Today the Sunday Age profiles Peter Marshall. At first glance it’s fairly even-handed. The usual jibes about Marshall as the thug leader of a militant union are balanced with positive depiction of his dedication to “his” members, who in turn are “loyal — often deeply so,” and see him as a “hero”.
But there is still a major problem with this article. It’s not just that it follows the working assumption of the political class, that matters are best judged by the vibe emanated by the personalities involved, with minimal regards to fact or policy. I’ve ranted about that enough in my past few articles. The real problem is illustrated with these quotes:
- ‘A senior Labor insider says Marshall is “addicted to war”’
- ‘aggressive class-war language preferred by the old warriors of the labour movement’
- ‘One senior Labor figure earlier this year described Marshall’s approach as war declared “on a daily basis”’
- ‘And says another: “The need to be at war seems greater than anything else”’
The article portrays Marshall as an unreasonable pugilist: a constant initiator of war, stubbornly insisting upon claims so “outlandish” that a reasonable person would mistake them for ambit.
The reality is far different, but understanding this requires delving in to the facts of the dispute, which The Age consistently refuses to do.
The reality, in fact, was spelled out by the report of the Fire Services Review, which was handed to the Government in October 2015. Interestingly, this is around the time when The Age reports that relations between Garrett and broke down. When the report was finally released — after being suppressed for five months — it barely raised a whimper. It should have.
The Fire Services Review found that the war was not started by the UFU. It was started by the coalition government:
From media reports at the time and information received by the Review, it is clear that the previous government deployed a deliberately ideological attack against the UFU and effectively encouraged CFA and MFB to go to industrial war with their respective workforces.
The report points to “costly, lengthy and legally aggressive cases” as a key plank in the war effort, making specific mention of the CFA’s attempt to renege on a commitment to employ more firefighters, and the MFB’s attempt to terminate its EBA in toto, in order to be rid of its requirements for consultation with employees. (The union was vindicated in both cases, at the Federal Court and Fair Work Commission respectively.)
Here was justification on a platter for the Labor Government to end the ideological war the coalition had started. But, for whatever reason, Jane Garrett didn’t want to do this. Garrett wanted to continue the fight. Releasing the report would not have suited that purpose.
Garrett’s main objections to the union claims echoed those raised by CFA and MFB senior management. These were the same complaints they had made in the context of “industrial war” initiated by the coalition. They centred around consultation and the provision of more firefighters, through the seven-firefighter dispatch clause.
Clearly, Garrett wanted to continue the coalition’s war, fighting it on the same fronts, and using the same tactics: actions the Fire Services Review deemed “clearly inflammatory and designed to portray firefighters in a poor light”.
When you understand this background, it is ludicrous to suggest, as The Age has, that Garrett was simply ambushed with these claims. They didn’t come from nowhere. They were never meant as ambit. They were a key front in a pre-existing war that was started not by the UFU but by the coalition government.
Journalists would know this, if they had read the Fire Services Review, or even if they had listened to Marshall’s comments back in October 2015:
“Today we learn that the industrial and employment practices of this government are no different to the Napthine Government who spent $21 million of Fire Services money on lawyers and consultants to wage war on firefighters instead of seeking industrial peace.”
…
“The Government is blatantly misrepresenting firefighters’ claim, both financially and in terms of consultation on critical issues like equipment, safety clothing, training, and safety on the fire ground.”
(Incidentally, and in contrast to The Age’s suggestion that there was no ambit in the union’s claims, the article linked above also says “Ms Garrett confirmed that the an ambit claim for about a 30 per cent pay rise over three years was still being used by the union.”)
The media need not have taken Marshall’s comments at face value. They could have investigated them, like David O’Byrne did when preparing the report of the Fire Services Review, and like him they would have found that the comments check out. The initiator and key aggressor of the war was the coalition government (the mantle later being taken up by Garrett), not the union.
Then they could have gone on to investigate the factual basis for union’s claims around safety. And relayed what they learned to the public. Judging issues by the facts and a full understanding of their context: is that just asking too much?
