Motions

Emergency Services

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. R.L. Brokenshire:

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.

(Continued from 11 February 2015.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (16:54): I rise on behalf of the opposition to indicate that we will support the motion introduced by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. The Liberal Party has been quite vocal in its opposition to the government's proposed emergency services reform agenda. Much to the dismay of almost the entire emergency services sector, the government is seeking to amalgamate the CFS, MFS and SES under one commissioner. It is because of this strong and vehement public backlash that the opposition will be supporting the proposed select committee to inquire into the establishment of the commissioner and the consultation process (or lack thereof) undertaken by this government.

It is interesting to note that the minister has said he is perhaps not going to press ahead straightaway, and I think that will be a very good short-term outcome to have this select committee, and at least the select committee can do its work and report to parliament and, although it rarely happens, the government minister might take some note.

Under the government's proposed restructure, there will be no chief officers for the CFS, MFS or SES as is currently required under the Fire and Emergency Services Act 2005. The MFS has been advised by the minister that there will be a state control fire centre located at the State Communications HQ with the state fire and rescue commissioner as the state fire controller which will be a uniformed commissioner directly responsible to the Minister for Emergency Services.

The MFS has also reported that the commissioner will be supported by assistant commissioners allocated from each of the Metropolitan Fire Service, CFS and SES and a number of others for corporate areas, and meetings of a sector consultative forum will occur with details such as criteria and regularity yet to be established.

The South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission (SAFECOM) will be dismantled and the SAFECOM board will be dissolved and abolished. The government proposes that there will no longer be a CFS state HQ and a shared services model will be applied for CFS volunteers across the sector supporting all other agencies, that is MFS, CFS and SES.

The details of the proposed restructure I have just listed have been met with a lot of resistance from our community. On 28 January we had about 500 CFS volunteers protest here on the steps of Parliament House. These CFS volunteers want to maintain their autonomy. They feel that a one size fits all management system will not work. It is clear that the majority of our volunteers and the members of the MFS, CFS and SES as well as other associations such as the Country Fire Service Volunteers Association and the South Australian State Emergency Service are strongly opposed to the proposed changes or will only provide conditional support for a few of the proposed measures.

The government proposal in effect abolishes the existing independent agency SAFECOM and just replaces it with another bureaucracy, the Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner. Consistent with other insightful Labor proposals, this bureaucracy will no longer be independent but is directly responsible to the minister. We saw some issues recently with the minister in relation to coming up to the recent fire and being there to have photographs taken. Maybe we would have been better off to have those CFS personnel continue to fight the fire.

The government would in effect create a new centralised bureaucratic model when the overwhelming majority of the emergency services sector is publicly advocating the existing model is working well. The devastating Sampson Flat fire which occurred only last month highlighted the efficiency, coordination and effectiveness of our current structure. It should be noted that the efforts and response of our brave emergency services throughout this time have been widely commended by all sides of politics—a testament to the current model.

I am reminded of a couple of sayings. If it is not broken, why fix it? One of the gentlemen I used to do business with in The Netherlands many years ago said, 'If you don't have a headache, don't take Panadol.' I think this is a good example of that; we have a system that works very well and it has served this state for some significant amount of time.

It is also interesting to note that an independent review in May 2014 by Ernst and Young, entitled 'Independent review of shared services in the fire and emergency services sector', identified that it is the Labor government's cuts in funding to SAFECOM which is the principal reason why emergency services have experienced difficulties in recent years, not the structure of the emergency services.

We have seen the government remove the remissions for the emergency services levy which no other state has done. They claim it is because of some cuts that the federal government has made, yet no other state has done that. It is interesting how they continue to try to blame the federal government for funding shortfalls. It has always been somebody else's fault. It is something I have noticed about them for the more than 13 years I have spent in this place. With this government, it is always somebody else's fault and it is time they took some responsibility of their own.

However, I am digressing slightly. Given the overwhelming disapproval towards the government's proposed emergency services restructure and the lack of any substantial reason, the opposition will be delighted to support the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's motion to establish a select committee into the establishment of the commissioner.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:00): Very briefly, Dignity for Disability wholeheartedly supports this motion. Recent events have, unfortunately, demonstrated quite clearly that there is a need to pressure the government into being more consultative and collaborative, particularly on issues of emergency services reform. We thank the CFS Volunteers Foundation, in particular, for the feedback it has given us on these issues and for its advice to support this motion. We believe the best way to get good outcomes is to properly involve the people those outcomes most effect, and we will support this motion for that reason.

As something of a side note, I want to flag that Dignity for Disability is also working very hard on making emergency broadcasts more accessible, particularly to people with disabilities. We held a very successful public meeting on that subject recently, and I am very thankful for the feedback we are receiving. I was particularly thankful to see a CFS volunteer firefighter attend that meeting of his own accord, and show goodwill for what we are trying to achieve in making those announcements more accessible. I think it is clear that the CFS does want to work with the community to ensure that people are more informed and safe, and in order to do that it needs to be consulted in the first place. We certainly support this motion.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:01): I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate that we will be supporting this motion, brought by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire, to establish a select committee; indeed, we look forward to being involved in populating that select committee. As members are aware, and as many in the South Australian community are aware, last year minister Piccolo announced that it was the government's intention to have a sole commissioner oversee emergency services in South Australia.

While I have not been contacted by the MFS or the UFU on this issue, I have certainly been lobbied to support this select committee motion by both the CFS Volunteers Association and the South Australian State Emergency Service Volunteers Association. I would say that given that two key stakeholders' representative bodies have grave concerns and support this select committee, then the government should be taking note of the select committee and participating fully in it. Sonia St Alban, who is the executive director of the CFS Volunteers Association, writes, in a letter dated 24 February:

The CFSVA writes to you in relation to recent media release by the Minister for Emergency Services, Tony Piccolo. Through the media on Sunday 22 February 2015 (the day before the reference group meeting) and Monday 23 February 2015 (subsequent to the reference group meeting) the minister issued some 'loose announcements' without detail, which the minister suggests shows he is 'listening' to concerns raised by volunteers.

The CFSVA is totally frustrated by the minister's reactionary process which lacks substance, detail and most importantly direction. This continual change is causing CFS volunteers to be angry, disillusioned and indeed nervous for the future of CFS and the emergency services in South Australia.

Minister Piccolo will only discuss the sector reform process with the CFSVA at monthly reference group meetings in case, as suggested by the minister, it might be seen that the CFSVA is attempting to do a side deal. The minister's position is forcing the CFSVA to seek alternative avenues of raising the serious and justified concerns of 13,500 CFS volunteers.

Ms St Alban goes on, but I say that this government should be listening to those 13,500 volunteers who sacrifice not only their health and personal safety but also their spare time to work for South Australians and to protect our life and liberty. On 24 February South Australian State Emergency Service Volunteers' Association Chair Warren Hicks wrote to me and no doubt other members of this council:

On behalf of SES volunteers, the Association endorses the proposal by the Hon. Robert Brokenshire for a Select Committee to be established to look into the proposal to amalgamate the Emergency Services Sector in South Australia under a Commissioner and asks that you support his motion.

The letter goes on:

The proposal still lacks considerable detail and even the announcement by the Minister yesterday is ultimately saying that the restructure will take 12-18 months, having not allowed the time required for the legislative changes needed for full implementation. In the interim he proposes to appoint a Commissioner as soon as practical and volunteers are concerned this will become a Community Safety Directorate Mark 2 and we are all well aware how that failed dismally and was best summarised by Police Commissioner Gary Burns who said: 'he did not really have a handle on what the body's role was'. And then 'he did not know how the directorate differed from the South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission.

Simply the Government by establishing their new body 'SAFER' is going to increase the senior management structure with a Commissioner and 6 Assistant Commissioners, when if SAFECOM hadn't been decimated via the Sustainable Budget Commission, the Sector would still then have been supported fully in areas such as Procurement, IT, HR, WH&S, Finance etc, instead of agencies trying to cover the shortfalls that resulted.

Strong words from both of the volunteer associations here who are key stakeholders. When the minister announced these reforms he said that agencies would retain their individual identities, and certainly here these agencies are asserting their own individual identities and I believe they need to be listened to. While the minister said that there would be a two-phase process, I certainly note that the minister has proceeded with advertising for the appointment of a commissioner, which I believe is putting the cart before the horse and treating this parliament with contempt because this is, of course, a two-part process.

The minister himself admitted that when he announced it, and the second part of this will require legislative change. To debate that legislative change, this select committee will certainly properly inform that debate and give stakeholders a voice that they believe is not being heard by government at the moment. With those words, I indicate that we will be supporting and populating this select committee.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (17:07): I rise on behalf of the government to respond to the honourable member's motion. The motion calls for the establishment of a select committee of the Legislative Council to inquire into the government's emergency services reform, including the appointment of a commissioner.

First, if the honourable member had attended one of the 30 or more roundtable events held across the state he would be more aware of the reform process and the consultation that has been undertaken and what the reform is seeking to achieve by the appointment of a commissioner. Secondly, as the former minister of emergency services, the honourable member would be very aware of a number of past independent reviews into the sector which made recommendations that were consistent with the government's proposed reforms. The most recent of these reviews (in 2013), undertaken by the Hon. Paul Holloway, concluded in the first recommendation, and I quote:

That the MFS, CFS and SES be incorporated into a departmental structure under the direction of a Chief Executive based on interstate developments over the past two decades, which establishes this arrangement as a benchmark for the governance of Emergency Services in Australia. The MFS, CFS and SES would operate as separate units under the ultimate direction of the CEO.

This is almost identical to what the Minister for Emergency Services has been openly proposing during his extensive and transparent consultation process since June 2014.

Should a select committee be established, it would need to consult with hundreds of witnesses, as Paul Holloway and the Minister for Emergency Services have already done over many, many months. At the end of the day they would almost certainly come to the same conclusion that everybody else had come to: that the governance of the sector needs reforming. This is not to cast any doubt on the wonderful job that the emergency services staff and volunteers perform every day; this is about getting the structure right, allowing the sector to get the best results for the community.

The honourable member has suggested that the select committee should inquire into the reform process and consultation. Let me save the member some time. All this information is freely available on the SAFECOM website today. The process has been totally open and transparent, and the minister is continuing to talk with staff and volunteers across the state to ensure they have the facts about the reform and not the myths being deliberately spread by those who oppose the reform.

I remind this chamber that the minister has undertaken over 30 round tables and has travelled to 40 brigades, units, stations and flotillas, speaking to more than 2,000 staff and volunteers across the state. This does not include the hundreds of letters, emails and other conversations the minister has undertaken as part of his consultation process, or the live and interactive video conference that was beamed across the state last December, where the minister again described the reform and answered questions. It also does not include the interstate visits where the minister, accompanied by CFS and SES volunteer associations and the UFU, spoke to emergency services commissioners, officials, volunteer associations and unions.

During the consultation process the model for the sector has been changed as a result of feedback received. In fact, the model described in the December discussion paper was amended significantly due to the concerns raised by CFS and SES volunteer associations. Further modifications to the sector were proposed by the minister at a reference group on 23 February 2015, two days ago.

As the minister has advised many times, the structural reform is based upon various independent reviews. The more detailed aspects of the reform are now being worked through by the reform project team and working groups, which comprise expert members of the sector. No detailed business plan or cost benefit analysis can be established or undertaken until these details have been worked through and thoroughly tested. However, let us be very clear. Almost everybody in the sector recognises there is duplication that needs to be removed, allowing resources to be freed up and allocated to volunteers in brigades and units on the ground.

With regard to the legal items the honourable member has raised as needing to be investigated, these have been and continue to be worked through with the relevant authorities in South Australia, such as the Crown Solicitor's Office and the Commissioner for Public Sector Employment. Is the honourable member suggesting that the legal and public sector administrative expertise of these departments needs to be scrutinised? I think not.

I remind this chamber that the reform is not about merging the CFS, MFS or SES: the reform is about appointing a commissioner to ensure the best interests of the community are considered, including the allocation on a statewide basis, rather than three services competing for resources. Notwithstanding this change, the three services, led by chief officers, will retain their identity and chain of command, and very little will change operationally. When the minister commenced as the Minister for Emergency Services, the sector—particularly the volunteer associations—demanded that more resources be allocated to the front-line services and towards volunteer support. This is exactly what this reform will achieve.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:15): I will be brief, because the work has been done, and there is other business to be done in the next hour. I thank all honourable members for their contributions. I have already made a case for why I believe there should be a select committee, and I commend the motion.

Motion carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:15): I move:

That the select committee consist of the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Hon. John Dawkins, the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, the Hon. Andrew McLachlan and the mover.

Motion carried.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE: I move:

That the select committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to adjourn from place to place and to report on 29 July 2015.

Motion carried.