Emergency Services Administration Unit

	Extract from Hansard Legislative Council 29 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 seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Attorney- General, representing the Minister for Emergency Services, a question about the Auditor-General's Report on the Emergency Services Administrative Unit.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: The Emergency Services Administrative Unit was established in July 1999 to provide various services in support of the Country Fire Service board's primary functions, including strategic risk management, financial management and accounting services. However, the report of the Auditor- General for the year ended 30 June 2000 shows that this has been a colossal mistake.

The Auditor-General's criticism of the Emergency Services Administrative Unit is the strongest I have seen of any administrative unit in the 20 years I have been involved in politics. The report states:

Audit's review of relevant documentation revealed gaps in the definition and scope of ESAU's key functions and objectives.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The honourable member is on his feet. Order, the Hon. Mr Redford!

These gaps contributed to a level of uncertainty surrounding not only what were ESAU's key functions, but also how its role would be accepted by other agencies, notably the SAMFS and the CFS.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: Mr MacPherson goes on to say that a 1998 cabinet submission relating to the establishment of ESAU could not be relied upon to support the unit's `perceived role' and that reference to other relevant documentation proved less than insightful. The vast fog surrounding ESAU extends to the critical area of funding and budgetary control.

The Auditor-General's Report has highlighted a number of issues here, not the least of which is a $21 million loan made to ESAU by the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service. ESAU repaid the loan to the SAMFS together with interest of $1.6 million. However, Mr Macpherson says:

. . . the initial application of funds made by the SAMFS is considered to be unlawful in terms of section 9 of the South Australian Metropolitan Fire Service Act.

. . . while the transaction was characterised as a loan, there is no formal documentation giving effect to a loan agreement.

Part of ESAU's funds are accrued by means of service charges levied in respect of the SAMFS, the CFS and the SES. The SES then receives funds directly from the Community Emergency Services Fund in order to meet the cost of the services recharged by ESAU. The Auditor-General found that ESAU's basis for calculating recharges to the SAMFS, CFS and SES was arbitrary and did not reflect an agreed methodology and, therefore, made it very difficult to assess the reasonableness of these charges.

Mr MacPherson continued in his report to criticise the `ambiguity' (his word) in respect of the status of the SES and the proclamation establishing ESAU; to find faults with the General Ledger and its absence of integration with other major feeder business systems; and to describe the failure of ESAU in its accounting for non-current assets. ESAU is also severely criticised in a completely separate and vitally concerned area.

A recent statewide survey of the CFS groups has found clear dissatisfaction with ESAU and strong concerns among volunteers that its establishment is to the detriment of the service. This survey was in response to a serious decline in morale and concerns with many issues burdening group officers of the CFS. Among the points that came through on that survey were:

· That future funding to groups under the Emergency Services Levy will not be adequate to meet the Standard of Fire and Emergency Cover

· That there are doubts about the effective administration of the Emergency Services Levy

2. Will the government dismantle ESAU and devolve control back to the separate emergency services, thus saving well over $12 million a year in Emergency Services Levy funds and maybe just in time to save the morale of the CFS?

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN (Attorney-General): The answers to the honourable member's questions are `No' and `No'- and I do not accept the premise upon which they have been asked. There is no doubt that some issues arose when the Emergency Services Administrative Unit was established. The fact that it was established I think was a significant move, because what the government was seeking to do was to ensure that there was a much higher level of coordination between the various emergency services agencies which came under the broader umbrella of the Department of Justice.

The reconstruction of emergency services organisations by concentrating the administrative and support functions of the services within ESAU has, in itself, been significant in its impact on job content and the workload of the new staff. It was a mammoth task to bring so many people together from the different emergency services organisations to provide a coherent, cohesive and coordinated service for the emergency services operational agencies. In the midst of that was the change to the source of funding and the establishment of the emergency services levy and, of course, local government was removed from that cycle. All of that put the financial services and capital works and procurement to be managed by ESAU into completely new territory.

If members look carefully at the Auditor-General's Report-and I have had a look at that report in relation to ESAU-they will see that there is no doubt that the criticism needs to be addressed. The responses of the agencies have been properly noted in the report and, since the end of the last financial year, other things have been done which address the issues raised in the Auditor-General's Report. In fact, in his report the Auditor-General recognises the steps taken to articulate the strategic outcomes of the reform agenda and develop a strategic framework for emergency services.

In recognising certain problems and confirming them, as I have said, the Auditor-General has correctly and fairly identified matters which have affected his opinion about internal control, and a number of steps have been taken to address those. By the end of the financial year, corrective action was commenced by commissioning consultants Price Waterhouse Coopers to evaluate the policies, procedures, internal control, systems and human resources of financial services, as well as surveying its customers regarding service delivery, adding qualified staff to assist in delivering advice to the Country Fire Service, and bolstering tendering and procurement resources.

I should say also that the Auditor- General was kept informed of the recommendations of the consultancy and ESAU's plans to upgrade its financial services section. Additional consultancy advice and assistance has been sought in the formulation of best practice financial policies and procedures, and the successful tenderer is already in action undertaking the required task. Similarly, there have been improvements in the capital works and procurement reporting and procedures, which commenced following a tender evaluation and selection process.

The report of the Auditor-General has highlighted that that first year (1999-2000) was one of considerable change for ESAU's service clients but one of immense change for financial services when compared with prior years. I have no doubt that the way in which the administrative support for emergency services has been restructured will, in the longer term, have some significant benefits for each of those operational agencies. It is correct that the financial services branch was under-resourced for the role, but that is being remedied. If I have not fully answered any of the other issues raised by the honourable member, I will take them on notice and bring back a reply in due course.

The Hon. IAN GILFILLAN: As a supplementary question: does the Attorney, representing the minister, believe that the volunteers in the CFS are satisfied with the relationship between the CFS and the ESAU?

The Hon. K.T. GRIFFIN: As I understand it, there was some questioning in some pockets but, now that the financial benefits are flowing through, it is my understanding that there is a great deal more satisfaction than there was; also that there has been some misrepresentation of the role of ESAU, but that is now being appropriately addressed and has been for some time, with a view to ensuring that everybody understands that in the end ESAU is about providing better services, which ultimately will flow through to volunteers and the wider community through the operational emergency services.