Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice and Customs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on the Foreign States Immunities Amendment Bill 2009. This is a bill where I think there is absolutely no difference between the government’s and the opposition’s positions. When I explain what the bill is about, everyone will understand that. It is about giving foreign firefighters immunity when they come to Australia to fight fires. It never fails to inspire and amaze me, when there is a natural disaster, particularly a fire—and we reflect on the recent Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria and fires that affected my electorate in western New South Wales, in Kosciusko and in Canberra in 2003—how people come to help. I could be way out in the west of New South Wales in the middle of the week in a small town where there is not a tree to be seen and find that many of the farmers and businessmen have left their communities, their jobs and their families to go sometimes for weeks on end to elsewhere in Australia or elsewhere in the state to fight fires. It seems when disasters strike those men and women hear the call and everything else becomes of secondary importance.

It is encouraging to realise that that sense of community when it comes to fighting fires extends not just nationally but internationally. Australians have benefited greatly in recent years from the expertise and resources of US firefighters. Their contributions in times of dire emergency are hugely appreciated. In the 2002-03 bushfire season, the US sent an infrared scanning aircraft and photo interpreters, together with 36 firefighters and a 20-person crew, to aid Australia. During this time US firefighters shared their knowledge and experience with Australian firefighters. The 2006-07 bushfire season saw some off the worst fires in Australia in over 50 years. Fires burned through 2.4 million acres in the state of Victoria, and 114 American firefighters, two hot shot crews and 68 other resources from the US were dispatched to Australia for a month-long assignment.

Our firefighters too have been able to reciprocate assistance on numerous occasions. Australian firefighters’ aid to the US started in 2000. After the 2000 wildfire season, the US realised the value of having effective flexible, cooperative and formal relationships. Australia continued to provide assistance in suppressing wildfires in 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2006 all over the US, including Colorado, California, Washington, Oregon, Montana and Idaho. In 2007 the US Secretary of the Interior, while on a presidential delegation in Australia, personally thanked the Australian firefighters who assisted in suppressing wildfires in the US. The arrangement assists both countries not only in the tasks that each can perform for the other but for the valuable experience they gain, which can be put to use in their home countries. A branch manager from Forests New South Wales said:

We deploy people not only as a way of sharing our forest fire fighting experience, but to develop skills and provide invaluable experience that our teams can bring back to their home country.

Dean Kearney, a firefighter from New South Wales, recalls his firefighting experience in Boise, Idaho, in the US:

It was really amazing to see the way these crews worked, with all 20 crew members walking in single file according to rank, both in camp and on the fire ground. It’s not the sort of thing you see on fires in Australia.

So I certainly commend that exchange of experience. It is not just seeing how another country carries out firefighting activities, which will clearly differ for a variety of reasons, but the moral support in knowing that someone has come from so far away to help you in your time of need. The amendment bill that we are debating today will help to further enhance this firefighting experience. It is very much in our interests to ensure that the arrangement continues. The amendment will allow for the establishment of concrete protocols to ensure that aid gets to Australia as efficiently and quickly as possible. In Kearney’s case, he was in Idaho within 48 hours of a request from the US. Of course, when fires break out there is no time to be going through red tape and bureaucratic hoops. We need people to be able to travel quickly and get onto the job as soon as possible.

The main concern that the US has about dispatching her firefighters is vulnerability they may have in Australia to liability claims. This legislation will facilitate the formalisation of that arrangement going forward. The Foreign States Immunities Amendment Bill 2009 will provide immunity in tort in respect of the acts or omissions of foreign personnel in the course of rendering assistance. Under our current system, if an American firefighter during the course of duties in Australia were to cause injury or damage to property or other people, he or she would not be protected from liability. In August 2002 a bill was passed in the US to provide tort liability coverage for any international firefighter brought to the US. The US has already taken the first steps to cover our firefighters. Australia itself has acknowledged since 2002 that there are liability concerns surrounding Australian firefighters providing assistance in the US, so now is the time for Australia to offer to US firefighters the same protection that the US has provided to our firefighters since 2002.

While of course it is not common here for firefighters to be sued for negligence for something not done, or not seen to be done, in the course of their duties such claims will arise from time to time. Probably, and sadly, they may arise more often as our society becomes more litigious. I note the US case of Capital and Counties PLC versus Hampshire County Council in 1996, where a firefighting officer was held liable after negligently ordering the sprinkler system in a building to be switched off when that building was burning. No government would want to send aid to Australia if there were a possibility of liability claims being made against their volunteers, so this legislation will cure this defect and encourage assistance to Australia in critical times. It is clearly not in our interests or in the interests of any country providing emergency assistance for any deterrent to access to foreign assistance, expertise and resources in times of emergency to exist. So this is sensible legislation which seeks to secure a very important arrangement and which has the coalition’s full support. I commend the bill to the House.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members of this House saw and heard the devastating consequences of the Black Saturday bushfires, which afflicted my home state of Victoria earlier this year. The fires ravaged communities, devastated entire towns and resulted in the deaths of many people. We heard in many moving condolence speeches that were given in this House in February of this year the full horror of the fires and their effects on communities. The courageous efforts of local firefighting volunteers, Country Fire Authority firefighters and professional firefighters from other countries were critical in bringing those fires under control and in preventing the even worse damage that would have been suffered had those firefighters not been there to stand between the people of Victoria and the fires.

The professional firefighters from the United States made a particularly notable contribution, but that contribution runs the risk of being restricted in future due to potential liability under Australian tort law. The Foreign States Immunities Amendment Bill 2009, which is before the House, addresses this problem and will facilitate cooperation with other countries in firefighting. Countries such as the United States, New Zealand and Canada have contributed to the containment of major bushfires in Australia in recent years. Their assistance has included the provision of personnel and equipment and the development of effective firefighting strategies. Most recently, the United States Department of the Interior dispatched 100 firefighters to reinforce Australian efforts to contain the Victorian fires. Other nations have also made substantial contributions, as seen in the deployment of 116 firefighters by New Zealand and 52 firefighters from Canada. Such assistance was reinforced by the provision by the United States of technical specialists such as experienced pilots for fixed wing firebombing aircraft.

The United States firefighters who helped earlier this year and in previous years have been able to provide specialist assistance and training in prevention strategies and preparation for managing bushfires and they have, of course, been on the ground directly working with Australian firefighters in fighting fires. That second aspect is a crucial aspect of the assistance that is being provided by United States firefighters because we have seen that state and territory fire services can be overstretched when fires burn for a long time, running the risk of exhausting state and territory resources. Just to give an indication of the immense assistance that the United States firefighters have provided in recent years, we have had over 170 United States firefighters deployed to Australia over just the last seven years—in 2003 for the very large alpine fires, in 2006 for the fires in the Great Divide and in 2009 for the Black Saturday fires. There is also a point to be made about the very direct and immediate assistance that is provided by the United States firefighters which relates to the training that they receive and the similarity between Australian and United States conditions. What those two things mean is that United States firefighters are able to fit directly into crucial roles at short notice. It is worth mentioning that this is very much a reciprocal relationship. Over 260 Australian firefighters have been deployed to the United States on five occasions in recent years—71 Australian firefighters went to the United States in 2000, 40 in 2002, 47 in 2003, 69 in 2006 and 35 in 2008.

These professionals have provided crucial assistance to our local volunteers and our professional Country Fire Authority firefighters. In key locations such as Bendigo, Beechworth and Glenhope, foreign firefighters came to reinforce local brigades and crews after days of exhausting firefighting. The effect on morale must have been significant in knowing that people in other countries were concerned and were ready to help those enduring Australia’s worst bushfires. The firefighters from other countries brought with them knowledge and personal experience from firefighting in their homelands. I have already noted the particular direct applicability of US firefighters’ experience of US conditions in enabling them to fit directly with firefighting efforts here.

The future contribution is potentially in doubt as a result of potential liability in tort proceedings under Australian law. Currently firefighters from other countries may be liable for a range of events—including death, personal injury and property damage—that result from acts or omissions by them in the course of providing assistance in firefighting efforts in Australia. That has given rise to concern by the United States government. In fact, because of the possibility of its firefighters becoming entangled in litigation here, United States law has prompted these amendments. In particular, there is concern that firefighters might be held liable or might be sued for acts arising from genuine attempts by them to assist those in need. Fear of litigation has some potential to undermine firefighting efforts, as it might distract foreign professional firefighters from the task at hand. One can readily imagine that concerns about being sued might be exacerbated if a US firefighter might be liable for actions undertaken not as a result of something that they have judged to be correct action but because they have adhered to the orders of local officials. That kind of fear places an unnecessary burden on these hardworking firefighters from overseas who generously lend us their assistance. Removing the cause of these concerns is likely to help foreign firefighters perform their duties even more efficiently.

The amendments to the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 seek to provide legal immunity to foreign firefighters from proceedings in tort from actions arising from the provision of assistance. The proposed changes to the legislation will not provide immunity from civil liability arising from actions undertaken outside of firefighting duties, nor will the immunity apply to any liability under the criminal law. As a result, the protections conferred by these proposed amendments remain limited in scope so as to address the concerns of firefighters from other nations—but the particular focus is on the request from the United States—but will not create unreasonable exceptions nor affect the overall enforcement of Australian law. By addressing these concerns, enactment of these amendments will further strengthen firefighting cooperation with other countries.

In 2001, Australia signed an agreement with the United States to provide a basis for mutual assistance to fight major fires. The agreement has been overwhelmingly beneficial, allowing for American firefighters to assist in Australia and reciprocally allowing Australian firefighters to assist in the United States. I have detailed the recent, large-scale assistance that Australian firefighters have been able to provide in the United States, notably in California. As I think is well known, California has very similar bushfire conditions because of the large extent of its forests and the dryness of its summers. This means it is useful for US firefighters to come here, and it means our firefighters are particularly useful when they go to the United States.

Renewal of this agreement is currently being negotiated between Australia and the United States, as it is due to formally conclude in 2011. The terms of the new agreement will provide for more comprehensive assistance, allowing all states and territories in Australia to seek the assistance of the United States. It will provide Australian firefighters with the same kind of legal immunity when assisting in the United States, but the United States government has indicated that it is unable to finalise acceptance of the agreement while its firefighters remain subject to potential litigation here. The amendments contained in this bill will address the concerns of the United States and allow the agreement to be finalised. The bill demonstrates very clearly that Australia values the contribution of these firefighters and creates a basis for greater bilateral cooperation in future—not merely with the United States but, because it provides a model, with a range of other countries who have also indicated willingness to assist Australia in its firefighting efforts. I mention in that regard France and Japan, which have very generously extended offers of assistance.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reality is that Australia has always been subject to natural disasters. Whether they are floods, cyclones or bushfires, natural disasters are part of our history. Luckily, or by good planning and good grace, our volunteer firefighters are part of our history. They do a most excellent job. Of course, Australia is just like a lot of other countries. We have emergency service and bushfire volunteers to help deal with the natural disasters that affect this country, as they affect others as well. In recent years, as previous speakers have said also, there has been quite a flow of support between nations. We offer our support and they offer it back to us. I welcome this chance to make a contribution on the Foreign States Immunities Amendment Bill 2009, which is designed to provide civil immunity in our courts for firefighters from the USA. This bill, when passed, will help to allow the finalisation of the exchange agreement between Australia and the US, as is being negotiated by Victoria. The bill will provide immunity from proceedings for foreign states and their personnel where acts or omissions occur in the course of their providing emergency management assistance in Australia. The passing of this bill will amend the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 to provide protection for the personnel who are in Australia assisting an Australian government in their preparation for, prevention of or management of emergencies or disasters.

It is a general principle of international law that representatives of foreign states are entitled to immunity from the litigious jurisdiction of the nation in which they are hosted. This originated from the obligation on host nations to provide immunity from prosecution for diplomatic representatives. In Australia, that obligation was enshrined in the law with the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985. Specifically, personnel from foreign states covered under the act included people from heads of state to government officials. With specific regard to firefighters, since the year 2000, following an international agreement between Australia, New Zealand and the United States, firefighters have been sent back and forth between all of those countries. In fact, in 2003 and 2007 American firefighters came to Australia and provided assistance with bushfire threats. A new agreement between Australia and the United States is now required. However, it cannot be finalised until this bill formalises the immunity requirements from tort proceedings for US firefighters resulting from their carrying out their duties. Following the tragic Black Saturday fires in Victoria, it is of particular and urgent concern that we are certain of having US firefighting support in reserve.

The Foreign States Immunities Amendment Bill 2009 specifically amends subsections 42(1) and 42(2) of the act, allowing the minister to provide opinion to the Governor-General regarding immunity or privilege under the act. It is the case that this bill does not provide immunity for a foreign state in proceedings concerning the death of or personal injury to a person or the loss or damage to property. Although this bill is about legal issues, it is also about dealing with the threats of bushfires and other natural disasters in Australia. Often, we hear from overseas about mass loss of life in floods, earthquakes, mudslides or other disasters, yet we seem to have had so few losses from natural disasters in Australia. Before Black Saturday this year, perhaps that was true, but it has not been since—with nearly 200 lives being lost in that tragedy.

Prior to this year, our other large bushfire disasters have included Ash Wednesday in 1983, when 71 people were killed in bushfires in Victoria and South Australia. I remember at that time—on my way to a rowing regatta event, which used to be my sport when I was a lot younger—flying across the country and seeing the huge plumes of smoke, particularly across central to eastern Australia, that were emanating from the fires at that time. Also, in February 1967, in Tasmania, 62 people died in fires and 1,400 homes were lost. More recently, in 2003 here in Canberra, four lives were lost and 530 homes were destroyed. Having lived in Canberra when I was in the Army, it did not seem real that something like that could happen—a modern city, albeit with forests right up to the edge of it. It seemed almost surreal for those of us who have some knowledge of the suburbs that were affected so badly by that fire. While it is important to concentrate on the circumstances surrounding the tragedy of the deaths and loss of property that have occurred in these fires—and we do that in order to learn not only from the mistakes but also from the successes that have taken place—we must also consider that many more lives could have been lost and property destroyed if we had not had our bushfire brigades and if this country did not have the benefit of their courage and dedication.

I spend much of my time in Cowan promoting and encouraging volunteers. I am talking about the sorts of people who keep our clubs and community organisations going—school P&Cs, service clubs, RSLs and others. These volunteers are, without doubt, a vital part of our community. There is, of course, another group of volunteers who quite literally on occasion risk their lives in support of our communities. In particular I refer to the bushfire brigades and emergency service volunteers that we have throughout the country, including my electorate and others close to it. With Cowan being an outer metropolitan electorate, there is in fact a bushfire brigade in Wanneroo, and in nearby Joondalup, which is in the Moore electorate, there is the Wanneroo-Joondalup State Emergency Service unit. My friend Mal Washer, the federal member for Moore, is extremely proud to have those SES volunteers based in Moore, although pretty much half of them come from Cowan and half from Moore. We certainly thank them for their service.

When I met the SES unit last year, there were 56 members, so unfortunately I cannot take the time to name them today for their dedicated service and commitment to the community, but I would like to mention a few of the leadership group: Karen Condon; deputy unit managers Ian Kirk and Ron Duyvestein; Anne Haynes, the administration manager; team leaders Bill Hansen, Damien Gee, George Moylan, Ken Dewhirst and Steve Faulkner; and deputy team leaders Ian Kidd, Ned Gavan, Paula Gillespie, Peter Higgins and Scott McBroom.

Earlier this year when the parliament expressed our condolences regarding the Black Saturday bushfires, I took the opportunity to speak of the Wanneroo Volunteer Bush Fire Brigade and Wanneroo Volunteer Fire Support Brigade. I expressed my appreciation for their courage and the risks they take for the people of Western Australia and, more often, Wanneroo and surrounding districts. I will, however, say this again: it takes a very special person to be prepared to put themselves in the way of extreme danger. These are very special people.

I really do wonder what sort of country we would have if we did not have people who were prepared to put their lives on the line, particularly in a volunteer capacity. They give up their spare time for the community and, while I understand camaraderie and the esprit de corps is drawn upon as a sense of encouragement for them, the facts are that they could have chosen an easier path. They could do what most people do and adopt the attitude of just leaving it to someone else. This is a job that somebody must do and this nation is all the better because we have very fine Australians willing to stand up and be counted. I congratulate them and I honour them for what they do for all of us.

Having diverged from the detail of this bill, I can say that it has my full support and that I look forward to it being passed quickly so that we can be sure that, should they be required to assist with firefighting in Australia in the coming months, there will certainly be no obstacles to us being able to call upon our firefighting friends from the United States. I commend this bill to the House and I commend the government for bringing it forward.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to speak in support of the Foreign States Immunities Amendment Bill 2009. As a resident of South-East Queensland, having lived in Ipswich all my life, my family and I have witnessed firsthand what natural disasters will do to you in terms of the cost not just to family life but to domestic arrangements and in financial impoverishment. I can recall vividly the 1974 flood—I was a young boy—and the devastation it wreaked when my parents home was eight feet underneath the water and when about a third or more of Ipswich and about a third of Brisbane was under water when Cyclone Wanda came in from the north. I will always remember with fondness the firefighters and the wonderful work that they did to save the lives and the property of so many Ipswichians and people in the rural communities around Ipswich.

Last year, I was pleased to have the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, come to my electorate and visit the Lockyer Valley and meet with the representatives of the various rural fire brigades. I pay tribute to the work they do, particularly in relation to the fires we have had in rural Ipswich, the Lockyer Valley and the Fassifern Valley in the last few years. I also pay tribute to the SES workers, particularly in Ipswich with the terrible storms we have had in the last six months and the devastation that has been inflicted upon the area. I praise also the Ripley Valley Rural Fire Brigade and Jim Runham for the work they do and thank the businesses and the state Labor government in Queensland for the support they give to rural fire brigades. The people in rural fire brigades volunteer their time, effort and money and they make tremendous sacrifices to assist people, particularly in rural areas. I am pleased to say that the rural fire brigades in the Fassifern Valley and the Lockyer Valley make an enormous contribution and are warmly appreciated and valued for the contribution they make and their community spirit in the rural communities in my electorate.

The Australian Labor Party has three tenets concerning our foreign policy. The first one concerns our engagement with Asia, including assistance and practical help, particularly in the Asia-Pacific area. We see that expressed in places like Timor, the Solomon Islands and other localities in South-East Asia and through our cooperation with our regional allies such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore on issues concerning people-smuggling, the trafficking of drugs and other areas where the Australian Federal Police are doing tremendous work, working with local law enforcement agencies.

The second tenet of the Australian Labor Party concerns our engagement with the United Nations and our commitment to multinational action with respect to the relief of poverty and assistance to the poor in relation to their health and other circumstances through the World Health Organisation, UNESCO and other vital international organisations.

The third tenet of the Australian Labor Party’s commitment internationally is our alliance with the United States. The United States is a wonderful friend of Australia, not just in times of joy but in times of crisis. We saw that in World War I and World War II. We have seen it on other occasions. We value their assistance in East Timor. We also value their contribution regionally. Many of us as federal politicians have attended wonderful celebrations concerning Victory in the Pacific Day, the Battle of the Coral Sea and other occasions. But it is also about the ongoing practical assistance the United States has provided us and our reciprocal arrangements with the United States concerning firefighting. Parts of the United States are very similar to Australia.

Queensland is a state of vastness with respect to not just geography but also the climate that we have. I launched the Queensland Farmers Federation climate change report, funded by the federal government. Queensland suffers tremendous challenges with respect to climate change. We see that not just in floods but in fire as well. The legislation here is really Victorian based, but Victoria is negotiating, in a sense, on behalf of all states and territories of Australia. The conclusion of an agreement with the United States is vital to ensuring that the assistance that the United States has provided over so many years and on so many occasions since the early 2000s can continue. We have seen over the past seven years the United States deploy over 170 firefighters to Australia, particularly in places like Victoria. We have sent over 260 Australian firefighters to the United States on five occasions. This degree of friendliness and cooperation is emblematic of the wonderful relationship that Australia and Australians enjoy with the United States. We need their help and they need ours. It is a matter of friendship, comradeship and good neighbourly relations. We appreciate the specialist assistance they have given us in training and prevention strategies and in the preparation for managing bushfires. We also are very appreciative of the practical, financial assistance they have given us in this regard and of the way in which firefighters can learn from one another in the circumstances. It is very important that at short notice we can get access to their assistance—and they to ours.

As someone who practised as a lawyer for nearly a quarter of a century before being elected to this place, I want to say that the issue of tort is a challenge to all of us. When a person is sued they can expect that the plaintiff may claim damages for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, economic loss, Griffiths v Kerkemeyer damage, special damages—many kinds of damages which could be claimed against someone who has been ‘guilty of committing an act or omission of a negligent nature’. If that is the case, firefighters could expect that they could sustain large claims against themselves if they acted in a way which was negligent. So any way we can ensure immunity for American firefighters—our own firefighters have a similar immunity in the United States—is important in the circumstances of helping one another.

But this does not mean that, if a US firefighter comes to this country and commits a criminal act of manslaughter, robbery, assault, murder or break-and-enter, that person should be absolved of the laws which govern all of us. That is appropriate. If you go to another country and you decide to traffic drugs, you reap the consequences of the punishment of the legal system imposed by that other country. We do not expect that when US firefighters come to this country they will engage in criminal acts, but if they do they should be charged.

This legislation before the House does not absolve anyone from criminal acts, but it is important legislation because the United States have made it very clear that, due to their domestic legal arrangements and requirements, they cannot finalise the agreement with us unless the immunity is in place for their firefighters, and we would expect nothing less for ours. This is a good bill. It is a bill which ensures that we can help them and they can help us. It is legislation that should have bipartisan support. We appreciate the fact that those opposite also support this legislation. It ensures that sovereign immunity, which is a very important principle of international law, is upheld. This legislation recognises that we are part of a global community. It recognises also that we need to protect our neighbours’ firefighters, as they need to protect ours.

I would hope that my own state of Queensland takes up the challenge in this regard. I hope that we will continue to see in this country our friends from America and that they will receive our sons and daughters over there with the same degree of neighbourliness and the same degree of charity that they have in the past. This is about being a good Samaritan, to use the New Testament principle. I commend the government for the legislation before the House and warmly speak in support of it.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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)

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of theForeign States Immunities Amendment Bill 2009. This is one of those bills that will get no attention in the media and will proceed without any fanfare. However, the importance of this bill should be acknowledged. The Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 provides a regime for the immunity of foreign states from the civil jurisdiction of Australian courts. This immunity is subject to various exceptions listed in the act. These exceptions include proceedings concerning the death of or personal injury to a person and loss or damage to tangible property caused by an act or omission that occurs in Australia.

This bill seeks to amend the act to enable a foreign state, and its emergency management personnel, to be immune in tort proceedings under the act for acts or omissions that occur in the course of the foreign state providing emergency management assistance to Australia. It is important to note that this immunity would apply only to acts and omissions of the foreign personnel in the course of providing the emergency management assistance. This means, importantly, that any negligence by a foreign official outside of their duties would remain subject to the jurisdiction of Australian courts. In addition, and equally important, the immunity would not extend to any criminal proceedings.

With current negotiations proceeding with the United States for a new agreement that will further enhance the support exchanged between Australia and the United States in relation to fire suppression resources, this bill is not only useful to assist those negotiations but also essential. One aspect of the new agreement which remains outstanding is the status of the United States and its firefighters in legal proceedings that may be brought in Australia. Due to their domestic legal requirements, the United States cannot finalise the agreement unless immunity for tort proceedings is provided concerning the actions of their firefighters in the course of their duties. It is the case that firefighters from the United States under the existing agreement have been assisting with fires in Australia, but it has remained a concern of the United States throughout this time that such legal protections do not exist.

Australia’s bushfire season rapidly approaches and the devastating effects of the Black Saturday fires are still very much being felt by the families and communities involved and also by the broader Australian community. In this context it is important that Australia take all necessary steps to ensure strong relationships and formal agreements are entered into with other countries that can provide support in circumstances of emergencies or disasters within our country. This is not to say that Australia does not have its own obligations to assist in relation to emergencies and disasters across the nation, but by taking such action and entering into such agreements we will provide support to our own emergency personnel who may assist those reciprocal countries in times of need. It is reasonable for any country to want to ensure, when sending their emergency personnel to another country to provide essential resources, that immunity is provided in the exercising of those duties while in that country. We would seek such support ourselves for our own emergency personnel.

This bill will enable vital USA firefighters to be deployed to Australia over the next fire season. We should take this moment to acknowledge that in the last seven years over 170 US firefighters have been deployed to Australia, on three occasions: for the 2003 Alpine fires, the 2006 Great Divide fires and of course the 2009 Black Saturday fires. Over 260 Australian firefighters have been deployed to the United States on five occasions. Because Australia and the United States have similar training and operate in similar conditions, US firefighters can fit into crucial roles at short notice. They provided invaluable assistance during the devastating Black Saturday fires.

Let us not forget the human face of these devastating fires. Just this week my local community on the Redcliffe Peninsula have been host to survivors from the Kinglake fires. People in the community have hosted these survivors by billeting them in their homes so that these survivors can spend time relaxing and enjoying life—not something to be taken for granted. The Redcliffe Seaside Traders have organised this visit and have been holding events across the peninsula to raise money in support of the survivors and the great work being done by the Kinglake community. Jenny Wald, one of my electorate officers, was in attendance and delivered a speech on my behalf yesterday at an event held by the Redcliffe Seaside Traders at Scarborough State School to commemorate the victims. I hope the survivors from Kinglake enjoy their visit to the Redcliffe Peninsula, with beautiful Moreton Bay as their backyard. It is certainly a great place to visit. We know that a trip like this cannot heal the pain felt by these survivors, but we do hope that it provides some relief and an opportunity to see that people all across Australia are here to provide support. The people of Redcliffe are certainly renowned for that.

On the Australian United States exchange program, it is important to note that the program also provides valuable experience to Australian and US firefighters, helping firefighters develop new skills and knowledge. The new agreement will give equivalent immunity for Australian firefighters when operating in the United States. Of course, this bill does not limit itself to firefighters in the United States. Even though at this stage there is no intention to enter into such agreements, the Australian government is certainly able to create immunity by entering into similar arrangements with other countries. Although fires are a serious threat to Australia, we cannot ignore that many other emergencies or disasters can occur, whether natural or otherwise.

Australia is certainly not immune to cyclones, and the American people are still recovering and rebuilding their lives after the consequences of Hurricane Katrina. We also remember disasters such as the Thredbo landslide and Stuart Diver’s rescue, and the Beaconsfield mine collapse with the rescue of Brant Webb and Todd Russell. With those miraculous rescues, our thoughts also go to the families who lost loved ones in those disasters. We will always remember the terrifying tsunami that struck Indonesia and surrounding areas and the devastating loss of life—again, communities that continue to rebuild to this very day. Support came from numerous nations, including Australia, to assist in that disaster.

We cannot put a figure on the human toll that arises from the event of an emergency or disaster. We know that the effects are lifelong and widespread. We as a government have an obligation, where circumstances are within our control, to provide all the support we can and to put in place the mechanisms to forward-plan for emergencies and disasters. It is Australia’s obligation to ensure that barriers do not stand in the way of obtaining foreign support when times of emergency and disaster strike. Where countries have the ability to share expert resources, they should ensure that they provide that support. We also have a responsibility, which is to ensure that protection is provided to our emergency personnel and equally that we are providing such support to foreign countries in similar circumstances.

As I have stated, disasters come in many forms and they are not all naturally occurring. One example of a non-natural disaster emergency, of course, is mining accidents, and the United States and Australia have certainly seen their fair share. These types of disasters can require urgent specialist assistance to save lives and, in cases like these, the Australian government may wish to call quickly on assistance from another country. Of course, this bill does not result in immunity being provided automatically to foreign emergency management personnel that may assist Australia in such circumstances. Rather, what this bill provides is a framework for limited civil immunity to be provided where appropriate on a case by case basis.

I hope the passing of this bill will not only assist in the finalisation of a new agreement between Australia and the United States but also lead the way to new agreements and stronger bonds with a range of countries in the exchange of critical resources in emergency and disaster response. The message is simple: the Australian government is committed to strengthening our capacity to withstand disasters and emergencies in order to protect the safety and security of all Australians. I commend this bill to the House.

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Foreign States Immunities Amendment Bill 2009 will permit the states and territories to conclude a vital new agreement with the United States for the exchange of fire suppression resources including firefighting personnel. As the next bushfire season approaches, we need no reminder that emergencies and disasters can have a devastating effect on the lives and welfare of Australians. Only seven months ago on Black Saturday we saw horrific bushfires in Victoria, and many members will recall the impact on the city of Bendigo in my electorate, where we had the worst disaster in our history. I spoke in the debate on the condolence motion for this incident and I mentioned the tragic death of one person and the total destruction of 59 homes in those Bendigo fires. I am now in a position to point out that, even more tragically, the police have now determined that fire was deliberately lit. How anybody could light a fire on a day like that under those sorts of conditions is probably beyond comprehension but that is the unfortunate conclusion the police have come to. To date there has been nobody charged with that offence.

The Victorian Department of Primary Industries has provided me with its assessment of farm losses in the fires on the same day at Reidsdale, about 15 kilometres north-east of Bendigo. I remind the House of some of those statistics: 85 rural properties around Reidsdale were affected and almost 6,500 hectares of land were damaged. Most of this was grazing pasture but of note was the impact on two commercial olive-growing operations at Barfold, where more than 300 hectares of olive trees were affected. Although there was significant livestock and wildlife loss, fortunately there was no loss of human life in that particular fire. A royal commission is now investigating the issues and concluding its investigation arising from the Victorian fires as we get ready for the forthcoming fire season. The Victorian government last month warned that this summer’s bushfire conditions could be even worse than those which led to the deadly fires last February. It has identified 52 towns that will be at particular risk this summer. In my electorate this includes the city of Bendigo and several nearby townships around Castlemaine.

Our volunteer and professional emergency services workers do a superb job of helping us to prepare for the fire season and helping fight bushfires when they do occur. During the Black Saturday fires in my electorate there were countless heroic efforts to save people and possessions. Many of our firefighters are volunteers who readily give up their time and spare time to protect our communities, and they work tirelessly when called out to a fire. It is no exaggeration to say that we could not survive without them.

But we simply do not have enough firefighters for the sort of extensive and long-lasting fires we experienced last February. For some years United States authorities have provided critical help to Victoria in the lead-up to, and during, the annual bushfire season. A cooperative exchange program allows personnel and equipment from one country to be deployed to the other country to provide vital operational assistance. This also allows Australian firefighters to share and develop specialist knowledge and skills by participating in training exercises and study tours. The similarity in conditions in Australia and United States means that both countries’ firefighters are able to fit straight into front-line roles at short notice.

This capability has been invaluable during long bushfires, when local resources get overstretched and exhausted. Over 170 United States firefighters have been deployed to Victoria since 2003, including 73 during the Black Saturday fires earlier this year. A new cooperation agreement is currently being negotiated that would apply across the whole of Australia. Victoria is leading the negotiations but, if they are successful, the new agreement will benefit all states and territories. However, the United States has been concerned for some time that Australian law currently provides no immunity from tort proceedings to its firefighters while they are engaged in bushfire assistance activities in Australia. The United States is understandably concerned about its firefighters becoming caught up in legal disputes in Australia, and it cannot finalise a new cooperation agreement without this immunity. Without the new arrangement in place, United States authorities will not be able to provide help to the states and territories in the upcoming bushfire season, potentially leaving our fire services dangerously exposed.

This bill will amend the Foreign States Immunities Act so that regulations may be made applying immunity from tort proceedings to a foreign state, including its personnel, where they assist the Commonwealth, a state or a territory to prepare for, prevent or manage domestic emergencies and disasters. The immunity would only apply to acts or omissions of foreign personnel in the course of their duties and would not apply in any criminal proceedings.

The agreement being negotiated provides for a reciprocal immunity to be granted to all Australia and its firefighters under United States law. This will ensure an equivalent level of protection for Australian firefighters when they are operating in the United States. The limited and appropriate protection in the bill will allow the United States to confidently deploy its firefighters in response to a request for help from Australia. The new bushfire exchange program with the United States will form an integral part of the fire management and response capacity of all Australian states and territories and will enhance the safety and security of all Australians. This bill is one way the Australian government can support the states and territories as they prepare for the coming fire season and I commend this bill to the House.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not want to spend a lot of time talking about the technical parts of the Foreign States Immunities Amendment Bill 2009, because that has been well covered by speakers on both sides, but I would like to make some comments, having had some experience working in international affairs in areas where such agreements had to be negotiated. There can always be a response about giving immunity—should or shouldn’t we? From a purist’s point of view, people often say, ‘Well, there are immunities now given for all sorts of things.’ The fact is that it is the world we deal in, the world we live in and if we want to get help from other countries and we want to give it then it is necessary to give this immunity in several areas. Not in criminal areas, we never do that. It is civil immunity.

We certainly do not want a situation where firefighters or other emergency personnel are deployed to Australia, as acts of goodwill and frequently as volunteers, and are inadvertently tied up in civil proceedings in the courts. This does not include where somebody has a legitimate cause of action in an Australian jurisdiction; that will prevail and be taken to the appropriate authority. So it does not have an impact on that. But because we are interdependent in the globalised framework that we operate in, this is an effective mechanism. It will allow personnel—emergency personnel in this case—to be deployed as needed, and because this will work in a reciprocal way it can give comfort to both sides. But the fact that we have an emergency or a disaster is not a precondition to the use of this regulation-making power. The way I understand the bill, and I know the Attorney would be able to answer this definitively, it will operate on a case-by-case basis. It is overarching legislation with regulation-making power as each situation warrants it. That is my reading of it.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I think it is important that it is on a case-by-case basis and there will be that regulation-making power there. I admit that I have not read all of the bill, but that is the way I read it at this stage. The regulation-making power will cover foreign states that send their personnel and/or equipment to participate in the ordinary course of emergency management activities. So the regulation-making power can extend to situations where preparations are being made for a disaster but where it has not occurred. It is very important that we undertake those activities and that we undertake that preparedness together, and frequently we do.

In conclusion, this bill will provide a key way for the Australian government to assist the states and territories with bushfire prevention and management, because the states and territories handle bushfire prevention and management, and this is a way that the federal government can help. This bill is a key way for us, at a national level, to enhance our ability to withstand disasters and emergencies. I commend the bill to the House.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I would like to thank the members for Farrer, Isaacs, Cowan, Blair, O’Connor, Petrie, Bendigo and Page for their contributions to the debate. I welcome the support from both sides of the House. I can confirm, in response to the question from the member for Page, that the bill provides a framework for limited civil immunity to be provided where appropriate on a case-by-case basis.

Specifically, the Foreign States Immunities Amendment Bill 2009 amends the Foreign States Immunities Act to enable immunity from tort proceedings where a foreign state assists Australia in preparing for, preventing or managing emergencies or disasters. It is an important step to help Australian authorities prepare for the next bushfire season. In particular, I would like to thank opposition members for their bipartisan support of the bill and for their assistance in ensuring the speedy passage of this bill through the parliament in time for the forthcoming bushfire season.

The bill is necessary in order to permit the states and territories to finalise an agreement with the United States for the exchange of vital fire suppression resources prior to this year’s bushfire season. For some years, United States authorities have provided vital assistance to Victoria and other states in the lead-up to and during the annual bushfire season. Over 170 United States firefighters have been deployed to Victoria since 2003, including 73 for the devastating Black Saturday fires in 2009. These firefighters were deployed under an existing agreement between Victoria and the United States. While the existing agreement provides for the immunity of United States firefighters operating in Australia, that immunity has never been given effect in Australian law. This has been of some concern for the United States for some considerable time.

Victoria and the other states and territories are currently negotiating a new agreement with United States authorities that would apply across Australia. Due to their domestic legal requirements, the United States cannot finalise this agreement unless immunity is in place for its firefighters—in other words, that the terms of the agreement can be enforced and will apply as part of Australia’s general law. Without the new agreement in place, the United States may not be able to assist Australia in the upcoming bushfire season, potentially leaving state and territory fire services dangerously exposed.

The bill will facilitate the provision of immunity to the United States by inserting a new regulation-making power in the Foreign States Immunities Act. The bill will allow regulations to be made with respect to a foreign state that assists Australia to prepare for, prevent or manage emergencies or disasters. This will allow for immunity from tort proceedings to be provided to a foreign state that provides such assistance to Australia, pursuant to an agreement of the kind we were talking about.

It is important to note that the bill places limitations on the new regulation-making power. The regulation-making power only applies to actions of foreign personnel in the course of providing emergency management assistance to the Australian government or a state or territory government, as opposed to any conduct that they may become involved in outside those duties. No immunity can be provided for actions of foreign personnel outside of their allocated emergency service duties. The bill has no effect in relation to criminal proceedings. Criminal conduct by foreign emergency management personnel will remain subject to the full jurisdiction of Australian courts. I should note, though, that to my knowledge there have been no such incidents from these people who have provided tremendous assistance to Australian authorities. Finally, the bill does not affect the liability of Australian governments, agencies or officers.

The general framework of the bill is that it is a flexible option that permits the Australian government to assist the states and territories in future situations where they may urgently require assistance from overseas. There has been some commentary, I understand, as to whether it is appropriate to modify these provisions or permit this exemption to apply by way of regulation. The purpose of that is precisely to provide that flexibility. The regulation-making power is intended to cover a range of emergencies and disasters, natural or otherwise. It was thought too prescriptive to have the measures set in stone in the legislation rather than creating a more flexible regulation-making power.

Of course, the bill does not result in immunity being provided automatically to foreign emergency management personnel that may assist Australia in such circumstances. Rather, the bill provides a framework for limited civil immunity to be provided, as I have indicated to the member for Page, where appropriate, on a case-by-case basis. I also recall that any regulation made under the new power will, of course, be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in each case under the scrutiny power that the Senate possesses.

In conclusion, the bushfire exchange program with the United States is and will continue to be an integral part of Australia’s fire management and response capability. I should indicate our great appreciation to those United States firefighters who have assisted and will continue to assist Australian emergency workers. Because of their training and the similarity between Australian and United States conditions, United States firefighters are able to fit straight into crucial roles at very short notice. This extra capability is essential during long bushfire campaigns when state resources are overstretched and Australian fire fighters exhausted.

The bill does no more than is necessary to provide appropriate protection to United States firefighters, and it allows the United States to be confident in responding to our requests for assistance. It also provides a general framework so that the Australian government may assist the states and territories in future situations where assistance from overseas is required and the issue of immunity arises. As I said when I introduced this bill into the House, it is an important measure to enhance our capacity to respond rapidly and effectively to emergencies and disasters. This contributes to the safety and security of Australians. In turn, it will facilitate Australians assisting with the safety and security of citizens of the United States.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.