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

At this stage, I would like to indicate that I will support the second reading of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and related bill, but I reserve my position on the third reading. There are matters that I believe need to be thoroughly negotiated with the government, and with the opposition, in my view, to involve key stakeholders. That includes not only industry groups that are concerned about the state of play on building sites in this country but also the unions. These bills propose measures that are controversial and contentious. On the one hand, unions have a vital role in Australia's workplace relations system and they must have the freedom and power to be able to do their jobs. That involves not just issues about terms and conditions for their employees—obviously fundamental—but also issues of workplace safety.

Whilst I was a member of the South Australian parliament, I did propose, and it was rejected by a state Labor government, that we ought to have industrial manslaughter laws. I think we need to have tougher laws in place when it comes to workplace safety and there ought to be appropriate and strong penalties in respect of that. Insofar as unions require a right of entry for the purpose of safety issues, then I think that is quite fundamental and ought not to be derogated from.

On the other hand, concerns have been raised through the royal commission, and the Boral court case cannot be ignored—and I will refer to that shortly. I think it is appropriate, at this stage, to refer to the controversy around Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon and the invitation to a Liberal Party fundraiser. Notwithstanding that not much money probably would have been raised at that fundraiser—presumably there can be auctions and other peripheral fundraising activities that usually occur at these things—it was an invitation about which we need more information from the royal commissioner. I think it is quite reasonable for the royal commissioner to provide a detailed and thorough explanation as to what he was aware of at the time he accepted the invitation, when he accepted the invitation and whether he was the commissioner or about to be appointed as commissioner for this royal commission. If he did so whilst he was royal commissioner and he assumed that the royal commission would be over by then and that there would not be a problem attending this fundraiser, and he was aware that it was a Liberal Party fundraiser, then, on an objective basis, I think that would show a significant error of judgement on the part of the royal commissioner. If so, he ought to be apologise for that.

Notwithstanding what the member for Sturt has said, that this was a birthday gift for him the other day on his 48th birthday—and happy belated birthday to Christopher Pyne—as you know, Acting Deputy President—