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

Minister, your interview with Mr David Speers on Sky News was generally described as an excruciating train wreck. Can you explain to the Senate what you could not explain to David Speers and take us to specific clauses in the UFU agreement which could result in the destruction of the CFA.

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

Senator Cameron, I am sure you are aware that Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria have prepared a substantial document going through, on a clause-by-clause basis, what they say will be the impact on the CFA of the proposed clauses. So there is that document. I believe it would have been part of the Senate committee's documents. The committee would have already seen that document.

I can take you through some of the clauses that have been raised as being of particular concern to Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria. For example, clause 21 sets out the extensive consensus based consultation process required under the agreement. The clause's operation means that in conjunction with, for example, clause 41 all current CFA policies will be reviewed and only remade through a process where union consensus is required. In terms of evidence given in particular to the recent Senate committee that inquired into the bill, volunteers questioned why the proposed agreement's consultation term gives the union a veto power over changes under the agreement, including policies directly relevant to volunteers.

I will take you through a number of other clauses shortly, but I will just take a step back. The first question one needs to ask is: what is an enterprise agreement and to whom does an enterprise agreement apply? I am sure you would be aware, Senator Cameron, that an enterprise agreement is an agreement that deals with the terms and conditions of the employees to which the enterprise agreement is relevant. Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria have obviously raised concerns about the impact of clauses in the agreement on the volunteers.

I will take you now to clause 44. Clause 44 sets out a minimum staffing level of four paid firefighters on appliances and prohibits cross-crewing of any appliance unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Volunteers have raised the concern that this clause specifically discriminates against them by providing that minimum crewing is undertaken by paid firefighters and that a United Firefighters Union veto can be exercised over cross-crewing arrangements.

In relation to another example of a clause about which concerns have been raised, I will take you to clause 35. Clause 35 of the proposed agreement sets out that all employees covered by the agreement shall only report to operational employees under this agreement at the rank of DCO or CO when responding to fire alarms or incidents under the agreement except in certain circumstances as defined by clause 35. Volunteers have raised concerned that this creates a fundamental change to incident control and management. They believe that transfer of control can affect and disrupt the tempo and effectiveness of the firefight and they believe that they will lose their authority at an incident.

Other clauses which Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria have raised concerns in relation to include: clause 15.1, dealing with brigade support programs; clause 16, dealing with volunteer support programs; clause 60, which mandates peer support will only be drawn from paid firefighters; and something as simple as schedule 20, which will prescribe that volunteer firefighters and paid firefighters wear different items of clothing.

Senator Cameron, they are some of the clauses which have been raised in the evidence given to the Senate committee hearing. As I said, a document was prepared by Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria which did a clause-by-clause analysis of the agreement.

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

Thank you, Minister; I will come back to some of the details that you have just outlined. But I want to just go briefly to your opinion piece in the Herald Sun dated 22 August 2016, where you attempted to inflame distrust and division between the volunteer and career firefighters by claiming that seven paid firefighters—that was union members—had to be present before the CFA personnel are able to be deployed to a fire. Minister, given you had to publicly retract this position, why did you make this statement in the first place?

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

Senator Cameron, as you would be well aware, this dispute has now been ongoing for a number of years. There have been numerous iterations of the agreement and, certainly up until a few months ago, the specific clause that you are referring to was one that did require seven paid firefighters to be on the ground. A change was made to that clause because it was of such concern to the volunteers—so it was an admission by the United Firefighters Union that there were concerns with the clause. Concerns still do remain with the clause, I might add. The clause has been refined so that the clause now refers to seven paid firefighters needing to be 'dispatched' to the fire operations before the paid firefighters can commence the firefighting operations. But certainly, in numerous iterations of the agreement, the clauses you articulated were included in that agreement. It was only when it was absolutely acknowledged that this clause was a problem that the language was changed to 'dispatched'.

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

Senator Cash, when you made the statement, they was not the terms of the agreement, were they? The terms of the agreement clearly provided for 'dispatched'. So your position was wrong, and was designed to inflame distrust and mistrust. My question to you was: why did you make the statement in the first place? Simply saying that you read the agreement I do not think is good enough, because this was a political position that you adopted that was clearly wrong. If you cannot be trusted to have a look at the right agreement, how can you be trusted on any of the other issues that you are raising here when you are asking the Senate to support this bill?

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

Senator Cameron, as I stated to you, it was not until the parties agreed that there was a lot of concern in relation to the clause as it had been written—which was that seven paid firefighters needed to be 'on the ground'—that it was a clear acknowledgement of the concerns that had been raised. But Senator Cameron, I would put to you that when you have a chief officer resign, when you have a minister from the left wing of the Labor Party stand aside because she cannot support the assault that the Andrews government is currently undertaking on the tens of thousands of fantastic men and women in Victoria who put their lives on the line, quite literally, so that Victorians can be safe, and when you have an entire board sacked by the Andrews government because they have the audacity to stand up and speak out—I think that speaks for itself, in relation to the political nature of this particular incident.

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

Minister, instead of the rhetoric, I would like to get you back to why you made this statement. Deputy President Roe made his final recommendation on this issue on 1 June 2016, and dealt with that issue, and it was on 22 August that you decided to go out there and actually do a written commentary on this agreement that was out of date—so it was clearly designed to inflame distrust and mistrust between the firefighters, both the paid firefighters—the career firefighters—and the volunteer firefighters. And while you are on your feet in relation to this issue, Minister, the firefighters have explained the reason why they want seven paid firefighters to be deployed in certain circumstances. Have you looked why that deployment was to take place—the reasons why there was an agreement between the CFA and the UFU on that deployment? It was basically about ensuring that if a firefighter goes into dangerous situation, there is enough back-up support there for that firefighter to be rescued if he or she ends up in trouble. Were you aware of that reasoning?

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

Senator Cameron, if I could just of course raise with you that the clause that is currently in the agreement—'dispatched' as opposed to 'must be at the fire ground'—that is still of great concern to the VFBV. What it basically means is that paid firefighters cannot assist volunteers until at least seven paid firefighters have been dispatched. Senator Cameron, I understand you have been to the hearings. You would have heard the evidence given that, in relation to the paid firefighters and the volunteer firefighters, there are approximately—as you know—60,000 volunteer firefighters and approximately 800 operational paid firefighters. The paid firefighters are specifically, under the Victorian CFA legislation, there to assist the volunteer firefighters. That is how the Victorian situation is set up.

In relation to the clause, as it currently stands, there are still grave concerns highlighted by the VFBV. If I could take you to them, clause 43.2.7 and 77.5 of the proposed CFA enterprise agreement require that a minimum of seven professional firefighters are dispatched to fireground incidents before commencement of safe firefighting operations. So what do the volunteers—the men and women who for decades now have put their lives on the line to ensure that the communities in Victoria are safe—say the meaning of that, potentially, is? It means that volunteers can themselves begin fighting a fire. They can get to the fireground. If the fire is there, they can begin fighting the fire. But, in relation to paid firefighters, what will now occur is that paid firefighters cannot join them until seven paid firefighters are dispatched.

In terms of the practical effect of this clause on the ground, when you are in a situation of potential complete catastrophe, where a fire is burning, where you have a protocol that has been put in place, the practical impacts, as advised by Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria, are:

So, Senator Cameron, yes, you want to make political points. Yes, you do not want to stand up and side with some of the magnificent men and women who are sitting here today in the gallery watching these proceedings. They do not know what the calls they get tomorrow will be, but I am quite sure, Senator Cameron, that you and I would not want to receive those calls in a million years. The calls they get are the calls which say: 'Can you please get out there. There is an emergency, and we need you on the ground. Drop everything. Drop your day job and get out there and risk your life.' They have concerns with the practical impact of this clause.

Yes, Senator Cameron, you are right. The United Firefighters Union have put forward evidence in terms of why they say this particular clause is necessary. But the volunteers, who are the people on the ground every other day of the week, have serious concerns with that clause and the fact that, ultimately, it may compromise the firefighting operation on the ground.

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

Minister, as you know, summer is around the corner. You have been going to a great deal of trouble for months now driving what is really a very divisive approach to emergency services. It is something that I find deeply troubling. I agree with you that our volunteers here are magnificent men and women, but so are our firefighters. Paid firefighters, like our volunteers, put their lives on the line. I find the language that you have been using deeply disturbing, and it further underlines how political what you are driving here is. The primary goal here is not public safety.

I think what is really necessary, now that we can get into the detail here, is that you point out the specific clauses in the agreement that are detrimental to volunteers. Can you name the clauses and what parts of the clauses are detrimental to volunteers. We need to get past the general statements and the rhetoric that there are some good people who fight fires—the implication being that there are some bad people who fight fires—and actually deal with public safety. You need to identify the actual clauses and where they are detrimental to volunteers.

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

Senator Rhiannon, I understand that you may have left the chamber for a very short period of time. But during that short period of time that was the exact question that Senator Cameron asked me. I took Senator Cameron through some of the clauses that are of concern or have been highlighted as being of concern to the volunteers. I also highlighted to Senator Cameron that Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria had done a comprehensive analysis of the proposed enterprise agreement and had gone through each clause, on a clause-by-clause basis, to highlight where they believe there was going to be a clause of concern.

If you like, I am more than happy to take you through the answer that I gave to Senator Cameron, if that would assist you. In particular, there are a number of clauses that are of particular concern and have been raised as being of concern for some months now—in fact, for some time—and they were certainly raised by the Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria at the Senate hearing, which I understand you may have attended.

Again, I will not go through them in detail, because I think I have really put that on the record for Senator Cameron, but of concern were: clause 21, in relation to the extensive, consensus-based consultation process required under the agreement; clause 41, in which current CFA policies will be reviewed and only remade through a process where union consensus is required; clause 44, in terms of the minimum staffing levels, in particular, the prohibition on cross crewing of any appliances, unless agreed by parties; clause 35, which sets out that all employees covered by the agreement shall only report to operational employees under the agreement or at the rank of DCO or CO when responding to fire alarms or incidents under this agreement, except in certain cases as defined by the clause. Just very briefly, other clauses which have been raised as of concern: clause 15.1, dealing with brigade support programs; clause 16, dealing with volunteer support programs; clause 60, which mandates that peer support will only be drawn from paid firefighters.

One of the other clauses—I think it is almost a great shame that it has to be raised as a clause of concern to the volunteer firefighters—is set out in schedule 20 to the proposed agreement, and it proposes that the volunteer firefighters and the paid firefighters will now have to wear different uniforms, so they are identified differently. So, to anyone in this chamber who stands up and says there is nothing divisive about this agreement, I would say that that clause alone—whereby you want to now specifically identify who is a paid firefighter and who is a volunteer firefighter and deliberately put a wedge between them—is enough in itself.

Senator Rhiannon, you may also be interested in this, and I am happy to read it out to the Senate: it is a letter dated 30 June 2016 from Peter Rau, Chief Officer of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board. It was written to the Hon. James Merlino MP, the relevant minister. Mr Rau goes through in detail the impact that he says a number of these clauses have had on his own organisation and why it is dangerous for them to be carried on into the proposed agreement with the CFA. What he says is this:

I write to you as Chief Officer of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (MFB).

He goes on to talk about the agreement, and says:

… I wish to raise with you my serious concerns regarding the negotiations with the United Firefighters Union (UFU).

I am aware of the terms of the enterprise agreement that the UFU has proposed to the CFA … in the context of its current bargaining. It is my understanding that the UFU expects any agreement negotiated with the CFA to be substantially reflected in the terms of a new agreement to apply to the MFB.

He then goes on to talk about the bargaining period:

Throughout this bargaining period which commenced in April 2013, the MFB's position has been that its own current agreement seriously impedes the delivery of effective fire prevention and suppression services in Victoria. The fundamental concern relates to the requirements under the current agreement that the Chief Officer must consult and reach agreement with the UFU in relation to operational matters.

So the issues that have been raised by those in the CFA dispute are the issues that Mr Rau is talking about here. He continues:

I am concerned that, far from improving the already very troubling position that exists under our current agreement, the proposed CFA provisions would further hinder my ability as Chief Officer to effectively fulfil my statutory responsibilities as you and the community expect.

As the Chief Officer, I have to respond quickly and decisively to emergency situations. I am also required to make strategic decisions to prepare for emergency situations. As the head of operations I need to make decisions unimpeded by provisions within an industrial instrument requiring agreement from a third party …

Which is exactly what we see happening here. Mr Rau continues:

The proposed CFA agreement would, if applied to the MFB, create even greater concerns.

He then goes on to say:

I wish to draw your attention to some examples under the current MFB enterprise agreement that have led to—

what he terms—

unacceptable situations.

Senator Rhiannon, these are some of them:

For over two years, the MFB was unable to deploy new advanced appliances because the UFU refused to agree to their deployment. This came to a head during a week-long heatwave when I needed these appliances to be deployed to meet the MFB's responsibilities …

He needed the appliances to be deployed to meet the MFB's responsibilities, and he could not get consensus from the union. He continues:

In this instance I had a direct request for support from Ambulance Victoria … Over a two day period consultation occurred with the union…

Over a two-day period, in an emergency situation, consultation occurred with the union to resolve the matter. This is an emergency situation where someone needs to make a decision there and then. But because of a consultation clause in the agreement they are emasculated—they are unable to make a decision. But it gets worse. He then goes on to say:

Due to the inability to reach agreement we sought the assistance of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) and as such, in the middle of the heatwave, two Deputy Chief Officers spent a further afternoon and evening at the FWC seeking a resolution to release these appliances into operations the following day, distracting us from critical operational activities.

Senator Rhiannon, it goes on and it goes on and it goes on. His conclusion is:

The current Enterprise Agreement and its power of veto over my statutory responsibilities is unworkable and undermines community safety.

Senator Rhiannon, these are real life examples of what can occur when you utilise an enterprise agreement for purposes for which it was not intended. These are real life examples of where safety has been potentially put at risk because of the clauses that have been raised by the volunteer firefighters as being of concern.

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

I am glad that Minister Cash has raised this correspondence by Mr Peter Rau, because it was an issue that was discussed in the inquiry and questions were asked on notice of Mr Steven Warrington, the Chief Officer of the CFA, in relation to this very issue. Anyone listening should understand that what the minister has just gone through is the MFB. It is not the CFA. This is an issue that the MFB chief fire officer is raising, not the CFA. We are not talking about the MFB, but it again suits the minister to get into that approach of trying to mislead people about the issues. Anyone who was not aware of the details would think, 'Oh, that's a good point!' But the point is: this is not the MFB. We are talking about the CFA. They are two entirely different organisations.

Mr Warrington, the CFA Chief Officer, was asked to deal with the letter that you just read out. I will put on record what he said:

As requested, I have reviewed the letter that Mr Peter Rau, Chief Officer of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board (MFB) sent to the Minister for Emergency Services, the Hon James Merlino MP, on 30 June 2016.

MFB and Country Fire Authority (CFA) are both Victorian fire services, but are governed by different pieces of legislation. The powers of the CFA Chief Officer (CO) and the MFB Chief Officer are expressed differently. Furthermore, CFA and MFB are culturally distinct organisations, in part because of CFA's founding as a volunteer organisation with a large jurisdiction.

Due to the differences between CFA and MFB, I do not think that issues faced by MFB under its enterprise agreement can be extrapolated to CFA's experience.

That is completely at odds with what the minister has just said. The minister just will not listen to the chief fire officer. He goes on to say:

I also make the following specific comments in response to issues raised by Mr Rau in his letter—

and this is under subparagraph (a)—

Mr Rau details several occasions where the need to consult with the United Firefighters Union (UFU) prevented Mr Rau, as Chief Officer of the MFB, deploying resources and people during emergency events. I have a letter from the Chair of the CFA Board—

and he enclosed it—

stating that:

'… the Fair Work Act 2009 and any award or agreement made under it cannot interfere with or detract from (my) powers and obligations under the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 concerning directions to perform work relating to the provision of essential services or in situations of emergency.'

This letter has provided me with assurance that I will not be prevented from deploying resources in an emergency as required.

He goes on to say:

(b) Mr Rau referred to the requirement to consult and agree as a UFU 'power of veto'. I do not agree with Mr Rau's characterisation of the consult and agree provisions of the Proposed Agreement. The agreement provisions require an agreement between the UFU and the CFA. This does not constitute a veto power for either party.

He goes on:

(c) Mr Rau expressed concern that arbitration by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) is not an effective mechanism to resolve disputes. As I stated in my evidence before the Committee, it has not been the experience of the CFA that I or the officers under my control have been 'locked away' at the FWC, attempting to resolve a dispute whilst we are in an emergency situation. Further, the CFA has negotiated a joint statement of intent with the UFU which, among other things, records the parties' intention to resolve disputes as quickly and efficiently as practicable …

(d) Mr Rau referred to the recommendation of Judge Lewis in relation to the clause 47 of the CFA Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2002 dealing with "Uniforms and Equipment". The CFA consults with volunteer and career firefighters on uniform and personal protective equipment. Firefighting is a dangerous activity. The uniforms and equipment that firefighters wear and use is of critical importance. Decisions about these matters must be made carefully, with significant deliberation and research and with a process to take into account the views of those most directly affected—firefighters, whether they be career staff or volunteers.

(e) Mr Rau identified his need, as CO, to be able to immediately direct the deployment or relocation of resources as particularly important in the current evolving security and threat environment. I do not believe that, as CO, I would be prevented from deploying resources during an emergency event, which includes an emerging security threat.

Every point that Mr Rau raised, the chief officer, Mr Steven Warrington, says is not a problem for the CFA. So the arguments that the minister has put up do not hold any water. It is another example of this minister and this government trying to demonise the firefighters who are paid by the CFA. It is another example of this minister and this government trying to gain political advantage by arguing for division between the CFA volunteers and the paid firefighters, and the CFA Chief Officer has demolished every argument that the minister has put forward.

In relation to what she has just put to the Senate, anyone listening would think there is a problem with this agreement. The chief officer has constantly and continually said that this agreement will not take away from his power to look after the Victorian community. That is the bottom line, Minister. You are well aware of it. You certainly should not be continuing the propaganda—and that is all it was—that you peddled during the election campaign. You continue to peddle it here to try to diminish the rights of career firefighters, who, as anyone would argue, are as brave, courageous and committed to the Victorian public as any volunteer firefighter. In fact, in every station where they work together, they work together well, they deploy effectively together and they understand the issues faced by each other in relation to dealing with emergency situations. Minister, you should stop the propaganda and start dealing with the facts.

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30

Just before the break I went through the correspondence from the chief officer, Mr Stephen Warrington, in response to the MFB chief officer, Mr Peter Rau, which clearly indicated that the chief officer of the CFA did not see any problems in the CFA that Mr Peter Rau—I think he is the former chief officer—claimed he had experienced. So I put that proposition on the record.

Senator Cash, I now want to turn to two other issues that you raised in your response to Senator Rhiannon. You spoke about cross-crewing. I am advised that the cross-crewing has nothing to do with whether volunteers cross-crew. Cross-crewing is about career firefighters being designated to two different trucks on station where each truck should be separately crewed. So it is a safety issue for the firefighters to deal with this. Again, Senator Cash, I will draw your attention to the fact that this agreement is not about volunteers; it is about firefighters who are employed by the CFA. It is the career firefighters. So this has nothing to do with the volunteers. There is no ban on volunteers cross-crewing. If you look at some of the evidence that we had from those volunteers who work with the career firefighters on a regular basis, they actually say that this is not a problem. So this will not affect volunteer firefighters. I want your views on that.

On peer support, again you would have to read the agreement in the context that the agreement is about career firefighters. It is about the paid employees. The career firefighters—the paid employees—have issues about peer support. When you talk about peer support in this document you are not talking about peer support for the volunteers; you are talking about peer support for the firefighters who are career firefighters. This is, I am advised, highly personal. It is about personnel getting peer support after traumatic incidents. As you would be aware, many of the career firefighters attend traumatic incidents and the career firefighters have set up in this agreement a proposition where their counselling—where their peer support—will be done by their peers. Can you just clarify your position on this in the context of you saying this is a problem for volunteer firefighters? Because the agreement is clear: this is an agreement between the paid firefighters and the CFA, and both the cross-crewing and the peer support is simply about the paid firefighters.

The third area is about different uniforms. The agreement says that volunteers and careers need to be separately identified so that the incident controller can immediately identify their skills and qualifications. I want to know whether there is a problem with that. Why would there be a problem with being able to identify by looking at someone's uniform what skills and training they have had? Every career firefighter, I am advised, is fully trained for all seven roles on the fireground. Volunteers may or may not be fully trained for those seven roles. Many volunteers do not have breathing apparatus training or competency in that area. So it is vital, I am advised, that the incident controller can make instant decisions on the fireground and that different identifiers will do that. They can have the same uniform, it is just that there will be an identifier on the uniform. Are you aware of these issues, Minister?

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

Thank you to Senator Cameron for this series of questions. In the first instance, in addressing the claims made by Senator Cameron that the enterprise agreement is only in relation to the employees or the terms and conditions of employment for those employees to whom it applies: Senator Cameron, that is what this whole dispute is actually about. You would be well aware that an enterprise agreement, which is an agreement that is made under the Fair Work Act, provides or should provide the terms and conditions of employment for those employees to whom it applies. The issue that has been confronting the volunteers in the CFA for some time now is that what is proposed by this enterprise agreement is that it is actually going to expand the reach of the agreement into volunteer arrangements, certainly beyond what is contemplated by the Fair Work Act.

I have articulated a number of the concerns that the volunteers have in relation to the agreement. In relation to the necessary minimum staffing levels at clause 44, the volunteers have raised concerns about this clause, which prevents cross-crewing of fire trucks by volunteers and paid firefighters unless agreed with the union, and, further than that, about clause 44.14, which requires four professional career firefighters on all appliances. If you go back to what we were discussing prior to—

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

Minister, I am sorry to do this, but can you just clarify. Did you say 44.14?

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

15.

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

Thanks. I may have to do this, because I just want to make sure that I am dealing with the exact same clause—44.15?

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

As I said, if you go back to what we were talking about prior to the dinner break in relation to the letter that was written to the Hon. James Merlino, one of the fundamental concerns that have been raised by the volunteers is in relation to the consultation clauses as proposed by the agreement. You look at the actual examples that are given in relation to the MFB in terms of their agreement, which contains similar clauses. And what has actually happened? You are talking about a direct impact in relation to the ability of someone to make a decision there and then on the ground because a clause in an agreement states that that decision cannot be made without consulting with the union.

In terms of schedule 20 and the list of station wear, uniform et cetera, the volunteers question why the proposed agreement requires union agreement on what uniforms volunteers wear. Why would you need to consult the union about what the volunteers must wear? It requires that paid firefighter unions must be significantly visually distinguishable and will only be made available to paid firefighters. Again, this is a genuine concern raised by the volunteers. Why should the volunteers have to consult with the UFU in relation to the uniforms that the volunteers wear?

In relation to clause 16, the volunteer support programs, again the volunteers question why the proposed agreement gives the union power over volunteer support programs. Again, if you go back to the basic fundamentals of what an enterprise agreement is, an enterprise agreement provides for terms and conditions of employment for those employees to whom it applies. In that case, you are right: it is the paid firefighters. But this whole dispute is about expanding the reach of the enterprise agreement into volunteer arrangements, affecting approximately 60,000 fantastic men and women across Victoria who, as we all know, literally risk their lives to ensure that the community in Victoria is safe, and that reach is being expanded beyond what is contemplated by the Fair Work Act.

But, Senator Cameron, if you do not want to listen to anything that I say—and that is fair enough; I do not have an issue with that—perhaps we need to go through again what the former CFA chief executive officer Lucinda Nolan has said in relation to this agreement. She said:

It was not going to make the organisation a better place. It is destructive and divisive. I could not stay and oversee the destruction of the CFA.

She then went on to say:

I think this has the potential to negatively impact the organisation, community safety, our volunteers and our volunteer contribution …

She also went on to say:

I was given a clear alternative whether to sign the EB or to resign, and obviously I chose the latter.

Then, of course, the CFA board stood up to Daniel Andrews, the Premier of Victoria, and stated on the record their concerns in relation to the proposed agreement. This is what they said:

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 went on to say:

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 Opportunity Act and would be unlawful.

They then went on to say in a statement:

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

We all know what, unfortunately, happened to the board that articulated its very serious concerns with what is occurring in Victoria, and that is, of course, expanding the reach of the agreement into volunteer arrangements—people who should not be caught by this agreement, because they are not employees. We all know what happened: when you do not like what a board is saying, you sack it, and that is exactly what the Victorian Labor government did.

Then we go on. The former Labor Minister for Police and Emergency Services during the Bracks government, Andre Haermeyer, said of the firefighters union:

… its 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.

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.

And the list goes on. What did Andrew Ford, the CEO of Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria, recently say? He said:

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.

He also said:

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.

Senator Cameron, that is a very serious statement to make. And, as I have already articulated, I have been alarmed—

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

Chair, on a point of order: I have been very patient. I have asked a number of questions. The minister has now gone completely off those questions. Really, the minister should be drawn to the questions that have been asked and, with seven minutes and 25 seconds left, actually try and address some of the questions.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Cash.

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

As I said, Senator Cameron, they are very, very serious statements to make. But what I think I am even more alarmed by is evidence given to the Senate committee that, because of this dispute, a number of volunteer firefighters on the border of Victoria and New South Wales are now seeking to transfer their membership into New South Wales. Senator Cameron, you may not have concerns with this agreement, and that is fine. If your concerns are therefore not realised, then what we are doing here today will have no impact at all on the enterprise agreement. But the volunteers have raised significant concerns over a number of years now. The letter from the MFB to Minister James Merlino clearly articulates the reality of some of those concerns. I am going to stand here and defend the volunteers and the CFA in Victoria every step of the way. As I said, I do not know what phone call they are going to receive tomorrow but I do know that, when they receive it, they will do everything to ensure that the community in Victoria is kept safe.

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

I did ask some serious questions and the minister has gone nowhere near them. I did ask whether she understood that the cross-crewing would not affect volunteers because cross-crewing was about a specific issue in the agreement between the CFA and employees—it was about an employees issue—and that has no implications for the CFA volunteers. I asked the minister for her view about the peer support clause because it deals with firefighters having their peers—that is, other paid firefighters—dealing with traumatic incidents and giving them peer support. The third question was in relation to uniforms. It is clear that the point firefighters have made is that it was raised at the royal commission into bushfires that there were communication problems and there had to be changes. One of the changes that has been agreed between the CFA and the paid firefighters is that they will be able to identify the training that paid firefighters have. No-one is saying in the agreement that the volunteers have to have the same identification. I am not a trained firefighter but it would seem sensible to me that if you are in a serious situation, an emergency situation, you are able to understand whether your colleague has been trained in breathing apparatus and at what level they have been trained to deal with an issue. I would have thought that was common sense, and that is one of the issues that the royal commission has raised.

So it is clear that these do matters do not affect firefighters. You can assert that it affects firefighters, which has been happening ever since we have been here, but assertions are not proof. You cannot simply come in and assert that this is the position. The problem is that Volunteer Fire Brigades Victoria has made lots of assertions with not a lot of substance. The problem we have here is that we have a government that have not deemed it appropriate to look at the facts of the issue. They have not deemed it appropriate to read the clauses and examine how they operate. They have simply adopted the same position of asserting an expansionary mode for the agreement without any factual evidence.

Another issue that was raised in the minister's response—which, again, did not go to any of the issues that I asked her to deal with; and I do not suppose we will get many answers tonight—was about the agreement being unlawful in relation to the Equal Opportunity Act. Minister, I am sure you are aware that that issue was dealt with, so maybe I should ask you whether the agreement does breach the Equal Opportunity Act. I am sure you understand that this is not something that can happen under either the Fair Work Act or the state act.

In your speech, Minister, when you were winding up your second reading debate, you spoke about a hostile union takeover and the handing of control to the UFU. Minister, could you go back to the questions I have asked you and try to address them without rhetoric? Perhaps you could actually address them on the basis of what the meaning of the agreement is, rather than simply assert that it is an expansionary clause when it is nothing of the kind? Could you also take up the issue about the handing of control to the UFU? I would like you to look at the Fair Work Act 2009, section 27, which outlines a number of state laws that are not excluded by section 27 of the act. You would be aware that section 27 excludes a number of state laws and this does not. One of the laws is in 1AB of the Fair Work Act, in section 27: the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 of Victoria. It does not matter what you put in an agreement, you cannot exclude equal opportunity. Minister, I am sure you are aware of that, but you continue to perpetrate the falsehood that equal opportunities will be excluded. You cannot do it. This is fearmongering. It is fearmongering in relation to equal opportunities and it has nothing to do with any hostile union takeover. So to start, Minister, if you do not mind, try to answer the questions I asked and maybe deal with the issue of the Fair Work Act 2009, section 27, and the clear position that, no matter what an enterprise agreement says, it cannot exclude the Equal Opportunities Act 2010 of Victoria. It cannot. Even if it is a clause that is not lawful, the clause is not applicable. That is the law.

You are a lawyer, Minister. You know these things, but you come here and you just assert falsehoods about this agreement. You assert issues that are not true. You argue an expansionary proposition when it is not true. So, Minister, how about actually dealing with the issues that are being asked here tonight instead of the rhetoric that you run? How about dealing with the issues of cross-crewing and actually accepting that it is not about volunteers? How about dealing with the issue of peer support and accepting that it is a proper and sensible thing to have in an agreement when firefighters are in such a dangerous occupation with traumatic incidents, some of them on a daily basis? And how about accepting the reality of the uniform proposition—that it is not about telling the volunteers how they would be dressed when they go to fight a fire? It is just not true. The EEO position is just not correct. How about dealing with those four issues, Minister, instead of giving us another rhetorical flourish that just does not go to the questions that we are asking? You have a responsibility to actually deal with the questions and not just take every assertion that has been made by the volunteers or every assertion that has been made by the former chief executive, who had no credibility in her evidence to the inquiry. Actually deal with the issues that are before us.

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

Senator Cameron, I think it is going to be a very long evening. You and I are going to ultimately have to agree to disagree on probably everything that you have just stated. In relation to examples of clauses constraining CFA decision-making, I take you to the majority report of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. Of course, you sat on the inquiry. Attachment 6 at appendix 3 outlines, once again, a number of clauses where concerns are raised.

I go back to basics. Again, Senator Cameron, you need to look at why the issue has arisen and what a very small amendment will do to ensure the issue is resolved. I go back to: what is an enterprise agreement? An enterprise agreement is an agreement which governs the terms and conditions of employees that are covered by that agreement. There is no dispute in relation to that. The volunteer firefighters have always said that, in relation to the pay and conditions of the paid firefighters, they have no issue at all. There are, however, clauses in the agreement which do seek to expand the reach of the agreement beyond the employees, the paid firefighters, to which the agreement applies, to basically volunteer arrangements, and that of course is beyond what is contemplated by the Fair Work Act.

What you have here is a state government that is utilising federal legislation to override its obligations under its own state act—the CFA Act. All this amendment does—it is a very simple amendment—is amend the definition of an unlawful term to include an objectionable emergency management term. In relation to the terms in the agreement which the volunteers have concerns with, if they are found by the Fair Work Commission—because it is ultimately the Fair Work Commission that is the umpire in this case—to be objectionable management terms, the Fair Work Commission is unable to approve the agreement whilst those terms remain in the agreement.

Senator Cameron, I am happy to go through with you again the clauses that are of concern to the volunteers. As I said, you sat on the committee and you have seen the majority report in relation to examples of clauses constraining CFA decision making. We have gone through the letter to James Merlino from the MFB, which clearly sets out the concerns that they have in relation to, in particular, the consultation clause.

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

I didn't think you would go there again.

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

Again, I hate to say it, but you and I have been here before. We are going to have to agree to disagree in terms of what you say the impact of the clauses are. We would not be here if concerns had not been raised. Even one of your own ministers, Jane Garrett—she is not one of our ministers, one of your own ministers in Victoria, from the left, amazingly—could not condone what was going on. She stood aside. A board was sacked. A CEO had to resign. You have literally had litany, after litany, after litany of people raising concerns. Then, quite literally, the Andrew's government took action against them. If the agreement only deals with terms and conditions of the employees to which the agreement applies, as I said, the volunteer firefighters have no issue with that. But this is an example of an agreement that is extending the reach of clauses in the agreement to the volunteers, and that is where the issues arise.

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

Minister, senators have asked you tonight some very specific questions, asking you to provide details about what the clauses are that are detrimental to volunteers, and you keep giving the same answer—it is getting quite insulting actually—where you rely on telling us what an enterprise bargaining agreement is. It is just extraordinary that a minister is relying on such a simplistic way to avoid answering the question.

You have stated also within this, and Senator Cameron has commented on this and I have said previously that it is deeply insulting—you keep running this line, and are really pushing this wedge. You are the one pushing the wedge that you have some firefighters who are good, implying that there are some firefighters that are not good. That is so deeply damaging. At a time when we need to be rebuilding trust you are further damaging here tonight every time you get up and speak.

You are cherry picking quotes from documents where you can pick out pieces that you think back up your argument. Then what we are hearing from you when you get on to talking about the enterprise bargaining agreement is that it is about expanding the reach of the union into volunteer arrangements. And then you give us again that rave that you are just so fond of, making out that volunteers are so much better than the other firefighters. It is so damaging.

In the latest comment I noticed when you got onto talking about the EBA, you said that it was expanding the reach of unions into voluntary arrangements beyond what contemplated in the Fair Work Act.

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

It is. It is. Have you read it, Senator Rhiannon?

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

This is where you do need to do your job, Minister, and your job at the moment in the committee stage, as you know, is answering the questions that are put to you.

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

Tedious repetitions.

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

It is not good enough just to say, 'Well, we are going to disagree.' I acknowledge the interjections of the chair of the committee here. She has arrived and is now also hoping that she can get some promotion out of how she performs with this. But, Minister—

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

Not very well!

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

I am happy to acknowledge all of the interjections. Minister, there are some very simple, straightforward questions here. The Fair Work Commissioner, Julius Roe, stated in his final recommendations on the EBA:

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.

Minister, there it is: 'not altered by this Agreement'. It negates everything you have said. This is from the Fair Work Commissioner, Julius Roe. You, yourself, have just said to us that the Fair Work Commission is' 'the umpire'. So you need to answer this question, because if you cannot acknowledge that Julius Roe has said that it actually negates all the arguments that you have been trying to pull out of a hat by cherry picking quotes from different documents that are barely relevant to the debate that we are having here. If you cannot do that are you really then saying that you know better than a Fair Work Commissioner, or that you disagree with the Fair Work Commissioner—somebody that you have just told us is 'the umpire' in all this?

Also, we need to have some details. You have had questions from different senators tonight asking for clear details about the clauses. It is not good enough just to get up there and rattle off your usual comments. We are in committee. You should be identifying the clauses, quoting the bit that supports your argument and then explaining why it does. But you have failed time and time again. But here are some more opportunities.

There are these allegations around clothing and equipment. What we do know is that the UFU, the union, will be allowed consultation on these issues. There are dispute resolution offices if the parties do not agree. And what we also know is that time and time again benefits won by the UFU flow on to volunteers. So minister, do you acknowledge that is how the current system works? That it works in a cooperative way where you are seeing the benefits flow on—or are you going to still run the hard line that you are running about clothing?

Then there are these other allegations, that the career and volunteer crews cannot share trucks. Are you really going to continue that dishonest line? Volunteers and paid staff can share trucks. They do share trucks and they will continue to share trucks. We know that. We know that happens.

Then there is the allegation that paid staff can only report to paid staff. Again, that has been dealt with many times in this debate. Are you still going to run that line? Are you still going to deny the truth that volunteers can continue to be incident controllers, as occurs at present? The agreement clearly allows staff to report to incident controllers who are volunteers. Are you going to continue to deny that? This is where I again remind you, Minister—you have sat in this place long enough; you know what is supposed to happen in the committee stage—that this is the opportunity for senators to question ministers about the details of a bill. That is what you are failing to do.

And then there is one other area that you need to come in on because you paid a lot of attention to this tonight—that is, this issue of appliances and making out all these supposedly shocking things that the union has done in not allowing various appliances to be used. There is this allegation that no new appliances can be used without UFU approval. But you must know that the truth is that the process for volunteer procurement, including appliances, remains unchanged. That is why I will go back to the quote, because this is where you need to start your answer, Minister. This would be a way of short-circuiting it, if you could be truthful about what the Fair Work Commissioner Julius Roe has said. This is in his final recommendations on the EBA. He 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 the this agreement.

Do you agree with that statement, Minister?

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

Thank you, Senator Rhiannon, for those questions. Perhaps, though, the better way for you to have started your line of questioning and your comments in relation to this bill would have been by at least disclosing the relationship that United Firefighters Union has with the Australian Greens. I expect it is one of the reasons that you are obviously well and truly behind Peter Marshall and the United Firefighters Union.

Perhaps I could, for the benefit of those who are listening in—it does not appear to be too many tonight because we are not broadcasting—and for the Hansard, just make sure that people understand why you are standing there articulating the comments you have made on behalf of, quite literally, Peter Marshall and the United Firefighters Union. If I could just quote from an article in The Sydney Morning Herald from 21 June 2013—so we have a long history here. It is a long history, not a short one. It is a nice long history here. The article's title says 'Firefighters union backs Bandt'. Then there is a lovely photo—unfortunately the Senate cannot see this photo, but I will describe it for you—that says, 'Firefighters union head Peter Marshall says the union will back Greens candidate Adam Bandt'. There is a nice photo of Peter Marshall. The article then goes on to say:

The vocal firefighters union is backing Greens MP Adam Bandt for re-election at the September ballot, joining the National Tertiary Education Union in supporting the party's sole lower house member.

The United Firefighters Union supported Mr Bandt—

low and behold—

at the 2010 election when he first seized Melbourne from Labor's grasp.

UFU national secretary Peter Marshall – who is a member of the Australian Council of Trade Union executive – said Mr Bandt had been a loyal advocate of firefighters as well as—

oops, here we go—

being the union's lawyer for a decade.

So, Senator Rhiannon, perhaps before you made the comments that you made tonight, going in to back the United Firefighters Union—as you have every right to do, but at the expense of men and women sitting in the gallery tonight who have, for decades, put their lives on the line for the people of Victoria—you could have been honest and disclosed the relationship the Australian Greens has with Peter Marshall and the United Firefighters Union.

In relation to your comments on Commissioner Roe: throughout May 2016 Fair Work Commissioner Roe, who himself is a former Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union official, conducted a conciliation with the CFA and the union over the proposed enterprise agreement. CFA volunteers tried to be represented at these proceedings so that they could put their concerns on record—one might think that is completely reasonable given the nature of their concerns—however, Commissioner Roe determined that the volunteers did not have sufficient standing to be heard. At the end of these proceedings, Commissioner Roe issued a non-binding recommendation—non-binding, Senator Rhiannon—in which he expressed the view that the proposed agreement would only apply to paid professional firefighters and that it would not apply to volunteer firefighters or affect their role. Again, Senator Rhiannon, I reiterate: this was a non-binding recommendation.

You may be aware, Senator Rhiannon, that the former CFA board—they of course were the CFA board that stood up, articulated the concerns that they had with the clauses in the agreement—rejected the recommendation put forward by Commissioner Roe because it had no impact on and did not override the many specific clauses in the agreement that they had concerns with. The clauses that were of concern to the then CFA board, the CFA board that was sacked for articulating its concerns, are still in the agreement being proposed by the CFA—the CFA that is now there at the behest of Daniel Andrews, the government's CFA—and the United Firefighters Union, with which, as you know, the Greens have a very, very strong relationship.

You also mentioned, I think, clause 83.4, which went to the uniforms et cetera. Again, the concerns that the volunteers have is that the CFA and the United Firefighters Union must agree on all aspects of the following: at clause 83.4.1, 'articles of clothing'; at clause 83.4.2, 'equipment, including personal protective equipment'; and then it goes on to 'technology', 'station wear' and 'appliances'. Again, the very simple question is: why? Why does the agreement dictate that the CFA, who is responsible for the volunteers, has to come to an agreement with the union in relation to, for example, these items?

Senator Rhiannon, before the dinner break—I am not sure if you were in the chamber at the time—I read out a number of concerns that the Chief Officer of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board, Peter Rau, had in relation to their requirement to consult with the union and get agreement. He had written to the relevant minister, James Merlino, and clearly stated, 'I'm drawing your attention to some examples under the current MFB enterprise agreement that have led to unacceptable situations,' and those unacceptable situations were because they had to consult with the union and the union had taken their time or not given their consent.

Senator Rhiannon, just like Senator Cameron and me, we are going to have to agree to disagree in relation to the impact of these clauses on the agreement. But one thing you said that I will pick up is that you talked about a wedge between the paid firefighters and the volunteer firefighters. The CFA Act in Victoria specifically provides that the volunteer firefighters are supported by the paid firefighters. Senator Rhiannon, I have not come across any volunteer firefighters who have an issue with paid firefighters. I can assure you that no volunteers have an issue with paid firefighters. They have no issues at all about the pay that the firefighters will be getting under the agreement. They want to continue, as they have done for decades, to work alongside the paid firefighters, to work in tandem and in a constructive manner with them. The only people putting a wedge, and a deliberate wedge, between the paid firefighters and the volunteer firefighters are Daniel Andrews, the Premier of Victoria, and Peter Marshall, the former boss of Adam Bandt, who is your member in the other place. They are the only people putting a wedge between the volunteers and the paid firefighters.

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

Interesting comments, Minister. You are still using quite slippery language and avoiding answering the questions. You talk about disclosing one's background, but you do not come in here and tell us about your work with Freehills and how you pursued construction unions, which is not a dissimilar approach to what you are showing now. Again, your double standards show time and time again. You cannot get away from that very clear statement from Commissioner Julius Roe in his final recommendations in the EBA. Again, I remind you that you said that the Fair Work Commission is the independent umpire, and a recommendation accepted by the government, the CFA and the union is an agreement. You can come up with all the language that you might have used when you were a solicitor, but it is clear—

Senator Cameron interjecting—

I am very happy to acknowledge those comments. You were giving full backing to the Fair Work Commission until you were caught out with some very clear statements that do not suit your line of argument. It is, again, your inability to answer the question because, if you are answering the question, you are either agreeing with the very clear statements coming from the Fair Work Commission or you are acknowledging that you are wrong, so I guess it is not surprising that you come up with the slippery language. But, to move on, Minister, can you guarantee that no police service and no ambulance service will be affected by this bill?

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

Senator Rhiannon, I can advise that police forces, ambulance services and hospitals, because hospitals have been raised, are not covered by the amendments and we have, as a government, no intention of covering them. Such bodies do not fall within the meaning of 'designated emergency management bodies' as set out in section 195A(4)(a)(i) of the amended Fair Work Act. Why? It is because they are neither firefighting nor state emergency services bodies. It also needs to be understood, in relation to the question that you have posed, that they would also need a precursor to basically come anywhere near falling within what this change to the Fair Work Act would do. The body that you are referring to would actually need to be covered by the Fair Work Act. The first precondition is the body needs to be covered by the Fair Work Act. The majority of states have not referred their workplace relations powers for the public sector, and, on that basis, they do not apply. As I said, the government has no intention of covering them.

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

Senator Cash, I do not mean to smear you, but I would prefer to use some facts. You are aware of a 4½-hour briefing that your staff gave to us going through the amendment, line item by line item. Not once though did I hear any of your staff mention the fact that the EA in Victoria is a vehicle for managing the CFA. The core issue, as I see it—and I would like your comments on this in a minute—is that the state government have abandoned statutory responsibility and, in the words of the minister in Victoria, they are using the new EA as a vehicle for implementing some of the royal commission's findings and recommendations. That was startling, but it was backed up on 28 September by Peter Marshall, the Secretary of the UFU, in response to my questions. He reiterated that he sees the failure of the CFA to do its job as necessitating and justifying a 400-page EA that would take over the management of the CFA.

First of all, I would like to know if you are aware of those two statements and claims justifying a 400-page EA taking over the management because the CFA has not been able to fulfil its responsibilities. Secondly, as a manager and executive in a heavy industry—underground coalmining—I am aware that safety depends very much on a very clear chain of command, with well-defined accountability. By bringing the UFU into the management of that chain of command, surely this dilutes the responsibilities and muddies the accountability.

Senator Cameron said a little while before dinner that this is governed by state legislation. It certainly is, but the Minister for Industrial Relations in Victoria and the Secretary of the UFU have both admitted that it is not being managed and that they want the UFU to step in. Are you aware of the significance of this on safety? And are you aware that the state government and Peter Marshall have admitted that they are stepping in because the CFA has not been able to do its job?

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

Thank you, Senator Roberts, for those comments and for those questions. Certainly I am aware of the evidence in relation to Peter Marshall and the Victorian state government. I think you hit the nail on the head. What the Victorian state government are doing quite deliberately—and this is the reason we are proposing the amendment to the Fair Work Act—is utilising the Fair Work Act, and in this regard it is the agreement-making power, to circumvent their obligation under their own act, the Country Fire Authority Act, which specifically sets up the CFA. It is not and never was the intention of the Fair Work Act to allow a state government to deliberately abrogate and undermine its own obligations under a state act. So very much what this amendment does—as you have articulated—is ensure that the state government itself has to comply with its own state legislation. We are very much here today because of what the Victorian government is doing.

In relation to your comments on safety, this is one of the very serious concerns which the volunteer firefighters have been raising for some time now. Again, I go back to the letter that was written by Peter Rau, the Chief Officer of the Metropolitan Fire and Emergency Services Board, because he articulated in his letter exactly the point that you have just made—that he as the chief officer has to respond quickly and decisively to emergency situations. He as the chief officer is required to make strategic decisions to prepare for emergency situations. Anything that compromises that ability—you are right—does have the potential to impact upon safety. So you raise and articulate very clearly a number of the concerns that have been raised by the volunteer firefighters but also by the MFB themselves in relation to the impact of the consultation clauses that they have to go through in their agreement.

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

I have a short question. Minister, are you aware that the CFA objected to the VFBV being part of the process before Commissioner Rowe and that the former chief executive, Ms Nolan, wrote a letter objecting to the VFBV being part of that process? If so, can you comment on why Ms Nolan may have done this?

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

Senator Cameron, I cannot comment on what Ms Nolan may or may not have done. I understand she appeared before the Senate committee and I am assuming that you would have had the opportunity to question her in relation to that.

But one of the issues that has been raised is the ability of the VFBV to provide a submission to the Fair Work Commission. It was not able to in this case. That is why part of what we are doing here today will ensure that going forward volunteer bodies are able to provide submissions in cases like this.

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

I suppose the issue that this raises is the fundamental position put forward by the government that one of the reasons they needed to have changes to the act was to have the volunteers have access to the commission. I think everyone here knows—most would that have known me for some time—that I have had a long relationship with Commissioner Roe. He was the president of the AMWU, and I was the national secretary. There is no secret to that around the place. But I just want to indicate that Commissioner Roe is highly respected—a highly respected commissioner, both by unions and by employers—and that he has a reputation second to none in the commission.

What Commissioner Roe was faced with was the CFA—which basically comprised four volunteers and the board—Ms Nolan, who is supposedly the hero of the volunteers, writing to the commission and saying to the commission: 'Don't allow the volunteers to have a voice'. Now this is a fundamental issue—an absolutely fundamental issue. If Commissioner Roe had been advised by the CFA that they had no objection to the VFBV having a voice, then all the hullabaloo—all the nonsense that we have now—may not have been an issue. Because Commissioner Roe could have determined under the act that the VFBV could have had standing, and accepted that standing, and the fundamental basis of this bill would have fallen apart. But here we are now told that the chief executive of the CFA denied in writing any agreement for the VFBV to have access to the commission. I would ask crossbenchers to think about this carefully, because what you are being asked to do is to put in rights of standing for the VFBV that the hero of the VFBV—the hero of the coalition—Ms Lucinda Nolan, denied them during the dispute. What is going on here? Well, I do know some things that are going on and they are not nice. They are not good.

Minister, you did not answer many of my questions—you have not answered any of them. But in relation to this fundamental point, do you agree that if the CFA had not denied the VFBV standing—well, it was the commissioner that denied standing, but they objected to the standing—and that if the commissioner had provided standing on the basis that the employer had agreed to standing, that could have meant that this bill would have been null and void, and not necessary?

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

Thank you, Senator Cameron, for the questions, but also for disclosing your longstanding relationship with Commissioner Roe.

In relation to the question of giving volunteers the right to make submissions, personally, the only question that I would ask is: what is wrong with allowing standing to volunteers to be able to make representations? In terms of this particular case, CFA volunteers tried to be represented at the Fair Work Commission in May so they could put their concerns on the record. But Commissioner Roe determined that the volunteers did not have sufficient standing to be heard. We need to ensure that volunteer firefighters can have a say and present their views and concerns to the Fair Work Commission about any clauses in an enterprise agreement which could potentially impact on volunteers. As you know, Senator Cameron, volunteers are a significant stakeholder impacted by the CFA agreement. In terms of the figures that we have been talking about earlier this evening, there are around 800 paid firefighters employed by the Victorian CFA and nearly 60,000 volunteers, of which approximately 35,000 are operational firefighters. These amendments will give organisations representing volunteers the right to make submissions to the Fair Work Commission about enterprise agreements covering certain emergency service bodies that could affect the volunteers that they represent.

In terms of what the Fair Work Commission then does, that is a matter for the Fair Work Commission. But certainly, we believe that volunteers should have the right to make submissions. And as I said to you, Senator Cameron, the question I would ask is: what is wrong with allowing them standing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet again, Senator Cameron, I think I am going to wildly disappoint you when I say that I am going to disagree with basically what you have said. I do think it is disappointing that you resort to smearing people and going off on the tangent of saying that the volunteers and this side of the chamber hate unions, because you know that is not the case. You know that the CFA, and in particular the volunteers, have worked alongside the paid firefighters for decades now. They take no issue at all with the pay that the paid firefighters are going to receive—no issue at all. But they do take issue with the fact that—as they have articulated—there are some clauses in this agreement which would seek to bring the volunteers into the agreement. That is what they take issue with. They do not hate unions at all, but they do not like the fact that under this agreement a union is trying to bring them into this agreement.

Senator Cameron, you asked the Senate—and I am certainly not going to verbal you, because you would be the first to jump up and tell me that I am—if it is unprecedented to give standing to volunteers in terms of being able to make a submission to the commission. The answer to that question, as I think you know, is no. Given your extensive history of being active within the industrial relations sphere, you would know that any person can seek leave to make submissions to the Fair Work Commission. You would also know that, in addition, the Commonwealth and state and territory ministers can make submissions, as of right, before a full bench of the Fair Work Commission and where it is in the public interest to do so. Therefore, you would also know that the Fair Work Act also enables other third parties to apply to the Fair Work Commission for orders to suspend or to terminate protected industrial action in certain circumstances. What this amendment does is merely an extension of the ability of the Fair Work Commission to hear from a broad range of interested parties.

Clearly you do have an issue with volunteers being able to articulate their concerns, but on this side of the chamber we believe that we must give volunteers the ability to make submissions in order to protect volunteers from parties seeking to use the Fair Work Act to limit the management of firefighting and state emergency service organisations. In relation to the claim that basically any volunteer organisation will be able to make a submission and this will just tie up the commission's time et cetera, the bill does not give volunteers an unfettered right to interfere in the employer-employee relationship.

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

Rubbish.

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

It is true.

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

Chair, on a point of order: the last time Senator McKenzie was in the Senate she came in and was quite verbal and verbose in her interjections. Senator McKenzie has been around long enough to know now that she can sit anywhere she likes in the chamber during the committee process, but if she wants to intervene then she should go to her own seat. That is clearly in the standing orders. I am a bit sick and tired of Senator McKenzie waltzing in here and intervening from a seat that she is not entitled to be in. She should go to her own seat and then she can intervene as much as she likes. It will add to the show.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron. I remind the chamber that all interjections are disorderly, particularly if they are not made from your own seat.

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

As I was saying, the bill provides for a limited right of a body corporate that has a history of representing certain emergency service volunteers to make submissions on matters that are already before the Fair Work Commission and that arise under the enterprise agreement or workplace determination parts of the Fair Work Act, provided the matter affects, or could affect, the volunteers of a designated emergency management body. So, we have been quite specific and drafted a very narrow provision in relation to the ability of volunteers to make submissions.

The submissions themselves can be made orally or in writing. The conduct of proceedings is obviously governed by the Fair Work Act and is a matter for the Fair Work Commission, and this will not be changed by the bill. Obviously, the weight given to particular submissions is also a matter for the Fair Work Commission.

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

I have a series of—I hope—short, sharp questions in relation to this bill. One issue that has been put to me relates to the constitutionality of the bill. Professor Andrew Stewart stated in his evidence before the committee's inquiry—and I know that Senator McKenzie says he worked for the Gillard government, but—

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

Yes, he did.

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

He did. You say it in such a pejorative way! He is a regular commentator on Leon Byner's show on FIVEaa, where he gives a pretty measured view, being critical of both sides of politics.

Notwithstanding that he committed the cardinal sin of working for the Gillard government, he said this to the inquiry:

The High Court has said in a series of decisions that it is perfectly okay for federal law to regulate the wages and employment conditions of state government workers or state government agency workers but there are limits. One of the limits articulated in a 1995 decision involving the Australian Education Union and also the Victorian government, as it happens, was that the Commonwealth cannot tell a state who or how many people it employs to do work. There is an argument that would be exactly what the Commonwealth would be doing with this legislation; it would be having a federal body, the Fair Work Commission, in effect overwriting the decisions of a state government body like the CFA when it decides how it wants to structure its relations with both its employees and its volunteers.

I know the government has said in broad terms that there are no issues about this, but that is a very pointed criticism by Professor Stewart. What does the government say about that specific criticism about the bill's constitutionality?

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

The bill is within Commonwealth constitutional power. The Australian Government Solicitor has considered all of the issues raised by Professor Stewart and has concluded that the bill is constitutional.

In terms of the specific cases that you refer to, Commonwealth legislative power is limited so as not to interfere with the legislative power of the states. You referred to the cases that set in place the principle: the Melbourne Corporation principle and Re AEU. In terms of those two cases, the limitation prevents the Commonwealth from making laws that restrict or impair the states' capacity to function as governments. The amendments that are proposed by this bill will ensure that federal laws—the Fair Work Act in this case—are not misused to defeat state law obligations, and in this case the particular act is the CFA Act. Our bill reinforces, rather than undermines, the principles that are articulated in the two cases you raised. It prevents a state government from using a federal law to undermine its own legislation. Thank you for raising that, because there does appear to have been some misunderstanding by some parties in relation to that.

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

I thank the minister for her answer. Further to that, Professor Andrew Stewart, in his evidence to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, also stated that he believed the bill would 'exacerbate the current dispute' and 'provide a vehicle for ongoing argument about the validity of key provisions in the agreement'. My question to the minister is: given what Professor Stewart says—whether you agree or disagree with him, he is an eminent scholar in this field—how does the government respond to that sort of concern from Professor Stewart? How, does the government say, are the provisions in this bill going to help, rather than hinder, the resolution of this dispute?

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the minister.

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

Thank you, Mr Temporary Chair. We have yet another change. Every time I look up there is a new face at the table.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the prettiest one.

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

It is the prettiest one to date, and he was forgotten about in question time today!

In terms of how the provisions of this bill are going to help, rather than hinder, the dispute, the concerns the volunteers have raised, as you would be aware, are in relation to the agreement expanding into volunteer arrangements as opposed to dealing just with the employer-employee relationship, and that is beyond what was contemplated by the Fair Work Act. The bill provides much-needed clarity for the parties to the agreement and for the Fair Work Commission when it is looking at the agreement. The bill itself makes clear that designated emergency management terms—and, as you would be aware, they are defined terms within the bill—are unlawful terms that cannot be included in an enterprise agreement. The bill also makes clear that a recognised volunteer body has a right to be heard by the Fair Work Commission in relation to agreements that affect it. These clarifications will provide much-needed certainty to help ensure that the agreement is determined as swiftly as possible.

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

Minister, just following up on the issues Senator Xenophon has raised: you would be aware that the matter is currently before the Supreme Court of Victoria. Professor Stewart, who is an acknowledged expert in industrial relations, has pointed out:

… if the Bill is enacted in its current form, its provisions could only become relevant to this dispute if an agreement were concluded that:

So the first threshold is that there is an agreement between the board and a majority of the CFA employees. The second threshold is if an agreement:

Do you agree with that analysis from Professor Stewart?

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

In relation to the current case before the Victorian Supreme Court, this is very important to understand: the Supreme Court is considering an issue that is separate from those that will be addressed by what we are doing here tonight—by the proposed amendments in our bill.

In terms of the action that has been taken by the VFBV in the Victorian Supreme Court, that action deals firstly with whether the failure to properly consult with volunteers and the terms of the proposed enterprise agreement itself conflict with the CFA board's responsibilities under the CFA Act; and secondly, if this is the case, whether this means the CFA board is operating beyond its statutory powers in seeking to enter into the agreement. That is separate to what our bill is going to do. Our bill will determine what clauses can be included in an enterprise agreement that is approved under the federal Fair Work Act and ensure that recognised volunteer bodies affected by the bill will be heard on such an agreement. So in terms of our proposal, the government's proposed amendments go directly to the issue.

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

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

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

… … …

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

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

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

In relation to that particular term, just for your information, the term that we have used is similar to those used in the existing Country Fire Authority Act and would be applied in the same way. Basically, what we have done is pick up the wording from the CFA Act and had that reflected in the amendment that is currently before the committee. This is another way in which the bill ensures that state laws cannot be overridden by an enterprise agreement approved under the federal Fair Work Act.

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

I have one final question at this stage, which relates to clauses 254A and 281AA. The bill provides for an expressed entitlement for volunteer bodies to make submissions under clauses 254A and 281AA. Can the minister please clarify whether it is the intention of this provision to include all relevant bodies that advocate for volunteers within the emergency services sector or whether it is confined to the CFA?

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

There are a number of preconditions that must be met before you become a volunteer body. Volunteer bodies that will be able to make submissions under the bill are limited to those that are a body corporate and have a history of representing the volunteers—then you go to the defined term in the act—of a designated emergency management body. In addition, the volunteer body will only be able to make submissions where there is a matter before the Fair Work Commission, a party to that matter has volunteers and the matter on which the volunteer body makes submissions does affect or could affect that volunteer body. The first precondition that needs to be met is that you need to be a body covered by the Fair Work Act and it needs to be an enterprise agreement under the Fair Work Act.

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

Minister, will you provide the Senate with a copy of the regulations that will be made after the bill passes? If you are not going to do that tonight, when will you do it?

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

Thank you, Senator Rhiannon. We would follow the normal process in relation to the making of any regulations.

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

Could you explain what you mean by that, please. The 'normal process' is different every time, and you know that, Minister.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rhiannon, you will have to wait for the call. Senator Rhiannon.

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

Minister, could you explain what you mean by 'normal process'. 'Normal process' is very different every time, so 'normal' is variable. Could you explain what you mean, please.

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

At this stage there is no intention by the government to make a regulation. I am assuming you are saying that we would add additional bodies. I am assuming that is what you are going to. As I have made clear—I think it was in response to you or Senator Cameron—the government has no intention of bringing in any other bodies and therefore will not be making any regulations.

In relation to the usual process that I was referring to, you would be aware that in any event, if a regulation is made, it is a disallowable instrument, and obviously it would be up to the Senate, in the normal course of business, as to whether it did or did not disallow the instrument. But I again go to the fact that the government has no intention of making regulations.

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

I just want to follow on from one of the issues Senator Rhiannon and Senator Xenophon have raised. Minister, you raised the issue of the CFA Act, and I am glad you did. You said that the bill is based on terms similar to the CFA Act. Are you aware that the CFA Act does not provide any veto power to the VFBV and that, in terms of the volunteers, the act at section 6G(b)— the section you are talking about—'requires that the Authority recognise, value, respect and promote the contribution of volunteer officers and members to the well-being and safety of the community'? This is in the Volunteer Charter, and the Volunteer Charter has no legal standing. The Volunteer Charter is simply a statement that has been made within the act but has no standing in terms of legally binding the state government.

So how can you move from a position where you have a Volunteer Charter with no legal standing to bind the Victorian state government? I think the Victorian state government were smart enough not to get themselves in a position where they would be legally bound by a volunteer organisation, and you lift aspects of this Volunteer Charter in the act, with no legal standing, and give it legal standing in the Fair Work Act. Why would you do that? What would possess you to actually try to get the commission to be dealing with issues of 'recognise, value, respect and promote'? What guidance is there for a commissioner or even a judge to be able to deal with what is just a feel-good statement, basically, in the Victorian Volunteer Charter? How can you then have any legal binding to this, and what are the legal implications of a commissioner having to try to deal with this? How would a commissioner actually make a decision that an agreement does not 'recognise, value, respect and promote' the contribution of a volunteer officer? How does that work?

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

Senator Cameron, you continue to amaze me in terms of your hatred and undermining of the volunteers. In relation to—

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

Point of order: the minister should withdraw that statement. We are here debating a bill, and to say that I hate volunteers is demeaning me as a senator, it is unparliamentary and it should be withdrawn.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order. Senator Cameron, on a further point of order?

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

Yes. I would ask then that you have a look at this, and I would ask that the President have a look at your ruling on this, because this opens up Pandora's box in this place if people can use terms such as 'hatred' against a senator. That is unparliamentary language, it is clearly against standing orders, and you must, Chair, operate under standing orders. If you are not prepared to operate under standing orders, I would then ask the President to have a look at this decision that you have just made.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Cameron. I will bring it to the President's attention and come back to the Senate if required.

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

If you want, Mr Temporary Chair, perhaps I could assist you. If Senator Cameron is offended then I withdraw.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

I withdraw. In terms of the issue that you have raised, Senator Cameron, you will note that, in the particular clause of the agreement in terms of the definition of an objectionable emergency management term, it refers to a number of preconditions. But, in relation to precondition (c), if you go, in more general terms, to section 6H of the CFA Act, you will see that it provides that the CFA 'must, in performing its functions, have regard to the commitment and principles set out in the Volunteer Charter'.

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

Thank you. You are a lawyer, you are a senator, but I am just a humble fitter and machinist who happened to be a union official for some time, and I know that 'have regard' has no power. So what does 'have regard' mean? It has no legal standing. It places no binding legal obligations on the state government. So maybe you can explain why you would say that section 6H is the argument to underpin this bill, because it has got me a bit bemused.

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

Again, I would merely state that section 6H of the CFA Act also provides that:

The Authority must, in performing its functions, have regard to the commitment and principles set out in the Volunteer Charter.

In terms of the amendments we are proposing, ultimately it is a matter for the Fair Work Commission—as it is in terms of determining whether or not there is an objectionable management term.

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

Minister, I am told that the current UFU enterprise agreement is around 120 pages long—and someone else says it is around 200 pages. How can it possibly be padded out to 400 pages of terms and conditions of employment when, simply, it really includes managerial responsibilities as the Victorian government and the UFU admit. Isn't the core point here that a lazy state government will not face up to its statutory responsibility and is willing to further weaken this vital service provider by substituting the CFA statutory responsibilities with an EA?

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

Thank you, Senator Roberts, for that question. Yet again, your observation is a correct one. As you have correctly articulated, our bill is going to prevent a state government from using a federal law to undermine its own legislation. In relation to the 400 pages and the managerial responsibilities, as you would be aware—I think you attended a number of the Senate hearings into this matter—one of the huge concerns that the CFA does have is in relation to the managerial responsibilities and the impact of a number of clauses on their managerial responsibilities. Yet again, you have hit the nail on the head.

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

Minister, I am interested in the answer you have just given to Senator Roberts—that you would prevent the state government from undertaking any actions that would undermine a state act. Can you point to where the state act would be undermined? Section 27(1) of the CFA Act says:

Subject to the general powers and directions of the Authority every brigade or group of brigades and all officers and members of brigades or group of brigades shall be under the order and control of the Chief Officer.

Section 29(c) of the CFA Act—and I am sure this was done before they ever thought about a woman becoming the chief fire officer—says:

He shall at all times have the charge and control of all apparatus and other property of the Authority and shall cause the same to be kept in a fit state at all times …

And section 30 of the CFA Act makes it clear that the chief officer has complete control in any emergency. Are you saying that any of these aspects of the Country Fire Authority Act are undermine by an employer and an employee reaching an agreement that, in the words of the chief fire officer, does not give him any problem in carrying out his duties? Can you take us to the parts of the act that you say the government may not be properly dealing with and could be undermining by reaching this agreement?

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

Senator Cameron, of course powers need to be exercised in accordance with the enterprise agreement. In terms of what you are going to, the amendment that we are putting forward sets out what an objectionable management term is and why this will not be able to be in place in an enterprise agreement. It says that an enterprise agreement that covers a designated emergency body cannot include an objectionable emergency management term—that is, a term that has, or is likely to have, the effect of restricting or limiting the body’s ability engage or deploy its volunteers; provide support or equipment to those volunteers; manage its relationship with, or work with, any recognised emergency management body in relation to those volunteers; otherwise manage its operations in relation to those volunteers; or requiring the body to consult, or reach agreement with, any other person or body before taking action for the purposes of any of the above; or requiring or permitting the body to act other than in accordance with a law of a state or territory, so far as the law confers or imposes on the body a power, function or duty that affects or could affect its volunteers.

That is the whole point of the CFA Act. It goes directly to what Senator Roberts has articulated each time he stands up, and that is very much the managerial responsibility. That is the whole point of these amendments—to ensure that the CFA Act, under which the CFA manages its volunteers, is not compromised by what they are trying to do in utilising the Fair Work Act.

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

Minister, I am not sure that you actually heard my question, because I was asking about the Country Fire Authority Act and specific aspects of the Country Fire Authority Act. You moved immediately to the bill and just verbatim read parts of the bill, but that is not really answering my question, and that was: where does this agreement undermine the Country Fire Authority Act? The minister in Victoria does not think it does; the chief executive of the Country Fire Authority does not think it does; the chair of the board does not think that is the proposition; and the chief fire officer has said clearly that his powers are not undermined by the agreement. We have a position where the underlying basis of why you want this bill seems to change in every answer. When you were out there with the rhetoric during the election campaign, it was about the safety of Victorians. We have not heard you mention the safety of Victorians once tonight, because you know that the chief fire officer in Victoria has clearly outlined that his powers and his capacity to deal with an emergency situation are not undermined.

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

Mr Temporary Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Please pardon my inexperience, but I have clearly heard Senator Cash discuss safety tonight and make it a core point of this amendment, and yet Senator Cameron says otherwise.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, that is a debating point, not a point of order.

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

Again, we have Senator Cash coming in and parroting parts of the act without really going to the implications and not being able to, in any way, shape or form, bring them back to the Country Fire Authority Act. The minister has raised the act. She has raised the issues that go to the charter. I put to you that, in legal terms, the charter is a best endeavours approach. It has no legal binding on the state government. No-one has argued that point to the committee. I have not heard that being argued here tonight, and yet here we have a best endeavours clause, a clause that has no legal binding on the state government. It is being used as an argument to bind the participants in a bargaining process under the Fair Work Act and, in the process of doing that, put certain limitations on the Fair Work Commission in terms of how it can determine, under the current act, the validity or otherwise of an agreement. The government has form in this area. Whenever it wants to try to diminish union bargaining powers in this country, it brings in a bill, loads it up with rhetoric, misrepresents the facts, puts forward a flawed bill and hopes that they con the senators in this place that there is a valid reason for the bill.

If you look at 6G under the Country Fire Authority Act, in recognition of the volunteer charter it says:

... is a statement of the commitment and principles ...

... requires that the Authority recognise, value, respect and promote the contribution of volunteer officers ...

These are all statements of commitment and principles. They are not legally binding. It is a big jump to take a statement of commitment and principles and then turn it into a bill and have this place seek to turn that into an act based on the flawed arguments, or the lack of arguments mainly, that we have had tonight from the minister. The minister fully understands the implications of this, because the minister is about continuing the process that has been undertaken by conservative governments for years: to attack workers' rights to collectively bargain. That is what this is fundamentally about. It is not about the volunteers; it is not about people who may be affected by fires. It is about an opportunity taken during an election campaign, when the Prime Minister was flailing around looking for issues, in a weakened position day by day as the election wore on, and moving to the holy old chestnut of union bashing. That is the genesis of this bill. As we are aware, given evidence that came before the inquiry, the Liberal Party of Australia had even set up a website to create animosity, disunity and dysfunction in the CFA. What an obnoxious position for the Liberal Party to take on the basis of trying to get a political advantage during an election campaign.

There are not only huge constitutional problems with this bill. I have not gone to Professor Stewart's arguments yet. I will get there before the end of the night. Minister, how do you expect a commissioner or a court to analyse whether an agreement restricts or limits a body's ability to recognise, value, respect or promote the contribution of its volunteers?

How does a commissioner deal with this issue of recognition? These are vague issues that are about commitments and principles. They are not about legally-based law. They are not about a bill. They are not about an act. They are about commitments of principles with no legal binding. And yet, if this bill becomes an act you are about to impose an obligation on an industrial commissioner to actually be able to determine whether a clause in an agreement recognises values and respects and promotes the contribution of volunteer officers. How does a commissioner do that?

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

Senator Cameron, you and I have actually had this discussion, but in relation to different bills. They will make their determination after reviewing all of the evidence from the parties, as they would do on any other issue. And given, as you have clearly articulated, the very wide experience of the commissioners, I do not see this as being an issue.

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

Minister, can you also go to the issue that firefighters will only have access to a model consultation term? Can you also advise us what your definition of 'terms and conditions' is when you are talking about firefighters? What are 'terms and conditions'? I think you argue, as have the volunteer firefighters and the VFBV argued, that firefighters should have access to wages and conditions. Why can a worker in the manufacturing industry bargain in their agreement for safety gear? Why can cleaners bargain for safety gear in their agreement? Why can workers in the oil industry bargain for equipment to protect their safety, and yet you cannot do it if you are a firefighter? Can you explain that?

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

You are wrong. The bill does not prevent that at all. In relation to the consultation term, the bill does not prevent enterprise agreements from including a consultation term that is developed to meet the particular needs of an emergency services body. An employer that is covered by the bill and its employees will still be able to bargain about and include appropriately tailored consultation arrangements in their enterprise agreement.

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

In my presence volunteers have repeatedly stated support for the terms and conditions of paid firefighters, and they are not opposed to them negotiating that through an EA. Firstly, could you tell me what the length is of a typical and effective enterprise agreement across Australia? I know that will be a very broad answer. Secondly, could a typical EA be more effective at 20 pages? Thirdly, could it be that more than 20 pages introduces possibly superfluous clauses, and what would 400 pages in an EA indicate?

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

Again you have hit the nail on the head, quite literally. I am a big fan of streamlining. Streamlining and simplicity normally get us where we need to go. Yet again you have rightly articulated in relation to the agreement that it is page, after page, after page, after page, which has caused serious confusion amongst people.

In relation to the terms and conditions, you are correct. The volunteer firefighters have no issue at all in relation to what the paid employees are negotiating—in particular, in relation to their pay. It is when there is overreach of the agreement and it brings in the volunteers and their ability to manage their organisation that the concerns are then raised. Certainly, in relation to streamlining, I would agree with your comments.

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

I want to go back to the volunteer charter. The volunteer charter does not affect any of the powers of the chief officer. The proposition that you would bring the volunteer charter or aspects of the volunteer charter into a bill before the federal parliament again is a significant problem, I believe, in terms of the commission being able to understand what it is supposed to do when it is dealing with an objectionable emergency management term. So I do not think you have gone anywhere near answering effectively the concerns that the Senate would have.

If we want to pass a bill, we do not want that bill to end up being continually in legal argument—even up to the High Court or on constitutional grounds. The evidence before the committee was clear that this bill is easily challengeable on constitutional grounds, even though you argue that you have had it checked. That has happened before, and we have seen the outcome of that. Can you advise me: how do you see workers—that is what paid firefighters are, they are workers in the state of Victoria? Why are they being treated differently to other workers around the country, who you have just conceded can bargain in relation to their safety equipment? Why can a firefighter not bargain with their employer? Why can a firefighter not make sure that the equipment that they are using is good equipment, effective equipment and equipment that will not put their lives in danger?

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

Senator Cameron, I disagree with the fundamental premise of your assertions. What our bill does is introduce a new objectionable term. It is in relation to the Fair Work Act being used for purposes that it should not be used for. The workers, as you put it—and I assume you mean paid firefighters, because it is the paid firefighters who are obviously covered by the agreement; the employees—can continue to bargain. Nothing is changed by the bill.

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

Clarity of purpose—and I refer to the words 'recognise, value, respect or promote'. In my experience, when I graduated from university I worked for three years as an underground coalface miner so that I could gain some valuable experience. I have worked through to executive levels in the mining industry, and I have also worked in voluntary organisations as a volunteer. It seems to me that whether paid or voluntary, volunteers receive their reward, like paid employees, from diligent and effective service. That is weakened, is it not, and diluted and in places sabotaged by intervention of a third and irrelevant party pushing its own agenda—separate, in this case, from the CFA and the communities. Doesn't this intervention of a third party with volunteers, controlling those volunteers, destroy the cohesion, breed dismay and dissolve or dilute a volunteer's purpose in work?

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

Thank you, Senator Roberts, for those comments. Again, you raise what are very serious issues. They were obviously raised by volunteer after volunteer after volunteer, in particular at the Senate hearings but certainly also over a number of months now in relation to this agreement. You are right, and that is why we have this bill before the Senate. An enterprise agreement should not be able to include terms that undermine the capacity of volunteer emergency service bodies to properly manage their volunteer operations. That is the purpose of this bill.

More than that, one of the real concerns that I have, and one of the real fears that I have, particularly in relation to the impact of the dispute on the volunteers is the evidence that was given by the New South Wales fireys—and you would have heard this, Senator Roberts, in the Senate inquiry—that on the border a number of the Victorian CFA volunteers are so despondent they are now going across the border and saying, 'Can we come and fight with you?' Giving up on Victoria and going over to New South Wales. So, yet again, yes, you do articulate what are some real concerns that have been raised by the volunteers.

The CHAIR: The question is that the bill stand as printed.