Managing Victoria's Firefighting Fleet

AMAF requirements

Under the AMAF, fire authorities must have a complete, up-to-date asset strategy that includes risk management and contingency planning.

The AMAF has 5 requirements for asset planning, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: The AMAF’s asset planning requirements

Source: VAGO, based on the AMAF.

Meeting the AMAF requirements

No fire authority fully meets the AMAF’s 5 planning requirements.

In 2024–25:

• CFA assessed that it fully complied with 4 requirements
• FRV assessed that it did not fully comply with any requirements
• DEECA assessed that it fully complied with 3 requirements.

We agree with CFA's and FRV's self-assessments.

CFA has a sound asset strategy. But its fleet data is spread across different systems and is not fully joined up. This reduces its ability to monitor fleet performance and evaluate its strategies and risk management approach, which prevents it from complying with AMAF requirement 23. It is addressing these issues.

FRV's fleet planning approach is sound, but it does not comply with any of the AMAF’s requirements because its asset strategy is in draft. Consultation processes have contributed to delays in FRV updating its asset policy and asset strategy, which is in progress. But this means it does not have an approved approach to:

• guide its decisions across the lifecycle of its fire trucks
• make sure its decisions always consider risk and service delivery needs.

We do not agree with DEECA’s self-assessment.

Based on DEECA's asset management documents, it does not comply with any of the AMAF’s requirements.

These gaps limit DEECA's ability to effectively manage its firefighting fleet. DEECA is taking steps to address these gaps, including updating its asset strategy and developing plans for its fire trucks. It expects to complete these by December 2026.

Following the AMAF’s guidance

The AMAF also provides guidance on how authorities’ asset strategies can meet its requirements.

Figure 5 shows how each fire authority meets the AMAF’s asset strategy guidance.

Figure 5: Fire authorities' fleet planning strategies

Note: FRV's strategic asset management plan and asset management plans are yet to receive executive approval.
Source: VAGO, based on information from fire authorities.

Design and development standards

Fire authorities need to plan their spending carefully to make sure they have the right fire trucks to respond to emergencies.

They must also operate safe and roadworthy vehicles in line with Victoria’s Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 2021 and the Heavy Vehicle National Law.

There is no approved design standard for fire trucks in Australia. This means fire authorities need to design and develop custom trucks to meet their needs. This requires strong processes to make sure that fire trucks are fit for purpose and meet the relevant standards.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001 Quality management systems sets out quality management requirements for organisations that design or develop assets. This includes:

• having a clear design and development process
• checking that designs meet requirements
• confirming that finished assets work as intended.

FRV's fleet design and technical assurance processes

FRV does not have an ISO-certified quality management system. But it has policies and processes to manage fleet design and development risks for new fire trucks. This includes:

• using in-house engineers to set performance requirements and inspect fire trucks
• procuring complete or near-complete fire trucks
• applying engineering processes to guide design, testing and acceptance
• completing quality assurance inspections and tests before accepting fire trucks from its suppliers.

CFA's design and technical assurance processes

CFA does not have an ISO-certified quality management system or fleet design and development, and engineering policies. But it has a range of controls to manage design and development risks for new fire trucks. This includes:

• using standard designs and making incremental improvements over time
• using working groups to oversee its trucks’ development, refinement and procurement
• having detailed performance specifications
• completing comprehensive quality assurance inspections and tests before accepting fire trucks from its suppliers.

Fleet development

DEECA does not have an ISO-certified quality management system, or implement policies or controls to manage design and development risks for new fire trucks.

Several departments have been responsible for DEECA’s fleet over time, due to government restructuring. It was the responsibility of the:

• Department of Sustainability and Environment until June 2013
• Department of Environment and Primary Industries from July 2013 to December 2014
• Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning from January 2015 to December 2022
• DEECA from January 2023 to present.

In 2010, the Department of Sustainability and Environment received funding to build a safe, fit-for-purpose firefighting fleet to address bushfire risks following the Black Saturday bushfires.

It planned to separately procure cab chassis and slip-on units, which it would then assemble into complete fire trucks. It later added a falling object protection system in July 2013 after 2 firefighters were killed when their fire truck was hit by a falling tree.

DEECA introduced fire trucks with falling object protection systems to better protect firefighters from falling trees and other tree strike hazards. This approach also supported recommendations from the 2015 Harrietville coronial findings. DEECA remains the only fire authority in the world to fit these systems across most of its fleet.

Cracking in DEECA’s fleet

Issues with fleet development processes have resulted in major cracking in DEECA’s fleet.

The former departments responsible for DEECA’s fleet wanted new fire trucks to be delivered quickly for use in fire seasons. But they did not have strong enough controls during fleet development, including when:

• testing fire trucks in all the necessary terrain, loading and environmental conditions
• managing changes to the fire trucks’ scope and design, such as adding falling object protection systems and increasing water tank capacity.

The departments did not:

• assess the risks and impacts of scope and design changes
• adequately review, verify or validate designs
• test complete and fully equipped fire trucks before executing contracts
• conduct quality assurance before accepting finished fire trucks.

This has led to structural cracking across DEECA's G-Wagen and Unimog fire trucks. Structural cracking is a significant safety issue because it can compromise a fire truck's integrity and make it unroadworthy.

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning first found cabin cracking in G-Wagen fire trucks in 2017 shortly after they were delivered. It found chassis cracking from 2024, as Figure 6 shows.

Figure 6: New cracking found in DEECA's G-Wagen fire trucks each year from 2017 to 2026

Note: The extent of cracking is likely underreported because of gaps in DEECA's record-keeping. Data for 2026 reflects available cracking records to May 2026 only. ‘Other' includes non-structural cracking on fire trucks’ body components, such as the water tank, plumbing, falling object protection system or spare wheel carrier.
Source: VAGO, based on information from DEECA.

The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning first identified body sub-frame cracking in Unimog fire trucks in 2020 shortly after they were delivered, as Figure 7 shows.

Figure 7: New cracking found in DEECA's Unimog fire trucks each year from 2018 to 2026

Note: The extent of cracking is likely underreported because of gaps in DEECA's recordkeeping. Data for 2026 reflects available cracking records to May 2026 only. ‘Other' includes non-structural cracking on fire trucks’ body components, such as the water tank, plumbing, falling object protection system or spare wheel carrier.
Source: VAGO, based on information from DEECA.

Case studies 1 and 2 describe how gaps in design, development and quality control processes contributed to the cracking.

Responding to G-Wagen fire truck cracking

DEECA and its predecessor, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, continued to use G-Wagen fire trucks despite evidence they were overweight.

This put firefighters at direct risk because they were asked to drive fire trucks outside of their safe operating limits. Extra weight can make fire trucks harder to stop, steer and control. It can also put more pressure on tyres, axles and suspension, and increase the risk of the fire truck rolling over.

These risks are greater for DEECA’s G-Wagen fire trucks than other vehicles because they have a high centre of gravity and often operate on slopes, uneven ground and off-road tracks.

The Road Safety Act 1986 and the Road Safety (Vehicles) Regulations 2021 require vehicles to be safe and roadworthy, and to comply with applicable weight limits.

DEECA also continued to detect cracking. In July 2024, it found chassis cracking in 46 G-Wagen fire trucks, which it repaired and returned to service.

In May 2025, DEECA increased the value of its contract with its partner, Fleet Partners, from $23.5 million to $47.8 million to fund the maintenance and repair of the G-Wagen fire trucks to 2029. Fleet Partners subcontracts this work to authorised Mercedes-Benz Australia dealerships.

DEECA said the increase was necessary because it had exhausted its original contract funding due to substantially higher-than-expected maintenance costs.

In June 2025, DEECA found chassis cracking in 219 G-Wagen fire trucks. Mercedes-Benz Australia refused to cover chassis repair costs due to the fleet’s extreme operation, including operation beyond the vehicle’s specified weight limit.

In August 2025, DEECA found that a G-Wagen fire truck had an excessive weight in scheduled servicing. To keep the vehicles within maximum weight limits, DEECA directed firefighters to limit water loads to 450 litres, remove unauthorised modifications, and carry only approved equipment.

Responding to Unimog fire truck cracking

DEECA and its predecessor, the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, also continued to use Unimog fire trucks despite body sub-frame cracking.

Both departments removed Unimog fire trucks with cracks larger than 100 millimetres from service. But they continued to operate Unimog fire trucks with smaller cracks. This was based on engineering advice that vehicles could continue to safely operate with cracks of up to 
100 millimetres long.

The Heavy Vehicle National Law states that heavy vehicles must be safe and meet applicable heavy vehicle standards. But the advice did not consider applicable heavy vehicle standards under the Heavy Vehicle National Law and regulations. It is also inconsistent with the National Heavy Vehicle Inspection Manual, which states that any chassis or sub-frame crack (regardless of length) makes a heavy vehicle unroadworthy.

In some cases, DEECA and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning did not fully assess cracks or certify repairs before using the fire trucks.

Between 2020 and 2024, body sub-frame cracking was found in a further 12 Unimog fire trucks. In mid 2025, DEECA found the same issue in another 18.

Removing fire trucks from service

In September 2025, DEECA received advice that any crack in a chassis or sub-frame makes a vehicle unroadworthy.

In response, it grounded all its G-Wagen and Unimog fire trucks. This removed 54.4 per cent of its fleet from service in the leadup to the 2025–26 fire season.

It then introduced a remediation program to:

• repair the cracks
• certify repairs before fire trucks were returned to service
• check for re-cracking in monthly inspections.

This helped it address compliance issues of operating Unimog fire trucks with sub-frame cracking or un-certified repairs. It also met its required Standard of Cover in January 2026 (peak fire season).

But these issues could have been avoided. The former departments responsible for the fleet could have carried out detailed testing of the first fire trucks and tested completed fire trucks as they were delivered. DEECA and its predecessors could have reduced vehicle weight sooner. They also could have used their contracts more effectively to address the underlying causes of defects, which could have prevented the defects from reoccurring and worsening over time.

Reviews by Quik Corp, DEECA and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning identified design problems that put pressure on specific points of the Unimog fire trucks' body sub-frame, which made it vulnerable to cracking. The impacts of off-road use and the weight of water loads and the falling object protection system also contributed to body sub-frame cracking.

Separate reviews by DEECA and the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning found the G-Wagen fire trucks were also under pressure. They were vulnerable to cracking from the weight of the falling object protection system, off-road use and operation at or above the vehicles’ maximum rated weight.

A 2026 independent review found that DEECA's processes, systems, controls and governance 'appear to be loose and/or absent' and pose a significant occupational health and safety risk.

Allocating fire trucks

The AMAF requires agencies to manage assets proactively to respond to changing risks, resourcing and technology, to ensure assets remain fit for purpose.

The Australasian Fire Authorities Council’s resource Optimising the service life of operational response vehicles provides best-practice guidance for fire authorities to manage the lifecycle of their assets. This includes deploying fire trucks in ways that address risks and maximise their lifespan.

FRV's allocation approach

FRV uses a range of strategies to maintain emergency response coverage and extend the life of its fire trucks. This includes moving:

• new fire trucks to stations where use and coverage is highest
• older trucks to other stations or for use as service exchange vehicles (which are temporary vehicles used while fire trucks are being repaired or serviced).

FRV's policy is to retire older, lower-performing fire trucks. But it has not done this because of funding constraints and a decrease in its fleet’s availability. Since 2022, it has kept older trucks as service exchange vehicles.

FRV has deployed its new trucks by:

• allocating the new fire trucks to stations where there are gaps in coverage such as road crash rescue support
• moving existing fire trucks to other fire stations
• making older fire trucks service exchange vehicles or moving them to its training academy.

This approach helps FRV manage its resources and maintain a critical number of service exchange vehicles. But moving less reliable or older fire trucks can transfer risk to other fire stations and the service exchange fleet, rather than eliminate it.

For example, when FRV allocated car 4 to its Hawthorn station, it reduced the age of Eastern Hill station's fire truck from 18.8 years to 12.0 years. But the trucks had similar availability (59.0 per cent and 56.0 per cent) so it did not represent a reliability gain for Eastern Hill station.

CFA's allocation approach and limitations

CFA aims to allocate fire trucks based on the risk its stations face.

We found that CFA has allocated newer trucks to higher-risk stations and older trucks to lower-risk stations. As Figure 9 shows, this means stations in:

• lower-risk remote and rural areas have the highest share of trucks aged over 25 years
• higher-risk urban areas have the lowest share of older trucks.

Figure 9: CFA's distribution of fire trucks in 2025

Source: VAGO, based on information from CFA.

Fire trucks older than 25 years still make up a large percentage of CFA's fleet across all stations. This reflects CFA’s funding constraints to replace its ageing trucks.

When it receives new fire trucks, CFA deploys them across stations to reduce overall risk across its fleet. For example, in 2022 it developed a plan to:

• allocate 21 new fire trucks to risk class 4 stations
• reallocate 2012 and 2013 model year fire trucks from risk class 4 to risk class 3 stations
• retire single-cab fire trucks (which are older trucks gradually being phased out) from risk class 3 stations.

But CFA has not been able to fully implement this plan. It purchased 21 new fire trucks in 2021–22 and expected to receive them in 2024. But it has only received 4 trucks because of supply chain and manufacturing delays.

This illustrates how fire authorities face industry capacity challenges, which can significantly delay the replacement of fire trucks that are older or in poor condition.

Weaknesses in DEECA's allocation approach

DEECA does not have clear rules or a documented approach for moving fire trucks between regions to maintain service coverage. This made it harder for it to respond to cracking.

DEECA first identified cracking in Hume, Gippsland and Grampians, where fire trucks operate in difficult terrain.

When fire trucks failed, DEECA's approach was to repair them and return them to their original location. But it did not adequately respond to fleetwide risks. This is effectively a ‘run-to-failure’ approach, which is when an asset is kept in service until it fails and then is repaired or replaced.

This is not an appropriate risk management strategy for assets that are at risk of critical service failure and pose service delivery and safety risks.

DEECA has identified further cases of re-cracking in G-Wagen ultralight tankers.

DEECA continues to monitor the fleet through an assurance program. To reduce re-cracking, it has trialled, approved and begun implementing additional measures to strengthen repaired vehicles before the 2026–27 fire season. Vehicles are not returned to service until repairs have been certified by an accredited engineer.

DEECA is updating its Forest and Fire Fleet Strategy, which is due in December 2026 and will outline how it plans to address these issues and its future fire truck needs.

But chassis cracking is a serious structural problem that can be difficult to repair, particularly when vehicles continue to carry heavy loads in off-road conditions. While DEECA has a backup fleet of leased LandCruisers, re-cracking in its fleet could make it harder to meet its Standard of Cover in future fire seasons.

DEECA's ability to meet the Standard of Cover will depend on how well it maintains, repairs and replaces its fire trucks, and plans for breakdowns or shortages.

Scheduled maintenance

Fire authorities should service fire trucks on time, and follow maintenance schedules and manufacturer advice. This is outlined in WorkSafe guidance, National Heavy Vehicle Regulator maintenance standards and the AMAF.

Fire truck manufacturers give advice to fire authorities about when to check, test, lubricate, adjust or replace important parts before they fail.

Fire authorities use manufacturers’ advice and their own operational requirements to set maintenance schedules. These schedules outline the activities each authority completes and their frequency, as Figure 10 shows.

Completing scheduled maintenance

Completing scheduled maintenance helps to make sure fire authorities:

• keep fire trucks safe, reliable and available
• find any serious faults before using fire trucks in emergencies
• meet their duties to provide and maintain safe systems of work
• prevent small faults from becoming larger faults that may cause breakdowns, affect emergency response and be costly to repair.

But fire authorities are not completing all scheduled maintenance on their fire trucks, based on our analysis of their available records, as Figure 11 shows.

Figure 11: Percentage of scheduled maintenance completed by fire authorities from 2021 to 2025

Note: This graph excludes distance-based services from DEECA's results because it does not have reliable usage data to show when these services were due. CFA’s data does not show if a scheduled service is a minor annual or major 8-yearly service, so we do not distinguish between CFA service type for this analysis. 
Source: VAGO, based on information from fire authorities.

CFA completed more scheduled maintenance than the other fire authorities, but it still missed some services. On average, 105 fire trucks (4.8 per cent of its total fleet) per year did not receive a scheduled service between 2021 and 2025.

DEECA has also not completed all scheduled maintenance. This meant that some scheduled inspections did not happen, which has reduced opportunities to identify and repair defects such as cracking before they become more serious. Between 2021 and 2025 it missed:

• 14.4 per cent of its annual fire preparedness services
• 20.1 per cent of its distance-based services each year.

The service types in FRV’s maintenance schedule do not match the service types in its maintenance records, so it is difficult to know if it completed all scheduled maintenance. But based on the service types described in FRV’s available maintenance records, it appears to have missed the highest proportion of scheduled maintenance of the 3 fire authorities. Between 2021 and 2025 it missed:

• 20.8 per cent of annual services
• 42.6 per cent of 6-monthly services for its division A fleet
• 51.7 per cent of 6-yearly services.

Data gaps for scheduled maintenance

Not all fire authorities record maintenance data in a way that allows them to monitor whether scheduled maintenance is completed on time.

CFA adequately records this information for its own fleet and FRV's division B fleet (which CFA maintains under a service agreement with FRV). But:

• FRV does not record when scheduled maintenance is due for its division A fleet (which it maintains itself)
• DEECA records due dates for its annual fire preparedness services, but does not record mileage and engine hours in a way to make sure it services G-Wagen fire trucks according to its maintenance schedule.

These information gaps make it difficult for FRV and DEECA to monitor compliance with their maintenance schedules.

Completing scheduled maintenance on time

If fire authorities defer or miss scheduled maintenance, faults may go undetected and become more significant. This can create a cycle of increasing faults and unplanned repairs, which can put pressure on fire authorities’ workshop capacity.

CFA has a standard of completing scheduled maintenance within a 90‑day window. This means maintenance is on time if it is completed up to one month before or 2 months after its scheduled start date.

DEECA does not have a standard, so we assessed it against CFA's standard. We consider CFA’s standard to be a reasonable benchmark. DEECA also needs to complete scheduled maintenance before the start of the fire season to deliver its Standard of Cover and to prepare its fire trucks for a period of higher demand.

Based on available data, neither CFA nor DEECA have met the standard. As Figure 12 shows, between 2021 and 2025:

• CFA completed on average:
  • 57.6 per cent of its own fleet’s scheduled maintenance on time
  • 51.0 per cent of FRV's division B fleet scheduled maintenance on time
• DEECA completed on average 62.6 per cent of its annual preparedness services on time.

Because FRV does not record when scheduled maintenance is due, we could not assess its performance for division A fire trucks.

Figure 12: Proportion of scheduled maintenance completed on time from 2021 to 2025

Note: ‘Completed within one month of scheduled start date’ includes scheduled maintenance completed within the month before the scheduled date.

Source: VAGO, based on information from CFA and DEECA.

Volume of unplanned repairs

FRV and DEECA have seen an increase in unplanned fire truck repairs, which are necessary when a fault or breakdown happens.

As Figure 13 shows, between 2021 and 2025 the number of unplanned repairs to fire trucks:

• increased by 19.8 per cent for FRV
• increased by 5.6 per cent for DEECA
• decreased by 4.2 per cent for CFA.

Figure 13: Number of unplanned repairs for each fire authority from 2021 to 2025

Note: DEECA and FRV’s maintenance data has gaps, which means maintenance activity may be understated. DEECA has gaps in its record-keeping. FRV’s gaps are due to industrial bans and a cybersecurity incident. 
Source: VAGO, based on information from fire authorities.

DEECA's maintenance data does not show all repairs. It:

• records faults affecting multiple fire trucks under a single entry
• records unplanned repairs as part of scheduled maintenance work.

This means its data likely underestimates the volume of unplanned repairs and the number of fire trucks that needed repairs.

Impact of age on unplanned repairs

Older fire trucks are more likely to have faults than younger trucks, which creates extra maintenance work for ageing fleets.

As Figure 14 shows, fire trucks aged 15 to 20 years on average have had:

• 37.5 per cent more unplanned repairs per year for FRV than trucks aged zero to 5 years
• 23.0 per cent more unplanned repairs per year for CFA than trucks aged zero to 5 years (although CFA’s trucks have needed much less unplanned repairs than FRV's because of lower usage).

DEECA has also faced increased unplanned repairs on some older vehicles, but DEECA's fire trucks are much younger than FRV or CFA's. The high number of unplanned repairs for DEECA’s fleet is because of cracking.

Figure 14: Average annual faults per fire truck by age for FRV and CFA

Note: Data is from 2021–25 for FRV (excluding 2023 due to lack of reliability) and 2015–25 for CFA. DEECA data is excluded because some work orders cover multiple fire trucks, making the data incomplete and unreliable.
Source: VAGO, based on information from FRV and CFA.

All fire authorities have adopted strategies to reduce their use of older fire trucks and maximise vehicle life, such as moving trucks to lower-risk stations or the service exchange fleet. This approach reduces the operational demand placed on older fire trucks (despite transferring risk between stations, rather than eliminating it).

Older trucks on average need more unplanned repairs. After adjusting for the number of days fire trucks were operationally available, FRV trucks older than 20 years needed 68.4 per cent more unplanned repairs than those aged 5 years or less.

Older trucks account for the largest share of FRV and CFA's unplanned repairs, as Figure 15 shows. This is because fire trucks over 15 years old make up:

• 59.8 per cent of FRV's fleet
• 56.9 per cent of CFA's fleet.

Figure 15: Number of unplanned repairs by age bracket for FRV and CFA in 2025

Source: VAGO, based on information from FRV and CFA.

Timeliness of unplanned repairs

The timeliness of unplanned repairs varies between fire authorities:

• CFA completes most unplanned repairs on its own fleet and FRV's division B fleet within 2 weeks.
• DEECA takes longer – it completed only 21.9 per cent of unplanned repairs within 2 weeks in 2025.
• FRV’s division A maintenance data is incomplete. Since 2022, FRV staff have not consistently recorded labour and timing data due to work bans during protracted enterprise agreement bargaining. This reduces FRV's visibility of whether maintenance work is completed on time and increases the risk of overdue work. As a result, we have only assessed FRV division B maintenance completed by CFA.

As Figure 16 shows, between 2021 and 2025 the median time for CFA to complete maintenance on FRV's division B fleet decreased from 15.0 days to 12.0 days. But it took longer to repair faults on its own fleet, as the median time increased from 12.0 days to 15.2 days.

Over the same period, the median time for DEECA to complete repairs more than halved from 65.9 days to 31.9 days. But most repairs still took over one month to complete.

Figure 16: Timeliness of unplanned repairs

Note: This analysis is based on work records that have recorded labour and measure the time from the repair being recorded to it being completed. 
Source: VAGO, based on information from fire authorities.

In 2025–26, 5 FRV aerial appliances were unavailable for extended periods because of cracking repairs, electrical faults, major overhauls and parts delays. The periods they were unavailable were made longer because major repairs to older, specialist fire trucks require engineering certification before they can return to service. This meant that aerial appliances were available only 57.3 per cent of the year.

These delays also meant FRV replaced a 27 year-old teleboom at Sunshine station with a pumper because there was no replacement aerial appliance available. Pumpers do not have the same high-reach equipment as aerial appliances, so this has reduced local aerial capability. This will continue until repairs are completed to aerial appliances, or a new aerial appliance is delivered.

Maintenance demand has exceeded forecasts

Fire authorities need to plan for higher maintenance needs as their fleets age. But they all use forecasting methods that underestimate growth in maintenance costs. For example, in 2024–25 FRV underestimated its maintenance costs by $3.5 million.

CFA and FRV assume maintenance cost growth will slow significantly compared to historical trends. But:

• CFA has not updated its maintenance forecasts since 2023–24 and it lacks complete maintenance cost records for individual fire trucks
• FRV has significant gaps in its maintenance data because of work bans during its enterprise agreement bargaining.

Figure 17 shows FRV and CFA’s actual maintenance costs, as well as their forecasts compared to baseline growth (which is growth based on historical trends).

Figure 17: FRV and CFA fleet maintenance cost forecasts compared with baseline growth

Note: ‘Baseline growth’ is calculated using actual annual cost growth from 2021–22 to 2024–25. This figure includes forecasts and actual results provided by fire authorities. Where fire authorities have not provided a maintenance forecast, the most recent and best available information (such as operating and maintenance data) is used. Results are therefore indicative of maintenance cost trends, rather than precise comparisons. 
Source: VAGO, based on information from fire authorities.

Due to cracking, DEECA implemented a fleet remediation program for the 2025–26 fire season, where it repaired cracked fire trucks and checked for re-cracking each month. But this increased the total cost of its repairs and maintenance by $8.6 million, or 85.0 per cent.

As shown in Figure 18, DEECA has only forecast spending for 2026–27, even though its fleet may have higher maintenance needs for several years. Until DEECA replaces its cracked fire trucks, it will need to continue carrying out inspections, repairs and other remediation activities.

Without long-term forecasts and a replacement plan, DEECA cannot know if it has enough funding and capacity to keep its fleet safe, reliable and available until replacement fire trucks are delivered.

Figure 18: DEECA's fleet maintenance, repair and remediation costs with baseline growth

Note: ‘Baseline growth’ is calculated using actual annual cost growth from 2021–22 to 2024–25.
Source: VAGO, based on information from DEECA.

Without reliable forecasts, there is a risk that fire authorities have underestimated future maintenance funding needs.

To address funding shortfalls, fire authorities have relied on ad-hoc funding. For example:

• in September 2025, FRV received $1.1 million for 2025–26 to establish a second workshop to reduce a backlog of 751 maintenance services. It also amended its service agreement with CFA, so that CFA can charge it for the additional maintenance required to maintain its ageing division B fleet.
• DEECA received around $11.0 million for 2025–26 after advising the government it had exhausted its Plant and Machinery Fund (which is internal funding to replace, maintain and operate its plant, machinery and fire trucks) and required additional funding for:
  • fire truck leasing and operational costs
  • maintenance and repairs.

This funding was separate to the cost of the fleet remediation program, which DEECA funded by reprioritising its asset program.

Relying on ad-hoc funding increases the risk that maintenance issues are addressed only once they become critical, instead of being managed over a fleet’s life cycle. This can lead to deferred maintenance, higher future costs, reduced reliability and lower fleet availability.

Impact of unplanned repairs on fleet availability

Increased unplanned repairs have reduced the number of fire trucks available for FRV and DEECA to deploy.

FRV has a fleet availability target of 85.0 per cent, which means that across its fleet, fire trucks will be available and operational for 85.0 per cent of their potential usage time.

But the number of FRV’s fire trucks that were unavailable due to maintenance (including scheduled maintenance and unplanned repairs) doubled between 2023 and 2026. This caused its fleet availability to fall from 91.0 per cent to 82.0 per cent.

Despite this, its fire response timeliness has remained relatively stable. It helped achieve this by moving fire trucks between stations and its service exchange fleet to maintain coverage when trucks were unavailable.

In 2022 FRV responded to 89.3 per cent of structure fires within its target 7.7 minutes. In 2025 it responded to 88.8 per cent within this target.

DEECA does not have a response time target. But the Standard of Cover requires it to have 611 fire trucks available for effective bushfire response. Despite widespread cracking across its fleet, it was able to deliver its Standard of Cover in January 2026 (peak fire season), as Figure 19 shows.

Figure 19: DEECA's available fire trucks against the Standard of Cover

Note: ‘Other fire trucks’ includes DEECA vehicles such as LandCruisers and fire trucks that DEECA used from other fire authorities, including authorities in other states. Copilot was used to extract data from PDFs and PowerPoint files. 
Source: VAGO, based on information from DEECA.

This highlights the effectiveness of DEECA's fleet remediation program for the 2025–26 fire season.

But DEECA’s post-fire season assessment found that repairs to its G-Wagen fire trucks were compromised because of high operational use and heavy loads during the fire season.

Its certification for these repairs only covered temporary use over summer. This means DEECA will need to do more repair work to keep these fire trucks roadworthy each season until it replaces them.

Unlike FRV and DEECA, CFA has not had the same increase in unplanned repairs or unavailable fire trucks.

Gaps in condition and performance monitoring

The AMAF requires agencies to regularly monitor how their assets are performing and act where needed.

There is no consistent set of performance measures or reporting data to monitor the condition of Victoria's combined firefighting fleet.

Without standard measures, we assessed whether fire authorities have key performance indicators, and if they regularly report on them.

As shown in Figure 20, FRV has the most mature fleet monitoring approach, but all fire authorities have gaps. This limits their ability to assess their fleets’ condition and performance, and address issues as they emerge.

DEECA has set few measures to monitor its fleet performance. This has limited its ability to identify and respond to fleetwide issues.

Fleet replacement estimates

Fire authorities need $1.5 billion from 2024–25 to 2033–34 to address critical replacement and upgrade needs, such as replacing complete fire trucks.

These figures are based on FRV's and CFA's strategic asset planning and our estimates of DEECA's needs.

DEECA has not worked out the full cost to replace its cracked fire trucks. Because of this, we used costs from previous contracts to estimate replacement costs, excluding leasing costs. Actual costs may differ depending on replacement timing, supply chain conditions, industry capacity and financing or leasing costs.

Figure 21 shows fire authorities’ estimated investment needed to replace and upgrade their fire trucks.

Figure 21: Estimated total investment needed for fire trucks, 2024–25 to 2033–34

Note: Total investment need is based on fire authorities’ estimates, which do not factor inflation. DEECA's replacement need is estimated and does not include leasing costs. Estimates may underestimate total replacement costs for fire authorities in future years. Actual replacement costs depend on fleet strategies, business cases, funding proposals, industry capacity and endorsed replacement requirements.
Source: VAGO, based on information from the fire authorities.

Advising the government of funding needs

FRV and CFA have told the government how much funding they need to replace their older fire trucks:

• FRV put forward initial funding requests that reflect a large share of its estimated funding needs through funding notifications for 2024–25 and 2025–26
• CFA has communicated a smaller share of its needs, but it has given the government a plan that outlines its fire truck replacement and upgrade needs to 2033–34 and referenced it in recent business cases.

But DEECA has sought a very low share of the funding it needs to replace and upgrade its fire trucks. It has not told the government how much it will cost to replace fire trucks with cracking.

DEECA’s recent funding proposals provide little information on:

• its fleet’s condition and maintenance needs
• risks linked to the fleet’s condition
• the number of fire trucks that need replacing.

As a result, the government does not have complete information about the level of investment needed to restore DEECA’s fleet and ensure it can meet the Standard of Cover.

Fire authorities’ proposals

In 2025–26, DEECA sought $2.9 million to design and build new-generation slip-on units as a first step in replacing its G-Wagen fire trucks.

But DEECA did not follow up with a funding request for a full fleet replacement program in 2026–27. It only sought $17.9 million to replace falling object protection systems and slip-on units. This is because it does not have an asset replacement plan and has not resolved design and weight issues for its G-Wagen fire trucks.

This delays DEECA replacing its fire trucks and means:

• it has to rely on fire trucks with cracking, weight and availability issues for longer
• its repair and maintenance costs will be higher until the cracked fire trucks are replaced.

FRV and CFA reduced the scope of their funding proposals between 2024–25 and 2026–27 in response to instruction from the Treasurer to all ministers to limit funding requests in line with the government’s fiscal strategy. The Department of Justice and Community Safety reinforced this message to FRV and CFA.

Figure 22 shows each fire authority’s initial funding request and final proposals, with the proportion of truck replacement needs that the funding covers.

Figure 22: State Budget funding proposals for fleet capital

Note: Figures only include funding requested for fire trucks. ‘-‘ means the authority did not provide a request. DEECA did not request funding for fire trucks in the 2024–25 Budget.
Source: VAGO, based on information from fire authorities.

Prioritising funding proposals

As part of the state Budget process, agencies can submit funding proposals that reflect their capital, operational and program investment needs.

However, because of instruction from the Treasurer to all ministers, FRV and CFA have limited their funding proposals to their highest-priority fleet needs in recent years:

• FRV has prioritised replacing older fire trucks with low availability, as Case study 3 describes.
• CFA has prioritised replacing older single-cab fire trucks that require firefighters to travel on the back of trucks, which places them at risk of smoke inhalation and injury. Many of these trucks are well beyond their service life and are increasingly unreliable and costly to maintain. They also do not include modern safety and accessibility features, such as antilock braking systems and stability control, which are important features under emergency response conditions to meet workplace safety legislation.

Funding allocations

In their final Budget proposals from 2024–25 to 2026–27, fire authorities requested a total of $266.6 million in funding for new fire trucks.

The government allocated $178.5 million to 2033–34. This is:

• 67.0 per cent of the total amount in authorities’ final proposals
• 12.1 per cent of the estimated total funding fire authorities need to address issues across their fleets.

In addition to Budget funding, fire authorities also receive:

• grant funding (CFA only)
• capital funding (CFA and FRV only).

Including Budget, grant and capital funding, fire authorities only have 26.7 per cent of their estimated total funding needs, as Figure 25 shows.

Figure 25: Total fire truck investment needs and funding, 2024–25 to 2033–34

Note: ‘Other funding’ includes grant funding and capital funding. DEECA's capital replacement need is estimated and does not include lease costs. Total investment need is based on fire authorities’ estimates, which do not factor inflation. This means estimates may underestimate total replacement costs in future years.
Source: VAGO, based on information from fire authorities.

FRV receives $2.2 million each year in capital funding to help build and fix its assets and equipment. Fire trucks represent around 11 per cent of all FRV’s assets, which means it has on average around $200,000 per year in capital funding for fire trucks. This means FRV depends on annual state Budget funding to replace its trucks.

FRV will receive $61.0 million from 2024–25 to 2033–34 in state Budget funding to purchase new fire trucks. This includes:

• $10.0 million per year in fleet replacement funding to 2028–29, announced in the 2025–26 state Budget
• an additional $21.0 million, announced in the 2024–25 state Budget ($13.7 million) and 
  2026–27 state Budget ($7.3 million).

But this is just 21.2 per cent of FRV's estimated fire truck replacement and upgrade needs.

CFA will receive an estimated $306.6 million from 2024–25 to 2033–34 to purchase new fire trucks. This includes:

• $12.6 million per year in fleet replacement funding from the government
• $10.0 million per year in additional replacement funding, announced in the 2026–27 state Budget
• grants through the government’s Volunteer Emergency Services Equipment Program.

But this is just 31.8 per cent of CFA's estimated fire truck replacement and upgrade needs.

DEECA has depleted its Plant and Machinery Fund. This means all its fire truck and operational costs need to be funded from the state Budget or under annual fire season preparedness funding. This includes the cost of DEECA's fleet remediation program, which has increased the annual cost of maintaining DEECA's fleet by $8.6 million per year.

Delays seeking funding, combined with the time needed to replace fire trucks, increase the risk that DEECA will operate unreliable and potentially unsafe fire trucks for several more fire seasons.

Delaying fleet replacement can create future liabilities, including funding and replacement challenges that may not be reflected in state Budgets or forward estimates. This can increase future costs as faults accumulate, fire trucks become less reliable and fleet availability declines.