Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Hansard source

Four letters triggered a double dissolution and a federal election on 2 July—though the government hardly mentioned those four letters, ABCC, during the marathon election campaign. I will give this bill its official name: the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. It is from 2013—that is more than three years of gestation. There have been thousands of words on both sides over the months and over the years—union bashing and union championing—and I do not intend to go back through it all. But I will make several points and refer to amendments that I have put to the government to improve the bill and to allay some of the opposition's fears—I hope. My comments reflect what I repeated during the auditors and whistleblower amendments yesterday: I am pro worker and anti corruption.

In reaching my position on this bill and the proffered amendments, I have spent a lot of time with ministers, shadow ministers, union officials—including the CFMEU, several times—and other senators. I will be voting for the amended bill, if the planned amendments pass in this chamber. If the bill is not properly amended, I am not afraid to vote it down. In my discussions with government ministers and the opposition, I have concentrated on several areas. I want to deal with them, but not in any order of priority or importance.

One major area is the protection of sub-contractors—the subbies. Too often, they are left holding the bag. Confected disputes over supposedly shoddy work or missed completion deadlines can see money—earned money—going from A to B but not getting to C. Sometimes it is a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul in a stalling tactic which might otherwise see a boss guilty of trading while insolvent. A fast-track tribunal hearing with the disputed money held in trust is good idea and a possible solution, I believe. So I agree with Senator Cameron when he said earlier today that we must improve payment protection for the subcontractors. I also agree with him that we need incentives to encourage employers to take on more apprentices.

Another issue that has cropped up regularly in recent weeks is retrospectivity. A number of big companies that have signed five-year EBAs in recent times have expressed concerns that they could in future be locked out of government contracts. Of course, the other argument is that these bills have been around for a couple of years and so everybody on either side of the industry, contractors and the unions, are very well aware of all the details. With this and other pieces of legislation I do not like retrospective legislation of any kind, but maybe six months could be the buffer. So, with question time coming up, that is where I stand, and I will say, like last night, that with the auditors and the whistleblower amendments I got here to this position without making any deals with either side.