David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

In November 2014 I spoke about the case of David Waters and his dismissal by one of Australia's biggest companies, Goodyear Dunlop. David is one of Australia's top sporting shooters. He has won many competitions and medals both domestically and internationally. In July 2015, while at work, David agreed to meet a member of a rifle club similar to his own. The visitor, Liz, a 59-year-old woman, is a keen shooter looking to excel in her sport. Liz had called to see if David would be at the range on Saturday, as she needed advice on fitting an accessory to her new target rifle. However, David was leaving for an overseas trip in a couple of days to participate in a world championship. David suggested that the only way Liz could see him was during the lunchbreak at work.

Liz agreed and drove into the basement car park that Goodyear shares with several other businesses in the building. Visitors have been allowed to park there for a long time. David was expecting her to turn up with the accessory only; however, she also brought the rifle to which it was to be fitted. Until she took it out of her car David did not know she had the rifle with her. This is an expensive target rifle. Liz is a responsible shooter and, therefore, the bolt and magazine had been removed, and the rifle was obviously not loaded. At no point did the rifle present a risk to anyone. Unsure of his legal position, David nonetheless suggested to Liz that she return the rifle to her car and leave. However, within a couple of minutes and before that could occur, the police showed up.

The car park entrance is open to the street. A passer-by must have noticed the rifle being removed from the car and, within a couple of minutes, three police officers arrived. Over the next half-hour or so, 16 arrived. They arrested David and Liz and searched their cars. They accompanied David upstairs to his office to retrieve his identification and car keys. He was not charged, for the obvious reason that he had committed no offence. Liz was charged over the transport of ammunition, but no conviction was recorded. Not surprisingly, some of David's work colleagues saw him being accompanied to his office by the police and drew their own conclusions. People do that.

David was instructed to attend a disciplinary hearing. He was suspended without pay. I attended the hearing with David. Those present were Trent Hudson, Goodyear's HR consultant, and Anil Singh, finance director and David's immediate boss. Mr Hudson, who now works for Foxtel, did most of the talking, adopting a condescending and patronising manner towards both of us. After an hour or so David was summarily sacked with no compensation, no notice or pay in lieu, on the grounds that his conduct had had a 'significant reputational impact' on the company.

The letter that followed set out the injustice in detail. It said he had breached company policy by allowing firearms and ammunition on company property. This is a lie; David had no prior knowledge that it would be in Liz's car. The letter said he had breached Goodyear Australia's standards and conduct manual but did not specify what the breach was. It said he 'failed to ensure the safety and security of fellow associates, building tenants and Goodyear assets'. Safety and security were never jeopardised. It said he was responsible for conduct that resulted in a complaint and formal warning against Goodyear by the building owner. This is a lie. It said David was responsible for conduct that has resulted in a financial penalty against Goodyear by the building owner. This is another lie. It said there was a 'breach of trust in the employment relationship', again without explanation. David had been employed by Goodyear for 12 years.

In summary, it said, 'Your actions placed Goodyear in a position whereby it was in breach of its obligation to provide a safe and secure working environment for its associates,' which is false and an outright lie. There was no threat to the safety of anyone. The mere presence of a rifle does not constitute a threat, and is in any case trivial in the presence of at least 16 police officers, each of whom carries a firearm. This is an outrageous injustice. What occurred should never have attracted attention in the first place. We Australians are rightly proud of our Olympic, Commonwealth Games and world championship shooters and the medals they regularly bring home. Unfortunately, it seems that the rest of the time they are treated as presumptive criminals. It has to stop.

David took action against Goodyear in the kangaroo court known as the Fair Work Commission. Goodyear refused to negotiate in the conciliation phase. Goodyear turned up with four lawyers and a pile of documents containing lies and distortions, which it dumped on him on the day of the case. It was shameful. David defended himself and did a fine job. The company's lawyers—Hentys Lawyers, led by David Marks—even tried to use my support for him to pursue their assertion that he had done something wrong. It was totally unprofessional and disgraceful. He was awarded pay for four weeks on the grounds that his dismissal should not have been summary, and yet the commissioner maintained the fiction that David could have, and should have, foreseen that Liz would arrive with a rifle and prevented it.

This is not the end of the matter. There are consequences for Goodyear. Australia's sporting shooters are beginning to know about Goodyear and its treatment of David. Firearm owners around the world will come to know about it. Virtually all of Australia's 800,000 licensed firearm owners drive cars for which they require tyres. Virtually all of those licensed firearm owners have friends and relatives who also drive cars requiring tyres. Virtually any Australian who looks at what happened and says, 'That is manifestly unfair,' drives a car. Virtually every firearm owner around the world who recognises injustice to a fellow shooter also drives a vehicle with tyres.

I am calling on firearm owners around the world, wherever they are, to stop buying products made by Goodyear until it does the right thing by David. Those products come under the brands Goodyear, Dunlop and Beaurepaires. I am calling on Goodyear to hold responsible those employees responsible for this outrage and those employees who have done nothing to rectify it—Asia Pacific President of Goodyear, Chris Delaney, in particular.

Firearm owners cannot afford to allow this injustice to stand, even if it takes 20 years to fix. Because, when they come for one of us in the morning, they will be coming for the rest of us that night.