Department of Treasury and Finance, $55,722,000

Administered Items for the Department of Treasury and Finance, $1,592,537,000

Membership:

Dr McFetridge substituted for Mr Gardner.

Mr Goldsworthy substituted for Mr Bell.

Mr Williams substituted for Mr Pederick.

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 M. Jackman, Chief Executive, South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission.

Mr G. Nettleton, Chief Officer, Country Fire Service.

Mr G. Crossman, Chief Officer, Metropolitan Fire Service.

Mr C. Beattie, Chief Officer, State Emergency Service.

Mr P. Lambropoulos, Manager, Financial Services, South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission.

Ms L. Lew, Business Manager, Metropolitan Fire Service.

Mr J. Schirmer, Business Manager, Country Fire Service.

Ms I. Calabrese, Business Manager, South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission.

Mr J. Linde, Business Manager, Community Emergency Services Fund, South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission.

The CHAIR: We are examining emergency services for the next hour. I declare the proposed payments open for examination and I refer members to Portfolio Statement Volume 4. I call on the minister to make a statement if he wishes and to introduce his advisers.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Thank you, Mr Chair. I will introduce my team of advisers. First, on my right is Malcolm Jackman, the new CO of SAFECOM. This is his first estimates; I hope it will not be his last. I will have to explain. He may walk away from this experience thinking, 'I'm not going back to this next year,' as all the rest of us think. On my immediate left is the Chief Officer for the CFS, Greg Nettleton; to my further left is the Chief Officer of the MFS and new to the role since last estimates from March this year is Greg Crossman. To my immediate left here is Chris Beattie, the Chief Officer of the SES and we also have Peter Labropoulos, Joel Schirmer, Lisa Lew and Johan Linde from SAFECOM, and Iolanda Calabrese from the SES.

During January this year, our state confronted the largest emergency in the Adelaide Hills since Ash Wednesday. The CFS, MFS and SES worked together admirably to protect communities in the path of the fire. The agencies not only worked well with each other but across government with agencies such as SAFECOM, SAPOL, SA Ambulance Service, DEWNR, SA Water and ForestrySA amongst many others. It is remarkable that during this extreme event no lives were lost and property damage was minimised, thanks to our emergency services, both paid and volunteers. I also acknowledge the outstanding efforts of all staff and volunteers, particularly from the CFS and ForestrySA, who confronted the large fire at Tantanoola in the South-East.

Over the past 12 months, our emergency service capabilities have been further strengthened through state government funding, including a new MFS station at Salisbury; four new CFS brigades in the APY lands; new SES units at Whyalla, Enfield and Kangaroo Island; 19 new CFS replacement appliances and nine SES light vehicles; four new vessels for the VMR and SES at Cowell, Kingston, Berri and Barmera; new equipment for the CFS, including almost 843 breathing apparatus sets with cylinders and 12 thermal imaging cameras; new equipment for the MFS and SES including road crash rescue equipment; and an SES incident management system.

Two serious challenges confronting the government and the budget last year were the further expansion of the presumptive legislation scheme and the ongoing decline in emergency service volunteers overall. I am pleased to note that the presumptive legislation scheme has now been expanded to include all operational CFS volunteers. The number of CFS volunteers has also risen every month since October 2014, although more work is required to sustain this trend. There are many challenges remaining such as the new national legislative reform in marine safety and the general increase in the cost of priority emergency services.

In May this year, I announced the structural changes proposed as part of the emergency services reform process would be put aside. However, during the reform process, stakeholders advised that some type of reform and continuous improvement is required. I am now working with the chiefs and the new CEO of SAFECOM to ensure that the many excellent ideas raised during the reform process are implemented and resources are allocated where they are most required, that is, on the ground.

As always, the sector is performing well, but there is more to be accomplished over the coming years to ensure that the sector continues to modernise, innovate and become more sustainable to meet the challenges of the future and serve the community.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I put on the record that the opposition is one of the strongest supporters of our emergency services and certainly values the input of every member of the emergency services both the paid and volunteer staff. I welcome chief Crossman to his first estimates as a MFS chief, and certainly Mr Jackman, welcome to this wonderful process.

The issue of emergency services in South Australia has been highlighted in the last 12 months, or in fact nearly two years now, with the increase in the ESL, but also then having significant incidents around the place, whether they are the Wingfield fires or the more prominent, certainly from a media point of view and contribution of emergency services, the Sampson Flat fire. Our emergency services are held in the highest regard by not only the people in this place but also South Australians for the job that they do, and it is well deserved.

The funding for emergency services, though, has become tighter and tighter. The Productivity Commission has shown a very slight increase this year but there has been a significant decrease over many years in South Australia which was unfortunately the only state where funding had gone down. I note last year the minister commented in one of the answers to the committee here about the cuts in federal funding.

I point out for the committee's interest that the difference between the promised funding in the forward estimates under the federal Labor government compared with the current funding under the current federal Liberal government is nearly a $2 billion increase on what was expected in state funding. It is in 2014-15, $232 million; in 2015-16, $678 million; 2016-17 $1.11 billion extra GST on top of what was in the then Labor government's federal budget, so to say that funding has been cut is not correct.

There is significant funding and that is the issue that I and my colleagues and South Australians have when the ESL has been put up the way it has and the federal funding has been blamed. There has been no cut; there has been a massive increase, and it really is time for this government to be honest with this state's taxpayers and reintroduce their remissions to the ESL. With that we will move on to some questions.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: That was your paid political statement for the day; that is good.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, investing summaries, capital investment. We will do SAFECOM then the CFS, MFS, and SES if that is okay, and I will watch the times so that I am not unfair on the chiefs and all their staff because a lot of work goes into this. Through the capital investment statement for the ESL, how much funding for emergency response vehicles, fire stations and building operational equipment and information technology under the investment expenditure summary will be funded through the Emergency Services Levy rather than from funding through general government revenue? How much is coming from general revenue and how much is coming from the ESL?

I think the total ESL in 2015-16 was $285.7 million. When you take away rebates for pensioners and some concessions, some comes from general revenue, so how much is coming from general revenue and how much is coming from the ESL?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I cannot give you the exact figures but what I can tell you is that all the funds used to provide capital for the emergency services overwhelmingly come from the ESL, bar some moneys which are raised by various brigades, etc. They are fairly small amounts but they are important to those individual brigades. They are usually for discretionary-type equipment rather than mandatory or basic equipment.

Secondly, the only general revenue component which goes into the budget is that component which is designed to pay for the concessions. The rest is all generated by the ESL—and that is no secret, that has been made clear by the government on a number of occasions.

Dr McFETRIDGE: How much is coming from the concessions and the rebates for pensioners; what proportion rather than out of the levies? You are topping up the $278.2 million spend on emergency services. Some comes from the ESL but then you take the rebates out so how much is coming from general revenue now?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Whatever concessions we provide, the rebates come from general revenue because, as you would be aware, under the act every dollar raised from the ESL has to be used by emergency services. Concessions are not an emergency service and, therefore, it is provided by general revenue. As to the actual figure, that would have been better put to the Treasurer because he actually manages the collection of the ESL—I just spend the money.

Dr McFETRIDGE: In that spending this year, of the $285.7 million, $7.5 million was for Sampson Flat. Last year you told the committee, when we were talking about the same subject, that 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. Then you went on to say that, if there was a serious incident or there was a major fire of some sort, the government does make a supplementary allocation available to the services involved. The question is: the increase in the ESL this year was blamed on funding for the Sampson Flat fire, if we had two Sampson Flat bushfires or an earthquake or other major incident, would the government be putting in from general revenue or would the ESL be going up?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The answer I am about to give you is not inconsistent with what I said last year. The budget is set for, say, the 2015-16 year and it presupposes a whole range of planned expenditure. One thing we do not plan for is a major incident because it is very hard to know what the major incident may be and the scope of it. Having said that, we have also made it clear—and I certainly have communicated that to the CFS and other chiefs—that if a major incident occurs they are to go out there and spend what is required to keep the community safe. What is also clear—and I said this last year and this year—is that the government would make sure that the money is available to pay those bills to make sure it happens.

Dr McFETRIDGE: But where is that money coming from?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Let me finish: I am about to get to that point. In effect, the Sampson Flat and other major incidents are unfunded—it is an unfunded, if you like, part of the budget. Because it is an hypothecated fund, what goes in has to be spent, etc., and we then back pay the fund the year after. We work out exactly what has been spent, whether it is Sampson Flat or whatever other event, whether it is a flood, etc., the money is then raised in a subsequent year and paid back—

Dr McFETRIDGE: Raised from whom, though, minister?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The ESL.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So the ESL will go up. If there are two Sampson Flats the ESL will then go up again, further and further—that is what you are saying.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Well, we said that this year.

Dr McFETRIDGE: So if we have an Ash Wednesday, where there is billions of dollars worth of damage, who pays?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Who do you—

Dr McFETRIDGE: The taxpayer.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Yes. Who do think pays the GST and who pays all the other taxes—some fairy?

Dr McFETRIDGE: But proportionally acts as a land tax—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The taxpayer pays. Whether it comes from the ESL, GST or the other taxes we impose, the taxpayer pays. I read an editorial in a newspaper which was quite embarrassing to read—they must have got the information from you, member for Morphett, because it was so inaccurate.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Don't go there, Tony; just don't start, mate.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Well, you started with your opening comments.

Dr McFETRIDGE: It is true. Here are the budget papers. Do you want them? It is true; it is all true.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It said—

Members interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am sorry, chiefs; I do not mean to embarrass you by this but we will just—

The CHAIR: Order! The minister has the call.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: This editorial said that the government should provide the money, as if the government gets the money from thin air. All the money the government gets is from taxes; it all comes from taxpayers, all of it.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Really? I had never realised.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Well, you have asked a question. Your question was whether it comes from taxpayers. I said that of course it comes from taxpayers. Whether you think it should be ESL revenue—

Dr McFETRIDGE: Is it general revenue or is there a dedicated source of these funds, as in the ESL—that is what I am asking. You are saying that if there are two Sampson Flats or an Ash Wednesday, that taxpayers' ESL could quadruple next year?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Well we'll have to wait and see.

Dr McFETRIDGE: You'll have to wait and see: well, let us hope for everybody's sake there isn't, anyway.

The CHAIR: Presumably these are questions for the Treasurer anyway.

Dr McFETRIDGE: To look quickly at more SAFECOM items: I refer to Budget Paper 2, Volume 2, workforce summary, page 104. The workforce summary indicates that the FTEs have been reduced by 18 in SAFECOM since 2013-14. Will the minister provide the committee with details as to what positions will no longer be filled in SAFECOM as a result of this FTE reduction?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised that the SAFECOM management has not made those decisions yet. I am awaiting their decisions on that. It will be an operational matter that they will make, and as soon as a decision is made I am sure they will let people know.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I refer to Budget Paper 2, Volume 2, net cost of services summary, the Emergency Services Reform Office. Is the Emergency Services Restructure Office being funded out of SAFECOM or by the Department of Corrections?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It is actually provided by SAFECOM. It was only established in Correctional Services administratively for the purpose of finding a home for that originally.

Dr McFETRIDGE: What has been the cost of operating this office since it was established, and what is the cost this financial year?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The reform was funded from what we pulled forward from SAFECOM for the 2015-16 operating budget on the assumption that efficiencies would have been made from one department model. As the reform was rescoped, this amount was reprofiled across SAFECOM's forward estimates to better reflect the likely outcome of achievable efficiencies: $100,000 in 2016-17, $200,000 in 2017-18 and $259,000 in 2018-19.

Dr McFETRIDGE: How many people work in the ESRO now?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The FTEs are 1.8.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Has the name changed from 'restructure' to 'modernisation' or something like that?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: There are changes. We are moving towards that. I have left that decision to the CEO of SAFECOM, who can comment.

Mr JACKSON: We will have a discussion on the topic with the board on Wednesday.

Dr McFETRIDGE: How much has been spent on the whole of the restructure—the round tables, the advertising, the publicity—since the whole thing was started?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Last year, even though $550,000 was budgeted for the office, only $347,000 was spent.

Ms DIGANCE: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 70. Can the minister inform the committee about the establishment of the state strategic reserve brigade capacity?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I can. I thank the honourable member for her question. As members would be aware, there has been a significant influx of new members following the Sampson Flat fire this season and fires at Bangor and Eden Valley last season. A number of new membership inquiries have been from people in metropolitan Adelaide interested in volunteering as firefighters. These people are currently unable to do so if they do not live near to a CFS station. I also note that some peri-urban brigades like Dalkeith and Tea Tree Gully often have waiting lists for people who want to join.

When multiple major incidents occur across the state, it stretches the capability of the CFS. Establishing a volunteer reserve capability, utilising trained metropolitan-based volunteers or volunteers on waiting lists elsewhere, would provide additional capacity to maintain a response to large campaign fires or multiple concurrent fires, reducing the need for the more expensive interstate assistance due to travel and other costs. The CFS has commenced detailed planning for such a state strategic reserve brigade to be located at Roseworthy and Salisbury.

In 2015-16, $700,000 has been allocated in the budget for this reserve brigade, with two firetrucks, personal protective equipment, as well as a contracted coordinator for this project. In the future, similar reserve brigades are being considered, potentially in the CBD, utilising city-based trained volunteers. This is a fine example of innovation that solves multiple problems and enhances the CFS's capability when most needed while reducing expenditure, particularly on interstate support. If I remember correctly, some additional moneys were made available in the last financial year to support a small expansion of the state reserve brigades, because I remember meeting the people at Salisbury that day.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On that same topic, minister, can you give us an outline of what the budget is for training, will they get two sets of PPE each, and what the budget is for the two new appliances for the strategic reserve? Because I thought the strategic reserve, which I have no objection to the idea of, was to provide extra crews, not extra appliances and things. I thought it was to relieve crews and things like that.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The chief officer from CFS can answer that one.

Mr NETTLETON: The budget for the strategic reserve has a number of components. One is there is training costs, obviously for the new people who join. There is PPC cost to fit each of those volunteers out with their protective clothing, and in the budget there is provision for two appliances, because at the moment that particular strategic reserve has two appliances allocated to it, but they are appliances that were going out of service at end of life. What we will be looking at doing is providing a more modern appliance to the strategic reserve. They will not be brand-new ones. Brand-new ones that are in the budget will go to existing operational brigades, and that will force out a mid-life appliance that will be allocated to the strategic reserve.

Also in that funding are the running costs of those appliances and the normal running costs of that brigade. At the moment, the strategic reserve is funded through some additional funds from the government, but it is only for the project life, which was the end of last financial year. It does not allow for ongoing funding, so the budget that was announced for this financial year allows for ongoing funding of that strategic reserve.

Dr McFETRIDGE: That strategic reserve has not been established yet, though, so surely there must be a budget for training and PPC for the expected numbers that are going to come into that reserve.

Mr NETTLETON: That is inclusive in the total costs.

Dr McFETRIDGE: We do not have a breakdown on that at all?

Mr NETTLETON: I do not have the details of it. It was rolled up in a number of other sub-projects related to that particular activity.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I think we are going to have to move on here. Just before I leave SAFECOM, and I think it comes under SAFECOM this one, and the chiefs will be able to help us if not: is InterCAD now fully operational? InterCAD, the communications system—is it fully operational?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am advised it is. They are all three nodding, yes.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The whole idea of InterCAD—I am here to be educated. I understood InterCAD was to enable a first responder, as in the MOU in 2007, to be the closest, fastest and most appropriate service, and in this case ambos as well. So, if the CFS have been turned out to jobs and we get there first (I use the royal 'we' there), are CFS volunteers all getting first aid training? All CFS volunteers, because it was being rationed under the SEFC.

Mr NETTLETON: In last year's budget, we had additional funds allocated for first aid training. I am not sure that we have been able to train every single volunteer, but certainly we have increased the number of volunteers that have received first aid training.

Dr McFETRIDGE: All those that want it can get it now?

Mr NETTLETON: I believe so. There is a finite number of people you can train with the funds that are available, but certainly—

Dr McFETRIDGE: That is my concern, chief, in that it was being rationed at one stage, and I would have thought that all CFS volunteers—same as MFS firefighters—would get first aid training. That's one of my little—

Mr NETTLETON: Just in relation to InterCAD, certainly from what I have seen, it is working between ambulance, police and the SAFECOM MFS operated computer-aided dispatch. I have seen instances where that has been recorded in the logs. The issue we had before in relation to delayed calls for some CFS brigades, I do not believe that is occurring now that the InterCAD is operational.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I might talk to you about that. Another very important area is volunteer support. There were issues a number of years ago with the number of volunteer support officers being reduced and centralised in Adelaide. How many volunteer support officers have we got, and are they all based in Adelaide?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: There are two aspects, and I will ask the chiefs if they wish to add to the response. I am advised there are two things: one is that we were able to secure some funding from the commonwealth to actually undertake a recruitment drive or campaign for volunteering right across the sector, and I understand that campaign goes live later this year. In terms of support from day to day, my understanding is that there are five FTEs which are involved in the day-to-day support work, in addition to what happens at brigade levels and within each individual service. I am happy for the two volunteer services to add to that if they wish to.

Mr NETTLETON: I have nothing to add.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: They have nothing to add.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am watching the clock. Minister, you will not be surprised by this next set of questions about Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 70, highlights:

Undertake a trial of enhanced firefighting capability at Mount Barker.

In the SAFECOM 2013-14 annual report, on page 17 it says:

Standards of Fire and Emergency Cover (SFEC)…have been developed for every brigade and [every] group…The new prescriptions and SFEC will advise all future operational resourcing decisions.

So, what is so different about Mount Barker that the SFECs were altered, ignored or changed so that we have two MFS pumpers at Mount Barker badged up with CFS?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I am aware that you have asked related questions in parliament, so you are quite right, I did expect these questions. The Mount Barker brigade initially sought to become part of the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service, I assume, to provide an enhanced level of capability to the growing community of Mount Barker. The brigade has agreed to participate in a 12-month trial, whereby an increased number of brigade members are trained in urban fire response and operate the two loaned MFS appliances to allow a detailed study and evaluation of this enhanced capability in meeting the perceived increased risk to the community. The trial was not part of the emergency services reform process; however, the outcome of the trial will help inform potential alternate service delivery models involving enhanced CFS capabilities.

In 2014 the Mount Barker CFS Brigade raised concerns with me about the brigade's response capability due to perceived limitations of the CFS in the provision of support, training and logistics. This was first raised by the brigade with the minister prior to me, minister O'Brien, if my memory serves me correctly. At that time SAFECOM undertook some work in conjunction with the other services and the brigade's preferred model was what they call retained service. That was certainly their proposal. The advice to me was that the retained model was probably the least preferred by SAFECOM and the services, and I will explain that in a second.

The Mount Barker brigade has obviously spoken to me, and in fact I think the first time we had face-to-face talks was at the Hahndorf round table, when they met me for the first time. They wanted a decision based on that and I said to them that no decision regarding the future of the brigade would be made until the reform process had been advanced. They were not particularly happy with that response. It would be fair to say that it was impacting on morale in the brigade and certainly they continue to agitate for changes.

As a result, I asked SAFECOM—and the SAFECOM board discussed this matter, and you have the minutes of that SAFECOM board meeting—if they could look into it and, as a result of that, there is a trial that will be looked at. However, let me just put on the record that the trial for what we learned from Mount Barker may be of equal importance in the other peri-urban areas. There are a number of growing peri-urban areas, and we may disagree on what might be a peri-urban brigade, but clearly there are some that are peri-urban, both at the south and also in the north, up my way.

We are hoping that this trial will indicate what can work and what will not work and help inform us about whether a more appropriate transition from a CFS brigade to an MFS brigade might be required. Certainly they have been given no undertaking regarding the outcome, apart from the given outcome, and discussions within emergency services indicate that, at some appropriate time, Mount Barker may go to an MFS model given the sheer growth, but that date has not been determined.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Just on the nuts and bolts of it, who is paying for the maintenance of the two appliances and who is paying for the training of volunteers?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: The CFS.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The CFS is paying for the maintenance of the appliances as well?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Just on that, they are a CFS brigade—

Dr McFETRIDGE: But they are MFS appliances. Anyway, it does not matter.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, hold on. The appliances—

Dr McFETRIDGE: Are owned by the MFS.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, they are appliances purchased through the committee fund, the ESL fund. They are appliances that belong to the community, to the state. In fact, I made this point very early: one of the things that I have actually said to the services, and certainly to the SAFECOM chair, is that we need to start looking at all our assets as community assets needing to be deployed where required. For the first time, under the leadership of SAFECOM, the services are preparing a combined capital investment plan. In other words, we—

Dr McFETRIDGE: A one-service model?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Not at all. We have one community that needs to be serviced and I will not have the sort of discrepancy which has occurred to date where somebody says, 'I have this budget, I will spend it how I like.' The budget will be spent according to risk, and that takes into account—

Dr McFETRIDGE: But that is what the standards of fire and emergency cover are for, which seem to be ignored in Mount Barker.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, let me finish. No, not at all. That sort of thinking, within a silo, actually impacts on the community. What we need is thinking that goes right across the sector. It is interesting because the services have responded. They are now putting together a plan for what is required right across the service, and in some areas it may require some service to be adjusted and increased in other places, not according to the silo but according to what is required by the community. They are the sorts of serious and important reforms and modernisations that need to take place. So no, they are not MFS appliances; they are appliances that are used by the CFS brigade, they are used to protect the community. The only people using MFS and CFS and that sort of language are those people who seek to divide our communities.

The Hon. P. CAICA: I refer to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, page 83, under the heading of investing expenditure summary. Can the minister inform the committee about the new Metropolitan Fire Service station and State Emergency Service unit at Salisbury, a very good example of operating together. I think it might be the answer.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I actually had a sneak peek at the new station; we had the metropolitan cabinet meeting out there in the northern suburbs recently, so I took the opportunity to visit. I also had the local SES and CFS people there with me, again to reaffirm that we are one service to the community which is about providing protection to that community.

The MFS has almost finished construction of a new four-bay command fire station on the corner of Main North Road and The Grove Way at Salisbury Heights. This $7.4 million facility will accommodate operational crews and incorporate an enhanced incident management capability to manage major emergencies within the northern and north-eastern suburbs. The government has invested a further $480,000 in a state-of-the-art traffic management system to ensure safe emergency response from all emergency service agencies from the new precinct. The MFS has also included environmentally sustainable design elements within the Salisbury command fire station.

Once completed, appliances and crew from the existing Salisbury fire station will transfer to the new station. The current Salisbury fire station will then be decommissioned and sold. The new station is expected to be commissioned in early September, and I look forward to inviting the member for Morphett to the opening. The Salisbury fire station forms part of the overall Salisbury Emergency Service Precinct. The new station will improve the interlocking response area of the Salisbury fire station with existing MFS stations at Golden Grove and Elizabeth.

Land has been allocated—I repeat, land has been allocated—on the site to host a future State Emergency Service facility, which is likely to be constructed in the coming two years. The SES unit at Edinburgh will be closed and volunteers will transfer to the new location. The SES will utilise various facilities, when required, within the MFS station and work closely with their MFS counterparts during emergencies. The new arrangement provides not only better community safety outcomes but creates efficiencies that are realised through co-location, which is a good outcome for all South Australian taxpayers. I would also like to advise the committee that when I was there for a sneak peek, the captain of the Salisbury CFS brigade showed an interest in investigating the feasibility of them possibly co-locating as well.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I congratulate the MFS on this terrific advance. Salisbury was opened, I think, in 1977, and my father was one of the first officers at that station. It was a very proud moment for my family, obviously. Is the government considering building a similar command station at O'Halloran Hill?

Mr CROSSMAN: At this stage the MFS is looking at its forward capital plan and aligning that capital plan to the 30-year master plan for the state. We have not yet landed on a replacement for O'Halloran Hill. We are looking at a whole range of various options, so the O'Halloran Hill decision has not been finalised as yet.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I understand that the MFS owns quite a large block of land next to the current O'Halloran Hill station, and it is almost the same vintage at Salisbury, so you would be looking at replacement fairly shortly.

Mr CROSSMAN: Very much so. We are also looking at what the development down south is and where the appropriate need is for a fire station or a fire precinct response. At this stage we cannot close off on that.

Mr WILLIAMS: My question relates to Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, pages 69 and 111. Page 69 is the program summary for the CFS and 111 is the program summary for the State Emergency Service. I was expecting substantial increases in expenditure, particularly in rural areas—and I represent a rural seat—but I have looked through the summary of expenses for both the CFS and the SES, which principally operate in rural South Australia, and I see very little increase.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I think I was right the first time when I said next year.

Mr WILLIAMS: My confusion arises because information—

The CHAIR: Member for MacKillop, can you pull your microphone down.

Mr WILLIAMS: My confusion arises—I was expecting substantial increases in expenditure of both the CFS and the SES, which are the principal emergency service responders in regional South Australia—because information given to the Economic and Finance Committee earlier in the year with regard to the emergency services levy suggested that expenditure on direct emergency services in the rural areas, regions 1, 2 and 3 (that is regional area with regard to the ESL, not fire or emergency services regions), should increase by some 60 per cent, and that is an increase of $18.2 million. I certainly cannot see those increases reflected in the budget paper. What is the explanation for that?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I have been advised that the figures you refer to which reflect additional income this year (I think you are referring to) actually sit in the SAFECOM budget and have not been transferred across to the other budget areas. As was announced by the Treasurer, there will be additional moneys put in for training and that is exclusively CFS and SES volunteer training. There will be additional equipment. I think there are a couple of extra bulk water carriers being purchased. There is also the issue of personal protective clothing, again, for volunteers. There is a program for that and that is reflected in the budget—that will be spent—and they are non-metropolitan areas. As you have indicated, most of the SES and CFS are non-metro and that is where most of the money is going.

Mr WILLIAMS: So, minister, you are saying that there is—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: What I can say is that of those new measures included in the 2015-16 budget, $6.7 million will go to the presumptive legislation for CFS volunteers and half a million is going to the Regional Capability Community Fund, which is rural. Three point 7 million dollars in 2015-16, with $5.4 million over four years, to provide training and personal protective equipment to fit out an estimated additional 1,250 new CFS and SES volunteers; $700,000, which is the metropolitan CFS reserve capacity, for training and additional vessel and tow vehicle for volunteers and additional volunteer support contractors for SAFECOM; $600,000 this year, $9 million over four years, for a second set of personal protective clothing for each operational CFS volunteer; and $400,000 in 2015-16, $1.7 million over four years, for two additional bulk water carriers per year for four years. All those expenditures are for volunteers, and most of those volunteers are in rural areas. You are quite right that you would not find them in the budget papers and I have just been advised as to why that is the case.

Mr WILLIAMS: I appreciate the explanation, but it is still well short of the numbers that were given to the Economic and Finance Committee. Maybe you can answer this question: the numbers that were given to the Economic and Finance Committee—and I know they were given by the Treasurer and not by you—were they prepared by your agency or were they prepared in Treasury?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It was prepared by SAFECOM on behalf of the three services. If you want to know about the presentation of that information to the Economic and Finance Committee, you will need to ask the Treasurer, because he actually is responsible for the presentation of that information.

Mr WILLIAMS: Yes, I accept that and that is why I asked where the numbers came from. The Economic and Finance Committee was given the information that the expenditure on direct emergency services in the levy regions 1, 2 and 3 was going to increase by 60 per cent between the 2014-15 financial year and the 2015-16 financial year. To put that in dollar terms, that is an increase from $30.1 million to $48.4 million, a 60 per cent increase.

The people in my electorate, and I am sure my colleagues who represent rural and regional electorates, would love to see an increase in the fire cover and the emergency services cover in regional South Australia. However, those increases, as were given to the Economic and Finance Committee, are certainly not reflected in the budget papers and we are rightfully asking: where has the money gone?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I have indicated where the money has been allocated. In terms of the presentation, I suggest you ask the Treasurer to reconcile those figures; that is his job. I do not know if he has appeared yet before the committee. Has he appeared yet?

Mr WILLIAMS: I presume he has. So you are saying that you are unaware of where the additional $18.2 million has been spent.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: No, I did not say that at all. What I said was, in terms of the presentation of the information to the Economic and Finance Committee, that is the Treasurer's business. In terms of what we have spent, we put up a bid of what we think will be required for the training, the protective clothing, etc. I look after the money that I am allocated and I will spend it.

Mr WILLIAMS: Minister, you have to concede that the numbers that you have just given the committee fall well short of $18.2 million.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I have not seen the Economic and Finance Committee papers to know what my response should be. I have not seen those, so I am taking it on face value—not that I do not trust you, but I am taking it on face value that they are the correct figures. You will need to ask the person who is actually responsible for those papers. If you have not done that, I am sorry, but I cannot help you.

Ms DIGANCE: He is on tomorrow.

The CHAIR: I suggest we move on. Are there any further questions from the opposition?

Dr McFETRIDGE: Yes, there are, in the 12 minutes we have left. I refer to Budget Paper 2, Volume 2, page 72, Highlights. You purchased new breathing apparatus. Was the selected breathing apparatus the one that was recommended by those who were selecting it, and why did we not go to a similar type to what the MFS has, which I understand are seven kilograms lighter than those that have been selected for the CFS.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: All I know is that I signed off on the recommendation to me, which was made by the CFS, and we went through a tender process. As to whether they are different, perhaps that is an issue in the future where we need to perhaps look at it as a community-wide service, which a few minutes ago you actually did, tongue in cheek—

Dr McFETRIDGE: No, do not verbal me. I am happy to look at some areas of cost efficiencies, and purchasing is one classic area. Why do you end up with two systems?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: I should ask you that question.

Mr NETTLETON: I can offer some explanation to that. The breathing apparatus tender for Country Fire Service went out to a competitive tender process and a number of tenders bid for that. As part of the tendering process, there was a trial that was undertaken by a number of our volunteers and staff. They made a recommendation on one of the particular sets. There are other things that are taken into account, like value for money, support services and the like. In this case the set that was chosen is a set that was provided by Draeger for the trials, and that is the set that has been issued.

I point out that the reason we did not go to buy the same sets as the MFS is that the MFS sets are a number of years old and the sets we have are more modern. We have also gone to larger capacity cylinders for the BA sets, so our sets are nine litres and 300 barometric pressure. The MFS sets are smaller in volume. The contract is also for long-term management and maintenance of the BA sets and that is taken into consideration as well. So while the trial wearers might have a preference for a particular set, there are many other factors in the valuation of the tender that led to the tender outcome and therefore who gets the contract.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Thank you for that. I am concerned that we have gone from 200 bar to 300 bar cylinders and the new sets are a little heavier than the older sets. I understand that the MFS—and perhaps chief Crossman can tell us here—is modernising its sets for health and safety, if for no other reason, as well as operational efficiency, so getting a common set, I would have thought, would be something that perhaps we should start looking at. That is perhaps a comment more than a question. I should also say I am getting—

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Just on that point, if I can, member for Morphett, I can advise that those sorts of discussions are taking place as we speak now, the result of the modernisation project, in fact last week. Those sorts of discussions about purchasing across the sector are taking place for the very reasons you have outlined, and it would have happened a bit earlier had we not had other processes being derailed by other people.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I will treat that with the contempt it deserves. I refer to Budget Paper 2, Volume 2, Investing Expenditure, Capital Works.

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: Well, I am sorry.

Dr McFETRIDGE: How many new CFS tankers—'tankers'; that is the 'in' term now—appliances are being manufactured? Are they being manufactured in South Australia? I noticed last night on the news the Minister for Transport said that 90 per cent of DPTI contracts were for South Australian companies, but my understanding is that we might be getting the 10 per cent in CFS appliance bills. And why only Isuzu? Are they the only ones, because certainly I am not so sure they are built for Australian summer conditions, some of them. The air conditioning conks out when the motors overheat.

Mr NETTLETON: In relation to CFS appliances, the tender for cab chassis, which I think was a three-year plus one plus one tender, that contract was awarded to Isuzu on a competitive tendering basis. It is the pump sets that go on those appliances. It went out to tender through a competitive tendering process and a particular pump set was chosen. There are a number of bodybuilders who assemble the trucks for us. One is Fraser in New Zealand, which is on a three plus one plus one contract. Moore Engineering at Murray Bridge has contracts. They have recently completed some 14 appliances for us. They do all our bulk water carriers.

Another contract was with a company in Queensland for a variant of the 14s, and we have some other vehicles being made in various locations around the country. In relation to Fraser Engineering, this state has a free trade agreement with New Zealand and they are able to compete the same as any Australian manufacturer. They won a competitive tender and that is why the contract was awarded to them.

Similarly, when the contract with all those agencies expires, we will put out a tender for cab chassis into the future, and it will be up to a number of cab chassis suppliers to bid to win that contract. I do not know who will win that; I cannot say which company. Essentially, we buy those contracts using the value-for-money methodology that is sent to us by the state procurement people.

Dr McFETRIDGE: Why is it that DPTI can have a 90 per cent stipulation in their contracts, yet Emergency Services just says that is a free trade agreement?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: What I can add is that, in opening the Office of the Industry Advocate, the government has to be very mindful if we are going to set up barriers because equally, if every state set up barriers, it means our people cannot compete interstate either. So I think we have to be a bit more sophisticated and intelligent about how we approach this. What we have done as a government is that, to make sure that our small businesses in this state compete, we have made the Office of the Industry Advocate available to assist companies to make sure they put their best bid forward and assist them. That makes them competitive.

Sometimes they are not aware of contracts or tenders or they do not know how to complete that documentation, and we provide that assistance and support for them to do that. I would be very keen to make sure that local people do win it. Having said that, I have also accepted advice from the CFS regarding what they need to purchase, and I probably would be accused of micromanaging if I was to ignore their advice.

Dr McFETRIDGE: The same question is for the MFS about their new appliances. Are we building any of those in South Australia? We used to.

Mr CROSSMAN: Pretty much the same response, Chair, is that the MFS does have an open tender process and we go through an evaluation of each cab chassis builder. At this stage we do not have any local contact being built in South Australia but we are very aware of that and we will be looking at what we can assist with in the future.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I should tell the committee that one of the reasons that I am really keen on having South Australian builders, having visited the Tasmania Fire Service, their engineering department is building top shelf appliances. In fact, they are finishing off the new CAFS conversion on the bulk water carrier for the Blackwood brigade, and if Tassie can do it, I would have thought that we can do it. We can build submarines and ships but not fire appliances.

I should not leave the SES now with a few minutes left—if Chief Beattie perhaps wants to come forward. Budget Paper 4, Volume 2, Net cost of services. This is about the 2007 MOU between the MFS, CFS and SES signed by the then three chiefs—I think it was David Place, Grant Lupton and Euan Ferguson—for the closest, fastest and most appropriate response. Does that still apply for the three services, minister? Does that MOU still apply?

The Hon. A. PICCOLO: It does.

Dr McFETRIDGE: I am very concerned about the operational implementation of that MOU, and I will give a local example. The other night, the Strathalbyn SES went past the Meadows CFS and Kangarilla CFS to clean up a priority 2 tree down on Cut Hill Road. To me that is an abuse of volunteer time. I ask, why are we not applying that MOU? I understand that there are serious issues still in the Onkaparinga SES about this closest, fastest, most appropriate response.

Mr BEATTIE: The MOU that was signed is operationalised through our response plans that are embedded in the call, receipt and despatch system (SACAD) and you are quite right that the fastest most appropriate resource for emergency events are fundamental to our response protocols. It is also clear that for non-life threatening incidents and for community assistant incidents that fall outside of that life threat 000 category, that we have a range of response protocols that move beyond simply having the nearest appliance turn out.

That is particularly important when you have multi-incident storm and flood events where you can quickly saturate the field with appliances and deplete the community of fire cover. So where there are non-life threatening emergencies that can be responded to by the SES, a priority 2 or a priority 3 incident, they will be triaged by the unit and responded to through whatever means the unit sees fit. That may mean deploying unit assets throughout their area of response to the scene of the incident and normalising it, or alternatively it may be liaising with the CFS that may be closer and dealing with the incident in that way.

Dr McFETRIDGE: On that same issue, what is happening with the Onkaparinga unit? I am hearing rumours that the Onkaparinga SES is going to be closed down because of issues about the closest, fastest, most appropriate priority 1 responses.

Mr BEATTIE: The Onkaparinga SES is in a not unique but special situation where nearly all the membership of the SES are also joint members with the Country Fire Service, with the Onkaparinga group, and there are some members who are also joint members with the MFS and other services, including ambulance.

Over the last 12 to 18 months that particular unit has been advocating for and negotiating to have implemented some bespoke response arrangements whereby their members would be deployed from home locations rather than from the unit base. Within that group there are four brigades and in each brigade there are SES members. They had negotiated with the SES and obviously through their own service with the CFS to have bespoke paging arrangements implemented such that the nearest brigade would be responded to SES units, and the SES members from that brigade would respond from home brigades.

Those response plans were developed in consultation with the MFS and CFS over the last six to eight months and have now been implemented within the call receipt despatch system. There is a final piece in the equation and that is some recoding of the members' pagers so that they can be responded to appropriately, and we are waiting to get that done.

The CHAIR: Thank you, sir, and thank you minister. I declare the examination of proposed payments for the administered items for the Department of Treasury and Finance in part adjourned to committee A. Thank you, minister; thank you to your advisers; thank you to members on both sides.