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

On behalf of the opposition I rise to oppose the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016. We do this because the legislation is ambiguous, it is unclear and it is imprecise.

This legislation was designed to give the coalition a political weapon during an election campaign. That is simply what this bill is about. If you are wondering what the situation is in terms of the proposed enterprise agreement that was the genesis of this bill, all you have to do is go to the words of the CFA chief fire officer, Mr Steve Warrington, who was unequivocal in his view that the proposed EBA would not impact the CFA's firefighting abilities. He stated:

I am really confident that, during a firefight, operations will not be compromised.

What is this about? The chief fire officer is saying that operations will not be compromised, yet we have heard all of the argument from the Prime Minister, from Minister Cash, in relation to what a terrible thing this agreement would be. Yet the chief fire officer in Victoria said:

I am really confident that, during a firefight, operations will not be compromised.

Not only is this bill ambiguous, unclear and imprecise; it goes to a number of fundamental issues in terms of both the state legislation and the federal legislation. Every senator in this chamber who truly believes in state rights must vote against this bill. This is clearly an attack on state rights. Every senator who claims to support small government must vote against this bill. Every senator who has argued against government red tape—and there are plenty of them over here—must vote against this bill. Every senator who has argued against undue government interference against individuals and businesses should vote against this bill. Every senator who wants a sensible, sustainable and fair resolution to the Victorian firefighters dispute must vote against this bill. Every senator who wants the focus of all Victorian firefighters, both volunteer and career, to be on the upcoming fire season in Victoria should vote against this bill.

This bill was created for a political advantage for the coalition in the election campaign. The bill will not resolve the dispute that exists in Victoria. The bill is not about the safety of Victorian citizens. The bill is not about recognition and respect for volunteer firefighters. The bill is not about resolving an industrial dispute. The bill is about base politics from Prime Minister Turnbull, a PM who is out of his depth, indecisive and inept. On the basis of the expert evidence that came before the inquiry, the bill will lead to delays, confusion and another layer of uncertainty. That is the last thing you need, going into a firefighting season in Victoria—delays, confusion and uncertainty, and more animosity being built up for political purposes by the Prime Minister and the coalition against the firefighters who happen to be paid firefighters and operate under an enterprise agreement.

This bill will simply reignite a dispute that was resolved between the employer and the employees before the intervention of the Turnbull government. This is a bill dreamt up by a weak, embattled Prime Minister in the middle of an election campaign. That is all it was—a weak, embattled Prime Minister looking for any issue to try and get the focus away from his flagging electoral campaign. This bill was designed to appeal to the public, to the CFA volunteers and to the right wing of his party. Any chance to come after the trade union movement is always something that the coalition will be in—they will be in that right away. That is what this is about.

It was the height of political cynicism and opportunism to inject the Commonwealth government into a dispute that was on its way to being resolved. The tired, old anti-union rhetoric used by some of those giving evidence to the Senate inquiry exposed their lack of understanding of how workers collectively bargain. Their rhetoric also exposed their underlying political opposition to collectivism and enterprise bargaining. It was no more so than for the former board members of the CFA in Victoria. So the bill has nothing to do with the safety of the Victorian community or the safety of volunteer and career firefighters in Victoria.

The men and women who make up the volunteer and career firefighting capacity in Victoria regularly put their personal safety at risk to ensure the safety of the community. To engage in divisive, uninformed political rhetoric for personal political gain, and to use firefighters as a political football, is another low point in this Prime Minister's uninspiring and weak leadership. I am concerned but not surprised about the coalition's political vilification of career firefighters. These firefighters and their union, the UFU, have addressed in the agreement recommendations from the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. That is part of the reason it is so big. It is part of the reason it took so long to deal with the agreement. There are serious issues facing firefighters every time they go out on a job. Every time they go out on a job they put their lives at risk. So these are the reasons a firefighter's agreement may not be the same as other agreements that are put through the Fair Work Commission.

Career firefighters are seeking to have a say in how they respond to fires. They want to respond in a manner that maximises their safety, as well as protects lives and property. They are seeking to ensure that agreements between the CFA and career firefighters relate not only to their wages and conditions but to their safety and to the equipment that they use—the equipment that is so important to their capacity to go to a fire, fight a fire and go home to their families safely. These are legitimate issues for firefighters to be concerned about in their industrial instrument with their employer. Career firefighters who place their lives in danger to protect the community are entitled to documented, enforceable health and safety conditions in their enterprise agreements.

I will just make the point that Senator Xenophon seems to be on the public record supporting this. It seems to me that, for the first time in my knowledge of Senator Xenophon when it comes to health and safety issues for working people, Senator Xenophon would put politics before the health and safety of workers in this country. That is what the Xenophon team will do if they support this bill today. This bill is simply about allowing managerial prerogative at the expense of the safety of firefighters in this country.

Career firefighters are responding to years of ineptitude, cover up and anti-union activities by the former CFA board. The previous board failed to create a culture of trust, cooperation and mutual respect. From what I can read into the evidence to the Senate inquiry, the previous board was driven by political and ideological bias. That made negotiations protracted, difficult and eventually unsuccessful. The health and safety of individual firefighters was put at risk by the previous board as a result of poor decisions on firefighting infrastructure, personal protection equipment and safe workplaces. Is it any wonder the firefighters wanted documented and legally enforceable clauses in their agreement that would protect their lives, protect their safety, when they went on a job? No, it is not.

The argument from coalition members and the leadership of Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria—that many of these matters should be the prerogative of management and contained in operational procedures—demonstrates a lack of appreciation of the dangerous nature of firefighters' work. It also ignores the failures of the board to make proper decisions on a range of important issues. In the case of the Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria leadership and the previous board leadership, I find this extremely concerning.

The UFU, the firefighters union, is obliged to consult with its members, listen to its members and act in the interests of its members. The UFU must also ensure that membership concerns on wages, conditions, processes, procedures and equipment procurement are dealt with by agreement, negotiation, conciliation and, as a last resort, arbitration. These are rights afforded to all Australians under the Fair Work Act. The bill is designed to frustrate or remove these rights from Victorian career firefighters. The priority for political leaders must be to assist in the resolution of this dispute in a fair and equitable manner. This bill does not do that. This bill will never do it, because the bill is a political instrument, designed for political advantage for the coalition, at the expense of Victorian firefighters, at the expense of Victorians, who rely on those firefighters for their safety.

It is one of the worst acts of political fighting against workers that I have seen in this place, where the coalition would put aside the needs of the Victorian community for their own political benefit. Real leadership entails ensuring the protection of all Victorians, including volunteer and career firefighters, through the provision of professional, efficient and effective firefighting services. That is what this agreement does. The agreement is the focus of this bill. Do not let anyone pretend it is about volunteers. It is about the agreement and it is about ensuring that workers' rights are stripped away, as this lot always want to strip away workers' rights.

I do not have time to traverse all of the issues raised during the two days of hearings into the bill, but a number of issues stand out, not limited to these. First are the concerns raised by the royal commission into the 2009 Victorian bushfires, including concerns about organisational factors inhibiting the fire authority's response on the day and the fact that the metropolitan fire district does not reflect metropolitan Melbourne. I found it pretty hard to understand how the Victorian CFA operated, given that there is clear delineation in New South Wales between career firefighters and bushfire firefighters. The royal commission's conclusion was that the way the three agencies are currently structured did not contribute to their collective maximum potential on 7 February. The royal commission says there are problems with how the CFA operates. The UFU are trying to deal with some of those issues in their agreement. So any senator who stands up and says, 'The agreement's too long; the agreement took too long to negotiate; it's too complex; leave it up to the boss,' just does not understand the issues that came up in the Victorian royal commission.

There is a need to clarify responsibilities and improve integration and coordination amongst the agencies. That was a conclusion of the royal commission. That is part of the agreement that has been signed off by the new board and the new chief fire officer in Victoria. They said there was concern over the sustainability of the current volunteer structure and the structure's capacity to provide efficient services in expanding population areas.

This is not the fault of Victorian volunteer firefighters. This is just a clear example of what is happening with urban growth in Victoria. We are relying on volunteers, who may not be there when a fire takes place in what are described as peri-urban areas, and that is not sustainable in the future. There will have to be a close look at this long-term structure of the CFA in Victoria arising out of the royal commission report.

I am also concerned about the politicisation of the previous CFA board and the poor decisions of the board in relation to health and safety and industrial issues. No-one should just think this is about a union. This is about a board who were politicised, who did not want their workers to operate under a collective agreement. That was the position there. And they did, in effect—

Government Senator:

A government senator interjecting—

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

I cannot even hear you. You have to do better than that if you are going to intervene!

The ineffective and dangerous response by the previous board to the Fiskville contamination issue placed career and volunteer firefighters in an unsafe, contaminated working environment. This is a board who knew there was contamination at Fiskville but kept sending workers back to Fiskville. No wonder that those career firefighters are saying, 'We don't trust that board'—the previous board—'to deal with the issues effectively'. There was clearly a conspiracy by the previous CEO and the board to adopt a union-busting strategy, prepared by the Chicago based union-busting outfit called Seyfarth Shaw. They were in discussions with a union-busting Chicago based organisation to try and get rid of the UFU, to try and stop career firefighters having access to advice, having access to support, from their union.

These are the issues that underpin where we are at the moment. And you will hear lots from the other side about how terrible it is that the volunteers are being sidelined. There was absolutely no evidence that the clauses in the agreement would affect the volunteer firefighters. I can understand the volunteer firefighters' leadership raising the issues, because most things these days are about power and control. The volunteer firefighters union—basically—want power and control. There is no doubt about that. That conspiracy was about destroying effective trade unionism in the CFA.

I did not find the evidence from the former CEO, Ms Nolan, to be credible, especially her memory lapse on issues associated with the retention of a Chicago based union-busting legal firm to provide strategic advice. She knew everything else. She remembered everything. But she could not remember who told her to get the union-busting outfit in. She could not tell us whether it was one person or a dozen persons. She could not tell us anything about it. A memory lapse about something so important just does not add up and it makes the rest of her evidence not credible.

So I take the view that the expert evidence that we had from Professor Stewart—the legal evidence we have had from a number of a prominent legal practitioners—will say that this bill will be challenged all the way. This bill will be challenged in the Supreme Court of Victoria. It would be challenged in the High Court. It would be challenged on constitutional grounds. This is a bill that is brought here for political purposes. It is not about looking after volunteer firefighters. It is not about looking after the Victorian community. We should reject this bill.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill is dangerous legislation. If you are committed to public safety, as I would hope all senators are, you would vote against this legislation. When you look into it—when you look into the way the minister has handled it, what happened during the election campaign with regard to the submissions and the evidence that was given—you see that this is a major stitch-up. It really continues the ongoing way that this government works. It works to undermine workers' rights; it works to undermine how unions operate. It will go to extraordinary lengths. In this case, we are talking about the undermining of public safety.

This bill is political opportunism. It should have been buried. It should never have come to life. It should now be buried. I say that it should never have come to life after the federal election because it was part of a whole ploy. Sometimes bad tactics come out in election campaigns, and this was certainly one of them. The government argues that this bill is needed to protect the rights of Country Fire Authority volunteers, but that does not stand up to scrutiny. When you look at what the minister has said and when you look into what is stated about what this bill will do, that certainly is not the core of this bill.

Volunteer firefighters do an incredible job in Victoria and across the country. The enterprise bargaining agreement the Turnbull government is trying to destroy with this bill will not undermine the massive contribution volunteer firefighters make. I was able to sit on this inquiry, hear the evidence and read many of the submissions. The evidence is overwhelming in that it does not back up what the government asserts. We heard evidence from volunteer firefighters working at integrated stations where volunteers are working side by side with paid firefighters who do not support the bill. Mr Luke Symeoy from Craigieburn told the committee:

On behalf of my brigade: we do not want this bill to go ahead. We want this settled. I would like this settled. The fire season is coming up and we do not need this. This has gone on for too long. The EBA has got nothing to do with volunteers. If anything, it is going to better us and better our skills and better our equipment, because half the equipment that we have got today we would not have if it were not for staff. That is the honest truth. I can stand here and put my hand on my heart and tell you that.

Mr Raj Faour, a volunteer for Hallam, told the committee:

You probably hear a lot in the media, and the VFBV love to speak about 60,000 volunteers and how they represent the 60,000 volunteers. Well, I am one—and one of many—who stands before you today and tells you that we are not represented by the VFBV.

That is why I urge senators committed to public safety to ensure that when the next firefighting season hits Victoria the uncertainty and the undermining at the core of this bill is not allowed to settle into how things will operate in Victoria. I believe that these are informative comments that deserve our consideration when we are looking at this bill.

In going back to the issue of public safety—and this is a key matter that Minister Michaelia Cash sidesteps when she talks about this issue—we need to look at what is happening in Melbourne. Outer Melbourne should receive the same level of protection for firefighting that all people of Melbourne receive. Having sat on the inquiry last week, what became abundantly clear is that we are talking about areas of Melbourne that were once country but are now part of the outskirts of Melbourne. These are areas that deserves full fire protection.

Clearly, Melbourne is a growing city. Where those outskirts areas were once farming land, now when you visit those areas you often see large housing divisions. These areas have been well serviced by the CFA. The CFA was able to do a very effective job when there were rural workers and farmers. The farmers and rural workers were the locals who volunteered and did a mighty job as firefighters. But, as I have said, these outskirts are changing. Now we see that in so many of these areas the workforce is quite different.

I want to quote from a very significant comment from the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. They said: 'We've got a problem here in Victoria with these boundaries. What is called country in some areas is still legitimately country, but in some areas it is now suburban Melbourne, so what are we going to do about it?' It is a very important question; it is a question that this government is refusing to answer. It could be to the severe detriment of public safety and saving lives.

Again, this is a reference to those areas where locals are now more likely to be working not locally but at a distance, in offices and factories. If you are not working locally, you are not readily available to volunteer. The people who live in these areas pay their rates and taxes like other city residents and understandably expect, and have a right to expect, that firefighters who cover the rest of the city will turn up to their part of the city and fight fires. That is what we should be dealing with here. How do we ensure that their transition is as smooth as possible? It is happening, but if this bill goes through it is going to really blow it apart. What will be the impact on public safety if this bill is passed and people in outer Melbourne growth areas are not covered by paid firefighters?

If you listened to Minister Cash, you would think that the enterprise bargaining agreement is an attack on volunteer firefighters due to a union takeover of their activities. Listening to witnesses at the inquiry, it became clear that the concerns of volunteers who thought the EBA would unfairly impact on them arose from misinformation. Where correct information was available, volunteers understood that the proposed EBA does not affect volunteers. Mr Justin Rees, first lieutenant and volunteer firefighter with the Melton brigade, said:

… we have formally expressed this to Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria. However, the volunteer bill 2016, if implemented, will affect our relationship with our members, staff and volunteers and impact our service delivery. Encouraging volunteer organisations to intervene into the employment matters and conditions of people employed by emergency services is not appropriate. We need to be focused on supporting our community, protecting life and property and supporting our emergency service people—volunteer and career.

That was so clearly said. Professor Andrew Stewart, an expert in industrial relations from the University of Adelaide, told the committee that the bill was a recipe for increased complexity, uncertainty and disputation. Again, a reminder to senators here: this bill takes us down a very irresponsible and dangerous path. We are dealing here with emergency services who need to be able to work in a coordinated, cooperative way, and that is what will be ripped apart if this bill is passed. Professor Stewart set out to the inquiry how the bill will require the Fair Work Commission to move into the highly problematic area of attempting to form judgements about how an organisation such as the CFA should construct a proper balance between paid and volunteer firefighters. Professor Stewart also explained how the bill would require the Fair Work Commission to determine matters that properly reside within the authority of the CFA and the state government of Victoria to resolve. That is why you come to the conclusion that disputation will increase if this bill goes ahead.

One of those issues is the very important matter that I mentioned earlier—the conclusion of the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission that more paid firefighters are needed in urban growth areas. That is what a responsible government would be working with the Victorian government to resolve. The need that has been identified by the royal commission is clear. A vote for this bill is a vote against that important recommendation. It really is a life-saving recommendation. We need to be very clear. This issue of public safety has been swept aside by the government, and we need to get this back into focus.

We are on the edge of summer. Bushfires, wildfires, are sweeping the world. We know that this is regularly what happens in Australia. We have seen the tragedies in many states, and Victoria has often been the worst affected. It is deeply alarming that the government is willing to sacrifice public safety and not deal with the key issue here. What becomes relevant in considering this issue is the hidden grenades in this bill, which I urge all members of parliament to acquaint themselves with. The bill is not clear as to which emergency service organisations will be covered by the legislation. The bill creates an undisclosed list of employers that are designated emergency management bodies. That is the term that is used. This is a serious development and shows an attempt to undermine a good-faith approach to negotiations for enterprise agreements. The bill, if passed, will undermine the principle of collective bargaining and, in effect, the authority and the ability of the Fair Work Commission to do its job.

Then there is the issue of the definition of a 'volunteer' in the bill. The definition is so broad it includes individuals who receive payment for volunteering. There is also the wide-ranging definition of 'volunteer bodies', which opens up the possibility of a party not covered by the enterprise agreement being able to intervene. This could mean denying workers wage rises and undermining of other parts of the agreement. It is why, as Professor Stewart identified, this bill, if passed, would most likely result in much greater disputation. Ambulance Employees Australia has given compelling evidence of why this legislation should be abandoned.

Minister Cash's management of the issue is also relevant to the debate. Her commentary, in some ways, has been of assistance in exposing what is really going on here. Minister Cash's opinion piece in the Herald Sun on 22 August shared two blatant areas of misinformation. One was that seven paid firefighters—union members—had to be present before the CFA personnel were able to be deployed to a fire. The other one was that paid firefighters had to report only to other paid firefighters, not CFA commanders. She wrote this piece; it was published in the Herald Sun. Clearly, she is out there arguing her case. But when you look into what she asserts, it just does not stack up.

If it were the case that volunteers deployed to a fire had to sit there and wait until paid staff turned up, I acknowledge it would be a concern. But, again, that is not what the agreement says. So why did the minister state that? Did she misunderstand the bill? Why was she arguing the opposite of what the case is? What the agreement says is that in these areas where you have volunteers and professionals overlapping, seven firefighters have to be deployed, but they do not have to turn up before the volunteers can start fighting the fire. If the volunteers turn up first, they start first; they start fighting the fire first. That is not what the minister said when she wrote her article. As I said, that is what the agreement says. It is to ensure that the minimum number of firefighters who can fight a fire safely are on their way and are going to turn up at some point.

It is worth asking: why seven? It is understood to be the minimum for safe standards. Again, we are coming back all the time to the issue of public safety. The intent of the bill, the minister's comments and the minister's misrepresentation of the EBA undermine public safety. I urge all senators give that consideration. When they are thinking about how they are going to vote, public safety needs to be at the front of their mind.

As I said, the minister had another argument about the bill in which she asserted that under the EBA paid firefighters could only report to other paid firefighters, not CFA commanders, implying that the paid firefighters could not report to volunteers. Again, I ask the minister: why did you say that? It is untrue. Clause 77.5 is clear: the first arriving incident controller on a scene can determine the number of appliances and crews. And elsewhere the agreement refers to the incident controller, who could be a volunteer. Again, there is no undermining of the role of volunteers. It is a very cooperative way of working together. The EBA is something that we can learn from and be impressed by. In the complexity—which obviously there is when it comes to fighting fires—it is working through how our volunteer and our paid staff work together. But what do we get from the minister? We get this constant abuse of paid firefighters.

The minister has said that the CFA must get the approval of the union 'for any policy that affects the application or operation of this agreement, or the work of employees covered by it'. What the minister has not acknowledged—and what should have been her starting point—is that the agreement states on page 11:

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 role of volunteers is explicitly protected right up the front of the agreement. Again, this needs to be centre in our minds when we are considering how we vote on this bill. The lies that are being pushed by the minister and by those trying to get this bill passed are extreme, and the seriousness of it needs to be put side by side with the question of public safety.

The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation has also called for this bill to be rejected. In their submission, they identify the significant overreach of this bill, exposing the political opportunism that is at the heart of the government's decision to introduce this bill. The Australian Nursing Federation sets out that where the Commonwealth moves to involve itself in the activities of state agencies established for public purposes it needs 'considered policy analysis', and no such analysis has been given by the government to justify this bill.

As I have given such strong emphasis in my comments to the issue of public safety, I did want to return to the issue of bushfires. It was in 2009 that the Black Saturday fires ravaged Victoria; 173 people died in those tragic events. The Black Saturday fires were subsequently investigated, as we know, by the Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission, which found serious and systemic issues within the fire agencies that prevented effective and efficient coordination and unambiguous management of the fires, including saying that on 7 February there was no single person in charge of operational planning, tasking and accountability.

The royal commission then recommended greater interoperability as an absolute priority. The EBA—what will be effectively undermined and largely destroyed if this bill goes through—goes a huge way to achieving what the royal commission set out as essential to being able to effectively fight bushfires and put public safety first.

So, again, these issues are critical in how we vote when we come to consider this bill. What we are seeing here is a government that is prepared to put its obsession with undermining working conditions and attacking unions before public safety. They are committed to working hard to divide volunteers from paid firefighting staff. There are so many examples of where cooperation is real, effective and vital to be able to fight fires effectively.

Effectively, the government have been running a major scare campaign—a scare campaign, misleading volunteers by telling them things that are simply untrue; a scare campaign attempting to mislead senators who will shortly vote on this bill on things that are untrue. We have heard about the union-busting law firm that was brought in, which again shows what the intent here has been. As part of a wider agenda I acknowledge that is something that needs to be explored. But right now what needs to be centre of our minds when we come to vote on this bill is: do we put public safety first or do we put the very narrow self-interested agenda of the government and of Minister Michaelia Cash first?

Surely, we should be putting public safety first? The CBA, at the heart of it, is about improving the operations of the firefighting services in Victoria, both volunteer and paid, in a way that is actually commendable and should not be undermined. If you vote for this bill, you undermine the EBA, and you undermine and put public safety at risk. They have listened to the community concern about this agreement and they are acting swiftly to address it in this bill. Victorians, CFA volunteers and anyone who lives in an area protected by them will be grateful for their efforts in this area.

I am very proud to be the first coalition speaker on this bill. I am proud as a Victorian senator because nothing could be more fundamental to my duty to protect the interests of Victorians than standing up for an organisation and for people, in this case CFA volunteers, who do so much to protect us. I am proud to speak as a Liberal because I think this issue very powerfully highlights the deep philosophical difference between this side of the chamber and the other when it comes to the question of civil society and how we best protect ourselves from the ills that we have in our society and the dangers that we face. Should communities self-organise, volunteer and contribute their own time to the best interests of their community or should work always be directed, paid for and controlled by government? We on this of the chamber believe it is a wonderful thing that communities and individuals are willing to give up their time and their effort to protect their community. We do not think it is a bad thing at all, but it seems that the world view of those opposite is that if this job could be done by someone who could be paid, if this job could be done by someone who could be employed by the government, it would be preferable to have that rather than have someone who is a volunteer take up that role.

It was an honour to participate in the parliamentary inquiry into this bill with my colleague Senator Hume, and it was particularly ably chaired by my colleague Senator Bridget McKenzie, who did a wonderful job in this inquiry. It really brought to the fore the key issues that we are facing in this debate with this EBA, with this bill and with the CFA. I grew up in Upper Ferntree Gully in the outer eastern suburbs of Victoria. It is a beautiful part of the world in the Dandenongs, but it is a fire-prone part of the world, and everybody who lives in Upper Ferntree Gully knows, after the Ash Wednesday fires of 1983, how important the CFA is to protecting their homes, their livelihoods, their businesses and their lives. Tragically on that day many lives were lost, many homes were lost and many lives were ruined, but our CFA volunteers in those brigades did a particularly wonderful job in protecting them, fighting them and doing their best to come up against the awesome force of those fires on that day.

That is not all that they did. I remember, as a young boy living in Grandview Crescent in Upper Ferntree Gully, that on Christmas Eve the CFA brigades would come with the fire truck. They were dressed up as Santa Claus and they would come and visit the children in our street and other streets in Upper Ferntree Gully, and that is a very nice demonstration of how they see their role as going far beyond just protecting us from fire. They are deeply involved in their community and providing for their community, and I have a very positive impression of the work that they did from that experience. Of course, this is not unique to that part of Victoria or even just to Victoria. This is an issue which we all face and which was most powerfully demonstrated in recent times on Black Saturday in February 2009. No Victorian or Australian could be unaware of the heroic efforts by the CFA—including, I should add, both paid and volunteer staff on those days.

The question I want to ask today is: how is it that we got here? How did we get to such an acrimonious ending to an EBA? All public sector EBAs have the capacity to be fraught and to be controversial. They have competing interests between taxpayers on the one hand and paid employees on the other and between the government's interests in achieving policy objectives and others. All of them have capacity to be fraught, but none have been quite so fraught as this EBA—as this negotiation. It has been an extraordinarily divisive debate and it has left an absolute trail of destruction—a trail of destruction through the CFA and a trail of destruction through the Andrews Labor government. How many other EBAs have cost the job of the CEO of the organisation? It cost the jobs of the Chief Fire Officer of the CFA, the entire board of the CFA and a Labor minister who, in my view, was doing an admirable job in trying to defend the interests of an organisation and of the volunteers who she was responsible for. Let me place on the record my admiration for Jane Garrett and her courage. It is not an easy thing for any of us in public life to take a stand on an issue like this, to be willing to resign and lose a glittering ministerial career over a point of principle, but I have to say it is particularly difficult in the modern Labor Party. Jane Garrett has been subject to ferocious bullying and intimidation because of the stand that she took. We have heard evidence in the media and through the Senate inquiry of times at which she was warned there would be an axe put through her head if she did not reverse course and support this EBA and support the United Firefighters Union. The threats and intimidation have not ended there. They have of course affected the lives of our volunteers and have probably contributed to damaging the relationships between our volunteers and paid firefighters, and that is incredibly concerning for Victorians as we head into summer and as we head into the fire season.

The UFU tells us that this dispute is a furphy—that there is no interest in the federal government in intervening in this dispute, that there is nothing for Victorians to be concerned about—because, they assure us, this EBA deals only with the pay and conditions of the paid employees of the CFA. It affects volunteers in no way according to the UFU. If that was the case, I cannot understand why so many volunteers and Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria would take such a strong interest and have such great concerns about this EBA. It does not matter to them how much their colleagues who are paid receive, it does not matter to them the conditions under which they are employed, unless of course it directly affects their interests—as it so clearly does in this case. I am going to go through some of the clauses that have been drawn to our attention that demonstrate that it does, but there is a more fundamental point than this. At its heart, the CFA is a volunteer organisation. It has 60,000 volunteers. It also has paid firefighters and they do a good job and they are entitled to have good working conditions and to be well paid for it, but they only number in the several hundred. There are 60,000 volunteers. At its heart, the CFA is a volunteer organisation, which means that any EBA which impacts on the CFA's ability to manage itself, to manage its own operations, inextricably is linked to the interests of volunteers and directly affects their interests.

It is not possible for an EBA so restrictive of the decision-making processes of management and so deferential to the UFU to not affect volunteers. That is of course assuming that it is as the UFU says it is—that it only relates to the pay and conditions of paid staff. But I am going to highlight some of the clauses in the UFU agreement that really contradict this. I will not read them all. There are 46. They were very ably put together by the VFBV. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of the VFBV team, so capably led by Andrew Ford. I say to him: thank you for everything you have done for your community in this debate.

I will just give a couple of examples. Clause 16.1 is, contrary to what was said by the UFU, directly about the interests of volunteers. It relates to the volunteer support program and volunteer support officers. I will quote directly from the EBA. It states that:

… the CFA will consult and reach agreement with the UFU … on the structure of any Volunteer Support Programs …

That does not sound like something which relates to the pay and conditions of a paid employee or a UFU member.

There are others. I will go on. It refers to peer support programs. In one clause it says:

Peer support employees under this agreement will be drawn from professional firefighters …

That obviously excludes volunteers. On uniforms, appliances and equipment, clause 90.4 says:

The CFA and UFU must agree on all aspects of the:

90.4.1. articles of clothing;

90.4.2. equipment, including personal protective equipment;

90.4.3. technology;

90.4.4. station wear; and

90.4.5. appliances;

Of course these apply not just to paid employees of the CFA but also to volunteers.

This agreement directly affects the interests of volunteers and anyone involved in the CFA. The way in which we can identify why this agreement is so different and so far-reaching is that this is the first EBA of the CFA which has been so contentious. We heard evidence in the inquiry from former board members of the CFA who were involved in previous EBA negotiations. They said there were issues and that they had concerns but ultimately they felt that they were able to agree to those EBAs because they did not detrimentally affect the interests of the CFA or its volunteer firefighters. This one does. This one has had a totally different response because it is a totally different agreement.

Why is it that this agreement has been so fractious and contentious? In part it is because the UFU and the Victorian government have been so unwilling to make any concessions or to listen to any of the concerns of volunteers and others about this agreement. We heard evidence from the new CEO during the inquiry, Ms Frances Diver, who told us about her process in coming to the decision that the CFA should recommend that the EBA be agreed to. She said that over a six- to eight-week period, after she was appointed CEO, she engaged in further discussions with the UFU and a sum total of two concessions were a result of those negotiations. In my view, they do not amount to material changes to the EBA. Ms Diver disagreed and said that they were. But in an agreement with hundreds and hundreds of clauses, many of which were extremely restrictive, to give only two concessions is very minor, particularly over such a short period of time.

The main thing that Ms Diver said allows her to have confidence that the CFA should agree to this agreement is that the UFU had clarified a number of matters about the EBA, clarified some of the misinformation in the debate and given the CFA many assurances about the agreement. I do not take much comfort from those assurances, and I know volunteers do not take much comfort from those assurances. The truth is that we know why the EBA was finally signed. It was signed because the entire board of the CFA was sacked. A new board was appointed with the express instruction that they should resolve this agreement by signing it without much further delay, and a new CEO was appointed to do that.

I just want to make some observations about the actual bill before us today, because I think that is relevant. I was very heartened to hear Senator Cameron outline his concerns about the red tape limitations of this bill and the federalism implications of this bill and the small government implications of this bill. There is hope for Senator Cameron yet if late in his career he is showing such an interest in such high principles. But unfortunately in this instance he is not right and his concerns are erroneous.

The only thing that this bill does to address the direct problem that we have seen in this EBA is to add the definition of 'objectionable terms' in section 12 of the Fair Work Act. It will prohibit objectionable emergency management terms. They are terms which would prevent emergency services bodies from being able to properly manage the volunteer operations and which are contrary to the relevant state legislation covering these bodies. The Fair Work Commission will no longer be able to approve agreements that contain these terms and any such terms in existing agreements will be legally ineffective. This will mean that an enterprise agreement can no longer undermine the capacity of emergency services volunteer bodies to properly manage their operations. Contrary to the concerns raised by some in the hearing and in the chamber today, this will only apply to firefighting and state emergency services organisations in Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory, because they are covered by the national workplace relations system.

The bill will also give volunteer organisations the right to make submissions to the Fair Work Commission about enterprise agreements covering certain emergency services bodies that would affect the volunteers they represent. I think that is a very welcome amendment, given that we know that the interests of volunteers have been so overlooked in this debate and in this EBA negotiation.

I want to conclude my remarks by recommending to the Senate that it pass this bill with the utmost urgency so that our volunteers and paid firefighters in the CFA can begin to prepare and focus on their priority, which is protecting our community ahead of the summer and the fire season, which is coming up.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume, you were there.

Senator Hume interjecting—

Sorry?

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Please address your comments through the chair.

Senator Hume interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that is not the evidence. Do not try to misrepresent the evidence. The evidence was that the volunteers from the rural brigades clearly had a problem. I am talking about the volunteers that were in the integrated stations. Anyone who was at the inquiry will clearly know that they were supporting this agreement, and the evidence speaks for itself in that respect. They know that they get a benefit out of it. I will take you to some of the evidence about that in a moment, if I get time.

They want to get on with it. The volunteers and the professional firefighters talked about—to use Senator Paterson's words—'the trail of destruction' that has been caused by the politicisation of this dispute.' They all want to get on with it. The CFA management want to get on with it. The workers want to get on with it. The volunteers want to get on with it. Victorians want to get on with it. We want this agreement to be made and we want agreement reached. We want the agreement implemented and we want the politicisation of the CFA to stop. That is what everyone wants. Everyone wants that.

Ms Diver, the new CEO, clearly wants to move forward. She put a view that, while the EBA may not be perfect in every sense, it was a document that enabled them to move forward with all their staff—both volunteers and career firefighters—and get the organisation back on track, to move forward, with no restrictions on the operational control of fighting fires, and to move forward in the interests of the Victorian community.

Now, that will not be in the interests of the Liberal Party. It will not be in the interests of the Liberal Party because they want this to continue, and that is what this bill is designed to do. But the interests of the Liberal Party are at odds with the interests of Victorians. Victorians want the agreement to proceed. They want this bill to be opposed, because Victorians know that this bill will do nothing but create further disputation and ensure agreements are never reached in the CFA. I think it is an appalling objective of this government to try to continue the politicisation of this bill.

How does the bill ensure that there will never be agreement reached? We took evidence from Professor Andrew Stewart, and he said—and I paraphrase:

On the evidence before the committee the bill would simply add layers of … complexity and delay to any future bargaining process. Bargaining would become even more complex, with the capacity for legal appeals to the High Court including on issues of constitutionality. Volunteers will not be affected by the proposed EBA and the security and well-being of Victorians will not be compromised. However interminable legal arguments arising from the bill would exacerbate division and divert resources from firefighting.

On this basis, on the evidence before the committee, we say as senators that this bill should certainly not be passed. Professor Stewart raised issues, and I will now go to his direct quotes:

… if a Chief Officer gives directions, or establishes standard operating procedures [under the CFA Act], as to the chain of command for the performance of emergency work by firefighters, those directions or procedures must prevail over anything to the contrary in an enterprise agreement.

and, therefore, it would not apply in any case.

The CFA chief fire officer was unequivocal in his view that the proposed EBA would not impact upon the CFA's firefighting abilities. He stated that he was 'really confident' that 'during a firefight, operations will not be compromised.' He also indicated that the instrument provided to him, in writing from the CFA board chair, gives him 'assurances that the powers of the Chief Officer are not being compromised' by this agreement.

Much has been said about the misconceptions over the proposed EBA. I have already been to the motivations for much of that. But I have to say that I have never seen such a wilfully and deliberately misleading campaign orchestrated together—hand in hand—with the press and elements of the political class and the volunteers' organisation itself. Some 20-odd front-page headlines in the Herald Sun are nearly all inaccurate—with hearsay and misinformation being peddled. We heard the minister and we heard other people peddling misinformation about the impact of some of these clauses. We had people believing that, under the EBA, in a fire situation every decision being made on the fireground would potentially have to go to the union for agreement and potentially end up in the Fair Work Commission. This is absolute nonsense. Senator Paterson was able to give us very few examples of where the EBA does impact upon volunteers. He talked about the volunteer support officers, but I want to make the point that that clause is in the existing agreement. That is not a new clause, so nothing will change with respect to the way that is being operated. People cannot say, 'Things are going to change because of the new clause,' because it is an existing clause.

We have a situation where it is not the government's intention to try to assist the CFA in fighting fires. It is not their intention to promote harmonious workplace relations. It is not their intention to support volunteers. Their intention is to have an ongoing dispute festering away that people are confused about, and that brings up strong emotions from many people, and exploit that for their own political ends. That is not what the Senate ought to endorse. The Senate, as a house of review, should look closely at these matters and should say, 'We are not going to let the government politicise the CFA in Victoria. We are not going to let the government use these people, who put their lives on the line defending us, as political footballs.' We should not allow that. The Senate should say no to that. That is one of the roles we are here for. We need to have the courage to look at the detail and look at the evidence presented before the Senate inquiry and say that this is nothing but a political beat-up. It was a promise made in the middle of a federal election campaign in front of a volunteers rally as part of a campaigning strategy. That is what this bill is all about. It is an election strategy delivery process. That is when the promise was made and that is how it is intended to be delivered.

I am disappointed that we are in this position today. I am disappointed that the Senate may even pass this bill. For Victorians, that means ongoing uncertainty. It means an organisation that has been damaged by this dispute will continue to be damaged. Relationships between volunteers and career firefighters will continue to be damaged. This is all in the name of votes—cheap votes for the Liberal Party in Victoria and here federally. I think it is a disgrace—it is a disgrace to use people in this cheap, political way. It is appalling that this government has denigrated firefighters, who are our heroes in this community.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today in strident, vociferous and unequivocal support of the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016. Firstly, it was an honour to participate in the Senate inquiry into this bill and to meet and to speak to so many of Victoria's very brave firefighters, and, in particular, the selfless and courageous volunteers of the CFA. This legislation honours a coalition commitment to protect the Victorian Country Fire Authority from a hostile takeover by the United Firefighters Union—the UFU. If the federal parliament did not pass this amendment, the CFA's volunteer based model would be severely undermined. This would threaten the safety of communities and erode Australia's great tradition of volunteerism and community spirit.

The CFA—with 60,000 volunteers, including around 35,000 operational firefighters—is one of the world's largest volunteer based emergency services organisations. It protects people and property in one of the world's most fire-prone regions. The CFA volunteers are community minded, they are dedicated, they are selfless and they are courageous. The CFA is a very proud organisation whose members, under the CFA banner or the banners of its predecessor organisations, have protected the people of Victoria for more than 100 years. In its current form, the CFA was founded in 1945 after the royal commission into the horrific 1939 Black Friday bushfires, which found that the bush fire brigades, the country fire brigades, and the Forests Commission could all be combined to more effectively protect the people of Victoria. Since that time, the CFA has grown to over 60,000 members, who respond to emergencies over the entirety of country Victoria and also 60 per cent of suburban Melbourne. All told, the CFA protects around 3.3 million Victorians and around one million homes.

In this protective capacity, the CFA shoulders an incredible burden—outback Victoria is one of the most fire-prone regions on earth, sitting beside only southern California as areas most vulnerable to severe fire damage. In such an environment, disasters are inevitable. In recent years, the most notorious fire to hit Victoria was the 2009 Black Saturday fire, which tore through Marysville, Kinglake, Flowerdale, Strathewen and surrounding areas. In addition to the widespread property damage, the fires struck at the heart of these local communities, as 173 Victorians perished in the flames on this infamous day. Yet it is testament to the quality of the CFA that 19,000 of its members were on hand in both frontline firefighting and community support capacities. Without volunteers, such a number of firefighters could never have been gathered together to protect Victorians and their homes. If I may quote the royal commission into the Black Saturday fires: 'The commission particularly recognises the contribution of volunteers and their families. The strength of the CFA volunteer base was evident on the 7th of February. The commission heard of volunteers preparing for the day, warning local residents and assisting with the confronting task of locating and identifying the dead. Countless more volunteers took up support roles.' These are grim, yet very inspiring, words revealing the dedication and sacrifice of the CFA volunteers in Victoria. My brother-in-law was one of them and he was deeply affected by that day.

Volunteers are fundamental to Victorian firefighting because only they can meet the surges in demand that big fires such as Black Saturday cause. Before I proceed, please let me be clear: paid firefighters are trained, qualified and dedicated to their tasks, and we respect them all. But I quote the Volunteer Firefighter Brigades Victoria submission to the Senate inquiry: 'It is essentially the sheer number of available trained and experienced volunteers upon which Victoria relies to deal with major emergency events. Forty to 50 per cent of firefighters at critical events are volunteers.' I do not know how Senator Cameron can stand in this chamber and say that firefighting operations will not be compromised, when such a mass of volunteers are relied upon to fight fires. They are the very volunteers who would be subordinated to union control, and demeaned and insulted, under the proposed UFU deal. Put simply, without the volunteer base the firefighting capacity in my home state would be crippled, and that is something that I simply cannot countenance. For these reasons I am very proud to stand and support the bill put forth by Minister Cash and the Turnbull government.

This week the Victorian government—this weak, entirely beholden Andrews government—is seeking to hand control of the CFA's volunteers to the United Firefighters Union. At the behest of the UFU, Premier Andrews is pressuring the CFA into submission over a new enterprise agreement. This agreement would undermine volunteers and the CFA's operation. For example, it would mean that a paid firefighter can only report to another paid firefighter, except in the case of level 3 incidents, which are around one per cent of annual incidents. This would sideline our volunteers and provide a potential dual command structure which is intolerable in an emergency situation. That is set out in clause 35.4.

Clause 41.1 says union agreement is required before the CFA can make a change to policy. This stifles the ability of the CFA to adapt to any prescient needs. Clause 77.5 says seven paid firefighters need to be dispatched before other firefighters can commence fighting, meaning that volunteers can be left to face fires alone for a period without instruction, without direction and without an understanding of the command structure, and despite the sudden and swift nature of fire emergencies. Union agreement is also required on what uniforms will be worn by volunteers, and paid firefighters must have uniforms that are visually distinguishable from those of volunteers, diminishing the equal value and significance of volunteer firefighters. That is in clause 20. And clause 21 says that union agreement is required for workplace changes by the CFA, including in matters that could impact on the use of volunteers, such as their terms and conditions of employment. This change effectively hands control of volunteer management to the United Firefighters Union. The union disingenuously suggests that a clause in the agreement stating that the role of volunteers is not altered by this agreement means that volunteers will be no worse off. That is a complete misrepresentation. A specific clause in an agreement overrides a general motherhood statement like this, so the many specific clauses that sideline volunteers, such as those I have already mentioned, will still apply.

So much damage has already been done in this debate. Such is the concern about the impact of the proposed agreement on the CFA that Victorian Emergency Services Minister Jane Garrett has already resigned in protest. The CFA chief executive officer, Lucinda Nolan, and the chief fire officer also resigned in protest. I quote the former CFA chief executive officer, Lucinda Nolan, regarding the EBA: 'This agreement was not going to make the organisation a better place. It is destructive and it is divisive. I could not stay and oversee the destruction of the CFA. I think that this has the potential to negatively impact the organisation, community safety, our volunteers and our volunteer contribution.' That was Ms Nolan's evidence to the Victorian parliamentary inquiry last month. She also said that she was given a clear alternative: sign the EBA or leave the organisation. 'Obviously, I chose the latter,' she said.

The extent of bullying in this debate has been an embarrassment both to the UFU and to the Victorian government. A number of CFA volunteers have resigned and many more are threatening to do so. The CFA board who staunchly opposed the EBA were sacked by the Andrews government, and then a new hand-picked board was appointed in an effort to force the CFA into submission. The CFA board stated before they were sacked:

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 also said:

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 Opportunities Act and would be unlawful.

In the words of the CFA itself:

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

Senator Cameron unsurprisingly argues that this bill is political opportunism. What extraordinary hypocrisy! The opposite is true. The EBA is a product of an opportunistic, militant union taking advantage of a weak state government that is beholden to unions for their election. In fact, former Labor Minister for Police and Emergency Services during the Bracks government, Mr Andre Haermeyer, said:

The UFU … 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.

Mr Haermeyer went on to say:

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.

This is a Labor minister. He was the one who did not get sacked. He was the one who did not have to resign, unlike Minister Garrett.

The Fair Work Amendments Bill will address the overreach of the EBA simply and comprehensively. The bill will simply add to the definition of objectionable terms in section 12 of the Fair Work Act to prohibit objectionable emergency management terms. Objectionable emergency management terms are terms which would prevent emergency services bodies from being able to properly manage their volunteer operations and terms which are contrary to the relevant state legislation covering those bodies. The Fair Work Commission will no longer be able to approve agreements that contain these terms, and any such terms in existing agreements will be rendered legally ineffective. This will mean that an enterprise agreement can no longer undermine the capacity of emergency services volunteer bodies to properly manage their operations.

This simple amendment will only apply to firefighting and state emergency services in Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory because they are covered by the national workplace relations system. The bill will also give volunteer organisations the right to make submissions to the Fair Work Commission about enterprise agreements covering certain emergency services bodies that could affect the volunteers they represent.

I would like to finish up by quoting Andrew Ford, CEO of the Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria. He said in evidence to the Victorian parliamentary inquiry in August this year:

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.

… … …

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.

That is the message I would like the Senate chamber to take home today. Volunteers will walk. I urge the chamber that if the members here value the spirit of volunteerism, if they reject this Orwellian union takeover of a great Victorian organisation—

Senator Rhiannon interjecting—

Thank you, Snowball. If you value the lives and the property of the people of Victoria, if, Senator Rhiannon, you genuinely value public safety, then you will support the amendments to the Fair Work Act, you will respect our volunteers and their 100 years of courageous service.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Hume. In future, address your remarks to the Chair.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy President, I will not take very long. I listened this morning to Senator Cameron in his sterling role of being an apologist for the bully boy, Daniel Andrews, over this whole sorry affair. It speaks for itself. You have had his own minister, Ms Garrett, who would not do the dirty work that he wanted her to do, and she resigned. You had Ms Nolan, who would not do it either—she quit as CEO. You had the Chief Fire Officer: he resigned. The replacement board—the puppet board—that was then put in by the Premier had a marathon session. I think the final figure was about five to four to approve this EBA.

I am opposed to it. I agree with Senator Hume and her remarks about volunteers. I say that as a person who was one of the lucky ones. I had my own farmhouse saved during Ash Wednesday, when my neighbours all lost their houses. Not to mention the heroics of the volunteers and the paid firefighters during Black Saturday.

All I want to say today is that you have a million homes being looked after by these volunteers. You have something like 1,200 units that they belong to, and there are 57,000 of them. They are the core—they are like our lifesavers, they are volunteers. It is not just fires they go to. If you have ever lived in the country you know that if somebody runs his car off the road at three o'clock in the morning and hits a big tree, the first people there giving emergency services are fire volunteers. My own farm manager, no matter how much work he had to do on the farm, would get up at five o'clock on a Saturday morning and go down to do training.

So all I want to say is that, as a newcomer to the Senate, I am very proud on this occasion to support the government and hope this legislation passes.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016. Once again we see the government seeking to exploit workers for their own benefit, but be aware that those opposite do not actually care about volunteer firefighters. While this bill may be called the 'respect for emergency services volunteers' bill, be assured that those opposite do not actually care about the rights of any workers, and they certainly have misused the term 'respect' here. As I heard Senator Marshall say earlier, it is actually about disrespect, and I will go into the reasons I agree with Senator Marshall later on in my contribution. If those opposite truly respected emergency services volunteers, they would not be turning this issue into their own political plaything to undermine states' rights and workers' rights.

The government found political advantage in exploiting the CFA dispute, and this is something that I want everyone to remember. They even set up a website in April 2016, Hands Off the CFA, authorised by the Victorian Liberal Party to exploit the issue for their own benefit. The website has no Liberal logo or anything other than a small authorisation. Members of the public registered their interest in the website, and that personal information was later used to solicit financial support for the campaign, which was a Liberal Party campaign. That is right: people thought they were donating to volunteer firefighters, but the money was going to the Liberals. To me, that is just grubby.

Firefighting services is clearly an area that is the concern of the states, and the federal government should not be intervening in this area. The Labor Party has said all along that—whatever differences there are between the volunteers and the CFA and the United Firefighters Union, or any parties that are fighting fires in Victoria—we would like to see leadership and we would like to see an effort to reconcile differences, not to inflame tension.

These differences have resulted in Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria bringing an action in the Supreme Court of Victoria. This case is expected to commence on 17 October and is expected to take 10 days. The listing of this matter was expedited, and the opposition is hopeful that the court will determine the matter quickly. This case will determine whether the proposed agreement between the CFA and the paid firefighters is consistent with the CFA's obligation under the CFA act. As the court case makes clear, this is a dispute which is not between parties to an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act but between Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria and the CFA. Yet this government has brought this bill to this parliament even before the Supreme Court has made its decision. Labor's view is that this has always been and remains a state issue. It is our firm belief that, as this may be resolved in the Supreme Court of Victoria, this federal parliament should stay out of the way, at the very least, to exercise the precautionary principle. Those members of the government opposite only want to exploit this issue for their own political benefit, and truly they should be ashamed of themselves.

This government has spent most of this year attacking workers, their rights and the unions that represent them. A large chunk of this year has been used on a double dissolution election and what the government considered the very important piece of legislation regarding the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC. But where has that gone? It was such an urgent piece of legislation we had to have an election on it, and what have we seen since then? Absolutely nothing. It has been over three months since 2 July, we have had three sitting weeks in this place, and the government has not availed itself of the joint sitting that the double dissolution afforded it. It could have organised for the House and the Senate to have a joint sitting to pass the legislation, but it has not. It is as if the Building and Construction Commission bill was just an excuse for Mr Turnbull to try to clear out the crossbench, having done a grubby deal with the Greens to change Senate voting, and it was just an opportunity to vilify hardworking union officials and their members, just like the bill we are debating today. Those opposite are attacking unions and unionists because they fight for workers' rights, and that goes against Mr Turnbull's big business mates. They are seeking to make political capital out of a complex and sensitive issue. Quite frankly, I find it appalling.

We are debating this bill today about the current Victorian Country Fire Authority dispute because the Turnbull government opportunistically and dishonestly have been misleading Victorians, volunteer firefighters and the parliament about the dispute. The legislation we are seeing today is drafted in broad terms, but the government has not thought about the implications, other than to further its politically motivated intervention in this Victorian issue. The legislation has potential consequences that are broader than the CFA and will create considerable uncertainty for emergency service organisations throughout the country. Exactly who will be affected by this bill is currently unknown. The Department of Employment advised the shadow minister, Brendan O'Connor: 'This bill only applies to emergency services in Victoria, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, and the Commonwealth has no constitutional power to intervene in respect of emergency services that currently exist in other states. However, it should be noted that, if any emergency services were deemed to be corporations, they could be captured and, in a recent court case, the Country Fire Authority was found to be a trading corporation. It is entirely unclear whether any other fire authorities or other emergency management bodies in Australia are captured by this legislation, and this will only be able to be determined through litigation.' The government almost seems to have accepted this uncertainty, giving itself power to both exclude and include bodies to be captured by the legislation.

No matter how broad or narrow the implications of this bill turn out to be, it is clear that it is the government's response to an industrial dispute between the Victorian Country Fire Authority and the CFA employees represented by the United Firefighters Union. So what is clear is that this bill will not address the concerns raised by the Victorian board of volunteer firefighters, the VFBV. What is also extremely disappointing is that, even if it is only to apply to two territories and Victoria, the government has failed to provide a briefing to the ACT government and the newly elected Northern Territory government. The Liberal-National government is rushing in and impacting the emergency services sectors of these territories, and it has not even bothered to brief those governments on the changes.

This matter will still be determined by the Fair Work Commission, and it is very likely to be appealed. All this legislation will do is make it harder for volunteer and career firefighters to work together to protect the Victorian community. The government clearly has no regard to the interests of career firefighters in ensuring the safety of career and volunteer firefighters through the proposed agreement. Labor is concerned that, in its unseemly and unnecessary rush to play politics, the government will ignore the unforeseen or undisclosed effects of this legislation on a range of organisations. Labor is particularly worried given the fact that the employment minister does not seem to understand, or to have read, the enterprise agreement she is trying to decimate. We saw that in an absolutely atrocious interview the minister had with David Speers on Sky News recently. To be honest, it was like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It was painful. I was quite embarrassed for her. It clearly exposed the government's political gaming and the minister's complete incompetence. Rarely have we seen a minister so badly out of their depth on the detail of their portfolio—and I must admit that I was quite surprised to see it of that minister.

Asked on multiple occasions how the EBA would negatively affect volunteer firefighters the minister entered into what could have been mistaken for a comedy script riddled with errors. The minister was clearly briefed to say the EBA would undermine volunteer firefighters. She managed to get that part out, but that is where the detail ended. Mr Speers asked more than 10 times about the details of how the agreement would undermine volunteers. He even had to point the minister to the details of the legislation, which she obviously was not across despite using it as a prop. He was met with a more than inadequate response. Perhaps most embarrassing for the minister was when she introduced us to a case study whom she suggested would be adversely affected by the proposed EBA. When David Speers asked the minister what would happen to the individual if the agreement went through—if I remember correctly, the individual's name was Don—she was left red-faced and floundering in search of an answer. The best she could muster was to say that she hoped there were no resignations. Even though she said this was going to adversely affect poor old Don, she could not give us one example of how that was going to work. And finally, when pressed on what the impact would be, she conceded 'You'd need to ask that person.'

It was quite excruciating watching the minister trying to avoid these questions, and she was unable to clear up her previous assertions in an error riddled opinion piece either. She made a number of incorrect statements in that opinion piece, and I would just like to outline a couple of them. The minister incorrectly asserted that the volunteers cannot fight fires until seven paid firefighters are present, when the agreement only requires that seven firefighters be sent to the fire. She incorrectly asserted that paid firefighters report only to other paid firefighters when incident controllers, whether paid or volunteer, will continue to direct paid firefighters. And she incorrectly asserted that the CFA must get the union's approval for changes in policy when consultation is already an integral part of such agreements to ensure the safety of firefighters and the community. These mistakes by the minister were not off the cuff; they were carefully scripted, and they were just plain wrong.

When the minister in charge cannot accurately represent the bill and the current situation to the people, the volunteers and firefighters, and to this chamber we need to seriously ask ourselves whether it is right that this exercise should be passed into law. The Liberal government is not interested in helping volunteers or ending the CFA dispute. Senator Marshall, in his contribution earlier, went into that in some detail, so I will not take up too much extra time in regard to that—I thought Senator Marshall put it very well. The Liberal government is simply interested in the political opportunity that the dispute has presented for them. Those opposite are not friends of workers and never have been. Mention the word 'union' and they just about have hysterics over there; sometimes it is quite funny to watch actually. If they were supportive of workers, they would support Labor's call for a royal commission into banking, for example. Instead, we are seeing the farce of the House inquiry, controlled by the government, which gave the banks a free pass to spin their dodgy deals and shonky schemes. And we have heard how they were approached to suggest a tribunal. What an absolute joke! As Mr Shorten said, with all of these bank CEOs saying 'We're sorry, we've stuffed up. We've got it wrong. We've caused problems for thousands of our customers' haven't they just made the final argument to have a banking royal commission? I think so. Instead, this government wants to give the same big four banks a $7 billion tax cut.

But getting back to the bill we are debating today: the opposition has grave concerns that this is just another example of the government deciding to overturn the decision of an independent tribunal it does not like. It did not like the decisions of the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, so it abolished the tribunal. In this case, the government does not like the Fair Work Commission's recommended resolution of a longstanding dispute between the CFA and its paid firefighters, so it seeks to impose itself in this matter by legislating. If the government, or some future Labor government, were to legislate every time they were unhappy with an agreement reached between an employer and unions, or its employees, there would be utter chaos in the system. It would create chaos in workplaces right across Australia. That is why there are grave concerns about the proposed legislation.

A number of important groups came out against this legislation during the Senate inquiry process. For example, the Police Federation of Australia has made submissions against the enactment of this legislation, as has the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation. Ambulance Employees Association Victoria has also made submissions against this proposed legislation. But this government has not listened to the concerns of those groups—because they do not really care about the policy outcome of this bill, just the politics. This bill will not speedily resolve this issue. If the government's legislation is passed before the agreement is submitted to the Fair Work Commission for approval, having been agreed between the CFA and its employees, then the Fair Work Commission must consider whether any term of the agreement is an 'objectionable emergency management term'. In doing so, the Fair Work Commission will hear from the CFA, the United Firefighters Union, any other employee bargaining representatives and Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria. Ultimately, it does not matter what the government thinks is objectionable or even what Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria thinks is objectionable; it only matters what the Fair Work Commission determines is objectionable. In the event that the Fair Work Commission determines that these or other clauses in the agreement are objectionable, the commission can choose not to approve the agreement or can approve the agreement subject to undertakings about those clauses. If the Country Fire Authority, or any other employee's bargaining representative, disagrees with the decision of the Fair Work Commission, they could appeal to the full bench of the Fair Work Commission and from there to the Federal Court. Further, given the views of respected academics, including Professor Andrew Stewart, that the bill may be unconstitutional, one could expect that the legislation itself will be challenged. In his submission to the Senate inquiry, Professor Stewart said:

In summary, I am concerned that the amendments proposed in the bill would be difficult to apply and potentially subject to a constitutional challenge. They are intended to help resolve a single dispute at a single state agency, yet the uncertainty they would create would likely serve to exacerbate that dispute and delay its resolution. Furthermore, at least some of the issues raised by that dispute can be addressed through legal mechanisms that already exist.

The enactment of this bill does not guarantee any speedy resolution to this matter. In the meantime, there is nothing but uncertainty for the workforce of the CFA, and all the CFA volunteers, and no foundation for mending the fences that have been broken in the course of this dispute. Compare this to the current Supreme Court case, which will be resolved shortly. So this bill, rather than solving the issue quickly, will just result in it dragging on and on and on.

In closing, I would like to state what an utterly disastrous approach the government has taken on this issue. As I said earlier, the minister failed to publicly explain or demonstrate an understanding of this bill. She absolutely failed in explaining this bill at all. The issue is currently being decided by the Supreme Court and this bill does not even wait for the court's decision to be handed down. The government are stepping into areas that are the domain of the states and violates their rights, all because they dislike unions. If passed, the bill may end up being challenged in the High Court and ruled unconstitutional, delaying the resolution of this issue even further. On all accounts, this government seems to be deliberately dishonest and woefully incompetent. It is my suggestion that the Turnbull government should just stop playing politics with the CFA.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016, in my judgement, is not intended to make industrial agreements involving firefighters fairer or simpler to negotiate and is not intended to preserve or defend the role of volunteer firefighters. This is nothing more than a piece of political mischief-making. While claiming to defend volunteers in the Country Fire Authority brigades in Victoria, the government's real aim is to vilify and undermine professional firefighters and their union. To do so, it has cobbled together legislation that raises more serious problems than it purports to solve. This bill is so ill-considered that its constitutional status is dubious. Numerous legal advisers and experts have examined the government's legislation and argue that it would be vulnerable to a challenge in the High Court. I appreciate that is a claim that is made on numerous occasions about legislation. There is only one group of people who can make a judgement as to whether a bill is unconstitutional and that is the High Court itself. But there is no doubt that there are substantive arguments to support a challenge being actually launched on this legislation. Only the justices of the High Court will determine the validity of that, but there is absolutely no doubt that this bill is vulnerable to a challenge.

At the very least, this bill has demonstrated what happens when a government, desperate in an election, seeks to capitalise upon a dispute in one particular region of the country. This is a dispute that has gone on for over three years. It is a product of mismanagement by the previous Liberal government in Victoria and a similar set of arrangements we saw entered into with various paramedical legal services in the state where there was, of course, a further protracted dispute engineered by a conservative government and the failure of an agency to deal with its responsibilities—a quite biased and politically engaged agency which was quite hostile to the labour movement. We have known of cases where the management of the CFA in Victoria in previous elections has intervened in electoral processes in the state, and we know the actions that that body has taken by the engagement of various union-busting outfits in an attempt to undermine an agreement-settling process. That is why this dispute has gone on for the length of time it has. That is why there has not been a settlement for three years. There is no willingness by the CFA to actually enter into a proper negotiation process to secure a settlement. Until recently, that had been the case.

We know that the dispute in Victoria was politicised by the Liberal Party; we know of the use of Liberal Party volunteers masquerading as firefighters; we know of the Liberal Party's use of various CFA websites to raise money for the Liberal Party; we know what has happened in many country areas where an attempt was made to vilify trade unions, to vilify the Labor Party; and of course we know the electoral result in Victoria. I take the view that the swings to Labor in Bendigo, for instance, demonstrate that there was actually a swing to the Labor Party through this dispute, so it did not quite work out the way that was intended. I know that in boxes around Kilmore, which of course was an area devastated by the Black Saturday bushfires, Labor's vote actually tripled. I know of circumstances in many other areas where media leaks claimed, for instance, that in booths in Jagajaga there was a great outpouring of hostility, while the reality was that the Labor vote improved. So in some respects the attempts being made by the Liberal Party to polarise this issue and attempt to demonstrate the evils of trade unionism were not carried through to the ballot box itself. That does not change the fact that, while the electorate was not fooled, the actions themselves were not undertaken.

What we have seen is the Liberal Party in Victoria use distortions and misrepresentations, particularly through the Herald Sun, to vilify professional firefighters. We know that 18 front pages in the Herald Sun might as well have been printed as blank sheets of paper with the effect they had, but the consequences were to attempt to undermine the moral and authority of firefighters in the state. No matter how many times you state an unfounded fear the consequence there is really aimed at the organisation itself, and that is the case with the CFA.

Clause 7A in the EBA negotiated between the board of the Victorian CFA and the United Firefighters Union—and I might say, at the insistence of Mr Julius Roe at the Fair Work Commission—is to make sure that the role of volunteers was not altered by the agreement. Nothing in this agreement—I repeat: nothing in this agreement—prevents volunteers from providing the services that they would normally provide. So the role of the Victorian volunteers, who do such a commendable job and represent such a broad cross-section of society—they are not just conservative people, they are not just the captains of the local social set: they are actually made up of all sorts of folks and they undertake such a remarkable job—is not actually under threat, no matter what the National Party says and no matter what the Liberal Party says as a political device to try to mobilise support for those organisations. It is also clear that there is no provision in the EBA which countermands the provisions of the state's emergency services legislation.

What was demonstrated, and what my colleague Senator Bilyk made very clear just before me, was that Professor Andrew Stewart from the University of Adelaide, who is very highly regarded for expertise, advised the Senate inquiry that the chief fire officer gives directions or authorises operating procedures under the CFA Act, and those directions prevail over anything that is contrary or might be alleged to be contrary in any EBA. That is the law. There has never been any doubt about the law in Victoria, but in order to keep spinning the line that the volunteers have threatened the government it has continued to pretend that there might be some other course of action available to it. Now I know this might play down well at the editorial suite at the Herald Sun and their deep, deep antipathy to the Victorian Premier and their deep antipathy to unions and their deep antipathy to workers who are unionised, but the facts remain the same.

This bill fundamentally ignores the problem of the constitutionality of these measures: the fact that the Commonwealth legislation might impair, curtail or weaken the capacity of the state to function as an autonomous entity. The irony will not be lost on those who spent years listening to the coalition's talking and beating the drum of state rights. Of course we know that in other areas the issue of states' rights is sacrosanct, unless a case comes before the parliament or before politics of this country for a bit of union bashing—then anything goes. The minister, being so intent on smearing the union of the professional firefighters, made it very clear she had not even bothered to actually look at the detail of the EBA. Senators will recall the opinion piece which was published in the Herald Sun on 22 August in which she claimed that the seven paid firefighters had to be present before volunteers could be deployed to fight a fire. She also said that paid firefighters could only report to other professionals. These claims were just wrong. It is not about the facts here, is it? It is about the smear.

This is a political campaign run by the Liberal Party aimed at smearing professional firefighters and smearing the Labor government in Victoria. The minister, who rarely shows any embarrassment at all, had to at least acknowledge when she was lost for words with a television interviewer that she could not identify where the provisions in the EBA were in terms of the claims that she was making. I say that this is a serious political problem for this country, if they think that the Commonwealth can intervene for the settlement of an exasperation, in this case, of an industrial dispute in one state.

What we do know is that the Commonwealth does have powers to regulate wages and employment conditions. But, when it comes to the question of state government employees, the situation is a bit more complicated. The High Court has made this very clear. The court itself has set limits. In 1995, in a case involving the Australian Education Union and the Victorian government, it found that the Commonwealth cannot direct a state on who or how many people to employ. Surely this bill presents us with a difficulty about how this measure will actually be implemented and be consistent with previous High Court decisions? This bill will allow a federal body, the Fair Work Commission, to override the decisions of a state body, such as the Victorian CFA or the Victorian government, when it decides how to structure its relationship with its employees and its volunteers.

The Department of Employment states that it has been advised by the Australian Government Solicitor that this bill is within the powers of the Commonwealth. Well of course they always say that, don't they? In all my time in government I have never known a bill to come before parliament which the Solicitor-General had not advised will survive a High Court challenge. We know the difference is, and the reality is, that that does not necessarily bind the High Court. Just because there is an opinion—an unpublished opinion, an unverified opinion—presented by the Solicitor-General that does not in itself make it a fact, because these are issues that will be tested in a court of law, namely the High Court of Australia.

We know the problem here is that the government does not release the Solicitor-General's opinions, and it does not want those opinions to be subject to the scrutiny of other constitutional experts—it does not want the debate about that particular issue. We know that there is a contrary view by eminent jurists in this land. And while we cannot prejudge the outcome of a challenge, I say it is absolutely arguable that there is a case for it to be put before the High Court. And what is clear in these circumstances is that if the court eventually upholds the legislation, then there will be, of course, even then protracted uncertainty about the status of the firefighting arrangements in the state of Victoria.

It has been mentioned that this is a matter that is currently before the Supreme Court of Victoria. We await their decision. But what incredible timing, as we move into summer—what extraordinary genius at work here as we move through the bushfire season—to actually create this level of uncertainty when there is a state case currently in play. I find it extraordinary. In response, Victorian firefighters and emergency workers are hampered because of this protracted matter. It will not, however, be because of the EBA now. What this Commonwealth government has done is actually taken this upon itself, and it is the one that we should look to with regard to the future status of volunteers because of this legislation. As I said, what an extraordinary proposition as we come into the firefighting season.

We have heard the argument that has been put by the royal commission into the bushfires in Victoria: about the inadequacies of the current arrangements in play prior to this EBA being put in place, about the failure of the CFA to get its administrative practices in order, and about the need for there to be substantial change—change which reflects a pattern across the country I might add. That is what this EBA does: it gives you a much more national approach to that. But what we do know now is that the Commonwealth—for narrow, sectional, sectarian motives—have sought to intervene because they thought it was going to be an electorally appealing proposition, and they are now going to have an opportunity, as they see it, to bash another union. That is their stock in trade: 'We don't have to worry about the facts in these circumstances. We don't have to worry about the consequences in these circumstances. What we have to do is intervene in a dispute that is three years old, close to resolution, and make it a more protracted problem than it already is.'

What I am concerned about is that this is a grubby piece of union bashing masquerading as a bill to save a great Australian institution. No-one pretends that volunteer firefighters do not embody some of the great features of Australian civic duty, but the Turnbull government has pretended that their roles in Victorian bushfire responses are actually threatened by an EBA. The safety of Victorians is not something that should be a matter of political contention. You would have expected in a country such as this, where we are ravaged by bushfire on such a regular basis, that there would be some things that would be above sectarian political abuse. But you would be wrong, because that is what this legislation is doing. This government, with this legislation, is in fact making the situation much worse, making the capacity of the CFA to do their job properly much more difficult for them, and, for narrow political reasons, the government is seeking to pursue its political objectives of trying to belt professional firefighters. This is a bill that should actually be withdrawn. They should leave the state government to resolve the matter with the union, with the volunteers and with the CFA. This is a matter before the courts in Victoria, and that is where it should be presented and the matters dealt with in that context.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise as chair of the employment and education committee, whose task it has been over recent weeks to conduct the inquiry into the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016, and it gives me great pleasure to be able to stand here as a very proud regional Victorian and recommend, as the committee did, that this particular bill be passed. I am incredibly disappointed in particular that my Victorian Labor Party Senate colleagues are not similarly supporting this bill. It has been an incredibly arduous issue within our home state, as the world-renowned Country Fire Authority—which runs the majority of the firefighting volunteers, paid employees and brigades right across my great state—purely volunteer brigades and also integrated brigades—have been the subject of an EBA process that has damaged not only the culture within the CFA but also pitted firefighters who should be working together for the safety of our communities against each other.

I have been really interested to listen to the debate this morning, and it disheartens me when I hear Labor Party senator after Labor Party senator, including those who are not even from my home state, claiming and decrying the politicisation of this particular issue. Where were they at the last state election in my home state? Where were they when there were union members in firefighting uniforms handing out how-to-vote cards, handing out how-to-vote information to Victorians heading into the state election? This particular fight is nothing more than Daniel Andrews having to pay the ferryman for his premiership. That is the sad reality, because if it was not more than that, then we would have Labor Party senators backing our volunteers, backing our 60,000 volunteer firefighters in Victoria, and supporting this legislation to simply give them a say when industrial relations affect their organisation and their capacity to keep us safe. That is what this legislation seeks to do, and I recognise members of our volunteer brigades in the gallery today both from my home state of Victoria—the great state of Victoria—and Tasmania and around about. It is great to have you in the gallery today to listen to this particularly important debate.

If you were on the ground in regional Victoria, this was an issue way before it became an election issue. It was not just National Party voters who were also volunteer firefighters who had an issue with how this was proceeding and it was not just Liberal Party voters who were our CFA volunteers who had an issue with how this was proceeding; it was our CFA volunteers who were Greens voters and it was our CFA volunteers who were Labor Party voters—who were Labor Party members—who similarly had an incredible issue with how the UFU and the Labor Party were using the great organisation of the CFA, which has not been involved in politics and simply goes about doing the job of keeping Victorians safe, as a political tool over a long period of time. To come in here and say it was the coalition government who started that conversation I think is incredibly naive and shows that you have not actually been on the ground out in brigades talking to Labor Party voters and coalition voters alike within the CFA who have issues with this matter.

The inquiry that we conducted had over 321 submissions in a very, very short time span, and, unlike other inquiries where you might get 100 get-up submissions, where they are all the same and just the name on the front of it is a bit different, these were individual submissions from brigades in their totality, from CFA members and from individuals out in our local communities emphasising the fact that the CFA and its volunteers needed protection. We held two hearings. One was out at Macedon, and I thought it was fantastic to get senators, particularly out-of-state senators who may not have been across the CFA as it is structured and the work that it does, out into regional Victoria listening directly to volunteers from as far away as Dumbalk, Wangaratta and Lara—you name it; they came en masse. I really want to pay tribute to the volunteers and to the paid firefighters who came to that hearing and gave us a very clear, firsthand assessment of their view of the legislation and how it might work for them

We then had, obviously, a hearing in Melbourne where we heard from the UFU, VFBV et cetera, and that again was very informative. I would like to thank everybody who took the time out, with a very short time frame, to give their perspective on this issue. And it is a serious issue—state ministers do not get sacked for nothing, CFA boards do not get sacked for nothing, CFA CEOs do not resign for nothing and CFA chief operating officers do not resign for nothing. They all walked because they knew that the EBA as it existed would fundamentally undermine the CFA's capacity to fulfil its statutory obligations. It is that simple. If you have any doubts, please read the letter on the committee's website from one of Melbourne Fire Brigade's ex-statutory officers, Peter Brown, who also has had similar issues when dealing with the UFU and the way they obstructed his—he has now resigned—role as a statutory officer. It is because they chose to fill the EBA with the requirement to consult and agree, even after a protracted negotiation. As Senator Carr says, three years is a long time and, if you are not going to move, that three years just stretches out. To this day we have 50 clauses in the EBA that contain the words 'consult' and 'agree'. CFA policy cannot be changed, the CFA cannot decide on a matter of policy within its own organisation, unless not only does it consult with the UFU but also the UFU agrees to whatever the outcome is. If it does not agree, we kick it down the can and it goes into a dispute mechanism in which, at the end of the day, the volunteers have no say—and that is essentially what we are talking about. There are 35,000 members and 60,000 people in total having no say in industrial relation matters that directly impact on their capacity to fill their statutory obligations to fight a fire on the ground.

Our hearings had a whole list of examples of clauses, and they are attached in appendix 3 of the report that was tabled earlier this morning. For anyone who is listening, you can go and look at this. There are specific clauses right throughout the EBA which affect and impact on the CFA and their volunteers' ability to do their job. When I put these to the UFU's boss, Mr Marshall, and said, 'You say that's not the case, you say the volunteers are wrong and that this will not impact them, where is the evidence, Mr Marshall? Please provide us with the legal advice that would support your opinion.' I am yet to see that. We are taking as fact what the head of a union says when he sits there and says, 'No, Senator, the volunteers are wrong—no, that's not the case.' You can read the Hansard. For question after question, he said that that was not the case. When asked to provide evidence, he had nothing. He was given extra time to provide evidence and, to my knowledge, as of today no evidence has been provided.

In contrast, when the CFA and the volunteers were asked to back up why they felt that these particular clauses would undermine the capacity for them to do their jobs, they had got legal advice from a range of sources. They had experts. They gave us absolutely detailed on-the-ground advice on how these clauses would have an impact on their capacity to keep Victorians safe and, I think almost as importantly, to retain the volunteer culture of the CFA, which is a world renowned organisation that we are incredibly proud of. The state legislation that sets up the CFA defines it as a volunteer organisation supported by employees, and that is rare and that takes unique management. It takes a unique approach to industrial relations—well, it should. Through this EBA the union has essentially sought to insert issues that should be around standard operating procedures into an industrial agreement, and I just think that was a really bad way to go and we are seeing the repercussions of that.

In terms of how the report goes to the issue, I will just examine the adverse impact of the EBA on the volunteers and CFA culture. We looked at the emergency management legislation because usually, as I said, EBA negotiations are between employers and employees, but here you have an organisation that not only has some employees; it also has 35,000 volunteers working for them. It is unpaid work, but they are working within that organisation. So how do we deal with an industrial agreement and its subsequent impact in that scenario? The EBA as currently put forward does not assist. It would seem that Victorians en masse support that.

It does not matter whether it is Joe Buffone or Lucinda Nolan; the former CEOs made it very, very clear in the inquiry that the EBA would absolutely override the organisation's capacity to fulfil its statutory obligations. That is serious stuff. You do not just get to change the minister, change the board, shuffle a few deckchairs and ram something like that through and completely undermine the capacity of an organisation like the CFA to do its role. It is absolutely unbelievable.

As I said, we have attached the power of veto to the report. There was evidence about the brigade administrative support officers and how the EBA would impact on them. We had evidence from a CFA volunteer in Macedon that including that particular role in the EBA showed a complete misunderstanding of what the role was all about. The person in that role would probably be having to work at night or on weekends simply because of the way the brigade functions. They are not a nine-to-five operation because volunteers are usually working in small business or in our many public service operations out there in the community. They have regular jobs. They work regular hours. So if you are going to be an administrative officer supporting them, you have to be around when they are meeting, not in business hours. So there are implications from that.

There are cross-crewing implications in how the EBA would impact on the CFA's capacity to employ part-time employees and also on training, development, uniforms et cetera. I go to this again. The UFU gave no evidence to the committee backing up their claims other than just dismissing out of hand the issues of the volunteers.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not true.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator. Peter Marshall saying, 'That's not true', just as you did, does not make it so. I want to see evidence. I want to see legal opinion.

Senator Rhiannon interjecting—

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rhiannon, this is not a debate between the two of you.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately they just did not deliver it. So here we are with a bill before the Senate which I commend to the Senate as a way of protecting our volunteers and ensuring that the CFA can operate effectively, allowing them to have a say when industrial relations issues impact on their operation.

People have talked about the constitutionality. One academic who was employed by Julia Gillard previously—so hardly, I would say, impartial—gave what he admitted was just an opinion and he said that there were alternative opinions out there. This bill has been carefully drafted. One of the other criticisms was around the scope of the bill. The scope of the bill is deliberately narrow. We do not want to encapsulate every volunteer or, indeed, every organisation that includes and supports volunteers. This bill recognises the unique construct of the Country Fire Authority in my home state of Victoria. It is a volunteer organisation supported by employees. It is very, very different. So the police force does not need to be worried. The nurses do not need to be worried. The ambos do not need to be worried. This is not going to affect them. This is about solving a unique problem for a very unique and highly regarded organisation.

The other critique that has been bandied about by those opposite is, 'Poor volunteers. They just don't get it. It is all about misinformation.' Well, I am sorry but to a man and a woman—from the brigade members to their representative bodies in Melbourne, to the sacked board members and the resigned CEO, Lucinda Nolan, right throughout the organisation—there was a clarity of thought and purpose. There was a deep understanding of how the EBA affected their capacity to deliver emergency services operations in my home state. For those opposite to say that they were not always quoting from the right information either is, I think, just a complete attempted to muddy the waters.

We on this side respect the role of both volunteer firefighters and paid firefighters and the courage that they all display in keeping us safe in emergencies. Right now, the CFA is working in regional communities affected by floods. They do not just look at fires. These men and women are helping our communities right across the board.

The ALP's failure to support this bill and our volunteers is deplorable. Those volunteers deserve to be able to have a say when industrial relations matters impact on their capacity to do their job and impacts on the culture of their organisation and the capacity for volunteer firefighters to work hand in glove with paid firefighters, as they have to do in integrated stations. We do not want that undermined.

It was very, very clear in submission after submission and in all the public evidence that currently in Victoria the CFA are in crisis with this EBA. This bill will absolutely give them the support that they need to have a say on those EBA arrangements that are seeking to undermine their particular operations.

Senator Bilyk also made comment earlier around our government reacting to things we do not like. I will tell you what, Senator Bilyk, with respect to the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, we do not like it when small businesses go out of business. We do not like truck drivers around our country who are supporting their families going out of business. We do not like our volunteers being overridden for the sake Premier Andrew's deal with the UFU. I am very proud to be in a government that supports Australians who put their lives on the line to have a say when IR arrangements impact on their ability to do their jobs. I absolutely look forward to the Senate supporting this particular piece of legislation.

I would like to thank the secretariat for the hard work that they have done in turning this around in such a short period of time. I would also like to thank all those who took the time to make submissions and to give evidence—the Senate inquiry process does not work unless we all participate. I look forward to the passage of this bill as we go forward to support our great volunteers.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to 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?

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

We're very friendly.

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

You are very friendly. Senator Cameron said that I am putting politics ahead of safety. He is nodding his head, and I am shaking my head, saying that that is absolutely wrong. I am very disappointed that Senator Cameron is saying that. We have done a lot of good work together, particularly relatively recently in relation to the security of payments legislation in the building industry. That, to me, is about a safety issue that needs to be dealt with. Senator Cameron and I will no doubt be having many more discussions in the context of the ABCC legislation on that.

But to say that this is putting politics ahead of safety is a slur. It is unfair. We need to consider what the impact will be if this legislation does not go through. The real risk—the real danger—is how many of the over 35,000 active volunteer firefighters in the state of Victoria will say: 'We are not going to do this anymore. This is just too hard for us, because under the current framework we are being discouraged from being volunteers.' That is a perception, a perception that leads to a reality, and that is something we need to take into account. That is my concern.

I am sure we can have a decent and civil and robust discussion on this during the committee stages of this bill, but we cannot ignore that factor. We cannot ignore the fact that former Minister Garrett resigned from the Victorian cabinet in relation to this and the fact that she has made a number of complaints relating to this whole process before the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission. I do not think it is proper to comment on the rightness or wrongness of that complaint, but it just gives you an idea of how bitter this whole dispute has been. It must not be ignored.

We cannot ignore the fact that the whole board of the CFA was sacked . The chief fire officer resigned. These are issues that go to safety. It is about how you integrate the volunteers and the paid firefighters, the members of the UFU—who, by the way, I have absolutely no doubt do absolutely outstanding work in protecting Victorians and protecting lives and property in the state of Victoria—and I believe this bill seeks to clarify that.

This bill does contain a number of clauses in terms of definitional matters as to how disputes are to be resolved and what the rights of volunteers are. I think it is more appropriate to raise those in the context of the committee stage of this bill—how it will work, what the scope of the regulations will be—because it is the manner of the implementation of this bill, through the regulations, that will be very important.

I do not see this as a warning—I say this as an observation—but if the government gets it wrong or overreaches, in terms of the regulations then that could subject them to a disallowance motion in the Senate, and we would be back, if not to square one, close to square one in terms of dealing with these matters. This legislation facilitates a process.

I expect that there will be a very robust and lengthy committee stage of this bill, as there should be, because there some concerns have been raised about the constitutionality of this bill, there are concerns about how this bill will work and there are concerns as to whether this is an overreach on the part of the Commonwealth in what is largely state legislation. But I counter that argument by saying that because the Fair Work Commission is involved and because there is that interaction between state legislation covering volunteers and dealing with the Fair Work Commission—federal legislation—if there is a dispute such as this that seems to be intractable, there must be an opportunity to resolve it.

I believe this bill, as imperfect as it is, provides the mechanism to resolve this and, above all, to give certainty to the 35,000 volunteer firefighters to be able to continue to serve their community alongside their fellow brave firefighters in the UFU. That, to me, is what the substance of this bill is about.

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

But they've got uncertainty.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, Senator Xenophon has the call.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I know it is very improper the me to say so: I love interjections from Senator Cameron—some more than others. But in relation to the question of uncertainty, that is something that we can flesh out in the committee stage. I believe, on balance, that there will be less uncertainty. I believe that the uncertainty facing tens of thousands of volunteer firefighters in Victoria will be significantly dealt with and ameliorated by virtue of this bill. That is why I support this bill, as do my colleagues. We have our reservations. We are not spruikers or barrackers for this bill. But we are saying that, on balance, we need to deal with it, and, imperfect as it is, this is the best way forward to deal with this issue. That is why we will be supporting it.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016. With this legislation, I will vote using the precautionary principle. I will vote to protect the safety of all firefighters, both professional and volunteer, and that is why I will oppose this government legislation.

But I am not just opposing it. I cannot believe it has actually made its way up here to the Senate. This is a schoolyard fight that should have been left in the hands of the Victorian government. That is where it should have stayed. It should have been worked out there. I cannot believe how it has reached this level, how it is sitting here in the Senate and how we are now talking about this instead of worrying about our age pensioners, our veterans and our kids out there paying for their university degrees. Honestly! The Victorian government can actually hold its head in shame; I will give it that much. It should have been figured out.

This is not a decision I have come to easily or quickly. This decision is one I have certainly lost sleep over. I have met and listened to many different stakeholders—not just on one or two occasions but sometimes on three or four occasions—and I have come to the view that if we are to have respect for our emergency service volunteers and give them the best chance of returning home to their families after they have served their communities in dangerous situations then I must vote to oppose this government legislation. For most Tasmanians—indeed, for most Australians—the issues surrounding the presentation of this legislation are confusing. However, the facts are clear. I have asked the Law Council of Australia to describe the situation. Essentially, they have said to me that during the election campaign the federal government stated that it would consider amending the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 in a way that would affect the capacity of the proposed new Victorian Country Fire Authority/United Firefighters Union of Australia Operational Staff Enterprise Agreement 2016 to be made. The federal government indicated that their proposed amendments would seek to support the work of volunteers by preventing a new enterprise agreement replacing the CFA UFU Operational Staff Enterprise Agreement 2010.

I acknowledge that this is a highly charged debate. Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria, the VFBA, and the former CFA board oppose the proposed EA—and therefore support this legislation—on the grounds that it would undermine the role and independence of volunteers and be discriminatory. The UFU supports the proposed enterprise agreement—and therefore opposes this federal legislation—on the basis that it would enhance security and safety for emergency service workers. As I indicated earlier, I asked for legal advice from the Law Council of Australia. In this case, they have sat on the fence and said:

The Law Council considers that wherever possible, parties to a civil dispute, should act in good faith and engage in appropriate dispute resolution processes to resolve disputes. The CFA dispute appears to be one where reasonable minds may differ.

Clearly a resolution has not been reached with this dispute between professional and volunteer fire fighters in Victoria, or else this legislation would not be necessary. Because of that, as I have already said, this is a very sad day. Both groups of people—professional and volunteer fire fighters—are fine, courageous, reasonable groups of Australians but, as the Law Council indicates, this dispute appears to be one where reasonable minds may, and have, differed. The Law Council also makes another important observation:

In any proposal to amend the Act, it will be essential for the Government to carefully ensure that it is acting within its power to create Constitutionally valid legislation. This is because there may be an argument, depending on the nature of the amendment, that instructing a State Government agency on how to manage volunteers, would overstep constitutional limits.

During this debate the government will not be able to give a fair guarantee that with this legislation they have not overstepped their constitutional limits.

I understand that there are three contentious clauses in the proposed EA which this legislation attempts to counter: clause 36.4, allowing paid employees greater operational and management control of the CFA; clause 83.5, a minimum of seven paid firefighters to be dispatched at a scene applying to 31 stations out of the 1,200; and clause 90.4, prioritisation of the health and safety of an employee covered by the EA, including that the CFA and UFU must agree on clothing, equipment, technology, station wear and appliances. It is a shame that this dispute is about, maybe, half a dozen paragraphs—it really is. The interpretation is also shameful—you have both sides interpreting it the way they want to. That is what it comes down to. It is a really sad day when this issue has had to come all the way into the Senate instead of being worked out outside this parliament.

A key legal decision already made which significantly affects the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 was made on 8 January 2015 in a Federal Court case—United Firefighters' Union of Australia v Country Fire Authority. According to a Law Council Report, the full Federal Court found:

Under established principles, Federal industrial agreements or awards which purport to regulate the recruitment and redundancy of State public sector employees are legally invalid. This is because there is an implied limitation in the Constitution on the power of the Federal government to make laws which discriminate between States or effectively curtail a State's capacity to function as a government. This limitation is known as the 'Melbourne Corporation' principle.

It would appear that the Federal Court's finding and its Melbourne Corporation principle and limitation raises serious doubts regarding the constitutional legality of this legislation. This legislation creates a lawyers' fest and a black hole to throw millions of dollars of taxpayers' money into, on legal fees and court costs. Should this legislation pass, there still would not be any clarity for our professional or volunteer firefighters.

The place for resolving this dispute is not in this parliament with this questionable legislation, which is more than likely to be challenged in the courts; it is at the Victorian state negotiating table, where the volunteer firefighters and the professional firefighters must reach an agreement. In addition to this point, it is important to note that a Supreme Court ruling, yet to be made, will also affect this matter. Mr Rob Mitchell, a Labor MP, raised this is his speech on the second reading in the other place. He said:

There is a Supreme Court action pending in Victoria, where legal ruling on the issues that this legislation is apparently dealing with will be handed down in a few weeks. Again, why the rush? Why not use the outcome of the independent umpire, the court, to inform the legislative process? We might find that federal intervention is not required.

This legislation is fundamentally about volunteers and volunteerism, which are the building blocks of Australian Culture. Andrew Broad MP, member for Mallee in the other place, said:

Without politicising this, I want to say that both sides of parliament do value our volunteers. These are people who do not brand themselves as heroes.

However it is clear that volunteers have been politicised, when energy should have been put into reaching a negotiated agreement. Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews is equally to blame for this mess, as is Prime Minister Turnbull. I agree with Andrew Broad MP, when he said in the other place:

This should be dealt with in Victoria by a respectful Andrews government. It was such a political issue inside Mr Andrews' own parliament that he had to sack a minister. They then had to sack a board and put in one that is regarded by the membership, whether rightly or wrongly, as comprised of yes-men and yes-women.

There are both complex principles and big questions that should be answered in this debate about community volunteers. A key question is: do our governments, both state and federal, choose to exploit community-minded people or volunteers who work for free in essential or emergency services? Whenever this question is asked, the government and its supporters, in order to cover their tracks and deflect blame for the underfunding and under-resourcing of essential and emergency services, shoot the messenger. It is a classic response from a government caught out short-changing and abusing their essential and emergency services workforce. The usual response from a guilty politician is that the people asking the questions and exposing government dysfunction and incompetence are just attacking hardworking volunteers or workers. Well, no, it does not work like that. The only people attacking our volunteers are the politicians who allow those services to be run into the ground and become poorly managed and poorly resourced.

In this debate I have found that those who ask the hard questions about safety, staffing levels, up-to-date equipment and better procedures are painted as attacking volunteers in an attempt to deflect blame. This happened to me after I met recently with representatives of the Australian Paramedics Association Tasmania, who raised some urgent matters with me and about staffing and what they believed was the abuse or overuse of volunteers by the Liberal Tasmanian government. I would like the Minister for Employment, in her closing speech, to clarify what effect her government's legislation, which is targeted at Victorian emergency services volunteers, could have on emergency services volunteers in states other than Victoria. I have not received strong views from volunteer groups in Tasmania regarding this legislation; however, I know that Tasmania has a long and proud volunteer culture and groups like the ambos, the SES and the firefighters would like a clear explanation of whether and how this legislation is going to affect them.

I pay my respects to all our emergency services volunteers, who risk all to keep us safe. I recently wrote to the Tasmanian Premier in relation to our ambulance service, which relies on 500 registered volunteers:

It will become clear after reading these matters that not only are the lives of patients who require the services of Tasmanian paramedics at increased and unnecessary risk but the health and well-being of our paramedics are also being placed at risk due to being under-resourced at a time when the workload is increasing.

The main issues that were raised with me are as follows:

At the heart of the dispute between people who work for free, for the state government or as volunteers, and the professionals who make their living by providing a service are matters of management, resourcing and funding. As the resourcing and funding are reduced by governments, the quality of service delivery must decrease, despite the gallant efforts of our very own Australian volunteers. In Tasmania's case, the paramedics are speaking out because of a cut in funding. This is how one paramedic has summarised the situation to me:

I have had a quick look at the DHHS Annual Report 2014-15 for Ambulance Tasmania and I note the following:

It may also be time to consider calling again on the 'secret' Ambulance Tasmania report to be made public so all Tasmanians have the right to know what is going on with their Ambulance Service.

I have to say: if you think the firefighters and volunteers are having problems in Victoria then maybe you need to stick your nose into the situation in Tasmania and start questioning Will Hodgman about the ambulance service and the safety of our patients. How far is this legislation going to go?

In closing, with this legislation I will vote using the precautionary principle: I will vote to protect the safety of all firefighters, both professional and volunteer, and that is why I will oppose this government's legislation.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President and fellow senators, as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I rise in the chamber to outline my position on the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016, which is of great significance not only to the people of Victoria but most certainly to the people of Queensland and citizens across our great nation. In short, this legislation relates to the Victorian government's battle with the Country Fire Authority, and that is why this bill is often called the CFA legislation. Like so many issues that come before this parliament, the CFA bill is an issue of freedom versus control. We have to decide, today, if government can control communities or set them free. With freedom versus control in mind, let us consider this bill.

Dr Maria Montessori, perhaps the greatest authority on human development based on a deep understanding of human needs, said, 'Discipline and freedom are so co-related that, if there is some lack of discipline, the cause is to be found in some lack of freedom.' Humans are profoundly in need of freedom and discipline. Freedom and discipline are symbiotic. They are wed.

This legislation is the first I have spoken to in the chamber. And I pledge to all senators here and now that Dr Montessori's words will be in my heart and mind whenever I have matters to consider. The question will be: what freedom do we surrender to ensure stability and discipline in Australian society?

Other pressing legislation soon to come before this chamber includes the bills for the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisation Commission. Those bills can also be classified as control versus freedom issues. In considering the CFA bill, my intention is to look at the broader industrial relations landscape and assess community needs entirely. Freedom to choose destiny, when applied to the CFA matter, could be simplified thus: should the 60,000 wonderful brave people of the Country Fire Authority be able to freely choose whether they come under the control of a union enterprise agreement or not and should they remain as volunteers free from union control or not?

For 160 years local communities managed the proud CFA brigades of Victoria. The Daniel Andrews Labor government wishes to stop communities from making choices about local fire brigades and enshrine union management processes in an enterprise agreement. An EA is ultimately an issue of control versus freedom, especially when it is an overwhelming 400 pages long. The control mechanism proposed by the Andrews government will be amplified if the fire union bosses dictate the daily operations of community rural fire brigades. The bosses will have the ability to dominate by enforcement of the EA. Is this union involvement productive, efficient and justifiable? Rigorous attention to laws and rules is a noble pursuit, but sometimes it is tainted by unconscious good intent or ignoble intent.

When crucial and important legislation comes before this parliament there are a number of tests beyond freedom versus control that we should apply. I am not saying anything new when I comment that tests should centre on the community benefit of any proposed legislation. I am sure as we all vote we are cognisant of how our decisions affect communities.

I am fortunate enough to have travelled this country from the north of Queensland to rural Victoria to get to the bottom of how rural fire brigades work in Australian communities. The legislation that is before us will not only affect Victorian volunteers; it will affect other statutory bodies that rely on volunteers. So when considering the CFA bill we packaged all of the government's proposed IR legislative agenda and talked to many groups about the interlock between each and every aspect of the government's IR program, including the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission.

As part of my listening with Senator Hanson we heard from many people affected by the government's IR program. We asked: how will it affect them, what changes were needed, were there better solutions and what were their needs? We gave people the freedom and right to be heard, and found it richly rewarding. We first listened to the concerns of ACTU secretary Dave Oliver and CFMEU national secretary Mike O'Connor. We listened to small businesses, tradies, building subcontractors, individual unions, United Firefighters Union secretary Peter Marshall and Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria CEO Andrew Ford. It was rewarding listening to union members and families, paid and volunteer firefighters, large businesses, industry and employer groups, respected IR consultant Grace Collier and ACCC Chairman Rod Simms. We continued to listen as we deliberated over the three pieces of legislation. We learned that the IR carve-out in the powers of the ACCC has led to much discord that could easily be addressed by implementing a level and fair playing field between the expectations of company directors and union bosses.

While we are talking about union bosses' fiduciary duties, where they sometimes let their workers down is that they do not address the core issue of putting more money in members' pockets. How could everyday Australians get more money? Let's get the union movement behind comprehensive tax reform addressing PAYE and payroll tax. Reform would reduce the burden on their members—and that is the key. A reduced tax burden on everyone can only increase employment and reduce cost-of-living pressures.

In the future, One Nation will address comprehensive tax reform. For now, the most interesting conversation I had was the one at the Education and Employment Legislation Committee hearing on Wednesday 28 September in Melbourne with United Firefighters Union national secretary Peter Marshall. Mr Marshall was passionate about his union and has served the Victorian community fighting fires. I honour his commitment. Mr Marshall offered the view that the CFA's failure to adequately manage firefighting meant that statutory responsibilities of volunteer firefighters had to, in effect, be controlled by the EA and thereby come under the UFU's control.

Listening to paid and volunteer firefighters—in committee, at fire stations and in personal conversations—showed that the CFA requires standardisation of practices and operating manuals, congruent with best practice. It is clear that the politicisation of the CFA board and management has weakened and done much damage for many years. The Victorian Minister for Industrial Relations, in her recent letter to me, advocated that the EA is a way to implement recommendations from the 2009 bushfire royal commission. This all begs the question: is the union a vehicle for Victorian government ministers, or are they a vehicle for the unions?

It is true that the Victorian CFA needs a clear operations manual. What I find most bizarre about the solution proposed by the Andrews government is that the proposed control mechanism is a 400-page enterprise agreement. It is not as if these plans of the Andrews government are malicious; they are not. The focus is supposedly on the need to keep the community safe and to keep all firefighters, paid and volunteer, safe. The changes are intended to standardise operations and give clear guidance. It is a noble intent by an ignoble means. Strangely, and I say this is as respectfully as I can, both the Andrews government and the firefighters union seem to think that a 400-page enterprise agreement is a clever idea when, clearly, few in the community, especially in rural Victoria, think that it is. It is not clever.

It is true that we may sometimes need control mechanisms, rules or guidelines. Yet that mechanism must accept that freedom is paramount and add value if a freedom is removed. A solution that controls people's lives must add value—not heartache, disaster and discord. Premier Andrews' solution fails the core test of the value in control versus freedom. I challenge my fellow senators to think for a minute what would eventuate if the Andrews government blueprint for control of local communities were replicated in my home state of Queensland. Imagine for a minute if Annastasia Palaszczuk came down to the Rural Fire Brigade stations and issued an edict that volunteers across Queensland should be controlled by union bosses and follow 400-page enterprise agreements with onerous new control mechanisms. What would happen if Annastacia Palaszczuk brought about the same changes to other statutory bodies that married paid staff and volunteers? This bill protects Queensland from such action. Make no mistake, I stand in this chamber very proudly on the side of freedom. Every piece of legislation that comes before us should tick that simple box: whether it promotes freedom and happiness for communities. There is nothing more asinine or debilitating than a nanny state.

There is another test that legislation before this parliament should meet. I turn senators' attention to the reason we are here: the liberty and freedoms for states and individuals enshrined in our Constitution. In writing our Constitution, our nation's founding fathers clearly intended competitive federalism. It was always the design of those who wrote the Constitution that the states would be responsible for matters such as industrial relations. Our founding fathers wanted to set the states free and, in choosing their destiny, the states would compete for trade and prosperity, and that could only benefit the Australian people. Because both sides of politics have decided to kick around the issue of industrial relations and allow emotion, egos and power plays to take over, we now have one of the most bastardised industrial relations systems in the modern world. Political trickery has replaced sensible discourse in the IR space, campaigns respond to a 24-hour news cycle and outcomes are based on who can shout the loudest or use the most emotion. It is highly unfortunate that we need this legislation as it tramples on a state's rights. It controls a state government when people should be free to make their own decisions. However, sometimes we need an intervention to assist freedom. Conversely, we need to remember that the Andrews government, bleating about federal intervention, is in fact relying on an EA under federal legislation.

There will be debates in this chamber and forever more about the merits or otherwise of states doing their own thing on IR. We get that. Our country's IR system is broken, and as a party we will have a lot more to say about this in the coming term of parliament. As the song teaches, though: one day at a time. At its heart, industrial relations is about relationships. Perhaps in Australia the term needs to be changed to 'industrial recklessness' in which workers, honest union members and business owners pay the price. As broken as the IR system may be, nothing is more broken than the Australian government. That is why minor parties are on the rise and why I am confident our party will win significant support at the next Queensland election.

At the core of the CFA dispute is broken government at its worst, and broken government has manifest itself by being a lazy, lazy government. Lazy government has for many years known about and ignored the systemic issues in Victoria's Country Fire Authority. For a long time, governments have known from royal commissions established after great tragedies of national significance that there are issues with the way fires have been fought, both in rural and city areas, and the need to interconnect between the city and rural services. I would hazard a guess that many reports have been written for ministers of the Victorian government saying the lack of an effective operational manual is the issue in the Country Fire Authority and urgent action is needed. These reports have most probably sat at the bottom of the red box given to the minister each Friday. Perhaps they have sat in some ministerial advisor's suitcase on the way to Malaysia to watch the Grand Prix and dance around seminaked. Perhaps governments were too worried about the 24-hour news cycle to think that they could not take on the challenges. Perhaps the 'Twitterati' scared them into silence. Perhaps the baubles of office and ministerial leather were all too consuming for so many ministers who need only have asked these communities what their needs were.

I know about lazy government. Remember, I am a Queenslander. We live it every day. Considering our state's wealth, Queensland right now is languishing in economic growth because of lazy, terrible government. Listening is a straightforward process for Senator Hanson and me. The formula for the success of Pauline Hanson, as much as academics and political talking heads might tell us otherwise, is nothing simpler than listening to people about the solutions that their local communities need and then speaking out and serving the people. That is what government should do and should have done many years ago with the CFA issue.

The Andrews government took the extraordinary steps of sacking a responsible CFA board and replacing it with nodding yes men and women. It was a much debased thing to do. There was a lack of discipline and, instead, more control was exerted rather than listening to what freedom could have been given to the board in its pursuit of better outcomes. In this state's House, our country's house of review, I apply this test: is my vote needed to pass legalisation that protects the people of Queensland and wakes a lazy Victorian government to the realities of life, jolting it out of its comfort zone and reminding it that there are more people in the community than union bosses? These are the tests that we have laid out for whether legislation should be passed. This bill awakens lazy state government in Victoria and Queensland and around our country. It sets communities free to pursue respect for volunteers. It may for now bulldoze a state's right, but in the context of what is wrong with our industrial relations landscape it is a badly needed bandaid and it removes a complex set of rules not required in an EA format.

Based on my experience leading heavy industry and in using breathing apparatus in emergency rescue training, similar to that used by firefighters, I know that safety depends on clear management structures and chains of command, with disciplined standard operating procedures. The Andrews government enterprise agreement weakens both and will undermine safety. Victorian firefighters and communities will pay the price as standards continue to deteriorate. If the Victorian government is at all interested in safety and communities, I suggest that he gets back to the basics of effective management and leadership—clear accountability with statutory bodies responsible to the government on behalf of the people of Victoria. This bill is needed to keep the Victorian and Australian communities safe. It passes the community needs test.

I will write to the Victorian Premier and suggest that he scraps the enterprise agreement, implements a simplified 20-page enterprise agreement for paid firefighters and creates a dignified and sensible operations manual that all communities across Australia can use in steering the direction of local firefighting brigades. My letter will be that short and that simple. It will be a suggestion, and he can take it or he can leave it. And the people of Victoria can take his decision to the next election or leave it. This legislation will, as the title highlights, show due respect to our courageous and dependable firefighters—paid and volunteer.

Good policy and good politics involve listening and then engaging in hard work. Senators here may hear the four One Nation senators say a lot over the next term, but be assured that what we say is the result of the rewarding work of listening to everyday Australians about what people need. That is our secret, and that is why people know that we say the things that need to be said and do the things that need to be done. We need to pass the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 to uphold statutory accountability, to restore freedom and to enable safety.

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

I rise to close debate on the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016, and I thank all senators for participating in the debate.

Today the Australian Senate has the opportunity to stand up and protect our volunteer firefighters—the men and women who put their lives on the line to ensure that our communities are safe. The government has introduced the Fair Work Amendment (Respect for Emergency Services Volunteers) Bill 2016 because we are committed to doing what we can to protect Australia's emergency services from a hostile union takeover.

Australia's proud tradition of volunteer firefighting is under threat. The actions of the United Firefighters Union have placed the Victorian Country Fire Authority in the position of having to choose between the best interests of its brave volunteers and conceding to the demands of the union. Unfortunately for the tens of thousands of proud volunteers of the CFA, the Victorian government and Mr Shorten and Labor have taken sides against them. I would like to acknowledge the tens of thousands of volunteers of the Victorian CFA, some of whom have even travelled here today, who have had the courage to stand up and to take a stand against what is not in their best interests.

This is a necessary amendment to the Fair Work Act. The amendments will protect volunteers from interference by third parties who seek to misuse enterprise bargaining agreements made under the Fair Work Act to dictate the management of firefighting and state emergency services organisations that rely on the selfless goodwill of volunteers in order to carry out their functions. These amendments will ensure that enterprise agreements cannot include terms that limit the ability of a firefighting or a state emergency service body to manage its volunteers. The Fair Work Commission will not be able to approve agreements that include such terms, and any such terms in an agreement will be legally ineffective.

The amendments will also give organisations that have a history of representing selfless volunteers of emergency service bodies a voice before the Fair Work Commission. The change recognises that volunteers have a right to be heard and that their concerns are relevant to the wellbeing of all Australians they seek to protect and serve.

These two targeted amendments to the Fair Work Act are needed because the proposed enterprise agreement represents a very real threat to the CFA's ability to manage its volunteers. The proposed EBA would, for example, interfere with the CFA's chain of command; require, unfortunately, volunteers to wear different uniforms to paid firefighters; prevent volunteers from running education programs unless paid firefighters are unavailable; and give the union an effective veto power over a range of matters, including the CFA's internal policies.

As we have heard from speaker after speaker, the previous leadership of the CFA dared to speak out about this injustice. The former chief executive of the CFA called the agreement,' destructive and divisive'. The former board of the CFA said it 'allows the UFU operational and management control of the CFA'. For their courage in speaking out and opposing the deal the entire CFA board was sacked by the Victorian Labor government. The chief executive resigned in protest and Labor's own emergency services minister lost her job as well.

The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, knows what this deal means for the volunteers in Victoria. It is his home state. He should be standing up for the 60,000 men and women who selflessly, year after year, ensure that Victorians—in one of the most fire prone states in Australia—are protected. And yet what has he done? It has been articulated in the Senate today: he has opposed us every step of the way.

These amendments have been carefully drafted to apply only to firefighting and state emergency services bodies that are established under statute, use volunteers and are covered by the Fair Work Act. They will not impact other volunteering organisations—for example, Surf Life Saving Australia or the Salvation Army. They will not affect safety management bodies that do not meet the new definition of 'emergency management body', such as the police or paramedics. The amendments are simple, they are targeted measures and they are vital to ensuring that the volunteer firefighters in Victoria can get on with what they do best—that is, protecting all Victorians.

I am very alarmed by new reports contained in the New South Wales Rural Fire Service Association submission to the recent Senate inquiry into the bill that CFA volunteers close to the New South Wales border have been contacting New South Wales brigades inquiring about membership. This presents a clear and present danger to Victorian communities, and it shows just how urgent it is for the government and the Australian Senate to provide the volunteers with the assurance they need to remain as members of the Victorian CFA. Firefighters are vital. It does not matter what state you come from in this place—I am from Western Australia—firefighters, community volunteers, are vital for the safety of our communities. And there is a need to ensure that all firefighters, both volunteer and paid, remain united in protecting our communities. The government has been very clear in its desire to ensure that the amendments only address issues that have arisen in the current context of the actions of the United Firefighters Union in Victoria.

Can I also be very clear here: this is not the fault of paid firefighters. Neither volunteer nor paid firefighters could function effectively without the support of each other in large country towns and on the suburban fringe. This interrelationship—and anybody from a small community knows this—and the way they operate together in tandem is typical of the way small communities operate, but it is also crucial that this relationship is not disturbed in the future. The connections built by volunteer organisations allow communities to thrive, prosper and defend themselves. A volunteer ethos needs nourishing. A volunteer ethos is something that, as members of the Australian Senate, we should all be so proud of. We should be supporting and we should be doing everything in our power to ensure that that ethos is never compromised. A CFA that does not reflect respect or acknowledge volunteers will be a much diminished institution.

On this side of the chamber—and I thank the many crossbenchers for their commitment to the volunteers in Victoria—the government is proud to support emergency services volunteers and the communities they protect. Because of time, I will cut my remarks short and commend the bill to the chamber.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being past 2 pm, we will move to Questions Without Notice.