Fire and Emergency Services (Governance) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 3 March 2021.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Leader of the Opposition) (17:00): I rise to indicate that I will be the lead speaker for the opposition. As South Australia prepares for yet another bushfire season and deals with the combined effects of climate change and more severe fires, there is always value in improving the management and operations of our emergency services.

Just before the COVID pandemic, we were emerging from a horror fire season around Australia. While the pandemic has understandably taken much of our attention, we cannot lose focus on the other challenges we face. This bill does two things. First and probably most important, it establishes an independent chair for the South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission, often referred to as SAFECOM. A number of stakeholders have raised concerns about SAFECOM's conduct, including that it may have tried to assert itself beyond its legislative remit and into a more operational role. An independent chair will assist with these concerns.

The existing arrangement where SAFECOM's chief executive presides over the SAFECOM board has echoes of the poacher and gamekeeper dilemma. The arrangement is not in line with the more traditional board-CEO relationship in either the public or private sectors. It will operate better under the normal conventions of a board, with an independent chair appointed by the minister, and the agency responding to the board's direction in accordance with the minister's intent.

Under the Corporations Act 2001, there are good reasons why this is normally the case. It is to avoid the organisation in effect checking its own homework. Both in ASX listed companies and the Public Service, it is not recommended that the managing director or the chief executive also chair the board.

This bill also makes a very important change to the reporting requirements of the State Bushfire Coordination Committee. Under the changes proposed, it will report directly to the minister, who, in return, must report to parliament on an annual basis. This is a positive move towards more transparent bushfire management in South Australia. The opposition supports this bill and the proposed amendment, although I will have a couple of questions about the amendment, which I shall raise in the committee stage.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:03): I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the Fire and Emergency Services (Governance) Amendment Bill. The bushfire season of 2019-20 was horrendous for South Australia. Following that, the state government commissioned a review led by former Australian Federal Police commissioner Mr Mick Keelty AO. It was provided in June 2020 with over 570 submissions and 60 video and teleconferences. That review provided 15 recommendations based on almost 70 findings. Those findings had an emphasis on new equipment, better protection of assets, updated technology, improved information and an improvement in governance.

The state government announced their $97.5 million comprehensive action plan to fund these recommendations. The State Bushfire Coordination Committee chairman and CFS chief officer, Mark Jones, stated at the time:

As a community, we have grown accustomed to living with bushfires, and as a state we need to work together to better prepare and prevent these disasters from happening.

While the additional support that has been provided by the government, including those extra resources and funding, has been vital in addressing the recommendations of the Keelty review, I do note that there needs to be ongoing and continuous work in order to meet all the recommendations, as well as the noted points for improvement.

This bill goes some way to starting that journey. This bill enables the appointment of an independent chair of the South Australian Fire and Emergency Services Commission, the SAFECOM board. Currently, the chair is also the chief executive of SAFECOM, an unusual and I believe unacceptable situation to continue into the future. I am glad it is being rectified in this bill.

This bill also requires the State Bushfire Coordination Committee to provide an annual report for tabling in parliament. Again, no such requirement currently exists—quite an extraordinary state of affairs I would have thought, and I strongly welcome that measure in this piece of legislation as well. These are two out of the 15 recommendations for improvement based on those almost 70 recommendations made by the Keelty review.

The Keelty review, I have to say, did note that SAFECOM has been marked by what you might call 'mission creep'. The Keelty review noted quite serious concerns about SAFECOM overstepping its legislated role and function, and the SAFECOM board convention has been quite unusual. Unlike other board conventions, the SAFECOM chief executive also chairing the SAFECOM board raised questions about why this arrangement was in place, and certainly I think very fair questions about whether it was delivering the best outcomes for emergency services agencies.

As members would be aware, I have long enjoyed a collaborative relationship with the CFS Volunteers Association and the SES Volunteers Association. I think that some of their concerns raised over many years now have been vindicated, not just by the Keelty review but by this legislation. I welcome this debate and the leadership shown by the current minister, the member for Hartley.

The Keelty review did commend the CFS for its recognition of community engagement and education programs. However, it was noted by many of the submissions that there was a need for further education and assistance in bushfire survival plans and in defending property and emergency assistance. One must also look to the Victorian 2009 bushfire royal commission, which there noted, 'that transfer of responsibility has probably gone too far; individuals are no longer taking sufficient responsibility for their own risk management'.

The Greens would agree: it is the role of government to prompt change and encourage taking personal responsibility, as well as, most importantly, allocating funding to community programs and engagement. As that royal commission goes on to state:

Without professional support, landowners are highly unlikely to conduct these strategic burns and instead opt for inappropriate alternatives such as mechanical land clearance, which can compromise environmental assets or choose to undertake no hazard reduction activities at all.

That desperately shows the need for leadership by government, and it is leadership that I hope we will be seeing, regardless of which of the political parties holds government in this state ongoing.

Professor Lesley Hughes found that this fire season in South Australia—and Professor Hughes is no stranger in observing this—is now starting earlier and lasting longer. Professor Hughes has also predicted that the economic costs of South Australia's bushfires will have doubled by the year 2050—that is, doubled in that short period of time. In order to meet these increasing demands and this increased challenge, the resources available to emergency services also need to be doubled, but they need to be doubled by 2030 compared with our current rate.

The next 10 years are vital for our planet, but the next 10 years will also be critical in reducing the risk of extreme bushfires in our state. The review found that previous amendments in introducing a bushfire management framework to the Fire and Emergency Services Act has failed to be fully implemented. That is to our shame.

Of more concern, the review also found that in regard to the Kangaroo Island bushfires there was a 'disproportionate amount of attention' paid to misguided priorities and, despite the threat to private properties, there was a disparate level of attention given to the Flinders Chase National Park, with over 96 per cent being burnt during that fire in January 2020. The Keelty review stated that the current state bushfire management plan failed to incorporate risk management into practice and, therefore, has compromised the effectiveness of the applicable framework.

In 2010, SAFECOM conducted an audit of the coronial inquest into the 2007 Wangary fires and found that 26 out of 34 recommendations had not been actioned. I must say, let's hope that this Keelty review is not yet another example of where the good work following these emergencies is undertaken, the lack of preparedness or the gaps in administration, resourcing or frameworks are identified, yet the recommendations are filed away to gather dust on a shelf and not enacted, not just into legislation such as this but into the very ongoing daily workings that are funded to ensure that they are effected day to day.

The Greens welcome this. We have long had concerns, which I have publicly raised, about the structure of SAFECOM. I believe that the long-held concerns, particularly of the volunteer associations of both the CFS and the SES, have been vindicated in this piece of legislation. With that, we look forward to its swift passage.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:11): I rise to speak on behalf of SA-Best on the Fire and Emergency Services (Governance) Amendment Bill. As we have heard, the independent review into the 2019-20 bushfire season was undertaken by former Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty AO, following one of our most devastating and heartbreaking bushfire seasons on record. Fifteen recommendations arose from the 68 findings of the review. The bill seeks to address the suggested legislative amendments, namely, the appointment of an independent chair to the SAFECOM board and the introduction of a new reporting requirement to parliament, which means the annual report of the State Bushfire Coordination Committee will become a public document.

The review, as many things have been, was challenged by COVID-19 restrictions. I believe six intended regional town hall events had to be cancelled; nevertheless, consideration was still given to 576 admissions, and 60 targeted stakeholder interviews were conducted remotely. Particular attention was given to expert evidence in fire behaviour and reduction strategies. The review heard that the 2019-20 fire season was particularly catastrophic. It began two weeks early and the soil was unusually dry.

The numbers paint a horrific picture: three fatalities; 196 homes destroyed, with 104 also damaged; 660 vehicles destroyed or damaged; not to mention the horrendous impact on wildlife. Sadly, an estimated 40,000 to 50,000 koalas perished, as did about 68,000 livestock. There will of course always be immeasurable long-term psychological impacts for many people and also for the children of those families.

In October last year, I saw firsthand the absolute devastation caused by the bushfire on Kangaroo Island earlier that year. It is hard to imagine what that would have been like. When I visited Flinders Chase National Park on Cape Du Couedic, what struck me was the char but also, and perhaps more than that, it was the lack of anywhere to go to escape the raging fires other than open waters. I tried to imagine what that would have been like and I can assure you it felt like the end of the earth and it filled me with fear but also tremendous sadness. Of course, we are very fortunate that we did not have to experience any of that firsthand.

The amendments before us are a good start. They are relatively simple but warranted changes. Currently, the chair of the nine-member SAFECOM board also wears a second hat as the chief executive of the commission itself. This certainly raises questions of independence and goes against the grain of modern corporate governance standards. The review described it as, and I quote, 'akin to marking your own homework'. I am sure I do not need to remind you, Mr President, of the genesis of the board and the act; indeed, your involvement in the comprehensive review into emergency services, culminating in the introduction of the act and the establishment of the commission and the board, is well documented.

The SAFECOM board mandate includes responsibility for establishing and monitoring the strategic direction of the commission, ensuring the effective exercise of its functions and developing and monitoring the annual budget. Concerns were raised before the review that the board was directing more than enabling, in essence performing outside its legislative scope. As the review found, to do nothing risks SAFECOM becoming a fourth arm of emergency service providers. The appointment of an independent chair certainly goes a long way in addressing this concern and it is something we welcome.

One issue we did have real concerns about, which was something raised during our consultation process, was the seemingly non-transparent register of assets. We had considered introducing an amendment to compel the publication of an up-to-date asset management plan. We were, however, assured by the current SAFECOM chief executive and chair of the board at a briefing in April that an asset management framework was in the pipeline awaiting board approval, which was music to our ears. It is to include information such as equipment life cycles and maintenance regimes, all things that the unions have expressed very serious concerns about, not only with me but other honourable members in this place.

There needs to be a transparent program for the continuing modernisation of the fleet. There needs to be accountability and there needs to be scrutiny and a clear plan going forward. What we do not want, especially given the level of risk in our regions, and what we have certainly heard reports of, is our ageing urban fleet being palmed off to our country cousins. Equipment needs to be fit for purpose and properly maintained. It needs to be reliable in extreme life-threatening conditions and I am pleased to report that our concerns insofar as they relate to the asset management plan have been addressed.

The government filed an amendment last week that will expand the functions and powers of the commission and this will allow members of the board, which include representatives from the volunteer associations and the United Firefighters Union, to have oversight over the financial and asset management plans of the three organisations.

The inclusion of these provisions in particular is something that the unions consider extremely important, for obvious reasons. I think it is fair to say that the agency heads that I met with acknowledged and agreed that they did so but also thought it was very important. My feedback from the stakeholders who raised this issue with me is that this a most welcome amendment.

I thank the minister and his staff and in particular Mr Oliver Everett, who is fast becoming a favourite in our office for his level-headed approach to these issues when it comes to compromises and dealing with issues. I thank them for listening but also for moving very swiftly in relation to drafting this proposal and getting the government to agree to it and seeing it as part of this package. With those words, I indicate again SA-Best's support for the bill and look forward to its passage through this place.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:18): I thank honourable members for their contributions to the second reading and indications of support for the bill.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 4 passed.

New clause 4A.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On behalf of the government, I move:

Amendment No 1 [HealthWell–1]—

Page 2, after line 15—After clause 4 insert:

4A—Amendment of section 8—Functions and powers

Section 8(1)—after paragraph (e) insert:

(ea) to ensure that the emergency services organisations have appropriate financial and asset management plans in place;

I am advised that collectively the emergency services sector manages approximately $448 million worth of assets to deliver emergency services to South Australia. The sector is committed to and has been working towards strengthening governance relating to financial and asset management. For example, a strategic asset framework was recently developed, which is being consulted on, to ensure there is strong alignment between the strategic and operational objectives of the sector and how assets will be managed in line with those objectives.

Given the sector's strong focus on sound governance practices, the government is introducing this additional amendment for inclusion in the bill. The amendment will legislate that emergency services have appropriate financial and asset management plans in place to ensure the most efficient and effective use of public funds and assets. This is an important amendment that provides a legislative role for the SAFECOM board on which union and volunteer association representative sit on asset management planning. The initial amendment will be inserted in part 2, division 2, section 8(1) of the act, which provides funding and powers of SAFECOM.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: For the reasons just outlined, we indicate our support for the amendment..

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have just a couple of questions on the amendment. If I can ask the Treasurer: will the government provide the current asset management plans and financial plans for each year for each of the emergency services? Will the asset management plans that are put in place pursuant to the amendment be provided in some way for each of the services?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that the plans will be tabled or presented to the SAFECOM board. As I outlined in my explanation to the amendment, the SAFECOM board has both volunteer associations and union associations represented on it. Certainly, the unions, volunteer associations and others who sit on the board will be fully aware of the plans that are being discussed.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I have a further question. This might be a better way to describe it. Will the asset management and financial plans linked to the emergency services be made public and transparent?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: My experience with these things is they would have been public anyway. I am advised that the government is prepared to give that undertaking. I can give the undertaking on behalf of the government. I would imagine, after appropriate discussion at the SAFECOM board, they will be made public in some way once approved.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Can the Treasurer describe what gave rise to this amendment? What has happened such that it was not included in the bill but it has now been decided it needs to be included, and what consultations occurred with representative groups such as the UFU, the SESVA and the CFSVA?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am advised that, as I am sure the honourable Leader of the Opposition would acknowledge, we are an open, transparent and consultative government, and in the consultation this issue was raised by stakeholders. The government saw the good sense of it and has proceeded down the path, which seems to be warmly endorsed by all and sundry. So it is just part of good government and good consultation, being open and transparent, and this is the end product of that.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I will ask a question, but I will make the observation that when one has to proclaim their openness and transparency so often it is often because they in fact may not be as they say. When the Treasurer mentions stakeholders, who are they?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I need to take some further advice on that. I understand there has been some discussion with members of parliament in relation to this particular provision, and there have been some other individuals who have been involved, as I understand it, but obviously I do not have full knowledge of the background of how we have arrived at where we have arrived. It just seems to be a good position we have arrived at, and there will be, as I understand it now, full consultation with all and sundry in relation to how this will be implemented.

As the leader has winkled out of me, as Leader of the Government, a commitment to have these plans made public, I am sure that will give comfort to all stakeholders, whether they are union representatives, volunteer representatives or indeed individuals who are just interested in good sensible asset management planning in what is a critical sector.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: I thank the Leader of the Government for acknowledging he is being forced into major concessions, and I will continue to pull no punches in my fiercely holding the government to account. Can the Treasurer outline: will the asset management plans for each of the emergency services have regard to the age of the fleet and the redundancy of vehicles and appliances beyond a certain age?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The answer is obviously yes. Any sensible asset management plan is obviously looking at the age of the fleet and the condition of the fleet and a variety of other issues like that. I do not want to ruin the pleasant ambience of this particular debate by saying we might have inherited stock which is massively under maintained, but we seem to be in a pleasant state of mind.

The answer to the honourable member's question is that clearly any asset management plan would have to take into account those sorts of factors. In terms of ongoing planning, in terms of asset replacement, clearly you cannot fix the whole world overnight. You need to look at how quickly you can do it and over what period of time you are going to be able to maintain and replace those particular assets.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: This is effectively my last question. Given the Treasurer has outlined, which I thank him for, that they will take into account things like the age of the fleet and redundancy of vehicles beyond a certain age—given that that will be in there and the government and its agencies have turned their mind to that—what is considered to be the acceptable working age, for instance, of a firefighting appliance?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I knew the answer to this one before I even asked. It just depends. There are so many different circumstances. I have learnt a little bit more about this area given the recent debates we have had with enterprise bargaining negotiations. We have things called big pumpers, or something, whatever they are, and what is that big thing called? Pronto or something? Brontos. There are all sorts of things.

The reality is that the asset management plan is going to have to look at all those things, from regional appliances that the Hon. Ms Bonaros has referred to to all the different forms of appliances that metropolitan services utilise as well. Then, in terms of aircraft access and those sorts of things, there are the various services that we lease or share the costs of because they are so expensive. So there is no one simple answer to it, but clearly they are the sorts of issues the asset management plans are going to have to address.

The Hon. K.J. MAHER: Might the Treasurer give a commitment to take this question on notice—not for every single different type of firefighting appliance but maybe for the major categories, the four or five they have the most of—and provide a reply, if he can, to myself and the shadow minister, Lee Odenwalder, in another place. What is the accepted working age for the four or five most numerous categories of appliance, according to these reports?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I am happy to take the question on notice and see what information the minister and his advisers are in a position to provide for the most frequently purchased or most popular pieces of equipment within the arsenal that the services have.

New clause inserted.

Remaining clauses (5 to 8) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (17:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

At 17:33 the council adjourned until Tuesday 11 May 2021 at 14:15.