Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Members of the public in the gallery, this is the second sitting week of the 45th Parliament. This should not be a remarkable fact. At this point in time the legislative engine should be roaring. The just re-elected government should be ready to put through legislation, one after the other, giving life to the policies and visions it is supposed to have, that it campaigned on and said would improve the country. It should be doing that. Yet in this 45th Parliament we start later in the day and we finish earlier—we meet less. At this rate we will be legislating via a drive-through. Basically, when we go to pass laws we will be asked if we want fries with that. We do not sit here long enough to debate any legislation—nothing—and that is why we have got this Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016.

The government have put forward one bill, which their speakers hardly speak on. They have 15 minutes allotted and they have all been told to keep it short. Why? What is coming through? There is no legislation that will be following this. You would think they would want to pad it out, but they do not. They do not want to talk about this bill.

For those people in the gallery, this is the bill we are debating. You come here to see the laws we are debating. This is the bill itself. Look how long it is. It is hardly anything. It would hardly have the strength to be used as a flyswat. Even within it it is empty. More of it would be blank pages. In the best work of a school student who is trying to pad out their own work to impress a teacher, they did not even start at the top of the page—that page is half blank as well. The only thing that would make this bill thicker is changing the font size. If you changed the font size it would make it a thicker document. This is not a bill; it is ink seeking a desperate purpose—a political point to be made.

You are wasting the time of the chamber. For what? You see how exercised speakers on the other side of the chamber are and you will see some ministers here get exercised about it as well. What we are talking about is them defending volunteers. The Liberal Party love defending people who are not getting paid. If you are not getting paid, they are happy to talk about you. They are not happy to talk about stagnant wages in this country. They are not happy about helping employees get a better job. They are not happy about making sure people actually do well. They do not care for it. They do not have an answer for the fact that wage growth is at the lowest level it has been in decades. You never see them talk about that. They are not here talking about advancing workers. They are never here about advancing workers.

They have found voice on one issue—this one that involves a dispute that is occurring in one state. It is not even a federal agency; it is a state agency. They come in here and waste the parliament's time talking about this. Why? Because they want to score political points. That is it: they want to score political points. That is why they have done this. That is why this bill is embarrassingly thin. It cannot even be defended by its own minister. When Minister Cash was interviewed in late August she was asked to explain the bill they are putting forward here and she said: 'It's a simple bill. There's not much to it.' Of course there is not. It is exceptionally hard for them to actually do anything relevant in this bill. It is exceptionally hard to do it.

When they are asked to defend the bill you have the classic kind of train wreck interview that the minister had in late August when trying to defend this. When she was asked on Sky to defend it—putting forward scenarios and then saying how it relates to the actual legislation that is being proposed—the minister said:

At the moment—let’s say there's a burning car; for simplicity: a burning car—volunteers arrive. They put out the fire. Paid firefighters arrive. They put out the fire.

…   …   …

My understanding is there needs to be a minimum of seven firefighters dispatched before safe firefighting operations can commence.

David Speers asks:

What does safe firefighting operations mean?

…   …   …

… clause 7A of the agreement says it does not require seven professional firefighters to be physically at the fire ground before commencement of firefighting operations.

The minister was contradicted straightaway by a journalist, looking at the legislation. One thing being claimed by the minister is being disproven by the government's own legislation on national TV. Hashtag fail, as they say in the Twittersphere: #fail, fail 1.

Then Speers said:

Can the chief fire officer at the CFA be wrong, because he says this proposed agreement won't affect his ability to direct the fire.

It will not direct his ability to 'alter'. The minister:

Again, there are varying interpretations …

How could there be varying interpretations of a bill that you are proposing? You should know it. She then goes on to cherrypick some other people who do not think it works but does not address the firefighting issue properly. Then David Speers says:

7A.1 says 'the role of volunteers in fighting bushfires … is not altered by this agreement.'

Minister:

Well, I completely disagree with that clause.

Speers:

Well, it's in the agreement.

Again, the minister is being contradicted. The minister is saying one thing on TV and then being contradicted when going back to the legislation. This is a journalist on TV doing it. Their own minister cannot do it. Speers:

Clause 7A.2: 'nothing in this agreement shall prevent volunteers from providing the services normally provided by such volunteers without remuneration. '

Minister:

And then when you actually go through the agreement—and I cannot actually find what you are referring to here.

This is the minister. She cannot even find it. Speers:

Clause 7A.2: just turn to the page right here.

It is being pointed out again on national TV. Speers:

Just to finish: what will happen to Don?

There was a big thing made about how the minister met a firefighter called Don and she kept referring to this firefighter and trying to demonstrate what impact this bill would have. David Speers says:

Just to finish: what will happen to Don if this agreement goes through?

Don is the firefighter that the minister spoke about in terms of this fight being their Ash Wednesday. Cash:

If this particular agreement in its current form goes through, well, basically, that is why we seek to change section 12 to create a new term.

Speers:

What happens to Don if you don't succeed?

He is onto it. He is pressing the minister to actually provide evidence. He says:

What happens to Don if you don't succeed. If this proposed agreement goes through, what happens to Don?

Minister:

Well, I would hope Don doesn't resign as so many have already started doing.

Speers:

Why would he? What would happen to him?

Minister:

Well, again, it's not just what would happen to Don.

Speers:

I'm trying to get to the specifics here. What would happen to him? What would the impact be on a long-serving, very honourable hardworking volunteer?

Minister:

Well, you would need to ask that person.

No. Your bill is designed to protect them. You are supposed to come in here and demonstrate that in this exceptionally thin piece of work—this pamphlet rather than legislation. You are supposed to describe what is actually being done. When this goes through, how will people be protected? And the minister on national TV could not do it. She could not do it on repeated occasions.

See this speech in context