Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Exactly! He just said it again: 'back to it'. Back to the past. This government with this amendment to the legislation is trying to take the entire country to a place that we have never been before. This government with this amendment, which was, as Senator Abetz said, snuck in—a dirty deal between the government and the Greens to buy the Greens' support for the bill in the Senate—five minutes before midnight, takes the entire country and the laws of this country to a place they have never been before, and it is a whole new low. As Senator Abetz said, this goes way beyond workplace relations. It even takes workplace relations itself to a whole new realm and of course, just as the CFMEU wants, it takes the building and construction industry to a whole new realm which did not even exist in the circumstances that led to the creation of the Cole royal commission into the building and construction industry. How so?

As to how this takes the country to a whole new place beyond workplace relations, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission retains discretion to prosecute, even in the event that the alleged victims of breach of the law might have reached agreement with the alleged perpetrator. ASIC still retains discretion to prosecute. No matter what the alleged offence, no matter what an alleged victim or an alleged offender might say about cease and desist or whatever else, the police properly retain a discretion to proceed. Nowhere in this country is there legislation that says that if there is some sort of settlement the authorities—be it ASIC, be it the police—are legislatively prevented from proceeding. But the government wants to have it in the building and construction industry.

What then of the victim of repeated domestic violence? Look only at the history of that terrible type of crime, where victims often say, 'No action, thank you.' Is the government saying that police should not have the discretion to prosecute nonetheless in that scenario? What about in workplace relations itself, where the Fair Work Ombudsman has the discretion to prosecute, for example, an employer who underpays workers? Is Senator Cameron really saying that if the employer underpays workers the Fair Work Ombudsman should be legislatively prevented from prosecuting the employer for breaching the law? I would like to hear him say so. Is the government really doing with this legislation what it tries to say it is doing in its attempt at justification for the bill?

The report says, 'The committee remains opposed to industry-specific legislation as a matter of broad principle. The goal should be coverage of all workers in the building and construction sector by the provisions of the Fair Work Act.' Are you going to make the provisions of the Fair Work Act in this respect apply to all workers? Do not be silly. No, no, no—the government is not only giving the CFMEU legislative encouragement to do dirty, dirty, dirty deals and legislative sanction to do dirty, dirty, dirty deals; it is encouraging it to do so in a way that was not even done before the commissioning of the Cole royal commission. This bill should be sent back to the Senate committee for inquiry. We are entitled to get the answers to questions like,'How does this keep Julia Gillard's promise about the industry?'She is disappointed that there are still pockets of the industry where people think they are above the law. Well, you are going to be legislating that the CFMEU can do a deal to take people out of the law. It allows sidestepping of the law. We are entitled to ask Mr Noonan if he thinks this is a good thing, because it would be a waste of taxpayers' money to prosecute when there is a deal. Does he say the same of an ASIC prosecution if there is a deal? Does he say the same of a police prosecution if the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator reach a deal? I hardly think so. (Time expired)