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

As I said, if you go back to what we were talking about prior to the dinner break in relation to the letter that was written to the Hon. James Merlino, one of the fundamental concerns that have been raised by the volunteers is in relation to the consultation clauses as proposed by the agreement. You look at the actual examples that are given in relation to the MFB in terms of their agreement, which contains similar clauses. And what has actually happened? You are talking about a direct impact in relation to the ability of someone to make a decision there and then on the ground because a clause in an agreement states that that decision cannot be made without consulting with the union.

In terms of schedule 20 and the list of station wear, uniform et cetera, the volunteers question why the proposed agreement requires union agreement on what uniforms volunteers wear. Why would you need to consult the union about what the volunteers must wear? It requires that paid firefighter unions must be significantly visually distinguishable and will only be made available to paid firefighters. Again, this is a genuine concern raised by the volunteers. Why should the volunteers have to consult with the UFU in relation to the uniforms that the volunteers wear?

In relation to clause 16, the volunteer support programs, again the volunteers question why the proposed agreement gives the union power over volunteer support programs. Again, if you go back to the basic fundamentals of what an enterprise agreement is, an enterprise agreement provides for terms and conditions of employment for those employees to whom it applies. In that case, you are right: it is the paid firefighters. But this whole dispute is about expanding the reach of the enterprise agreement into volunteer arrangements, affecting approximately 60,000 fantastic men and women across Victoria who, as we all know, literally risk their lives to ensure that the community in Victoria is safe, and that reach is being expanded beyond what is contemplated by the Fair Work Act.

But, Senator Cameron, if you do not want to listen to anything that I say—and that is fair enough; I do not have an issue with that—perhaps we need to go through again what the former CFA chief executive officer Lucinda Nolan has said in relation to this agreement. She said:

It 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.

She then went on to say:

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

She also went on to say:

I was given a clear alternative whether to sign the EB or to resign, and obviously I chose the latter.

Then, of course, the CFA board stood up to Daniel Andrews, the Premier of Victoria, and stated on the record their concerns in relation to the proposed agreement. This is what they said:

We have serious concerns many of these proposed clauses are unlawful and we have legal advice that indicates CFA would be in breach of its statutory obligations.

They went on to say:

Many of these clauses have no place in modern day workplaces and are out of step with today's society.

Advice from the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission is that some clauses do not comply with the Equal Opportunity Act and would be unlawful.

They then went on to say in a statement:

The proposed EBA undermines volunteers, our culture, allows the UFU operational and management control of CFA and are discriminatory

We all know what, unfortunately, happened to the board that articulated its very serious concerns with what is occurring in Victoria, and that is, of course, expanding the reach of the agreement into volunteer arrangements—people who should not be caught by this agreement, because they are not employees. We all know what happened: when you do not like what a board is saying, you sack it, and that is exactly what the Victorian Labor government did.

Then we go on. The former Labor Minister for Police and Emergency Services during the Bracks government, Andre Haermeyer, said of the firefighters union:

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

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. Full-time paid firefighters deserve to have their safety and interests protected, but so do volunteers.

And the list goes on. What did Andrew Ford, the CEO of Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria, recently say? He said:

Our issues are not between paid firefighters and volunteers; they are about a broader union control than that industrial interference with CFA decision-making and an EBA that we submit effectively dismantles the legislated nature and operations of the CFA and therefore erodes the capacity of the CFA to manage their operations.

He also said:

If the constructive CFA is dismantled, if the respect for volunteers and the roles they do and can and have performed is eroded, and if the provision of support to them to perform their role well is eroded, then volunteers will walk.

Senator Cameron, that is a very serious statement to make. And, as I have already articulated, I have been alarmed—