Department of Treasury and Finance, $49,379,000

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance, $1,392,192,000

Membership:

Dr McFetridge substituted for Mr Wingard.

Mr Knoll substituted for Mr Gardner.

Minister:

Hon. A. Piccolo, Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety.

Departmental Advisers:

Mr D. Place, Chief Executive, SAFECOM, Department of Justice.

Mr G. Nettleton, Chief Officer, CFS, Department of Justice.

Mr C. Beattie, Chief Officer, SES, Department of Justice.

Mr G. Lupton, Chief Officer, MFS, Department of Justice.

Mr J. Schirmer, Business Manager, CFS, Department of Justice.

Ms L. Lew, Business Manager, MFS, Department of Justice.

Mr P. Lambropoulos, Manager, Financial Services, SAFECOM, Department of Justice.

Ms I. Calabrese, Business Manager, SES, Department of Justice.

The CHAIR: I declare the proposed payments open for examination. I call on the minister to introduce his advisers and then make his opening statement, if he has one.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Just to clarify, Chair, are we doing SAFECOM first?

The CHAIR: We have a list of dot points, which I read out this morning, and everyone sat there and nodded, so I am presuming all five dot points are open at the same time.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We agreed for the ease of—

The CHAIR: Who agreed? Not with me. So what are you asking?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: What we are suggesting is that we do SAFECOM first, general questions about the whole sector, and then we will do one portfolio at a time. Is that correct, member for Morphett? That is to make it easier for the staff so that they are not hopping up each time in a different order. So we will do CFS, MFS—

The CHAIR: It would just be nice to know, that's all.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I understood—

The CHAIR: Okay, opening statement.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Sorry, I beg forgiveness, Chair.

The CHAIR: It's only an hour.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I assumed that you were advised.

The CHAIR: No, I am the last to hear anything.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I take the responsibility for that.

The CHAIR: Okay.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: My current adviser for the general SAFECOM question is Mr David Place, Chief Executive of SAFECOM.

The CHAIR: Do you have a very short opening statement or no opening statement?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I have a short statement, as follows. During the recent fire danger season, our state faced its busiest period of fire activity on record followed by an extreme storm, flooding and several heatwaves. It is remarkable that during these extreme events not one life was lost and property damage was minimised, thanks to the efforts of our emergency service workers.

The Country Fire Service, the Metropolitan Fire Service and State Emergency Service worked together to protect communities across the state, bringing great credit upon themselves and gaining the appreciation of a grateful state.

I would also like to acknowledge the way Emergency Service agencies work not only with each other but across government with agencies such as the Ambulance Service, SAPOL, and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, amongst many others.

It is reassuring to know that we have capable government agencies with dedicated public servants who provide critical support to our emergency services volunteers on the front lines. In the last years, our emergency services agencies also supported our interstate colleagues in the Blue Mountains and in Hazelwood, Victoria, during their time of need. I know the governments of both Victoria and New South Wales were extremely grateful for our support.

Over the past 12 months our emergency services capabilities have been further strengthened through state government funding, including new MFS stations at Glen Osmond and Salisbury, a new CFS station at Tumby Bay, a new SES unit at Mount Barker, five new MFS appliances and approximately 40 CFS appliances, three new SES trucks and four four-wheel-drive service vehicles, one new vessel for the Australian Volunteer Coastguard, the expansion of the mobile phone emergency messaging system, and we have more than doubled our capital funding for Surf Life Saving SA's clubroom rebuild program, for which members along the coast are appreciative.

The Hon. P. CAICA: All South Australians.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: All South Australians. Looking forward, I will be responding to my cabinet colleagues in parliament on the Holloway review into the Fire and Emergency Services Act, which was tabled in parliament last year. After significant discussions in May and June this year with my Emergency Service's chief, the SAFECOM board, emergency services unions and volunteers and their associations, as well as the Public Sector Association, I embarked on a series of roundtables across the state to discuss how the emergency services sector can be reformed to ensure it is structured to meet future challenges.

As discussed, the emergency services sector performs extremely well, but the current governance model has flaws and has not performed as envisaged. There is room for structural change that would generate savings to be reinvested in the sector, particularly into frontline services. It is my intention to develop a home-grown model for South Australia that is generated using that ground-up approach.

After discussions with key stakeholders, including SAFECOM, MFS, CFS, SES, South Australian Ambulance Service, South Australia Police, United Firefighters Union SA, CFS Volunteers Association, SES Volunteers Association, Ambulance Employees Association, the SAS Volunteer Ambulance Service and the Public Service Association, it was decided by all that I should speak with as many staff and volunteers as possible across the state to discuss what works well in the sector and what does not from their perspective, from the people on the ground.

To date, I have facilitated regional roundtables to discuss these issues at Barmera, Port Augusta, Clare and Kangaroo Island. More than 250 volunteers and staff from the emergency services attended these roundtables. I have also undertaken several roundtables in Adelaide and peri-urban areas, including Noarlunga, Belair, and also to cover the Light-Barossa region.

I will also be undertaking several more roundtables in regional metropolitan areas, including Port Lincoln, Mount Gambier and Yorke Peninsula. I think I have two this week, one at Mawson Lakes and one at Hahndorf. Participants have expressed a wide range of views which have all been constructive.

I would like to put on the record my thanks to all the volunteers who came to those roundtables and engaged in the process. Their advice and views have been a very important part of the reform process. The participants have agreed on a whole range of guiding principles that must be incorporated into the new structure or reform.

What has been most pleasing to date is the way the various agencies and unions have come together both at the roundtables and in smaller groups at other times to discuss how they can work together for the betterment of their members and the sector. The initial engagement processes are expected to be concluded in September this year.

Some reforms are likely to be implemented fairly quickly, others will be rolled out over the next one to two years, avoiding any significant reform during the bushfire season. As you can see, there is a lot going on in emergency services. As always, the sector is performing well, but there is always more to be accomplished over the coming months and years. Thank you, Madam Chair.

The CHAIR: Member for Morphett.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I would just like to put on the record the Liberal Party's, in fact, the whole of the parliament's, strong support and admiration for our emergency services in South Australia, particularly the chief officers. Can I just say that we are probably all thinking of emergency workers in Ukraine at the moment, having to do what they are doing. I saw the firies there doing some pretty unsavoury jobs, but that is what they do. Emergency service workers go to the job when others are running away. Thank you again, and we will get on with the questioning, thank you, chair.

My first budget reference is Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 102, the net cost of services summary. Providing emergency services in South Australia is a very costly business. Do any savings that you put in place have to be returned to Treasury?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Do you mean the normal efficiency dividends or are you talking about savings which may come from the reform process?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Efficiency dividends in this case.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Because of changes just recently I will get Mr Place to answer to make sure that we get an accurate answer for you.

Mr PLACE: The efficiency dividend is a percentage across things like your total salaries budget, or I think there was one recently of contractors, etc. Does your question relate to where that money comes from?

Dr McFETRIDGE: No, are those savings returned to Treasury?

Mr PLACE: Yes.

Dr McFETRIDGE: All of it is returned to Treasury?

Mr PLACE: It is a cost saving we have to achieve.

Dr McFETRIDGE: What is the total cost of the emergency services budget this year? The allocation was read out at the start.

The CHAIR: It is $49,379,000 and the administered items are $1,392,192,000.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you. With the increase in the emergency services levy, how much extra is going into the emergency services this year?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: My understanding is that the emergency services levy has been increased by removing a number of remissions. All that additional money is going into the Community Emergency Services Fund. That is replacing general revenue, or consolidated revenue, which has been reallocated to other parts of the budget. We have had to do that to support other sectors of the budget which have had to deal with federal cutbacks.

Dr McFETRIDGE: To be clear, there is no money from the emergency services fund or the emergency services levy that is being used for any other purpose other than emergency services, because that would be illegal. Is that right?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is correct. The act stipulates very clearly where that money goes, and that money is spent in accordance with the act. There will be a small residual, because there is still an amount—as I have explained in my talks around the state, if you can picture the budget for the emergency services sector is so much: approximately (not exact figures) 50 per cent came from the emergency services levy and 50 per cent came from consolidated revenue or general revenue.

Now that will probably increase to closer to 90 per cent from emergency services levy; there is still a small portion—that is because we still give a number of rebates to pensioners and concessions, and that portion is funded by general revenue. So, the budget itself is not affected. We do not actually take money from the emergency services to pay for those remissions or rebates; that money comes from other parts of the budget.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Can you take it upon yourself to inform the public, because volunteers I mix with are getting abused by the public who are saying, 'What is happening? You are getting all this extra money, so why are you still complaining about not getting the funding?' Is the government doing anything about that?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Not only are we doing something; it has been approved today. I have picked that up around the traps when I have been speaking with people, and that came up in a number of the round tables, with volunteers saying that they are getting some flak from people on the ground. When people get their ESL account or invoice, we have prepared a DL document which will go with that to explain exactly how the money is spent, and we strongly emphasise in that document that the money does not go towards volunteers. In fact, 93 per cent of our emergency services workers are volunteers who do not get paid, and we have made sure that we have explained that to people in this document.

In fact, we showed the draft document to people as we went around the state, and we have taken advice from CFS volunteers and SES volunteers and other volunteers on what message they want to get out there. That document has been approved today and will go out with the first lot of invoices shortly.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Excellent news, minister.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can assure you that we are very mindful and supportive of volunteers, and we are there proactively supporting them.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The next budget reference is the same volume and it is really the net cost of providing services on pages 64, 81, 103 and 121. It is really about the Holloway and Ernst & Young reports. How much money was spent on the Holloway report and the Ernst & Young report into the emergency services sector?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised that the Holloway report was a total cost of $54,000 approximately, and the Ernst & Young one was $95,000.

Dr McFETRIDGE: When will the Ernst & Young report be released?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am not sure, because it has to go to cabinet first.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Months, weeks?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It will be a cabinet document. I have seen a draft, and I understand a final version has been prepared. It has not come across my desk yet, because I have been very busy doing the reform process. The Holloway report is what has given rise, in part, to the actual reform process, because I would need to respond to the parliament with the government's response to the parliament as to how we are going to respond to those recommendations and findings of the Holloway report.

I have embarked upon this reform process as part of that response. The Holloway report, plus many other previous reports, informed the process. In terms of Ernst & Young, it is just a document. At this stage I am not sure of the timing of its release, but as soon as it goes to cabinet I will let you know when we propose to release it.

Dr McFETRIDGE: And that will be tabled in parliament, the Ernst & Young report?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I will see what cabinet says first.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I look forward to it being tabled in parliament, minister. Budget Paper 4, Volume 4—once again, the same references—the cost of providing services. The Productivity Commission, in its recent report, indicated that there had been a $15 million cut in real terms in the provision of fire services in South Australia. It went from $193.4 million in 2008-09 to $178.5 million in 2012-13. Can you explain why we are the only state that is cutting fire service funding in real terms? It is about a 7.7 per cent cut.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Mr Place will explain the funding arrangements.

Mr PLACE: I have read the Productivity Commission report and you are correct in that it does show a reduction comparative to other jurisdictions. However, every jurisdiction often measures this in a different way, so you have to be careful. In terms of the funding for emergency services 2013-14 to 2014-15, there has actually been an increase in the emergency service levy that is paid into the fund, from $244 million to $262 million, so there has been an increase this year.

Some of the issues include some money being put in to cover the presumptive legislation liabilities, the accelerated program for surf lifesaving buildings, the state contribution to the National Disaster Resilience Program, a small increase for the superannuation guarantee rate, some incentives for volunteers around training, thermal imaging cameras, and some other minor things. There is a total there of a reasonable increase from last year to this year.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I think my concern and that of fellow firefighters in South Australia is that firefighting services had a 7.7 per cent cut from $193.4 million to $178.5 million. There may have been money spent in other places, but fire services are expected to be doing more with less; people move on. Regarding the Holloway review, can the minister give a commitment to CFS volunteers that there is no one-service model out there?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I have given a commitment at every public meeting and forum I have had with volunteers and, in fact, on my own understanding of the volunteer sector—which is, I have to say, pretty good—a one-service model would not be acceptable to me.

What we have explored—and this is no secret, members of your party have been at these meetings—is the concept of one organisation but three services because the primary foundation of the services are those front-line services, whether they be MFS, CFS or SES on the ground. I acknowledge how hard the front-line services work on the ground. I acknowledge how efficiently they operate and it would be foolish to interfere with the autonomy they have on the ground because they can respond quickly to circumstances.

What we have explored at these meetings is how we actually reconcile three different services with perhaps an integrated organisation above that and that is what we are working through. The short answer is that I do not have a model for you at the moment; it is a work in progress. As I go from meeting to meeting people give me ideas and we actually start conceptualising something, and I am hoping by late August I will have a concept after I finish my round tables and also my discussions with the relevant parties. This has very much been a deliberate bottom-up approach to make sure that the high functioning capacity of our volunteers and our MFS workers on the ground is maintained.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I thought what SAFECOM was originally designed to do was to be the overarching body, but obviously not.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is no secret that SAFECOM was, in a sense, a compromise between a whole range of competing interests when it was set up some years ago. SAFECOM has done very well within those established constraints. You have three quite independent service providers and you are expecting one other fourth person to actually override that and that is going to be very hard. As I have made very clear, given the structures that our emergency service sectors have at the moment, which include CFS, SES, MFS, SAFECOM and also the volunteer marine people, they have done a very good job given the restrictions and some of the internal consistencies.

What we are looking at is how we build a better sector by maintaining what is really critical to the sector which is those front-line services on the ground. How do we build an integrated model above that to have a better sector and that is what we are working through at the moment. So far the feedback I am getting from the people on the ground is that everybody wants some reform out there and it has been a very strong message. Now, at the end of the day, some may disagree on some details of that reform and there are differing views, but at all the forums I have gone to the overwhelming majority, volunteers included, has said, 'Look, you can do this better. We need to do it better as a sector.'

Dr McFETRIDGE: Staying with SAFECOM at the moment, but just going on to the presumptive cancer legislation—and there are numerous references in the portfolio here, pick a page—how much money has been set aside for funding the presumptive cancer legislation for CFS volunteers?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: In terms of the implications of the presumptive legislation for the CFS, I can advise that there has been $36 million as a one-off accounting entry to reflect the actuarial estimate for the cost of future claims as a result of the legislative changes. An amount of $1.8 million was put aside in the previous year and current year. At this stage no claims have been put forward and that is based on the existing legislation.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That is the next question: is the government reconsidering its position so that CFS volunteers going into the next fire season will realise that they are on the same level as their paid colleagues? Has there been any reconsideration with the member for Frome and others?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: As you would be aware, the government through the Minister for Industrial Relations and myself, as Minister for Volunteers prior to the election, wrote to the CFS Volunteers Association; that is a public document. We made a commitment and we are honouring that commitment. That review process to explore what the government can do is underway and we will meet the time frames we have indicated in that commitment to the CFS volunteers.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just to be clear, the timing on that review is?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We need to table that or make it public by the end of September.

Dr McFETRIDGE: This September coming?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So, before the fire—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes; that is in writing, and we will commit to that.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to the Capital Investment Statement, Emergency Information Warning System (Alert SA). The proposed expenditure for 2014-15 is $2.95 million for the development and implementation of the emergency information warning system. Can you give the committee some details on the system—how does it compare with interstate systems and how will it interact with the CFS app, which one hour ago showed that there was a vehicle fire at Wicks Road, Peters Creek, just near my farm?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I advise the member that Alert SA is a combination of a whole range of different alerts or system. Alert SA is a title for various public emergency warning tools, including:

Emergency alert, which is SMS and landline warnings of pending danger;

State Emergency Information Core Centre—state government employees from many agencies volunteer to take calls from people seeking information related to imminent or unfolding emergency incidents;

Interactive voice response—pre-recorded further information to an emergency alert; and

Web channel—web based-information portal, which I understand is out to market at the moment, and it should be ready in the current financial year.

That is the extent of that. What was the second part of your question, or that was it?

Dr McFETRIDGE: That is really it. Just to follow on from that, though, are the SMS alerts now working so that they are directed to where the person is, not their billing address? We saw issues with this a couple of years ago.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Location-based alerts were introduced last season.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 114, Summary of major variations, the Emergency Services Fund. It states there that there is 'additional funding to Surf Life Saving SA to accelerate expenditure on replacement of club buildings'. Can the minister give the committee details on which clubs are benefiting from this advancement and how much it is going to save the emergency services capital spend?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Mr Place will provide that level of detail.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is almost a Dorothy Dixer for you, I think.

The CHAIR: There is no such thing.

Dr McFETRIDGE: You are right.

Mr PLACE: There was an increase in the expenditure for Surf Lifesaving announced of $1.2 million, on top of the $800,000 they had for their capital program, which will accelerate their club replacement program from something in the order of about 23 to 25 years down to about nine years. The next cabs off the rank, so to speak, will be Grange Surf Life Saving Club, where building work is expected to start this year, and also Keyneton Rocks, down on the South Coast, also expected to start this financial year.

We work closely with Surf Life Saving on their facilities management group, and we are supporting them in putting together a revised capital program so that they can leverage off this extra funding and make sure that the buildings get built on target within that time frame.

Dr McFETRIDGE: We might move on to CFS now.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I introduce Greg Nettleton, the Chief Officer for the CFS.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 64. The net cost of service delivery has gone from $62,478,000 to $62,848,000, a miniscule rise in anybody's language. How is the CFS expected to do what it does with such a miniscule rise in this funding? It is less than inflation.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I have the utmost confidence in the CFS to deliver the best product possible. I will now invite the Chief Officer to explain how he does it every day; he does it day in, day out.

Mr NETTLETON: Sorry, I missed the question. Could I have it again, please?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Are you being forced to do more with less, Chief Officer? In my opinion you are. You have my sympathy and you, your volunteers and your paid officers have my greatest support. However, the question is: how is the CFS expected to deliver its services when its funding, in real terms, has gone backwards?

Mr NETTLETON: The CFS funding situation is exceptionally tight. One of a number of reasons for that is that we have taken on new business that has resulted from, for instance, the 2009 Victorian bushfires royal commission. Our business has now moved more into information operations as well as firefighting operations, so there has been pressure on the CFS budget to meet the requirements of getting modern information technology solutions out to people—like smartphone apps, webpages, Facebook, Twitter.

We have also taken into account recommendations from other inquiries in Western Australia, Tasmania and elsewhere and implemented those. So all those implementations of recommendations from interstate inquiries, and the change of business, have placed quite a considerable pressure on the CFS budget.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The other thing—and just to concur with what the Chief Officer has said, and they do an excellent job—is that if there were a major fire of some sort the government does make a supplementary allocation available to the service involved. For example, I think there was an additional $7.2 million this year for the fire season we had in the last 12 months.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Let's hope we do not have those campaign fires again this year. Regarding emergency services community safety issues, and Budget Paper 4, volume 2, page 64, have you considered or implemented any of the recommendations of the report of the Select Committee on Community Safety and Emergency Services in South Australia?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: You are referring to the Cherryville matters?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Yes; and their other recommendations, which are wide ranging—including implementing my fire and emergency services volunteer charter, which I thought was a very good recommendation.

Mr NETTLETON: The recommendations, I recall from the select committee, were in relation to a range of things; Cherryville was added subsequent to the initial terms of reference. The recommendations that came out were that when it comes to the declaration of a fire danger period, and the cessation of a fire danger period, we involve the bushfire management committees but we give those bushfire management committees better tools with which to determine what recommendations they will make to the CFS Chief Officer.

Each of the nine bushfire management committees has previously made recommendations to the CFS Chief Officer on the start dates for fire danger seasons and for the cessation of fire danger seasons. What we have done is implement a matrix arrangement so that the members of the respective bushfire management committees can make decisions which are consistent across the state. That was one of the issues that was discovered during the select committee.

One of the other areas recommended was that outside the fire danger season we know that permits are not required to be issued for burn offs, but that a code of practice be established for people who burn off outside the fire danger season. That code of practice is being developed under the auspices of the State Bushfire Coordination Committee.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On those recommendations, there are a couple, in particular, regarding the establishment of a task force to remove barriers to volunteering, and certainly the cost of screening. On the cost of screening of volunteers, is there an MOU between the CFS and DCSI about covering the costs of screening for volunteers?

Mr NETTLETON: No, there is not. When volunteers join the service, the screening is conducted by SAFECOM through the Volunteer Services Branch.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It does not cost volunteers anything at the moment; a $10 cost was mentioned to me at some stage.

Mr NETTLETON: I am not sure of the cost, but my understanding is that it is picked up by SAFECOM.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: SAFECOM pick up that cost, whatever the cost is, in terms of processing volunteers checks.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So there would be no extra increase, or nothing coming out of the budget for screening costs?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I understand that you need to speak to minister Bettison, who is responsible for that area. I understand there are some announcements—

Dr McFETRIDGE: But the budget bottom line will be in the emergency services; that is why I am asking you. Will it affect the budget of the emergency services?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Not that we have been advised at this point.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I know that for some of the NGOs in disabilities it is a quarter of a million dollars extra.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: You raised that question this morning, yes.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is horrendous, so I do not want to see that overlapping into emergency services. There were some issues around the funding of firebombing aircraft for rapid deployment at short notice outside the fire danger season. What has happened there? What agreements have been entered into? Have any protocols changed, anything like that?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We had this discussion last week with the chief, and he can elaborate further.

Mr NETTLETON: The CFS obtains its firebombing and fire reconnaissance aircraft through the National Aerial Firefighting Centre. At the end of last financial year, the national contracts expired. The CFS has been involved with the National Aerial Firefighting Centre assessing a worldwide tender, and the aircraft we used last summer was the first year of the new contract. It is a three-year contract with the option of two one-year extensions, so it could possibly be five years. All the aircraft we operated last year and will operate next year and the year after have been procured under the NAFC arrangements.

The NAFC arrangements call for what is known within the contract as a 'service period'. The service period is 84 days, which equate to three months. We bring aircraft on; once again, a recommendation from the select committee was for a matrix to assess how to bring aircraft on. We do not bring all the aircraft on at once and we do not let them all leave at once. As the season develops, we will progressively bring on aircraft over time. Typically, Eyre Peninsula gets the first water bombers because that area comes into the fire danger season first, and we gradually build up the fleet. The difficult part in assessing when to bring the aircraft on and when to end them—the shoulders of the season—is quite a tricky process. Once all the aircraft are in place, that is good and we have it sorted.

In the case of the 10 fixed-wing water bombers, the Air Tractors, we have two at Port Lincoln, two at Mount Gambier, six in the Mount Lofty Ranges, and quite obviously we step up the Mount Lofty Ranges as the season progresses in towards summer. We operate those aircraft in pairs; we found that the best way to operate them is in pairs. It is not an easy, cut-and-dried answer. We extend the season if necessary at the tail end of the fire danger season, and we have done that for the last two or three years. We can also bring aircraft on early if the season comes on more quickly. We have arrangements in place within the contract to be able to bring the season forward, and we have provisions within the contract to extend the season at the back end. That is during the agreed 84-day service period.

The contract also has provisions to bring aircraft on outside the 84-day period. If I needed a water bomber today—I am not sure I would want one for your fire, Mr McFetridge—there are provisions in the contract to bring a water bomber on. The conditions of the contract allow the bomber to come on at the same rate as if it had come on during that 84-day period, and the conditions are that the aircraft has to be available, the aircraft has to be configured for firebombing because the fixed-wing aircraft are used for other purposes, and a pilot who is currently qualified as a firebombing pilot needs to be available. So, there are number of things that need to line up.

There is no expectation on the contractor's behalf that he will have an aircraft sitting on a strip somewhere with a pilot ready to go outside that 84-day period or the agreed extensions that we ask for. When we do an extension of aircraft or when we bring the season forward to the use of aircraft we make that decision based on operational grounds. We advise the minister to advise Treasury that there will be additional costs associated with those extensions.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: If I can just add: in terms of the advice which the Chief has already mentioned, often it is very hard to predict way ahead what they may be, in terms of start and ending, but the government would make money available if there was a period of time that had to be extended.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So, minister, has the fire danger season working group reported yet, and if so what recommendations have they made?

Mr NETTLETON: The fire danger season, are you referring to the subcommittee that was formed—

Dr McFETRIDGE: Yes.

Mr NETTLETON: —from the select committee recommendations? That was formed as a small subcommittee of the State Bushfire Coordination Committee that was formed. That committee has met and that committee has finished the work that was assigned to it.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Are there any recommendations from that subcommittee?

Mr NETTLETON: The recommendations from that subcommittee were that we use a consistent matrix assessment process for all fire danger districts across the state for the start and the ending of the fire danger season, that we use the same matrix for the determination of whether we bring aircraft on at the start and where we release the aircraft at the end of the fire danger season, and the other one was essentially the guide for burning off outside the fire danger season.

Dr McFETRIDGE: In the annual report it says that a draft report will be prepared for consideration by the Minister for Emergency Services. You have not seen that report yet?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No. Sorry, I was not the minister at the time the report was prepared.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I will let you off on that one. On the thermal imaging cameras, Budget Paper 6, page 44, how many cameras will be bought and will they be bought before the next fire season starts, and is there a budget for training in their use and care?

Mr NETTLETON: In this year's budget there is an allocation of $120,000 for additional thermal imaging cameras to be bought for the CFS. The intent with the thermal imaging cameras is we hope, it is our desire, to be able to purchase two additional thermal imaging cameras per region. Of course, we have not gone to the market yet so we do not know what the cost of each individual camera is. The reason for that is there are various quality thermal imaging cameras and a thermal imaging camera that may be suited for an urban building type environment may not be the best thermal imaging camera for a rural fire environment. We have based the estimate on a camera of a particular sum but we will obviously wait until we go to the market and see what price the market can deliver a number of cameras for us.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, Mr Nettleton. I hope it is the intention that every brigade has one camera at least because I have personal experience in how much they do save you in time and effort. Moving on: operational preparedness targets, Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 88, SACAD and intercad. Is SACAD working as designed, with version 9.3 about to be implemented? I will just give the committee some personal experiences with SACAD. Just recently, I was part of the Meadows brigade attending a road crash rescue at Paris Creek, which is between Meadows and Strathalbyn. The Echunga brigade, which is north of Meadows, was turned out instead of the Macclesfield brigade, being just around the corner, or even the road crash rescue SES from Strathalbyn.

Then, Sunday week ago, there was a car versus a cyclist on Brookman Road, just near our property. A helicopter landing was required and instead of calling the Meadows CFS, which is just around the corner, Strathalbyn SES was called. I have many anecdotes of where SACAD is still providing inappropriate responses. People do not care what colour the truck or the uniform is, they just want somebody there, and I can understand that it needs to work. So, how is it working now? Are these just isolated incidents that I am a victim of, or that the brigade is a victim of? So, is SACAD working as designed, with version 9.3 about to be implemented?

Mr NETTLETON: What you have described are a number of isolated cases. In SACAD, if there is a motor vehicle accident it should dispatch two resources: one resource that has a rescue capability and a separate resource that provides for firefighting capabilities. The dispatch of resources depends on the location that the call-taker identifies from the caller's information where the incident is. It is quite common that the caller does not know exactly where they are, and so discussions between the call-taker and the caller may well result in the accident being somewhere further down the road or elsewhere, which may cause a different dispatch pattern to occur.

More generally, though, in relation to SACAD, I would have to say overall SACAD has given the CFS, particularly during the fire danger season, the capacity to dispatch multiple resources much, much quicker than it would have done in the past. We have found that, with the escalating model within SACAD, particularly during days of total fire ban, the first call sees four trucks dispatched instantaneously through the paging system. As soon as the incident is upgraded there are another four, and it just cascades.

I have found that over the last two summer fire danger seasons it has made it much, much quicker to get resources on the road. As for particular incidents, I do not have the details of the incidents you are referring to, so it is fairly difficult for me to say whether it is working in that particular area. A lot of it depends on where the call-taker thinks the incident occurs.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I will just invite Mr Grant Lupton, the MFS Chief, to add to that answer as well.

Mr LUPTON: Thank you, minister, and I will just respond to the honourable member's question. The first one, about the implementation of the SACAD 9.3: that is scheduled for November of this year to come into effect. As far as—and you mentioned personal experience and also lots of anecdotal issues raised around this—clearly those are matters that we want to know about and respond to and rectify as needed. To deal with that, we established the SACAD management committee, which is a cross-sector committee of CFS, MFS and SES representatives. That provides a mechanism for any issue to be fed into the system and documented and logged, and it stays in the system until there has been an adequate response. So, the process and structure is there.

When we had the initial transition to a single call-receive dispatch there were many issues, as you would expect, and a lot of them were anecdotal, but we worked through them in a systematic process. We are at a point now and, as the honourable member would understand, any system is only as good as the data that is put into it. It relies on pre-programmed data, but it also needs to be continually refined and improved. So, tracking issues, such as you have mentioned recently around Macclesfield, are the types of things we need to know about.

I certainly have the assurance that everything that comes to the SACAD management committee is logged, addressed and feedback is provided back to the respondent, but we have to have that information come forth. I believe there is a robust structure in place. I believe the enhancements that will be brought in November 2014 will add to it, but I also encourage any matters that arise to get brought up in that committee so that we can actually log them, deal with them and rectify them where necessary.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, Mr Lupton. I will certainly encourage the volunteers to send them to me and I can forward them on to the minister. I had another example: there was a road crash rescue I think it was almost outside of the Tea Tree Gully CFS and MFS responded to that. It seems nuts, but anyway, we will get through it.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That is one of the things that have been raised during the reform process and it is one of the things we will take on board to see how we can actually improve it.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, minister. Just back to the CFS workers' compensation fund, who manages the CFS workers' compensation fund? If there is compensation, is it SAFECOM?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Do they maintain a similar system to WorkCover where there is a fund and unfunded liabilities? If so, what is the current status of the workers compensation scheme? Is there a fund separated for it? Do the services pay a levy like a self insurer would?

Mr PLACE: SAFECOM manages the workers compensation on behalf of all the three agencies. In the balance sheet there is a liability cover and an amount for the agencies to spend on actual costs during the year. So, the liability changes with the actual costs. I am not sure what your question is.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The workers compensation fund has a $1.2 billion unfunded liability on the last figures I am aware of. Is there a situation where the state government's unfunded liability for their workers compensation is about $600 million? I imagine that emergency services is part of that. Is a figure available that shows what the potential liability is, whether it is funded or unfunded?

Mr PLACE: We are part of the self-insured scheme, as many government departments are. I do not have the figures, but I could probably find them for you, but there is a liability amount for each agency that is assessed at the end of each year actuarially and adjusted accordingly. The bottom line pretty much for our agencies is that the liability is shown, they spend what they spend and the liability is adjusted accordingly. I do not have the exact numbers here, but the good news is that in the last few years our actual cost of injuries has declined.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So just to be clear—I hope I am not missing something here—the agencies contribute—pay a levy—so there is a fund at the moment and it is fully funded?

Mr PLACE: In terms of budget we pay the amount we have to pay to cover the costs, and there is a liability noted on the balance sheet of what the amount is, and the agencies pay the annual costs of their injuries, and section 48s, 49s, etc. Our liability is what the government actuary decides it is, and the agencies are budgeted to pay for the injuries. It is a complicated accounting system, but at the end of the day our funds are covered. We do not have an unfunded liability.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We will get that information for you and translated to show what is the extended liability and how it is covered.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Certainly with the issues over cancer cover. One last question on the CFS, before whizzing on to the MFS. I do not want Mr Beattie to miss out either. I refer to emergency services capital works, Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 65. Will the minister provide at a later stage, or briefly now, the capital works projects that have been undertaken which comprised the $12.328 million expenditure in 2014, and is Rockleigh fire station one of them?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes, Rockleigh is. I spoke to those volunteers at Murray Bridge.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Excellent news.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: We actually found a site in the Mid Murray Council area, from recollection, and we gave an assurance that it will be built this financial year, if I remember correctly. There is an issue of land tenure.

Dr McFETRIDGE: We might get that list at some other stage if it can be provided to the committee. I have one last question about the $12.328 million for CFS equipment. In 2012 the estimates committee on emergency services was told that the automatic vehicle location system for the CFS was at the stage of a business case being prepared. My notes here say that the business case was complete. It was first announced in March 2010, over four years ago, so where is the automated vehicle location system, which was announced as a safety issue for CFS volunteers?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: While it is a very worthwhile project, other priorities have come up, and money has been spent on other things within the sector.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So, the business case did not stack up?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, I said it was priorities. A business case can stack up, but then other things happen; you cannot anticipate a whole range of other major incidents and other priorities. That is one of the things which remain on the agenda, to be considered at budget times, and certainly one which we consider as part of the possibility with the reinvestments of any savings from the reform process. We will discuss that with the sector to see what the priorities are once we identify some savings and how they want to reinvest them.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Interesting. MFS—Mr Lupton is with us already; thank you, and thank you Mr Nettleton. The net cost of services—Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 81. Once again, minister, how does the government expect the MFS to continue to provide their excellent service and protect South Australians when their funding has actually gone backwards in real terms? There has been a $1.7 million reduction on $119 million, which is a 1.4 per cent increase. It is really asking too much of our fire services to do more with less.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I do not think it is a linear relationship between how you spend money and what you achieve; there is a whole range of different things which happen.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I do not think you are wasting it at the moment, quite honestly.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Sorry?

Dr McFETRIDGE: I do not think anybody would be accusing you of wasting that at the moment—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I was not saying that—

Dr McFETRIDGE: —or spending frugally.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, I did not suggest that either. In fact, all the chiefs have made it very clear to me that given the current structural arrangements, there are no additional savings to be found. That is why you do not actually say, ‘Well, how do we what we do now even better?’ We say ‘How do we actually do the business differently?’ and that is why the chiefs, the volunteer sector and the unions have been working with me, because we all acknowledge that resources are required in different places. We need to free up resources in other places to—

Dr McFETRIDGE: So you are not going to have three—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Let me finish. We have to free up resources from other places. No, we will have three services on the ground—I know where you are going with this question. I have given a commitment of three services on the ground. If there is a change in—

Dr McFETRIDGE: I was going to say ‘three firies on a truck’.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, we are not cutting back services, and I have given a commitment about frontline services.

Dr McFETRIDGE: No, we do not want that, Paul.

The Hon. P. Caica interjecting:

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The Chief Officer can tell you how he works very creatively with his sector to deliver great service to South Australia.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I know, because it is evident every day. Mr Lupton, I must say I do have to read the omnibus questions in—

The CHAIR: Well, you have left yourself about one minute and 30 seconds, so answer the questions; we are interested in the answer now.

Dr McFETRIDGE: He can do it, trust me. I will trust Mr Lupton to be very brief.

The CHAIR: No, why should he?

Mr LUPTON: My answer is yes.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you, Mr Lupton. Mr Beattie, I am so sorry but we have run out of time. I do appreciate the fact the government—

The CHAIR: You were lured here under false pretences.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I appreciate the work that all of our chiefs do in these very tight budgetary times.

The CHAIR: Get on with the omnibus.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I will read the omnibus questions in. Hansard, you do have these already, so it will not matter how fast I read them or how slowly I read them.

The CHAIR: It matters to me, though.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Budget estimates 2014-15 estimates committee omnibus questions:

1. Will the minister provide a detailed breakdown of expenditure on consultants and contractors above $10,000 in 2013-14 for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister listing the name of the consultant, contractor or service supplier, cost, work undertaken and method of appointment?

2. For each department or agency reporting to the minister in 2013-14, please provide the number of public servants broken down into heads and FTEs that are (1) tenured and (2) on contract and, for each category, provide a breakdown of the number of (1) executives and (2) non-executives.

3. In the financial year 2013-14, for all departments and agencies reporting to the minister, what underspending on projects and programs (1) was and (2) was not approved by cabinet for carryover expenditure in 2014-15?

4. Between 30 June 2013 and 30 June 2014, will the minister list the job title and total employment cost of each position with a total estimated cost of $100,000 or more—(a) which has been abolished and (b) which has been created?

5. For each year of the forward estimates, provide the name and budget of all grant programs administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister and, for 2013-14, provide a breakdown of expenditure on all grants administered by all departments and agencies reporting to the minister listing the name of the grant recipient, the amount of the grant and the purpose of the grant and whether the grant was subject to a grant agreement as required by Treasurer's Instruction No. 15.

6. For each department or agency reporting to the minister, what is the budget for targeted voluntary separation packages for the financial years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18?

7. What is the title and total employment cost of each individual staff member in the minister's office as at 30 June 2014, including all departmental employees seconded to ministerial offices and ministerial liaison officers? Mr Beattie, a question for you, as I have—

Mr BEATTIE: Thirty seconds left.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The member for Morphett is actually an occupational health and safety risk to our Hansard people.

Dr McFETRIDGE: No, no; I am very kind to them. They know I provide copious notes for them. Once again, how is the SES supposed to do more with less? That is the bottom line of that question. It is a rhetorical question. I thank the chiefs for their time and the officers for all the time and effort they put into these estimates committees. Thank you very much indeed. I wish you all well for the coming fire season. Stay safe at all times. Thank you.

The CHAIR: We reiterate those sentiments. There being no further questions, I declare the consideration of the proposed payments concluded.

At 17:01 the committee adjourned until Tuesday 22 July 2014 at 09:00.