MFS numbers in country towns

[rescue5271]

Do you think the MFS will close some country stations due to drop in numbers and that there are CFS stations in the town that can crew their appliances. I did hear murray bridge was having problems as where a number of smaller stations.

But if you look at the MFS in Mt gambier they do around 450/500 jobs a year and its still fully retain staff would it not be better to put in paid fully time day staff?

[Firefrog]

This is an emotive topic for some. I personally think dual fire services in one town is quite silly. It wastes money and MFS retained does not in my opinion offer any significant service ehnancement over CFS. Having said that I don't have the answer.

I wonder if one day we will see a single state wide fire service where that service has one station in a town and depending on call volume would either be a volunteer station, a retained station or a career station.

This probably flies in the face of what volunteering is all about but maybe one day we will see a model like this. The jury is out in my head if this would be good or not.

There's always two sides to any debate and I can see how the retained guys would feel if suddenly CFS took over service delivery in some of these places and same goes for CFS.

I wonder if places with 350+ calls a year should be career stations (under what banner I have no idea) paid CFS would be interesting.

Somewhere between 150 and 350 retained and less than 150 volunteers.

As I type I come up with more issues than solutions.

As for retained stations closing due to lack of numbers - I doubt it! The United Fire Fighters Union would fight hard against that I suspect.

I think interesting times are ahead, probably will see some major changes over the next 10 years.
If we see changes lets hope it brings better service delivery and positives for everyone.

This is more of a "I have a theory post" than anything else. I don't have any insider info, just reading between the really blurry lines.

My thoughts only!! :dontknow:

[kat]

Our exCaptain moved to Murray Bridge and joined the MFS auxiliary there - they seem to have a fair few members currently.

So does a town like Murray Bridge need two services or one? If one, which one Do they have a need for a retained service to do the kinds of things that I firmly believe volunteers should spend minimal time doing (ie: tonnes of fixed alarm activations, private alarms). And could they do without a CFS which a) is good urban backup and b) is a central point for a large Brigade with a big population to draw volunteers from to manage rural risks around the area supported by the smaller rural Brigades). Can a volunteer Brigade in a largish country town really sustain volunteers to do some of the more mundane but totally necessary fire service and associated duties? Particularly when the service is unable to address issues such as volunteer release from employment, loss of income, child care etc, recruitment, retention etc.

And what is the difference between two services (or three) in a country town and the duplication and proximity of resources in the urban interface areas?

And rather than just focus on whether a Brigade needs to full time paid, retained or volunteer based on the number of calls shouldn't we also be looking at the risks, types of incidents attended and proximity of other resources? Does a Brigade doing 350 calls a year (many of them fixed alarm or stop type calls) with another service and three other Brigades within 20 minutes really need to be full time paid? What about a Brigade doing 50 in a small area struggling to find vollies where the incidents are high risk/rescue and the next resource is an hour away?

I am in support of all members from all services who are out there protecting their communities and assets regardless of uniform and motivation. I'm sure the vast majority of us would be happy if we can find a better way to deliver our services. I guess that is the challenge of SAFECOM.  

[Firefrog]

See I don't have the answer

Very good points Kat!

I agree with lots of them. Of course more than just call rate should determine the type and level of emergency services. Risk level is one huge one that should not be overlooked. There are many brigades covering extreme risks with a huge lack in resources.

I find it so easy to post a simple reply on these issues but the issue is so very complex. I guess each case (town) has very different circumstances and my view is based on my experience of mostly urban fringe. There is one town that I have good knowledge of that should not have two services. But I am sure there are places where they are needed.

As for volunteers attending fixed alarms, In my view if we are providing a service then we should go to the great going jobs and also the mundane. The argument  that those guys are paid let them go (fixed alarm) doesn't cut it if you then complain when you don't get a run to one of their good jobs.

It certainly is a difficult topic.

[rescue5271]

 Why could we not have MFS and CFS in one station in country towns they would work under their own banner but would work as part of a team. I know from my CFA days that paid staff and Volunteers do work and work well I should know I was  in one of those stations. Mind you a member of the VFBA says its not working and I have not had any bad feed back from my old brigade and friends that are at other staff stations where Volunteers are also stationed.

I agree we should provide a service that will be good for both the service and the community,but is it fair that just because a briagde does 250++ calls a year that we say thanks Volunteers but we are going to put in paid staff? I would say no to this if Volunteer members are willing and able to mann the appliances and are happy doing it let them. There will come a time that they will ask for help but dont close the volunteer station the union needs to see that volunteers still have roles to play in the local community I for one would like to see CFS put in a paid member in all stations that do over 150 calls a year to do the admin work like the CFA have done in Vic,and guess what the union did agree to tghis in VIC.

[JamesGar]

I'm going out on a limb here, but I beleive there is 3 services in this state that carry out similar roles. Do we need CFS MFS and SES in this state? I don't think so. We tried ESAU, but that failed, but what about one service to fill all roles, from CEO down to Volunteers. Other countries do it, even Tasmania successfully has one fire service both Career and Volunteer. I could envisage one service state wide, not losing volunteers of career firefightinf position, but maybe a reshuffle at in middle and upper management may be required.

Urban Areas has Career Fire station (current MFS stations)
Urban Rural Area (Volunteer or Retained Stations)
Rural Urban and Rural Areas (Volunteer Stations)

In addition to Urban areas where there is currently SES stations maintain those for the Civil Defence Role they currently carry out and look at supplying Rural appliances in these areas as this would bolster strike team numbers during the fire season, which is generaly speaking a quieter time for the SES.

I know there is a lot for short comings in what I've just written and the UFU would strangle me for my ideas, but as a volunteer FF having the backing of a strong Association/union like the UFU would give volunteers a strong voice (not that i'm saying the VFBA doesn't, but the majority of funding I believe is coming from the CFS or government! Correct me if I'm wrong please) Could you image the MFS adopting White trucks?

I love the fact that Firefighters have a strong hold of tradition, but I think the current system in this state could be handle somewhat better  

[corocfs]

Rolling all three services (MFS, CFS, SES) into one, may seem a good idea, but i dont believe it would work well.
I believe the idea of turning the MFS and CFS into one fire service with career, volunteer and retained fire fighters has merit but could also spark animosity between paid and un-paid members in dual response areas.
However i dont think that the SES as a service could be dissolved into the fire services. Not only do i believe that this would cause a dramatic drop in membership numbers due to current service rivalry. But i also believe that the many varied roles of the SES should be left to a group of people that dont have to worry about firefighting skills as well as rope and rescue skills.
I also think that rolling the services into one may cause problems with people choosing which calls they want to attend. I know for a fact that i (a firefighter in the CFS) would not wish to attend a persons house to tarp their roof when its raining cats and dogs, i also have friends in the SES that tell me im crazy for going to fires on 40degree days, and that they would not want to do that.
When people join a volunteer emergency service they may choose the service  just because it the closest, however some ppl choose by looking at what that service does, and i dont feel that a unit or brigade would function well, if you couldnt rely on eveyr available person turning out every time.

[JamesGar]

Hey Alex, I tend to agree with you, but still think that 3 services could all be handled under the same management and operational budget. This might free up additional funding on the ground for better equipment and training for all involved.

As for responses I think you could avoid unnecessary call by pager streaming to crew, In Coromandel Valley having both CFS and SES in one compound I beleive you could easily page different crews or groups for different groups, this also supplies a fallback in times of limited crews for both services, hence giving volunteers the choice to respond to fires for flood or whatever.

I'd hope that if a projected one service system was ever installed that this would mitigate any interservice problems, or animosity between paid and un-paid crews, This system works elsewhere in Australia and Internationally so why not here?

I think migration of appliances through a one service system, Say New Pumper at Career station for 5 years then out to urban rural stations for the rest of it's life, would be advantegous for all. We'd be able to keep up with current technologies, and also maintain better appliance coverage throughout (ie At the moment if a brigade needs an Urban Pumper it pretty much comes new and we run it for 20 years, till it get well and truely superseded in technology and safety)

[kat]

Very complex issue studied by learned scholars, committees and parliamentarians for years and years and unlikely to be solved by us on this forum.

Just a quick point on CFS/SES roles. The CFS is a MUCH larger organisation than the SES so of necessity has Brigades that already handle the kinds of responses that were referred to in one post as being things CFS crews don't want to go to. When a house needs its roof tarping in the hundreds of communities that have CFS but not SES, you guessed it, they call their CFS Brigade. And we do have Brigades trained in rope rescue (Naracoorte is one isn't it Blinky?) and certainly Road Crash Rescue is part of CFS core business. And even where there is an SES unit (Murray Bridge for example which has all three of the metioned service) their roles are backed up by CFS as in the case of the Murray Bridge flooding where CFS supplied at least a dozen appliances and crew. CFS vollies probably outnumbered SES by 10:1 that day. Don't have any boats that I'm aware of though but I'm sure Tailem Bend would be a great place to put the first one  

[JamesGar]

Kat, I don't think it's that complex to make the change. The current system I think is quite complex of having one large budget, SAFECOMM, then three different services all seeking money from the government and tax payers for roles that are along similar lines. I was always thought the KISS rule and don't think that we're keeping it Simple up the line currently. I would like some clarity operationally and administratively, for all services! (could also clean up a reoccurring dead wood problem that inevitable appears in emergency services!) Hope that doesn't sound too harsh

[Mike]

There really should be no question about combining all 3 services under 1 flag. It removes the doubling up of resources for a start.

And as for picking and choosing what calls..... Theres nothing saying just because you join a RCR brigade that you MUST do RCR! Thats a rediculous statement. (refering to Volly brigades only)

Im sure you know as well as i do that some people arnt cut out for some jobs, but are quite capable at others.....

Ive had the pleasure of working with all 3 services at many diferent incidents. The thing you need to remember the job for us all is (and the CFS mission statment sums it up perfectly!) to protect Life, Property and the environment.

We're all there for the same thing, and anyone wanting to make something of a grudge needs a kick up the proverbial.

Thats my 2cents anyways......

[Tristan]

I agree with you there Mike.

I see no sense in doubling up on services where they pretty much provide the same coverage/response.
Here at Woomera the Emergency Services cover Ambulance, Fire and Rescue which is a perfect example that if done correctly, it will work. Yes it is a full time station under contract by defence, but could easily be done in other area's by vollies just like in the USA.

[firefighter_sa]

Hi there all

as kat said above "Very complex issue studied by learned scholars, committees and parliamentarians for years and years and unlikely to be solved by us on this forum.  - HOW VERY TRUE.

I have been involved with this issue for some time - and I do not like raising a problem unless there is answers.  

I have been fortunate to see the CFA way - with the VFBA (Volunteers - Retained - Fulltime) I dont think we should be heading down this road to quickly.

But the dual - co-location issue is very ripe in the field and all its doing causing volunteers to throw there hands in the air in anger - we dont need power play - but I also dont know the answers.

Thanks

Wayne