On Friday 7th July 2017, VFBV appeared before a public hearing of the Victorian Legislative Council Fire Services Bill Select Committee to table the VFBV submission and answer questions from the Committee members. Appearing on behalf of VFBV was;
- State President, Nev Jones AFSM
- Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Ford
- Executive Officer, Adam Barnett
A full transcript of this hearing will be made available as soon as it is available and publicly released on Hansard.
You can download the full VFBV submission from here.
Below is a copy of the submissions cover letter, and summary.
7 July 2017
Assistant Clerk Committees
Department of the Legislative Council
Fire Services Bill Select Committee
Parliament House, Spring Street
EAST MELBOURNE VIC 3002
Dear Committee,
This letter and the attached detail is the VFBV submission to the Select Committee established to examine the Fire Services Bill.
VFBV wishes to thank the Select Committee for the opportunity to provide comment regarding the proposed Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2017 (referred to in VFBV submission as ‘proposed legislation’).
The following submission is provided in good faith and in response to the Select Committee’s invitation for comment on the proposed legislation. The timeframes for submission on this important matter have been extremely tight, and I am hopeful that the committee will accept supplementary information if required.
In making this submission we have reflected on the many previous reviews of recent years and the recurring concerns of volunteers that they are being heard but not listened to. In the lead up to this proposed legislation those concerns were amplified because there was not even an opportunity to be heard. There was no consultation prior to the tabling of the proposed legislation in Parliament despite Government’s claims to the contrary.
Now, less than 4 weeks on, volunteers still feel that despite a series of field briefings to tell them what the proposed legislation is - there has still not been real or genuine effort nor process to take on board what they have said, listen to nor consider their concerns and treat them with the respect they deserve.
Just because volunteers are not paid, and just because their good will is likely to see them continuing to help people in need these are by no means reasons to disrespect, disempower or denigrate their views and input.
I am very sad to say that many volunteers do think that their views have been too readily dismissed and ignored. There are also many who feel the effect of unfair reactive castigation and sometimes vilification just for having their say. This behaviour is not reasonable and should stop, and the way to stop it is by example - led from the top.
We are hopeful that the tensions associated with this review can become a lesson to everyone about how not to do things.
Apart from the consideration of the proposals covered in the proposed legislation, it would be good if we can put this bad process to some good use and use it as a catalyst to rethink behaviours and lead, by personal example, a better way of behaving in the future.
VFBV and individuals within VFBV have felt the effect of MPs, abusing the privilege of parliament to spread known mistruths about us, about what we have said and what we stand for. This is totally inappropriate and is not the way to treat anyone. I ask the committee to contemplate an important question – if people can be so brazen as to defame someone in the public eye and under the protection of parliament, what threat and retribution is happening behind the scenes to people, at the ground level and even those expert officials who need to be able to speak independently, who dare to speak in any way that contradicts the directions driven from the secret places that developed this legislation.
We are not alone in this and, sadly, have observed other key players in the sector being treated with similar disdain simply for having the integrity to speak up.
The issue of fair process and mischief is not covered in the attached submission as it falls outside the terms of reference, but it does warrant serious independent investigation and I state this formally in the hope that this can happen before this legislation is decided on.
It is important to note that the Government’s commitment to provide additional funding and support to CFA is not enshrined nor delivered through the proposed legislation and does not need to be. These welcome initiatives can therefore be delivered regardless of the outcome of the propose legislation. VFBV welcomes and appreciates these initiatives however we do not believe these critically deserved offers of core support and funding should somehow be tied to the dismantling of CFA and the proposed legislation that has real potential to destroy the very thing the funding is designed to support.
The need for increased funding of CFA’s core capital works, fleet replacement, firefighting equipment, volunteer support and training has been extensively covered by previous VFBV submissions and has been well and truly established by previous reviews as recently as the Department of Treasury base funding review conduced only a few years ago.
VFBV looks forward to assisting the Select Committee in any way required.
Yours Sincerely
Andrew Ford
Chief Executive Officer
SUMMARY
VFBV wishes to thank the Select Committee for the opportunity to provide comment regarding the proposed Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation and Fire Services Legislation Amendment (Reform) Bill 2017 (referred to in VFBV submission as ‘proposed legislation’).
The first comment to be made is that VFBV is very disappointed that the proposed legislation combines the two totally separate issues of firefighter cancer presumptive rights compensation and the proposed restructuring of Victoria’s fire services. VFBV feels strongly that it is morally wrong and offensive to combine an issue so important as firefighter cancer protection with the proposed fire services restructure.
VFBV submits that the proposed Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation aspects of the proposed legislation should be separated into a different Bill and be subject to separate consultation.
Nevertheless, while the proposed legislation ties the firefighter’s presumptive rights aspects to the proposed restructure of Victoria’s fire service, consideration of the proposed restructuring of Victoria’s fire services also demands comment on the Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation aspects of the proposed legislation.
Presumptive rights compensation
In respect to Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation aspects of the legislation, VFBV is very strongly of the view that there should be equality in the treatment of volunteer and career firefighters. The proposed Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation legislation does not treat volunteers and paid staff equally. It sets up a complex, and ambiguous legal battle for volunteers and a much simpler process for paid firefighters. The proposed Victorian presumptive rights legislation is not the same as the QLD model. To sell the proposed Victorian presumptive rights legislation as being the same as the simple and equitable model now in place in QLD is misleading. Legal advice obtained by VFBV from QC Jack Rush[1] confirms VFBV concerns and observation provided to VFBV by lawyers[2] directly experienced in the operation and intent of the QLD model also points to a fundamental difference and less desirable proposal being put forward for Victorian volunteers.
Proposed restructure - flawed motivation
In regard to the proposed restructure of Victoria’s fire services aspects of the proposed legislation, the pre-eminent consideration in determining a structure for fire and emergency public safety should be to have a sustainable, efficient and cost effective system for planning, prevention, response to and recovery from fire and other emergencies. VFBV submits that the policy rationale driving the proposed restructure of Victoria’s fire services has not been driven by this consideration.
Instead the change has been motivated by a Government and United Fire Fighters union agenda to find a way for a problematic and overreaching operational staff EBA to avoid recently amended provisions in the Fair Work Act[1] (referred to in VFBV submission as the ‘FWA volunteer support amendment’), amendments that simply seek to recognise and respect the role and contribution of CFA volunteers.
Not only is this motivation flawed, the claim of an impossible barrier to finalising future EBA’s is simply not true. This claim that the FWA volunteer support amendment now means that any CFA EBA containing matters relating to training, equipment, rostering cannot be finalised is an untested and unsubstantiated claim and in VFBV’s view it misleading and patently wrong.
The FWA volunteer support amendment does nothing more than prevent EBA’s from restricting or limiting how an organisation such as CFA supports, equips, recognises, respects and consults with volunteers in the same way as the Fair Work Act has prevented enterprise bargaining clauses which breached the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act since the Fair Work Act was introduced by the Gillard Government. This Commonwealth FWA volunteer support amendment does no more than prevent an Enterprise Agreement between the CFA and UFU from breaching the current requirements regarding CFA volunteers as contained in and arising from the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 as it has existed since May 2011.
Proposed restructure – doesn’t fix FWA/ EBA problem
To say the restructure of the fire services is needed because of the problems created by the FWA volunteer support amendment is wrong. To allow this to be the motivation for carving up the fire services is wrong. To say it will fix the problem is wrong.
Carving up the fire services to avoid the FWA volunteer support amendment test does nothing to fix the problem.
The proposed restructure creates even more problems and the underlying issues of EBA overreach are still embedded, and perhaps made worse by the proposed legislations requirement for all CFA operational personnel to be employed by FRV, under an EBA to be negotiated by FRV without CFA involvement.
Proposed restructure – fundamental concerns
VFBV is concerned with the proposed restructure at a fundamental.
Any modernisation of the fire and emergency services must be based on consideration of how best to systematically meet local needs plus how best to function as an intrinsically connected regional and state-wide whole, ensuring flexibility and resources are available for local demands and also for severe, multiple/concurrent, and long duration events (whilst simultaneously protecting their local communities).
Experience and reviews have shown us again and again that the best approach to public safety is to embed public safety ethos and practice in local communities. The CFA community based model, where emergency service volunteers and paid staff work in a fully integrated manner and where volunteers
are empowered, responsible and valued based on their training and experience (regardless of pay status), for both local service delivery and major incident management roles is a best practice model regarded world-wide.
The medium and long term effect of the proposed changes on Victoria’s volunteer peak load and surge capacity is of deep concern for VFBV and others engaged in public safety.
The fire service structure set down in the proposed legislation is rigid, costly and undermines the whole concept of building local community embedded volunteer capacity and capability by relegating volunteers to second rate responders (if required at all) and also by removing the statutory responsibility of paid firefighters and FRV employees to encourage, maintain and strengthen local volunteer capacity.
VFBV submits that it is totally inappropriate to enshrine a changed fire service restructure that will have direct cost increase impacts without the proposal being adequately costed and properly funded not just for the next two years, but with assurances moving forward.
Consideration should also be given to the fact that simply costing the proposal properly and building an assured funding mechanism will do nothing to alleviate the even broader concern that the proposed legislation and flow on implications are likely to cause increases to the fire services levy, complications to the fire service levy governance and an impact on every person in Victoria who pays the fire service levy.
Proposed structure – adds no additional benefit to fix service gaps
We note that there have been attacks on the CFA meeting fire standards in some areas and that this has also been used as a basis for justifying the proposed changes. Without commenting on the statistics used in those attacks (which are made on CFA volunteers and paid staff alike), it is important to note that the current CFA system can and does flexibly respond to any real service capacity gaps and already has all of the legislated powers necessary to employ additional paid firefighters to supplement and support the volunteer base where required The proposed legislation provides no change whatsoever to the fire services ability to respond to urban growth or urban service demands.
Any limits on CFA’s ability to respond and quickly to gaps in service capacity can be directly traced to outdated or otherwise limiting industrial clauses and practices arising from industrial agreements over the past 20 years. It is the statutory duty of the CFA management to maintain effective functional service standards and they are accountable for that duty.
Negotiating industrial agreements in harmony with their statutory responsibilities is part of CFA management’s responsibility and should not be subject to political interference. The proposed legislation does nothing to fix these problems, and worse, it establishes in legislation a future framework that reduces the options and flexibility that currently exist.
The opportunity that exists today for CFA pursue a range of options to transition and evolve volunteer brigade capacity (including supplementing paid firefighters into the volunteer brigade) as local service demands changes will be reduced not strengthened by the proposed restructure.
The proposed structure and resulting systems established by the proposed legislation lack the flexibility of the CFA system and alienates local volunteerism in urban communities; it sets a framework that will disempower and discourage volunteers and this will lead to a need to replace volunteers over time with paid staff doing the same response job as volunteers but without the community networks or ongoing provision sufficient surge capacity.
Proposed legislation – should be rejected and rethought
VFBV submits that the proposed restructure of Victoria fire services as established by the proposed legislation is inferior to the CFA’s current system and must be rejected.
The proposed legislation provides no additional service capacity or service interoperability than exists today, in fact it further fragment the services.
The proposed legislation will act to diminish and discourage volunteer capacity.
The proposed legislation is inconsistent and in conflict with key recommendations of recent major reviews, including the findings of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission.
The proposed legislation is motivated by the wrong reason of seeking to find a clear path to push ahead with EBA demands of the UFU. It works against sustaining volunteer capacity.
The proposed legislation does not provide a solution to the current real problem of industrial dispute and it does not provide a solution to the challenges/problems/opportunities facing the fire and emergency sector.
In summary VFBV submits:
- The Fire Service Reform aspects of the proposed legislation should not be supported. The Bill should be withdrawn and its underlying assumptions rethought for the provision of agile, responsive and effective community embedded public safety across Victoria. Any structure proposed for adoption must maintain and strengthen the primary role of community embedded volunteers fully integrated with and, supplemented and supported by paid staff on a genuine needs basis. Future models should be developed in a fully transparent and collaborative way with the full involvement of all stakeholders and personnel/volunteers on the ground.
- The proposed legislation should be split to separate the consideration of Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation from Fire Services Reform aspects and be subject to separate consultation.
- The Firefighters’ Presumptive Rights Compensation aspects of the proposed legislation needs to be amended to remove the differential treatment of paid staff and volunteers.
A way forward
VFBV respectfully request that the Select Committee seek:
- Transparent and evidence backed understanding of the problems trying to be fixed;
- Independent and robust impact analysis (including cost/benefit impact) of any reform proposals before a decision is made;
- Critically examination and evidence to test how the key changes being proposed will provide a better solution than the arrangements which exist today;
VFBV believe it is critically important that there is established a proper and transparent process of community, agency and volunteer engagement and consultation before the reform policy is decided and before future legislation is considered and developed.
VFBV suggest, as an immediate next step and before any legislation is decided, an independently chaired, all stakeholder fire service improvement task force be established to - commence and actively facilitate organisational culture and positive relationships shift; engagement of key stakeholders; support active leadership to rebuild a shared focus and commitment to common operating principles and goals; facilitate an independent review of fire service best practice models; identify priority areas for improvement in Victoria; to ensure independent and transparent assessment of options and feasibility/costs/benefits impacts; and develop a Fire Services Reform program owned by the people on the ground.
The establishment of this taskforce will provide an immediate opportunity for trust and respect to be rebuilt between Government and all stakeholders and agencies, and create a framework for a shared vision and journey for future fire services reform.
FWA/EBA concerns – let FWC process resolve it
At a minimum VFBV believes it is incumbent on the Select Committee to test the proposition about problems caused by the FWA volunteer support amendment thoroughly.
VFBV submits that to end the tension, claim and counter claim – submit the proposed 2016 CFA Operational Staff EBA to the Fair Work Commission and allow the fair umpire[1] and subsequent transparent process to resolve any concerns.
Volunteers do not wish to stop EBA’s from being finalised and the Government and United Firefighters Union have openly stated that the proposed 2016 CFA Operational Staff EBA does not, should not and is not intended to be able to restrict or limit how CFA supports, equips, recognises, respects or consults with volunteers. Given this foundation, a sensible way forward would be to submit the EBA, confirm if there are any unintended problems and remove these problems. The tensions that have played out over the past year will be resolved and at a minimum there will be objective, transparent and fair deliberation.
