Queenslanders and VMR....Coast Guard, What's doing ?

[Ronje1]

I don't see any hands up so I'll find answers from both both groups about specific issues that you guys are concerned about.

Phill already has "an iron in the fire" about amalgamation so we'll leave that matter and not muddy his water.

I'll kick the questions list off with:

. reciprocal membership arrangements;

Who wants to add to it?

[Ronje1]

Thought that maybe you guys (esp Phill) might be interested in this.

Its something that the Qld Dept of Emergency Services has been looking at of recent times.

Covid and then the Qld election has put the brakes on it but it'll start to move now I reckon.

Its known as the "blue water review" and is aimed at 1 single body of volunteer group under the auspices of the Qld DES. (amalgamation/consolidation/rationalisation/take-over..call it what you like.)

Slow progress. Its called the blue water review as it includes marine stuff beyond the beach breakers. Blue water AVCGA, VMR and Police.

White water is the beach and breakers (inc lifesavers) and Swift Water rescue (rapids/flooding units (Bureau Emergency Services/SES).

Review is being driven by Qld Dept Emergency Services and has been experiencing the predicted reactions from 1 party already.

Don't think of these VMR/AVCG units as just a bunch of volunteers who are floundering around in the MR space. They're not.

One single operational policy will come out of this review and it'll consist of an amalgam of DES, Police, VMR and ACVGA.

Small world. One of the guys I mentioned from the "older days" is still doing the same thing so it'll be good to catch up with him again after 25 years.

The other state organisation (VMR) is now run by a fellow I knew in Bundaberg when I was still involved in VMR/AVCGA in 2002.

he's happy to respond to your questions from me and has so already on reciprocal service stuff from VMRs perspective.

I need to get AVCGA info before passing both to you guys but I'm sure not inclined to ask your questions one at a time to each party.

So get that list together pronto.

Have a look at the report. Its an eye-opener.

But don't forget that the Qld Govt would not get off its backside and address the issues as they started to arise from the mid 80s.

The 2 groups did what they thought was needed to be done and cobbled together a system that worked OK (not perfectly) but was never funded properly by Govt.

These guys operated in a vacuum created by Govt disinterest.

It'd be fair to say that the Qld volunteer system of safety of life at sea worked in spite of govt not because of govt.

The review is now trying to unscramble the resulting omelette and shoehorn the Govt into it somehow. Never an easy task when 35 years late.

Have a good read of it.

https://www.qfes.qld.gov.au/Pages/Review-VMR.aspx

[Lucky_Phill]

Some questions I have:-

I'd like to see a " one name " organisation for all log on / off , questions and emergencies. Doesn't matter what it is, just has to be one name for Qld, marine services.

I'd like to see a compulsory fee for every vessel that enters smooth, partially smooth and open waters... marine. How that fee is applied , don't know...?

I'd like to see an " operators guide " and questions contained within the Marine and PWC licence hand book on Radio Procedures. VHF.

The gst should be removed from EPIRBs, Life Jackets and Flares..........

Reciprocal membership throughout the 47 stations Qld wide. As an option on membership level... similar to RACQ levels.... ?

It appears, from what I have seen, that to be a skipper on a larger rescue vessel, you must have a grey / white goatie, beard and or moustache ?.... amend this to our smooth skinned skippers-to-be.

A few more things, but it encompasses the whole " blue-water " environment for all stakeholders


LP

[CT]

Have a look at the report. Its an eye-opener.

Have a good read of it.

https://www.qfes.qld.gov.au/Pages/Review-VMR.aspx

I understand that the report is directly linked from the QFES website however I have some concerns with it. Firstly, it contains sections 2.0 and 2.2 randomly inserted in the front, with no reference to them in the table of contents. Secondly, there are large sections of redacted material. I understand that some of the contact details for individuals may be reasonably redacted but I see no reason why the financials would be. As charitable institutions I'd have thought the books would be open. There are also redacted sections where it seems illogical that material need be redacted.

Has anyone seen a full, unadulterated report?

[CT]

My thoughts added to Phill's post

I'd like to see a " one name " organisation for all log on / off , questions and emergencies. Doesn't matter what it is, just has to be one name for Qld, marine services. **Reasonable to achieve a common entity for the public to deal with.

I'd like to see a compulsory fee for every vessel that enters smooth, partially smooth and open waters... marine. How that fee is applied , don't know...? **I already pay a heap of boat and trailer rego plus CG membership. I'll substitute a fee, but don't want another one.

I'd like to see an " operators guide " and questions contained within the Marine and PWC licence hand book on Radio Procedures. VHF. ** Reasonable

The gst should be removed from EPIRBs, Life Jackets and Flares..........**Agree but I fear pissing into the wind on that one!

Reciprocal membership throughout the 47 stations Qld wide. As an option on membership level... similar to RACQ levels.... ? **100%. My biggest wish from any process.




LP

[Noelm]

Some questions I have:-

I'd like to see a " one name " organisation for all log on / off , questions and emergencies. Doesn't matter what it is, just has to be one name for Qld, marine services.

I'd like to see a compulsory fee for every vessel that enters smooth, partially smooth and open waters... marine. How that fee is applied , don't know...?

I'd like to see an " operators guide " and questions contained within the Marine and PWC licence hand book on Radio Procedures. VHF.

The gst should be removed from EPIRBs, Life Jackets and Flares..........

Reciprocal membership throughout the 47 stations Qld wide. As an option on membership level... similar to RACQ levels.... ?

It appears, from what I have seen, that to be a skipper on a larger rescue vessel, you must have a grey / white goatie, beard and or moustache ?.... amend this to our smooth skinned skippers-to-be.

A few more things, but it encompasses the whole " blue-water " environment for all stakeholders


LP

I think that covers most options, however the GST on safety equipment is kind of out of scope, don't disagree, but it's kind of not related to what is trying to be achieved (in my opinion) the rescue "skipper" description is quite apt, but not 100% correct in all cases. I guess in a way, a fee is already applied when you register your boat, where this money goes is anyone's guess, perhaps a nominated amount be sent directly to rescue coffers?

[Noelm]

I guess to go just a bit further on the reciprocal thing, how about an interstate cover for the casual operator on holidays, it's fine if someone from QLD comes to NSW, our rescue is free, but if someone goes to (say) an event in QLD on a one off trip, and breaks down at Fitzroy and needs a tow home, it can get expensive real quick, maybe a simple temporary setup, similar to our fishing license could be worked out, say a week or month "membership"

[stevej]

anyone looked at the issue of paid worker versus being a volunteer ?

the cost of a full time paid worker is a lot higher then a volunteer this is why it would never get through
you see it in the volounteer fire brigades the paid boys have all the flash rigs and safety gear because HR demands it but the part timers use stuff from the 70s

to run them all under paid roles the gov just wont come up with the money to have all those volunteers labeled as employees of the gov

[chris69]

anyone looked at the issue of paid worker versus being a volunteer ?

the cost of a full time paid worker is a lot higher then a volunteer this is why it would never get through
you see it in the volounteer fire brigades the paid boys have all the flash rigs and safety gear because HR demands it but the part timers use stuff from the 70s

to run them all under paid roles the gov just wont come up with the money to have all those volunteers labeled as employees of the gov

If paid workers were involved I don't think the boats would like to pay for the extra $100 on the rego its takes double the wage to run someone normally but being state gov double it and add half ,even thought the Volunteer rescue guys get training there would be 3 times the amount if a payed person was involved.

[Noelm]

The issue of paid "professionals" is another can of worms altogether, in a very similar way, NSW had another shit fight with life saver/life guards, all beach patrols and surf clubs were volunteers, and had the familiar red and yellow shirts and stuff, then (I don't know why) somewhere, somehow paid life guards appeared, in the blue shirts (even that was a drama, not wearing the normal old colours) anyone who has seen the TV show "Bondi Rescue" will see the blue shirt guys, these guys get well paid to do what the volunteers do for free, so, considerable friction exists.

[Lucky_Phill]

yep , Noel, I understand about the gst being out of scope for state issues, but threw it in as an option, maybe something the groups can take to the table if they ever get into discussions.. Just something a state MP or body can chat to their Federal counterpart about.

And, as all negations go, ask for three things, knowing you don't really want one of them and when the offer comes back minus that one thing... everybody wins mmmm

LP

[Ronje1]

Vollies in Qld are all considered employees under Qld Workplace Health and Safety legislation.

So organisations using volunteers must still provide a safe working environment. How do they do that where there's an inherent element of risk as in rescue work?

The risk can't be eliminated so the organisation has to mitigate it with risk management plans as per state legislation

Over the last 20 years, legislation affecting maritime rescue operations has slowly been moving into the thinking of the two major organisations involved.

Ditto with rural firies, life savers. With lifesavers, some people are paid directly by Council to provide the service. Contractor organisations (eg personnel workforce providers are common around Qld these days particularly in the mining sector).
Contractors are paid to provide life-saving services. Swimming pools pay some employees to provide the service.

In the early 80s a guy known as John Friedrichs (from Germany) could see what big holes there were in the Victoria's safety and rescue service. He got himself a job with Vic National Safety Council, talked banks into providing money (a few hundred $million - maybe $300 million) to buy equipment to improve service. He ended up shooting himself in 1991 following fraud charges etc laid by Vic police. I recall a 30 min conversation with John in which I tried to work out which tactics worked for him. I was like a babe in the woods compared to what drove him but it was an lightening 30 mins never-the-less.

Was he a crook? I don't think so. I think he simply moved into a vacuum that existed in Vic (and other states) at that time. It wasn't just Qld. His heart was in the right place but he just went about things outside the usual bureaucratic circles.

Bureaucrats are process focused. Guys like John Friedrichs are outcomes focused.

AVCGA is processed focused (managed from top down). VMR is outcomes focused (managed from bottom up). Big difference in motivation and methods employed.

Whatever recommendations come out of this review, the result will involve a bureaucracy.

It will be a single entity outcome and it'll be run by a Qld govt bureaucracy.

The only reason we're going through the convoluted process is to work out who will be manning the services and the operating conditions.

There will almost certainly be a rationalisation in the number of operating bases.

The operating bases are invariably at or near marinas/boat ramps etc and usually on Council/govt land so resuming the base sites would be on the cards.

The equipment? Not so simple. There are a lot of radiocommunication sites and equipment along the Qld coast that the 2 groups own outright and have for years.

Police communications guys, Forestry, Transport, Councils, Farmers, general community and commercial two-way companies have been generous over a long time with access and maintenance for the networks operated by VMR and AVCGA.

So we're not just talking about a simple excercise in amalgamation. It IS a take-over but its one by the Qld Govt bureaucrats.

You guys need to watch what's happening or you'll have a lot more than reciprocal membership arrangements to worry about.

There's a political element to it as well.

Local communities support their local maritime rescue groups and have helped raise funds etc etc. THEY don't want to see an govt bureaucracy take over THEIR service.

Local businesses support the local community. I can recall being invited to Bundaberg Distillery in 1985 to discuss a grant for $50,000 requested of them. I said to my mate" You don't get invited to the boardroom to be told no. That's done at the front office. We should have asked for $100,000".
Their marketing guys threw out our suggestion of "Spirit of Bundaberg' as the boat name and insisted on " Bundy Rum'. They had the money so "Bundy Rum' it became. Mate observed that we were lucky it wasn't Lever & kitchen that we approached otherwise it'd be called Sunlight Soap or Rinso or something.

Knew exactly what John Friedrichs was doing and why he was doing it. Cutting through the bureaucracy and its red tape.

The most important rule of govt (any type of govt) is that you don't have a review unless you have a planned outcome. This blue water review is such a review.

The current system that the 2 groups put together had its issues as you expect. They were only minor things and didn't reflect on their efficiency as rescue operators.

Govt wanted to listen to complaints of boaties being asked to pay for avoidable services ( not life threatening etc.) and complaints of reciprocal membership rights etc. Minor stuff compared to somebody being there if you got into real trouble.

Each body has reciprocal membership arrangements "within the body". say a member of VMR from s/e visits Bundaberg/Hervey Bay and gets towed in. They're asked to pay and then the VMR from their home area refunds them whatever amount their home membership provides for that sort of service. Ditto for out-of-state visitors. That's how VMR works.

There are no reciprocal arrangements between AVCGA & VMR.

Haven't spoken to CG yet.

I know now that some VMR groups have indeed successfully pursued re-imbursement for non-lifethreatening incidents via Qld's small claims tribunal . Took a long time but they eventually did it.


State Emergency Service

[Ronje1]

It appears, from what I have seen, that to be a skipper on a larger rescue vessel, you must have a grey / white goatie, beard and or moustache ?.... amend this to our smooth skinned skippers-to-be.

Sure sounds that way, eh?

However, there are two main people on the bigger boats where space allows (larger vessels).

One is the boat skipper who is responsible for the safe navigation of the vessel.

The other is the On-scene Commander who usually isn't the skipper. He/she is responsible for the efficient execution of the operation.

The OSC is responsible for the liasion and execution of operations, movements and activities. The skipper ensures that those things are done safely.

The local VHF marine repeater or similar long range VHF is the "window in" to the OSC from the land based rescue coordinator and the "on-scene S&R VHF Ch" is used for local on-scene coordination. That's Ch 6 on VHF marine. Dedicated search aircraft will have VHF marine.

The boat has to be capable of communicating with ANY UNIT involved in the on-scene activities.

So there are 2 VHF marine radios necessary for the boat already. Some boaties only have 27mhz marine so there's another one = 3.

Plus h/f. = 4

Also a mobile phone for passage of info not for public where range allows. External antenna for phone for marginal areas.

Any land based involvement is up to the rescue coordinator to sort out. Beach searches, observers on high points etc. Vessel will have enough on its plate.

Apart from formal maritime quals (a minimum requirement) , the skipper had/has to be considered suitable to utilise the AVCGA or VMR boat. They costa-lota. So there's also a in-house vetting process.

Experience with Govt is that bureaucracy will reign supreme.

Govt will introduce sufficient bureaucracy to dumb things down to community complaint level.

Then back it off a bit to bring the complaint level back to manageable.

AVCGA can't vote. Neither can VMR. The vollies can (but only a very small proportion of the community). Its the community voices that Govts listen to (sometimes) so it'll be a matter of finding the right complaint level.

Qld govt now has 4 years to finalise the report, consult, implement the opening stages and bed them down.

It won't all happen at once. Introduction of changes will be staged

Expect some faster progress in first 12 months, though.

[Ronje1]

AVCGA policy on reciprocal membership matters varies from place to place and (depending on the personalities involved) may extend to visiting boatie members of VMR . Informant was not aware of AVCGA taking action to recover costs associated non-life threatening tasking.

You'll note that the report has dedacted (blacked out sections) which are not for general viewing. I have those dedacted bits and can see why the review committee didn't want anybody to see them.

Smart money is that the eventual volunteer maritime rescue system will be run by the Qld Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner.

Qld coastline will be divided into districts (similar to police districts) and each managed by a Asst Commissioner (or similar title) who will be responsible for running ALL VMR and AVCGA units within the district.

A single ops policy will be put into place and deployment of any unit will be a decision by the QFES manager as will any expenditure. No longer will individual units have decisions on what jobs to attend to. QFES manager will hold that responsibility.

The QFES manager will ensure readiness of units to meet the Service Standards agreements (they exist already).

Word within the units by the vollies is that the QFES can run everything as far as they're concerned including manning, radio watch, maintenance (contractor arrangements with QFES).

So far, future involvement by majority of volunteers is looking precarious at the moment. Time will tell, I guess.

QFES has a reputation of having the bed-side manner of Attila the Hun.

More hope than confidence in a successful outcome.

[Ronje1]

Attached are the "blacked out"/dedacted/censored sections of the report.

Its mostly obvious why the censor's black pencil was busy.

Mainly it was to do with the mess that AVCGA management has got itself into in Qld over the years.

Secondly to do with the shortcomings of the Qld Govt in relation to its role (or non-role in most instances) and how important subjects like boatie education, qualifications, etc have been mismanaged over the years.

Frankly the AVCGA management and Qld Govt administration have both been woeful.

Now we have tweedle-dee pointing the finger at tweedle-dum as can now easily be seen by filling in the censored comments which weren't supposed to get out for the "great unwashed" (boating public) to see.

Don't forget what I said about the 2 different styles of management. AVCGA from the top down and VMR from the bottom up. Obviously 1 works better than the other.

QFES is a classic case of management from the top down. Poised with a bucket of eggs and a big stick. Omelette or a mess?

Govt Depts have a habit of becoming self-serving and irrelevant (Qld Fisheries is a prime example).

They operate with a philosophy of " We've got a really good little public service operation going here. It's a pity that these pesky community requests for service keep getting in the way".

Attachment 122573