Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

The proposed agreement is an objectionable emergency management term, given that clause 7A of the proposed agreement specifically provides that:

The role of volunteers in fighting bushfires and maintaining community safety and delivering high quality services to the public … is not altered by this agreement.

With one exception nothing in the agreement prevents:

…volunteers in the CFA from providing the services normally provided by such volunteers.

The opposition will seek to clarify these matters during a Senate inquiry. I make this point now only to emphasise that ultimately it does not matter what the government thinks is objectionable or even what Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria thinks is objectionable. It only matters what the Fair Work Commission determines is objectionable. In the event that the Fair Work Commission determines that these or other clauses in the agreement are objectionable then the commission can choose not to approve the agreement or can approve the agreement subject to undertakings about those clauses.

If the Country Fire Authority, or any other employee's bargaining representative, disagrees with the decision of the Fair Work Commission they could appeal to the full bench of the Fair Work Commission, and from there to the Federal Court. Further, given the views of the respected academics, including Professor Andrew Stewart, that the bill may be unconstitutional, one could expect that the legislation itself will be challenged. In his submission to the Senate inquiry, Professor Stewart said:

In summary, I am concerned that the amendments proposed in the bill would be difficult to apply and potentially subject to a constitutional challenge. They are intended to help resolve a single dispute at a single state agency, yet the uncertainty they would create would likely serve to exacerbate that dispute and delay its resolution. Furthermore, at least some of the issues raised by that dispute can be addressed through legal mechanisms that already exist.

The enactment of this bill does not guarantee any speedy resolution to this matter. In the meantime, there is nothing but uncertainty for the workforce of the CFA, and all the CFA volunteers, and no foundation for mending the fences that have been broken in the course of this dispute. Compare this to the current Supreme Court case, which will be resolved shortly.

The opposition has other concerns about the impact of the government's approach on community safety that we will be exploring in the Senate inquiry. The 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission found that:

Some organisational factors inhibited the fire authorities' response on Black Saturday, and the full potential of operational capability that was not exploited because of differences in processes and procedures.

The Victorian government has advised that the proposed agreement contains numerous clauses to improve the way the Metropolitan Fire Brigade and CFA work together. This includes secondments, a single training course and standard equipment, giving effect to recommendations of the Black Saturday Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. It is unclear what impact the government's legislation will have on those clauses of the agreement.

There are at least two clauses that the Prime Minister objected to in his second reading speech, which have potential negative safety implications. The first relates to the dispatch of paid and volunteer firefighters. The Prime Minister claims that the agreement interferes with the capacity of the CFA to manage its volunteers by mandating that a minimum of seven paid firefighters are dispatched before the paid firefighters commence firefighting operations.

There has been considerable confusion about this particular clause of this agreement, in large part perpetuated by the dishonesty of the Minister for Employment who, in an opinion piece in the Herald Sun, claimed that the proposed agreement required seven paid firefighters to be present before CFA personnel are able to be deployed to a fire.

As the opposition understands the proposal, nothing about this clause affects the dispatch of volunteers or the commencement of firefighting operations. In other words, just as is the case now, if a truck with volunteer firefighters turns up first and puts the fire out, that is that. If a truck with paid firefighters turns up first and puts the fire out, that is that. What this would mean, however, is that the safety of those first firefighters is protected—that they are guaranteed backup. That is in the interests of all firefighters and the community generally.

The second clause the opposition is concerned about in this context relates to the wearing of uniforms. The Prime Minister claims that the uniforms of volunteers cannot be the same as those provided to paid firefighters. Through the Senate committee, the opposition will ask whether this is a fair representation of the issue by the Prime Minister. Schedule 20 of the proposed agreement says:

… station wear and uniform must be significantly visually distinguishable for professional firefighters … This shall not prevent the CFA from providing PPC—

personal protective clothing—

and uniform of the same standard to volunteer firefighters …

The opposition understands that paid firefighters have sought visual distinction so that the person in control of a fire can make the operational decisions based on sound information about the level of training, skills and qualifications of the firefighter they are directing. Again, this would seem to be a matter of community and firefighter safety.

It is worth noting that, in the absence of the legislation, section 27 of the Fair Work Act already makes clear that state laws like the CFA Act cannot be overridden by enterprise agreements in certain circumstances. The chair of the CFA board has confirmed with the chief officer of the CFA that the proposed agreement cannot interfere with or detract from the chief officer's powers and obligations under the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 concerning directions to perform work relating to the provision of essential services or in situations of emergency. The opposition will seek to examine these issues in committee.

The Prime Minister has consistently urged Labor to support the volunteers, not the paid firefighters. Well, Labor supports all of our professional firefighters—those who volunteer and those who are paid. They provide a critical service to the community, and community safety depends on both volunteers and paid firefighters. Of course, a true leader knows this. A true leader unites the community. A true leader—indeed, a Prime Minister—when confronted with a dispute between two remarkable sets of people, would look to reconcile differences and disagreements, find a solution and an accommodation, and lead by example, not inflame tensions, politicise those differences and misrepresent the circumstances of this matter.

We would say the Prime Minister has done everything he can to divide the community. We would say what is truly disconcerting is that the Prime Minister's intervention was more about helping himself during an election campaign than helping the volunteers that fight fires in Victoria. Labor would say that this is unconscionable conduct by the Prime Minister, and we would add that he has been aided and abetted by a hapless Minister for Employment—a minister who, when interviewed by David Speers and being asked 14 times what were the effects on volunteers of the proposed enterprise agreement, could not answer the question. She was incapable of answering about the potential effects upon volunteers from the approval of the enterprise agreement, which really raises the question: what is this about? If the minister cannot explain the effect on volunteers and cannot explain the true impact of this legislation, it really shows that the government is not sincere about resolving this matter but really wants to play politics in Victoria between two sets of remarkable people.

We saw that interview. You would have to say it was beyond satire. If you fell upon it when you were watching your television, you would think it was two comedians having a skit. It was that farcical. The minister, being asked a trick question by David Speers on 14 occasions—'What is the effect of the agreement on volunteers?'—could not answer that question on each and every occasion it was asked of her. I would invite members and senators, if they want to know what this is about, to watch that interview to show that the minister is not across her brief, has not read the agreement and does not understand the impact of this legislation.

There are too many questions about this legislation for the Labor Party to even consider supporting it. There are too many uncertain provisions that arguably will lead to greater litigation rather than resolve this matter. There are questions of constitutionality. There are questions as to whether, in fact, agencies outside the Northern Territory, the ACT and Victoria will be affected or not. Some say that it might involve emergency agencies of other states because of the recent Federal Court case that deemed the CFA to be a corporation. Others—including, indeed, the department, whom I thank for their briefing—advise that it is confined to those three jurisdictions. But, even if it is only to apply to the two territories and Victoria, what briefing has the government provided to the ACT government and the newly elected Northern Territory government? The answer to that is, of course, that they have not provided a briefing. What, too, about the question as to whether in fact it does apply to agencies outside those three jurisdictions? These are matters that are unresolved.

So the problem we have with the motives of the government is that it has never been about resolving what is a genuine dispute that needs resolution in Victoria. Labor would agree with that. We want to see a resolution to this matter, but it is not going to be helped through the ill motivation of the government and by politicising this matter, and we would argue that the government should reconsider its position in relation to this issue. Labor stands by volunteers in Victoria. We have a remarkable regard for the volunteers who place themselves in danger to fight fires in our state. But we do not accept that the best way to deal with this matter is to inflame tensions.

I want to finish by remarking upon the minister's use of Ash Wednesday as a metaphor for the dispute. As someone who can remember, and knows of people who were affected by, that awful tragedy in February 1983 in Victoria, where 47 Victorians and 25 South Australians died, I say it is not acceptable to use as a metaphor the worst tragedy up until the Black Saturday bushfires of 2009 and to compare that with a dispute that is occurring within Victoria. We would ask the minister and the government not to continue to use as a metaphor for this dispute that awful tragedy that occurred in 1983. It is disrespectful to the victims of those awful bushfires in 1983 and it is disrespectful to their families and to those who remember the awful devastation that occurred as a result of those fires.

We believe the best way forward with this matter is firstly to allow the volunteers who have initiated proceedings before the Supreme Court as plaintiffs in the matter to have that matter heard and resolved by the Supreme Court of Victoria. We believe that would be fitting and a better means by which we can come to a resolution on this matter. We have some very serious questions to ask in the Senate inquiry and we will ask them, but let's make sure we keep our temper on this issue. Let's desist from inflaming matters by improperly using emotional language to create anxiety and discord. Our job in this place is to see where we can help to resolve matters between paid firefighters who potentially endanger their lives each and every day and volunteer firefighters who are called upon to do the same. Our job should be—we say this to the Prime Minister via this place—to heal the differences and reconcile those differences, not to make things worse.

See this speech in context