years, and the growth that will emerge from that—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: So lack of water is a problem, now too much water is a problem and the Rann government is to blame.

Mr PENGILLY: —to be flammable material in December, January, February and March frightens the daylight out of me. We can have all the spin doctors in the world telling us nonsense, but, if we get an Ash Wednesday or Black Saturday—call it what you want—like we have had in the past, it will happen again and it will not matter what legislation we put through this place or how much money we use to buy equipment we will not stop anything on that day.

Those of us who have been around for a while know that and it is an horrendous prospect. As the member for Fisher said, and I am sure the member for Davenport (if he were here) and others with parts of their electorate in the Adelaide Hills would know, some residents in the Hills have absolutely no idea about how to live in a bushfire prone area on a bad day. I shake my head in disbelief at what could happen. I hope it never does.

We are 26 years past Ash Wednesday and there has not been a conflagration in the Adelaide Hills in all that time. There have been small fires. We have not learnt the lesson of burning out dangerous areas. Attempts are being made to increase the amount of prescribed burn. I will sit here with bated breath in the hope that we will get through the next summer with some semblance of normality and not have a tragedy such as that which occurred in Victoria earlier this year.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: On 20 March you will win a booth in your electorate.

Mr PENGILLY: The Attorney-General can go on with nonsense. I am here to deal with real people and what actually happens out in the wider South Australian community. I am serious about this issue; I will not fool around.

During the course of briefings we have received and discussions we have had about the amendment to this bill, the subject of council fire prevention officers and local government's role has come into it. Having had a bit to do with fire prevention officers over the years, I find this an interesting discussion point. My view is, and has been, that local government has far too much loaded onto it. There are some fire prevention officers who are outstanding, and one who comes to mind but is no longer in the role is Anthea Howard. She is absolutely outstanding. Others for one reason or another do not have the capacity of Anthea Howard.

My view is that local government is wearing far too much of the cost of having fire prevention officers within its jurisdiction. I do not think local government should have that impost put on them. Within my electorate—and, indeed, from the Fleurieu—people have been ringing me, saying that they have contacted various councils and fire prevention officers but that they are not getting enough answers or any response. By and large, that is a result of the fire prevention officers being far too busy to deal with everyone. Everyone's backyard means everything to them and they are concerned about things over the back fence.

I think it was suggested earlier that we should have random checks on properties in the Hills. Well, there are thousands of homes in the Hills. How we have random checks on thousands of homes I do not know. It is nonsense.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Wasn't it one of your side proposing that? Wasn't that Marty? Wasn't that Mr Hamilton-Smith?

Mr PENGILLY: It is absolute nonsense. Perhaps the Attorney-General could get his head out of the clouds in order to make a decent input into this debate, rather than make foolish remarks from the other side of the chamber. I do not think he has ever been to a fire in his life. I invite him to come out on a fire truck next time I go—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Mr PENGILLY: Fire prevention officers play a critical role, and I note some attention being given to the comments by the other side. I think we need to provide more support. I think the role of local government in the whole fire area has changed so much from the days when they rolled everything out to requests now. They do everything possible, but there is far too much for them to deal with. A couple of amendments have been floated and, indeed, they are now on our desk. I hope that the government, as I said earlier, does give some consideration to these amendments. In addition, the arrant stupidity of so many people in South Australia pales into insignificance. I just shake my head in disbelief—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Attorney-General is continually interrupting with inane interjections on a very serious matter. I ask you to call him to order.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Attorney will abide by the standing orders and refrain from interjecting, and speakers will refrain from responding.

Mr PENGILLY: As I was saying before the halt in proceedings, I regularly drive around city roads in the course of my business and I am astounded at the stupidity of people who continually throw their cigarette butts out the window. They do it not only in the city but also on country roads—they do it everywhere. One thing I would urge the government to do is to bring in legislation. I think the fine is $10,000 or something for doing that. I would make it 10 years in prison, quite frankly. Lock them up! It is a total nonsense and now, if I see them, I take their registration numbers and report them.

In February, they might be driving along Anzac Highway and throw their butt out the window but, on the weekend, they might be driving in the country somewhere and throw their butt out the window. That can turn into a serious fire incident and you can have scores, if not hundreds, of volunteers running around as a result of an act of stupidity such as that. It is one thing that perhaps the new board could talk about, that is, the tightening up of some of these things. I find it irresponsible and an act of vandalism, equivalent potentially to murder sometimes.

The volunteers and the people in the emergency services are the heart and soul of the wider community. Only a couple of weeks ago, I attended, along with the SAFECOM Board, a function at the Port Elliot emergency services facility. I think around 300 people attended, and it was a good night. It gave the opportunity for volunteers and businesses who support volunteers and personnel from the CFS, SES and MFS all to be recognised. It was a great occasion and I am very grateful that I had the opportunity to attend. However, I also point out that the people from Port Elliot said that there are three things you can recognise from the moon and one of them is the Port Elliot emergency services centre because of its pure size!

It was a good night and it was great to be able to talk to the volunteers—whatever particular emergency service they happened to be with—get their feedback on things, hear their concerns and listen to where they are coming from. The whole Fleurieu was involved. They came from Delamere, Cape Jervis, Yankalilla, Strathalbyn, Victor Harbor and a multitude of other places, so that was good.

Returning to the legislation (which, indeed, is the subject about which we should be talking this afternoon), by and large, the amendments involved are acceptable to this side of the house. I reiterate, for the sake of the government in its deliberations, that the bill has to be outcome-based. Once again, we can make all the amendments in the world but, if you are not going to achieve successful outcomes, then there is not much point in making changes in here, quite frankly. It will be beholden upon those who are in these senior positions—whether they are CEOs of emergency services, members of volunteer groups, the UFU nominee, or anyone else who happens to be on there—and it is a heavy responsibility. I know they do not take it lightly, and I do hope that they act in the best interests of everyday South Australians and in the best interests of the volunteers and emergency service personnel who have served this state so well.

It is tough getting volunteers into emergency services now; it is a tough job. When I went into the CFS in 1994 I think we had, from memory, around 19,000 volunteers; I understand that the number is now down to about 12,000 or 13,000 (although I will stand corrected on that). It is a tough job, and it is only made tougher by the number of people leaving the country to find work in the city; and it is also made tougher when you have to fill crews for the CFS, the SES, the ambulance and whatever.

It is very difficult, and people are not taking on the responsibility they used to take on; everyone used to be in it. Even in my own district, I know that there are people who cannot be bothered with it anymore—but let me tell you that they want you there pretty quickly if they have a fire; they expect you to get there pretty fast. The equipment level is also something that the CFS, in particular, has to grapple with all the time. In the Wisanger brigade we are still running around in a unit that is 20-odd years old (I think it is due for renewal)—and that is no criticism of it, because the fact is that it is still quite suitable.

I hope that whatever comes out of this legislation, when it goes through both houses, is acceptable to the wider community of volunteers and emergency services personnel in South Australia, and I hope it helps it to work more effectively.

Ms SIMMONS (Morialta) (12:42): I was not actually planning to speak on this bill but, after hearing the member for Finniss, I felt I wanted to contribute. Having been part of the caucus committee looking at this legislation, I have to say that I believe it is an extremely good bill. The member for Finniss has been quite personal and disparaging of the Attorney-General but—and I speak as a member of parliament who has been very involved with both the CFS and the MFS in my electorate—this legislation will provide new governance for everyone who has been providing this valuable service.

I believe it is very important that we pay tribute to both our paid and volunteer personnel in the MFS and the CFS. In recent months I have spent quite a considerable time involved with the new MFS station at Paradise, and I pay tribute to Angelo and his team there who are doing a fantastic job, particularly in the community. I have also long been involved with my CFS groups throughout the hills.

One of the important parts of this legislation is the discussion around urban bushfire risk areas, and Morialta is one of those electorates that is very definitely covered by this legislation. I have an urban area that stretches up into the hills and, as we have new buildings and new areas of development, tongues of what would be seen as the urban metropolitan area have now moved up into the hills area and are at risk. It is very important that we have both the MFS and the CFS working together, with significant interest in these urban bushfire risk areas.

Obviously I have a large portion of the hills as well, and CFS areas from Basket Range, Cherryville, Montacute, Norton Summit, and also in Athelstone. The Athelstone group, in particular, has talked to me about the increased risk that has developed for them since Athelstone, as a community, has moved up Gorge Road and become much more heavily populated. This legislation will take into account the sorts of risks that occur in an area where we have bushland or grassland adjacent to a quite strongly urban area.

Often there are very highly flammable fuel loads adjacent to quite urban areas nowadays and, particularly in my electorate, that is definitely the case. So, this legislation will be very valuable to both the MFS and the CFS in planning to get rid of some of the overgrown areas in a calculated and strategic way to minimise the risk to houses adjacent to grassland and bushland areas.

I am well aware of and acknowledge the amount of consultation that has gone on between our fire chiefs—Euan Ferguson for the CFS and Grant Lupton for the MFS—and all the communities that will be affected by the new legislation. The amount of consultation has been quite astounding and both our volunteers and paid staff have been able to have input into the legislation. I am very pleased therefore to be able to commend it to the house.

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (12:46): I rise to speak on this bill and indicate that I will support it. I hope that the government will see merit in recognising the significance of amendments that have been foreshadowed by the member for Kavel, as our spokesperson on this issue, and welcome them.

Much has been said about the process but, essentially, this is a bill which has come to the parliament subsequent to a comprehensive review. It follows endless inquiries that we have had over the last 10 years, both in this state and others. It follows tragic events, coronial inquiries, royal commissions and other commissions of inquiry, which are usually reactive to tragedies that occur arising out of bushfires or wildfires, and this is yet another. I am sick of reading reports; I am sick of going to funerals; I am sick of doing condolence motions; and I am sick of having to argue the case for more prevention, but I will go on doing that until this government listens to the importance of understanding—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms CHAPMAN: —how devastating this issue will continue to be for the lives and livelihood of South Australians if it goes without attention. It is one thing to introduce a bill which will review governance, which, ostensibly on the assurance of the government, will reduce three levels to two, and which will streamline, cost save, and all those sorts of things—I have heard those promises before. If the government delivers that, well done; I will congratulate it, and it can record that. I hope that it does deliver. I hope that this is not just another piece of window dressing for what is really important; that is, that the government implements what we decide in here in the legislation and in its own regulations and provisions.

I particularly draw attention to that, because we can have all the plans and all the reports in the world but, unless we act and make sure that we deal with not just preventative matters but actually implement the recommendations coming out of these reviews, there will continue to be carnage, devastation and the loss of livelihood, and the financial and personal detriment to citizens of this state will continue.

Andrew Faulkner is a journalist with the Eastern Courier. I represent the eastern area and, in fact, we are having a bushfire forum in Uraidla, which will be a new part of my electorate if I am to represent the people of Bragg after the 2010 election. It will extend the current area that I represent to the Adelaide Hills proper. In addition to having the Burnside CFS in association with the MFS help protect my communities, there will also be other Adelaide Hills CFS brigades that doubtless I will visit. Of course, I have already had the opportunity to meet with those people at Mount Barker for various reasons, but in the major zone that they now represent.

Just last month, Andrew Faulkner wrote in the Eastern Courier about the tragedy of the 16 February 1983 Ash Wednesday disaster, which he describes as 'a vile tragedy touching everyone in the community'. He goes on to explain how, as in many communities, there had been a personal family involvement in the area. He says:

One uncle—with no more than a tractor and an artful application of backburns and deep reserves of courage—single-handedly checked the fire front of his property boundary. Years of fuel reduction cool-burning on his side of the fence was a big help.

Later on in the article, Andrew Faulkner goes on to talk about why it is so important to recognise the benefit of cool burning, or planned or prescribed burns. Whatever the flavour, the bottom line is that they are burns which occur in a planned manner in cool climate conditions and which ensure that we reduce the fuel load and clean up the debris that is the life and fuel source for a fire in the event that it comes through in uninvited conditions. What he says is very important:

Of course not all the bush was torched every year. Fire touched the land every 15 years or so, in rotation. For whatever reason, fire as a preventative tool disappeared about 20 years ago.

He then goes on to say:

This seemed about to change when, at his 2003 bushfire summit, Premier Mike Rann promised to 'seriously look at the issue of fuel in and around our parks before we reach the next bushfire season'.

That was six years ago. Andrew Faulkner goes on to say:

Understandably, the Environment Department started slowly, burning about 30ha of 12,000ha of Adelaide Hills parks in 2003-04. By 2008-09 that total had rocketed up to—

wait for it—

84ha by my calculations, little more than a token effort.

Last May, Mr Rann announced an extra $4.5 million over four years for bushfire programs, which would include 'significant increases in burnoffs'. However, the budget papers released the following week instead showed a $1.4 million cut in this area. Subsequent checks with the department reveal this 'extra' money and other one-off payments not shown in the budget papers have returned the spending to par with 2008-09, at best.

The department aims to burn 650ha in the hills parks this spring and autumn on the way to an ongoing 1,000ha program annually in the hills. That is very encouraging but sadly the government has form in not living up to its hairy-chested promises on this topic.

He goes on to discuss the importance of that sort of burning, and he quotes the CSIRO and the Bushfires Cooperative Research Centre as being supportive of cool burning as a preventive tool. He then goes on to say:

Well in the 1970s of my childhood, fire was part of the Burnside environment. On Sundays men would burn little piles of raked leaves in street gutters. Every backyard had an incinerator. And in spring and autumn we'd look up to the hills when the familiar scent of burning eucalyptus drifted from the cool burns. We've become scared of fire. We must re-embrace it as a preventative tool.

Burning off is no silver bullet. It is no panacea. But how can anyone argue rationally against this basic premise—the more the fuel the hotter the fire? A final sobering thought, courtesy of Mr Holmes—

That is Allan Holmes, the chief executive of the environment department, who had been referred to earlier in the article—

As many as 6,000 homes have been built in the Ash Wednesday 'fire scar' since 1983.

Two weeks later, Andrew Faulkner wrote a follow-up to this article, which I think is worthy of reading into the record. He states:

Further to last fortnight's column about the State Government's timid approach to cool burning in Hills parks, more information has come to hand.

After a warm winter and a very dry early August-to August 20 just 13mm fell in Adelaide compared with the average 68mm—the bush was ripe for cool burning. On several days the conditions could not have been better. But alas, the Environment Department missed the opportunity. It will not start on its burning program in the hills before October. Stupendously, the department claims the bush floor was too wet to burn last month.

Victoria's Bushfire Royal Commission has found rigid bureaucracy contributed to the damage wreaked there last summer. It appears the South Australian bureaucracy's inflexibility is heightening the fire danger even before the hot weather arrives.

That is a sobering reflection on what the reality is. Looking back at the circumstances of the 2007 Kangaroo Island fires, much has been said in this parliament about that shocking devastation. After that absolute carnage and the loss of tens of thousands of acres of national park, in addition to private property, and including the tragic loss of the life of one young man, the carnage of our wildlife, both fauna and flora, is, I think, unmatched in the history of bushfires on Kangaroo Island.

During that time we had the 2004 and 2009 bushfire plans for the management of bushfires in parks, in particular cold burns. I have told this parliament before about the detail of the programs that were to be operated, but, of course, only a miniscule number of those have been undertaken. Here we are talking about passing more legislation that the minister sees as improved, streamlined, cost efficient, and all those things, with more plans and more zones, yet we are approaching 2010 and the Kangaroo Island plan is about to expire. We do not have another one there yet. I have not even seen a draft. There is not much point in having all these plans unless you not only action them but also have the courage to follow them through, and ensure that the money is there to follow up those programs, because they are not going to happen by themselves.

We can impose an obligation on private and public land owners as a part of this bill, but we have to be able to give them the capacity and the opportunity to carry out that responsibility, which, I agree with the government, is an important responsibility. It is not just for them, it is not just for their family, it is for their neighbours and it is for all those others in the community whose property or lives can be lost or destroyed in the event of the either negligent or wilful neglect, conduct or omission of an individual landowner, private or public.

I remember former ministers coming in to visit after the Kangaroo Island fires, and other speakers have spoken of a number of other people in the community who flew over to offer their support. We had equipment and air support. People came from far and wide. All of that was tremendous, but eventually they all went home. Politicians got into their cars and came back to Adelaide. Heads of departments had done their inspections and tours and they all left.

What was left? What was left was for that community—after a few million dollars was committed to paying for the direct costs—to bury that young boy, to rebuild fences, to put in insurance claims if they had any hope of recovery or had adequate insurance to deal with it, and then work day and night, for weeks and months, and still today, to recover from that mess. They are very expensive exercises.

Parliament needs to remember that the responsibility of government is to ensure that these things do not happen again, but also to have an understanding that its responsibility does not end when the fires have been put out, that it has an extended legacy to those devastated communities. We are not going to stop lightning. We cannot pass a law to stop lightning. We can pass laws to fine or even imprison careless campers, tourists, travellers in cars, or, as the member for Finniss said, people who throw butts out the windows, we can pass all those sorts of laws but the bottom line is that we are going to have fires, and they are deadly when there is a combination of fuel on the ground and weather conditions, particularly wind, prevailing at the time. I seek leave to conclude my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 12:59 to 14:00]


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