Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

Thanks; normally in this process the questions are from us to the minister. But given that the minister has steadfastly denied any opportunity to give an answer to any question, let me just tell you what the problems are. Firstly, it removes from the commission an important discretion to hear or not from intervenors, and it limits the capacity of the commission to regulate its own proceedings. That has been a longstanding position that has meant that even the minister herself can have standing, but only in very limited circumstances. That is the first point.

The second point is that it would require the commission and bargaining representatives to address submissions regardless of their merit and proper interest. Now, VFBV might think they have issues they want to take up, but there might be no merit in them. I do not see a lot of merit in a lot of issues they raise. But that is not up to me. That should be up to the commission. That is what the commission has always done. It has always had the right to make sure that it can properly test the merit and the proper interest. That has gone under this proposal—gone.

The third point is that the limitation on the scope of the submissions is illusory in circumstances where the commission and bargaining representatives would need to address and assess any submission, if only for the purpose of determining whether or not the matter before the commission could affect the volunteers. This is going to another aspect of the bill. We have not even reached the bill yet, but we will get there, I promise you. We will get there. But this is one of the issues about 'could affect'. So what the commission will have to do is make a determination: could this affect the volunteers? The minister does not have the right to go and put that proposition to the commission. No-one else has the right to put it to the commission. But the VFBV has under this bill.

Now, I have to say to you that the VFBV do not come here as angels with halos around the heads. They do not come here like that—far from it. The submissions to the inquiry were clearly biased. The submissions to the inquiry were clearly about power and control for the VFBV, so do not think that it is a one-sided argument here. But what the government has done, for political purposes, is look at the numbers—and you hear the numbers all the time—and gone: 'Oh. Sixty thousand volunteers against 800 firefighters. Let's get the votes of 60,000 volunteers.' That is what this was about.

The VFBV do not come here with clean hands. To give them standing when they were in collusion with the old board of the CFA to diminish the union's capacity to bargain on behalf of its members, when they were in collusion with the old board of the CFA to destroy bargaining rights in the CFA—well, do not think that you have a bunch of angels sitting up in the bleachers this evening. All care but no responsibility; all good but no bad. It is not like that. Life is not like that. We know exactly what the VFBV are about. Some of the stuff that the VFBV put out during that election campaign was disgraceful, and it was designed to drive a wedge between the volunteers and the paid firefighters. So that is another reason why we should be very careful about this bill.

The fourth area is the rights that are being proposed extend to all stages and aspects of the enterprise bargaining process. So the VFBV can come in at any stage of the bargaining and seek intervention before the commission. It provides for a stranger to the bargaining process to intrude in the bargaining between the industrial parties. That does not happen anywhere else in the country. It just does not happen. The argument that it should happen, because they could not get standing, is bizarre, now that we know that the hero of the CFA, Ms Lucinda Nolan, opposed their application for standing before Commissioner Roe. If that had not happened and Ms Nolan had come in and argued that they should have standing, Commissioner Roe, as an honest and unbiased commissioner, may have made a different decision. But now we have bills in front of us based on an argument that the VFBV were denied standing, when we now find out that the CFA were opposed to that standing being given and actually put it in writing. So that is another reason.

Another reason is that it accords a private association greater rights of submission than is accorded even to the minister or state ministers. So you have this group of volunteers with more rights than a minister of the Crown. Now they might all be up there with little halos above their heads, but we know that is not the reality. But, even if they did, it is not right that they should be given these special privileges available to no-one else in the country—not even the minister.

The other reason we should not agree with this is that it invites delay, disputation and complexity to the whole enterprise bargaining process. The bargaining representatives are supposed and intended by the act under section 171(a) to be simple, flexible and fair. The act determines that it should be simple, flexible and fair. I put it to the Senate that this is not simple. Even though, again, Minister Cash asserts certain things, it does not make them right. They are not simple; they are not flexible, and they are certainly not fair.

So, this revelation that Ms Lucinda Nolan, in writing, rejected the volunteers' application for standing is quite bizarre, because we have heard the minister tonight almost beatify Ms Nolan. And here we have the proposition that the whole basis of the act, of this bill that is before us, could have been fixed up if Ms Nolan had actually said to the commission, 'We agree, there should be some standing,' and outlined some reasons for the standing. But, no, she argued against that standing.

Minister, you asked me the question. I have given you seven reasons why we should not do that. I can keep going on; I can give you more. I am happy to answer all your questions on this stupidity we have before us—this political bill that is not about looking after Victorians leading up to a firefighting season, and that has nothing to do with getting proper relationships between the volunteers and the paid firefighters. Minister, this is about the coalition's fundamental hatred of the trade union movement. You are prepared to use volunteers and you are prepared to use firefighters, who put their lives on the line when they go out on the job, as punching bags in your hatred for the trade union movement in this country. These are valid reasons why this bill should not go ahead.

I hope that any senator who had previously made their mind up about this will now take on board that this could have been resolved simply and easily if the CFA had said, 'We want to do what this bill says should happen, and the VFBV should have its standing in that hearing.' It beggars belief that this is where we are and we have just found this out now. Minister, you asked the questions. There are the answers I am prepared to give you, but I ask you to now address each one of those seven points that I have raised as to why they should not get standing.