- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Council
- 11 June 2002
Crimes Amendment (Bushfires) Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 43 of 51
| Next Item »
Page: 2961
Second Reading
Debate resumed from an earlier hour.
The Hon. RICHARD JONES [9.48 p.m.]: I support the Crimes Amendment (Bushfires) Bill. It has been said already that section 195B of the Crimes Act 1900 provides for a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment for maliciously damaging a property by the use of fire or explosives. Under section 196B the penalty rises to 14 years if the property is damaged with the intention of injuring a person. Under section 198 the maximum penalty is 25 years imprisonment for a person who maliciously damages property with the intention of endangering life. So the legislation is pretty well in place to penalise those who recklessly cause fires. We were all quite shocked by the Christmas bushfires last year when many homes were lost. That was a tremendous tragedy for the owners. The skies of Sydney were dark for days after that.
There was nothing very much that Commissioner Koperberg and his Rural Fire Service or the New South Wales Fire Brigades could do about that, because the fires were so severe. Some areas were burnt more than once—some up to three times. Some fires went through at a slower pace and at a lower level, and then came back through the treetops. Some areas were incredibly severely burnt out. We were all most grateful to the many hundreds of volunteers who spent their Christmas and subsequent holiday period fighting bushfires and trying to save people's homes, possessions, and domestic pets and livestock. Many tragic stories appeared on television and radio and in the press. Fortunately, many of us were not affected by it but many people we know were, including people within this building. We applaud the firefighters, both men and women, not just from this State but from all over, who spent their time and risked their lives to help people save their homes, their property and their stock. It was a selfless sacrifice by them. It showed that the Anzac spirit is still alive and well throughout Australia.
A Senior Counsel to whom I recently spoke about this matter told me that too many new homes are extremely vulnerable to bushfires. He said that some code should be in place to prevent building on ridge lines, particularly where fires can sweep up and burn houses on the edge of the ridge lines. Flying over Sydney one can see that many ridge lines are built out, and those homes are extremely vulnerable to bushfires. Some of those homes will be hit by bushfires in the future, and there will be very little one can do about that, given the ferocity of the fires that we experienced last Christmas and that we will no doubt face again in a few years, regardless of the amount of hazard reduction undertaken in the meantime.
Over the weekend my wife and I were in the Blue Mountains. Yesterday we passed through Wentworth Falls and Leura, along a road parallel to the main road. In that short stretch of a few kilometres we saw houses that are very vulnerable to bushfires. It worried us to look at those houses and wonder how they would cope if a bushfire came up the gully. The owners would have very little chance of saving their homes. They are vulnerable, even if they fill their gutters with water, close the house up, or keep their hoses turned full on.
It is all very well to talk about hazard reduction and the impact that can have, but Commissioner Koperberg has a good handle on this. He believes that if we continually hazard burn we will have very little biodiversity left. During the inquiry that General Purpose Standing Committee No. 5 held two years ago into the New South Wales Rural Fire Service evidence was given that some areas suffer worse for being burnt, because it leaves fire-vulnerable vegetation. Conversely, some areas that are not burnt are more resistant to fires because the rainforest tends to grow back and helps to prevent bushfires spreading.
The inquiry into the New South Wales Rural Fire Service was very thorough. The Hon. Malcolm Jones was a member of the committee and he produced a minority report calling for more hazard reduction. However, the majority of the committee members considered that Commissioner Koperberg's leadership was good and that hazard reduction was well handled. The Hon. Tony Kelly represented the Labor Party on the committee and the Hon. R. T. M. Bull, an extremely good former member of this House, was also a member, as were the Hon. Ron Dyer, the Hon. Johno Johnson and the Hon. John Jobling. It was a very good committee. The committee made a number of recommendations. Recommendation No. 13, which was supported by all members other than the Hon. Malcolm Jones, was:
… that hazard reduction burns continue to be based on best scientific knowledge of the effect of burns on vegetation types to reduce the risk of increasing fuel loads.
We were calling for the continued use of scientific knowledge rather than indulging in knee-jerk reactions from shock jocks who were calling for the unnecessary burning of vast areas, which would possibly cause more damage later. It is important that we look at the best scientific evidence available and use it. Commissioner Koperberg was delighted with the report. He said it was exactly what he had hoped for. It backed him all the way; indeed, we found that he was very competent. The whole report was accepted. Recommendation 10 (b), (c) and (d) stated:
The Committee recommends that Fire Control Officers and other Rural Fire Service staff be employed by the Rural Fire Service.
The Committee recommends that local councils be involved in the preselection process for Fire Control Officers.
The Committee recommends that local performance agreements be entered into between the Rural Fire Service and local councils regarding management and responsibilities under the Rural Fires Act 1997.
Many of these recommendations were adopted, and Commissioner Koperberg found that they helped him enormously to move forward with a better organisation during the tragedy last Christmas. The report was written by Anna McNicol, the director; Roza Lozusic, the senior project officer; and Phaedra Parkins. They did an extremely good job. The commissioner was able to adopt those recommendations, and perhaps they saved a few lives or properties. Things have developed apace since then. The Government reacted to the anguish and anger expressed by people towards those who deliberately set fires. The majority of the fires at Christmas time were deliberately lit, by people with a disturbed mind. So many people who end up in gaol are disturbed. As the Hon. Malcolm Jones said, if these people are gaoled they will be prevented from setting fires while they are in prison.
Unfortunately, some people are pyromaniacs: they get some weird pleasure from seeing fires roaring through properties. We cannot do much about that. Hopefully, those who are aware of this 14-year imprisonment penalty in this legislation will be deterred. We cannot be sure that will happen, so we have to be ready for another eventuality like the one we had last Christmas. It may be next year, or two or three years down the track, but we always have to be vigilant and make sure that our valiant firefighters have the equipment they need to do the job properly and we must make sure that home owners and renters are as prepared as they can be for the worst eventuality.
I urge the Government to look further than just increasing the term of imprisonment for firebugs. It should look also at planning controls, particularly in the outer fringes of the urban area, where there is an interface between the city and the bush. It should look at its duty of control over future developments so that houses built in the future are less at risk, and there is some control over houses that are rebuilt so that they are far more fire resistant than the original houses. I hope that future fires will not be as bad as the fires we experienced last Christmas, but I fear that at some time in the near future they will be. I hope that this one step will help a little and that the Government will look at other measures, including planning controls, to prevent the building of properties that are obviously vulnerable to fires.
The Hon. DAVID OLDFIELD [10.00 p.m.]: I, of course, support the Government's bill in relation to increasing penalties for those lighting fires, but on the significant issues of backburning and fuel reduction I do not think that it can be overlooked that the Green movement, with its lobbying and the problems caused through the National Parks and Wildlife Service, is responsible for many fires getting out of control when, had there been proper hazard reduction, this would not have occurred. It is an extremely serious offence for a mature person to deliberately light fires. In saying that I acknowledge that a child playing with matches can create an equally unfortunate scenario. In some cases they may wish to be seen as the battlers who fight the fires. A mature person who lights a fire is causing a very serious hazard and is guilty of a considerable offence and should be treated as harshly as possible under the law.
If a person dies as a consequence of the deliberate lighting of a fire, the authorities should consider laying manslaughter or even murder charges. The fact that it may not have been the intention of the culprit to kill someone is irrelevant. The fact that the fire was intentionally lit and a criminal act cannot be overlooked in considering the serious consequences that result. So the authorities should consider charging with manslaughter or even murder a person responsible for lighting a fire which resulted in the death of any person. It is terrific if a home and contents lost in a fire are insured but money really does not replace a home. It certainly does not replace the many prized family possessions, heirlooms and photographs of family members—sometimes going back as much as a hundred years. Those things cannot be replaced. I reiterate that a person who lights a fire intentionally should be held in absolute contempt by the community and should suffer the worst possible penalties available. In closing, I state that I would like to see the Federal Government do more to recognise the support of volunteers—not just the volunteer firefighters, who all members of the community respect and are grateful to—who, although not actively fighting the fires, supported the firefighters. Those people cut the sandwiches every day, brought water and were there on the ground doing all of the backup work that was required for the front-line firefighters. It would be good if the Federal Government did more to recognise those people as well.
The Hon. JOHN DELLA BOSCA (Special Minister of State, Minister for Industrial Relations, Assistant Treasurer, Minister Assisting the Premier on Public Sector Management, and Minister Assisting the Premier for the Central Coast) [10.03 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. On behalf of the Minister and the Government I place on record the appreciation of the work done by firefighters, especially during the recent fire crisis and emergencies that have been spoken of by most members in their contributions. The bill specifically seeks to do something about the range of practices that have been discussed during the debate in relation to the lighting fires by offenders who, for a variety of reasons, as people have speculated on during the debate, seek to endanger property and life by lighting fires during hazard seasons. The lighting of fires in the course of hazard reduction is recognised and treated according to a different set of standards from those applying to people wilfully seeking to place property and people at risk by their misbehaviour. I understand that no amendments have been foreshadowed, so I take that to mean that the bill has the general support of the House. I commend the bill.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:39:48 : Update this page