Emergency Services

The Hon. A. PICCOLO (Light—Minister for Disabilities, Minister for Police, Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Emergency Services, Minister for Road Safety) (15:36): This morning, the member for Morphett made a contribution in which he discussed various matters concerning the emergency services sector reform. While I acknowledge and thank him for his service to the emergency services sector, I cannot let some of the completely inaccurate and misleading statements he made go unanswered.

The member for Morphett rightly points out that there need to be long-term solutions for long-term issues. As the member states, these issues include important matters such as training, resourcing, response times, triplication and duplication of services. They are his words. He also says they need to be sorted out calmly, responsibly and in a fashion that is inclusive. That is exactly the open and transparent process that I have been undertaking and now he is criticising me for that. He simply cannot have it both ways.

As the member acknowledged, I have openly engaged with nearly 2,000 members of the sector, both paid and volunteer. I stress that this engagement process with volunteers, paid staff, unions and associations at meetings and round tables has not been done behind closed doors, and everyone has been welcome to hear and participate in the discussion.

Like the member for Morphett, I have also travelled interstate to meet other emergency services. The main difference between the trips were that I included the unions and the associations—once again, an open and transparent process. Everyone heard the same feedback, both positive and constructive, about what worked well and what did not work well in those states.

The member also stated that it was only at Sampson Flat that I became aware of the importance of the AIIMS system. That is completely wrong. I have never wanted to change that system. My presence at the One Tree Hill incident management centre reinforced my view that the proposed reforms are not inconsistent with the ongoing use of AIIMS. To ensure that there is no further confusion, I have demanded that the new commissioner be appointed on the understanding that these processes remain unconditionally.

It is a bit rich for the member to come into this place and feign political indignation that in some way I do not understand volunteers, their value and contribution to our state. What I have said from the very beginning is that I want one organisation delivering three services, yet the member for Morphett keeps perpetuating the myth that this is a merger of these three services. This is completely untrue and has only served to cause angst amongst our emergency services personnel. That is why the conceptual model approved by the government incorporates three individual operational streams with the VMR affiliated with the SES.

The CFS operational stream from the operational head through to the firefighter on the ground will be made up of CFS personnel who operate as they do today, with the same uniform, and, as I have already stated, the same standard operating procedures and, most importantly, the same incident management system.

The belief that the chiefs of the three services are being sacked is a slur both on their excellent reputation and also on the actions I have taken to date. I have been working closely with them on how the transition into the new sector model will affect their current roles, but have also made it very clear to them that I hope they will consider taking up a new role in the new organisation because I do not want to lose their expertise and experience. I have also made it very clear that they are welcome to apply for the commissioner's role and should they be the best candidate, I will support their appointment. In fact, I reinforced that at a SAFECOM meeting this morning.

I have travelled the state for the past six months speaking with both volunteers and paid staff, and the process has not been rushed. The process which I have adopted is one I have actually announced right through the visits to regional areas, and at no point did anybody seem to complain about the process itself. Everyone is entitled to their democratic right to protest against something they do not agree with, but it is not always the most effective way to have meaningful dialogue, or a means to improving understanding. It is also important to remember that there are many volunteers and paid staff who have contacted me with positive feedback on the process and shared their ideas about how things can work better. I also acknowledge there is a diversity of opinion about the proposed reforms, ranging from outright opposition to those who believe I am not going far enough. I am sure members opposite have heard some of these views when I visited their regions.

Again, I would ask any emergency service personnel who want to discuss the reform to contact my office or, alternatively, I am happy to visit any brigade, unit, station or flotilla across the state. In fact, I will be meeting some shortly because I have already accepted some invitations. The reform process is just commencing and there is still ample opportunity for all workers in the sector, both paid and volunteers, to have input in the design and implementation of the new organisation.

If I can leave the chamber with one last point it would be to encourage members to engage in this process, rather than playing partisan politics, which is only causing unnecessary fear in our emergency services. At the beginning of this reform process, I invited the member for Morphett to work alongside me because I was committed to an open and transparent process and a good outcome. That invitation to work with me is still open if he wishes to accept it.