Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I have a separate question. I am not sure whether Senator Cameron wanted to follow up on that. I want to go to the words of subclause 195A(1)(c) of the bill. The bill sets out what is and what is not an objectionable emergency management term. I would like to clarify one thing from the minister on this definition: in particular, the words in subclause 195A(1)(c) of the bill, which states:

(1) A term of an enterprise agreement is an objectionable emergency management term if … the term has, or is likely to have, the effect of:

… … …

(c) restricting or limiting the body’s ability to recognise, value, respect or promote the contribution of its volunteers to the well-being and safety of the community.

Can the minister please advise what sort of practical impact will the terms 'recognise', 'value', 'respect' and 'promote' have when deciding whether a term is an objectionable emergency management term? How does the government foresee that this will actually apply in practice? Putting a lawyer's cap on, it seems that this is something that may lead to some litigation. That is not unusual with a new piece of legislation; there is nothing wrong with that in itself, but I am just trying to understand what the government foresees as the scope of the words 'recognise', 'value', 'respect' and 'promote'.