Emergency Services

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

That this council calls on the state government to immediately—

1. Withdraw the calling of applications for the position of commissioner for emergency services; and

2. Not further proceed with foreshadowed changes to the structure of emergency services pending consideration of the report of the select committee of the Legislative Council, should it be established.

(Continued from 11 February 2015.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:16): I rise briefly to make some comments on the motion which calls on the government to withdraw calling for applications for the position of commissioner for emergency services and not proceed further with the foreshadowed changes of structure to the emergency services pending consideration of the report of the select committee. It is very self-explanatory and, as I indicate, we will be supporting this motion of the Hon. Robert Brokenshire. I gave obviously a reasonable contribution on his select committee just—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: And it was an excellent contribution.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: Thank you. My colleague the Hon. Stephen Wade interjects. I know it is out of order, but he says it was an excellent contribution. Thank you. For the same reasons I outlined, we will certainly support this motion. It does not make sense if you have a parliamentary inquiry and the minister has said he is probably not going to pursue any of his potential changes for about 12 months, so it seems crazy to pursue this appointment and any of the reforms. We are certainly very happy to support the Hon. Robert Brokenshire's motion.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:17): Briefly, given that we supported the establishment of the inquiry, it makes sense that Dignity for Disability will also support not pursuing this appointment until that inquiry is completed.

The Hon. T.T. NGO (17:18): I rise on behalf of—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: I hope this is a better speech than Gerry's last one.

The Hon. T.T. NGO: I rise on behalf of the government—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: Different speechwriter?

The Hon. T.T. NGO: Different speechwriter—that's correct—to respond to the honourable member's motion calling for the government to cease the recruitment process for the position of commissioner for emergency services. A four-week international recruitment campaign commenced in mid-January 2015, utilising a specialist recruitment company, national newspapers, including The Advertiser and the South Australian Government Notices of Vacancies. Numerous applications for the position have been received and the new commissioner is expected to commence on approximately 1 July 2015.

The recruitment panel consists of three highly regarded South Australian and interstate commissioners as well as an expert in change management. All relevant public sector protocols and processes have been followed. The need to recruit the commissioner was approved by the government in December 2014. There are no surprises here. This was well known to everyone who participated in the Minister for Emergency Services' extensive seven-month long consultation process.

The Hon. Mr Brokenshire is very well aware of a number of past independent reviews into the emergency services sector that have made recommendations that are consistent with the government's reforms, including the need to appoint a single commissioner or chief executive.

The most recent of these reviews in 2013, undertaken by the Hon. Paul Holloway MLC, included in the first recommendation:

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 the benchmark for the governance of Emergency Services in Australia.

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

The intention to appoint a single commissioner or chief executive was published in the September 2014 reform discussion paper, which was widely circulated within the sector. Once again, none of these reform discussions cast any doubt on the wonderful job our emergency services staff and volunteers perform every day. This is about getting the governance structures right. Despite what some people would have you believe, there are important areas in the emergency services sector that can be improved. For example, the community does not always get the nearest, quickest and most appropriate response when they call 000. This is not acceptable. Those who do not want to recognise this fact need to read the Hon. Mr Holloway's review.

The allocation of resources to community risk also needs to be significantly improved. The minister has received an overwhelming number of submissions advising that one service gets more than another at the expense of their service and community safety outcomes. There is also a critical need to remove duplication in training, procurement and various administrative and corporate functions between the services and reinvest savings into front-line services and volunteer support. The current structure has not allowed these critical improvements to be implemented. This is no longer acceptable.

I remind the council that the reform is not about merging the CFS, MFS or SES. The reform is about appointing a strong commissioner to oversee the sector, particularly the back office functions. The three services led by chief officers will retain their identity and chains of command, and very little will change operationally.

During the consultation process the model for the sector has changed as a result of feedback received. In fact, the model described in the September discussion paper was amended significantly due to concerns raised by the CFS and SES volunteers associations. Further modifications to the sector were also proposed by the minister at the reference group on 23 February 2015. As this clearly demonstrates, the minister has been listening, and not simply dictating, as some of the members have claimed.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:24): I rise to support this motion and add further to my comments in supporting the establishment of a select committee. I have no doubt that the government has done extensive consultation. It is just that I think that their definition of consultation is a little more like mansplaining than listening. This government, the Weatherill Labor government, came to power after the years of the Rann government saying that they would no longer do a 'declare and defend' strategy. This appears to me to be a 'decide, declare, travel all over the state and have 40+ public meetings and talk, but not listen' strategy.

Yes, some amendments have been made, but I would point out to government members that the letters I just read out in the previous debate were from this current week from the CFS Volunteers Association and the SES Volunteers Association. They are not outdated letters; they are current, contemporary letters of the last few days.

The volunteers associations are still not happy, even though they have had extensive consultation. To me, if you are saying that you are having a conversation, perhaps that conversation does need some more active listening. This is a way that this Legislative Council can say to this government, 'We are listening to those associations, and we are standing up and we are giving you a very large red flag that, when you bring legislative reform to this place, we will stand up for the volunteers associations, unless they are happy with these reforms.'

They have said that they are open to a mature debate. I would think that the nuclear industry is not the only place in this in state that we can have a mature debate, and there is no more important area than our emergency services, particularly in this era of climate change, where we need to ensure that we have a healthy, volunteer-led and, indeed, a high-morale emergency services.

These are people who put their life on the line for us. They deserve to be listened to, to actually be heard, not just treated as if they are somehow needing to be mansplained that this government knows what is best for them. With those words, I say that, at this point, the Greens wholeheartedly support a big red flag being sent to this government by saying that we will support this motion.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:26): I thank all honourable members for their contribution. The CFS and the SES do not raise these issues lightly, as many of my colleagues have highlighted. There are genuine concerns, and they are bona fide concerns. I would point out to the government, particularly the minister, that the key to the start of a potential slippery slope is this appointment of a commissioner.

There are lots of opportunities for being able to do pretty much everything the minister has said he wants to do within the current structure, but the elephant in the room, if I can put it that way, is the proposal for a commissioner, particularly because I am advised by lots of phone calls after just about every meeting the minister has had that there has been no bona fide, genuine explanation as to why they want to set up this commissioner.

Therefore, I appeal to the minister to be open-minded, fair and considerate to the volunteers and to listen to the Legislative Council, which is calling on the minister to halt the process—there is no need at all for the minister to rush into this process—and to let the select committee do things in a democratic manner, to come up with some recommendations after proper deliberation and proper consultation, where we can hear from all sides in an open, transparent and genuinely public opportunity, and then have a look at what comes from that select committee.

The minister has said that he will slow down the process but, at this point in time, that only means that, instead of bringing in the commissioner in July, he says that he will bring in the commissioner in August. That is not a very great slowdown of a process, in my opinion—it is about a month.

I say to the minister, 'You still have goodwill out there with the volunteers. Without the volunteers, we are in a big mess in South Australia.' Please minister and please government, listen to the volunteers. I can say honestly that volunteers do not come out like this unless they have genuine concerns. They put up with more than they should put up with. Just like when the Hon. Tammy Franks put up legislation to give them equal rights with the UFU, which should have been there from day one, they again had a genuine reason. Please let us get on with the select committee, stop the process of the commissioner, and let's see where it eventuates after the select committee reports. I commend this motion to the house.

Motion carried.