if those involved are not motivated to perform
Paul1405,
the motivation is the Welfare payments & peer pressure will ensure the rest, followed by personal satisfaction. All that's needed is a starting gun !

The idea of paying willing volunteers is just another one of the stupid ideas emanating from the appalling mob hysteria that Australians are suffering from at the moment because of somewhat worse than usual bushfires. Paying volunteer fighters wouldn't make a whit of difference, apart from involving more red tape and bureaucrats, and probably unions. The government has, rightly, decided to abandon the push for a surplus so that there is money for a proper investigation into fire mitigation in the future.

Any other crackpot ideas,like paying volunteers, are just attempts to cover up the fact that the responsibility for fiercer fires than are normal for Australia lies fairly and squarely with Green Labor and eco-nuts who have done everything they could have to increase the frequency and ferocity of bushfires.

Why do some people here think that employers should be required to continue to pay wages for firefighters if they choose to fightfires instead of turning up for work?

This is a really be BAD idea. What this would do is incentivize employers to NOT hire/employee fire fighters.
Put youself in this scenario: You have two potential employees with exactly the same skills and experience but one was a firefighter while the other not. Now the one which is a firefighter may at ANYTIME disappear and you will still HAVE TO PAY their wages. Which would you hire?
See how how this is a really stupid idea!

Now instead consider this scenario: the GOVERNMENT pays the firefighters (how the government raises money for this is a different debate) AND ALSO GIVES EMPLOYERS a bit money whenever a firefighting employee serves their community by fighting-fires. Now which out of the two employees in previous case would the business hire?
See here how we now incentivize people/business better. ie: the business would prefer to hire firefighters. And thus more people (particularly such as the currently unemployed) would want to become firefighters since they are now more employable.

I would employ the volunteer person, they show initiative, team involvement, resourcefulness, leadership, with what would be minimal cost to me. Its a no brainier.

I have actually interviewed people for positions, and I have looked favourably on their non job related extracurricular activities as an indicator as to what kind of person they are.

What have you done thinkabit?

Paul1450: I would do want any sensible business person whould do. I would hire the person that gives me the most return for the wages I spend. ie: the non-firefighter.

I don't know you're personal circumstances but I'll tell you mine. I'm middle aged and retired with a considerable amount of money. So how do you think I got that money? Well, I accumulated that wealth by being savvy with money. Have you accumulated enough wealth to retire early? Have you ever been your own boss? Have you ever employed people? Or are you the usual left-wing whinger who rely on other people to provide them work and opportunity? Or worse still are you living off the government?

I the real world (ie: the private sector) the crapola that people put on CV's about how good a person they are is totally ignored by employers. When an employer employs someone, all they care about is that: 1) you're capable of doing the work, 2) you will do the work properly without causing trouble and lastly 3) you turn up every day to do the work that you're meant to do. Employers in the main really couldn't give a toss about what you do outside of work (except when you're stupid enough to have a social media account where you defame the them or put the business in a bad light).

Paul1450: You mention the attributes "initiative, resourcefulness, leadership", these are not attributes that employers would find very useful in most employees. Indeed many employers would find these to be a negative. The vast majority of employees are doing routine, systematic, tightly organised/planned work. Whether it be flipping burgers at MacDonalds, answering phones at a call center, assembling stuff, machining stuff, doing nursing rounds taking vital signs, picking fruit, laying bricks, processing forms in an office, conducting/teaching a regular repetitive class, etc..
People who want to be leaders and creative are not well adapted to this sort of work and their "initiative" will most likely cause them to leave the job shortly after the employer has spent time,money and effort training them up in their workplace systems.

The qualities you've listed are those best suited and desired by people who are self-employed and/or employers.

(PS: Just a little correction: In my last post: "I would do want any..." should be "I would do what any...")