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

It is worth upholding. It was unambiguously a very serious issue that still needs to be ventilated because there are issues that some have raised about apprehended bias. I know there are different academics raising different views about this. I note that Julian Burnside—no friend of the coalition government—has defended the commissioner. At the very least, if the commissioner accepted this invitation, assuming that the royal commission would be over, then I think it shows an error of judgement on his part and an explanation is warranted.

In my view, if you are a royal commissioner on something as contentious as this, then for the rest of your life you should not even be thinking about attending any political event or any party fundraiser. It is interesting to note what some commentators have said, such as Michael Stutchbury—the editor of The Financial Reviewyesterday on Insiders. He used to do music reviews for me when I was on the Editor many years ago at Adelaide university and is a fine music review writer. He raised issues about the nature of the interchange between the royal commissioner and the opposition leader. There are some reasonable commentators who are saying that that may have been seen to be somewhat too harsh and unnecessary in terms of the royal commissioner's intervention.

The royal commission has gathered evidence, some of which I find quite compelling, about allegations of corruption and about allegations of bullying and harassment. These matters also relate to serious allegations of misuse of funds, boycotts, threats and even corruption. These allegations, if true, are clearly unacceptable. And they raise the question of whether our existing legislative framework is strong enough to properly address these issues. We know the commercial building sector is a very substantial employer. I want a strong and vibrant building and construction industry in this country in the commercial sector as well as in the home-building sector. I want the workers in that industry to go to a safe working environment where occupational health and safety are of paramount consideration. I also want them to be well paid for the work that they do. If there are impediments, then they need to be dealt with in a way that people's rights are considered.

I want to make it very clear that union representatives I have worked with in the past and whom I am working with on current issues have always been strongly against the kind of action that this legislation aims to address. I think it is an interesting paradox that there is no suggestion that Michael O'Connor, the head of the CFMEU—someone with whom I have worked very closely on issues involving free trade, 457 visas and putting Australian jobs first—has been involved in these sorts of activities. If find him to be a person of great integrity.

I have also worked recently with Aaron Cartledge, the state secretary of the CFMEU in South Australia, who has been subject to some allegations. However, one issue that I have worked with him very constructively on is substance abuse on building sites, particularly the use of ice. He has shown a lot of leadership in relation to that, because he does not tolerate it and the impact that it can have on a work force and the safety of not only those who are abusing the substance but also others on building sites.

More recently, I have also worked with Mr Cartledge and met with a number of subcontractors in relation to the collapse of Tagara Builders—a complete mess that has left many people in the lurch. I have to give credit to Mr Cartledge for the work that he has done on that. We need a better approach to this in consultation with industry so that subbies—the subcontractors—who have been left in the lurch and face financial ruin have better forms of redress. I also wish to pay tribute to Senator Cameron's work in relation to this, and I hope that the inquiry will have a hearing in Adelaide sooner rather than later, because it would be incredibly welcome. We need a better approach to dealing with that.

Insofar as there are allegations of bullying, intimidation and corruption, they need to be dealt with. I do not subscribe to the view that unions are uniformly bad or that they have too much power. I do very strongly believe that they have responsibility and a duty of care to their members; in the environment that they work in, they do not cause unnecessary and needless disruption; and they should be subject to greater scrutiny in that regard.

I also believe that, as in any negotiation, there may be particular individuals or groups who act in their own interests who are rogue operators instead of acting in their members' broader interests. It is these people who I believe this legislation ought to be targeting. The question is: are the measures in these bills fair and proportionate to the issues that they are trying to address?

I have some concerns about limiting the control of a body such as the ABCC solely to the building and construction industry—and I do not want to verbal my friend and colleague Senator Madigan about what to do about corruption in other sectors where there are concerns in other workplaces. I acknowledge the argument, however, that this is where most of the concerns have arisen but I wonder whether this legislation should be so targeted at one sector. Surely, there are legitimate concerns in other sectors that could benefit from the oversight provisions in these bills.

A few months ago I supported, unambiguously, the need to give the fair work building inspectorate the coercive powers to call in witnesses just as the ACCC, ASIC and other key regulators have. Without those powers, you will not get in my view some witnesses coming forward. There has been intimidation in respect of that from the evidence that I have heard.

I note that my crossbench colleagues Senators Madigan and Lambie have expressed concern about the breadth of this legislation. I look forward to exploring these matters in more detail during the committee stage, if the bill is passed at the second reading stage—as I hope it will—because I think these are legitimate issues that need to be vented.

I also think it is important to clarify that I believe that some changes need to be made in this area. What I am hoping to have clarified by the government through this process is why the new ABCC has to be established and why the additional powers should simply rest with the Fair Work Building and Construction inspectorate or Fair Work more broadly. I will also be seeking assurances from the government in relation to maintaining the right of entry and other matters for union representatives in relation to legitimate workplace and safety issues. I do not want to see reasonable union behaviour curtailed and I want unions and businesses to have access to the tools they need to combat the serious issues that have come to light.

In relation to the issue of Boral, that is a matter still before the courts; however, I do not think it is improper to raise the fact that this has taken a long time for our legal system to deal with these issues. It raises issues about access to justice, which is a much broader issue in civil and all sorts of disputes in this country, but it has had a significant impact on one particular company. If the allegations are proven, then it raises issues as to whether there has been an abuse of power in that regard. I think that there must be a better way for the resolution of such disputes, and the difficulties in the gathering of evidence in this case raise issues about whether you need to have the sorts of mechanisms that have been raised in this legislation in some form to deal with disputes.

At the end of the day—and I emphasise this—I want there to be a strong building and construction industry in this country. Building and construction can provide a real antidote to the job losses we are expecting in manufacturing. Having people working in a safe, working environment on good incomes is absolutely fundamental. My concern is that there needs to be some reform to help facilitate that. The issue is: to what extent do you go in this legislation? I think it is worth having this bill go into committee for further negotiations in respect of this.