In Australia we basically have two types of media.
Firstly there’s the popular media, which is openly propagandistic, in the service of the right wing…
… ugh, sorry about that.
And then there’s what you might call the serious media. You know, for people who think they’re more discerning and potentially capable of critical thought. That would be The Saturday Paper, The Guardian, The Age / Sydney Morning Herald, the ABC. All of these outlets publish some quality journalism and analysis. But most of them also publish some complete rubbish, for example the Age editorial I looked at yesterday.
A lot of the time, what you get from these outlets is basically the ramblings of political reporters who approach the job like they’re sports commentators, or gossip magazine columnists. What they’re most interested in is the very thing the Australian public loathes, and is what makes us one of the most cynical and disengaged populations in the world, when it comes to politics. I’m talking about all the petty power plays and staged PR performances. “Political theatre” is the charitable name for what most of us call “bullshit”.
That’s why I’m not even going to bother talking about the only article that came up in my news search today, which epitomises everything I’ve just complained about. He said, she said, blah blah blah. What is this, The Bold and the Beautiful?
The problem with this is that people rely on the media for information. When different political parties have different policy positions, the public needs to have enough information to build an informed opinion. The building of informed opinions on policy is essential to the proper functioning of democracy. But most of the time these reporters are too preoccupied with political point-scoring to actually provide the facts.
That’s certainly been the case when it comes to the CFA EBA. Only half a sentence here or there is given to the UFU or to the Government to talk about the benefits of the EBA for firefighter and public safety. That’s only enough to mention the existence of benefits, not enough to explain what those benefits are. And yet, the same political journalists who deny people the chance to explain anything, feel fit to criticise of the lack of explanation!
Yesterday a career firefighter contacted me, having seen my opening volley for this project. He sent me an opinion piece he had been encouraged by Richard Willingham (The Age) to write, only to be ignored for weeks after submitting it. This echoes my own experience of stonewalling. It’s a very pertinent piece of writing, which addresses precisely Willingham’s complaint about the lack of explanation of the safety benefits of the EBA. He says the replies stopped coming as soon as he submitted the article. I wonder why. Pffft, facts … who cares? Zzzzz.
Anyway, here it is, a worthy read.
EBA is about safety, not power
Safety is my job, as a firefighter. Hyped-up hero stories aside, when it comes down to it, a firefighter’s job is to make unsafe situations as safe as possible, for everyone. That means our workplace is inherently unsafe, but it doesn’t mean that to protect the public we should just give up on our own safety. Like everyone else, we deserve nothing less than all practicable efforts to protect our safety. From our perspective, that’s what the CFA and MFB Enterprise Bargaining Agreements are all about.
For example: seven-firefighter dispatch. There are specific safety reasons for this practice, which is why it is standard in the MFB, and law in the USA.
When a building is on fire, fighting it from the inside offers the best chance of rescuing anyone who is trapped, and of containing the fire to the smallest possible area. But this is risky: the building’s structure has been compromised by fire and the atmosphere inside is full of unbreathable, toxic smoke at temperatures up to 600 ºC. Any number of things could go catastrophically wrong. The best equipment and the best training can help, but when something goes wrong, firefighters need backup. This is why we work in pairs, and have a second pair of firefighters, fully kitted up, waiting outside the building, ready to come to the aid of the first. It’s called ‘two-in, two-out’, and taking into account pump operators and an officer-in-charge, requires the immediate dispatch of seven firefighters.
In busy urban areas, CFA response very effectively integrates career and volunteer firefighters. However, the nature of volunteer response is that it is delayed by the need to drive to the fire station before turning out on the truck. This means that staff are often on scene for five minutes or more, without backup, before volunteers begin arriving.
Those first five minutes are critical. This is when trapped people are rescued and the fire is knocked down. It is also when the risks to firefighters are highest. Firefighters should not have to tackle that not knowing when or if backup will come. The community, too, should not be placed at risk by having half the proper number of boots on the ground for the critical first five minutes. This is why the EBA stipulates the immediate dispatch of seven career firefighters, in areas where career firefighters are stationed.
Of course, the decisions that affect our safety go far beyond dispatch protocols. The risks we face include not just immediate injury or death, but also long-term health consequences from exposure to hazardous materials. Studies have shown that career firefighters are more likely to get cancer than the general population. Firefighters attend not just building fires but a wide variety of incidents that all present health and safety risks. We also undertake practical training that can expose us to risk if hazards are not controlled adequately.
All of these risks can be reduced by safety-focussed decision making. Unfortunately, firefighters have found that safety is only prioritised in decision-making when operational firefighters are involved in the process, through their union. Every day, career firefighters use equipment and procedures that are safer due to union involvement than they would have been without it, and for the same reasons, every day the community enjoys a superior response to emergencies, too. This is why 97% of career firefighters are members of the United Firefighters Union, and it is why the career firefighters of the CFA and MFB are insisting on the provision of genuine consultation clauses in our EBAs.
Consultation means real input. Asking our opinion then ignoring it is not real consultation. Unfortunately this is what has happened in both organisations in recent years, including with regard to the health hazards present at the CFA training ground at Fiskville. The recent Parliamentary Inquiry found that the CFA not only ignored the union’s concerns, it unlawfully failed to disclose the presence of a potential health hazard to firefighters, and knowingly exposed firefighters to unnecessary risk.
It’s cheap and easy to accuse Peter Marshall of fibbing when he says the EBA is about safety. When the Liberal Party, the VFBV and the media do that, they forget that they’re also accusing 3000 career firefighters of the same thing. When your theory makes a liar out of one person, it might seem plausible; but when your theory makes liars out of 97% of career firefighters, who have all passed a psychological screening to devote their careers to public safety, your theory starts to look a little shaky.
The reality is this: we’re not trying to take over control of the fire services and we’re not trying to disrespect volunteers. We’re trying to protect our safety, and that of the community.
