Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Hansard source

No, that is not the evidence. Do not try to misrepresent the evidence. The evidence was that the volunteers from the rural brigades clearly had a problem. I am talking about the volunteers that were in the integrated stations. Anyone who was at the inquiry will clearly know that they were supporting this agreement, and the evidence speaks for itself in that respect. They know that they get a benefit out of it. I will take you to some of the evidence about that in a moment, if I get time.

They want to get on with it. The volunteers and the professional firefighters talked about—to use Senator Paterson's words—'the trail of destruction' that has been caused by the politicisation of this dispute.' They all want to get on with it. The CFA management want to get on with it. The workers want to get on with it. The volunteers want to get on with it. Victorians want to get on with it. We want this agreement to be made and we want agreement reached. We want the agreement implemented and we want the politicisation of the CFA to stop. That is what everyone wants. Everyone wants that.

Ms Diver, the new CEO, clearly wants to move forward. She put a view that, while the EBA may not be perfect in every sense, it was a document that enabled them to move forward with all their staff—both volunteers and career firefighters—and get the organisation back on track, to move forward, with no restrictions on the operational control of fighting fires, and to move forward in the interests of the Victorian community.

Now, that will not be in the interests of the Liberal Party. It will not be in the interests of the Liberal Party because they want this to continue, and that is what this bill is designed to do. But the interests of the Liberal Party are at odds with the interests of Victorians. Victorians want the agreement to proceed. They want this bill to be opposed, because Victorians know that this bill will do nothing but create further disputation and ensure agreements are never reached in the CFA. I think it is an appalling objective of this government to try to continue the politicisation of this bill.

How does the bill ensure that there will never be agreement reached? We took evidence from Professor Andrew Stewart, and he said—and I paraphrase:

On the evidence before the committee the bill would simply add layers of … complexity and delay to any future bargaining process. Bargaining would become even more complex, with the capacity for legal appeals to the High Court including on issues of constitutionality. Volunteers will not be affected by the proposed EBA and the security and well-being of Victorians will not be compromised. However interminable legal arguments arising from the bill would exacerbate division and divert resources from firefighting.

On this basis, on the evidence before the committee, we say as senators that this bill should certainly not be passed. Professor Stewart raised issues, and I will now go to his direct quotes:

… if a Chief Officer gives directions, or establishes standard operating procedures [under the CFA Act], as to the chain of command for the performance of emergency work by firefighters, those directions or procedures must prevail over anything to the contrary in an enterprise agreement.

and, therefore, it would not apply in any case.

The CFA chief fire officer was unequivocal in his view that the proposed EBA would not impact upon the CFA's firefighting abilities. He stated that he was 'really confident' that 'during a firefight, operations will not be compromised.' He also indicated that the instrument provided to him, in writing from the CFA board chair, gives him 'assurances that the powers of the Chief Officer are not being compromised' by this agreement.

Much has been said about the misconceptions over the proposed EBA. I have already been to the motivations for much of that. But I have to say that I have never seen such a wilfully and deliberately misleading campaign orchestrated together—hand in hand—with the press and elements of the political class and the volunteers' organisation itself. Some 20-odd front-page headlines in the Herald Sun are nearly all inaccurate—with hearsay and misinformation being peddled. We heard the minister and we heard other people peddling misinformation about the impact of some of these clauses. We had people believing that, under the EBA, in a fire situation every decision being made on the fireground would potentially have to go to the union for agreement and potentially end up in the Fair Work Commission. This is absolute nonsense. Senator Paterson was able to give us very few examples of where the EBA does impact upon volunteers. He talked about the volunteer support officers, but I want to make the point that that clause is in the existing agreement. That is not a new clause, so nothing will change with respect to the way that is being operated. People cannot say, 'Things are going to change because of the new clause,' because it is an existing clause.

We have a situation where it is not the government's intention to try to assist the CFA in fighting fires. It is not their intention to promote harmonious workplace relations. It is not their intention to support volunteers. Their intention is to have an ongoing dispute festering away that people are confused about, and that brings up strong emotions from many people, and exploit that for their own political ends. That is not what the Senate ought to endorse. The Senate, as a house of review, should look closely at these matters and should say, 'We are not going to let the government politicise the CFA in Victoria. We are not going to let the government use these people, who put their lives on the line defending us, as political footballs.' We should not allow that. The Senate should say no to that. That is one of the roles we are here for. We need to have the courage to look at the detail and look at the evidence presented before the Senate inquiry and say that this is nothing but a political beat-up. It was a promise made in the middle of a federal election campaign in front of a volunteers rally as part of a campaigning strategy. That is what this bill is all about. It is an election strategy delivery process. That is when the promise was made and that is how it is intended to be delivered.

I am disappointed that we are in this position today. I am disappointed that the Senate may even pass this bill. For Victorians, that means ongoing uncertainty. It means an organisation that has been damaged by this dispute will continue to be damaged. Relationships between volunteers and career firefighters will continue to be damaged. This is all in the name of votes—cheap votes for the Liberal Party in Victoria and here federally. I think it is a disgrace—it is a disgrace to use people in this cheap, political way. It is appalling that this government has denigrated firefighters, who are our heroes in this community.