Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Foreign States Immunities Amendment Bill 2009 was described quite clearly by the minister in the second reading speech. He said:

In Australia, the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 provides the legislative regime for the immunity of foreign states from the civil jurisdiction of our courts. At present, under section 13 of that act, foreign state immunity does not extend to proceedings concerning death, personal injury or property damage arising from acts or omissions in Australia. This means that foreign governments could be exposed to legal proceedings as a result of sending their personnel to assist in emergencies in Australia.

Consequently, this legislation deals with that matter. The minister also advised us:

I note also that the immunity would not apply in any criminal proceedings.

All of this is a very welcome initiative. Quite obviously, persons coming to our assistance, virtually as volunteers, should not have to worry about being taken on in areas that frequently might relate to the fact that they lit a fire—because we have a paranoia in Australia about the management of forests. Some green group could actually challenge one of these fellows if he were on a bulldozer and pushing down trees. That is how silly our law is, and that is why so many people died in Victoria. There is a need to give these people protection from the abuse of our court proceedings or from some other act, where they are entitled to protection. This is welcomed, and of course it is to be reciprocal, inasmuch as Australian firefighters attending fires in the Northern Hemisphere, in the United States, will have similar protection.

It is interesting, from my own personal knowledge of the history of this matter, that, to the best of my knowledge, this exchange commenced when Australia sent firefighters to the United States at the time of the destruction through wildfire of Yellowstone National Park and other areas. I have informed the House before that, as a consequence of those visits, and as the then Minister for Forestry and Conservation, I called a ministerial council. We arranged a briefing for the state ministers by some of the senior firefighters who went and assisted in the attempts to put out those fires in the United States.

The most interesting thing about it, from my recollection—and the horror it generated when I saw 170 people in Victoria murdered by bad public policy—was that a senior firefighter took us through what had happened in the United States. The green activists had taken over and the forests had been put into reserves and then treated by the authorities with benign neglect. Of course, the consequence of that was a massive build-up of forest waste and an overpopulation of the forests. When Abel Tasman landed in, I think, 1642 on the island of Tasmania he talked of a forest consisting of gigantic trees. He measured their diameter in fathoms—a fathom being six foot. He said that you could see for miles—or leagues, or whatever his choice of words was—between them and there was evidence around their bases of burning. That was the original forest in Australia—but, of course, we were talking about the original forest in the United States. The American Indians actually harvested trees and undertook similar burning practices, as did the Australian Aboriginals. And they were safe forests. They were a safe environment.

That senior firefighter pointed out to us how the neglect through public policy had created firetraps. He also told us that the heat intensity was such that the soil was sterilised for a metre below the surface. That is evidenced in Yellowstone National Park today. A little while ago—a year or so ago—friends of mine visited the park and were looking for their money back. They said that they thought they were going to see a wonderful forest and they actually saw blackened tree stumps—a bit like the edges of Canberra after it was attacked by a nuclear event. That firefighter told us that Australia was next. When he departed and I asked the ministers what they would like to do about that, they said, ‘We’ll have to put out a press release.’ I then asked—and this is a matter of record—‘What are you going to put in the press release?’ and was told, ‘We’re going to need more appliances and more orange overalls.’

A project was put to us just yesterday by a Territory opposition spokesman attempting to do something about this—and, by the way, he was present as one of the ministers at that ministerial council. He mentioned the McArthur index. It was predicted before the Victorian fires that fires had the potential, because of the fuel build-up on the forest floor and the association of climatic circumstances and ignition—however that might occur—to exceed the scale by 100. My recollection is that the fellow who put out that index—a fellow called Packham—said that at 2.5 on the scale firefighters became useless and redundant and that there was a great risk of death. Looking at the figures again yesterday, it was 25. But it hardly makes a difference, because at 100 people can actually be vaporised and Land Rovers made of aluminium can melt. That is what happened in Victoria.

In today’s media, one sees that the royal commission—which the minister also makes reference to in the second reading speech—is now taking evidence. The greatest number of submissions to that commission related to the principle of ‘no fuel no fire’. That the commission have taken this long, considering that summer is nearly upon us—we are into spring—is to be criticised, in my view. They beat up on the firefighters—when, on the scale of the fire, their appliances and orange overalls were ineffective and they could not fight it—but there are also issues around the management practices of the Victorian government.

The Victorian government received a report from one of its own committees that identified the need for hazard reduction and hid behind the excuse, oft repeated by the green activists, that more scientific research was needed. What? In 1642 we were told how to do it. In 1694 another Dutch sailor went up the west coast and, when he was off the Swan River as we know it today in January, he reported much smoke. They were primitive people with no fire engines, no yellow overalls and no helicopters burning the forest in the middle of summer. Why could they achieve that without personal loss of life or limb? They did it regularly. The forest benefited from it. The eucalyptus tree, our great symbol, is a product of that burning. You can go to areas of Australia where there are significant watersheds and it will be the only places you will find other varieties of trees that survive burning. Eucalyptus thrive on it.

We have had a very necessary piece of legislation drawn to our attention. We had a briefing yesterday about a warning system—that is fine, if you are not in a Telstra black spot, of course. We did not need warnings about loss of life and injury, because it was practical to stay with your house if you had properly prepared it for fire and protected it from fire. The intensity of a bushfire means that with reasonable management it is practical to do so.

I watched Q&A where the surviving occupants of Marysville were interviewed. One lady who I thought was very credible as she was the local historian said that as they sat on the oval they saw no flames. But all of a sudden everything went black and the houses started exploding into flames. People in that vicinity were actually vaporised. A young pregnant woman trying to get to the oval where there was some clearing and some protection was found dead from asphyxiation on the road. That does not happen in a safe forest environment. That is the first point: no fuel, no fire. On the McArthur scale there is a point at which the treetops start burning and of course that contributes a lot of oil. But, again, it needs the heat from the burning of the debris on the forest floor. Debris rises a metre per hectare per annum. We are advised by the ACT member yesterday that debris levels surrounding Canberra are nearly back up to what they were in 2003. It is all going to happen again.

I raised this at one stage when I was minister and a New South Wales bureaucrat accused me of wanting to bitumise the forests of New South Wales. That man should be recommended for some court proceedings too. As far as I am concerned, what happened in New South Wales was criminal by neglect. Yet when the Brumby government were advised by one of its own committees that they had to do something about it, they in fact refused to do so because there were a few votes in it. ‘I’m safe. I’ve got a job in parliament. There is no bush around it. Why should I worry about the people of Marysville and all those other towns?’ Some were lucky enough only to lose their property but many lost their life.

This legislation deals with putting out fires, and I endorse every part of it, but in his second reading speech the minister said:

Before concluding in terms of this bill, I take this opportunity to welcome again the release of the interim report of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission.

The government has commenced a detailed analysis of the recommendations in the interim report and will continue to provide whatever assistance we possibly can to the royal commission.

The patently obvious outcome of about 20 reports is that the forests of Australia are no longer the safe environment for humanity that they once were. Even over years gone by they were not. If they were a private workplace and 178 people were killed in a factory fire, where would the unions and the occupational health and safety people be? They would be outside the front gate putting up the gibbets. They would want the directors of the company put in jail. The directors of the company in this case are the Victorian government—or, if you like, the Victorian parliament, because I do not think the opposition down there has ever made a squeak either.

The reality is that those people were killed because of the intensity of the fire. There are two factors over which humanity has some control: one is the overpopulation of the forest and the other is the fuel loads accumulating on the forest floor. That is not smart, because, as everybody who has cleared land knows—as you, Deputy Speaker Secker, would know—to keep logs burning you have to keep pushing them together.

Australian people were talked into doing away with the Australian forest products industry, yet what did the industry do in the forest? They maintained a road system. As a report to this parliament indicated, after the fires around Canberra and through the Snowy Mountains the roads that had been blocked off and filled in had to be bulldozed so that people could get machinery in to try to put out fires. When the fires had been extinguished, the authorities immediately went in and ripped those roads up again. So they will not be there next time. I can say, on the advice of a person in the Canberra region who should know, that in many places those levels of debris are back to where they were before the fires.

What are we doing as a parliament? Do we believe in occupational health and safety? Do we believe in the rights of people to be protected by good management practices and good public policy? We fund every state government in Australia to about 50 per cent of their expenditures. Why aren’t we today—in fact, why weren’t we six months ago—debating a bill for the formation of, for instance, a safety commission for forest management? Surely we should use the power of the chequebook?

I might add that there is very little incentive, from an expenditure point of view, for state governments to create a safe environment in their forests, because under the natural emergency agreement with the states they spend the first $5 million, or something like that, and then the poor old federal taxpayer has to fork out the rest. I do not know how much of the reported $300 million or $400 million the Victorian government has had to shell out over and above the public subscription to the Red Cross following these fires, but if the federal government pays for it why should the Victorian government take the logical step of turning its forests—the reserves it has created by law—into a safe environment?

The forest products industry did it in numerous ways. They maintained a road system. They thinned the forest. They cut trees out without annihilating the forest. Clear-felling, which was much criticised, never destroyed a forest. As every farmer knows, trees have this wonderful ability to grow back if you leave a paddock long enough without any grazing or ploughing. The reality is that this government, under the national emergency arrangements, has to say, to the states at least, ‘We’re going to put an inspector in, and if your forests are a clear risk because you haven’t managed them properly then you are excluded from those arrangements.’ That is what any insurance company would do. That would be the minimum. I would cut all their money off until they did the right thing. It is they who created these reserves. It is they who got themselves decent votes and preferences from the Greens. All of a sudden they have encountered the events that followed.

The legislation most needed in this place is at a national level to address the fact so that we do have an inspectorate. The inspectorate can go and look at forests and if there is not an eight-year turnaround on hazard reduction prescribed burning their money will just be cut off until they achieve it. Either they can do that or they can let the forest products industry back in there. The forest products industry used to put fires out before they became hazardous because they had D9s, other pieces of machinery and roads to attack it. All that has been lost. (Time expired)

See this speech in context