Today’s correspondent brings to my attention threatened action by members of Victoria’s CFA refusing to fight fires ‘around new renewable power plants and transmission lines’ as reported by the ABC – see Angus Verley ‘Volunteer firefighters say they will not fight fires around new renewables projects, transmission line’ ABC Rural (Online) 19 June 2024.
My correspondent says:
I read this with some curiosity and wonder if you’d be interested in looking at whether individual Brigades can refuse to fight fires, as an industrial or political demand? Do these volunteers have any legal ground to stand on?
These are interesting questions.
Fire services respond to risks created by others
The ABC article says:
VNI West — a transmission line that would run hundreds of kilometres through farmland in western Victoria — has triggered angry protests from farmers who say they do not want it on their land…
North-west Victorian farmer and director of Farmers for Climate Action Brett Hosking lives in the line of the VNI West transmission line project.
He said the local community feels the engagement has been “woeful” and he understands the frustration from volunteers.
“I don’t think there’s too many people in society that wouldn’t be sympathetic to these volunteers who leave their families, leave their businesses, leave their work behind, to go and fight a fire dealing with infrastructure that’s been forced on them by someone else.”
Members of the fire services are always called upon to fight fires in ‘infrastructure that’s been forced on them by someone else’. When they go to a house fire they are fighting a fire in a house that they were not consulted on and had no input into its design or maintenance. No doubt individual brigades are not being asked if it’s ok to install ev charging points and people are not ringing their local brigade to ask if it’s ok to install solar panels and a battery in their home. The emergency services are how society deals with the residual risk of all infrastructure planning. As Professor Steve Dovers said (in ‘Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction, seriously?’ (2022) 37(2) Australian Journal of Emergency Management 20-23 at p. 20):
Bluntly, the job of emergency management and disaster policy is to prepare for, and then cope with, problems caused by vulnerabilities created by other policy sectors. Houses in risky locations, people in vulnerable situations and assets at risk from natural hazards are often in such circumstances because of decisions or non-decisions made in land-use planning, development approval, transport, infrastructure, housing, public health, communications and elsewhere. Those policy sectors may overlook or pay scant attention to DRR when decisions are made. Indeed, it might not be part of their mandate.
One has to infer that firefighters do not and cannot object to fighting ‘a fire dealing with infrastructure that’s been forced on them by someone else’ because if they did they would cease to be firefighters. Rather they object to fighting fires on or near this particular class of infrastructure.
Politics
The ABC article goes on to quote ‘Jason Barratt, the captain of the Traynors Lagoon Fire Brigade and spokesperson for the newly formed Firefighters Against Renewables Over Victoria’. The article continues:
The group’s letter of demands calls for an immediate halt to “all current and proposed projects” and requests “appropriate reconsideration of alternative solutions”, which Mr Barratt said should include nuclear power generation.
The cosignatories said infrastructure such as VNI West would “greatly impact our ability to control wildfire both on ground and particularly from the air”.
Mr Barratt said transmission lines and renewable energy plants would make it more difficult to fight fires.
“We’re worried about our ability to fight fires around transmission lines and the CFA hasn’t been very good at all at giving us clear instructions on how safe it is to fight fires around them,” Mr Barratt said.
Given there has to be transmission lines from any power station, coal fired, nuclear or renewable and given that the transmission lines are all carrying electricity, regardless of where it is sourced, I for one don’t understand the issue with respect to transmission lines. The fire brigades already have to deal with transmission lines. The article quotes a ‘Victorian government spokesperson [who] said there were “no records of a transmission line ever starting a bushfire in Victoria”.’ Powerlines are known to have started fires but these are not, presumably the high voltage transmission lines but the distribution lines running to homes and communities (see Bushfires; the price we pay for electricity (May 20, 2014)).
The Firefighters Against Renewables Over Victoria group don’t mention how CFA volunteers will feel about being asked to fight a fire at nor near a nuclear power plant.
If there is a legitimate safety concern, then it doesn’t make sense to say ‘…landowners who agreed to host transmission lines on their properties should not expect the assistance of firefighters.’ If there was a safety concern it would make sense to say ‘we won’t fire within a prescribed distance of the asset, regardless of who owns the land’ rather than we won’t fight a fire on land owned by landholders who have ‘agreed to host transmission lines on their property’ regardless of where and what is on fire and how close it is to the transmission lines. That appears to be a policy intended to punish landholders with a different view.
Mr Barratt is quoted as saying:
“At the end of the day, we are volunteers and the government is willingly putting this infrastructure in and adding risk to our community and our members and it’s unnecessary.”
Whether it’s necessary or not depends on the policy objectives. Current government policy is to reduce reliance on coal and gas generated power and increase reliance on renewable. We are told:
This is the latest protest action by affected regional communities against planned transmission line projects being rolled out to connect planned renewable projects, which state and federal governments say are essential to meet renewable and climate change targets.
As farmers and members of the community of course members of the CFA have a right to a view but it’s not for the CFA as such to direct government policy, but clearly this is an exercise in politics and trying to influence energy policy.
The quoted volunteers think these transmission lines are not essential, the federal and state governments think they are. Trying to push the government to a different view is clearly an exercise in politics rather than safety.
Safety
Having said that there may be particular concerns about particular issues eg battery fires, fires at solar plants etc. If I accept, for the sake of the argument, the issue really is about safety then we can look at the legal issues.
First, Victoria has not adopted the model Work Health and Safety Act that all other states have adopted. Under the model Act the definition of worker includes a ‘volunteer’ so that volunteers are entitled to be consulted about WHS issues and are entitled to refuse to do work that they think exposes them to an unacceptable risk (Model WHS Act s 84). Under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic) s 23(1), the duty of the CFA is to ensure that ‘so far as is reasonably practicable, [Volunteers] … are not exposed to risks to their health or safety arising from the conduct of the undertaking of the [CFA]…’ There is no particular right of those volunteers to be part of the CFA’s OHS processes nor a specific right to ‘stop work’. But of course they don’t need such a right, they are volunteers, volunteers are always free to decide that today, they are not going to volunteer, or they are not going to volunteer to do a particular task. That is the nature of being a volunteer.
No-one could sue a volunteer for choosing not to volunteer. The obligation to provide firefighting services is an obligation of the CFA not each member. If the CFA is unable to provide firefighting services and anyone wanted to claim compensation their action would have to be against the CFA not the volunteers, though such an action would be unprecedented and unlikely to succeed – see Liability for fire – a review of earlier posts (January 8, 2016).
The situation may be different if the members did turn out, ie they were volunteering, and then did as they threaten and refused to enter the property to perform their task. If, for example, the volunteers can see that a person is trying to save their house but they do nothing but watch, then the circumstances of an identified vulnerable person where the CFA has the resoruces and statutory authority to assist but does not, may be sufficient to give rise to a relevant duty of care (see Caltex Refineries (Qld) Pty Ltd v Stavar (2009) 75 NSWLR 649; Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36).
The CFA must walk a fine line here. If the concerns really are about safety, they need to be addressed. The ABC article says:
… CFA deputy chief officer Brett Boatman said the CFA was working with its members on issues around fighting fires near transmission lines and renewable energy plants.
“The concerns from our CFA members have been heard and we are working with them to ensure the right information is out there,” he said.
“CFA … respects our members’ rights to engage in matters relevant to their local communities.”
If it’s not truly about safety, if it’s farmers and community members who are also CFA volunteers using their standing, the reputation of the CFA and the fact that communities depend upon them, to push their own beliefs about energy policy and to fight infrastructure they don’t want in their backyard then that is a different matter. The only legal implication from that that I can see however, is that the CFA may at some time have to consider whether their actions breach any relevant Code of Conduct and reflect on their ability to remain as members of the CFA.
If the response is really a reaction to being asked to respond to risks imposed by others it sets a dangerous precedent. What if firefighters refused to rescue people from crashed Electric Vehicles because they weren’t consulted about their design and introduction? Or SES volunteers refuse to rescue people from flooded homes because no-one asked them if it was a reasonable place to build? Or paramedics refuse to treat people who fall off cliffs because no-one asked them if it was a safe place to hike?
Conclusion
If there are legitimate safety concerns, then they need to be addressed and of course volunteers can refuse to do tasks that they consider are too dangerous.
But where a group refuse to fight a fire on land owned by a landholder who ‘agreed to host transmission lines on their properties’ rather than a fire near a transmission line, and who argue that they cannot fight transmission lines from renewable plants but want governments give what they decide is ‘”appropriate reconsideration of alternative solutions” including nuclear power, then this is, in my view, a clear attempt to use the goodwill of the CFA to bring political pressure to bear on governments.
The legal risk to those volunteers, as I see it, is they may put their membership of the CFA at risk but the CFA has to tread a very fine line so as not to be perceived to be ignoring safety risks and it may be that amongst the noise there really are safety issues arising in the new technology that need to be addressed.
This blog is made possible with generous financial support from the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.
Australian Emergency Law 
Thanks, Michael. As always, a clearly set out argument about the situation.
As a CFA volunteer myself, I find it alarming that a brigade is taking this position. I also feel for any volunteers in those brigades that have been railroaded into that position. I doubt the feelings are 100% for this stance, but any opposing voices would be very nervous to speak up in these situations.
For sure, as volunteers, they can choose not to volunteer on a particular day or for a particular job. But for the “brigade” to take this stance, especially when many members across Victoria would hold directly opposing views, drags the CFA into arguments it shouldn’t be involved in and distracts the CFA from what we are actually here to do.
The aspect that I do not see being addressed in this article, is that volunteers are being adversely affected, and view their community as being adversely affected. When other parties make decisions without regard to the needs, wellbeing and motivation of volunteers, you can expect volunteers to react.
Volunteering is not providing the Government, the Service or the Community with a blank cheque. Volunteers have the right to withdraw their services, and no-one has the right to expect that we turn out regardless.
In remote-rural areas, community is a primary motivation, and mutual protection from fire is regarded as part of the social contract and “cost of doing business”. Doing things that adversely affect your neighbours is regarded as a breach of that contract.
In this and similar cases, those who do not want or benefit from this kind of industrial development in farming land, are being forced to accept the cost of it. The common response is that “If you want renewables, then you put them on your land”.
With respect I think that I have addressed the issues in this comment.
First as for volunteers being adversely affected … [w]hen other parties make decisions …’ I have made the point that it is the very job of fire services to respond to risks created by others. Firefighting is managing the residual risk of fire. Other’s make decisions about development and fire safety standards. We make decision on acceptable mitigation, but we know that we do not get the risk fo fire to zero, so governments create fire services to deal with that residual risk. The job of firefighters, career and volunteer, is to respond when the residual risk is manifest.
I also noted that volunteers are free to turn out or not. What I did say is that there is a difference in deciding not to turn out, to say that one is unavailable for this call, and turning out in a CFA truck, wearing a CFA uniform, and then deciding not to do the job you have volunteered to do. If volunteers will make the decision of which fires they will fight, based on considerations other than immediate safety risk, where does that end. If a developer wants to develop a housing estate on what was farmland, do they have to ask the local CFA brigade if those members are happy for that happen and will they respond to a fire there? If ‘mutual protection’ is part of the ‘social contract’ will the CFA brigade refuse to turn out to the new housing estate if a certain percentage of residents do not volunteer as firefighters?
You say “In this and similar cases, those who do not want or benefit from this kind of industrial development in farming land, are being forced to accept the cost of it..”. As noted it is indeed the case that individuals have to accept developments that they may not like and we are all forced to bear the cost of that. If there is a change of government and a new government elect to have nuclear power, the next thousand generations will have to accept the cost of that by managing future waste. Equally if ‘this kind of industrial development’ does not go ahead, others, who want the development either for their personal gain or because of their view on de-carbonisation, will have to carry the cost of that decision. To balance those competing demands, we get to have our input by contributing to planning decisions and voting for elected officials that represent our views but if an alternate view has the support of the decision makers, then yes, others have to carry the cost. Nothing new here and something the CFA and all fire brigades have always done (see my first point, above).
Finally, you say ‘The common response is that “If you want renewables, then you put them on your land”’ but that appears to be inconsistent with the position that ‘…landowners who agreed to host transmission lines on their properties should not expect the assistance of firefighters’. Those people do want the renewable and do have them on their land, so why would the CFA refuse to fight a fire? A person who builds a house on farmland would expect the CFA to fight a fire on their land even though they could reduce their fire risk by living in town.
In conclusion I think my post did address all the issues you have raised in your comment. I just didn’t write an answer that concluded the concerns you’ve raised justify the action being taken.