Dio Wang (WA, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister in the Senate. A joint media release by the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the employment minister on 30 December summarised the Heydon royal commission's findings as revealing a widespread and deep-seated culture of lawlessness in the construction industry and beyond and stated:

This corrupt and illegal conduct will not stop unless there is immediate and effective Parliamentary intervention, meaningful reform and strong leadership.

As evidenced by the increasing public concern about corruption and lawlessness within a range of organisations, such as doping in sports and match fixing, the systematic exploitation of foreign workers, the abuse of political entitlements and so on, it is clear that misconduct and lawlessness are not confined to the building and construction industry. Does the government believe that the range of misconduct I have just mentioned satisfies its definition of either 'corruption' or 'lawlessness' and, if not, why?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wang, it may, depending on the circumstance of the particular case, and in general yes, it does. Senator Wang, you rightly point out the very serious matters which were found by the Heydon royal commission to be part of what the royal commissioner concluded to be a widespread culture within the trade union movement.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish! Absolute rubbish!

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear Senator Doug Cameron interjecting volubly over there. Senator Doug Cameron probably has more to be ashamed of than most people. Senator Wang, that is why this government is committed to giving effect to the recommendations of the Heydon royal commission. Might I point out, as has been observed by others, that the recommendations of the Heydon royal commission are not based upon any contentious factual disputes. The findings of the—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Defamatory slurs. They are smears, smears, smears. It is not based on any evidence.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection, Senator Conroy. Senator Conroy said that the findings are not based on any evidence. Senator Conroy, they are based on admissions. Not only are they based on evidence; they are based on uncontroverted evidence, undisputed evidence, confessions and admissions. So, listen, there is no area of factual contention in relation to the findings of the royal commissioner Mr Heydon. There is a test of character now—

Senator Conroy interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Pause the clock.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, because Mr Shorten—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Very serious findings like the Clean Event case were found. Mr Shorten is uniquely well placed— (Time expired)

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on a point of order: During the Attorney-General's response he indicated that I have 'more to be ashamed of than most'. This was in the context of corruption and bullying in the building and construction industry. This is clearly an aspersion on me. I think my record as a union official and my record in public life is clear. I have always stood up against bullying and intimidation. I have always stood up against corruption, and my record is clear on that and that should be withdrawn—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, you have made your point. Senator Brandis, it would assist the chamber if you wanted to withdraw that remark.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you wish, Mr President, I will.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left! I gather, Senator Brandis—I did not hear because of the shouting—that you withdrew that remark?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He said, 'If you wish.'

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has withdrawn it.

Dio Wang (WA, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Will the government provide the immediate and effective support required to establish a national anticorruption agency to prevent, to investigate and to prosecute widespread corruption and systematic illegal conduct?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's view is that we have strong laws in relation to corruption which are enforced by a skilful and honourable Australian Federal Police as well as state and territory police agencies. There has not been any indication of a culture of corruption in Australian public administration. There has not. In fact, the instances where in either political life or in Australian public administration there have been instances of corruption are notably rare. The same cannot be said of all state governments and all state public administration but it can be said, and I think we should be very proud of this, of the Commonwealth.

Senator Wang, the point at which you began identifies one area of Australian public life where there has been an identified and well-demonstrated culture of corruption, and that is the union movement— (Time expired)

Dio Wang (WA, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. If the government secures the necessary support to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, in the interim, will the government commit to the future establishment of a properly constituted national anticorruption agency?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With respect, let us take one thing at a time and let us not confuse two issues. I just said to you that in Australia our public administration and our politics—certainly at a federal level—have been remarkably free of corruption. There have very seldom been instances of either corrupt members of federal parliament or corrupt public servants. There have been one or two—very rare indeed. However, the same cannot be said of the building industry. That is why, by the way, one of the reasons we set up the Heydon royal commission is that there was an enormous volume of evidence that a culture of corruption across the trade union movement—not affecting all trade unions, I hasten to add, but affecting many—was endemic and widespread, and that is exactly what the royal commissioner found on the basis of uncontroverted evidence, admissions and confessions.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Can the minister inform the Senate of any benefits that an improved culture in the building and construction sector would bring to Australians?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Johnston for his question and, yes, I can. I think all Australians know that the construction industry is critical to a productive Australia, and a more productive Australia equals more jobs for Australians.

The construction industry is Australia's third-largest employer. It employs over one million people in this industry, and those one million people are employed by the hundred thousand plus predominantly small and medium businesses. The reintroduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission has great potential to make the sector, as I said, more productive, and a more productive economy means more jobs for Australians.

In terms of evidence, the Productivity Commission in 2014, in its public infrastructure inquiry, highlighted the link between lower industrial disputes and the existence of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Even Julia Gillard's own hand-picked advisor who looked at the ABCC, former Justice Murray Wilcox, in 2012 when he handed down his report concluded this:

The ABCCs work is not yet done. Although I accept there has been a big improvement in building industry behaviour during recent years—

the ABCC years—

some problems remain.

The ABS data, what does that show? It shows that in the years that the ABCC existed the labour productivity index rose by 20 per cent. Here are some other facts: in the five years before the ABCC was established the industrial dispute rate in the construction sector was five times the all industry average. When the ABCC was in operation this dropped to twice the all industry's average. When it was abolished it rose to four times the industry's average. So the ABCC supports a more productive economy and more jobs for Australians— (Time expired)

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of any misrepresentation that is occurring in relation to the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am. You only needed to watch the shadow minister Brendan O'Connor last night on Latelinesome described it as a train wreck. He has been caught out deliberately misrepresenting the facts during his interview. The first untruth was:

… the laws are excessive. Remember, it denies people's rights of representation. You could be compelled to give testimony without legal representation …

That is wrong. The ABCC bill includes an explicit right to legal representation for witnesses, and I refer those who are interested to section 61(4) of the bill. What Mr O'Connor has also forgotten is that the current regulator, which is Labor's regulator, has exactly the same compulsory information-gathering powers.

Second untruth: the powers are excessive. Well, if they are excessive, the powers of the ACCC and ASIC and other civil regulators are also excessive, and I do not see Labor trying to change them. (Time expired)

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Lastly, can the minister advise the Senate how a separate industrial regulator—

Government Senator:

A government senator interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

could change the culture of unlawful—

Senator Sterle interjecting—

in the building industry—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle!

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You grub!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sterle, withdraw that please.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Out of due respect to you, Mr President, I will.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Sterle. Senator Johnston, would you like to start again?

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President, yes, I would. Can the minister advise the Senate how a separate industrial regulator could change the culture of unlawfulness in the building industry?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Re-establishing the ABCC is about introducing meaningful consequences for unlawful conduct in the building and construction industry, whether this conduct is undertaken by an employer or a union in the construction sector. In terms of the Cole royal commission, almost a decade ago now, and now the Heydon royal commission, both support the need for a separate specialist building regulator to ensure that workplace laws, laws that all Australians need to abide by, are actually abided by in that particular sector.

There are currently 73 CFMEU representatives before the courts around Australia. That is a staggering statistic. Flagrant breaches of workplace laws on such a scale are quite frankly unacceptable. It is a sad day when those on the other side are continuing to stand for unlawful behaviour in the construction sector, as opposed to standing, alongside those on this side of the chamber, for lawful behaviour. (Time expired)