Please note: This is an extract from Hansard only. Hansard extracts are reproduced with permission from the Parliament of Tasmania.

Second Reading

[2.50 p.m.]

Mr LLEWELLYN (Lyons - Minister for Police and Emergency Management - 2R) - Mr Deputy Speaker, I move -

That the bill be now read the second time.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the purpose of the Emergency Management Bill is to repeal the Emergency Services Act 1976 and replace it with updated, simpler and more flexible emergency management provisions for the protection of life, property and the environment. It retains the same general purpose and similar State, regional and municipal administration arrangements for effective emergency management. It continues to provide for the continuation of the State Emergency Service. It also provides essential powers and the means to declare a state of emergency for major emergencies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Emergency Services Act 1976 has served this State very well, but outdated terminology and considerable change in the emergency management sector over the last decade has required that it be reviewed and updated. This review was conducted from 2002 to 2003 by senior representatives from all stakeholder agencies, including local government, who agreed that there was considerable scope for improvement.

The decision was subsequently made to replace the Emergency Services Act 1976 with the Emergency Management Bill and to improve the legislation by:

· shifting to an all-encompassing emergency management focus;

· updating and streamlining terminology and nomenclature;

· simplifying and streamlining governance and planning arrangements at State, regional and municipal levels;

· by providing added flexibility with emergency powers with a simpler approach to emergency declarations; and

· by improving miscellaneous provisions, particularly in relation to the support and protection of our valued emergency service volunteers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, all these requirements have been met through a consultative approach with State and local government agencies and all State Emergency Service stakeholders, including the SES volunteers.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the Emergency Management Bill retains the ability for key authorities, such as the State Emergency Management Controller (who will continue to be the Commissioner of Police) and the Premier to authorise the emergency powers that are already available under the existing Emergency Services Act 1976. These powers are needed during major emergencies to save life, property and the environment in an effective and efficient manner. The level of scrutiny required when authorising such powers was considered against other legislation and it was agreed that the retention of current approval processes provided the level of flexibility needed when managing the humanitarian aspects of major emergencies.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the review concluded that the three different levels of declared states of alert, emergency and disaster could be significantly simplified in two ways. Firstly the declaration of a state of alert by the Director of Emergency Services (or the Commissioner of Police) could be simplified by replacing it with the authority for the State Emergency Management Controller (the same person) to authorise specified emergency powers. Secondly, a single declared state of emergency, authorised by the Premier, will replace both the current declared states of emergency and disaster.

The declared state of emergency could be made for the same 14-day period as the current state of disaster, but recognising lessons learnt from animal disease emergencies and modelling for pandemic emergencies, it was considered appropriate to provide the option of declaring a state of emergency for up to 12 weeks for these specific types of emergencies. Conditions have been applied to ensure the State Emergency Management Committee reviews the need for the declaration after four weeks and then every two weeks unless sooner revoked.

In line with current powers, the special emergency powers under a declared state of emergency authorise the State Controller and the Regional Controllers, unless otherwise specified in the declaration, to do the same as they would be permitted under the current declared state of emergency or disaster.

Mr Deputy Speaker, any potential misuse of powers has been mitigated by the inclusion of several new conditions to be applied when any of these powers are considered necessary. Authorisations or declarations must be in writing and provide certain information, such as the timings, the nature of the emergency, the area to which it applies and so on. Importantly, it must stipulate which authorised officers may exercise certain powers. Only appropriate emergency management workers will be authorised to exercise these powers. Notice of entry needs to be provided and appropriate authorities need to be informed of any intentions to exercise these powers.

Also, all occasions where emergency powers under the bill are exercised will need to be reported to the minister and then by the minister to Parliament each year. It is also important to make the distinction that, while the bill applies to all types of emergencies, nothing in this bill prevents the exercising of emergency-management-related functions and powers covered under other legislation, except where there are significant inconsistencies.

Mr Speaker, I would now like to move away from emergency powers and highlight some of the other important features of the bill. Let me start with the provisions associated with the State Emergency Service.

This bill reinforces the ongoing close relationship between SES and local government by clarifying the roles of councils and the SES regarding emergency services and the support and resources of the municipal volunteer SES units. This was touched on in the Emergency Services Act 1976, but was often misunderstood. This bill retains the intended arrangements of the Emergency Services Act, but provides added clarity based on current accepted arrangements.

Mr Speaker, the review of the Emergency Services Act 1976 identified many terms and titles that were considered out-of-date or confusing against current accepted terminology and nomenclature. All terms have been updated and streamlined throughout the different State, regional and municipal levels to avoid confusion and to promote good governance and planning.

Each level now has a clearer line of accountability to a higher authority and the respective functions and powers at each level have been streamlined to complement and support each other, but without losing focus on the statewide, regional or municipal environments and needs.

Mr Speaker, the definition for 'emergency' has been expanded to include circumstances that may result in an emergency event. This could apply to situations where warnings are issued for significant floods, fires, tsunamis and the like or if it is believed that an activity might lead to a major emergency. Lessons tell us that we should not wait for the disaster to occur and just focus on response and recovery. If it is reasonable to believe that a major emergency is likely or there are significant risks, we should consider this an emergency situation and have legislation that helps us to deal with such a situation in the hope of preventing or mitigating the effects.

Mr Speaker, in line with other legislation, added flexibility has been built into the Emergency Management Bill with the ability for key authorities, such as the State Controller to delegate any applicable functions or powers, other than the power of delegation. If these key positions are not available for any reason, the new provisions allow for their deputies to assume their responsibilities until they return or new appointments are made. This level of flexibility is in line with best practice in business continuity and is considered essential for effective and efficient emergency management.

Mr Speaker, emergency service volunteers are an essential part of our ability to deliver effective emergency management. Regardless of which service they come from, they commit thousands of hours a year to develop quite technical emergency response skills and commit equally to the often hazardous emergency callouts. Unlike the Emergency Services Act 1976, the Emergency Management Bill defines a volunteer emergency management worker for the specific purpose of ensuring they have access to the same workers compensation entitlements and protections generally available to paid emergency management workers. It also provides a degree of protection from loss of pay, leave and other entitlements when called out for emergency volunteer work.

Mr Speaker, the review and development of the Emergency Management Bill have taken several years and have been subject to considerable consultation with all stakeholders. The end result is a bill that will not only take emergency management well into the twenty-first century, but will enhance our ability to protect life, property and the environment from all types of emergencies.

I commend the bill to the House.

[3.02 p.m.]

Mr GUTWEIN (Bass) - Mr Speaker, the State Liberals will be supporting the Emergency Management Bill 2006. I say this, however, in the context that we want to take the bill into Committee, as there are a number of issues that I would like the minister to explain clearly, and also allow him to place on the record his views in relation to how certain emergency matters will be managed.

Obviously the key focus of this new bill is to enhance our ability to protect life, to protect property and to protect the environment from all types of emergencies, and also to provide protection from those circumstances which could lead to an emergency. The Emergency Services Act 1976 will be repealed and will be replaced with the more relevant and up-to-date Emergency Management Bill before us. I understand that many people have some hesitation or concern whenever a bill such as this to deal with the types of issues that this bill is designed to deal with is placed before the Parliament. It is pleasing to note in the briefing papers that have been provided all the powers that will be available under the new bill are currently already available under the Emergency Services Act 1976, except that there are some time frames that have been extended along with some other matters which we can look at more closely in committee. I must say at this point that this type of legislation is the sort that you hope this State will never have the need for or the requirement to enact, because quite simply we are talking about something that is obviously going to affect people in a very serious way if thi s legislation is ever required.

In replacing the Emergency Services Act 1976, I understand the legislation before us will replace the emergency service and disaster focus of the act with a more contemporary and more encompassing emergency management focus; that all terminology will be updated to reflect nationally-recognised interpretations; that the number of peak emergency management committees will be reduced from two to one, and there will be a clear clarification of the nature of roles and titles in respect of emergency management governance arrangements across State, regional and municipal levels. This is one area that I will be asking the minister to explain very clearly in the committee stage to assure those who read the Hansard record of the debate on this bill that the checks and balances that appeared in the previous legislation have not been weakened, or the reasonable rights of individuals impinged upon unfairly.

As the legislation before us will also provide increased flexibility with emergency powers, and includes the power to direct organisations to take emergency management measures, as well as applying these measures now to ships in Tasmanian waters, I would like the minister to clearly put on record his views as to how he sees these matters being managed.

This issue of increased flexibility needs to be thoroughly explained and I trust that the Minister can clearly articulate how this flexibility will not only enhance our readiness to respond, but also how it will be appropriately managed to ensure the rights and civil liberties of Tasmanian citizens are not unnecessarily infringed upon.

The bill before us also provides more flexibility in the allocation of functions, duties and powers of the State Emergency Service, simplifies provision of emergency declarations and consolidates and enhances the miscellaneous provisions relating to volunteers.

State regional and ministerial levels of governments in respect of emergency management will continue and the State Emergency Service, the SES, will remain. It is hoped that the outcome of this legislation before us is a more effective and cohesive framework than the Emergency Services Act of 1976 and that, in making the changes that we make today, the consultation that the minister has held with key stakeholders in relation to this legislation will ensure that the needs and requirements of an emergency situation, should it ever arise in this State, will be met.

Emergency service volunteers from a statutory service will be defined as emergency management workers, recognising our dependence on volunteers, and also that they will now be entitled to the same provisions as salaried emergency management workers.

I note from the minister's second reading speech, Mr Speaker, that any potential misuse of powers has been mitigated by several new conditions. Authorisations or declarations must be in writing and provide information such as the timing and nature of the emergency and the area that it arises, and so on. Importantly it stipulates which authorised officers may exercise certain powers, and only appropriate emergency service management workers will be authorised to exercise these powers.

Mr Speaker, there are some other matters that I would like the minister to go into in some detail during the committee stage, and I will flag these now.

The State Emergency Management Controller will continue to be the Commissioner of Police. However, would the minister explain who currently holds some of the other positions authorised under the Emergency Services Act that will be transferred across under this new bill - that is, the regional controllers and the municipal coordinators? I understand that these positions effectively already exist but under different titles. I would like the minister's views on who and what type of skills in regard to previous experience in relation to emergencies they might bring to the table.

Finally, in regard to members of a statutory service, I would like the minister to explain just who will become authorised officers under this new act, and what the minister's views are in relation to the activities, responsibilities and circumstances they would be expected to deal with.

One aspect of the legislation before us that is of real interest to me is the expansion of the definition of 'emergency', which will now include those circumstances that may result in an emergency event. I would like the minister to explain how he sees these provisions being put in place to manage things such as fire, and particularly flood. I know that my colleague in Bass, Mrs Napier, wants to raise the management of flood and some of the problems and challenges which face Launceston, particularly the suburb of Invermay, should we get the one-in-a-hundred-year flood that has been spoken about quite regularly.

Mr Llewellyn - We spoke about that a little earlier, didn't we?

Mr GUTWEIN - We did, yes.

Mr Llewellyn - That wasn't one in a hundred, that was in the 1960s.

Mr GUTWEIN - That was the 1962 flood.

Mr McKim - A one-in-a-hundred year flood could come in any year, surely.

Mr GUTWEIN - That could be the one-in-fifty-year flood that we were talking about in 1962, Minister.

Mr Llewellyn - Maybe.

Mr GUTWEIN - In preparation for a fire emergency - and I would like the minister to clearly put his thoughts on this on the record - I, for a number of years now, have raised the issue of fuel on the ground in reserves and national parks, especially where they border onto some of our smaller regional centres. The town of Bridport springs readily to mind -

Mr Llewellyn - You have an interest in that one, though.

Mr GUTWEIN - I would have thought that everybody in this House has an interest in the welfare of all members of small towns. In Tasmania we do have - and we would be foolish to think otherwise - a number of smaller towns and townships that border onto national parks or reserves, where over a number of years there has been a considerable build-up of fuel. I know that is so in Bridport where, as the minister quite rightly points out, I do have an interest. In fact I have family members living in that town.

Mr Cox - So do I.

Mr GUTWEIN - In fact so does Mr Cox, so I am certain that he shares my concerns for the welfare of the people in that town. I would like the minister to articulate how he sees that sort of risk being managed in the future, and whether or not he believes that the legislation before us provides him with sufficient opportunity -

Mr Llewellyn - There is probably a better example that springs to mind and that is the township of Lorinna where, I believe, there is quite a problem with respect to fire and the access to that particular township.

Mr McKim - You're attacking Bridport, Minister?

Mr Llewellyn - No, I'm not.

Mr GUTWEIN - I will defend you there, minister, I do not think you were attacking Bridport at all but I think you were quite rightly making the point that throughout the State there are a number of small communities where it would be prudent for us to consider an emergency management plan prior to an emergency occurring. In fact in the time since I was first elected to this Parliament four years ago there was Tomahawk. We also had the fires on Flinders Island - and I see Mr Cox is nodding, I know he has a particular interest in Flinders - and I am certain that both he and my colleague, Mrs Napier, would recall a couple of the houses on that particular island that were saved by the grace of God, and I would also say by the grace of God we never lost a life.

Are those the sorts of challenges and changes for which you hope to provide an opportunity for better management and preparation as a result of this bill? I would like your views on that because I think that in an island State, obviously there is a range of emergencies that could confront us but those that we might quite realistically expect would be fire and certainly flood, which my colleague will speak about in a moment.

We support the Emergency Management Bill 2006. There are some matters, as I say, that I would like clarification on and in winding up I say once again that I am certain every member of this House would wish that we would never need to see this legislation enacted or called upon in this State.

[3.15 p.m.]

Mrs NAPIER (Bass) - I am going to follow up my colleague's reference to the flood situation. This bill reinforces the ongoing close relationship between the SES and local government by clarifying the role of the councils and the SES regarding emergency services and the support and resources of the municipal volunteer SES units.

Further on in the speech you indicated, Minister, that this bill expands the definition of emergency to include circumstances that may result in an emergency. You went on to say that this could apply to situations where warnings are issued for significant floods, fires, tsunamis or the like. You said, and I quote:

'Lessons tell us that we should not wait for the disaster to occur and just focus on response and recovery. If it is reasonable to believe that a major emergency is likely or there are significant risks, we should consider this an emergency situation and have legislation that helps us deal with such a situation in the hope of preventing or mitigating the effects.'

As an extension of that I would ask the minister to provide the House with an indication of how he thinks this will improve the capacity of the State Government, together with the Launceston City Council, to tackle the question of having a good emergency plan to deal with potential flooding, whether that is the 100-year flood or otherwise.

You would be well aware, Minister, that this issue again became an issue of public concern. I very much welcome that because it is an issue I have followed from the day that I entered parliament. What are we going to do to fix or improve the flood levee system in Launceston? You would be aware that it was thought at one stage, through the agreement set up in 1975, that it would be a partnership between the Launceston City Council and the State Government. Council would manage the levee system but the State Government had the financial responsibility to upgrade the levees to ensure that their maintenance was complete and so on. Launceston City Council, whose responsibility it was to actually maintain them, needed the money from the State Government in order to maintain and improve the levee system. Of course, nothing has happened.

We now have a very dangerous situation, as I think most of us are aware, with the levees where you have water coming up inside the levee system. It clearly shows that the levees have been undermined. They say it is the Scottsdale levee that is most liable to collapse. Of course, the danger is that once the water is in then there are two consequences. One is that there will be significant potential damage to the area of Invermay. Launceston City Council is now grappling with the issue of trying to flood-proof the collection at the Inveresk Museum. The real danger is that it will push out the levee system and cause collapse of the Launceston levee system. A number of options have been talked about as to how to deal with it but I cannot see anyone deciding to close down Invermay to eventually encourage people to move out. A lot of people's livelihoods are built up in the property that they own, which is usually the most important investment that any individual or family makes for their immediate and future security. It was hoped in 1999 that the issue of the levees was built into the Launceston City Council/State Government partnership. I again became interested as to how this might progress. I had quite a number of briefings and I raised it in Estimates because it was hoped that now it was actually in the partnership it would result in a movement forward. However, seven years later, whilst we have a draft report, it has not been formally accepted. The reasons for it not being received are probably pretty complex, but you would have to thin k that it is the quantum of funding issue, the $33 million-plus that has been talked about, and whether that sort of investment can be justified in a long-term economic evaluation to cause us to follow one or a number of the recommendations.

I acknowledge that the State Government has offered, I think, $700 000 towards funding, together with the Launceston City Council, to investigate the New Orleans levee system, and to learn more about the maintenance and/or improvement of similar levee systems. However, the danger is that a flood could happen tomorrow. It is not as if people can argue, 'Oh, well, it caught us by surprise'.

I was looking for a copy of the old emergency management plan that was supposed to deal with floods. It was pretty archaic and pretty inadequate to the task even then. I imagine, if I had managed to get my hands on it more recently, I would be even more aghast at the lack of preparedness in our ability to prevent, but also to respond to, an emergency flood.

No-one is going to tell you it is coming when you are living in that area. Rainfall impacting on the North Esk and the South Esk takes a little while for the water to come through, but water can rise pretty quickly in those rivers. I guess there is the question of ensuring public safety and trying to minimise damage, but there is also the question of who is going to pay the bill. Look at the impact the flood would have on public infrastructure and industry. There is a lot of industry in that area and a lot of valuable sporting grounds that money is put into, but most importantly there are individuals' livelihoods and households.

It behoves this Parliament, as much as it might also behove the good work that the Launceston City Council is doing, to start to get this one up on the top of their agenda. It is something that for far too long has been pushed down to the bottom because no-one wanted to recognise the fact that it is a big job; it is going to cost a lot of money. As I said, $33 million is being talked about. My view is that you would fix the levees. If that involves relocating the levees then we have to act quickly because you do not want industry further developing in areas that you might actually prefer to leave as part of the flood plain liable to the 100-year flood.

If you are looking at ongoing and future development, I suppose the Gunns site is one very good example; I guess they are conscious of what might happen if the 100-year flood comes through. Whilst UTRIA is responsible for dredging, no-one currently has responsibility for clearing the aftermath of a flood, when logs flow up and down the river and become a hazard to shipping. We had legislation to deal with the danger of ships that might break moorings or be inappropriately on the river. I think it is important that we have had that debate, and that we have a management strategy for dealing with it. I think MAST is the best entity to deal with that.

If the levees fail, whose fault is it? Is it a maintenance problem of the council? They will say, 'We were never given the money to do the maintenance'. They would say, 'It's the State's problem because they didn't put the finance in'. Frankly, none of that debate would be any solace to anyone who was actually a victim of that flood. It seems that this bill does provide a mechanism by which at least, and hopefully quickly, a upgraded emergency management plan can be established for dealing with the likelihood of a flood. I would ask the minister what role he has, as a responsible minister, for ensuring that the emergency plan for dealing with flood situations in the Launceston area is upgraded, and quickly. I would ask the minister what responsibility he now sees that he has, particularly given his speech. He said that one should not wait for a disaster to occur.

You could see that a disaster could occur. It is now an emergency. I agree with you, Minister; I believe that it is really very urgent that we find a way of making those levees safe, at least in the interim. I am told that between $3 million and $5 million is needed. I am hoping it is in the State Budget to at least make them safe in the interim. What mechanism are you implementing to ensure that this whole thing is expedited and does not get lost in the processes that have proved to be unsuccessful to date? Since 1975, if you like, or since the Launceston City Council-State Government partnership agreement 1999, it has not worked. So what are you going to do, Minister, with the powers under this act to press this issue, find the solutions and help to ensure that the funding is available.

I welcome the minister's statement that under this act where you can see that an emergency might arise then it is an emergency. The Liberals announced that they would at least put $1m towards establishing an authority that would operate for as long as the potential for flood damage could be seen to exist in the area. Launceston City Council has promoted the establishment of a flood protection authority that could just get on with the business of dealing with an emergency. It is potentially an emergency because the danger has been identified and publicly acknowledged. The State has the financial responsibility for addressing this, as well as the responsibility now under this bill for ensuring that it is addressed.

[3.27 p.m.]

Mr MORRIS (Lyons) - For the vast amount of time that remains I might as well just sit here and scratch my ear as make any sensible contribution, other than to say that in general the Greens will support this bill. We support the principle of keeping the legislation modern, and it does seem that it has been through an extensive consultation period. I must say that in the communication that I have had from the West Tamar Council they still have a number of outstanding issues that they are not happy with. We are still waiting on another reply from them at the moment.

There are in particular the powers for the various officers that are contained within this legislation. I will want to explore that further, and I suggest that we will have a Committee stage. It is not my intention now to get into a substantive debate on this. Clearly, as far as emergencies are concerned in this State, probably fire and flood are the two in recent history that have created emergencies for which we would want to have these powers available. If you let the imagination loose there may be any number of other types of events that may also create an emergency situation.

Having legislation that is modern and easy to use, that has powers that are as appropriate as possible, and language that it is appropriate for the modern era, is indeed a good thing to do. So with that I would say that the Greens will support the legislation, but we will want to explore further the powers and the reporting of how those powers are exercised.

Debate adjourned.