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

Sarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my great pleasure to rise and speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016. This is a bill to implement the government's commitment to protecting emergency service bodies and their volunteers by providing that an enterprise agreement cannot include terms that undermine the capacity of volunteer emergency services bodies to properly manage their volunteer operations or terms that are inconsistent with state or territory laws that regulate such bodies.

As we promised prior to the election, this was the very first bill introduced into this 45th Parliament. This bill honours a coalition election commitment to protecting the Victorian Country Fire Authority and other emergency service volunteers. In the case of our wonderful CFA volunteers in Victoria, these amendments to the Fair Work Act protect them from a hostile takeover by the Victorian Labor Party and Premier Daniel Andrews, working in concert with the Leader of the Opposition and federal Labor and working hand in glove with the militant United Firefighters Union.

Let's be clear: CFA volunteers in Victoria have been utterly abandoned by Labor. The extent of the misrepresentations and untruthful statements made by the member for Gorton in his contribution are a disgrace. Let me put on the record one of the worst. The Prime Minister has never made any reference at all to the fact that paid firefighters are not as important as CFA volunteers. What the Prime Minister has done—in contrast to the member for Gorton, to the Leader of the Opposition, to Daniel Andrews and to federal Labor—is stand up for CFA volunteers. We are mightily proud to do so. In Victoria there are some 60,000 volunteers, around 35,000 operational. As the member for Corangamite, one of the most fire-prone areas in the state, I am proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our local CFA volunteers and Corangamite's 65 CFA brigades.

We all remember Christmas Day. We all salute and acknowledge the bravery of the Wye River Fire Brigade, led by Roy Moriarty—and, of course, we know that the Prime Minister visited the sites at Wye River and Separation Creek and saw the devastation. We saw the bravery in action. From Meredith to Beeac, from Lorne to Apollo Bay, from Smythesdale to Grovedale, we have the most incredible men and women who go out every day, protecting Victorians, protecting our homes and our kids and our property. We are so proud of what we are doing to stand up for CFA volunteers.

Let me make this very clear: Premier Daniel Andrews should hang his head in shame. In contrast to his former Minister for Emergency Services, Jane Garrett, who had the strength and the good judgement to oppose some of the extreme provisions in the proposed EBA between the CFA and UFU, Daniel Andrews has acquiesced to this militant union and has not been prepared to stand up for volunteer firefighters, and he has done it hand in glove with the Leader of the Opposition and with federal Labor, including the member for Corio and the member for Gorton.

Let's not make any mistake about how damaging this proposed EBA is. For example, I will go through some of the most problematic provisions. This is why the Supreme Court has now found that there is a case to be answered as to whether it is even proper: under the proposed EBA paid firefighters can only report to another paid firefighter—except for level 3 incidents, which are around one per cent of annual incidents—sidelining volunteers and providing a potential dual command structure. That is in clause 35.4. Union agreement is required before the CFA can make a change to policy, stifling the ability for the CFA to adapt to present needs. That is in clause 41.1. Seven paid firefighters need to be dispatched before other paid firefighters can commence firefighting, meaning volunteers can be left to fight fires alone for a period, despite the sudden and swift nature of fire emergencies. That is in clause 77.5. Union agreement is required on what uniforms are worn by volunteers, and paid firefighters must have uniforms that are visually distinguishable from volunteers', diminishing the equal value and significance of volunteer firefighters. That is in schedule 20. And union agreement is required for workplace changes by the CFA, including matters that could impact on the use of volunteers such as their terms and conditions of employment. This change effectively hands control over volunteer management to the UFU. And there is no surprise that we have 50 shades of veto—all the many ways in which the UFU can veto the operations of the CFA.

These restrictions are not only ridiculous but also dangerous, as they jeopardise the CFA's ability to respond swiftly to emergencies. Many people have spoken out about the disgraceful proposed EBA and we have seen an absolute catastrophe—a huge number of people who have objected to what the Labor Party and the UFU are doing in Victoria. We know that the former Victorian emergency services minister, Jane Garrett, has resigned. She is now prosecuting a formal complaint of bullying against the UFU state secretary, Peter Marshall. The CFA chief executive and the chief fire officer have also resigned in protest, and a number of CFA volunteers have resigned. The CFA board, which staunchly opposed this EBA, was sacked by the Andrews government—none of which, of course, happened to be mentioned by the member for Gorton. And a new hand-picked board was appointed in an effort to force the CFA into submission.

The former CFA chief executive officer, Lucinda Nolan, said that this agreement—the proposed EBA:

… was not going to make the organisation a better place — it is destructive and divisive. I could not stay and oversee the destruction of the CFA.

…   …   …

I think this has the potential to negatively impact the organisation, community safety, our volunteers and our volunteer contribution.

So our bill, very proudly, will fix the sorts of skulduggery, the sideline deals and the attempts to undermine our wonderful volunteer workforce in the CFA. It will add to the definition of objectionable terms in section 12 of the Fair Work Act to prohibit objectionable emergency management terms. I will not go through all the detail because I am going to keep my comments fairly brief on this bill. The Fair Work Commission will no longer be able to approve agreements that contain these terms, and any such terms in existing agreements will be legally ineffective. It will also make sure that an enterprise agreement can no longer undermine the capacity of emergency services volunteer bodies to properly manage their operations.

The bill will also give volunteer organisations the right to make submissions to the Fair Work Commission about enterprise agreements covering certain emergency services bodies that could affect the volunteers they represent.

For a century CFA volunteers in Victoria have put the community first and now what we are seeing is the Labor Party, both here in Canberra and in Victoria, putting its union mates first and volunteers last. I am so proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with CFA volunteers. It is now time for Labor to do the same thing and to stop supporting this disastrous union power grab—to tell the truth, because that is exactly what it is. I commend this bill to the House.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will stand here and tell the truth about what is going on in my home state and my community about our volunteers and about our career firefighters. I will tell the truth about what is actually happening in our community and about how in an election period this government jumped on a state issue to exploit it for its purposes for an election.

I wanted to start today by acknowledging our SES volunteers, who as we speak have not quit in droves, as the government and government MPs are suggesting. Last night, yesterday and today they are meeting with communities to support the areas of my community that are under flood threat. We have rising water in Victoria, and as we stand here today debating this bill—which will affect the SES, not just the CFA, in Victoria—our volunteers are getting on with supporting our community. They have asked their employers for leave under the Fair Work Act—measures that were introduced by the former Labor government to support volunteers. They are standing side by side with communities. They have skills, they train every week for these emergencies and they are supporting our communities which are currently facing the heartbreak of another damaging flood.

The last time our area was under threat, when the Loddon was rising, was in 2010. What they are saying to the communities of Charlton, Newbridge and Newstead is that it will not be as bad, they hope, as September 2010 but it may be worse than November 2010. And most people will remember November 2010 because it was actually the state election day when our area was under a similar threat.

But why I acknowledge their hard work and dedication to our community at the beginning of my speech is that, whilst members of the government rally the politics about this issue, the volunteers in my electorate are doing what they have always done: taking time out of their days and taking time out of their work to do what they are passionate about—volunteering to support their community. And this bill and this government's ranting and rhetoric have not stopped them from doing that. The Andrews government in Victoria have not stopped them from doing that. They are continuing to volunteer because they are proud and passionate about their community. And that is something that the government does not know. There are not thousands of volunteers resigning. Yes, there have been some, but when I go out and talk to the CFA brigades in my electorate they say: 'I volunteer because I support my community. I am proud of my community and I want to be there for my community when something happens.'

I would also like to acknowledge, in saying that statement, the Maldon CFA. People forget—if you do not know and you are not a regional MP—that our CFA brigades, like our SES units, do more than just fight fires. They do more than that—they are such an important part of our regional communities. In Maldon, our CFA is practically involved in every single event that happens in the town, particularly around Easter. I acknowledge Robert Thompson and his family. If you are in Maldon and involved in the CFA, you will know the Thompsons. They make sure that the oldest continuous Easter festival and Easter parade continues to happen in Maldon because of the volunteer work of the CFA. During this dispute—and it is a dispute—there was the Woodend Winter Arts Festival. That is another example of what CFA volunteers do outside of the work they do in emergency situations. At the Woodend Winter Arts Festival they made sure the parking was appropriate and they ushered cars in.

Regional MPs know the importance of our CFAs beyond just what they do as volunteers to keep our communities safe. Our CFA brigades are organised volunteers who help out in so many other ways. In Bendigo, the Golden Square CFA helps to organise the popular farmers market that we have there. They help us with setting up. I am a Bendigo farmers market volunteer and quite often we work together to set up the market. These brigades are a big part of our community.

Something that has also been lost is that our CFA brigades reflect our community. They are men and women from many walks of life. What a number of them said to me during this dispute was that they want the politicians out of it and to stop politicising them and their brigades. They want the division to end. They do not want to see their service continue to be divided by politics. They want to get on with what they have always done—protecting and supporting our community.

And that is what we saw happen in the election. There were a couple of stories that jumped out at me and reminded me why I am so proud to represent the area of Bendigo. One article I want to highlight, which appeared in the Bendigo Advertiser on 13 June, talks about the camaraderie within our CFA between the career firefighters and the volunteer firefighters. Entitled 'Working together', it has a picture of Geoffrey Cain, from the Eaglehawk Fire Brigade, and Stephen Harris, from the Bendigo Fire Brigade, standing together. The Bendigo electorate is very similar to other Victorian country electorates. We have an integrated fire station—the Bendigo Fire Brigade. That is in the heart of Bendigo. Bendigo is a town of 100,000 people. And then surrounding the Bendigo fire station we have a number of volunteer firefighter stations. There are about 60 volunteer brigades across the Bendigo electorate—from very small communities like Walmer and Mia Mia to the larger outer suburbs of Bendigo like Eaglehawk, Strathfieldsaye, Huntly and Kangaroo Flat.

That article spoke about how closely our career and volunteer firefighters work together. Career firefighters from the Bendigo Station and the volunteers from Eaglehawk quite often do training exercises together that end with a lunch:

"We try to train with the integrated station as often as we can … It just shows the camaraderie between the integrated station and volunteers." … both brigades had a common goal: "We're here to protect the community."

These are the words of volunteer firefighters. These are the words of career firefighters. I understand that these are not the words of Liberal party politicians, but these are the words of the career firefighters and what they are saying about the work they do. These training sessions are not just with Eaglehawk. They are also with Golden Square and a number of other volunteer firefighter stations that we have in the area.

What is frustrating about this debate is that, to this moment, the government still has not outlined how this legislation will actually change the bargain and the proposed agreement that is currently going on. We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the other side. We have heard a lot of chest-beating about how they are going to step up and defend volunteers. But what we have not heard is how this legislation will practically and technically change the bargaining that is going on in Victoria. So let's just park the politics for a moment and look at what is before us. I really support this legislation going off to review to test its rigour and see if it will actually change things.

Nobody denies that bargaining is tough. Bargaining is always tough; whether you are an employer or an employee, it is tough. If you are closely involved with bargaining at the state level with the CFA you will meet people on all sides of the bargaining who say it has always been tough. It is up to the Victorian state government to sit down and resolve this. And they do have a challenge ahead of them—I acknowledge that. But is it right for this place to intervene in that bargaining in that way? Is it going to be a slippery slope, where this government intervenes in all bargaining cases? Every time a state gets itself into trouble will this parliament try to amend the Fair Work Act? We have heard from nurses who say they do not know how this legislation could affect nurses. We have heard from ambulance employees in Victoria who say they do not know whether this legislation will affect them—because it is up to legislation to determine what an emergency body is. There are a number of new terms that have been created by this government in this bill and the Fair Work Act.

I have been speaking to some metropolitan based government MPs. They were not aware that we have volunteers who work in ambulance—our CERTs. In the town of Maldon, there is a team of volunteers who have been trained because they do not have an ambulance station in Maldon—the closest one is in Castlemaine. If there is an emergency, they will call a CERT and the CERT will be there. They are trained to have the skills to be a first response, to be there on hand in case there is an emergency in the town until the ambulance arrives. In what has been put forward by the government, we do not know if this change will affect those people in Ambulance Victoria and the CERTs. This legislation opens a Pandora's box about where volunteers will sit and where employees of emergency services will sit.

The CFA and UFU have been negotiating a new EBA for over 1,000 days. So this is not a new issue; it is an issue that has been ongoing for a while. Yet on the eve of an election, this government chose to politicise this issue and divide our communities. I was outraged then that a Prime Minister and a workplace relations minister could divide my communities the way that they did—communities who work really hard to support one another, as they are doing, as we speak, in my electorate with SES and CFA brigades ready to mobilise to support residents and businesses with sandbagging, to help people if they get caught in floodwaters. This bill is not stopping volunteers from doing what they have always done in the Bendigo electorate.

What the government do not realise is the damage that they have done by politicising this issue during the election, to the extent that the Victorian Liberal Party set up a page to fundraise off this issue. They set up a website. They registered this. When people signed the online petition, 'Hands off the CFA', they then sent them an email asking them for a donation. How this government used this issue to fundraise before the federal election could not get any more transparent.

On election day, it was quite confronting for my family. My partner's grandparents died in a house fire in Kangaroo Flat and it is something that they still reflect on because losing loved ones in a house fire is hard. But as I arrived at the last polling station, we drove past the house where they perished. I did not get the chance to meet them; it happened when my partner was quite young. We also drove past the cemetery, and stuck to the fence of the cemetery were Liberal Party endorsed 'Hands off CFA' corflutes. It was authorised by Exhibition Street and someone from the Liberal Party had gone around posting these all over town—another example of how the government are not genuine about supporting the Victorian government and showing leadership to resolve this crisis. They are only interested in the politics of this issue.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suppose I can speak with some authority about this. Believe it or not, I am 41 years of age but I am a 25-year member of the Country Fire Authority. I signed up at 16 and that gives me a unique opportunity to speak in this place on this, because there are not many country Victorian MPs and this is largely a Victorian issue. Also, my electorate is a third of the state and has many, many CFA branches right across it. Having been President of the Victorian Farmers Federation in a previous job and represented farmers, who largely go out and fight the fires, and also in that capacity having worked quite closely with Daniel Andrews, who is now the Premier of Victoria, I cannot believe the blundering mess that Premier Andrews has created here. He has taken strong stances against family violence for which I commend him. He has done some good things in drought-affected communities for which I commend him. But this is one where he has absolutely stuffed it up.

As much as the Labor Party are trying to say that the federal government is trying to play politics on this, the politics have been played out by Daniel Andrews within his own team. The message that has come to the average volunteer is that the government does not value them, and that is a great sadness because, really, that is not the message that the government of either political persuasion would choose to send. Our Country Fire Authority volunteers, as we speak, are active today in the electorate of Mallee with Charlton looking like it will hit flood levels at about two o'clock this afternoon—a town that was flooded three times recently and people are very nervous about it.

Without politicising this, I want to say that both sides of parliament do value our volunteers. These are people who do not brand themselves as heroes. I have stood out at two o'clock and three o'clock in the morning when there has been a fatality from a rollover of a B-double and I have put class-A foam to try to stop that tragedy from resulting in more fatalities. I do not class myself as a hero; I am a country person just doing what country people do. But what they are disappointed in is that the United Firefighters Union's quest to take them over to have a greater say has been endorsed by the Daniel Andrews government.

Essentially, the United Firefighters Union were very active in the last state election of Victoria. They were quite active in handing out how-to-vote cards, quite aggressive in handing out how-to-vote cards. They campaigned in their uniforms, and this is really payday for them. Daniel Andrews has wrongly judged the sentiment of Victorians. In an effort to pay back the unions, he could have given them greater pay, he could have given them better workplace conditions. But what he has chosen to do is cave in to the United Firefighters Union's attempt to take control of the CFA. This is where the government needed to intervene.

Now, this should not be a federal government issue. This should be dealt with in Victoria by a respectful Andrews government. It was such a political issue inside Mr Andrews' own parliament that he had to sack a minister. They then had to sack a board and put in one that is regarded by the membership, whether rightly or wrongly, as comprised of yes-men and yes-women. I predict it may well lead to Daniel Andrews no longer being the Premier in a term of his own government. I think that is a very real possibility. Any talk that this has been politicised by the conservative side of parliament does not recognise that the politicisation is taking place within the Andrews government. The message that they have sent is that volunteers are not valued.

What this bill seeks to do is to give greater recognition to the fact that a union, in negotiating the best outcome for their members—which is what their role is, and we do have a role for unions in Australia to do that—cannot do it to the detriment of volunteers. That is what this bill is all about. It tries to put a weighting back into the obligations of Fair Work Australia to consider the impacts upon those volunteers. It is unprecedented that a union or a government would stand by and allow the control of volunteers when they try and negotiate outcomes for their membership, so I think this bill is a very wise move for the government to take.

I will go back to the very start and say that we should never have had to go down this pathway, because the state Labor government, in particular Daniel Andrews, should have sent a very strong message that the union was not going to override the rights and value and minimise the authority of a volunteer organisation such as the Country Fire Authority. I support this legislation. We must have this legislation. I appeal to the Premier, who I know personally, to have a hard look at the messages he has sent to our volunteers, and to rein in the United Firefighters Union and hold them to account instead of giving them everything they want at the expense of our hardworking and dedicated Country Fire Authority volunteers.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016, potentially will have a significant impact on how well residents in outer metropolitan Melbourne are protected from fire. That is the untold story of this bill and something that the government has failed to utter a single sentence about. It is really what the negotiations that are going on in Victoria, about the enterprise agreement and the actions of the state Labor government, are about.

The government would have you think that this is some takeover of activities in rural areas some distance from the CBD or major regional centres. The government would have you think that this is about some proposed takeover of purely volunteer brigades in areas that cover the vast majority of Victoria. Those things are completely untrue. To understand what is going on in Victoria, you need to understand a bit about the history. In Victoria the metropolitan fire district was set quite some time ago. It extends 15 kays, give or take, from the GPO, and outside that area you are in the CFA. Quite some time ago, 15 kays from the CBD GPO would have been quite a long distance, and you could legitimately have said you were in the country, but now we have outer metropolitan Melbourne suburbs like Springvale that are in the CFA district.

Increasingly as Melbourne grows, there are areas that are within the CFA fire district but, for all intents and purposes, the people living there think they are in outer metropolitan Melbourne. We have big new housing estates being opened up on the outskirts of Melbourne that are covered by the CFA. Where you used to have farmers and rural workers—people with the time to be volunteers, as we have in many other areas in Victoria—these people are being replaced by people who work in factories or work nine to five in offices and who expect, because they are paying their levies, rates and taxes, that they will have the same standard of fire cover as people in the city.

This issue has been raised in the bushfires royal commission. The bushfires royal commission said: 'We've got a problem here in Victoria with these boundaries. What is called country in some areas is still legitimately country, but in some areas it is now suburban Melbourne, so what are we going to do about it?'

The issue becomes increasingly acute when you live in one of those outer suburban areas and fire trucks do not get to incidents on time. That is not because volunteers are not working hard or doing their best; of course they are. It is just a fact of life that when somewhere that was once farmland is now a housing estate there will be fewer people able to commit time around the clock in the way that they used to. So the government in Victoria has decided, following the bushfires royal commission and recommendations from an independent panel, to roll out additional paid firefighters in some of these urban growth areas, and that makes sense. It is what the people of Victoria would expect.

What we are dealing with in Victoria is what happens in those areas where fire services were once solely volunteer but are now becoming what are called 'integrated fire stations' because of the number of people who live there. We are not talking about what happens in purely rural areas where the brigade will remain purely volunteer; we are talking about these growth areas. What the state government has said is: 'We're going to employ some additional staff there. We have then got to work through a process of how they relate to the volunteers, so that these stations become what are called "integrated stations" where paid staff and volunteers are working side by side, as they do currently in many CFA stations.' So it is nothing new. It is just saying we have got to move with the times and move with the fact that there are lots of people living in areas where there used to be fewer people.

But what does this government do? This government sees a political opportunity and it pounces. It comes into Victoria during a federal election campaign—when this issue about how to deal with growth in population and Melbourne has been going on for years and has been managed within the CFA and the state government for years—and inflames tensions. The fact that it has to come in and tell untruths to the people of Melbourne and Victoria in order to inflame those tensions tells you everything you need to know about this bill. The minister who is responsible for industrial relations, who had all the staff of her office and all the staff of her department at her disposal, sat down and wrote an opinion piece for a significant newspaper in Victoria, the Herald Sun, saying everyone should be concerned about this agreement and everyone needs to back their legislation. She likened what is going on to Ash Wednesday, which is an appalling comparison to make, and then she said here is why you should be scared and why people should vote for this government's bill. The No. 1 reason, she says, is:

SEVEN paid firefighters (ie union members) to be present before CFA personnel are able to be deployed to a fire;

The No. 1 reason the minister gives after deliberation—this is not an off-the-cuff quote; this is a deliberate opinion piece that she spent a long time thinking up—is simply untrue. I could understand why people would be concerned if they thought that this agreement meant that if volunteers were deployed to a fire they would have to sit there and wait until paid staff turned up, but that is not what the agreement says. Despite the minister's putting it in writing to the whole country—indeed, to the whole state—in the middle of an election campaign, that is not what the agreement says. What it says is that in these areas where you have volunteers and professionals overlapping seven firefighters have to be deployed, but they do not have to turn up before the volunteers can start fighting the fire. If the volunteer turns up first, they start first. That is what the agreement says. And why do you have seven? It is to ensure that the minimum number of firefighters who can fight a fire safely are on their way, are going to turn up at some point. Seven is understood to be the minimum. At the end of the day, that could be a mix of seven paid and volunteers, but there is nothing in the agreement, despite what the minister says in that clear untruth that she peddled after deliberation, that stops a volunteer or a team of volunteers fighting the fire first if they turn up.

The second reason that the minister gave as to why we should support this was:

PAID firefighters to report only to other paid firefighters (not CFA commanders);

The implication is that paid firefighters cannot report to volunteers. Again, that is a complete untruth, because what clause 77.5 says is that the first arriving incident controller on scene can determine the number of appliances and crews, and elsewhere the agreement refers to the incident controller, who could be a volunteer. In other words, the agreement says, despite the clear lies from the minister in this piece in the Herald Sun, that if the incident controller is a volunteer then ultimately the paid firefighters report to them.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask that the reference to lies be withdrawn. That is a direct imputation against the minister.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The term was used not directly to one person. I was listening very carefully. The member for Melbourne will continue.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will continue. The minister goes on:

THE CFA to get the approval of the union "for any policy that affects the application or operation of this agreement or the work of employees covered by it".

And she says:

This would completely destroy the CFA's chain of command and its volunteer-based model.

What she does not say is that the agreement says, right up the front, on page 11:

For the avoidance of doubt, except as provided in Clause 60-Peer Support, nothing in this agreement shall prevent volunteers in the CFA from providing the services normally provided by such volunteers without remuneration.

The role of volunteers is explicitly protected, right up the front of the agreement.

If you read the minister's opinion piece you might think there are some concerns here, and purely regional areas that are staffed purely by volunteers are under threat, but that is simply not the case. The issues that we are primarily dealing with are in the high-growth areas, primarily in outer suburban Melbourne but also in other outer regional centres. Paid staff will continue to report to volunteers if they are the incident controllers at the incident, and nothing in the agreement affects the ordinary operation of volunteers. Instead, we have a government that is prepared, for its own naked political purposes, to try and divide volunteer and paid firefighters, because that is what is going on here. They are scaring and misleading volunteers by telling them things that are simply untrue.

Mr Hunt interjecting—

I hear the minister at the table interjecting. If he wants to get up and defend what the minister wrote in the Herald Sun, please do. Since we called the minister out, not one member of the government has got up and defended the minister's claims. Not even the minister herself could defend them when she was asked on television, because the government knows in its heart that this bill is based on a lie. This bill is based on a lie and it is based on a naked political attempt to divide volunteer and paid firefighters. The real concern is that this sets an incredible precedent. This sets a precedent that says this government will intervene in one particular industrial dispute that is going on in one particular state if it happens to fall during an election period and rewrite the laws to deal with that one particular dispute. If this government's defence of the CFA holds true, surely it is up to the CFA and the Victorian government to decide how they want to roll out their firefighters and their new stations, and the terms and conditions on which they want to do it. If the government and the CFA in Victoria say, 'We think there is an increased fire risk in many of our areas; the bushfire royal commission has told us to have a look at whether the boundaries are still up to date, and we want to go and put some extra staff in those areas,' surely they should be allowed to do it.

There is a provision in this bill that says nothing in an enterprise agreement can override the CFA's powers or the State Emergency Service's powers under a state act. Well, that provision is going to be one of the first ones that will be tested in the Federal Court or the High Court, because surely it is up to the state government and the CFA itself to determine how it wants to exercise its powers. If the state government has powers to look after Victorians, and the state government and the CFA under their own legislation say, 'The best way to look after Victorians is to put a fire station here with this many people working on it; this many are going to be paid and this many are volunteers,' and they want to put that in an enterprise agreement, surely it is their right to do that.

Instead—and I do not think the government fully appreciates what it is doing here—this federal government is stepping in for naked political purposes and saying, 'We will override the ability of the CFA to reach an agreement with its paid workforce and its volunteers and implement it in the way that it sees fit to protect Victorians.' When, as a result of this legislation, there are stations that cannot be built or crewed in the way that is envisaged in the agreement, and there is lawsuit after lawsuit about what this means, and when that holds up the rollout of new fire stations and new firefighters, it will be this government's responsibility, because you, the government, are saying to people in outer suburban Victoria or in those regional areas: 'You don't deserve the same standard of fire cover as people who live in the cities. For naked political purposes we will pass a bill that will make it more difficult for the Victorian government to give you a standard of fire cover.' It will be on your head when people do not get the standard of fire cover they deserve.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also stand to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016. After listening to the member for Melbourne, it is obvious that he is representing the Greens, who realise there are no CFAs in the seat of Melbourne. He has never been to a seat like mine, La Trobe, where nearly every suburb has a CFA, and the CFA volunteers are absolutely furious with what is going on. CFA volunteers are a huge part of my community. They have protected us for so many years and have also been there at times of tragedy, such as the devastating 1983 Ash Wednesday bushfires, where sadly we lost 12 CFA volunteers from the Narre Warren and Panton Hill crews. Those fires destroyed many houses and took 75 lives. I still recall the day, as a 16-year-old, seeing the fires first start in Belgrave South as I was catching the bus home from Upper Ferntree Gully tech. My father fought in those fires and is still a member of the Ferny Creek CFA. Our CFA volunteers are so good. They fight fires not only locally and interstate, but also internationally. Each year they go and assist other countries.

Despite this, Daniel Andrews wants to give control of the CFA to the UFU. At this point it is important to fully understand the implications of the United Firefighters Union proposal of the enterprise bargaining agreement. At the behest of the UFU, Premier Andrews is pressuring the CFA to sign an EBA. The EBA would undermine volunteers and the CFA's operations. For example, clause 35.4 means that paid firefighters can only report to another paid firefighter, except during level 3 incidents—around one per cent of annual incidents. Clause 41.1 means that union agreement is required before the CFA can make a change to policy. Clause 77.5 means that seven paid firefighters need to be dispatched before other paid firefighters commence firefighting. Schedule 20 means that union agreement is required on what uniforms are worn by volunteers and that paid firefighters must have uniforms that are visually distinguishable from the volunteers. I have heard some people say, in defence of the UFU, that the EBA has a clause 7A that says:

The role of volunteers … is not altered by this Agreement.

However, this is more of a motherhood statement. This clause does not override, and is fundamentally contradicted by, a number of other clauses. The specific clauses will override a general clause such as clause 7A.

So far for the CFA these proposals by the UFU have meant the Victorian emergency services minister Jane Garrett, a Labor minister, resigned to support the CFA volunteers. I did not hear the member for Melbourne say that! The CFA's chief executive and chief fire officers also supported the CFA and resigned. The highly respected Lucida Nolan, whom I know through her role as a deputy commissioner at Victoria Police, resigned because she said this would lead to the destruction of the CFA. The CFA board, who staunchly opposed this EBA, were sacked by the Andrews government. John Schurink, who was a board member, is also captain of the local Ferny Creek CFA. He was sacked neither for being a bad CFA member, nor for being a bad board member; he has a very highly distinguished career. He was sacked for standing up for other CFA volunteers.

Because of this, and in recognition of the importance of CFA volunteers, the Prime Minister announced during the 2016 election campaign that he would amend the Fair Work Act in order to protect volunteers. We had to do something. I also thank Minister Greg Hunt for his role in this intervention. Also, during the election campaign it was great to have Michaelia Cash, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service, and the foreign minister, Julie Bishop, visit my electorate. When Julie Bishop visited Belgrave, in my electorate, we had probably 300 CFA volunteers attend that rally, including Emerald SES. Members opposite say it is all a coalition stunt and this is pushed by the coalition, but the CFA volunteers want our protection and our support. It is a shame the Labor Party do not feel the same way.

How does the coalition propose to fix this problem today? The bill will simply add to the definition of 'objectionable term' in section 12 of the Fair Work Act to prohibit objectionable emergency management terms. An 'objectionable emergency management term' is a term which will prevent an emergency services body being able to properly manage its volunteer operation—and, as I said, our volunteers are good enough to go and fight fires overseas, so surely they are good enough to look after themselves—and terms which are contrary to the relevant state legislation covering these bodies. This will mean that an enterprise agreement can no longer undermine the capacity of emergency service volunteer bodies to properly manage their operations. This simple amendment will apply only to firefighting and state emergency services organisations in Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory because they are covered by the national workplace relations scheme.

So, despite the criticisms I have heard from staunch unionists, it is not right to characterise this as interfering in a state matter. The proposed EBA is made under the Fair Work Act, a federal law, but it would directly contradict the Victorian firefighter act, a state law. So this small amendment to the Fair Work Act will prevent the Victorian government using federal law to undermine its own state law. Without the federal parliament passing this amendment, the CFA volunteer base model would be severely undermined. This would threaten the safety of communities, cost taxpayers and erode Australia's great tradition of volunteerism and community spirit, which beats strong in my electorate of La Trobe, and that is why I strongly support this bill.

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

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a stunt.

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

Exactly. As the member for Griffith rightly says: it is a stunt. As David Speers says:

You're the one wanting to intervene here.

The minister says:

No, no, no. You need to ask that particular person.

No. It is the job of those opposite to explain it, and they cannot. The reason they cannot do it is that, again, this is a stunt. It is not legislation. This is a stunt that is basically trying to justify an intervention during a political campaign.

Mind you, here is the danger with what they are doing: imagine at some point down the track if we were on the other side of the House and sought to intervene in individual industrial disputes. That is what is being opened up here. The door is being opened to this type of thing. The federal government have shown that they can just intervene on whatever they choose in a state bargaining arena. They will go forward and just intervene. This is not the way that business is done. There is a clear delineation between the levels of government. There is a clear delineation between the industrial relations systems that are oversighted at the federal and state levels. Clearly, it is not about politics. The worst thing that could happen is that, instead of business having certainty, they have to wonder whether or not a federal Liberal government, trying to extract political gain, will just leap in and decide that they are going to get themselves involved. That is what they are doing.

This is not some pro-business government; this is a pro-political outfit that is deciding for its own benefit what it will get involved in and when, how and where. This is not the way that the parliament should work. But, again, what would you expect? What would you expect from a parliament now being run by a government that is making us sit later in the day and finish earlier? They talk about crewing levels; they cannot even crew themselves to meet an adjournment debate or to vote on one, and they want to be able to dictate to others what is going on. It is a shambles and it should not be occurring.

As the shadow minister for employment outlined today, what is at the heart of this legislation, this stunt, is currently being decided in the courts. The legislation will also be subject to a Senate inquiry. We will be going through it. There will be opportunities to highlight what a ridiculous situation we have been put in. This is not a situation where the government should be getting involved in this way.

Mr Hunt interjecting—

All it is is a stunt that was triggered by that minister there, who decided that he needed Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, to get involved in doing something to rescue the flagging fortunes of a coalition that had no clue and was rudderless, and they decided to kick into this. That is why they are getting so exercised and that is why they want to interrupt while this debate is going on. They well know this is—

Mr Hunt interjecting—

Listen, there are so many issues that occur in public life at a federal level that you have a responsibility for, Minister, but you would not get involved. You would not care; you would not get involved. So please don't tell me that for some reason this is the biggest signature issue that you will deal with right now. When people are not getting the money they feel they should be getting, the wage increases that they want to get to be able to get a bit of breathing space so that they can then get ahead themselves, you will never see those opposite talk about that.

You will never see them championing for wage growth in this country to make sure that people actually feel much more comfortable and able to do what they want to do. You will not see it. They will talk about cuts. They will talk about changes that rip people off and make it harder for them. But they will never come in here and make people's lives easier—unless it is for themselves. That is why this legislation is a joke, why this bill is a joke, why the parliament's time is being wasted. They do not have an agenda. They have a three-word slogan, a one-point plan and stunts like this, and the parliament's time is being wasted as a result.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 goes to the heart of who we are as a nation. It is about the volunteer spirit our nation was built on. It is about our communities and about the ability of our communities to look after themselves.

On Sunday I toured Coleraine and Casterton, where we have just seen the impact of floods. You would say to yourself: what has this got to do with this legislation? Well, it has everything to do with it, because there were houses that had been inundated, there were businesses that had been inundated—and who was there helping those communities? CFA volunteers, SES volunteers and, of course, the hardworking police. They were there because they care about their communities and because they are prepared to volunteer their free time to make sure that their communities get the care that they need.

They do it because they understand how important it is to be able to look after yourself—not to wait for assistance to come from Melbourne, not to wait for assistance to come from other capital cities. It is about who we are as a nation, looking after ourselves, making sure that when you are in harm's way there are people ready to come to your help. What these volunteer groups want, purely and simply, is one thing: to be left alone to be able to do that—nothing more, nothing less.

I say to the member opposite, who seems to think this is a stunt: this is not a stunt. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation that will come before this House, this parliament in these three years. Our communities depend on our volunteers, and the idea that an out-of-control union will try and dictate how those volunteers do that is an absolute national disgrace.

If you think that the union does not care about this piece of legislation, think again. Why did Peter Marshall come to this place and meet with the crossbench senators a couple of weeks ago to convince them not to pass this piece of legislation? Why did the person who is orchestrating this, who has the state Labor government under his control, come here to try and convince the crossbenchers in the Senate not to pass this legislation? If this is a stunt, why did he do that? This is one simple question you on that side need to answer. I do not think you will answer it, though, because we know, a couple of months ago—

Ms Kate Ellis interjecting—

You might yawn. You might yawn and think this is tedious and boring. Go to those Victorian communities who, at the moment, are relying on volunteers to keep them safe and tell them that you think this is boring. You think this is boring. You think this is tedious. Go to those communities and ask those who are there volunteering, trying to protect them. You go and say that to them. Go on. Go on.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are yelling.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, not that I am yelling, but that you think this is tedious and boring. It beggars belief that you would sit there—go to Casterton, go to Coleraine, go to Charlton and go and talk to those volunteers. Ask them about this. Ask them why your leader, Bill, would not go to Victoria and go out to country communities while this was going on during the election campaign. Why? Because he knew that he would get the truth delivered to him. He knew that he met with Peter Marshall, the head of the UFU, a couple of months ago. He had a secret meeting with Peter Marshall so that all this could slip through and he would get his way. Well, we on this side are not going to stand for it. And if I have to raise my voice to make it known that we will not stand for it, I will and I will do it unashamedly, because this is so important. If you do not realise that on your side of parliament, then damn you.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, damn them if they do not think that this is important, because this legislation is important. For those opposite, just so they understand—and I am going to conclude briefly after this—Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria was able to provide valuable input into the development of the legislation. This is what Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria has to say:

… we are very pleased that it has shaped up in a way that we believe meets our concerns and deals with the practical issues affecting volunteers.

The legislation will be a simple change to the Fair Work Act …

So, yes, it is a thin piece of legislation—a simple change to the Fair Work Act. We do not think you need a multitude of regulations to fix this. It is a simple change. Often the simple things in life are the best. The legislation will be a simple change to the Fair Work Act, making it objectionable for workplace agreements to restrict or limit an emergency services organisation's ability to: engage or deploy its volunteers; provide support or equipment to those volunteers; manage its relationships with or work with any recognised emergency management body in relation to those volunteers; otherwise manage its operations in relation to those volunteers.

I will conclude on this note, because others want to speak on this. On polling day, I went to a booth in my electorate, and I will not name the booth because it could get the people who were working on that booth in trouble. They were two Labor Party members handing out how-to-vote cards for the Labor Party. They approached me and said, 'We are handing out how-to-vote cards for the Labor Party because we have been members most of our lives, but we wish that we were handing out for the coalition because of what the Labor Party are doing to volunteer spirit and organisations in the state of Victoria.'

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a very passionate speech from the member for Wannon—clearly not passionate enough to go the full time allotted to him to make the speech, but passionate nonetheless. The Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 is another example of the Liberals turning their backs on the principles for political expediency, by seeking to restrict the matters about which parties can bargain. It is a bill that is breathtaking in its hypocrisy. This Liberal government is seeking to lecture others about workplace bargaining while at the same time they have been utterly incompetent at bargaining with their own workforce, the Australian Public Service. It is a bill that serves one useful purpose: to remind us that Australia needs to do better when it comes to collective bargaining in the public service.

This is just an example of the Liberals sacrificing their own principles for political expediency. If you want another example, we had a great one yesterday when the Prime Minister came into this chamber and tabled a bill that he himself did not believe in, which was a bill for a plebiscite for marriage equality. In that example there were so many Liberal principles that were sacrificed for political expediency. It is hard to know where to start, but a good place to start is the purported belief in civil rights and individual liberties, something that the Liberals claim is the core of liberalism, and yet despite claiming that to be the core of liberalism—which it really is—the Turnbull-Joyce government is working hard to do whatever it can to stop marriage equality, including by coming up with this plebiscite idea, which of course was invented by then Prime Minister Tony Abbott. The member for Cook has also claimed responsibility for that.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance—this bill is about the rural fire service. It has nothing to do with marriage equality. There are plenty of other opportunities for the member to debate that. She should restrict her comments to the bill.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the member for Hughes's comments, but this is a broad-ranging subject and I give the call to the member for Griffith.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for seeking to interrupt me because he is clearly so embarrassed by the fact that what I am saying is true—the Liberals sacrificing their own proclaimed principles in the name of political expediency. If you believe in individual liberties and freedoms and if you are not sure how this is relevant, then you might want to listen because I think it is pretty obvious. You do not take away individual liberties and freedoms and you certainly do not discriminate against people on the basis of their sexuality, which is of course what the Liberals are seeking to do in their continued quest to at least delay if not obstruct marriage equality, and that is really what the plebiscite idea was invented for. That is why the Liberals came up with the idea: they did not want to see marriage equality pass. It is interesting that at the end of that six-hour party room meeting where marriage equality was debated and the plebiscite idea was first floated then Prime Minister Tony Abbott said that that would be the last term the Liberals would be bound in relation to marriage equality. In the next term—which we are of course now in—people would no longer be bound in relation to marriage equality. You would think that would have led to the delivery of a free vote on the floor of this parliament in relation to marriage equality, but, sadly, it has not, because the Liberals are pretty hypocritical when it comes to their proclaimed beliefs in individual freedoms, liberties and civil rights.

Another principle sacrificed for expediency was parliamentary democracy. In fact, one of the new members of this place stood up this week and cited in his first speech the belief in parliamentary democracy as one of the reasons why he is a Liberal. I believe in parliamentary democracy myself. It is one of the reasons why I think the plebiscite's radical departure from parliamentary democracy is something that we should really take a deep breath and consider before this parliament continues to pursue it in this place. It is a radical departure from parliamentary democracy tradition—it is not a conservative idea at all.

The final so-called dearly-held principle of the Liberals that has been sacrificed for political expediency in relation to the plebiscite is the purported claim to fiscal discipline. If anything makes a mockery of the claim to fiscal discipline, I do not know what could be better than the idea that we are going to set fire to $170 million just because some people in the Liberal Party do not think that people who have a sexuality different to theirs should be able to get married, which of course is exactly what they are seeing.

In the bill we are debating today, there is yet more sacrificing of this commitment that Liberals are supposed to have to individual liberty, in the name of political expediency and in the name of this highly-political piece of legislation. In fact, the principle that is being sacrificed is something that the Liberal tradition has so strongly believed in for such a long time, and that is the freedom of parties to a contract or to an agreement to agree on the terms of that agreement—the freedom to bargain and the freedom to agree without restriction by third parties. But what is actually happening in this bill? Of course, the whole effect of this bill is to restrict the nature of the bargain that can be struck between consenting parties. It is saying to parties: no matter what you want to agree on when it comes to reaching agreement with each other you cannot agree on this topic. You are prohibited from agreeing in relation to this particular topic. It is a throwback to the Work Choices era, when the then Prime Minister John Howard led a government that sought to—and was effective in legislating it—prescribe a set list of specific matters about which people could not bargain, at risk of being fined. That was what is in the Work Choices legislation—a long list of prohibited content for agreements. This is not only another attempt to try to ignore the fact that Liberals stand for freedom to contract and bargain. This is not only an attempt to ignore that very longstanding belief that there should not be an intervention by the state in agreements between parties; this is the second time in recent history—well, it is more than the second time, of course, but this is another example—when the Liberals have used the apparatus of the state to intervene in bargains that can be struck by seeking to prohibit terms that can be contained within those bargains. They cannot help it. Work Choices runs through the blood of every Liberal and National member in this place. They are addicted to seeking to use industrial relations legislation to serve their own political ends. That is what this government is doing with this legislation, and of course it is what it did with the Work Choices legislation.

That is a grave shame. You would think that after the 2007 election, the 2010 election and, for that matter, the 2016 election the government would have learned that continuous ideologically driven pursuit of your political opponents, particularly where that is inconsistent with the principles that you profess to hold dear, is not a very good idea, and trying to restrict the matters on which people can bargain is also not a very good idea, particularly when it is for political purposes or where it is excessive intervention by the state in bargains that are struck between parties.

But I also think that this bill really serves to emphasise the hypocrisy of this government in another way, and that is that it is seeking to lecture parties about bargaining when it has proven entirely incompetent at bargaining in its own right. Not only are the Prime Minister and his ministers at this point trying to bring forward this legislation that is really an attempt to lecture other people about how they can bargain, but they are doing so at a time when they are fundamentally failing to accomplish a basic function of government, and that is bargaining with the Australian Public Service in relation to its terms and conditions. This is the first government in 30 years that has been unable to settle public sector bargaining. It is an embarrassment. It is yet another example of how this Prime Minister and this government have plenty to say and talk a lot but are absolutely incompetent when it comes to actually executing. They cannot execute.

The Howard government, a government known for its ideological approach to industrial relations laws, was nonetheless able to progress and finalise bargaining with its own workforce. The Howard government could do it. Governments over many, many years have been able to resolve with their own workforce, the Australian Public Service, pay and conditions through bargaining and through industrial relations arrangements. But this government has been completely unable to do it.

In fact, bargaining for Australian Public Service workplace conditions and pay has been going on for 1,028 days. It is a disgrace. It is part of a wider attack on public services by this coalition government. The reason there are waits at Medicare and over a million phone calls that went unanswered at Centrelink is that this government is unable to lead a service provision framework. It is unable to reach any sort of arrangement with its own workforce. It is unable to deliver services. It is unable to execute, as I say.

When you think about the people that are affected by this, it is not just Minister Cash, who is obviously highly embarrassed by this. It is not just Prime Minister Turnbull, who at least should be highly embarrassed by this. The people who are really affected are normal people with mortgages, people who have families, school fees and bills to pay. They have been stuck in this bargaining deadlock for more than a thousand days, simply because they do not want to accept cuts to the rights and the conditions in their agreements.

This is not a situation of a few staff. It is not a handful of staff. Enterprise agreements covering approximately 165,000 staff across around 115 Commonwealth agencies expired on 30 June 2014. Approximately 70 per cent of APS staff in around 55 agencies have not yet made an agreement. That is about 115,000 workers, the overwhelming majority of them. They work in the Department of Human Services, in the Australian Taxation Office, in the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and in Defence. Staff in these agencies have voted up to three times to reject the government's proposed agreements, and the last pay rise provided for by enterprise agreements for most of them was back in mid-2013. I remember mid-2013 very fondly. It is a long time ago. That is a long time, because of course what has been happening while they have not received a nominal increase in their pay is that inflation has been increasing, so of course the consequence for them is that in real terms they have received a pay cut in those 1,028 days.

Of course, there is also the question of conditions and the arrangements under which people work. A lot of people who are working in these jobs are low-paid people who earn around $50,000—in that vicinity—and they have families and family responsibilities. So it is not just about pay, although pay is important; it is also about conditions of work, because if you have young children—as you know very well, of course, Deputy Speaker Vasta; you have very beautiful young children—you have to be able to have some flexibility.

What is so frustrating about this is that a resolution to this dispute is actually being prevented by the government's own current workplace bargaining policy, which caps pay rises at two per cent per annum and obviously does not make any allowance for the gap since the last pay rise. When you work out and take into account that you have had this real pay cut over the 1,028 days, the offer is, in effect, around one per cent per annum, and people know that that is less than CPI. They know that this makes them worse off.

Probably just as distressingly, the government's policy mandates cuts to working conditions, like increases to working hours and reduced access to part-time work and workplace flexibility. So people know that this is going to make it harder for them to manage work and family obligations. These are competing obligations, and probably what is just as bad as that is that the centralised control over bargaining is such that departmental heads who are pragmatic and can see what needs to be done in order to land a deal so that they can stop the constant bargaining—which is, of course, in and of itself something that takes resources and time—do not have the flexibility. The department heads themselves lack the authority, and they cannot be in a position to put forward tables.

It has got to the point where the workforce is actually having to file good-faith bargaining applications against the government. It is a disgrace that that is having to happen. The government needs to sit down with its workforce and actually find a way to resolve these bargaining disputes, because they are a drag on the Public Service. I think that most people would agree that, whatever your views are about industrial relations, about the politics of industrial relations and about workforce issues, it is actually better for our country if the government is able to deliver stable workplace conditions for its workforce—for the 115,000 or so people for whom that is not yet a reality. But, of course, that takes a government that is able to be competent and to execute—and, unfortunately, that does not seem to have been the case. It is very, very rich, it is ill in the mouth, for the Prime Minister and ministers to lecture other Australians about bargaining when they have been unable to land bargains for their own workforce—the Australian public sector employees.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been in this place for near on six years. I know the member for Griffith has to speak on behalf of her union bosses but, with the greatest respect, that was the most hypocritical speech that I have heard in the last six years. To come into this chamber to speak on this bill—the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016—and to talk about freedom and liberty and to vote against it is an absolute disgrace. The member never even spoke about the bill. The member wants to talk about freedom, liberty and EBA's, but does she understand that the Victorian state government actually sacked the CFA board because they did not do what they wanted? How was that freedom and liberty? They sacked the board and replaced them with their own hand-picked patsies. This is something you would expect in Soviet Russia. And you come in here and you talk about freedom and liberty. What an absolute disgrace!

We live in the greatest country in the world. It is the greatest country in the world not because of good luck but because of our institutions, our customs, our practices and our traditions. Not only do they make us the greatest country in the world; they are the glue that holds our communities together. These things include providing economic opportunity to individuals and, as the member for Berowra said yesterday in a most wonderful speech, 'The ability in this country to chance your arm.' I acknowledge in the gallery Mr Ian Krantz, a gentleman that runs his own business and supports his own family by chancing his arm—and I give him credit for that.

The other glue that holds our community together and that makes us a great society that we are is that spirit of volunteerism. That is why we are bringing this bill into parliament. What the Victorian government are doing is a direct attack on the spirit of volunteerism. It is simply what we see time and time again from the Labor Party—attacking the fundamental things that make our country great. We saw it on the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, for which we had the report this morning from Small Business Ombudsman Kate Carnell. She talked about where the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal put those who were chancing their arm, those individual small business people, at a competitive disadvantage and forced them out of business—a Labor Party initiative. Kate Carnell said:

Fundamentally what we found was the order caused significant financial and emotional distress for small business owner-drivers; many lost work, resulting in a loss of income that impacted not only on their business, but their entire family.

The inquiry also heard evidence that a small number of people found the order compounded their mental health battles and financial difficulties to the extent that they took their own lives ….

The Labor Party supported that. They supported the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. They came in here with the phoney argument that it was all about road safety, when it was all about giving more power to the unions, and they all stand condemned today from that report from the Small Business Ombudsman. And here we are seeing an exact repeat: an attack on that spirit of volunteerism in the Rural Fire Service, as we know them in New South Wales, and the Country Fire Authority, as they are known in Victoria.

The member for Chifley came in here and said, 'There's is no problem. Look away. Look away,' and tried to distract. Is there a problem? Let's just have a look at some of the evidence. Because of this EBA in Victoria, the Victorian emergency services minister—a Labor person elected under the Labor banner sitting in a Labor ministry—resigned because of what the Victorian government is trying to do. Congratulations to Jane Garrett for standing up and pointing out how wrong this is. The chief executive of the Country Fire Authority also resigned in protest and many volunteers have already resigned. I have a few quotes from the CFA chief himself. He said that the EBA 'undermines volunteers, our culture' and 'allows the union operational and management control.' Former CFA chief executive officer, Lucinda Nolan, said this agreement:

… was not going to make the organisation a better place. It is destructive and divisive. I could not stay and oversee the destruction of the CFA.

I think this has the potential to negatively impact the organisation, community safety, our volunteers, and our volunteer contribution.

Yet we have Labor members of parliament, because they have to support the union bosses, not standing up against this.

I also quote the former Labor Minister of Police and Emergency Services under the Bracks government. This is a Labor person who is actually standing up on principle. The former Labor minister said that the Firefighters Union:

… attitude to volunteers has often been dismissive. Many of its demands in its current dispute with the CFA and Trojan horses that would sideline CFA volunteers and undermine their interests, with little or no real benefit for the paid firefighters the UFU represents.

This is, remember, a former Labor minister in Victoria. He also said:

It would also undermine the operational authority of the CFA's Chief Officer and operational commanders as well as compromise the fiduciary responsibilities of the CFA's board under the Country Fire Authority Act.

This is so wrong; this is why this government is acting.

I represent an electorate that knows how important our volunteer firefighters are. In January 1994 we had horrific, catastrophic fires through the Sutherland Shire. We lost 91 buildings and houses in Como West, Bonnet Bay and Jannali. Como West Public School was lost; Como West Presbyterian church was lost. In Bangor we lost five houses, and at Alfords Point, where I was living at the time, we lost nine. Five thousand residents were evacuated and, tragically, there was one death. I can well remember being at the back of my house with flames coming towards me, standing next to my neighbour, and seeing a Rural Fire Service truck, armed with volunteers, coming down the hill. That is something I will never ever forget. And to think that we have Labor members trying to undermine that spirit of volunteerism, because they want to give more power to their union buddies. It is an absolute disgrace. Every single one of you stands condemned. I know you must do what your union bosses tell you, but listen to what your Victorian state minister did. She was prepared to stand up; she had the courage to resign in protest. They can make their speeches to get the tick and flick from their union bosses, but I hope when the vote comes on this legislation and when they call for the noes that those on that side will be silent.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I recognise that the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 affects Victoria and the ACT, and while I do have reservations about this bill, I wish to support it because I support our country firefighters.

I take this opportunity to talk about the fact that my electorate of Mayo is protected entirely by the Country Fire Service of South Australia, and so we depend on the generous spirit of around 3½ thousand volunteers in over 75 brigades. I am extremely grateful that there are these selfless people in my community, and many other communities, who are prepared to give their time, without any pay, and sometimes risk their own lives to protect all of us in regional Australia.

Just in the past 24 hours we have had flash flooding in the Adelaide Hills, with some homes nearly 1½ metres deep in water. The volunteers in both the CFS and the SES are working hard to protect homes, and they are removing debris and evacuating people from danger.

Of course, every summer we are reminded of their essential role in our lives. I have a stark memory of being evacuated from my home during the Sampson Flat bushfire which burned out of control for four days in January 2015. We were very lucky: the volunteer CFS captain lives just two doors down from me. He said, 'Rebecca, it's time to go.' Like many, we packed up photos, passports and insurance papers, and wondered if we would have a home to come back to.

This was the most destructive fire in the Adelaide Hills for more than 30 years, burning more than 12½ thousand hectares of public and private land, with losses including 24 homes, 146 other structures, five businesses and much livestock and fencing. Many native animals and pets also perished.

But those numbers do not tell the true personal cost. We cannot overstate the trauma of losing your home, your business, your animals and having to start again. That is a recovery process that takes years and years. And those numbers do not tell us the economic cost. The direct cost of fighting the fire was around $10 million, including aerial firefighting missions, fire suppressants, transport and accommodation, vehicle and equipment repairs. And those numbers also do not tell us about the brave volunteers who risked their lives round the clock for days. Our volunteers were joined by 600 firefighters from New South Wales and Victoria, and I thank each one of them.

In November that same year in South Australia we were again hit by another devastating fire, the Pinery bushfire, which raged for over seven days just north of my electorate, in the lower Mid North and Barossa regions. This fire affected 86,000 hectares of scrubland and farmland, with the loss of 91 houses, 388 non-residential structures, farm machinery and nearly 100 other vehicles. It also caused significant damage to rural produce. We lost over 50,000 poultry; 17,500 head of livestock perished; and up to $40 million worth of fodder and unharvested grains were destroyed.

Scientists tell us that bushfire risk will increase each year as a result of climate change, so we will be even more dependent on our volunteer firefighters in the future to protect us. And it is not just fires and floods. The volunteer members of the CFS are at every car accident, every road crisis, in my electorate.

I am a strong supporter of volunteer country fire services, and it is for this reason that I support this bill. However, I feel compelled to put on the record some reservations. There has been some debate among legal experts as to whether this legislation is beyond Commonwealth legislative power, which may lead to a potential legal challenge on the basis of it being unconstitutional. There is a constitutional principle that the states have the right to conduct their activities autonomously, without undue interference from the Commonwealth. I am concerned that this bill may be overreaching by the government.

I understand this bill will be referred by the Senate to a committee and examined for unintended consequences. I look forward to the outcomes of that inquiry, which will inform the consideration of this bill by my colleagues in the Senate. But I do support this bill, because volunteers are important to my community. They are the lifeblood of regional Australia.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 today. My comments should be viewed in light of the fact that I have been an emergency service volunteer and I understand the very unique issues faced by volunteers. The government's timing on this issue and the introduction of the legislation is a bit concerning. Why the rush? There is a Supreme Court action pending in Victoria, where legal ruling on the issues that this legislation is apparently dealing with will be handed down in a few weeks. Again, why the rush? Why not use the outcome of the independent umpire, the court, to inform the legislative process? We might find that federal intervention is not required. It says a lot about the nature of this government.

Over the last few months this government has made unnecessary intrusion into Victorian politics. They shamelessly targeted the most valued and trusted people in our communities—our firefighting forces—and engaged in a long-running industrial relations dispute in the hope of winning a few votes at the federal election. In a cynical and desperate attempt, the government made an election commitment to, as the government puts it, prevent a union takeover of the CFA. This rushed, poorly-drafted bill is the result.

Last week in question time the Prime Minister said that he wanted to ensure that volunteers could not be made subordinate to the UFU. Nothing can be further from the truth. This bill has nothing to do with respect for emergency service volunteers. Despite the title, it is about union crucifixion. The Prime Minister spoke about standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the CFA 'in the face of an assault' by the Andrews government. The only thing that this government has achieved with this bill is splitting firefighting forces right down the middle, pitting them against each other. Why? Because there is a union involved and, when it comes to unions, they just cannot help themselves. The division being fuelled by the Liberals led to a letter from one of my CFA brigade captains. He says:

Exactly when will it have gone far enough?

Will it be when a career fire fighter's wife or husband or child are reduced to tears in a country community because of the abuse hurled from some 'well informed source'?

Will it be when career fire fighters and volunteers, previously lifetime friends, come to blows on one of our trucks or in our stations?

Will it be when someone is more seriously injured by themselves or others due to the urging of those who think of this as simply another industrial stoush?

That's what I would like to know. When will it be enough?'

That is why this government refuses to talk about the bill—because it is not about protecting volunteer firefighters; it is about the demonisation of unions.

This is a backdoor approach by this government to undermine the union movement through proposed changes to the Fair Work Act. But do they actually know what they are changing? Certainly, Minister Cash does not. The minister is clearly clueless on this issue. Time and time again she has stated one thing only to have the facts proved the opposite. She claimed there are specific clauses in the CFA's EBA that will end volunteering as we know it. She cannot name them and she cannot show them to anyone, but they are there somewhere—surely, surely they are there! Channelling her inner Dennis Denuto from the film The Castle on that now-famous train wreck of an interview with David Speers, she basically said, to quote Dennis Denuto: It's Mabo, it's the Constitution, it's the vibe and—no, that's it; it's just the vibe.'

She claims there is no one specific clause in the agreement that is a problem—it will just make volunteers leave in droves. When asked how it would make them leave she cannot answer, because every concern that has been raised is being addressed or has been addressed. She takes claims by a sacked CFA board member about the EBA at face value without checking the facts. I have spoken to every single CFA captain in my electorate, and this is what is being said about those claims from the former board member:

There is absolutely no excuse for him to continue to repeat redundant clauses of a past draft of the CFA EBA. His comments are factually incorrect, ignorant, and can only incite further fear and division in the CFA ranks.

Every time the minister or the government come up with a new lie about this EBA there is someone there who shows it up. Even the chief fire officer of the CFA himself has come out and said that the EBA will not affect his ability to deploy his volunteers or to give them the training and resources they need. This is the chief fire officer of the CFA, not Liberals who have never volunteered in their lives. When pushed, Senator Cash could not even state how fighting the EBA is standing up for the volunteers. 'Sixty thousand volunteers can't be wrong', she said. But they can be deceived when they have been fed misinformation from this government, whose sole purpose is not protect volunteers, not to fight for our communities but, once again, to use them as unwitting pawns in a fight against unionism for no reason other than that they are a union. The government do it for political gain.

The government is genuinely dishonest to our firefighters. It is not right, it is not fair and it is not the first time. You just need to look at the rushed drafting of this bill itself. The majority of the bill appears, at first glance, to duplicate the existing definitions and provisions of section 109 of the Fair Work Act. Section 109 of the Fair Work Act defines a 'recognised emergency management body' and a 'voluntary emergency management activity'. It also provides for Fair Work regulations to prescribe an activity that would meet the definitions in section 109 and be ultimately included in the scope of the FWA. At first glance you would think this section is sufficient to cover emergency services volunteers, but the new section 195A proposed in this bill provides definitions for a 'designated emergency management body' and 'volunteer of a designated emergency management body'. That is essentially a duplicate of the existing definitions in section 109. So why would you need to put these new definitions in? That made me look at it again.

If this bill goes ahead, section 195A would require an organisation to meet two definitions—one under subsection 109(3) and subsection 195A(4)(b). Essentially, if you can meet one you meet the other. So it is a little redundant in my opinion. Why the two definitions, when one would do? Then we found it. The devil is in the detail, and this one carries a pretty hefty pitchfork. The kicker is hiding in plain sight in subsection 195A(5), with a brief explanation in paragraph 25 of the explanatory memorandum. The Fair Work Regulations may prescribe that an organisation is not a designated emergency management body for the purposes of subsection 195A(5). This relates to the definition in subsection 195A(4).

In all that technical talk, the subsection gives this government the capacity to decide on a whim, through the regulations, which emergency management organisation is in or out of scope of the Fair Work Act. You might meet one definition but find that you do not meet another. The lack of clarity and consultation on the bill, the uncertainty that it causes for those in career and volunteer firefighting communities, and the fact that there is an ongoing court case, should be enough for my colleagues on the other side to consider shelving it. But instead, they are trying to ram it through. They will argue that any opposition to the bill shows that Labor is not cooperating, that we are not being bipartisan. If this government says one thing to the community it will do something else in this legislation. Of course we are going to stand up and say something. It is not going to get a free ride. It will be held to account. In our state we have a long and proud history of cooperation.

Spring is coming, and with it comes a very early fire season—a fire season that our community knows too well. We have been at the epicentre of just about every major fire in Victoria in the last decade. Sixty per cent of the electorate has been burnt out. It is time the government pulled its head it. Let the courts and the independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission, do their job and let the CFA do theirs: protecting the property and lives of people in our community. Volunteers and career firefighters represent two sides of a priceless coin. I will not stand there and let the coalition split them down the middle purely for their selfish political gain.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.