Victorian Volunteers Deserve Equal Safety Rights!

I am a CFA volunteer, a safety guy (if you haven't already picked that up), and a member of the CFA Volunteer Group (CFAVG). I have also previously volunteered with the State Emergency Service (SES), Bush Search and Resuce Victoria (BSAR), Wildlife Victoria, and other volunteer organisations.

 

I support changes to Victoria’s Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 so volunteers are recognised as workers for safety purposes and can access equivalent protections to those available under the model work health and safety framework.

 

Volunteers should have a legally enforceable voice in decisions about the work they perform and the hazards they face. Whether somebody receives a wage should not determine their access to effective safety representation or the duties owed to monitor their occupational health.

 

This page explains my position and the legislative gaps behind it. I write in my personal capacity, and the views expressed here are my own rather than an official statement on behalf of CFA or CFAVG.

 

The gap in Victoria’s OHS legislation

Victoria’s OHS Act gives volunteers protection, including through section 23, which requires employers to protect people other than their employees from risks arising from their undertaking, so far as reasonably practicable. However, its definition of employee does not generally include volunteers, and several specific rights and duties are built around employment. Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, sections 5 and 23.

 

Under the model WHS Act, a person carrying out work for a person conducting a business or undertaking, known as a PCBU, can be a worker regardless of whether they are paid. Section 7 expressly includes volunteers, bringing them within a framework of worker protection and participation. Model WHS Act, section 7.

 

My concern is the difference between being protected as another person affected by an organisation’s activities and having an enforceable role within its safety system. Volunteers should be able to help identify risks, influence controls and escalate unresolved concerns through statutory mechanisms.

​

​​

 

Where the differences matter

The comparison below concerns volunteers working for an organisation covered by the relevant legislation. It compares Victoria’s employee-based framework with the model WHS approach, while recognising that each jurisdiction’s enacted legislation governs the detail.

 

Consultation

Victoria: The OHS Act’s employee consultation duty does not generally extend to volunteers. Separate CFA Charter arrangements are explained below.

​

Model WHS: The PCBU must consult affected workers, including volunteers, so far as reasonably practicable.

 

Electing safety representatives

Victoria: Designated work groups and statutory HSR elections are based on employees. Volunteer status alone does not provide access to that representation.

 

Model WHS: Eligible volunteer workers can participate in work groups and elect an HSR, including an eligible volunteer member.

 

Formal escalation through an HSR

Victoria: Volunteers cannot establish their own statutory HSR and PIN pathway merely by appointing a brigade safety representative.

 

Model WHS: Appropriately elected and trained HSRs can issue PINs within their powers and the statutory conditions.

 

Monitoring occupational health

Victoria: Section 22(1)(a) expressly concerns the health of employees. Volunteers do not receive that same express entitlement through this provision.

 

Model WHS: Section 19(3)(g) includes monitoring workers’ health and workplace conditions to prevent work-related illness or injury, so far as reasonably practicable.

 

Resolving unsafe work

Victoria: The employee and HSR processes in Part 7 do not give volunteers equivalent access in their volunteer capacity.

 

Model WHS: Workers and HSRs have statutory issue-resolution and unsafe-work cessation mechanisms, subject to their conditions.

 

The consultation comparison is supported by WorkSafe Victoria’s volunteer guidance and the model WHS Act, sections 47 to 49. Representation and escalation are explained in WorkSafe’s designated work group guidance, its HSR powers guidance, and Safe Work Australia’s HSR guidance.

 

Consultation should be an enforceable safety duty

WorkSafe Victoria’s volunteer guidance states: “Consulting with volunteers is not a legal duty under the OHS Act”. It recommends consultation as good practice, while identifying a legal consultation duty for employees. WorkSafe Victoria, volunteer health and safety.

 

For me, that difference matters when decisions are made about appliances, protective equipment, training arrangements or exposure controls. The people who will use the equipment and perform the work should have a legally supported opportunity to explain what happens in practice before decisions are finalised.

 

CFA does have separate consultation arrangements recognised in legislation. Sections 6G and 6H of the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 recognise the Volunteer Charter, including the commitment to consultation with Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria on behalf of volunteers, and require CFA to have regard to the Charter’s commitments and principles. Country Fire Authority Act 1958, sections 6G and 6H.

 

Those arrangements deserve acknowledgement, but they do not make a volunteer an employee under the OHS Act or establish the same statutory HSR powers for volunteers. My position is that volunteers should have enforceable OHS consultation and representation rights alongside those existing arrangements.

 

Safety representatives need statutory powers

An internal safety role can help a brigade identify hazards and raise concerns. However, an organisation’s choice of title does not itself give that person the powers of an elected HSR under the OHS Act, whose role is tied to a designated work group. WorkSafe Victoria, designated work groups.

 

A statutory HSR can examine risks, represent their work group and use formal mechanisms to pursue unresolved safety matters. These powers support a representative who needs more than another email asking whether anyone has had a chance to look at the problem. WorkSafe Victoria, powers of HSRs.

 

I want volunteers to be able to elect representatives who can exercise equivalent powers for their work groups. They also need access to the training, information and time required to make that representation effective.

 

Queensland as an example of the Model Act (in force within NSW, SA, Qld, NT, ACT, Tas, WA)

Queensland’s Work Health and Safety Act 2011 expressly includes volunteers in its worker definition. Its framework allows eligible workers to elect HSRs, and an appropriately trained HSR can issue a provisional improvement notice when the statutory grounds and consultation requirements are satisfied. Queensland WHS Act, sections 7, 60 and 90.

 

A PIN is a formal mechanism for requiring a contravention to be remedied, subject to statutory review provisions. It is issued by an HSR, while an inspector’s improvement notice is a separate enforcement instrument. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, compliance monitoring and enforcement policy.

 

For a fleet issue, the practical value is the ability to move an unresolved safety concern into a defined statutory process. The notice still needs proper grounds, and the organisation can seek review; this is a mechanism for accountability rather than an automatic finding against it.

 

Occupational health monitoring should follow the exposure

Section 22(1)(a) of Victoria’s OHS Act requires employers to monitor their employees’ health so far as reasonably practicable. Section 22 also contains employee-specific duties concerning health and safety records and access to suitably qualified OHS advice, which illustrates why a general duty to other people does not reproduce every employee-specific requirement. OHS Act, section 22; WorkSafe Victoria, legal duties.

 

In Queensland, the general monitoring duty in section 19(3)(g) concerns workers, which includes covered volunteers. More specific health monitoring requirements depend on the relevant exposure and legal trigger, so worker status does not mean an automatic entitlement to every available medical test. Queensland WHS Act, sections 7 and 19.

 

Health monitoring for hazardous chemicals is directed at identifying health effects from relevant occupational exposure. The type and frequency depend on the substance, risk and applicable requirements, with suitable medical oversight; a general wellbeing check is not automatically an equivalent programme. Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, health monitoring.

 

CFA has publicly documented health initiatives for volunteers, including Healthwatch. The existence of those initiatives should be acknowledged, while keeping separate the question of whether volunteers have equivalent express statutory occupational health monitoring protections. CFA, Healthwatch.

 

My position is that decisions about exposure assessment and appropriate health monitoring should be based on the work performed and the risk involved. A volunteer’s unpaid status should not be the reason an express protective duty stops short of them.

 

Psychological health belongs in this discussion

Exposure to traumatic events, poor support and organisational practices can create psychological health risks in emergency services work. WorkSafe’s Psychological Health Compliance Code recognises these hazards and confirms both that volunteers are not employees and that section 23 protects people other than employees from risks arising from the employer’s undertaking. WorkSafe Victoria, Psychological Health Compliance Code, Part 1.

 

Volunteers therefore do have protection against psychological harm, but the employee-based provisions do not automatically give them an equivalent package of participation rights and specific duties. I want reform to address prevention of psychological injury, including the ability to raise concerns and participate in decisions about how those risks are controlled.

 

Existing duties still need enforcement

The legislative gap does not mean CFA is exempt from WorkSafe oversight or that incidents involving volunteers can never be notifiable. WorkSafe’s volunteer guidance expressly recognises employer protection and incident-notification duties involving volunteers, with notification dependent on the statutory circumstances. WorkSafe Victoria, volunteer health and safety.

 

The Act’s definition of workplace refers to places where employees or self-employed people work, which requires attention when assessing particular provisions at a location staffed by volunteers. However, section 23 concerns risks arising from the employer’s undertaking and is not confined to an employee being physically present when the risk arises. OHS Act, sections 5 and 23.

 

I support reform and proper use of the duties that already exist. Any claim about a particular regulator decision should be assessed against its records and reasons, rather than assumed from the volunteer status of the people involved.

 

The change I support

I support amendments that recognise volunteers as workers for OHS purposes and carry that recognition through the provisions that actually provide protection. Adding a definition alone would not resolve employee-specific consultation, monitoring and representation provisions left elsewhere in the legislation.

 

Reform should give volunteers access to elected HSRs and their statutory powers, with practical arrangements for training and representation across dispersed brigades. It should also extend the relevant health monitoring duties and provide effective issue-resolution processes, including protection against adverse treatment for legitimately raising safety concerns.

 

The model framework also includes limits, including the exclusion for genuinely volunteer-only associations that do not employ anyone. Volunteers working for covered organisations have reasonable-care duties of their own, so reform needs clear explanations of both protections and responsibilities. Model WHS Act, section 5; Safe Work Australia, volunteers’ WHS duties.

 

As a CFA volunteer and CFAVG member, I support a system in which volunteers can participate directly in the decisions that affect their safety and use enforceable mechanisms when concerns remain unresolved. My proposed measure of success is whether a volunteer can obtain the same relevant protection and effective response to a safety concern as a paid worker exposed to that risk.