Page 4045 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 30 October 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
officers, the trained paramedics, would have liked to think of themselves as being a cottage industry at any time. It is that sort of attitude that gets this minister into trouble.
We move to the cardiac monitors and the defibrillators. Of course, he spoke about the defibrillator bit, but he refused to talk about the cardiac monitor. After this issue became public I had a phone call from a woman. An older member of their family called the Ambulance Service because of a suspected heart attack. It took four times to get a reading on this lady’s blood pressure. As you would understand, when you are having a heart attack, blood pressure is probably an important thing to know about. The ambulance officer cursed the machine and said: “I wish they’d bring the old ones back. At least they work.” This is from the ambulance officers, minister.
As to the complaints, well, there have been complaints. I know of at least one officer who has complained to WorkSafe. I will review the words the minister used. He is very careful with his words. He did it a couple of times. He said, “Are there any complaints before ACAT?” He said, “No, there are no current complaints.” There you go. Maybe there are not. I wonder how many there were in the past. But the fact is that I am told there is a complaint to WorkSafe.
The union had to go to the Fair Work Ombudsman because of the process on the audit of leave. For those who do not know, there was a look at all the leave that was outstanding. Members of the Ambulance Service had to justify where they were on a specific day three, four or five years ago—and why they had or had not put in a leave form and whether or not they had the leave. I defy anybody to know exactly where they were three, four or five years ago and what forms they had put in. But the fact that the union, on behalf of its members, took the government to the Fair Work Ombudsman speaks volumes. It speaks very eloquently. Madam Speaker, the minister can treat it with all the disdain he wants but the fact is that they are with the Fair Work Ombudsman now. In fact, the only thing that minister got right today was that, yes, the result is expected within a couple of minutes.
As to the replacement of the two deputy officers, yes, they do resign. That is correct. But it is about the replacement process. And when staff are told, for instance, that the deputy officer for the Rural Fire Service will not be replaced because the money is being used to fund the review of the strategic bushfire management plans, I have concerns, as do the people who reported it to me. I understand that the ops officer will become the deputy chief officer of the Rural Fire Service and will do both jobs. You have to question whether that is fair to the officer and whether it is fair to the service that somebody does two incredibly important jobs in what we all acknowledge could be a potentially quite disastrous bushfire season. That is poor management. If it is being driven as a cost saver, which is how I was told it was expressed, then that is appalling.
The minister tries to portray the close call/on call allowance issue as something that has just been announced. It is not being consulted on; it was just announced. The members were told, “It’s gone.” That is not consultation and that is not improvement on negotiation. That is incredibly poor management. If that is the case, the minister needs to look at it—and needs to look at it quite seriously.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video