I’ve waited a week for the media to cover a few newsworthy items emerging from the passage of the Fair Work Amendment (Smash The UFU) Act, but it seems that nothing has been forthcoming. Maybe I missed it. Or maybe it points to systematic bias. Or both. Let me know if you find anything. In the meantime let’s just get those facts out there.
Probably the most important development is CFA Chief Officer Steve Warrington’s response to the Senate Committee’s request that he review and comment on a letter written by former MFB Chief Fire Officer Peter Rau to Minister James Merlino, which was subsequently leaked to the Herald Sun, which printed excerpts on the 3rd of August.
Rau’s comments would have been unsurprising to anyone who followed the failed application by MFB under Rau to terminate its EBA, an action condemned by the Fire Services Review as “ill-conceived”, “costly, lengthy, legally aggressive, … clearly inflammatory and designed to portray firefighters in a poor light.” The Fair Work Commission was unconvinced by the arguments MFB used to justify its attempt deny firefighters the right to be consulted over decisions that affect their safety. Rau’s letter merely regurgitated the same rhetoric they had tried on the Fair Work Commission.
Nevertheless, media coverage of this “bombshell” letter exploded. Apparently no-one in media the had followed the termination case, or read the Fire Services Review, or reflected upon how the provision of this letter to the Herald Sun might constitute yet another action that is “clearly inflammatory and designed to portray firefighters in a poor light.” The story was prominent across all media outlets for a few days, as was Merlino’s chastisement that Rau’s comments were “reckless and alarmist”. Naturally the Herald Sun’s treatment of this story read like a Liberal Party press release, but once again The Age’s tone also reflected anti-firefighter bias.
So, here was a nothing story that the media deemed highly newsworthy. MFB boss expresses concern over proposed CFA EBA. Surely, then, it’s newsworthy when the Chief Officer of the CFA directly addresses the concerns raised, dismissing them entirely. Nope! Perhaps I missed it, but I can’t find any mention of it in my news searches.
So, here it is. (I’ve added highlighting for the skimmers but you can access the original from the Senate Committee website.)
So, basically, CO Warrington says there is no veto, he supports consultation on safety grounds, and does not believe consultation will stop him from doing his job. In other words, everything Peter Rau said was wrong.
Newsworthy? I’d say so. Where was the coverage?
This is the first time, to my knowledge, that Warrington had addressed Rau’s “bombshell” letter, or the description of consultation of “veto”. He had previously defended his ability to exercise his powers, including when he appeared before a hearing of a Victorian Parliamentary Inquiry that coincided to the day with the Herald Sun’s release of Rau’s letter, but these comments barely rated a mention in media coverage of the hearing (links: Guardian, ABC, ABC, Age, Weekly Times). He made similar comments at a hearing of the Senate Inquiry, which this time attracted no coverage that I can find, but they were enough to send Liberal Senator Jane Hume into Spanish Inquisitor mode:
Warrington’s direct refutation of Rau in his subsequent written response to the Committee is the real bombshell. But — nothing from the media. Crickets.
But that’s not all.
Some balanced, reasonably detailed coverage was given by the media to submissions and testimony to the Senate Inquiry into the Fair Work Amendment Act (Age; ABC). However, the conclusion of the inquiry and the passage of the bill through the Senate was covered by shallow soundbite journalism, typical of political coverage. As a result, important details were missed. The Senate Committee published a 115-page report that cannot be adequately condensed to 5-second soundbites. In particular, the 24-page dissenting report (pp. 59–82) from Senators Cameron, Marshall and Rhiannon contains much of importance.
Firstly, something that is surely newsworthy, but again has not been reported. These Senators suggest that former CFA CEO Lucinda Nolan provided misleading testimony to the Senate Committee:
Ms Nolan is one of the most widely quoted critics of the CFA EBA and its supposed “veto” provisions. That she stands accused of misleading Parliament is surely newsworthy. Nope. Nothing.
The dissenting report finally acknowledges two key facts that have been assiduously avoided in most media coverage of the CFA dispute. Firstly, that the EBA is about safety, and secondly, that public opinion has been severely distorted by a misleading smear campaign orchestrated by the Liberal Party. Echoing the 2015 Fire Services Review’s findings of coalition-led actions that were “clearly inflammatory and designed to portray firefighters in a poor light”, the dissenting report finds:
This theme is returned to in the conclusions of the dissenting report:
It’s a great comfort to firefighters to finally know that someone other than firefighters recognises the great injustice that is being perpetrated against them.
Why aren’t the public allowed to know this, too?
