Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in opposition to the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016—legislation that is not only opportunistic and reckless but actually dangerous. This bill is the outcome of the ultimate example of politics triumphing policy, of myths being ruthlessly peddled over substance, of a government manipulatively sowing fear and division for base political reasons, of shameless opportunism at the expense of firefighters and community safety, and of Liberal politicking that saw the Prime Minister himself use the good volunteer firefighters of Victoria as unwitting pawns in his blatant attempt to secure his own job.

At the outset of my contribution I would like to record my huge admiration, respect and gratitude to all firefighters. I would like to acknowledge the incredible contribution that they make by putting themselves in danger to protect the lives and property of their fellow Australians. And I would like to recognise the many thousands of selfless volunteer firefighters that are a critical and necessary part of Australia's emergency response.

I wholeheartedly support the words of Premier Daniel Andrews that he penned in an opinion piece at the height of the federal Liberal fearmongering over the industrial agreement that is the subject of this bill. He wrote:

The role of volunteer firefighters in this state is sacrosanct. At no stage has our government questioned it or jeopardised it.

Anything that says otherwise is a lie.

It is this lie that sits at the very heart of this legislation. The bill before us today is nothing but unnecessary and undue meddling by the Commonwealth in state affairs. Today I would like to address some of the misrepresentations, myths and outright lies about the enterprise bargaining agreement that prompted the hysteria of those opposite.

You only need to watch Senator Cash's train wreck interview on Sky News on 22 August to see that this bill is nothing but a base exercise in cynical politicking, completely devoid of substance or justification. The minister showed very clearly that she knew nothing about the EBA by parroting the tired and completely untrue claim that seven firefighters must be dispatched and present at a fire before any firefighting starts. At this point, interviewer David Speers, who to his great credit had done his homework, revealed the truth of the matter by quoting clause 7A of the agreement itself. This clause clearly states that it does not require seven firefighters to be physically present at the fire before actually commencing firefighting operations. What is also important to note here is that the requirement for seven firefighters to be dispatched only affects 34 integrated CFA stations in highly populated areas. These stations represent three per cent of the almost 1,200 CFA stations across the entire state of Victoria—three per cent. And yet the minister wants us to believe this is reason enough to scrap the entire agreement. Mr Speers then went on to point out that in fact the chief fire officer at the CFA also said that the agreement will not affect his ability to direct a fire. But the interview then went from embarrassing to humiliating for Senator Cash, who clearly had not done her homework, as Mr Speers correctly pointed out that clause 7A also clearly states that the role of volunteers in fighting bushfires and maintaining community safety is not altered by this agreement.

But it gets worse. Mr Speers offered the minister the opportunity to name a clause in the agreement that caused her the greatest concern. Do you know what? She could not actually name a single cause that raised concerns for her and not a single clause that would actually impact on the ability of volunteer firefighters to do their job—not one justification for this blatant attack on unions and a fundamental and necessary feature of our industrial relations system, the enterprise bargaining agreement.

And yet, even after their brazen opportunism and complete lack of substance has been categorically demonstrated, those opposite have the gall to continue to bring this bill before us today. It is astounding. Falsely, the bill before us today asserts that the agreement in question 'interferes with the capacity of the CFA to manage its volunteers' and 'will weaken the CFA as an organisation and compromise the safety of Victorians'. These are serious claims and, on face reading, worthy of addressing, except for the fact the EBA that this bill seeks to destroy does not apply to volunteers at all and has no capacity to impact on them. Indeed, the importance of volunteers is explicitly acknowledged in the proposed agreement when it states:

The role of volunteers in fighting bushfires and maintaining community safety and delivering high quality services to the public in remote and regional areas and in integrated stations, is not altered by this Agreement.

For the avoidance of doubt, except as provided in Clause 60—Peer Support, nothing in this agreement shall prevent volunteers in the CFA from providing the services normally provided by such volunteers without remuneration.

The seven firefighters requirement is just one of the myths that has been peddled about this agreement, and I would like to address a few more just for the record. This agreement will not cost $600 million or a billion or whatever other inflated figure you might have heard. Volunteers have been consulted. This is not a union takeover, as some media outlets have tried to claim. There is no veto power in the agreement which would allow the United Firefighters Union to overrule the decisions of the CFA. It will not destroy the CFA. Indeed, the Fair Work Commission itself ruled in favour of the agreement, saying the role of volunteers was 'not altered' by the proposed agreement. In fact, if there is any side of politics that should hang their heads in shame for attacking emergency services, it is the Liberals, who cut $66 million out of the CFA in Victoria.

Not only is there no basis for this bill but it could set a dangerous precedent. If one agreement can be taken down by federal legislation, the entire enterprise agreement framework is weakened. By attacking one specific workplace agreement it potentially puts all workplace agreements that sit under the Commonwealth framework under threat. In fact, the Police Federation of Australia put in a submission to the inquiry saying that they fear that it could be extended to policing in the future, which they say 'would cause great concern for policing'. I think my colleague from Tasmania Senator Lambie raised this exact issue: what does it mean for other enterprise agreements and other emergency services? The Police Federation of Australia then go further, saying:

Should this Bill be carried, the proposed provision will likely only serve to hinder and restrict police forces from encouraging the use of volunteers.

So, while the government says it cares about volunteers, this senseless legislation would actually discourage their use—not only that, but it would lay the groundwork for future Liberal governments to disregard the negotiation process and legislate away legitimately negotiated outcomes. In doing this, this bill would weaken the entire Fair Work framework and all agreements that are negotiated in good faith under it.

Indeed, the Victorian Government warns of this in its submission to the inquiry into this bill. The Victorian government also points out that this legislation is cantankerous and unnecessary but that it sets a dangerous precedent for future EBAs. And this goes to the heart of the true agenda of those opposite: attacking working Australians and the groups that represent them. We have seen again and again in this place that there are no depths those opposite will not plumb when it comes to attacking unions and the work they do representing working Australians. This is just the latest iteration, because those opposite know that weakening our industrial relations system makes it much harder for hardworking Australians to negotiate for fair outcomes and conditions.

It is no coincidence that it has been under this Abbott-Turnbull government that we have seen the slowest wages growth in recorded history. Working Australians are going backwards while many businesses are recording record profits. And this bill is yet another attack on the capacity of people to negotiate in good faith for the outcomes that they deserve.

But not only does this bill represent an unwarranted and unnecessary attack on working Australians; it is also a shoddy piece of legislative drafting and it breaks fundamental best practice of legislation drafting in that it will be retrospectively applied. While the government tries to pretend that this is not the case, the Victorian government points out that this is misleading, as it clearly states that the legislation would apply to agreements made before or after commencement. So this would mean that the current agreement that is already in operation could potentially be struck down, because both address the same matters and both are there to protect the community.

By far the greatest issue I have with this legislation is that it plans to strike down an agreement that has been explicitly designed to protect the safety of the community and the people that guarantee this safety. This agreement, at its core, is about the most important thing that there is: the protection of human lives. If this legislation goes ahead, lives could indeed be put at risk. But you do not need to take my word for this, or even the word of the Victorian state government, because the real story of the urgent need for this agreement is told in the words of the fire stations that know better than anyone what is actually at stake. These are the people that work every day with the nitty-gritty of these agreements. These are the people that we rely on to protect our homes and our lives should disaster ever strike. And these are the people who know exactly how important they are.

There were many submissions to the recent inquiry into this bill from these fire stations that illustrate this point so much better than I could. Let's take the Hoppers Crossing Fire Station, which used its submission to describe a house fire that station firefighters attended and that tragically resulted in a death because there were not enough firefighters on the scene in the first 10 minutes to administer first aid to a badly burnt man. While members of the public tried desperately to hose the man down, he received burns to 90 per cent of his body and, tragically, died later that night in hospital. Hoppers Crossing's submission explained that if the new agreement had been in place this man's life might have been saved and it might have allowed for a faster rescue of a mother and baby who were trapped inside the building. Sadly, it was not, and sadly it will not be if the Turnbull government gets its way.

The Hoppers Crossing case is telling, but sadly it is by no means unique. It is no secret that this agreement has been contentious and difficult to deliver. But now, more than ever, there is a pressing and urgent need for resolution. But now those opposite want to endanger life and trample over the agreement, with absolutely no alternative in place. They want to scrap the whole process, but they offer no protection or remedy for the dangerous situation that will result from having no agreement whatsoever. This is irresponsible, shameless legislation, and I urge all in this place to protect the safety of Victorian communities by rejecting it.