David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to advise that I will vote to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The government has won two elections promising to re-establish the ABCC. I respect that, but it is not enough to win my vote. After all, I have won two elections promising to protect liberties, and the bills to re-establish the ABCC are a mixed bag in this regard.

The bills seek to counter thuggish behaviour by the CFMEU that restricts the freedom of workers to choose their own bargaining representative, to choose their own superannuation fund, to pursue enterprise bargaining in their interests and to get on and off the work site. The bills also counter thuggish behaviour by the CFMEU that restricts the freedom of employers to choose their employees and contractors, to assign duties as they see fit, to freely negotiate rates of pay and to see that work gets done.

But, against this, the bills also do damage to our liberties. They reverse the onus of proof, allow some retrospective effect, allow entry onto premises without a warrant, reduce the role of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the use of powers requiring the answering of questions and the production of documents, and allow the minister to make decisions on the scope of these powers by regulation.

The freedoms secured by the bills go some way to offset the freedoms lost. But to me this has been far from certain, so I communicated my concern to the government and flagged the need for amendment. But it was clear that amendments to undo the liberty-restricting elements in the bills would gut the bills, at least in the government's eyes, so I also communicated the need for liberty offsets, separate liberty-enhancing commitments that, in conjunction with the bills, allow the package as a whole to be worth supporting. The government listened and engaged productively, and now we have agreed on a package that I am confident is well worth supporting.

Firstly, the government has agreed to support my amendment, co-sponsored by Senators Xenophon and Hinch, to remove the bill's worst example of a reverse onus of proof. With the passage of this amendment, workers who down tools because of what they claim is an imminent risk to health or safety will not have to prove that their claim is reasonable. Instead, an employer complaining about this action will need to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the safety claim is unreasonable. I will also support Senator Xenophon's amendment to extend judicial review to decisions made under this legislation.

Secondly, the government has agreed to publish key historical series—like government spending, net debt and tax—in real per capita terms rather than just in nominal terms and as a share of GDP. This will commence from next year's budget and will also appear in mid-year economic and fiscal outcomes. This will communicate, in terms people can readily understand, that the size of government is growing at a concerning rate.

Thirdly, the government has agreed to seek changes to suppression order regimes across the states and territories via the Law, Crime and Community Safety Council of COAG. Excluding subject-specific regimes covering family, children and national security cases, it will promote a regime in which suppression orders specify the topic to which they relate, only supress such information as is necessary to achieve the purpose of the order, set out a limited duration of operation and give the media an express right to seek a review of the scope or duration of a suppression order. In conjunction with that, it will also review and—subject to the findings of the review—amend the suppression order regime in courts in the federal jurisdiction according to the same principles. This has the potential to result in a very worthwhile enhancement of free speech, including the ability of the media to report freely. This is especially important in relation to our judicial system because an open and transparent judicial system helps maintain public confidence in it.

Fourthly, the government has agreed to require the boards of the ABC and SBS to hold open community forums in conjunction with at least half of their board meetings, with at least two of these forums to be held in regional areas each year and with the cost of these forums to be absorbed within current budgets. This is intended to promote a greater level of communication between the ABC and SBS with their shareholders, the taxpayers of Australia, who are located mostly outside the inner areas of the major cities. The ABC's CEO, Michelle Guthrie, recently warned that political parties need to be aware of the perils of failing to engage with disenfranchised voters. The same principle should apply to the ABC and SBS. Engaging with disenfranchised voters will not do the ABC or SBS any harm whatsoever.

I am not arguing that the amendments and freedom offsets achieved here amount to a libertarian utopia, but each is important and each is real. Some senators in this place are good at whingeing but do not ever achieve anything. In fact, I suspect a number of them are happy not to achieve anything, because it enables them always to complain about the state of affairs. I will not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good, and I am confident that the Liberal Democrats will never be such a party. I, and also on behalf of Senator Hinch and Senator Xenophon, move amendment (1) on sheet 7990:

(1) Clause 7, page 16 (lines 1 to 4), subclause (4), to be opposed.

[burden of proof]