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 (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 3661.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (17:25): What is important, minister, is that you not only have the responsibility to progress the reform on governance and ensure there is a legislative responsibility on land owners (both private and public) but you also have the responsibility in cabinet to make sure that funding is available to do the things that are necessary for the public and private landowners to actually undertake their work. It is a question of funding, but it is very significant when it comes to public lands, because cold burnings cost money and dealing with adequate breaks costs money. On public land that is a public responsibility.

So that we do not have the carnage that we saw on Kangaroo Island—the absolute destruction of natural infrastructure and flora and fauna to which I have referred—it is necessary that the commitment is made. The answer to how that is dealt with is for you, minister. In the cabinet, when it is deciding that it will spend $47 million on carpet and cabling for a new headquarters for SA Water in Victoria Square or making a decision to spend $42 million to build a new film hub at the Glenside Hospital, you need to fight for the people of South Australia to get your share of the money to make sure those programs are undertaken.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: I have a point of order. The member for Bragg keeps referring to the minister in the second person singular when she should be addressing her remarks through the chair. Madam Deputy Speaker, you are not 'you' but, rather, Madam Deputy Speaker and the member for Bragg's remarks should be through you.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is sufficient. I understand and uphold the point of order and ask the member to address her remarks through the chair.

Ms CHAPMAN: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Attorney-General for his guidance because it is useful for a change. He is absolutely correct. It is the responsibility of the minister in cabinet to secure those funds.

The other thing you have to do when you present to us legislative reform of issues such as how we manage the Native Vegetation Act is to make sure that there is some sort of balance between the protection of our natural environment and adequate protection of those who might access and use it. For example, it is very important to remember that, while we will now impose this responsibility on landowners, the Native Vegetation Act has been used to date to intimidate people in the community into not actually undertaking the responsibility which we are about to impose on them.

I use myself as an example. In 2005 there was a fire on a property on Kangaroo Island and for part of that property I was the registered proprietor. That property had a cold burn done on it with a permit. The occupier of that property was my father. He had been managing that property for 55 years and he regularly ensured that cold burns were done. The fire occurred while he was alive and still in charge of the property. Nearly 18 months after he died the department of environment came along and said that we—that is, me and my brother and my sister (who own parts of this property but which I no longer own)—were responsible for breaches of the Native Vegetation Act. In that correspondence they were threatening to investigate, which they did. They threatened to prosecute. Eventually they gave up, but not after a considerable period and extraordinary cost, costs which I asked the department at least have the good grace to pay, but it has made no contribution.

I am not here to complain about that but I am here to tell the parliament, and in particular the minister, that it is important that individual people in the community are not intimidated by a regime of legislation or regulation, or the environmental police who prosecute and police it. Not only did they not pay in that instance but in December 2007, when a fire ravaged the parks on Kangaroo Island, including the Western River National Park (which borders the subject property to which I have referred today), not a word of thanks came from the department for environment for the huge tracks that had to be put through on that same property to protect all the landowners east of that property, which it did. Not a word of thanks from the department. What did they do in the end? They said, 'We will help rehabilitate some of that. We will pay half the cost.'

This shocking carnage to the environment occurred because the current legislation in respect of firebreaks is not adequate. It means that, at the time of the hot tempo of a fire and in a hurry, bulldozers have to go in, fences are cut and you wreck the environment. It is really important that the minister appreciates that we will impose a legal obligation on both public and private landowners today. As the minister responsible in cabinet, he has to ensure that the money is available for that to happen and that the people in the community who are private landowners—and separate from the obligation that he and his fellow cabinet ministers will have in managing public land—are not fearful of prosecution and that they take pride in their properties which they love. They enjoy living in those environments and they may earn a livelihood from it as well.

Many people in my electorate live in the Adelaide Hills. It is a beautiful environment in which to live, but a shocking hazard if you have a neighbour next to you, public or private, who fails to protect the rest of the community properly, for example, by leaving fuel to build up on that property. We could have all the reports in the world, I can keep going to funerals and I can keep coming into the parliament and screaming about this—and I will, if necessary—but this government now has the opportunity to ensure that we are protected. Prior to our passing this legislation allowing for governance reform to provide the efficiencies, the government needs to assure us that there is adequate funding and access for those landholders to undertake that responsibility.

Finally, in relation to the transfer of litigation to the industrial court, I am not satisfied on anything I have read, including the review document, as to why that is necessary or appropriate. I think some comments have been made on this already. However, it is pretty obvious that the government has announced that it will transfer many industrial relations matters to the commonwealth. I do not know whether this is to give the industrial court more work, but I think it is incumbent on the minister to explain to the parliament why it is appropriate that that area of litigation needs to transfer to that court.

Time expired.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (17:33): I rise to indicate that I will be supporting the bill and I commend the minister for bringing it to the house. I am sure the government cares about protecting the community from the risk of bushfire as much as the opposition, and I think we need to work together on this bill, if possible, to improve it. I represent the electorate of Waite, which includes the precinct of Belair. I noted earlier in the year media reports about modelling done by the CFS and the Victorian fire authorities over 10 years ago, but never publicly released, that claimed that more than 300 people would die in the first hour of a major bushfire in the Adelaide Hills because of terrain, fuels, a lack of awareness, panic and a lack of planning.

In the same reports, the media indicated that at least 50 people could die on the notorious Sheoak Road in Belair (within the electorate of Waite) either trapped in their homes or trying to flee in cars. I can confirm that there is a real concern about this in my constituency and that is why I will be supporting this bill. I think it is a step in the right direction, but perhaps it could go further. I will be moving an amendment to do that and I will refer to that in a moment.

The area of Belair is just one spot in the Adelaide Hills at risk of a Victorian-style disaster; if you can imagine, as has occurred in the past, multiple fires on an extreme day approaching Belair from the south, the west and the north, and possibly even from the east. We have had fires up Brown Hill Creek. We have had fires come up through Sleeps Hill. We have had fires coming up through the Belair National Park. It is conceivable they could come from the south as well.

There are few escape routes from Belair—the commonly known Windy Point Road, Old Belair Road, possibly down to the roundabout and down through Flinders. It is conceivable that thousands of people could be trapped on an extreme event day. I have no doubt there would be massive loss of life and massive damage to properties and housing. That is why I organised a public meeting in my electorate on 17 August at St John's Grammar to bring the community together.

I can report to the house that nearly 300 people attended that meeting and we canvassed a range of issues. It was drawn to the attention of the meeting that the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission report (which was tabled that same day) confirmed that 173 people had died, over 2,000 homes had been destroyed, 5,000 farm animals destroyed and 70 communities devastated. Sadly, it seems many of the recommendations in the Victorian bushfires report have been echoed in earlier reports.

I thank Euan Ferguson, the Chief Officer and CEO of the South Australian Country Fire Service, for attending that evening and speaking to the meeting. I also thank Chief Superintendent Silvio Amoroso who was in charge of the excellent Operation Nomad which involves police patrols visiting convicted firebugs. I think it is a very successful program. I also thank Ivan Brooks, the Mayor of Mitcham, for providing a local government perspective to some of the challenges we face. I think such meetings are very important in ensuring that the community is informed and that there is a two-way exchange of information.

I certainly came away from the meeting with the view that the state government should seek to complete and publicly release updated modelling of bushfire risks in the Adelaide Hills in extreme conditions. The Hills population has grown in recent years, and we need to know how many lives and homes are at risk. I know some of this modelling could be shocking and quite scary but I think shock and fear are appropriate. We use such methods in our road safety messages, and we use it for drug and alcohol prevention. I think there is a case to use it for bushfire prevention and preparation because a lot of people are not getting the message.

Based on that up-to-date modelling of extreme conditions risk, I think there should be a complete and full audit of our ability to respond and cope with the Victorian style and scale of bushfire disaster in the Adelaide Hills and new action to ensure that bushfire awareness and preparation plans (including local action plans by households, street by street, suburb by suburb) have been heard and acted upon by local communities.

There should be funding, in my view, to ensure that bushfire evacuation plans for schools, aged care centres, childcare centres and hospitals in high-risk fire zones are prepared and rehearsed. We need to start taking this really seriously and we need to start rehearsing some of these emergency measures.

Others have spoken about the positive measures in the bill: its replacement of the three-tiered framework for bushfire mitigation down to a two-tiered system; providing the ability to establish bushfire risk areas in urban communities; replacement of the current advisory board, etc. All of those are good measures. I would observe, though (and I made this point at the briefings and I thank the government and the officers who attended) that I think the tenor of the bill is very much the protection of property where my prime focus is on the protection of lives which I think is implicit in the bill but which needs to be enunciated more clearly, in my view, and that is why I will be moving an amendment.

I want to bring the attention of the house to some excellent work done by the Parliamentary Library on this subject. In its work 'A Survey of Bushfire Report and Inquiry Findings: South Australia, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory'by Dr Robert G. Richardson, who was a contract research officer, the parliamentary library has drawn to the parliament's attention that bushfire awareness and preparation stand out as the key challenges in preventing these disasters. I want to quote from some of this research because I think it is very pertinent and, sadly, it foreshadows recommendations contained in the royal commission's findings in Victoria.

It seems that governments around the country and communities learn the same lessons over and over again, fire after fire, yet we never seem to quite get it right in terms of preventing those tragedies from recurring. For example, on page 1 of the report, the parliamentary library observes that in the wake of the disastrous South Australian Ash Wednesday bushfires in 1983, the 'Report of the Review Team on the South Australian Bushfires'concluded that an effective emergency management plan must ensure that citizens are adequately prepared for a bushfire.

I think these are very pertinent words. It is not the 300 people who turned up at my public meeting really that we need to get the message through to. They are motivated enough to come and learn and listen. It is the vast apathetic silent majority that I fear are not getting the message. They may be getting material in their letterbox and they may be hearing the message but are they listening to the message? Is it really sinking in? I fear that some of these people will be the ones who panic on the day, who make the wrong decisions on the day and who die on the day because we have not made them listen.

The parliamentary work shows that the events of Ash Wednesday demonstrated that the tendency of some residents to rely almost entirely on the state's overstretched firefighting services was ultimately impractical and that lives and property could have been better protected if residents had implemented appropriate precautionary measures. They did not. In support of greater bushfire awareness, the review team after the Ash Wednesday fires recommended that South Australian households be issued with an emergency handbook detailing essential bushfire prevention and management strategies.

If we issue such handbooks, it is implicit that we need a method to ensure that it is being used, that it is being held, that it is in the houses, that people are listening and using that handbook. There is no point issuing things that then finish up in the rubbish bin. Indeed, the first formal review into bushfire prevention management since 1983, the 2007 Ministerial Review of Bushfire Management in South Australia, acknowledged that a public education program was crucial in reducing the risk of another Ash Wednesday disaster.

It was also found that a more cooperative and coordinated response was deemed to be warranted, including wider stakeholder and community engagement and improved public fora aimed at providing a broader perspective on bushfire management values and local knowledge. In contrast to the Inquiry into the Operational Response to the January 2003 Bushfires in the ACT, that work conceded that Canberra residents had 'not been sufficiently well prepared to understand the nature of the bushfire risk' associated with their city's bushland setting.

It is important to recall that. The residents had not been sufficiently well prepared. They may have been educated, they may have had material put in their letterbox but they were not prepared. Many of them died as a result. The ACT Fire Authority's inability to guarantee emergency assistance during the extensive 2003 bushfire crisis prompted the inquiry to argue that householders need to recognise the importance of adopting robust prevention and mitigation strategies and practices. How do we get the message through? How do we make people listen? How do we help them to help themselves? It is not just their ignorance that will cause their death; it will also kill their children, possibly their neighbours and others for whom they are responsible.

The report of the Bushfire Review Committee previously resolved that it may, in fact, be necessary to apply the force of the law to ensure that appropriate self-protection measures, such as an assured water supply, are adopted. That was in the report of Bushfire Review Committee on page 53; it is covered page 3 of the parliamentary committee's work.

The parliamentary committee's work goes on to talk about operational inadequacies and fuel reduction strategies. I notice that fuel reduction strategies are prominent in the bill, but I think there is a need to focus a little more on the need to protect and save lives. I will come back to that point. The parliamentary library's work talks about public warning systems and shortcomings, and others have mentioned that in this debate so far. It discusses evacuation—should I stay or should I go? It talks about training inadequacies, equipment concerns and inadequate maps and the recovery process after a fire, all of which are lessons that we must learn.

The parliamentary library's work highlights the key issues raised in various South Australian, Victorian and Australian Capital Territory bushfire reports and inquiries since 1983. As I mentioned, a lot of it is repeated in the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. The reported inadequacies of the past and existing bushfire prevention and management strategies are of particular significance as it was initially revealed that a lack of bushfire awareness and an over-reliance upon limited state and territory firefighting resources was detrimental to community safety. In response, the reports and inquiries favoured more intensive emergency service community engagement, backed by a clear and consistent education campaign aimed at encouraging residents to exercise greater self-reliance. I agree with all that, and I see signs of that in the bill.

Of course, when one turns to the royal commission's work—and I was particularly attracted to recommendation 7.1—one sees the need for the CFA (the CFS, in our case) to revise the publications and programs by which it communicates with the community about preparing for bushfires and what to do in the event of a bushfire; the need to reinforce existing advice to community members so that they prepare and decide well before a fire occurs; the need to clearly convey principles; the safest option is always to leave early rather than to stay and defend; that not all homes are defendable, that unless a property is defendable the advice is to leave early; that the impact of topography, fire weather and fire intensity on defendability should be factored into household assessments; and that the risk of staying to defend includes the risk of physical injury and death.

We need to remind people that these fires kill or injure them or their loved ones. The contingencies are needed as the best-made plans may fail; but, even if the plan is to stay, preparations to enable leaving should also be made, including the preparation for a relocation kit, specifying the location of the designated community fire refuges. I completely reject the notion that they are not needed; they are needed, and the Victorian royal commission confirms that it is so. There could be psychological impact in staying to defend property, and it is advisable for children not to be present during the defence of properties. We need to hear and listen to these recommendations, otherwise we are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past.

I have scoured the CFS website and note so much of its excellent material, which is being made available to householders. One article is entitled, 'The Bushfire Guide: prepare to stay and defend or go early'. I note that there is detail on a guide to bushfire survival, how to plan to survive, on bushwalking, on-the-road information, camping and houseboats. In particular, excellent information is provided on the website—and I know that some of it has been distributed to letterboxes either in CD form or in print—on a bushfire action plan, house by house, street by street, what you should do—stay or go—how to draw up your bushfire action plan.

If you decide to go early the material gives a lot of boxes to tick, checklists to examine. It covers how to prepare for your safety, what to do as the fire approaches the vicinity of your property, what to do as the fire front arrives, after the fire has passed, emergency numbers, actual fire days, spaces for you to personally note what you should do, how you adapt these principles and rules to your own home.

'A bushfire action plan will increase your survival chances', the material states. It has a wealth of information on how to save your life and the lives of your children, and how to save your property from destruction. The trouble is that so much of this material has gone straight into people's rubbish bins, I regret to say. That is very evident by the lack of community awareness and knowledge.

I think this bill needs a little bit more grunt. I do not want to be sitting at home or on the golf course in 10 years' time to be told that an Ash Wednesday, Victorian-type extreme event has swept through the hills of Belair, which I once represented, and that hundreds or even thousands of people have been killed, maimed and injured. I want my conscience clear. For that reason, I will move an amendment, which is on file, to add the words 'to minimise the threat to human life from fire on the land' into a range of clauses within the bill, to refocus the bill on the need to save lives.

I would like to go further. I would like to see a requirement for bushfire action plans to be maintained by each household by law with some form of penalty if they fail to maintain them. I think we need to stop pussyfooting around. I heard the member for Fisher earlier echoing a similar sentiment. A certain group of people are not listening. I stopped short of proposing that specifically in my amendment but I hope that my amendments (if agreed to) will empower the relevant authorities to go that one step further if they are of the view that it is required.

I think we need to give our emergency services, for whom we are eternally grateful, greater authority to say to people that they must listen and do this to protect themselves and their children for their own good. There needs to be some form of obligation upon them to do so. This bill is full of mandatory provisions about what they must do to clear their properties and reduce fuel loads, but there is not a lot in it to insist that they think about their own bushfire action plan. I think there should be.

As I said, I stopped short of proposing more detailed amendments; rather, I have proposed a more general amendment simply to refocus it on the loss of life, because I fear that there will be loss of life. Nothing is more inevitable. I commend the bill and I support it. I congratulate the government for bringing the bill forward and I look forward to working with it constructively.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (17:54): I will be supporting this bill and I have taken on board the contributions of some of the speakers before me. I have not experienced (and I do not want to experience) a devastating bushfire similar to Ash Wednesday or the events in Victoria recently. That is something we do not want to do. I am sure that every member in this house and the other place are aware of this, and we want to be able to work together to ensure that this amendment bill for the fire and emergency services review is the best it can be and that all key stakeholders have a say in it.

As the member for Waite has indicated—and I listened with great interest to his comments—and he is correct: how do we educate people and get the message across? It is a very simple thing to talk about it, but how do we get the message over to all the people out there? In my short time in parliament, I have noted the expertise of people similar to the member for Stuart and others who have experienced bushfires first-hand. As I said, I have not experienced one and I do not want to; however, from an outsider's point of view, I feel for those affected by bushfire when I see them on the TV or hear about them. It is not only the loss of property or livestock: it is the loss of the lives of people and the scars that remain for most people who may not be physically affected but mentally affected for the rest of their lives.

I want to express my gratitude to the people who go out and fight the fires. We have paid firefighters for the MFS but we also have volunteers throughout all of South Australia, not only for the fires but also emergency services. They are volunteers who go out of their own accord in their own time. I know from my own experience of an accident that personally affected me some 18 years ago, the volunteers who went out there are still coming to terms with that after 18 years. I want to compliment the volunteers publicly to ensure that they are recognised and that they have the right equipment as we go forward with this bill.

There are numerous areas to deal with, one of which has been expressed by Mayor Peter Davis during the Port Lincoln bushfires regarding the clearing of native vegetation. I think we need to look at that with common sense because sometimes if you want to be able to clear it to prevent a fire, you are subject to restrictions, and I think we need to look at that going forward.

As I indicated earlier, we need to have very well presented and reliable equipment, not only for the mobile units but also the communication equipment to ensure that, as we go forward, we protect everybody and everybody can communicate well. As the member for Waite indicated, we also have to be very well prepared. How we get that information out to the people, I am not sure.

I have been listening to the previous speakers and I also have a list of proposed amendments here which will be discussed as we go through. As I go around my electorate, I talk to the people I believe have that first-hand knowledge of what exactly happens in an area. I have said it before: I liaise with my local government areas, and in my electorate I have five. I have liaised with those people; they are at the coalface. They can tell you exactly how they feel. In that regard, I am very impressed that, from what I understand, there has been fairly wide communication regarding this bill. If that is the case, congratulations.

One of the things I have a concern about is that I have been speaking to my local councils and they have said that, through the central Local Government Association and their own locally, they have been discussing this for some time. I have a concern that this will be a separate issue, but I will not discuss it here today. Today I received a document from the Local Government Association regarding some amendments they would like to put forward, and that was sent to three Independent members of this house, the Minister for Emergency Services and the shadow minister. Those amendments—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Surely four Independent members.

Mr BROCK: They were sent to three Independent members; one was missed out. As I indicated, that is a separate issue but those suggested amendments have been taken up by the member for Mitchell in his amendments.


[Sitting suspended from 18:00 to 19:30]


Mr BROCK: In closing, I want to say that I know every member of this house, irrespective of their politics or party lines, wants the best outcome from this bill when we are finished debating it. Not one of us here knows everything, and we all learn from each other. I know that I listen and learn from other people, gather whatever information I can from the debates and try to make the best decisions with my vote at the end of the day. I have listened, and will listen, to all speakers and all the amendments and, hopefully, at the end of the day, we will achieve the best outcome for all concerned. I commend the bill to the house.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (19:31): I want to make a short contribution to this debate. As has been indicated, the Liberal Party supports the bill. We have some amendments that I know the minister will consider with great care, and I look forward to his taking those amendments on board.

The history of my involvement with both the MFS and CFS goes back a number of years. In fact, some of my earliest memories are of the South Australian Fire Brigade. My late father Malcolm was involved in the MFS, and I remember when he was the first officer at the Elizabeth Fire Station—I am not quite sure when, but in the early 1960s. They had a fire siren then and the men had to turn up when the fire siren went off. It was almost a combination of the MFS and CFS system. Over the years, the MFS has been a big part of my life and I pay my respects to all its members and, in particular, the chief officer, Grant Lupton, who I know is dedicated to the MFS.

The CFS has also been a huge part of my life. I remember as a student at Salisbury Primary School the then Salisbury EFS was just across the road. The siren would go and you could not hear what the teacher was saying (which was a bit of a blessing at times), and one of the young lads from the school would go across and open the shed, and away things would go. When I was older we moved away from the state, and we came back in the early 1980s and moved to Kangarilla and became part of its community. Like most community members, we wanted to become involved in the community, and I joined the Kangarilla CFS. In those days we had some old Bedford and Ford trucks and an old water tanker. How things have changed! I was down there recently for the annual general meeting and the new modern equipment that the CFS has is a credit to it. There are still some issues, but the CFS certainly still has a huge part to play in the protection of life and property in South Australia.

Can I say, however, that the cooperation between the MFS and the CFS has, from my experience, never been better. For a while, when I had a veterinary practice at Happy Valley, I had the privilege of being involved with the Happy Valley CFS and was its captain for a short time. We were involved with the CFS at St Marys and across at O'Halloran Hill in a mutual aid program, and that worked exceptionally well. We see in this bill the declaration of urban bushfire risk areas and there is no better example of that than in the foothills around Happy Valley, Aberfoyle Park, Flagstaff Hill, across the road to O'Halloran Hill and down towards Seacombe Heights. It is an area that has burnt on many occasions, and will burn again, unfortunately, but the cooperation between the MFS and CFS is something to be regarded. There has always been a bit of chiacking. When my father was in the MFS we occasionally had a few jokes at the expense of the EFS, as it was then, but I think it worked both ways. The 'mufs'—as members of the MFS were referred to sometimes—were always working together for better outcomes for the community.

This bill introduces some changes. There is an increased emphasis on cooperation between the MFS and the CFS and that is a significant enhancement of what has been happening already for a number of years.

I need to make a few points tonight. I want to emphasise that within the CFS there is a real change in the demographics of the urban areas, peri urban areas and even some rural areas where trying to get people to become members of the CFS is becoming more of an issue, and I believe having flexibility in the requirements for training is an issue.

For example, I did a series of courses when I was actively involved in the CFS. We now have a small property at Meadows. I have a heavy truck driver's licence and I have rejoined the Kangarilla CFS. I need to go to training and update my level 1 firefighters training in order to refresh myself but, at the same time, I do not want to go running to the bottom of Onkaparinga Gorge on the end of a one inch line at my age, thanks very much. I am more than happy to get into the tanker, which requires a heavy truck driver's licence, and drive it if they require my services.

People like me and a lot of other people throughout the community can participate in a limited way when things really hit the fan. There are moves to increase the flexibility for volunteers to participate. I think that is a good move and I encourage Euan Ferguson, who is doing an excellent job as the CFS officer, to embrace the changes because one day we will need everyone we can possibly get to assist, but those people must be capable of doing the task that is asked of them and, hopefully, no more than is asked of them at the time.

Let us not forget the SES, either, because its members are crucial in backing up the MFS and CFS on many occasions. Through David Place and SAFECOM the coordination comes together. This bill will improve the way in which services are coordinated and, hopefully, the way in which planning for major events is coordinated. We just need to look across the border to see what happened on Black Saturday to realise what could have been here because we had similar fire conditions here that day. Of course, we do not have to go too far back in history to remember Ash Wednesday and the foundation of the EFS (emergency fire service) in 1939.

This bill will assist fire planning in South Australia because one day it will happen here. People do not seem to realise that, but one sees the evidence of that when one drives around the Adelaide Hills. For example, when I was a member of Happy Valley CFS each spring you would go to places at the back of Cherry Gardens. You could drive the truck into some areas but, if it was an emergency, you would be reluctant to go in there, although you would warn people about the potential danger they were in. We need to make sure the planning is there, not only at a state and local government level but also at a personal level. This bill will assist all that pre-planning.

I must admit that there may be opportunities for this to happen now, but as a new chum in the CFS and then later on as an officer, one of the integral parts of training was undertaking burn-offs; which involved burning off people's properties, clearing properties and also carrying out hazard reduction, especially along roadsides. That played a vital part in not only getting people used to operating the equipment—the pumps and the hoses—but also watching fire behaviour as well. It was a vital part of training. I would like to see that sort of opportunity re-introduced as part of training because there is a real need for firefighters to experience first-hand how hot and dangerous fires can be, and I do not think you realise how much that radiant heat can affect you until you feel it first-hand.

We did have a scrub fire in the sandhills at Somerton Park last summer, so we do have scrub fires. There was a fire in the trees and grass by Minda Home. When you drive from our place to this little property we have at Meadows, you travel through Dashwood Gully and along Brooklyn Road. There is phalaris a metre high and as thick on both sides of the road, and it is ready to go. I would have thought that it would not be a terrible thing to allow the CFS to burn off that as part of their training and reduce the fire load.

People collect firewood along the roadside. Apparently, you need to obtain a special permit to do that. I would have thought you would be encouraging people to pick up bits of firewood along roadsides to reduce the hazards along what might become vital thoroughfares not only for the local residents but also for members of the emergency services if they are going from property to property. I hope that is something that will be reconsidered and allowed under either legislation or regulation.

In relation to the urban bushfire areas, this is a terrific thing. It is a vital move. Having lived at Happy Valley, I have seen the urban rural interface changing dramatically. When travelling through Blackwood, the Sturt Gorge and then up through Cherry Gardens and across to Trott Park and Sheidow Park, one sees that the number of houses has increased dramatically.

We attended a fire at Trott Park once. The wind was blowing in from the north. It started in the paddocks by Glenthorne Farm, and we lost one shed. Again, there was great cooperation between the MFS and the CFS to stop the fire. It was a stinking hot day and a hell of a north wind. There was a row of houses with grass behind them, and if it was not for the quick action of the CFS and the MFS on that day, a number of houses could have been lost.

That interface exists in so many places. From Gawler down to the south, there are so many interfaces between what was a rural environment and what is now rural urban interface. It will be a good thing to have special areas designated where there will be an emphasis on setting up plans not only to reduce the hazards but also to implement plans for fire suppression and emergency response.

The opposition is proposing some amendments to the numbers of representatives of various organisations on some of the structures that are being set up, but I think this is a good move. We know that we are all living in a sunburnt country and we do not want to live with unnecessary risk. We all live with some degree of risk when you live in the country or on the urban interface, but now, at least with this legislation, we will be seeing some positive moves. I support the bill before the house, and I hope that the amendments will be supported as well.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (19:44): This bill streamlines the bodies which have overall supervision and consideration of bushfire risk mitigation in South Australia. It is a beneficial bill, and I support what the government is doing in general terms with this legislation. There are numerous minor changes which I do not need to specify.

What I would like to say in general terms is that the issue of bushfires affects a lot more South Australians than some people in the city think. That may be because people living in the suburbs have relatives in the country or perhaps they came from the country themselves. It may be because there are parts of the city that are at risk of fire due to arson or other risks during hot weather.

In my own case, I do clearly remember the 1983 fires. I was in Sydney at the time and somebody said, 'Aren't you concerned about the fires around Adelaide?' and because I was not familiar with what was in the news, I laughed it off. I thought, 'Well, you know, my family all live in the suburbs of Adelaide; they're not going to be in any danger,' but in fact the fires came down Greenhill within a few hundred metres of my grandparents' place at Burnside. It just shows that no-one can take the safety of their house and their person for granted.

Secondly, in my electorate of Mitchell, which covers the Marion and Reynella districts, there are substantial patches of land that are prone to fire risk. The geographical feature of O'Halloran Hill is pretty well in the centre of my electorate these days, and there is a lot of grassland in the Field River Valley and the surrounding areas. Indeed, just last summer, I think, arsonists lit a fire which came very close to the houses of people in Trott Park and Sheidow Park. I just want to underline the fact for my constituents that I speak on this bushfire legislation because it does affect so many South Australians, even those in metropolitan Adelaide.

The other feature that I mention at this point is that, very late in the day, I received communication from the Local Government Association. The submissions that it had put to the minister and also sent to me make a lot of sense. The one quote that I will make from its submission is as follows:

The LGA has not been engaged at a ministerial level to address issues of concern, nor is it aware of any proposed amendments that the government may wish to make as a result of feedback from consultations.

The LGA has suggested that there are some issues that need to be addressed. I should put this in context by saying that this is a bill that necessarily involves councils in South Australia. The fire prevention officers who are referred to in the bill are appointed by the council, so council oversight of what is going on in the area of bushfire risk prevention is an integral feature of this legislation. I am indebted to parliamentary counsel for this morning drafting a series of amendments which I will deal with in detail when we consider the clauses one by one.

The minister might well say that he has not had much time to consider the suggestions made by the LGA, but I humbly underline the point that, with the limited resources I have, I have been able to draft a set of amendments and consider the issues that have been raised by the LGA, so I sincerely hope that the minister is well briefed and is able to not only speak to the various issues but also support them. It would be great to resolve these relatively straightforward issues tonight. Most of the amendments touch on aspects of council involvement in the whole process and, as I have said, the role of councils is crucial in bushfire mitigation.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (19:49): In speaking to the Fire and Emergency Services (Review) Amendment Bill, I do not intend to repeat a lot of the comments made by our lead speaker (the member for Kavel), who has outlined the opposition's position, but I do want to take the opportunity to comment on fire and fire management generally.

As the minister knows, I already have four or five bills before the house that go to the question of fire and fire management, what to do with arsonists and all those sorts of questions. I hope the government finds a way to support one or two of them. I think tonight's debate illustrates the need for another bill similar to legislation which was introduced in another place but which was defeated here; that is, the need for a permanent parliamentary committee in relation to fire. This bill, for example, could have gone before the permanent parliamentary committee and been examined at length by that committee with recommendations to the parliament about the implications. I think the parliament would have been far better informed had that process occurred.

I want to raise a few issues in relation to fire generally. Like other members, I held a public meeting (from memory it was about two years ago) that Mr Ferguson and other members of the CFS attended. The reason I held it was to try to raise public awareness about the danger of fires. Of course, that was before the Victorian fires. I am pleased to see that in this bill the people responsible for the bushfire management plans will also have a role in running forums to maintain public education and awareness of fire. I suspect that those forums are better run by the CFS rather than by local politicians, including me. I think the experts should run them and that the elected officers should go along to become better informed. That is probably a better model, which is as it is proposed in the bill; I think they have probably got that right.

I want to comment on the public debate about fire. I get very nervous after a fire, because we have, in my view, a fairly uninformed media that goes out and runs all sorts of comments from all sorts of people who tend to be uninformed and tend to put out some very dangerous messages. I think there is a real issue for the CFS and the public generally about the exact nature of the message that needs to be remembered and communicated in relation to fire. I want to give a couple of examples.

My understanding, from all the advice I have had, either as minister for emergency services for a short time and, since then, from the CFS, is that in a bushfire other than not being in the area the next safest place to be is in your house. That is according to worldwide research in any jurisdiction in the world that has fire. Whether that is California, Greece, Victoria, Western Australia or South Australia, the safest place to be, if you can not be out of the district, is inside a building and, preferably, in this case, I would argue, your house.

I think I am right in saying that in South Australia the Wangary fires killed 12 or 13 people, from memory. I think 13 were killed, 12 of whom were trying to escape the fire in their vehicles, and one died of a heart attack; or, it might have been 12 killed with 11 trying to escape and one who died. The houses of those killed remained standing. In Victoria, of course, some will argue that over 100 were killed in their fire, and many in their houses. There needs to be an examination of that. You have to ask the question: how many actually stayed in the house and survived? And then work out a percentage. I suspect that the number killed in their houses compared to the people who stayed in their house, numbers-wise, would be a relatively low percentage.

The CFS will tell you that the worst place you can possibly be in a fire is your car, because the modern plastics are very combustible; and you are gone. What concerns me in this whole debate is whether we should have community refuges. If we educate the community to think that in the face of a fire they can go to a community refuge, we are inviting them to jump in their car and go to a community refuge. Most of them will do that at the wrong time; that is, when the fire is too close to them. It is one thing to do it in the morning before the fire starts or the instant the siren goes; although, some of the CFS local volunteers will say that once a siren goes it is too late and you should stay in your house.

The media have been running this debate about whether we should have community refuges, and I ask the question whether we are smart putting out there this concept that you can build a recreation centre (or whatever the community building is going to be) to an appropriate standard and then, in the middle of a fire or a community facing a fire, we are going to encourage people to jump in their car and race to the refuge.

The member for Waite had a very good public meeting at the St John's School gym which 300 people attended and, for those people who went, trying to get a car park close to the school hall was difficult. It was a very long walk because of the number of vehicles there but only 300 people went to the meeting. These community refuges are going to invite people to take a risk, and you have to ask yourself the question whether you want to invite them into their vehicles at that point in time.

It is a really interesting debate about what message we should send to the community about fire. Call me an old conservative, but I think the message has been—

Mr Piccolo: Anything else?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: And a few other things but they are unparliamentary. I think the message has been right for decades, and that is stay in your home. Stay or go; but if you are going to stay, you need to be in your home, not your vehicle. I think the house is the right place and the safest place. At the end of the day, the communication message is a matter for the CFS. I just raise the issue: the more you encourage people to think that they can jump in the car and go to a community refuge raises another risk, particularly for people who have not seen a lot of fire because they will think they can race to school, pick up little Johnny and Mary and then go to the refuge. There would be 200 parents converging on a school or child centre, then trying to race off to a refuge. I suggest that is going to invite some major issues. In my view, the last place you would want to be is in your vehicle.

I think the message has to be one of individual responsibility. This bill is about structuring the management of fire and what the government, agencies, local councils and bushfire committees, etc., can do. But here is the brutal reality of fire in the Adelaide Hills and my electorate and adjoining electorates in the Mitcham Hills in particular: there are 9,000 homes and 22,000 voters, so there must be about 40,000 or 50,000 people at least in the Mitcham Hills, and there are 15 fire units. Fifteen fire units and 9,000 homes? You do not have to be a Rhodes scholar to work out that on those bad fire days you are very much left to your own devices and you are very much left to face the risk of your own level of preparation prior to the fire starting and being there on your doorstep.

I think the message that the government and media have to put out is: start taking responsibility for your own property, for your own actions, and stop relying on the government to do everything for you. You do not have to be a Rhodes scholar to work out that, with 9,000 homes and only 15 fire units, the CFS will not be at the top of every street and every driveway. Quite rightly, they have a more strategic approach to fighting major fires, so that is not a criticism of the CFS.

The issue about the message, to me, is the key issue. That is not in this bill to any large extent but the key issue in fighting fire, in my view, is the message that the parliament, the media and the CFS deliver to the broad community day in, day out of what they are expected to do prior to, and in the face of, a fire. That, to me, is the key issue. To a degree, everything else is fighting the emergency (as in the fire itself) but what the 40,000 or 50,000 people are going to do becomes a key issue of whether we lose one person or 1,000 people in a fire.

I raise for your consideration, minister and others, the issue that I do not think we are serious enough in relation to delivering the message in the hours of absolute emergency fire situations. I am not talking about outside of the fire; I am talking about when the fire starts and is raging and the CFS needs to get a message out to the broad community. My view is that Euan Ferguson (the head of the CFS) should have the power to instruct every media outlet in the state—every radio and TV station—to broadcast a uniform message of his description, at a time of his choosing, and at a regularity of his choosing.

For instance, on the really bad Ash Wednesday days (as happened in Victoria), why would we not want the head of the CFS to be able to instruct all TV and radio stations at the same time to say, 'Fire in these postcodes; too late to evacuate'—or whatever the message is going to be? Currently we have an arrangement, an MOU with 891 and, I think, FIVEaa. With all due respect that is nice but if you happen to be watching Days of Our Lives or using your computer or listening to an FM station, it is not a lot of good to us.

I am of the view that we should give the head of the CFS an opportunity, only when he thinks fit (which will be on the really bad days) to instruct every media outlet to broadcast a message as required so that it is clear. The message might be, 'Really bad fire in this postcode; all other postcodes don't have to panic.' It could be as simple as that. Leave that to the experts. What I am concerned about is how we get the message out.

Mike Pearce, from the Sturt brigade, has raised a concept with me (and I do not take the credit for this, it was all his idea) which I think is worth investigating. He argues that we should have, for instance, the FM88 radio station as a stand-alone broadcast emergency station or similar so that, on bad fire days, everyone tunes to that one station. You could have a CFS officer there regularly broadcasting direct information from the front as to exactly what people are doing. If the siren goes you tune to FM88 and the officer may say, 'The siren has just sounded. It will be 10 minutes before we have any more information. Start preparing your bushfire action plans. It is in this general area.' When the brigade gets there it radios back to him and he may then say, 'The wind is taking it northerly. It is going to affect these suburbs. In other suburbs you don't need to worry.' It minimises the panic and it informs the residents instantly about what is going on.

In all of this fire management issue, what I am concerned about—and there is the general preparedness, yes; the clearing of vegetation and all that sort of thing, yes—is how, from the minute the siren goes, and onwards during the fire, we get a consistent message out. That is one of my major concerns. I think Mike Pearce has hit on a good idea that needs some investigation.

Another issue is that under section 73A of this bill I note that the bushfire management plans are going to give the bushfire management committees (or whatever their new name is) the power to impose standards and specifications into the plans for people to take action. That, to me, means that they will be able to say, 'All the houses in a postcode have to retrofit insulation or retrofit sprinklers onto the house or retrofit double glazing,' or a whole range of other specifications. This is going to be signed off only by the state bushfire management committee and the minister, not by cabinet and not by the parliament.

The parliament and the cabinet are forfeiting to these bushfire committees the whole process of specifying building requirements and property requirements under these bushfire management plans. I am wondering why we are doing that, in that sense. I will be asking the minister to perhaps comment on that when we come to the committee stage.

On another issue, I am pleased that the government has picked up the principles that I put in a bill in 2003, about council land and crown land and having a notification process back through the minister to the various agency owners of that land. I do not know why it has taken six years for the government to pick up on that idea but it has done it, so I thank the government for taking up the idea I suggested six years ago. If we had a permanent committee of the parliament I suggest that we would have adopted the idea a lot earlier.

In relation to commonwealth land, I know we cannot regulate that land, but (and this was raised, in a broad sense, by the Hon. John Dawkins in another place) we could give Mr Ferguson's agency the power to write to the federal ministers, or an instruction that if the agency was of the opinion that a piece of commonwealth land was becoming a bushfire risk it must write to the commonwealth minister advising him of that. So we will at least have done everything we can; we cannot force the commonwealth to clean it up, but we can have the head of the CFS, or an authorised officer, write to the commonwealth minister. That could be put in the bill, with an instruction that if the agency forms that view about commonwealth land it should be instructed to write to the federal minister concerned.

They are just a few comments in relation to fire and the bill in general. I still argue that we are doing the state, the parliament and the community a disservice if we think that parliament does not need a permanent committee on fires. What we do not want to happen out of all this is for the Victorian fires to die off into the past and everyone go back to a comfortable and complacent view on fires—until the next major one. Look at what happens, in any state: major fire; review; recommendations; government tables a response; then the parliament goes to sleep until the next fire. I believe there are very good, sound policy reasons for the parliament to have a permanent committee to keep abreast of all the reforms and policies about fire worldwide, to make sure that we are prepared as best we can be and that we are all sending the right message. What concerns me is that we are not consistently sending the right message.

The member for Waite mentioned the issue of compulsory fire management plans, and I know that that is his view and not the party view. He is certainly at liberty to raise it, and I have no criticism of it, but I do not support the policy of compulsory fire management plans. I think it becomes a very costly exercise to try to supervise who has a plan and who has not. I still come back to the fact that the public message is the key issue, and I advocate that we should give Mr Ferguson more power to dictate that public message in relation to the media.

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (20:08): Complacency has been a major cause of the devastation from fires that we have seen across Australia and, therefore, I am pleased that the review required in the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005, to be undertaken two years after its commencement, has ensured that all the issues pertaining to fire have been looked at. This subsequent bill has been put in place to, hopefully, improve upon it.

However, just the fact that a review was required to be undertaken ensured that the complacency that occurred after the Tulka fire, and many others in the past, did not mean that more deaths had to occur before the act's effectiveness was assessed. There were 49 recommendations made as a result of this review, many of which did not require legislative changes. It also gave the government the opportunity to make changes that arose from the ministerial review of bushfire management in South Australia and the coronial inquest into the Wangary fires.

Another assessment two years after this act's commencement is, in my view, essential to again look at compliance, as well as at other improvements that may be needed in the prevention and mitigation of fires, and I was disgusted, therefore, when this review was not written into the bill. I ask that the government reconsider its decision, and support the Liberal opposition's amendment to section 149 to ensure that this review will be undertaken in 2012, and/or that we have a permanent committee on fires, as suggested by the member for Davenport in his motion (to which I have already spoken in support).

Fuel load management in particular is still of grave concern to me despite 16 years in this place, being regularly reassured that more burn-offs will be undertaken, as I note is being done again in today's Advertiser in an article entitled, 'Mega burn-off drive to reduce bushfire menace'. I note in the article that some burn-offs scheduled for 2008-09 could not be completed and would be done as part of this year's program.

I would like the minister to advise the house why these were not undertaken last year, and will he guarantee that they and the burn-offs scheduled for this year will actually be done? I suspect the lack of trained personnel was, and will be at least part of the reason why adequate burn-offs were not completed. I believe that this was, in part, the reason why the burn-off of Kathia Park on Northside Hill overlooking Port Lincoln was not completed last year, leading to the devastation we saw once again with the fish factories and several houses and sheds burning in very close proximity to the city earlier this year. We were fortunate that the wind did not take this fire into Port Lincoln or we may well have seen devastation in the league of the Victorian fires. I also noted with interest in the article:

The Bushfire Taskforce is expected to provide its report to the state cabinet this week.

I ask the minister whether this is why this bill is being pushed through the lower house tonight: perhaps it is to ensure that nothing that is critical of the government and its actions that may have happened to get into this report is able to be put on the Hansard record during this debate. I hope that my question on notice, No. 498 regarding the Wangary fires, will be responded to in Hansard before we finish sittings in the lead-up to the election, because this Labor government played politics with the financial support of the federal Liberal government, and its response will hopefully help clarify the federal government's position that was portrayed so poorly by this government at that time.

I was disturbed to read in our Library's Research Paper No. 19 (20 April 2009) by Dr Robert Richardson what the head of the CSIRO's Bushfire Research Unit, Phil Cheney, stated when responding to the recent Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria. The paper states:

Phil Cheney insists that greater emphasis must now be placed on increasing fuel management and prescribed burning interventions. Cheney says that it is 'totally frustrating' to see this advice has largely been ignored despite the fact that it has been a consistent theme since Victoria's devastating Black Friday bushfires of 1939.

Despite 70 years having passed, I read that, of the 1,200 submissions received by the royal commission into the recent Victorian bushfires, 485 dealt with fuel reduction, the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and prescribed burning, yet Peter Westmore, in an article in the News Weekly, 5 September 2009 asks:

Why then did the royal commission fail to make any recommendations on the issue of fuel reduction burning in preparation for the next fire season, which commences in November 2009?

I have reason to be concerned, particularly for the people who live in the 55,000 square kilometres of my electorate of Flinders on Eyre Peninsula. We have around 80 national and conservation parks in the area. In addition, there are considerable hectares of land that have been acquired by the government under the compulsory freeholding requirements brought in by this government. On top of coastal protection, there are now new coastal conservation requirements that prevent farmers from even changing their farming practices, subdividing or even fencing their freehold land.

Thousands of hectares of land—now government owned—are reverting back to saltbush and coastal shrubbery that is highly flammable. In addition, there are thousands of hectares of SA Water land which used to be grazed by sheep and which is now thickly covered by regrowth and infested by weeds. This SA Water land is required for water catchment, as the supply for the Eyre Peninsula comes from underground basins. Not only is this practice causing a major fire hazard, but it has also significantly decreased the water going into the aquifers, causing the region to now be put on level three water restrictions, despite the Minister for Water Security stating that we would never need them.

This week is Landcare Week, marking 20 years of Landcare Australia but, from today's Port Lincoln Times, I quote what has happened under this Labor government to the volunteers who used to happily look after much of the government land on Eyre Peninsula:

Several years ago, there were more than 50 landcare groups on Eyre Peninsula but the landcare movement in South Australia has been in recess for the past few years and many of these groups have folded.

These groups were made up of farmers and others from across the region. With a little help from the government, they undertook projects to control rabbits, foxes and weeds, including highly flammable, prickly acacias and South African boxthorn bushes (they genuinely care for their local environment), along with manning the volunteer fire and emergency services. They know their area well, but they are now disheartened and disillusioned.

The Minister for Environment and Conservation is attempting to renew these Landcare groups with grant funding before the next election. Today, in answer to a Dorothy Dix question, the Minister for Environment and Conservation waxed lyrical about the grant funding he is now providing to help. However, most of these former volunteers are cynical and would say to the minister that it is too little, too late.

This government consults to death but does not listen. Red tape is tying people in knots on their farms, in their businesses and in their volunteer work. The government is trying to re-establish these groups but, while it continues to not listen, I doubt very much that the government will get any enthusiastic response. Typical of the top down response was the closure of all 70 plus schools across the 55,000 square kilometres of Eyre Peninsula on a fire ban day last year, which threw the schools and parents into total confusion. The region had been suffering from prolonged drought and, in many parts of the area, it is doubtful that there would have been enough growth to even burn.

Most farmers put sheep in the home paddock to ensure the house is kept safe, and most of the schools, if not all, have a fire plan. To make this decision at a moment's notice, with no due consideration school by school over such a vast area, was incredible and potentially very dangerous. Fortunately, we did not have a fire on the day, as many of the volunteer services are manned by parents, who would have been tied up ensuring that their children were safe (that is, if they could be contacted). The region has very poor mobile phone coverage in a number of the school districts, with farms, school buses and even some schools having very poor, if any, mobile phone connection.

It is about time that local knowledge and local issues from local people were given credence. City-based decisions would have had a part in causing some of the deaths, through sheer ignorance of the circumstances experienced in country areas. I have included many of these in the many previous speeches I have made in this house about fires, so I will not repeat them again, as they are readily available in Hansard and on my website (lizpenfold.com). My colleagues have covered many others, with numerous suggestions of merit that I hope will be taken into account by the current minister and acted upon.

I will use this time to put on the record my response to the personal attack on me on Thursday 16 July this year by the Minister for Transport's puppy dog, the member for Mawson, and his attempt to rewrite history regarding the part the former minister for emergency services played in the nine deaths in the Wangary fire.

Ms FOX: I have a small point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. I could be completely wrong on this, Mr Acting Speaker, but is it correct that one cannot refer to another member of parliament as an animal, which I believe the member for Flinders has just done?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pengilly): The member for Flinders and not the member for Finniss?

Ms FOX: Surprisingly, in this instance, no; you did not do it. Am I correct in that assumption, or is it just nonsense?

The ACTING SPEAKER: I ask the member for Flinders to withdraw that remark.

Mrs PENFOLD: Certainly, Mr Acting Speaker; I withdraw the words 'puppy dog'.

The Hon. M.F. O'Brien interjecting:

Mrs PENFOLD: Yes, I will. Thank goodness I have only 17 sitting days to go. His intimidation was ostensibly in response to my totally unrelated speech on the unworkability of the national road transport reform legislation, the Road Transport (Heavy Vehicle Driver Fatigue) Bill, when I noted the unpleasant statements made by the Minister for Transport a few minutes earlier during debate on the Road Traffic (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2009.

The Minister for Transport's aggressive and intimidating tirade added nothing to the debate on national transport reform, but it illustrated the fact that he is a Labor lawyer who tries to use what he believes, I am sure, to be his superior education and intelligence to put down and belittle people and generally bluff his way through in much the same way as the Treasurer did during question time today. I can assure the minister that the truckies I talk to know much more about the industry than he does, despite his superior attitude.

The Minister for Transport slated the opposition, saying, among a lot of other things, 'Look at you! You have no point, and you have no future.' In my view, it is the minister and his sycophants, such as the member for Mawson, who have no point and no future. They have lost touch with the ordinary decent people that we all represent, the battlers who are out there trying to earn a living, despite unworkable legislation, increasing costs and red tape and an uncaring Labor government.

I now come to the member for Mawson's statements regarding the Wangary fire when he asked me once again to say thank you. I will say thank you for what the Labor government did after the Wangary fire when the minister (the member for Elder) apologises and resigns for not taking action after the Tulka fire that may have prevented the nine deaths at Wangary. When the member for Elder became the minister for emergency services he had all the Tulka reports before him, reports that we were not able to see before the 2006 election.

Despite this and despite the former minister and later the shadow minister for emergency services asking for a bipartisan select committee 'to review bushfire protection', to look at the problems, he did not take action or even speak to the motion. The minister denied that the water bombers that did not get to the Wangary fire in time to help would have made a difference to the outcome.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pengilly): Order! If the minister wants to contribute she might want to go to her seat.

Mrs PENFOLD: They certainly would have made a difference if they had been there the evening before the major outbreak, as they could have been and should have been. The minister, I understand, was down in the South-East when the Wangary fire occurred, and the few planes we then had went there. Even the local planes belonging to Kevin Warren, based in Port Lincoln, were once again prevented from legally flying, as also happened during the Tulka fire.

It is this minister who failed in his responsibilities and played politics, member for Mawson, not me. It is good to note that the Labor government has now placed not one but two fire bombers in Port Lincoln during the fire season, and for that I am grateful, although I would like to see at least one based at Ceduna, over 400 kilometres away. I am also grateful to the members of the lodge who have provided water tanks across the region to ensure that water is available in times of fire.

After the fire, the member for Elder, who is a Labor lawyer, and the former media man, the member for Mawson, came over like Father Christmases bearing gifts. I called it guilt money, but when asked I was certainly not going to add to the grief of those who had lost family and friends by saying that I thought their lives could have been saved if the minister had acted, and I asked the members of my party (state and federal) to do the same, which they did.

However, when it did come to the time when I could say things more comfortably, I was accused of playing politics by the government, which as is often said, 'Well, they would say that, wouldn't they, to try to silence any criticism.'

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! I ask that the member for Flinders be given the opportunity to complete her speech. If other members wish to speak they may do so after she has completed her speech.

Mrs PENFOLD: My staff and I were far too busy dealing with the immediate issues that poured into our office within hours and for months afterwards, and even now, about the fire. We were all traumatised to some extent and I considered counselling for all of us. However, each one attended one of the community counselling sessions and so dealt with our personal issues.

After the most recent fire in Port Lincoln this year, I could not even get the government to allow the prisoners at the Port Lincoln gaol, who did a fantastic job after Wangary, to do the fencing of the pensioners' properties, who had lost everything.

It was not I who played politics when my office helped the government by suggesting changes to make the first anniversary event of the Wangary fire more acceptable to the local community, many of whom intended to boycott it. We also led by example by advising that we would be attending, and I closed the office so that we could all go. It was an important part of the grieving process. My staff were angry when Legislative Councillor Caroline Schaefer and I were subsequently denied (by the head of protocol) a seat in the extensive fenced-off official area. When questioned whether she realised that I was the local member and Caroline an MLC, she responded, yes, but that made no difference. Her actions would not have been undertaken without authorisation from higher up.

My staff fixed the problem by donating their chairs to Caroline and me, which we placed at the back of the enclosure, from where we were able to participate in the subsequent proceedings. Photos would show the head of protocol sitting in the front row in a position usually allocated to the local member. Again, I did not make public this deliberate slight at this function in what, thanks to my office, turned out to be a very good and healing day for all those who attended. The minister's statement that being over in Port Lincoln during the fire was keeping him from his own family—

Mr PICCOLO: I rise on a point of order. What is the relevance of what the member is going on about?

Ms Chapman: This is the Wangary fires; have you no respect?

Mr PICCOLO: No; how she was treated, how is that relevant?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pengilly): There is no point of order.

Mrs PENFOLD: —did not stir any sympathy with me or anyone else, as others had lost their children, grandchildren, mothers, sons and brothers forever. I have put on the parliamentary record my views on the fires and what should have been done. I note that the minister handballed the portfolio to probably the least aggressive upper house Labor member as far away as possible and as soon as possible to avoid taking any further responsibility for his lack of action.

I understand that out of court settlements are currently being made in relation to the Wangary fires. Once again, the government and its ministers' actions will avoid scrutiny, as I understand that payouts are dependent on the signing of a secrecy agreement. I do not need to have the minister's sycophant to continue to attack me with the same tired statement that I am ungrateful and should say thank you. I repeat the call for the member for Elder to resign and apologise to the victims of the Wangary fires.

I am still concerned about the fatigue bill, as it is likely to be the cause of accidents, injuries and possibly deaths because it has not been tailored to suit South Australian truck drivers and the huge distances they have to cover without proper infrastructure and facilities. Once again, I am being ignored by this arrogant minister. Perhaps if the member for Mawson put a little work into some real issues, such as this one, and put some pressure on his minister to change this bill, he might become the decent representative he accuses me of not being. I will put my track record alongside his any day as I know I would win by a country mile.

The Labor Party's bullying, ridiculing, belittling and intimidation tactics are orchestrated and ongoing. They are particularly negative and unpleasant when they come from trained lawyers, such as the Attorney-General, the Minister for Transport and media person, the member for Mawson. I believe that they give licence to others, particularly within the Public Service, to do the same to the people in their departments.

These members are using their considerable skills not for the good governance of our state but for deflecting attention from the real issues facing our community. The culture of bullying within our society is not something anyone can condone, and it is certainly not conducive to getting good quality members to enter parliament. I support the bill.

Mrs GERAGHTY (Torrens) (20:27): I did not intend to speak on this bill, but I support the endeavours of the current minister, because he is a very genuine individual, and I would like to comment on the some of the statements made by the member for Flinders.

During the time of those fires, I say in defence of the member for Elder (the minister at the time) that he was genuinely very concerned and distressed about what had happened, and his colleagues on this side of the house can attest to that. He did everything he possibly could out of genuine concern for the people in that region and, indeed, he sent the member for Mawson over there—

Ms Fox: For six weeks.

Mrs GERAGHTY: —for six weeks, as the member for Bright reminds me, because of his genuine concern. I think it is very unfair of the member for Flinders to continue in this vein. It is very sad to see an individual so bitter about the really good things that were done for those people.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: She's not in the chamber.

Mrs GERAGHTY: Yes—sadly, she has left the chamber, but I wanted to put on the record that the minister at the time—

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mrs GERAGHTY: —and the Premier, of course—genuinely cared about what was happening. Both of them did everything they possibly could and, indeed, went over to lend their support.

The Hon. J.M. Rankine interjecting:

Mrs GERAGHTY: The minister for families reminds me that we had cabinet ministers on duty over there, so this government certainly did everything it possibly could. Again, I am very sorry that the member for Flinders is such a bitter individual.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Pengilly): Member for Schubert, perhaps we could return to the bill.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (20:29): Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. As always, I am tail-end Charlie on this bill, bringing up the rear as the last speaker for the evening. As all my colleagues before me have said, we support this legislation. Hopefully, with our excellent amendments, it will be even better.

At the outset, I wish to publicly congratulate and commend the officers, the staff and the volunteers of the CFS and the SES and, to a limited degree, the MFS. I note that Mr Euan Ferguson is in the gallery. It is good to see him here, as always, at the front of the team out there. I congratulate him on the effort he makes. He has taken a fair bit of flak at times, but he certainly leads very well and we are all very proud of him and the job he does.

I also wish to congratulate a good friend, Mr Vince Monterola, on his national award this year. We all know Vince, who took a very prominent position in the Wangary fires. Before that, when we were in government, Mr Monterola did not ever play politics; he always played the middle ground. He was a very good and professional operator and was much respected by everyone. I also note that the other members of the team are in the house, and I will not name them tonight. Sorry about the late hour that you guys are keeping!

Representatives of the Local Government Association are also here. I commend the LGA for all it is doing at the current time and also for what it has done over many years. I was a councillor many years ago, and in some of our communities often it was only the council that kept the CFS (and the EFS before that) in the field. It was the council that funded it and kept the process operating. I also commend the LGA for its interest in this bill, and I note that it has been the source of a couple of amendments.

Mr Acting Speaker, you would also appreciate as a result of your previous role in the CFS that all country people rely on the CFS in particular and, to a lesser extent, the SES. They are today a part of the folklore in our country communities, not only in relation to fighting fires but also for the camaraderie they provide. In some communities that is often all there is for people to get together and do things as a team. It is an area where some of the auxiliaries can get together and raise money for their brigade and various aspects of the community, such as catering, and all sorts of things. It goes much wider than just fighting fires, and that has been the case for many years. I take my hat off to them, because they are a pivotal part of our country community.

In relation to our amendments, I commend the shadow minister for doing the work and also those who had an input. Our amendment for the board to include a landowning member of SAFF, I think, is a commonsense move. That has come from the member for Stuart, who is also a country member and is very cognisant of the value of having a person on the board with an on the ground feel and a commonsense approach and not leaving it to the bureaucrats—not that we have too many bureaucrats, but we have to make sure that they never gain total control.

Our second amendment is to include a subclause to clause 35, part 4A, to minimise the threat to human life on the land from the fire. This amendment came from the member for Waite, and I think it is commonsense, particularly when the lawyers are having an argument about a problem, that the bottom line has to be minimising the threat to human life on the land from fire. I hope the government will support that commonsense amendment.

The third amendment is to provide for a review after two years, as with this bill. I cannot understand why one would want to alter this, because things can change so quickly. I am happy to build a review period into all legislation. I am happy to revisit this in two years' time. I know I will be here. Many members opposite will not be here, but I will and so will the member for Kavel—won't we?

Mr Goldsworthy: Absolutely.

Mr VENNING: We oppose the clauses with respect to moving industrial disputes from the District Court to the Industrial Relations Commission. There are four other amendments. One relates to clause 16, section 48, suspension pending the hearing of a complaint and dealing with the Industrial Relations Commission. There are also amendments to clauses 17, 18 and 19. I will not go into them, because they are more minor and are all a part of that.

I again commend the shadow minister for his first legislation in this portfolio. I am very pleased it is him, because he is very diligent. He represents the Adelaide Hills. He is right in the middle of this portfolio, because he is very much interested in his own area.

I have a lifelong interest in this subject, and I have commented on the record over many years about various areas of fire prevention. I have a certain paranoia about fires, which comes from my childhood. As I have said before, at the age of five we were burnt out and lost everything. The house that we were living in and the car were saved, but everything else was gone.

So we had to rebuild, and we have photographs of it. As a five-year old I was at school and saw the fire. It has left a mark on me for the rest of my life, and I will always make sure that I am never faced with a fire that is out of control. That has been with me all my life. I have spent my whole life since planning to limit the effects of fires (because we will never stop them occurring), irrespective of the fact that there are so many ways they can start, even in nature.

It is all about managing fire events. The first action is reducing the unnecessary fuel loads—by slashing (especially along road sides and railway lines), spraying, and carrying out cool burns. When you drive around the state you see some terrible fire hazards. Secondly, we must always maintain a very effective fighting force in our CFS, MFS and SES. We must always make sure that we have these people at close call to help us.

Thirdly, you have to have good equipment. If you have acres to protect, you have to have some equipment of your own and make sure it is in good order and works. You have to plan so that when the crisis comes you are not reliant on electricity for it to work. There are lots of ways today, with battery powered equipment, to not have to rely on plugging in a pump. There is so much we can do, and it is all tied up in the fire plans we have been urged to make through the education process, and I will discuss that a little later.

In the Hills, as the member for Kavel would know, people love to live in a hilly, leafy, natural setting, but many—a lot—do not take any or adequate precautions to limit flammable material. They love to live in the 'au naturel' state. They are endangering their own lives but, more importantly for everyone else, also the lives of firefighters. I believe that, if they are not prepared to tidy up, the CFS ought to have the right to say, 'Sorry; in a fire event we will not come to your property. Unless you provide adequate safety so we can come in, attend the fire and get out safely, we will not come in and your place will be black banned. We will not come here.'

I think they should have that right. In my 19 years in this place there has been a continual battle between the landowners and environmentalists about being able to cut or plough adequate firebreaks. Five metres is not wide enough, as the member for Stuart has said ad nauseam. It is not wide enough when there are tall trees and other flammable material. You only need to see a fire in full flight, driven by heat and wind, to know that five metres is a joke.

The Adelaide Hills will burn again, and probably during the member for Kavel's tenure in this place. It is just a matter of when. So, we must ensure that all those living in the hills take adequate measures to minimise the fire risk. If they fail to heed it, they should be advised that they will not be protected by our authorities—the CFS, SES, MFS, and others. On our own property, I know where the ignition points are. They are the main highways, the railway lines and power poles. I always ensure there are adequate fire breaks, especially near our houses, sheds and animals.

At this time of the year, two months before the fire season, I personally, in my leisure time (and I do not get much), go home and get on the slasher and I tend to the high grass. I cut the high grass, which is usually wild oats and barley grass (which is of no value) from the roadways, the highway and the back tracks, which can then become effective fire breaks, especially our east-west tracks. On bad fire days the wind is from the north so, if you cut your tracks east-west, you have an effective break that can be burned against to stop a major fire. How often do you see tinder dry high grass up to almost two metres in height on the side of a bush track used by vehicles? If anything strikes a stone or a motorbike throws a spark, you have an instant inferno.

I know we have recently introduced measures since the West Coast Wangary fires, which cost lives, and we now have media involvement—some I do not agree with. Also, we have the education campaign, and I am talking about the ABC running its broadcasting. Mr Ferguson might not want to comment. If there is a fire, they keep running the same message and, after a while, I am sure no-one listens, because it is always the same message.

I believe they should put a little more personality into these messages. I know the ABC commentator Peter Goers sometimes does not use it and puts across his own message, tucking in a local town or two, and people take more notice of that. If it is a recorded message, people do not listen; 'Here we go. We all know the fire is out but the message is continuing.' I do not know how we overcome that. We have to make sure that people take notice of these things. The idea is good but its implementation is not as effective as it could be.

The education program urging people to implement their bushfire plan is important. I hear the message and think, 'I haven't done that.' We all think we have a bushfire plan, but what would we really do in a bushfire scenario? People need to go through it because they might get a few shocks. If there is no electricity and they cannot see because of the smoke, they have to know the escape routes because their life and their family's lives are at stake.

The bushfire plans need to be jazzed up a bit in order to be more relevant and to get people to take notice. We should have competitions and publish some bushfire plans so people can look at some of the ideas. I am happy to be personally involved, because I have given it a lot of thought over the years. A lot of these plans are largely ignored because we think that it will not happen to us. Well, it does and it will.

Even on the flat plains country where I live, we have horrific fires. A fire driven by a 90 knot northern wind will burn everything. I can recall my late father in a paddock of fire harrowing pea stubble. He thought that pea stubble did not burn and that it did not go anywhere, but the wind on this particular day when he was burning pea stubble with fire harrows was very strong. On this particular day he had stopped the operation but the stuff was just smouldering away. All of a sudden the wind sprung up—it was a howling gale—and it crossed the Rocky River; he was the member for Rocky River. He did not believe this could happen—but it did. When a fire is smouldering it can happen, so people must not take risks with fire.

The Victorian bushfire inquiry has highlighted the seriousness of this issue. The question was asked whether the government should legislate to order people to leave in certain circumstances. I do not believe a government at any level can give this advice. It is up to the person to decide. I suggest they be given advice in relation to their personal safety and they be educated on their personal situation. Everyone's situation is different but in most cases I say, 'Be prepared to stay and defend.' That is a brave thing to say, but most people have died trying to flee. I believe that people have to be assisted in making that decision. If they are not sure, they should seek advice. If they live in a wooden house on the corner of a forest they should not stay; they should go well before the fire gets there.

If they live in a stone home in flat country it is easier to make the decision. I personally have a plan. We live in a stone home and the northern windows are protected. I have a tap with a thread and hose on it inside the house. How many people would have that? It is probably more accessible than members realise because, if they have an automatic washing machine, they have a tap in the house with a thread on it. How many people would know that? All they need to do is unscrew the washing machine hose, screw on a hose and they then have a hose in the house. Often that is all they need. If a fire comes towards you and a window breaks, if you have a hose inside the house you can save yourself and the house. People should check their automatic washing machine because almost all of them have a threaded tap behind them.

Like most people, I have a manhole in the ceiling. I have fitted a fold-down ladder which we can pull down with a rope. There is another tap with a hose in the ceiling. When a house catches fire, often the fire has passed by 15 or 20 minutes earlier. The fire starts by smouldering on dead leaves in the roof before the flames erupt. If people look through the manhole after a fire has passed and keep watch with a hose they can often save their house; and that has been proven time and again.

Many of us have air conditioners in the roof. There is water up there, so people should just put a tap with a thread on it and a hose up there; it is simple, basic stuff. You will be amazed that, in an emergency, you will be pleased you have it there.

I am also planning to build a shelter cellar. We already have a cellar but it is under the house which has a wooden floor. That is not safe. I could use it but I would have to cement the floor to make it safe. You would not want to be underneath a wooden floor of a burning house. You would be incinerated and, anyway, you would be suffocated because the smoke would come through the floor. To use that I would have to cement the floor and I do not think that is an option.

I would also have to provide an outside entrance to the cellar. Therefore, it would be best to build a purpose-built shelter in a cement-lined cellar on the leeward side of the house, and it would probably have an alternate use as a wine cellar. In other words, it would not be wasted, and if you have a fire, you may as well be down there and you will ease the pain. I can assure members that I have a few bottles to put down there.

If we have chosen to stay and we get caught, my family and I must have access to that cellar. You could have access from inside as well as outside; just as long as they get there safely. Most houses burn down after the fire has passed. That has been proven in both the Victorian and Wangary fires.

Yes, I have been active in fire prevention all my working life. I have been to many fires over the years. I recall again the time I went to a fire at Georgetown. The fire was belting down the hill towards Georgetown—nothing was going to save the town. There was one wily fire controller who was the local vet. He said, 'Lad, we've got one chance here.' I had a reputation of being able to light fires because I probably fought more fires by lighting them than putting them out. This man's name was Frank Landers. I will never forget this guy. He has now passed on. He was the bush vet from Gladstone, Georgetown.

Anyway, we went down towards the town of Georgetown on a track infront of the fire. The fire was running towards the track. There was the two of us with firelighters and two small fire units. He said, 'Stand there, boy, and when I drop my hand, you light the fire and go as quickly as you can, but don't do it until I drop my hand because there's a fairly strong wind.' I stood there with my firelighter watching this guy. The fire was getting closer and closer and, of course, I am starting to panic, it was coming down, and then he put his hand down and we lit the fire. I must have run 300 or 400 yards in seconds. The fire got going. Of course, you know what happened. Instead of our fire going down hill in the direction the fire was going, no, it went back towards the fire: it went the other way. It went towards the fire and you can still see that mark today where that track saved the town of Georgetown. The main fire sucked our fire towards it and the edge was put out by the small units.

I always say that the people on the ground with the knowledge are the people to listen to, not some guru with all the brass in the city. He was a very shrewd operator and I learnt from him—and that is with no disrespect to Mr Ferguson or anyone else. I have really learnt a lot from them. I have always believed that the best way to control fire is with fire, and cool burning in the off season is the way to do that, and we have heard it time and time again. Other chemical defoliants can be used to knock down material so that you can then burn it safely before the fire season gets here. Thin the inflammable material—I do it all the time; I will be doing it next weekend—then on those hot, rotten days you can be inside the house by the air conditioner thinking, well, I have done all I can. If a fire comes, well, I have done all I can.

I also raise very briefly the problem with the Mount Torrens fire siren. There is still no fire siren. I have raised this matter here before. The people want it back. You can be in your house and you do not know there is a fire. They used to use the forestry fire siren but now there is none. I plead with the minister to reinstate that.

I pay tribute to all the volunteers particularly in the Barossa Valley and northern Adelaide Hills. They do a magnificent job and our thanks and admiration go to them all. I also pay tribute to those who employ CFS and SES volunteers. We acknowledge and appreciate your commitment. We support the bill and hope our amendments will be supported.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT (Lee—Minister for Police, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (20:49): I thank the opposition for its support of the bill. I appreciate the contributions that have been made. This is an extremely important topic and, in part, an emotive topic for all members on both sides of the house. We all take great interest and look for solutions as to how we can do it better and I think this bill does that. Obviously a number of the contributions from the opposition have come from members who have electorates in bushfire areas and we appreciate not only the thoughts they have put forward but also their support of the bill.

This legislation, of course, comes as a result of three pieces of work. There are the recommendations from the Ministerial Review of Bushfire Management of South Australia. That piece of work was done by Vince Monterola, who is well known to members on both sides of the house, a man who obviously has great pedigree in this particular area and has served the state extremely well.

Also, of course, there are the recommendations from the review of the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 which was put in place when that act was passed. It preceded me from the point of view of being Minister for Emergency Services, but it was a review to be done two years after the act was introduced, partly, I think, because of the significance of bringing together various pieces of legislation into that Emergency Services Act. Also, of course, there are the Deputy Coroner's recommendations from the Wangary bushfire.

As a result of those three pieces of work, we find ourselves here with these amendments which are not of the same magnitude of the new act back in 2005 but, nonetheless, some very important measures which we think are extremely important and will do it better in regard to making sure that we protect our state which, of course, is a priority for all of us.

I will perhaps give a summary of some of the major elements of the bill. I will not go back over what other members have talked about. Suffice to say, some of the key elements are that the South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Board is going to be expanded and each member is going to be given voting rights. That is not currently the case.

The sector advisory committee is to replace the Statutory Advisory Board and the justice for that is that there was a strong feeling within the sector that to have two boards in place was not the way to go. There was also some difficulty experienced by the volunteer associations and the UFU in regard to fulfilling their fiduciary duties on that advisory board when they really wanted to be going to that particular forum representing the organisation that they came from and, of course, they will be able to do that on the sector advisory committee.

The current three-tiered bushfire committee structure will be condensed to a two-tiered structure. We will have in place, in the new arrangements, a state bushfire coordination committee and, underneath that, 16 bushfire management committees. That is streamlining the system. It will make it better and easier from a communication point of view and certainly will be significant in having a better structure in place with regard to bushfire committee structures.

The urban bushfire risk areas sees the introduction of designated urban bushfire risk areas and, as a number of members have commented, correctly, this is an important step in the legislation and, I guess, highlights that bushfire risk is not simply in rural areas. Obviously, it is critical in rural areas but it is also a risk in some urban bushfire areas.

One point that I thought I might perhaps answer as a result of some comments that were made I think by the shadow minister and also the member for Bragg is that there is no hidden agenda with regard to the disciplinary appeals going from the District Court to the Industrial Relations Commission. Nothing could be further from the truth when the member for Bragg suggested that it might be because there is less work for the Industrial Relations Commission. There are a number of good reasons why it is going to the Industrial Relations Commission. It was a recommendation from Murray, but that does not suffice in itself. Also, the promotional appeals processes used to be in the District Court. They were transferred to the Industrial Relations Commission following a recommendation from the Chief Justice.

Therefore, it is bringing it into line with those promotional appeals going into the IR Commission; so there is greater consistency. And you do not want to tie up the resources of the District Court, which can quite often be the case. It standardises the appeal process, which is the normal government procedure. We can discuss that further in the committee stage, but there is certainly no hidden agenda with regard to that.

I will also briefly pick up a few of the points that were made by the shadow minister. He articulated well the bill's purpose. He said it was a step in the right direction and supported the intent. He talked about the movement from the three-tier to the two-tier bushfire committee structure, which I have already spoken about, and which he correctly said would improve communication flow. He highlighted the importance of the urban bushfire risk areas and discussed his concerns about the appeals going from the District Court to the Industrial Relations Commission, which I have talked about, and the importance of councils and the local prevention officer.

The shadow minister also talked about some very important issues, which are not necessarily directly related to the bill: the findings of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. We have in place the bushfire task force, which will make some recommendations in regard to the findings of the Victorian royal commission. I stand to be corrected, but I think about 18 agencies have been working hard on the bushfire task force. That will be, in addition to this bill, another important piece of work that is to come forward in the next few weeks.

There is also the role and the importance of the volunteers, and I would like to echo the gratitude expressed by the shadow minister. I am sure all members on both sides of the house would like to express their gratitude for the fantastic contribution that our volunteers make, particularly in the CFS, but also in the SES. I also put on record my thanks for the work, to which the shadow minister referred, of the Metropolitan Fire Service. We are served very well by the MFS, the CFS, the SES and their chiefs and management structures. We are indebted to CFS and SES volunteers who do so much work right around South Australia. We are gratefully thankful for their efforts, and we need to do everything we can to support those volunteers.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 5 passed.

Clause 6.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 5—

Line 17—Delete paragraph (d) and substitute:

(d) any council whose area would be, or is, within the designated urban bushfire risk area.

Line 18—Delete 'the LGA' and substitute:

a council

The first two amendments in my name deal with the same issue. It is a very simple concept here. The designated urban bushfire risk areas are supported as a concept by the LGA, but it does believe that consultation in relation to these should be undertaken directly with the affected councils. The amendments specifically propose that the consultation must take place with any council whose area would be or is within the designated urban bushfire risk area.

It is a very simple concept and, like a lot of these amendments, it is making it clear that local councils are brought into the loop of communication. It is essential that that happens. I will put it like that, and I do not think it needs any further explanation.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: I meant to say as part of my opening statement that I will be opposing the amendments for tonight, but I have given an assurance to the shadow minister and the members for Mitchell and Stuart. I have not spoken personally to the member for Waite, but I will get further advice on all of the amendments; I will take them seriously. If I think they improve the bill, I will take them back to caucus and we will deal with them between the houses. Generally speaking—and I am not necessarily speaking about every amendment—we are looking to consider the amendments.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I am of a similar mind to the minister in relation to the amendments that the member for Mitchell has moved and is proposing to move. The Liberal opposition has not had an opportunity to discuss formally and give these amendments due consideration. As I remarked earlier, I am of a similar mind to the minister in that we will not necessarily support the amendments here this evening, but we will give them serious consideration and discussion for decision between the two houses, and then, when the bill is debated through its stages in the other place, we will be in a situation to be able to support (or otherwise) the amendments moved by the member for Mitchell. We had a discussion earlier, and he is aware of our position.

Mr HANNA: Quickly in response, I thank the minister and the shadow minister for those comments and their due consideration. Nonetheless, in due course, I will move the various amendments and briefly explain them, because I believe it is very important to get them on the record and to get the position of the LGA on the record in respect of each amendment.

I will not take long in each case but, nonetheless, it is important to get it on the record. I cannot control what happens in the upper house; I cannot control what happens before it gets there in terms of the major parties' consideration; but I can do what I think is right at this stage of the proceedings, so that is what I am going to do. I will go through the amendments and I will briefly explain them as we go along.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 7 and 8 passed.

Clause 9.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: On behalf of the member for Stuart, I move:

Page 6, line 1 (clause 9(1)]—Delete '5' and substitute: 6

This is in regard to the additional appointment of a landowning representative of the South Australian Farmers Federation to the South Australian Emergency Services Commission Board. As the minister has indicated, he is prepared to consider this amendment in discussion with his caucus. On behalf of the member for Stuart, I also move:

Page 6, after line 13 [clause 9(3)]—After subparagraph (iia) insert:

(iib) I must be a person who owns land in the country appointed on the nomination of the South Australian Farmers Federation Incorporated; and

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: Similar to my first answer, we will get some advice about this one. The Farmers Federation is, of course, on the state bushfire coordination committee but, nonetheless, I have given the shadow minister and the member for Stuart an assurance that we will have a look at the amendments between the houses. It would, of course, increase the board by one, which would be a concern, and one area that this board looks at is governance. However, having said that, we will have a look at it.

Amendments negatived; clause passed.

Clause 10.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: On behalf of the member for Stuart, I also move:

Page 6, line 16 [clause 10(1), inserted subsection (2)]—Delete '5' and substitute: 6

This amendment is also in relation to the issue of adding a representative of the Farmers Federation to the SAFECOM Board. The reasons for this were outlined in the second reading contributions of the member for Stuart and the member for Schubert, so I do not necessarily need to elaborate on the reasons for this particular amendment.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: This amendment is obviously related to the earlier one so we will look at them both together; probably one depends upon the other.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 11 to 15 passed.

Clause 16.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The Liberal opposition opposes this clause, as well as clauses 17, 18, 19 and 20, for reasons relating to our earlier comments on moving those industrial issues—complaints, appeals, hearings and other issues—from the District Court to the Industrial Relations Commission. I note the minister's comments in his concluding remarks in the second reading debate. However, these issues have been raised in debate on other legislation and, consistent with our position on those previous matters, the opposition opposes these measures.

Mr HANNA: At this point I simply wish to observe that proceedings in the Industrial Relations Commission will be cheaper and quicker. It seems to me that these matters—which concern discipline, etc., of fire services officers—would fit very well within the ambit of the Industrial Relations Commission, so I find it difficult to understand why the Liberal opposition opposes these clauses.

Clause passed.

Clauses 17 to 22 passed.

Clause 23.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 14, after line 23—Insert:

(2a) The area of a council must not be divided between 2 or more bushfire management areas.

The background to this amendment lies in proposed new section 72, which deals with the establishment of bushfire management areas. The state bushfire coordination committee must make recommendations about the boundaries of bushfire management areas. My amendment seeks to implement the LGA desire for council areas not to be split between different bushfire management areas. Bearing in mind, again, that councils appoint fire prevention officers, it makes a lot of sense, from a coordination point of view, to have the bushfire management area boundaries congruent with council boundaries as far as possible.

My amendment is black and white, in that it insists that the area of a council must not be divided between two or more bushfire management areas. For example, if there is a mountain range or grassland which clearly cuts across two different council areas, the question I put is: why not have two different designated bushfire management areas even though it deals with the same geographical formation? It is important for each council to take responsibility for its own area and, in terms of coordination within the council area, it is important that the boundaries pretty well match up as between the BMAs and the council boundaries. I think most members would see the sense of that. One may debate whether it is possible on every occasion, but there is a lot of sense in making the boundaries congruent.

Incidentally, an issue that I am quite passionate about in another context is making council boundaries and water resource boundaries congruent. In other words, I think that, where there are watersheds and river valleys, etc., as far as possible, council boundaries should also take account of those water formations and water resources to assist with management of those natural resources. It is a similar principle. Our council boundaries tend to have grown up over time because of miscellaneous historical reasons. I think we should be mature enough, where possible, to try to align some of these important natural resource and bushfire management boundaries with council boundaries.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: I listened carefully to the member's contribution. I will get some advice on this. He has come up with an interesting concept, and I would like to get some advice on the practicalities of it. As I have said, we will get a position with all of these—these came in late, of course—between the houses.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I understand that the opposition's position on these amendments is that we have just received them and we are going to consider them between the houses, so my comments do not reflect the party policy. On reading amendment No. 3 to clause 23, page 14, after line 23, I think it is impractical and it would weaken the system. Why would you stop a bushfire plan at a council boundary for the convenience of administration? If the physical asset of the fire danger through a mountain range or a park, or whatever, crosses over council boundaries, surely the bushfire management plan should simply deal with the bushfire issues in whatever geographic area the firefighting authorities think they need a proper plan to manage that particular fire regime. The fire is not suddenly going to change or be different at a council boundary.

So, my personal view is that the amendment should not be supported, because I think the prediction of the fire behaviour likely to occur, given the geographic features that exist, should dictate the area that the bushfire plan covers, just as it is for NRM and catchment boards. Catchment boards did not follow council boundaries, because the geographic definition of the catchment area meant that we wanted a management plan for the catchment area. To me, the same principle applies for the bushfire area: look where the risk is, look at the geographical asset you are dealing with and develop a plan to take in that area. If that crosses different council boundaries or parts of councils, so be it. In my view, we should not be fighting fires based on administration efficiency.

Mr HANNA: I see the strength in the remarks of the member for Davenport. I suppose the LGA is on notice that the solution to this problem might not be aligning bushfire management boundaries with council boundaries but, rather, changing council boundaries to match water catchments and bushfire management areas.

Amendment negatived.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 14, after line 35—Insert:

(2a) However, the State Bushfire Coordination Committee must at least ensure that any council whose area is within a bushfire management area is given an opportunity to nominate a person for membership of the relevant bushfire management committee.

This is a slightly different issue. The LGA has suggested that each council in a bushfire management area should have the option of membership on the bushfire management committee for that area. There might be some council areas that have the barest fraction of inclusion in a bushfire management area. That council may not wish to do it, but they should have the option. That is the position of the LGA, and I think it is a reasonable one.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: The amendment will be considered between the houses.

Amendment negatived.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 15, after line 39—Insert:

(fa) to provide, or arrange for the provision of, advice to owners of land on effective bushfire prevention and management;

This amendment refers to the functions of the bushfire management committees. The LGA, no doubt reflecting a lot of concern in the community, believes that there should be a stated function of these committees to provide advice, or arrange for the provision of advice, to owners of land on effective bushfire prevention and management, so I have included this amendment. It is probably something that the committees could do anyway; it is common sense. I see no harm in including it as a function of the committees; it is certainly something that needs to be done by someone. I commend the amendment to members.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: The amendment will be considered between the houses.

Amendment negatived.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 17, line 9—After 'bushfire management' insert:

so as to provide appropriate levels of protection to life, property and the environment from the effects of bushfires

This amendment spells out one of the key principles that really underpins the State Bushfire Management Plan. Most of the approach refers to hazard reduction, management of risks and so on. However, somewhere in there we need to refer to the ultimate goal of the protection of life, property and the environment; hence, I have included those issues as a principle to be considered.

In moving that amendment, I recognise that there is some debate to be had about whether all of those three issues (that is, protection of life, property and the environment) are, in fact, congruent. It may be that, at times, to save property you might be putting life at risk and to save lives you might be putting property at risk. So, it is something of a balancing act; hence, the wording I have included there, that is, 'to provide appropriate levels of protection to life, property and the environment'. I think that is leaving it open enough while still reminding us all of the ultimate goal of effective bushfire management and risk reduction.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: Once again, we will consider all the remaining amendments between the houses.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I know this is going to be considered between the houses. This is a bit of an open debate, given that no-one other than the member for Mitchell has a position—and that is not a criticism of the member for Mitchell. It strikes me that we need to be clear what we are trying to do with this clause. This clause is about the State Bushfire Management Plan. So, the question is: what should be in the plan?

Once you enter the issue of going away from managing the fire itself and go into other issues—and the member for Mitchell raises protection of life and environment—does that mean that the bushfire management plan then has to deal with not the issue of hazard reduction and the sorts of issues that go directly to the question of fire but things like, in my electorate, can the roads carry an evacuation? What happens when the railway crossings all close at the same time? So, it suddenly brings another question into the plan.

The parliament needs to be crystal clear on what it wants the plans to do. Is it a total community safety plan in response to a possible fire, or is it about reducing and preventing fire? They are two different roles. Once you bring in other measures then that questions what is going to be in the state bushfire plan and, therefore, it flows on to what is going to be in the community, or the next level down, the bushfire area management plans. So, I just raise that.

I do not see, member for Mitchell, how you could possibly draw up a plan that treats those three areas fairly, because ultimately the one area that is going to be expended during a fire is the environment. Ultimately you are going to backburn, because property and life will take a higher priority than the environment; that is going to be the natural reaction during an emergency fire. So, how can you draw up a plan that treats those three evenly?

When this is debated further in the upper house I think we need to be absolutely crystal clear on what we want this plan to cover. The more things that you put into the plan, the more it becomes a motherhood statement about every possible thought in relation to fire, and I think that would weaken it. So, for those reasons, I would need convincing that we need to expand it much more than what we have.

Mr HANNA: I stress that the wording I had proposed talks about appropriate levels of protection in respect of those three issues. I also point out that there is already a proposed subsection which is presumably not in dispute between anyone here in the parliament and which states:

The plan is to set out principles, policies and standards for bushfire management in the state from a high level or strategic perspective.

Some people might be surprised if it did not then include those broader issues of community safety to which the member for Davenport referred.

Amendment negatived.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I have some questions for the minister on this particular clause relating to the establishment of the bushfire coordination committee and the bushfire management committees and the establishment of the 16 bushfire management areas, and I highlighted this in my second reading contribution. Is the government in a position to make a commitment that this new structure—because this is a new structure—will be in place and operating before this bushfire season comes around? If it does not then we can see that there will be some potential problems within the agency.

If we are dealing with the establishment of a new structure and then dealing with the existing structure, it may well cause some confusion, and that is exactly what we do not want in the middle of a bushfire season.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: Once the legislation is passed, we will move to get the new structure in place, but there will be transitional provisions that apply to enable the existing structures to carry out their functions and plans until the new arrangements are in place. It is difficult to know for sure when the new arrangements will be in place but, as I said, as soon as the legislation has passed both houses, we will move to put the bushfire coordination committee in place as soon as practicable and, following that, the 16 areas.

The transitional provisions will apply, so the structures that currently exist under the legislation will continue to operate. We will not be in a situation where we are half pregnant, that is, we have done away with one structure and the other structure is not complete in that it is not in place.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The minister said 'as soon as practicable'. Will it be three months, six months, 12 months or two years? Can he give us any indication of the anticipated time frame for when the old structure will be obsolete and the new structure in place and operating?

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: The advice I have received is that from the time of the assent to the bill it will be approximately 10 to 12 weeks.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you, minister. That gives us a clearer indication of the time frame. In relation to clause 23, new section 73, the bushfire management plans and the bushfire management area plans, the member for Davenport highlighted some issues about how prescriptive these plans may be. I would like some explanation from the minister on what types of issues these plans will cover.

It looks as though it is a fairly broad and overarching proposal, but what we do not necessarily want to occur is a government official, whether it be a fire prevention officer or somebody with official capacity, going along to a residence and saying, 'We don't like the way your house is constructed. We want you to change this, this and this,' placing an onerous responsibility on the property owner and a high cost component to meet the requirements of the plan. It sets out some of the principles and priorities of the plan, but I want an assurance that the plan will not place an unreasonable responsibility or impost on property owners.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: I can understand the member's interest and potential concerns. New section 73A(7)(b) on page 19 talks about 'take reasonable steps to consult with', and then it sets out who is to be consulted. New section 73A(7)(b)(vi) provides:

(vi) any other person or body, or person or body of a class, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection,

in relation to the proposal; and

(c) by public notice, give notice of the place or places at which copies of the draft are available for inspection...and purchase and invite interested persons to make written representations on the proposal within a period prescribed by the regulations.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I understand that, and I have read that in the bill. However, that is really just going out for public notification on what the plan may or may not include. I want a commitment from the government that the plan will not necessarily be onerous and place an unreasonable impost on landowners and property owners. I read in the bill that it basically concerns public consultation.

I do not want to be churlish about this, but we question the government's track record in relation to public consultation. We have raised this aspect with respect to a number of pieces of legislation over the years. That is all well and good. As I said, that is talking about public consultation, but it is not giving me any real comfort that the plan will not place unreasonable expectations on property owners.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: I think, to put it into context, we are talking about an overarching plan—we are talking about the high level here—and, underneath, we are talking about the regional plans. The assurance that the member asked for is perhaps covered a little bit further when we talk about private land.

There is, of course, in new section 105J, a review by the chief officer, so I think in this particular clause where we are talking about the state bushfire management plan we are talking about an overarching plan at the high level and we are then talking about the regional plans that sit underneath that. The member is talking about an impost being placed upon an individual. There is also a code of practice under subsection (3) which relates to land of the kind to which the proceedings relate. However, as I said, there is the appeal that can be made to the chief executive officer.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Can I follow this line of questioning that the member for Kavel has raised? The possible breadth of these particular clauses has only come to the attention of the opposition late today, so we have not had a chance to discuss it in the party room, and I am not sure even the minister's own caucus would have discussed it in this context. It seems to me that under division 7A, bushfire management plans, at page 17 of the bill, proposed clause 73 talks about a state bushfire management plan and says 'the plan must', and in placitum (a) 'set out principles to be applied in achieving appropriate levels of hazard reduction for bushfire management'. Then in placitum (c) it says 'set standards'.

So the plan must 'set standards or requirements that must'—so it is a double must—'be applied or observed in the preparation or implementation of bushfire management area plans'. Then placitum (d) is very broad. It says, 'include or address other matters prescribed by the regulations', whatever they may be, so it is any matter at all that is in the regulations, of which we have no knowledge as we speak today.

If you flick over to page 19, proposed clause 73A deals with the lower level bushfire management area plans and says, 'Without limiting subsection (2), the plan must'. Then go to placitum (d) and it talks about 'establish'—so it must establish—'or adopt principles and standards to guide or measure the successful implementation of bushfire management strategies and initiatives'.

So, the question is: do these plans have the power to prescribe on a private land-holder a new standard which the land-holder must meet? For instance, can the plan say that we are going to retrofit all the houses in Blackwood with insulation by 2012—that is a must, according to the plan—or that they have to retrofit fire sprinklers or retrofit rainwater tanks?

The question at which the member for Kavel is driving and about which I am subsequently asking other questions is: through these bushfire plans is there any power at all for the plans to prescribe in a compulsory sense a requirement that landholders, according to the plan, must retrofit or take retrospective action to their property? I am talking about buildings; I am not worried about clearing land because there are already clean-up notices. In respect of buildings and houses, will the plans contain the power of a mandatory requirement? Yes or no?

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: The advice I have received is that the answer is no. This is about hazard removal and standards of bushfire planning. This is not the Development Act and the advice I have received is that the answer is no.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I would ask the minister to consider between houses an explanatory note in the legislation to make that absolutely crystal clear. The reason I raise this matter is that I think it is very much open to interpretation. What a court would do with it is anyone's guess. If that is the intention of the government, it should put an explanatory note or clause in the bill that specifically prohibits the plan dealing with built infrastructure, if you like.

I think new section 73A(3)(c), 'identify action that should be taken by persons', becomes open to interpretation about what a plan can tell a person to do. I think it is open to interpretation that that would include retrofitting houses or buildings. If that is the intention of the government, fine, but I think there should be a clause in the bill which makes crystal clear what it does or does not refer to.

The other question I have is: can you explain to me what this section means? New section 73 under the state bushfire management plan and new section 73A under the bushfire management area plans both have subsections that provide that the plan is an expression of policy and does not in itself affect rights or liabilities (whether of a substantive, procedural or other nature). I am just wondering what that means and why we have it in the legislation.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: I think this re-emphasises what we have been talking about previously. This is a high level planning policy. I refer the member to page 20 of the bill. Subsection 11 provides:

A plan is an expression of policy and does not in itself affect rights or liabilities (whether of a substantive, procedural or other nature).

This is similar to the Development Act.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Thank you for that, minister. Subsection (10) on the same page deals with the capacity for the state bushfire coordinating committee to amend a proposed plan put to it by the level below, the bushfire management area plan committee. I notice that it gives the state bushfire coordinating committee the power to amend the plan without any further consultation with the community or the groups that have developed the plan. The bushfire management area plan is established by a local committee and they run some sort of public process and develop a plan.

Under new section 73A(10) on page 20, it is then sent up to the state bushfire coordinating committee, and that subsection gives them the power to amend that plan if they want. All the local communities who have had input into that plan do not even know it will be amended by the state bushfire coordinating committee, and they can approve the amendment. I am just wondering why you have designed it so that those communities are excluded from any possible discussion about proposed amendments by the state bushfire coordinating committee.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: I understand what the honourable member is saying, but I think we have to put some trust and also some confidence in the state bushfire coordination committee and I think the member correctly referred to:

(b) consult the relevant bushfire management committee about any amendment to a proposed plan or amendment that the State Bushfire Coordination Committee considers necessary or appropriate and then approve the plan or amendment with amendment;

There might be minor amendments of course; there will be on a number of occasions. Then it continues:

(c) refer a plan or amendment back to the relevant bushfire management committee for further consideration.

I think you have to have a structure in place with regard to how this is going to work and I think this is a good structure.

Clause passed.


[Sitting extended beyond 22:00 on motion of Hon. M.J. Wright]


Clauses 24 to 34 passed.

Clause 35.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 23, after line 26—Insert:

(4) A Chief Officer may, on application by a council, exempt the council from the requirement to appoint a fire prevention officer under this section.

The concern that has been expressed by the LGA is that, in some remote areas of South Australia, it may not be necessary to have a fire prevention officer, for example, in Coober Pedy or in Roxby Downs, if and when it has democratic local government. The people there may consider that they do not need a fire prevention officer because there is not much around to burn.

I do not mean to be flippant but there may be some areas of South Australia where the actual local council considers that there really is no need for a fire prevention officer. This is simply to allow a loophole if you like, an exemption. It cannot just be a decision of the council. It is a decision of the chief officer on application by a council so the safeguard is there. It may even never be used but it is to allow that little bit of flexibility. I commend the amendment.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: We will consider it between the houses.

Amendment negatived.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 24—

Line 2—after 'may' insert:

, with the approval of the council,

Line 6—delete 'with the approval of the council—'

Because amendment No. 9 is consequential upon amendment No. 8, I move them both together. The concept here is relates to the power to delegate from a fire prevention officer to a member of the CFS or the MFS. The LGA has suggested that this should be with the approval of the council. That makes sense, since it is the council which appoints the fire prevention officer. I understand that sometimes decisions will need to be made in a hurry but, on the other hand, it is important for the local council to be kept informed of any delegation of the powers of the fire prevention officer.

This matter could be resolved, perhaps, in the contract between the fire prevention officer and the council: a contract of employment, presumably, or some other kind of engagement at law. However, the LGA would prefer to see the role of council ensured in this process by including it in the legislation.

Amendments negatived.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 24—

Line 20—Delete 'fire prevention officer, require the fire prevention officer' and substitute:

a council, require the council

Line 24—delete 'the fire' and substitute:

a fire

Amendment No. 11 is consequential upon amendment No. 10, so I move both together. The LGA considers that the council should be the responsible body in respect of reporting requirements. Proposed section 105E deals with reports. The commission, the state bushfire coordination committee, or a bushfire management committee may in writing request a report. The LGA position is that this request should go to the relevant council which has engaged the fire prevention officer rather than to the fire prevention officer themselves. The purpose is to keep councils in the loop of communication, and I think it is appropriate. It may be considered that a fire prevention officer would, as a matter of course, provide notice to the council of any such request for a report and would provide a copy of any report given in accordance with this legislation to the council which has engaged the fire prevention officer. This is to make the matter clear and ensure that the council is kept in the loop.

Amendments negatived.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: Before moving my amendments, I think I am comfortable with what I expect to be the answer. In regard to section 105F, which provides that an owner of private land must take responsible steps, I am assuming that the minister is comfortable that that includes an occupier or tenant. I note that the principal act contains a definition of 'owner' as follows:

(a) in relation to land alienated from the Crown in fee simple—means the owner of an estate in fee simple in the land;

(b) in relation to land held from the Crown by lease, licence or agreement to purchase—means the lessee, licensee or purchaser—

and then it adds the words 'and includes occupier'. I ask this question because constituents at my public meeting raised a concern that some tenants occupying hills face properties disregard the need to clear fuel and flammable substances from their property. I want to be assured that this bill will empower the minister and the government to take action against those tenants—not just the owner—so that there is no way out for a tenant, if you like, to disregard the law.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: The member is correct. I also acknowledge the public meeting that he held recently to which the member for Davenport referred. I was also made aware of it and I know that it was a very constructive meeting. I think that opportunities like this serve us very well and help better educate the community.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I move:

Page 24, after line 33 [clause 35, inserted section 105F(1)]—After paragraph (c) insert:

and

(d) to minimise the threat to human life from a fire on the land.

I draw to the minister's attention that the bill, as it stands under clause 35 in dealing with section 105F regarding private land, puts an obligation on the owner of private land to do as follows:

(1) An owner of private land must take reasonable steps—

(a) to prevent or inhibit the outbreak of fire on the land; and

(b) to prevent or inhibit the spread of fire through the land; and

(c) to protect property on the land from fire.

I felt that it would be appropriate to add a requirement as indicated in my amendment 'to minimise the threat to human life from a fire on the land'. I know it is implicit in what is already in the bill but I thought that specifying it would balance the bill a little better which, at a reading, seems to favour protection of property rather than life.

It was my view at first glance to go further and to suggest a further amendment that the government might like to consider using this bill as an opportunity to acquire perhaps through section 105F(6) a new paragraph (e) that would require landowners to prepare or implement a bushfire action plan. I am not moving that but I thought I should raise it within the context of what I am proposing, because the government may wish to consider it between the houses.

The idea is that at the moment, although this bill requires in a mandatory sense landowners to do certain things in regard to clearing their property, it does not require them to prepare a bushfire management plan. I have floated a number of ideas about this. One is to require landowners to have a copy of their bushfire action plan at their home; another would be to arrange for a bushfire action plan to be in their vehicle through the registration system, for example. It is not uncommon to see in a hotel on the back of the door what amounts to a fire action plan should a fire occur in the building. It instructs the occupant of the hotel room to do certain things and take certain action in the event of fire so that everyone understands what is needed.

I note that the CFS has done an excellent job in encouraging people to have a bushfire action plan—it has a lot of material out there—but this bill, as I read it, does not empower the CFS to say to landowners, 'You really must have this plan.' There is no mandatory requirement to have this plan. I know there is a view that that sort of mandatory requirement does not work and that perhaps an education-based approach is best, and I see that reflected in a number of the comments already made.

However, I thought the minister might like to consider it between the houses. I am not actually proposing that: I am proposing something that falls short of that, and that is simply the amendment standing in my name to require that, in the case of private land, then council land and then crown land, we balance it by inserting those words to minimise threat to human life from fire on the land.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: I thank the member for his amendments and also for his further suggestion. As I said earlier (but have not had a chance to speak to the member privately), I will certainly seek advice on both of those proposals. I am talking about the three amendments and the other proposal. We will deal with it between the houses. The amendments that are before me seem to have merit, and we will come back to you as we work between the houses.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I thank the minister for considering that, and I look forward to further debate.

Amendment negatived.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I move:

Page 26, after line 37 [clause 35, inserted section 105G(1)]—After paragraph (e) insert:

and

(f) to minimise the threat to human life from a fire on the land.

Amendment negatived.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH: I move:

Page 28, after line 2 [clause 35, inserted section 105H(1)]—After paragraph (e) insert:

and

(f) to minimise the threat to human life from a fire on the land.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 36 to 38 passed.

Clause 39.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I move my amendment in relation to repealing section 149:

Page 32, lines 8 and 9—

Leave out this clause and substitute:

39—Amendment of section 149—Review of Act

(1) Section 149(1)—delete subsection (1) and substitute:

(1) The minister must cause a review of the operation of this act to be conducted.

(1a) The review must relate to the period between the commencement of the Fire and Emergency Services (Review) Amendment Act 2009 and 30 March 2012.

(2) Section 149(3) and (4)—delete subsections (3) and (4) and substitute:

(3) The review must be commenced as soon as is reasonably practicable after 30 March 2012 and the report must be submitted to the minister by 30 September 2012.

This refers to the matter of a formal review process to be undertaken of the amended act. This bill will obviously amend the existing act, so my amendment implements a formal review process to commence in March 2012 and to conclude and report in September 2012.

As I said in my second reading contribution, as a parliament and as an emergency services agency sector, we should all be working together on a continual program of improvement. One of the ways to measure improvement is to review how existing measures and processes are tracking and performing. It is important to have a formal review process in the legislation, as has been the case in the original act that we are amending, but in the bill that formal review process will be deleted and, hence, the moving of this amendment to include a formal review process in three years' time in the year 2012.

The Hon. M.J. WRIGHT: Yes, we will consider it between the houses.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (40 to 43) and schedule passed.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Madam Chair, I have a question in relation to the legislation. It concerns an issue raised by the member for Flinders in her second reading speech regarding privacy agreements on settlements of cases—compensation, if you like, from a fire event. Is it the case that privacy or confidentiality agreements are signed by the recipients of payments from the government?

The CHAIR: There is not a question before the chair that enables that to be dealt with. I allowed you to get it on the record on the ground that it can be dealt with between the houses.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

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