Motions

Emergency Services

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (16:38): I move:

1. That a select committee of the Legislative Council be established to inquire into—

(a) the government establishment of the commissioner to replace chief officers in the proposed emergency services reform;

(b) the process involved in consultation and what consideration was given to matters raised during consultation in developing the reform proposal;

(c) the business plan;

(d) cost-benefit analysis and probity regarding the proposed reform;

(e) consideration and consultation with volunteer organisations affected by the government proposal;

(f) the establishment of legal requirements for the chief officer and chief executive officer of emergency services and SAFECOM and the SAFECOM board; and

(g) any other relevant matters.

2. That standing order 389 be so far suspended as to enable the chairperson of the committee to have a deliberative vote only.

3. That this council permits the select committee to authorise the disclosure or publication, as it sees fit, of any evidence or documents presented to the committee prior to such evidence being presented to the council.

4. That standing order 396 be suspended to enable strangers to be admitted when the select committee is examining witnesses unless the committee otherwise resolves, but they shall be excluded when the committee is deliberating.

I move for this select committee because I believe that the very spirit and core of this state is built and based on volunteering, particularly so when it comes to emergency services. I believe that any reform, particularly radical reform like this, that any government proposes, irrespective of the colour of government, needs to be done with the utmost care and with strong consideration for all the concerns that particularly the volunteer organisations may have. I say 'particularly the volunteer organisations' because, first, without those volunteers we simply would not have the emergency services, be it the CFS, the SES, marine rescue or surf life saving, to protect life and property in this state. We simply could not afford to have a fully-paid service.

I highlight to the house that with this proposal, whether or not you think the minister and the government have good intentions, the reality is that by setting up this structure we will say goodbye to the current culture and the efficiencies and effectiveness of the CFS and SES as we have known them since they first evolved a very long time ago—well before the emergency fire service (EFS) was set up.

We have rhetoric in the house from the government at the moment whereby they are congratulating a broad range of organisations and services for the good work done at Sampson Flat. Brilliant work was done at Sampson Flat with the fires, but we need to do more than acknowledge the brilliant work there: we need to support those volunteers and listen to what those volunteers are saying.

Whilst I know the minister is getting a little angry with me at the moment for being out there and supporting these volunteer organisations, I do not apologise for that because the minister, the parliament and the government, as far as I am concerned as one member of this parliament, are subservient to organisations like the CFS, the SES, Volunteer Marine Rescue and Surf Life Saving, because, as I see it, those organisations are above any individual in the parliament, the government or the ministry.

The minister says that he has been out and consulted widely across the state. I know that the minister has travelled across the state, but the reality is that when you get reports back there are question marks about whether it was true consultation or more travelling across the state so that you could get into the media and defend the actions of the government and the orders and instructions you are under as minister, from the cabinet on behalf of the government, to say that you have widely consulted.

Volunteers tell me that they experienced a whiteboard and the minister putting up a lot of diagrams, notes and viewpoints on that whiteboard but very little detail on the real in-depth proposal for this reform. If you have worked with volunteers, you find that not only are they dedicated and caring people to their communities and to South Australians as a whole, but they actually show respect.

They were not in a position to jump up and down as the minister travelled across the state, and they had to reflect, consider, discuss and work with the associations that represent their memberships before they could come up with a decision. Unfortunately, even today, they do not have the detail—and let's remember that the devil is always in the detail—with which they can make final decisions.

I want to talk a little more about why I am moving for this committee. The purpose of the committee is because the reform, as I am advised by volunteers, was short on detail, leaving volunteers nervous (rightly so, I add) about what might eventuate. The CFS Volunteers Association, which has a member base as large as about 14,000, said that many volunteers had expressed concerns about the government's plan to push through this reform without providing key details.

CFS members have been noted in the media as having concerns about the potential for the creation of one fire service, commonly called a 'single fire service'. There is concern among volunteers about the reform and how it will impact them doing their job. The firefighters fear that the CFS could lose its identity under the proposal, and I can say, having met with the SES Association, that they have been consistent in raising the same concerns and have been consistent in questioning and objecting to the proposal of a commissioner-based structure.

Volunteers have threatened to quit the Country Fire Service amid fears they will be cast aside in the state government's emergency services reform. CFS members have spoken out against the proposal, saying that they have lost confidence in the government, and the SES have indicated similarly when I have met with them.

I want to put on the public record a few direct quotes because I think they will be very important for my colleagues to consider when they are deciding whether they will support the establishment of this select committee. The CFS Volunteers Association, in a statement, made this very important point:

Following extensive consultation with the CFSVA, the majority—

'the majority' is the important thing here—

of CFS volunteers have indicated that they will not accept the amalgamation or integration of services at any level that directly impacts on the current CFS chain of command and will vehemently oppose any such attempts.

CFS Volunteers Association executive director, Ms Sonya St Albans, said:

We're asking the government to hold off on the reform on the basis they haven't produced a business plan or a justification…We've always said we wouldn't accept change for the sake of change.

The media reports that Ms St Albans' requests to see the plan were denied. It is quoted:

We want Mr Piccolo to put a hold on the search for a commissioner until a plan is formulated and we have had a chance to comment on it.

Another quote:

Volunteers were getting quite agitated that this was moving faster than anticipated without any justification or basis.

Just on that, for my colleagues' interest, although I am sure they have already noted it, I put this on the public record the following for their consideration when they consider again supporting, hopefully, this select committee. Notwithstanding the fact that we have just gone through the Sampson Flat fires and that a lot of concern was raised openly, publicly and with transparency, through the media, it appears that the minister accelerated his desire for a commissioner and advertised it very quickly in The Advertiser—he accelerated even though he knew that he had problems. In other words, he tried to move all of this through as quickly as possible, without even the parliament being briefed and advised about the legislative aspects.

I expect that, if this does eventuate, the minister will say, 'We have appointed the commissioner. We have all things in place. Now we request the parliament, in a non-democratic manner, to rubberstamp legislative changes.' I would have thought that the better way would have been, after proper consultation with all of the volunteers, a joint house briefing from the minister and then an explanation as to what legislative changes were needed and then, with the consent of the parliament, to proceed to the next step, namely, the consideration of appointment and advertising for a commissioner.

The Salisbury Heights group officer and CFS Volunteers Association member, Mr Rod Styling, was quoted as saying:

There were concerns about the lack of detail in the plan. We want to see the benefits, whether worth, costs or operationally and whether there are financial benefits. The whole process is flawed. There is no business case and no business plan. The original plan was not to touch the service's operations. They're not talking about changes at the regional level and above, and that's now what we originally understood. We want our regions to stay the same; they very ably support us in what we do.

The MFS, SES and CFS also say, 'We have similar values but the culture is different,' and that is true—the culture is clearly different.

There is potential inherent danger long term in trying to amalgamate and therefore do away with those cultures. We have seen the problems in Western Australia. We have seen the problems in Queensland, where they went down something not quite as draconian as this. Notwithstanding that, they went down a path of significant restructure and for the last 10 years they have been trying to go back. South Australia and New South Wales currently lead Australia when it comes to emergency services management, I would suggest because of the current structures that we have that work, and there are the cultural benefits of the independence of the organisations. Finally, Mr Styling says:

We are a fully volunteer service and we want someone in leadership with a perspective that understands volunteers. We expect the MFS wants a professional leader who understands their culture.

Just on that—and this is another reason for moving this select committee—the parliament actually expects the same, because there is legislation in place now that actually differentiates and says that you must have separate chief fire officers for the CFS and the MFS. The SES has a chief as well. I have a couple more quotes. The Salisbury CFS captain, Mr Rob Turnbull, said:

All we're asking for is transparency in the process…We asked to look at the modelling and even the financial modelling, and no one seems to have an answer.

Captain of a brigade in region 2, Mr Tony Lange, said:

If we go down this line and the Minister gets what he wants a lot of us will just pack it in.

The Northern Barossa group officer, Kim Haebich, said:

Why structure the whole organisation with a volunteer force of 15,000 when the Holloway report indicates that the operational arms of the services are working well on the ground.

Many volunteers have said to me, 'Why reinvent the wheel when it's not broken?' We saw a situation back in the 1980s when a former Labor government decided that they were going to, effectively, get rid of emergency services at the front line, namely, ambulance transport and paramedic assistance, the St John. One of my colleagues in here raised, rightly so, the very good work St John did at Sampson Flat, and I support that. St John is a marvellous organisation, but it got done over badly back in those days.

Also, let us just remember what happened, historically, as a result of that. We saw a publicly paid—partly publicly paid, because there are still a lot of volunteers there—South Australian ambulance service. It is a great service but at what cost. Now we have seen the government put the South Australian Ambulance Service away from the autonomy that it had, to be a small part of the health department. Of course, now we see them struggling like mad with their budgets.

This Labor government, earlier on its terms, actually got rid of the CFS board. I am on the public record as saying that I thought that was the wrong thing to do, but with a lot of goodwill—a lot of goodwill—the CFS took at face value what the then minister told them and agreed that they would support the removal of a CFS board. History shows now that that was probably not a good move.

In fact, I would say that if we still had a CFS board today there is no way I would even be moving this select committee because the CFS board had more power than I had as a minister when I was their minister, and more power than any other minister, and could have told the minister of the day just where to stick certain proposals. They have lost that opportunity now, but it is still not too late to maintain the autonomy of the organisations.

All the volunteers say to me that they are always happy to look at proactive reform and some restructure, and also certainly to look at other initiatives that can create more economically effective and efficient emergency services for our state. They all agree with that, but they say to me, and I have to agree with them, that we have not had an explanation or a proper debate on a fundamental that potentially will change forever what we all know with our emergency services today and that is the role of and the reasons for a commissioner.

Some members of the house may not know this but I understand from my sources that the chief fire officers have been advised that they are going, and I understand that the government is moving fast at the moment to work out packages with them and they will be gone by the middle of this year; the commissioner starts on 1 July.

As someone who is totally inactive when it comes to operational CFS now, I had the privilege of being active for many years before coming into the parliament and, like the rest of us here, still have an active role and an important role to play in looking after those volunteers and organisations from a parliamentary aspect, and I cannot understand why you need a commissioner.

The only thing that I can say to the house is that if you want to go back to the late 1980s, a report was put out by the then Labor government called the Bruce report. That Bruce report recommended a single fire service, and I know in my briefings when I first became minister for emergency services that the association said to me, 'If you want to get on with the organisations do not go down the track of the Bruce report and a single fire service.' It is an old chestnut that has been around for a long time, but now that the government have slipped over the line and are back in office they are more bold and brave than they were and so it appears that they are potentially going down a similar track to the Bruce report recommendations.

The other point that I would raise with the house is that we have not heard hue and cry from the United Firefighters Union. That is a concern to me because of my experiences previously with the UFU, and if there is any potential risk for them in losing anything or not being able to gain additional benefits, they will be out there, just like they were when the Hon. Wayne Matthew was the minister for emergency services, and they were not happy and they put the snorkel unit up with firefighters in it, right in his face at his desk at a multistorey building in Adelaide.

When I was bringing in some changes they had stickers all over their fire trucks, and you would pull up at the traffic lights and look at your name and think, 'Oh, that's my name, what's that about?' and then you would read it, and it was the United Firefighters Union having an intense go at you as a minister. So I do ask: why are the UFU so quiet on this occasion?

I have just floated some of the issues and concerns. This is not a personal thing for me with minister Piccolo, and I think minister Piccolo is just there doing a job for cabinet and the relationship is probably between government and UFU. I am not going to get personal with minister Piccolo. I notice that he has, even as recently as today, had a crack at me about the fact that I have been out there saying that he will not meet with the CFS volunteers, and I stand by what I said because they asked for a private meeting with the minister one on one.

They have some serious issues that on behalf of all South Australians they want to discuss with the minister and, rightly so, they may not want to actually discuss all of that in an open forum around this reform later in February, which is where the minister has said he is happy to hear from them. I simply appeal to the minister to actually meet with them.

One of the thousands of dedicated volunteers, Mr Jeff Clark, has been out there publicly raising some concerns and that is what you do when you have issues that you are worried about in a democratic society. But I was concerned to see that, in a debate on radio recently where Mr Clark, myself and the minister were all on that FIVEaa program, the minister was being condescending to Mr Clark, I believe, and I do not think that that is good in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve, particularly when the minister said something like, 'You're back, Jeff.' Mr Clark has always been absolutely dedicated to the Country Fire Service, as I know, and I commend him for that dedication as, indeed, I do all the volunteers.

With those words, I know that the Legislative Council is involved in a lot of select committees, and I know that all members in this house—government, opposition and crossbenchers—have an enormous amount of work. I would not envisage this committee having to meet for too long because I know that time is of the essence, but I think that there needs to be some real openness, some real transparency, and that people can come in under parliamentary privilege to tell the parliament what they believe is the situation with regard to this proposal.

Who initiated this? Who was involved in setting it up? Were all the experts in our emergency services involved in this prior to its being announced? Why are the volunteers associations on behalf of the volunteers not being listened to in the way we believe they should be? What is the true cost-benefit analysis, if any? Will there be savings and, if so, where will they go? What guarantees are there in the future, once this structure comes into place, that it will not further develop into a single fire service, as an example? These are just some of the things I think we all need to be able to investigate on behalf of the services and the South Australian community.

I advise the house that it will not be my intention, if it approves this select committee, for it to be too long. It would be my intention to get all the facts on the table, give all the players—including the minister if he would like to come before the select committee—an opportunity to put to the Legislative Council just what is behind this proposal, and from there we can all deliberate on its real purpose and intent and, most importantly, where in the future it is best to have the support for these services and whether or not that autonomy should continue.

All those sorts of things need to be considered. I ask the house to support my motion for a select committee. I advise the house now that I would like to put this to a vote on the next Wednesday of sitting.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. S.G. Wade.