Conclusiones y Recomendaciones

CFA and MFB are each governed by a board of nine and seven members respectively.

The CFA has historically had a representative board with members nominated by the insurance sector, local government and the different volunteer firefighter associations. It only moved towards being a skills- based board in 2014, maintaining four members selected from panels nominated by the VFBV. In 1965, the role of Chair was made full-time. It was later recast as an Executive Chair until 2001, after which the role of CEO was created and the role of Chair became part-time.36

MFB also historically had a representative board, comprising representatives appointed by the government, insurance companies and municipal councils. In 1969, the Board was restructured with the appointment of a full-time Chair and transitioned to being a skills-based board.37 _{The chair later reverted to}

being a part-time role.

In considering the most appropriate structure for Victoria’s fire services, the Review considered the models adopted in other Australian jurisdictions. These are summarised in Appendix 2. South Australia and Tasmania are the only other Australian states that retain boards as part of the governance structures for their fire services. Other jurisdictions offer variations on a model where the fire services report to a Commissioner, as the head of a statutory entity or government department, or directly to the relevant Minister.

A number of people suggested to the Review that the fire services should report directly to the EMC. This may be worthy of consideration in future but, for a number of reasons, the Review does not recommend that Victoria adopt this model now.

A key reason is that the fire services require a significant cultural shift, as well as some important structural and operational reforms. EMV’s role is to lead emergency management in Victoria by working with communities, government, agencies and

business to strengthen their capacity to withstand, plan for, respond to and recover from emergencies. It does this through maximising the ability of the emergency management sector to work together and achieve joined up outcomes that are

community focused.

EMV is already driving a comprehensive reform program across the sector and is itself, only in the relatively early stages of establishment. EMV, as currently configured, could not give the required focused attention to significant reforms in the fire services without there being some impact on the broader reform program it is leading.

The Review recommends that a single board be established as the governing body for both CFA and MFB, replacing the existing boards. The single board would have responsibility for:

• providing effective governance of the fire services

• developing and overseeing the strategic direction of the fire services

• harmonising the fire services and removing duplication and inefficiency between them • increasing standardised capability and

interoperability between the fire services • increasing interoperability between the fire

services and the emergency management sector and contributing to the all-hazards-all- agencies approach

• strengthening volunteerism

• developing and overseeing a common investment and procurement strategy for the fire services that aligns with a broader sector approach.

A single board would ensure that the appropriate mechanisms are in place for the fire services to work as one with the emergency management sector in line with the sector’s vision. The single board should help bring an end to siloed decision-making by the CFA and MFB. The single board may direct the common provision of services to both organisations to reduce duplication and achieve cost efficiencies. The board would not engage in operational decisions.

36 _{Murray, R and White, K, 1995, State of Fire: a History of Volunteer Fire Fighting and the Country Fire Authority in Victoria, North} Melbourne, Australia, pp.309–11, 318; CFA Annual Report 2002–03.

37 _{Wilde, Sally, 1991, Life Under The Bells: A History of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, Melbourne 1891–1991, Longman Cheshire,} Melbourne; MFB Act, s.9.

The Review considers that amalgamating the fire services should not be contemplated as it would exacerbate the current difficulties rather than support their resolution. Instead it recommends that both agencies, supported by government, the unions and VFBV, commit to implementing the necessary reforms and focus on establishing a highly collaborative model of working together.

Under a single board, the responsibilities of the CFA and MFB would remain similar to their current responsibilities but with a greater focus on working together. They would include:

• developing and maintaining the necessary capability to deliver fire, rescue, incident management and other specialist services • planning for and delivering services in line

with operating procedures and as directed by the EMC

• engaging with the community, industry, government and partner agencies to prevent and prepare for emergencies, manage risk and enhance community resilience

• contributing to a whole of sector approach to emergency management and improved interoperability, integration and coordination • reducing duplication and inefficiency in the

resourcing and delivery of fire services to the state.

The CFA would also be responsible for developing policy and organisational arrangements that encourage, maintain and strengthen the capacity of volunteers.

In recommending a single board, the Review is not making any judgments about the effectiveness and contributions of the existing boards and they should be thanked for their service. The Review could not identify any value brought to their respective organisations by the existing boards that could not be as effectively delivered by a single board. A single board could offer additional benefits to the fire services that the two disparate boards could not, such as a true alignment of strategy, supported by common investment and overarching decision-making. Reducing the costs of maintaining two boards is also an advantage.

The Review recommends that the single board have seven members, comprising:

• four members, including the Chair, appointed by the Minister for Emergency Services having regard to any of the following:

– knowledge of, or experience in, commercial, financial, technical, operational or legal matters

– knowledge of, or experience in, local government matters

– expertise in fire services, emergency management, land management or any other field relevant to the performance of the fire services

• the EMC

• a member, who is or has been a paid firefighter, appointed by the Minister from a panel

nominated by the UFU

• a member, who is or has been a volunteer firefighter, appointed by the Minister from a panel nominated by the VFBV.

In line with the government’s commitment to achieving gender equality on paid government boards,38 _no

less than 50 per cent of the board’s members should be women.

The Chief Officers of both CFA and MFB would be accountable to the Board and participate in all its meetings. For the transitional period that each agency continues to be headed by a CEO, the CEOs would be accountable to the Board and participate in all its meetings, accompanied by the Chief Officers.

The Review proposes that the single board be called the Fire and Emergency Services Board or the Fire and Rescue Board. This is to reflect that modern fire services provide a much broader range of emergency response than putting out fires, such as road accident rescue, various forms of specialist rescue and

emergency medical response.

VICSES is also an emergency services organisation and provides some of the same or similar services as the fire services, notably road accident and specialist rescue. Although beyond the scope of the Review, if the recommendation of a single board is accepted, the government may wish to bring VICSES under

the governance of the single board, in place of its existing board. Calling the single board the Fire and Emergency Services Board or the Fire and Rescue Board would pave the way for this expansion at an appropriate time.

Recommendation 14:

The Review recommends that a single board be established as the governing body for the CFA and MFB, replacing the existing boards.

The seven-person board appointed by the Minister would include members with commercial, legal, local government or emergency management experience, a current or former paid firefighter selected from a UFU-nominated panel, a current or former volunteer firefighter selected from a VFBV- nominated panel, and the EMC.

The board’s responsibilities would include

overseeing the strategic direction of the fire services, expanding their standardised capability, increasing the interoperability between them and with the broader emergency management sector, and strengthening volunteerism. The Board would also oversee a common investment and procurement strategy.

This recommendation aligns with SAP Priority E relating to streamlined and contemporary arrangements to better integrate the management of emergencies.