Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in opposition to this unnecessary and untimely piece of legislation and in support of the proposal of the shadow minister to refer the subject of this legislation to the Senate employment and education committee. Before addressing the substance of the bill before the House, I am very conscious of a remark made by my friend Anna Burke, the former member for Chisholm, in the course of her valedictory speech in this place. She noted that she had not had the opportunity to speak from this dispatch box. Doing so for the first time, I am deeply conscious that such a wonderful politician and extraordinary parliamentarian did not have this opportunity. I am mindful, of course, of her role as the Speaker of this place. It is something that I am deeply conscious of, and of course it is an extraordinary privilege for any of us to speak from any place in this House—

Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—

as the member for Adelaide I think reminds me—but particularly to be able to do so from here. I will strive to be mindful of this privilege.

Turning now to the bill and to the contributions that government members have made. Perhaps that is not the best of segues, because what we have seen in this parliament so far is that government members seem to have a problem with their lawmaking function. We have seen that most obviously in the debate around the proposal to abrogate this place's responsibility when it comes to marriage equality in preference to a plebiscite—a harmful and unhelpful and unnecessary plebiscite. We have seen that in the thinness of the legislative agenda that has been put before the House and the willingness—the understandable willingness perhaps—of government members not to be here last sitting week. And of course we have seen that in the closure of the restriction of sitting times in this place yesterday and, before it, last sitting week as well. But in this debate we have seen government members interested only in commentary, not in dealing with the matters that are before the House. No government member has squarely addressed what this legislation is intended to do or, indeed, its obvious limitations in that regard.

It was quite extraordinary listening to the member for Hughes—it always is quite extraordinary listening to the member for Hughes, but in his contribution today he criticised the member for Griffith for not going to the subject of the bill. That showed a remarkable lack of self-awareness on his part as at no point in his contribution did he refer to any matters that are covered by the legislation before the House that we are supposed to be debating—the legislation that is supposed to reflect the Prime Minister's No. 1 priority in this parliament, as we recall from his cynical and opportunistic actions inflaming tensions in the Victorian community during the federal election.

The member for Hughes went on—I was interested to hear this—and referred to the road safety tribunal. I think that is quite an apposite reference, because here, as with the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, we see this government showing its contempt for independent bodies. Here the Fair Work Commission; there the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. And on many other occasions they have seemed incapable of respecting decisions or advice proffered by independent umpires.

To the bill itself. I think no-one can speak to the inadequacies of this piece of legislation better than the responsible minister, Minister Cash. This is the minister who took the time to pen an inflammatory and divisive opinion piece in the Herald Sun in Melbourne without having regard for the key concepts—the subject of the enterprise bargaining agreement that this piece of legislation purports to deal with—and clearly without having read the agreement, much less understood it. She was forced to apologise for that opinion piece, but I ask myself: was she chastened, having apologised? No, she was not. She went on Sky News, an interview which the shadow minister described as satire. I think that is a generous description. On 14 occasions David Speers asked Minister Cash to explain the purpose, the effect, of the legislation having regard to her stated concerns with the enterprise agreement at issue. She was unable to do so. When he asked her which clause she found most worrying, Minister Cash said:

There is no one clause, David, no one clause.

When he pressed her on the impact of the agreement on a long-serving, very honourable, hard-working volunteer in respect of whom she expressed deep concern, she replied:

Well you would need to ask that person.

What an extraordinary act by the minister, to drag this volunteer into a dispute but be unable to address the questions she advanced apparently on his behalf. So he pressed her:

I'm just asking, you're the one wanting to intervene here.

And she went on again:

You'd need to ask that particular person, but certainly they feel so affronted that many have said they will resign, or are resigning.

The responsible minister is not taking responsibility. Why is that so? Perhaps she was led up the garden path by the cynical opportunism of the Prime Minister in the course of the election. The promises he made to CFA volunteers are not promises he can meet.

That has been made very clear by Professor Andrew Stewart, a professor of law at the University of Adelaide and one of Australia's leading academics when it comes to workplace relations. He was asked by Samantha Donovan about his scepticism of the federal government to amend the Fair Work Act to deal with the dispute that apparently has issued, the dispute that has been spoken of by government members in intemperate terms. He said this:

Well, they—

the federal government—

have now come up with a very specific proposal to amend the Fair Work Act: to essentially prevent emergency services organisations making agreements and registering them under the Fair Work Act that in any way are inconsistent with state or territory regulation of the relevant bodies, or that impose any restrictions on the role of volunteers.

There's at least two problems with what the Government's proposed. Firstly: it seems to me there's a very good argument that this oversteps the line between the Commonwealth and the states under the constitution.

I appreciate that there is some debate about a recent Federal Court decision about the status of the Victorian Country Fire Authority, but that at the very least goes to a very significant question that members in this place should have regard to. Professor Stewart goes on:

The second problem is that, if you take the proposed legislation literally, it would seem to give rights to volunteers to be involved in absolutely anything that any form of emergency management body does.

It does seem to me to be highly problematic, in terms of the extent to which it interferes with the work of emergency service bodies—

the matter government members are apparently so deeply concerned with. The journalist goes on to ask this question:

So how much confidence do you think CFA volunteers should put in the Federal Government's promise to protect them?

Professor Stewart replies:

The chances of this particular dispute being resolved by the kind of legislation that the Coalition's talking about: very, very unlikely.

Again, this is unnecessary legislation. It is a very slight piece of legislation, but it does signify a bit.

Principally, it speaks to the deep cynicism of this Prime Minister and of the government he is failing to lead. It speaks to his preference for opportunism and division over real leadership, of recognising that in communities such as the one I represent and the one represented very well by my friend the member for McEwen there are real tensions—difficulties between CFA volunteers and professional firefighters. It is creating anxiety in the community, which may impede their ability to work together in the coming bushfire season. Real leadership would involve not inflaming these tensions but seeking unity. He has chosen a very different path.

And more generally, this is true of our Prime Minister. We are one year and one day into his prime ministership, and Australia of course faces great challenges as a nation—challenges that should be priorities for a national government: growing inequality, stagnating wages growth, persistently high unemployment, underemployment, further compounded by the growth of insecure forms of work. We are falling behind when it comes to educational outcomes. We are failing to grapple with the great challenge of climate change, another issue about which the Prime Minister was formerly passionate and that he has put in the bottom drawer as the price of leadership.

Today in the Financial Review, on the front page, it is reported that the Prime Minister has said that the government's singular focus will be on budget and economic reform. But what do we have? A pale imitation of the agenda of the man he replaced, the member for Warringah, demonstrated by his persistence with an unnecessary harmful and divisive plebiscite on marriage equality and a backbench out of control running its own agenda, also an agenda of division when it comes to the proposals to amend race hate protections. And, speaking of unnecessary and divisive, we see the introduction of this legislation. This is all about the most cynical of politics. Let me be very clear: the cynicism is writ large in the titling of this bill, because whatever this bill does it does not respect our firefighters, whether volunteer or career.

I should make absolutely clear my deep respect for all of our firefighters and emergency services volunteers, a respect that is shared by all my colleagues on this side of the House. In the Scullin electorate there are hundreds of CFA volunteers who give so much, alongside professional firefighters. I am in awe of the sacrifices these people have made for their community, of their courage and their commitment. We should all celebrate the role of volunteers in keeping communities safe. We should support them to work effectively to service their communities, not put their volunteerism at risk.

During the election the Prime Minister said this to a meeting of volunteers:

The only way you can be sure that you will be protected from this union takeover is to return … my Government, on July 2.

Believe me the first item of business will be to protect you.

Let's briefly unpack this statement. It does not really align with a singular focus on economic reform, for a start. It shamefully and cynically mischaracterises a very complicated agreement—the very opposite of the approach to politics he promised when he sought the prime ministership. How diminished a figure is this man? Of course, it has not been the first item of business of this government. I spoke earlier about priorities of a national government, but this is clearly, squarely a matter for the Victorian government. For this government to pretend otherwise is unhelpful, opportunistic and, again, cynical.

Some context is important when we consider this bill. This bill is concerned with the Victorian Country Fire Authority, a body established under state legislation, a volunteer based organisation protecting communities ranging from suburban Melbourne to Victoria's regions, a body with 57,000 volunteers and almost 2,000 employees—a number that has been rapidly increasing in recent years as the challenges the authority faces in protecting communities change dramatically, as the member for Melbourne made clear. Of course, the relationship between volunteers and paid staff is of great significance. The dispute that apparently is the subject of this legislation goes to an enterprise bargaining agreement that has been running for more than three years. It has been a very difficult process, as these bargaining arrangements often are.

Earlier this year the Fair Work Commission made recommendations intended to resolve the matters in dispute between the parties. Ultimately the Victorian government endorsed the agreement shortly after this, and so did the parties. Matters which go to the heart of the legislation are now before the Supreme Court of Victoria, as has been addressed by members in this debate, in proceedings which have been brought by a body which is not a party to the enterprise agreement—another flaw in the propositions advanced by members opposite.

The bill before us has been described as far-reaching by Professor Julian Teicher, Professor of Human Resources and Employment at CQU. He also said:

… the bill—both in the manner of its launch and in its content—will generate continuing controversy. And it will not solve the problems to which it was allegedly directed.

…   …   …

… it is unlikely to be effective and will not hasten a settlement in this case.

He goes on to say this, and I think this is something that members opposite should reflect on:

If politicians … have any real concern for the CFA workforce and Victorians' safety, they would do best to refrain from further public comment.

Inflaming this dispute, which is what this legislation—this stunt—is all about, will achieve the opposite ends. It will not improve Victorian safety, it will not support volunteerism, it will not support the resolution of those matters which have been in dispute for some time between the Country Fire Authority and the United Firefighters Union.

For all of these reasons, if the government were serious about exploring its stated concerns about volunteers, about the relationship between volunteers and professional firefighters and about certain aspects of the enterprise agreement that Minister Cash seems incapable of working her way through, all these matters could be considered by a Senate committee inquiry after the resolution of the case before the Supreme Court. This would enable all the wider consequences of this legislation to be addressed, and very serious concerns have been raised by bodies such as the police association and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Foundation. This is the way in which these issues should be addressed—through a considered process, to the extent that there is any role for a national government in this space.

The Prime Minister needs to remember the sorts of commitments he made when he sought office, and work through difficult issues in a manner that brings Australians together, rather than seek to exploit division.

See this speech in context