The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (17:23): I rise to speak briefly on the Emergency Management (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill and to indicate that I will be supporting the bill on behalf of the Greens. The bill makes a series of important changes to implement the recommendations of the 2024 independent review of the Emergency Management Act, and in doing so it ensures that our state can effectively prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters.
It introduces the new category of 'state of alert' to enable the State Coordinator flexibility in their response to emergencies and to more effectively manage public messaging during extended periods of emergency management. The bill also establishes a State Recovery Coordinator with responsibilities and powers to lead and coordinate recovery efforts, and it further recognises the contributions of volunteers and the crucial role they play in emergency management.
I would like to note that the Emergency Management Act specifies that an emergency may include an event that causes or threatens to cause 'harm to the environment, or to flora or fauna'. I do question, therefore, why the government has not already used this provision in the act to declare an emergency in relation to the toxic algal bloom crisis which has engulfed our shores over the past few months. It is the most significant environmental disaster in the modern history of our state. It has spread across our coastline, it has killed many thousands of sea creatures and it has taken a major toll on businesses, tourism and the mental health of all those who live and work on our coast.
I know my colleagues in Canberra, in particular Senator Hanson-Young, have been calling for the federal government to declare a national emergency, but indeed it makes sense for such an emergency to be declared here in South Australia. Scientists from the Biodiversity Council have warned that the wildlife impacts of the marine heatwave that has driven the catastrophic algal bloom are likely to be equivalent to those from the Black Summer bushfires and would need a similar level of response from government. Instead, the state government has been slow, ambiguous and flat-footed. This has contributed to deep public uncertainty about the scale of the crisis, the risk to the community and what support may be provided to communities that have been impacted.
Legislative frameworks for emergency management are only useful if the decision-makers are willing to pull those levers when a disaster occurs. The accelerating climate change is driving natural disasters like the toxic algal bloom. It is essential that our state has the resources, the capacity and the legislative framework that enable effective emergency responses to keep South Australians safe. We must also remember that unless we act urgently to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, these events will become more frequent and more damaging to our ecosystems, our communities and the industries that rely on them.
A number of speakers have touched on our collective experience dealing with COVID-19. I think it is fair to say that a number of decisions were made in often quite a rapid-fire way, and sometimes some of those decisions had curious or unintended consequences. In particular, in the health space, families were prevented from being able to visit loved ones who were in hospitals or experiencing significant health events and the like.
I know, in retrospect, a lot of those decisions can seem heavy-handed or cruel or potentially really lacking common sense, but I think also we do need to remember that governments and those who were charged with administering the act were doing so with the best of intentions, and their overarching intention was to save lives. Indeed, the Marshall government, which was leading our response to COVID-19, I think did lean very heavily on the expert advice at the time, and that was supported by the opposition and by other political parties in this place, so I do not make any criticism of the Marshall government for the work they did in managing that, at least at the initial stages. I think where things started to go awry was when they moved away from some of the advice and perhaps opened up the borders at a time when preparation had not been done.
The Hon. Ms Game has made a number of quite shocking claims about the dystopian future that awaits us if this bill passes the upper house. I do not share her pessimism about the future of our state should this fairly non-controversial bill pass through the upper house, but I did note that the member wants more protection for human rights of South Australians. I hope that she will support the Greens' push for a human rights charter. There was a parliamentary inquiry into this recently. All political parties present at the inquiry of the Social Development Committee, chaired by the Hon. Ian Hunter, recognised the benefit of some level of human rights protection.
The One Nation political party has traditionally opposed human rights and any form of human rights framework. Now that the Hon. Ms Game is free of the shackles of the toxic One Nation brand, I hope that she will consider that with fresh eyes, because human rights protection would certainly ensure that all South Australians are protected and probably allay many of the concerns that the honourable member has. With that, I conclude my remarks.
Before sitting down I might, just to save time, indicate my position on the amendments. I understand the Hon. Connie Bonaros is advancing an amendment to make expressly clear that these powers can be used in relation to marine life. My reading of the bill was that is already in prospect, but I think this amendment makes it crystal clear, and in light of current events that is helpful. I also understand that the Liberals are moving some amendments as well regarding protections for vulnerable people in emergency situations, and I have indicated that I am supportive of those amendments as well. I am not supportive of the Sarah Game amendments, and I am not sure whether others will be advanced on the floor, but I will certainly watch the debate.