Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share 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?