Fire and Emergency Services (Volunteer Charters) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 14 May 2015.)

Ms DIGANCE (Elder) (11:16): I rise to respond to the honourable member's bill, which seeks an amendment to the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005 to include the Country Fire Service and State Emergency Service volunteer charters into the act. On 16 May 2015, the Minister for Emergency Services announced that the key elements of the emergency services reform were not being progressed as it was becoming a barrier to achieving the objects of the reform, which was closer collaboration between the services and creating efficiencies and savings to invest into frontline services.

Throughout the reform process, all key stakeholders agreed that some reform is needed. As such, the minister also announced that the 13 reform working groups, which are comprised of expert staff and volunteers from the sector, will continue. Their purpose will be to inform the longer-term structural and organisational changes required. One of the first working groups to be established was the legislation working group. One of the primary tasks of this group is to examine how the charters or their successor will be incorporated into legislation. This is not a new concept. The minister advised the sector in mid 2014 that he supported this idea and it would be undertaken as part of the reform process.

At present, there are two volunteer charters, one for the CFS and one for the SES. The working group will consider if it is appropriate to have one charter for all volunteers, including the Volunteer Marine Rescue, who have advised they want to become part of the emergency services sector. The group will also consider how the charters can be further modernised or enhanced. The working group will also consider the impact of the legislation on the chief officers. For example, the working group needs to consider what changes in policy or practice are required to ensure the chiefs do not inadvertently break the law.

It may appear ironic that the member for Morphett, who is also the shadow minister for emergency services and who is advocating for greater consultation in the sector through his bill, I am told did not consult the chief officers, the chief executive of SAFECOM or the government about his bill, particularly as the abovementioned parties are all signatories to the existing charters. While I expect the chiefs will be supportive of the concept, the chiefs will also be aware of the implications it will have on their policies and practices. I ask the member for Morphett: have you reviewed SAFECOM's policy on referral and consultation? Have you spoken with the experts in the Volunteer Services Branch?

Dr McFetridge: I spoke to volunteers.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

Ms DIGANCE: Have you consulted the Minister for Volunteers? And is the answer no, no and no? Furthermore, is the member aware of the work carried out by the Australian Volunteer Rights and Advocacy Working Group in regard to a volunteer sector ombudsman?

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Alright; Member for Chaffey, you are called to order.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The deputy leader is called to order. She is not in her own place, anyway.

Ms DIGANCE: Was this important work considered when drafting your bill? At this point the government digresses for a moment to note the comments made by the member for Schubert on 7 May 2015 in this place, when discussing this issue, when he stated that the Minister for Emergency Services failed to consult. I also note the comments made by the member for Kavel on 7 May who, rather than providing a considered analysis of the bill, I am told, chose to use the opportunity to perpetuate the myth that the UFU was driving sector reform.

The member for Morphett, who bombards the emergency services agencies with, I am told, dozens of freedom of information requests, should already know—

Mr Knoll: How do you know that?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Schubert is called to order.

Ms DIGANCE: —from these costly expeditions that—

Mr Whetstone interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Chaffey is warned for the first time.

Ms DIGANCE: —the legislation working group is already undertaking this important work through the agreed process.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am on my feet; please sit down. I am not going to have interjections, I am not going to have noise. Every member is entitled to be heard in silence, and I will afford you the same treatment. I am asking members to cooperate with these rulings. You know the standing orders. Continue, member for Elder.

Ms DIGANCE: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. In summary, while the government supports the concept proposed by the member's bill, the consultation process undertaken by the member for Morphett—or perhaps I could suggest the lack of consultation process—is completely unacceptable and makes it impossible to support this bill.

A better outcome for volunteers is certainly possible. While the member has good intentions, we will hold him and his party to the same high standards of due process and extensive consultation expected of the government when developing legislation. While the government has no choice but to oppose the bill, the government sincerely invites the member for Morphett to join or contribute to the legislation working party. We welcome a bipartisan approach, as we are seeking the same ends.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (11:22): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 23

Noes 19

Majority 4

Motion thus carried; debate adjourned.