Blowout in Administration Costs for Country Fire Service

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 8 November 2000

Ian Gilfillan Australian Democrats Member of the Legislative Council		Parliament Index 2000 Spring Sitting Index Browse by Subject Search all Democrats material About the SA Parliament Hansard on line

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: I rise to reveal what I regard as a scandal in the funding of the Country Fire Service. Analysing the budget for the year 2000-01, the allocation for ESAU (Emergency Services Administration Unit) is $5 710 000 out of a total of $35 132 000. We have been very concerned that the amalgamation resulting in this megalithic ESAU entity would create bureaucratic enormity and expenditure—and this is borne out.

An analysis of the other figures in the administration costs of the budget show that there is a regional office management cost of $1 830 000; executive management, $345 000; board services, $122 000; and corporate overheads, $1 724 000 (and that is without the allocation for the government radio network, which was questionable in the first instance, of $5 915 000)—remember: this is each year—and there are capital works, which may well be worthwhile in their own right, of $7 520 000, leaving (on simple arithmetic) a balance of approximately $12 million to be allocated to on-the-ground fire fighting services.

That compares with the operating statement for the year ended 30 June 1999 of a total cost of services of $14 400 000, with an operating administration amount in that of $1 647 000. There has been an extraordinary blow-out in not only the amount but the proportion which has been sucked into the administration of the CFS. I believe that this will stir up even more suspicion and animosity among the volunteers who give so generously of their time and, in many cases, risk their life and safety to provide this service when they see that the funding allocation from this much vaunted new emergency services levy leaves them with very little, if any, more. I would say that, if one takes into account the influence of inflation, it leaves less money to be spent on the essential part of the work.

There is one other aspect of this budget which ought to be articulated, and that is that the detail that I have here spells out the actual cost for the three months of July, August and September. In a budget, one can understand some generalities of expenditure but, where it is allocated on a monthly expenditure basis, the fact that the administration support services cost is allocated as a specific amount of $475 000 per month and the others are put into the same category of a set amount per month means that the capital works program of $626 000 and the corporate overheads of $342 000 smack very much of a levy being placed on this budget without there being the detail of the budgetary justification for it provided on a monthly basis—the actual matching of the money spent with the money drawn out of the budget.

This document, brief though it is, serves in my view as an emphasis of how right we were to question the justification and potentially enormous increase in administration costs in setting up ESAU. If it is not addressed very rapidly in ensuing years, it will leave a very bitter and disappointed Country Fire Service which can see now, quite clearly, where the priorities will be in the allocation of budget funds.

I urge the government to look very closely in the ensuing 12 months at this proportion in administration. I must commend the Hon. Julian Stefani for his involvement in this, in critically analysing the way this money is spent. Just because it is collected does not mean that it must be thrown into enormous administrative costs.