Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Rhiannon, I understand that you may have left the chamber for a very short period of time. But during that short period of time that was the exact question that Senator Cameron asked me. I took Senator Cameron through some of the clauses that are of concern or have been highlighted as being of concern to the volunteers. I also highlighted to Senator Cameron that Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria had done a comprehensive analysis of the proposed enterprise agreement and had gone through each clause, on a clause-by-clause basis, to highlight where they believe there was going to be a clause of concern.

If you like, I am more than happy to take you through the answer that I gave to Senator Cameron, if that would assist you. In particular, there are a number of clauses that are of particular concern and have been raised as being of concern for some months now—in fact, for some time—and they were certainly raised by the Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria at the Senate hearing, which I understand you may have attended.

Again, I will not go through them in detail, because I think I have really put that on the record for Senator Cameron, but of concern were: clause 21, in relation to the extensive, consensus-based consultation process required under the agreement; clause 41, in which current CFA policies will be reviewed and only remade through a process where union consensus is required; clause 44, in terms of the minimum staffing levels, in particular, the prohibition on cross crewing of any appliances, unless agreed by parties; clause 35, which sets out that all employees covered by the agreement shall only report to operational employees under the agreement or at the rank of DCO or CO when responding to fire alarms or incidents under this agreement, except in certain cases as defined by the clause. Just very briefly, other clauses which have been raised as of concern: clause 15.1, dealing with brigade support programs; clause 16, dealing with volunteer support programs; clause 60, which mandates that peer support will only be drawn from paid firefighters.

One of the other clauses—I think it is almost a great shame that it has to be raised as a clause of concern to the volunteer firefighters—is set out in schedule 20 to the proposed agreement, and it proposes that the volunteer firefighters and the paid firefighters will now have to wear different uniforms, so they are identified differently. So, to anyone in this chamber who stands up and says there is nothing divisive about this agreement, I would say that that clause alone—whereby you want to now specifically identify who is a paid firefighter and who is a volunteer firefighter and deliberately put a wedge between them—is enough in itself.

Senator Rhiannon, you may also be interested in this, and I am happy to read it out to the Senate: it is a letter dated 30 June 2016 from Peter Rau, Chief Officer of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board. It was written to the Hon. James Merlino MP, the relevant minister. Mr Rau goes through in detail the impact that he says a number of these clauses have had on his own organisation and why it is dangerous for them to be carried on into the proposed agreement with the CFA. What he says is this:

I write to you as Chief Officer of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (MFB).

He goes on to talk about the agreement, and says:

… I wish to raise with you my serious concerns regarding the negotiations with the United Firefighters Union (UFU).

I am aware of the terms of the enterprise agreement that the UFU has proposed to the CFA … in the context of its current bargaining. It is my understanding that the UFU expects any agreement negotiated with the CFA to be substantially reflected in the terms of a new agreement to apply to the MFB.

He then goes on to talk about the bargaining period:

Throughout this bargaining period which commenced in April 2013, the MFB's position has been that its own current agreement seriously impedes the delivery of effective fire prevention and suppression services in Victoria. The fundamental concern relates to the requirements under the current agreement that the Chief Officer must consult and reach agreement with the UFU in relation to operational matters.

So the issues that have been raised by those in the CFA dispute are the issues that Mr Rau is talking about here. He continues:

I am concerned that, far from improving the already very troubling position that exists under our current agreement, the proposed CFA provisions would further hinder my ability as Chief Officer to effectively fulfil my statutory responsibilities as you and the community expect.

As the Chief Officer, I have to respond quickly and decisively to emergency situations. I am also required to make strategic decisions to prepare for emergency situations. As the head of operations I need to make decisions unimpeded by provisions within an industrial instrument requiring agreement from a third party …

Which is exactly what we see happening here. Mr Rau continues:

The proposed CFA agreement would, if applied to the MFB, create even greater concerns.

He then goes on to say:

I wish to draw your attention to some examples under the current MFB enterprise agreement that have led to—

what he terms—

unacceptable situations.

Senator Rhiannon, these are some of them:

For over two years, the MFB was unable to deploy new advanced appliances because the UFU refused to agree to their deployment. This came to a head during a week-long heatwave when I needed these appliances to be deployed to meet the MFB's responsibilities …

He needed the appliances to be deployed to meet the MFB's responsibilities, and he could not get consensus from the union. He continues:

In this instance I had a direct request for support from Ambulance Victoria … Over a two day period consultation occurred with the union…

Over a two-day period, in an emergency situation, consultation occurred with the union to resolve the matter. This is an emergency situation where someone needs to make a decision there and then. But because of a consultation clause in the agreement they are emasculated—they are unable to make a decision. But it gets worse. He then goes on to say:

Due to the inability to reach agreement we sought the assistance of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) and as such, in the middle of the heatwave, two Deputy Chief Officers spent a further afternoon and evening at the FWC seeking a resolution to release these appliances into operations the following day, distracting us from critical operational activities.

Senator Rhiannon, it goes on and it goes on and it goes on. His conclusion is:

The current Enterprise Agreement and its power of veto over my statutory responsibilities is unworkable and undermines community safety.

Senator Rhiannon, these are real life examples of what can occur when you utilise an enterprise agreement for purposes for which it was not intended. These are real life examples of where safety has been potentially put at risk because of the clauses that have been raised by the volunteer firefighters as being of concern.