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

I can indicate that I and my colleagues Senators Kakoschke-Moore and Senator Griff will be supporting this bill. We have some reservations about it which I believe ought to be properly ventilated in the committee stage but, on balance, the right thing to do is to support this legislation.

I also need to refer at the outset to the contribution made by my colleague, Rebecca Sharkie, the member for Mayo, an electorate that is protected entirely by the Country Fire Service of South Australia, which depends on the generous spirit of around 3,000 volunteers in over 75 brigades. When Ms Sharkie made her contribution about this in the other place not so long ago, she made the point that she is extremely grateful that there are selfless people in her community and in many other communities who are prepared to give their time, and sometimes to risk their own lives, to protect all of us. I share those sentiments of Ms Sharkie. I also accept that she has some concerns about the legal argument amongst some legal experts—that this may or may not be unconstitutional, and that it may lead to a potential legal challenge on the basis of it being unconstitutional; and whether, as some say, it is an overreach. This is a unique set of circumstances, and a very messy, bitter dispute. To call it a bitter dispute is probably an understatement, given the passions that it has triggered on both sides of the debate.

It is worth making brief reference to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee's report, which I think gives a fair summary in the body of the report of the history of this dispute. There is also a very comprehensive dissenting report from non-government senators. The committee's report says:

The FWC is currently able to inform itself on any matter before it, including by inviting oral and written submissions. However, the FW Act does not entitle a volunteer body to make a submission about a matter involving an enterprise agreement that is before the FWC, even if the matter could affect the volunteers represented by that body.

That is what this bill is seeking to address, and that is something that it is important that we deal with.

I know that the coalition has been attacking the UFU, and I do not find that useful. I met with Mr Peter Marshall, who articulated his union's position very well in terms of this. I also find it unhelpful for Senator McKenzie, who I have a great deal of regard for, to have a dig at Professor Andrew Stewart—who has a different view; he does not support this bill—just because he did some work for the Gillard government on industrial relations. He is somebody who is a regular commentator in my home state of South Australia, where he is from. He is a regular on the Leon Byner program on FIVEaa, where he gives some very considered opinions on industrial relations—opinions which I find pretty much middle-of-the-road. Good people can have different views on this, but I think we need to make a decision.

The UFU has been attempting to negotiate a new enterprise agreement since 2013. Commission Roe issued a final recommendation on 1 June 2016 to try and resolve the dispute. The minister the time, Jane Garrett, refused to back the proposal and resigned from cabinet on 10 June 2016, and Deputy Premier Merlino took on the portfolio. The CFA board refused to endorse the agreement and was dismissed by the state government, and the Chief Executive Officer, Lucinda Nolan, resigned, closely followed by the Chief Fire Officer, Joe Buffone. Madam Acting Deputy President, that just gives you an idea of what a mess, and how bitter and protracted, this dispute has been. The fact that a cabinet minister resigned as a result of this dispute, I think, is very telling.

This issue was occurring long before the election campaign, but it has become a political issue—some would say a political football. Nonetheless, we have to deal with this issue. Regardless of the regrettable politicisation of this debate, the Senate has a job to do: we need to deal with this bill. It is abundantly clear that there are opposing views, and that there is no simple solution. Allegations of union takeover, veto powers, and paid staff only reporting to paid staff, have been strenuously denied by the UFU. Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria made this point in their submission. They say:

… allowing the union to vet current policies and shape and effectively determine policy proposals by CFA where those policies affect employees under the UFU Agreement in some manner. Volunteers are excluded from this process.

The submission goes on to say:

The deal precludes CFA from responding to government on proposed changes arising from any proposed legislative, statutory rules or regulatory changes or reforms likely to constitute a major change or significant effect on employees. In other words, CFA can’t have interaction with government on even hypothetical matters without first checking with the union under the consultation clause as part of the deal!

And there was an exclamation mark at the end of that part of the submission. So there are different views: the UFU, in their quite considered submission, say that is not the case. But I want to err on the side of caution—and the caution is that we do not want volunteers to be discouraged from being volunteers as a result of the matters in this dispute. That is something that does concern me.

We also need to look at what the effect of this particular piece of legislation will be in relation to this dispute. We need to see whether this will actually solve the problem. I believe that the Senate should not be focused on who is right or who is wrong in this dispute. Rather, the focus should be on whether this bill will do anything to resolve this dispute. I believe that, on balance, it will clarify the rights and responsibilities of volunteers and members of the UFU in their interactions with each other. This bill contains a number of clauses which I think ought to be the subject of robust consideration, examination and questioning of the minister in the committee stages of this bill, to see that there are not any unintended consequences, and also to determine what the scope of the regulations will be and what the government is planning. Of course, the Senate does have a role in disallowing those regulations, as it should—as it must—under the rules governing subordinate legislation.

I want to come to one issue that was raised by my friend and colleague Senator Cameron. Well, I regard him as a friend. I do not know if it is mutual, but I hope it is.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

What?