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

It seems to me that things are very fluid out there in relation to this bill. There are a number of amendments we have got sheets for that outline amendments from Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch—and we have got an amendment. But I notice that Senator Xenophon has been publicly indicating that there is some deal in place that means there will be some process to deal with water for South Australia that includes COAG. As I understand it, the deal is that there will be discussions at COAG and there will be some discussions on an ongoing basis like an estimates process within the processes of the Senate itself. Whether this is at estimates, whether there is going to be a special estimates process, is pretty unclear. But I did hear Peter Hartcher, one of the leading commentators on parliamentary issues, indicate that what has happened is that the issue of water for South Australia has been sent to what he described as 'the sinkhole of reform'—which, in his view, is COAG—and he said this was a win for the Liberal Party.

In going through this, I cannot see much that Senator Xenophon has achieved in relation to this so-called agreement. I heard Paul Kelly indicate that he felt that Senator Xenophon had overreached in his rhetoric and that what he had was a deal on process. So there will be a process to talk about South Australian water. I do not understand. This is a bit like the situation we had under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Bill, where someone who was in a very powerful position to negotiate a settlement to the issues that he is concerned about simply rolled over. If I were a South Australian resident, I would be very worried about putting all this faith in the Xenophon political party and getting so little in return—commitments to process, which mean nothing.

I noticed Senator Xenophon on the television later on. He said that, if there is no progress on the issue of water, then obviously there will be consequences. Well, if you are in the most powerful position and you fail to deal with it—it is like an industrial dispute when you are negotiating at the bargaining table and you are in dispute with the employer: there comes a time when you have got to make a call as to when your bargaining position is at its strongest and when you can actually get the employer to concede to what your members want to achieve. I did it for 27 years. You have to make some judgements about when your bargaining position is at its most powerful.

My view is that Senator Xenophon's bargaining position on such a major bill was at its most powerful and Senator Xenophon has completely failed to deliver on all the rhetoric, all the arguments, all the bluster that he has been going on with for a couple of weeks in relation to South Australian water. And if Senator Xenophon is going to be a politician who is going to try and lever one issue against another issue, if he is prepared to give up on rights for working people on an issue of water for South Australia, then he should at least try and deliver an outcome on water in South Australia. That has not happened.

The consequences that Senator Xenophon talks about are a bit like negotiating an agreement and then having a no-extra-claims clause. You have a process to deal with the agreement, you are bound by legal procedure and you threaten the boss, 'If you don't deliver, we're going to do something about it,' but there is no capacity to do anything. That is really the position that Senator Xenophon is in. When I was listening to him, it reminded me a bit of the cartoon with the mouse with a finger up in the air and the eagle is just about to take his head off. That is a bit like where Senator Xenophon is at the moment: the finger is waving, but the eagle's claws are just about there. If you ever want a lesson on how not to negotiate and if you ever want a lesson on how not to use power effectively, I am sure people in the future could write books about the Xenophon political party and their incapacity to actually deliver when they are in a powerful position to deliver on issues that are of concern to them. I am not going to the morality of trading off workers' rights against a position that you want to take, but that is exactly what Senator Xenophon has done: he has traded off his vote, it seems to me, on issues of importance to working-class people in this country, to families in this country and to building workers in this country who depend on a strong union to deliver decent wages and conditions. What Senator Xenophon has done is say, 'I've got a more important issue—that is, water to South Australia,' but there is no guarantee that water will be delivered under the process that Peter Hartcher describes as a 'sinkhole of reform'.

I am not sure that Senator Xenophon overreached. I would say to Paul Kelly, who said that Senator Xenophon had overreached, that he has not overreached. I think he was arguing his position. I do not see that as an overreach. But what he certainly has done is underachieve. Overreached—I do not think so; underachieved—I think yes; a big underachievement on this. Add that to the fair work and registered organisations deal, which is about setting up more committees. There are big underachievements in these areas.

I am not sure what Senator Xenophon is saying the consequences are, because this is the biggest bill the government has before the Senate. This is a bill that is about the coalition's ideology, about taking rights away from working people. I take the view that, if you are going to trade off workers' rights—I would never put myself in that position anyway, but if you are bent towards trading workers' rights away for another issue that you think is important, and I do not underestimate how important water is to South Australia—if you are going to set yourself up for that deal, then at least get a deal that delivers, not something that sends you, as Peter Hartcher says, back to the 'sinkhole of reform', COAG. It is an absolute joke.

I must say, if I were one of the government ministers and I had Senator Xenophon of the Xenophon political party knocking on my door and making threats, I would look back on this week and say, 'Don't worry.' If I were an adviser, I would be saying, 'Don't worry about this team. They are C grade. They're not going to deliver. They're going to jump up and down, they're going to make a lot of noise, but they're not going to deliver.' Look at the key issues that they have brought forward in these Senate sittings: on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill they delivered nothing but caved in; on water—

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

Whistleblower.

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

I will take that interjection from Senator Hinch, who is trying to help his mate—his mate in distress, I think. Senator Hinch, if you are going to do something on whistleblower, you would do whistleblower for everybody. You would do it for the banks.

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

We'll get them.

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

Senator Hinch says, 'We'll get them.' Senator Hinch, I have been around here a little while now and I do not believe you. I do not believe that you will get them, because I have not seen any strength of conviction, any character on these issues. I am watching what is happening to working people as a result of bad deals done by the Xenophon political party and other independents. I do not really believe that you will deliver much, because you have the opportunity now. This is when the government is at its weakest in terms of these bills. This is when your bargaining capacity is at its strongest, and you have delivered nothing. You have delivered process. It is not just me saying that. There are experienced people like Peter Hartcher who said that all that has basically happened is that you have deals on process. That was Paul Kelly. Everybody has to listen to Paul Kelly, don't they! I do not think so.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The singer.

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

Yes, Paul Kelly the singer, not the political analyst! For the Hansardrecord, I was being a bit funny there, hopefully! This is a classic example of getting into power and not being able to use that power effectively. That is what has happened here. Let's see what comes out of the crossbenchers tonight. My main concern—and I am very concerned about water in South Australia—in relation to this bill is that working people do not end up being pushed back and their standard of living falls; where the unions operating in the building and construction sector have no capacity to bargain effectively; where workers in every other area of industry across the country have certain rights and, under the Fair Work Building Commission and now the ABCC, if this bill goes through, you see building workers being treated as second-class citizens and ending up not being able to negotiate and bargain on issues that every other worker in the country has access to.

This looks to me to be an absolute fizzer in terms of a deal on water for South Australia. This is simply putting building workers around the country in danger of not being able to bargain effectively and not being able to bargain on the casualisation of the workforce, on temporary workers and on apprenticeships in the industry. This is really a bad bill. For Senator Xenophon and the Xenophon political party to be on the TV tonight crowing about doing a deal and giving the odds as to how the bill will go through—I appeal to Senator Xenophon. He should sit down with the Labor Party, talk through these issues and work on how we can improve what he has got and in doing that ensure that we protect workers' rights in this country.

This is bad deal after bad deal getting done here. I hope that Senator Hinch gets a better deal. I am not sure what you are going to be reporting in terms of your deals, but, if they are anything like Senator Xenophon's deals, it will be crap. It will be absolutely nothing. I hope that we can do something about this.

Minister, can you explain how this COAG process will work?

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to 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]

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

I thank Senator Leyonhjelm for moving his amendment. This amendment omits clause 7(4) so that a person seeking to rely on the health and safety exception to the definition of industrial action in clause 7(2)(c) would not have an express burden of proving that he or she held a reasonable concern about his or her health or safety. The government will support Senator Leyonhjelm's amendment. We acknowledge that it would be consistent with the position under the Fair Work Act 2009.

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

Apart from the lecture on libertarian polices, for Senator Leyonhjelm to come in here and tell us about high achievers I think is an absolute joke. I would not put 'Leyonhjelm' and 'achievement' in the same sentence, but that is another issue. The issue that we have before us is, as I understand it, the removal of the reverse onus of proof for an employee who takes industrial action. That is based on a reasonable concern about an imminent risk to health and safety. Senator Leyonhjelm, maybe you could clarify that that is basically what this is about.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a co-sponsor of this amendment I am very pleased to speak to it. In answer to Senator Cameron's question to Senator Leyonhjelm, as a co-sponsor I am very happy to say that this was an anomaly that needed to be dealt with to be brought in line with the Fair Work Act so that the reverse onus of proof of provisions did not apply in relation to the construction industry—so that the same standard that applies more broadly in the Fair Work Act in respect of not requiring a reverse onus of proof ought to apply to the construction sector. That is why, from an occupational health and safety point of view, this is a good amendment. I would have thought that even those who are implacably opposed to this bill would agree that this actually is an improvement on the current bill.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question relating to the negotiation that took place on the basis of the changes to the ABC Act. I reckon I have been here for six years and I do not think I have ever seen, in return for support for a piece of government legislation, a government respond by saying it would introduce a separate, completely unrelated, piece of legislation, as is the case here with the changes to the way the ABC conduct their board meetings.

I am interested as to whether this sets a new precedent, that from now on when we are here discussing any piece of legislation it is quite possible that in the committee stage we will be talking about completely unrelated bits of legislation in return for crossbench support. If so, the sky is the limit. Could you please explain whether this is now a precedent for trying to negotiate changes through the crossbench?

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did not jump in order to seek a clarification, because I was interested in the question of my colleague and was waiting for the minister to jump. If I have jumped in front of her I would obviously let her go first.

The CHAIR: I called you, Senator Rhiannon. The minister did not give any indication that she was going to stand.

Thank you, Chair. I was interested to read the amendment and to see some of the comments by the senator who has moved it, who often talks about his interest in a libertarian approach to his work in this place and in reducing the laws that he often argues encumber how Australians go about their life and their work. I have therefore been surprised at his willingness to support this legislation. I was interested in this amendment, in the context that it would appear that it runs cover, I suppose one could say. It appears to be doing something to the legislation but at the end of the day the legislation is still the same. I am constantly receiving new information about this legislation and what it will do. I think there is a disjunct here between the amendment we are considering and what is suggested its intent is and then the overall legislation, which will not be fundamentally altered in any way.

One aspect that has come up a lot is the issue of people's safety. That really is integral to what is going on here. We know that under this legislation it will be harder for unions to ensure that there is safety on the job. Again, that is where the end product here is very damaging to the Australian way of life. You would think a starting point for everybody here would be public safety. I thought it would be useful to share some information about the John Holland Group companies. It is a huge player in the construction industry, and it is very significant. I might come back to this later because I think it would be relevant to some of the other issues that we will be considering. It has contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, many of them awarded, in fact, by the federal government. What I have found out—I did not actually know this even though I have worked on some aspects of some of the problems with this company—is that, when it comes to the workplace, it actually has a very privileged position with regard to workers' compensation arrangements. Since 2007, it has held a self-insurance licence under the Comcare scheme. This allows it to manage all its own workers' compensation claims. That is pretty extraordinary. You have to be really trusted to do that. This means that the John Holland Group companies accept the liability to make compensation payments in cases of work related injury or death. It is one of only very few private sector businesses that have been granted that privilege. It is an extraordinary privilege and something that is significant in the whole gamut of the legislation we are considering.

But, when you look into it, the number of accidents on John Holland worksites is truly alarming. Then there is the compensation in how it plays out. Again, I would argue that it is very important that we consider this. Considering that in many of the speeches here we have discussed some of the tragic accidents that have occurred, it is relevant to share some of those with senators who are here now. In 2008, Mark McCallum, at Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal in Queensland, had his legs caught. The whole machinery ran over him and he died. John Holland was fined $180,000. In case after case you start to realise what a life is valued at under this scheme, and it makes very unpleasant reading.

Comcare v John Holland Pty Ltd in 2009 was about another fatality. Wayne Moore, at Mount Whaleback mine in Western Australia, was standing on some unsecured grid mesh. He fell into a pit and was killed. There had been two previous incidents, but John Holland had not done anything about it. In that case, the court decided to impose the maximum penalty under the act of $242,000. John Holland had given an undertaking to ensure they would 'use their best endeavours to observe and implement industry best practice in relation to work, health and safety'.

Then there was another fatality in 2011. Anthony Phelan was sinking railway tracks and could not hear the train coming because of all the noise. He had earplugs in because of the job he was doing. The hose he was using was very noisy. The train came, and he was run over—another fatality. In that case the company was fined $180,00. Also in 2011, Sam Beveridge was struck by a falling beam. The fine was $170,000 in his case.

Now let's get into the very serious injuries. In 2007, tragically, a young man suffered second-degree burns to 20 per cent of his body. They estimate it would have been much more extensive and much more serious if another employee had not intervened. The fine was $124,960. This is the other trend: serious injuries, as well as tragic fatalities.

John Holland give undertakings about what they will do, but you see time and time again the failure to comply. That is under the present system. Under the new system that we are debating here now, the regulations for these companies are virtually gone. The examples we have given of the tragic accidents, fatalities and injuries for Australian workers, backpackers visiting us and overseas workers are going to increase. We saw it when we had the ABCC last time, and that is where we are heading again this time. It is worth reminding ourselves—because I do believe that everybody must be concerned about this incredibly important issue of safety—that this industry we are talking about here, the construction industry, is one of the most dangerous in the country. It is incredibly dangerous. Although the construction industry employs about nine per cent of the nation's workforce, it accounts for 15 per cent of workplace fatalities. If people are wondering why so many of us have addressed this point and why I am addressing it now, it is because of how serious it is.

What we know is that the ABCC will be another federal government body with coercive powers to force ordinary citizens to attend and answer questions. It will be, as some people call it, the 'cop' of the construction industry, the new police force, or whatever you want to call it. But it is not just about the coercive powers. It is about the intimidation and how the culture will change. It will make it so much harder for workers to work together collectively and to organise collectively so that these tragedies that we hear of stop occurring and so we do have safe workplaces.

When I spoke in the second reading debate, I identified that there is a big lie going on here from the government quarters with regard to the reason they are bringing this in. They cannot own up that they are doing it for their corporate mates—the people they will be sharing some pretty high-powered Christmas drinks with and having a good time with. They cannot say that that is why they are doing it—to deliver for the corporations who fund them. But here we have a very clear example: John Holland. Since 1998, John Holland has been a very generous donor to the parties that make up government in this country: Liberal, National and Labor. Over $300,000 has been given. That is money that these parties use to run their election campaigns and to pay for all those glossy television ads making all the promises and making out that they will do the right thing by people, particularly working Australians, when they get into office. We are dealing here with legislation that would turn back the clock in Australia.

The construction union, the CFMEU, has a fine history—150 years—of organising workers, defending working conditions, working for improvements—improvements that affect the whole country, because they flow on. Holiday pay, lunch breaks, sick leave, and occupational health and safety did not come about because some of our forebears arrived here one day and had a good idea. They came about because people on the job organised and went on strike. Their families were often on the picket line, doing it really tough. Those conditions came out of collective action. What we are dealing with here tonight is really ugly, really ruthless. It is about winding that back. It is very relevant when we hear what Senator Leyonhjelm wants to do, whatever you think of the amendment—I am not arguing the point on that. Here we have somebody who says he stands up for a libertarian approach to how we develop our laws or unwind these laws. Let us look at what the outcome of that means, if that is what he wants to do with the ABCC, because it is a very irresponsible approach.

As my colleague Senator Richard Di Natale has identified, doing deals about the ABC and the SBS is just criminal. It is unwinding and undermining some incredibly important public institutions—institutions that I really think help bring Australians together in an incredibly important way. Having a widespread national broadcaster is absolutely integral to our work. So I am deeply disturbed with what I am seeing playing out here with amendments that are attempting to justify why this legislation should be supported. It should not be supported on any basis. If you were committed to the public good, if you were committed to ensuring that we are improving safety on the job and if you were to recognise that people have a right to come together to organise collectively for improved wages and conditions, then you would be ensuring that we do not adopt this legislation.

When you look at the Building Code that is part of the legislation—and I am sure we will come to that in detail in debates on further amendments—you see that it is effectively Work Choices by stealth. That is what is going on there. That aspect would allow the stripping of so many of the important aspects of awards—again, conditions that have been won, that make a real difference to people's lives, that mean they can spend more time with their family, that mean they might have a greater chance of getting a decent wage so that they do not have to work two and three jobs to make ends meet. That is the reality for so many people in this country today.

I have spoken at other times and I will continue to participate in this debate, because what is going on here right now is really very serious. It is so serious for people's lives, for the type of country we are and for how we will be seen. So much of this is not just damaging to people's lives; from what I have been hearing today with some of the lobbying going on, for a number of companies it will not work. They already have arrangements with their workforce—they already have their agreements in place—and it will throw all of that into disarray. There are so many reasons why we should not be agreeing with this legislation. I look forward to the rest of the debate.

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

Could I indicate that Labor supports the amendment from Senator Leyonhjelm, Senator Hinch and Senator Xenophon, but we do not support the trade-off on the ABC that has been proposed. I just want to put that on the public record. Can I also indicate that we are in a position to vote on this now.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I asked a question previously of the minister, who appears to have refused to answer it, so I will ask this question of Senator Xenophon. It is regarding the ABC changes that have been proposed by Senator Leyonhjelm. I know that Senator Xenophon has been a strong defender of the independence of the ABC and the SBS, so I suppose a question for Senator Xenophon is whether he is aware that, as a consequence of his support for this legislation, we are going to see a direct threat to the independence of the ABC. Quite possibly, the government will need to issue written directions to the SBS and the ABC forcing them to change the way that they conduct their board meetings. As we know, the ABC fiercely guards its independence from governments—and rightly so. We know that there are potentially other aspects of this deal that would see the government taking a role in reforming suppression order regimes as well.

So I am interested in whether Senator Xenophon is aware that his support for this legislation may result in these quite significant changes to the ABC. As somebody who is on the record—I think quite rightly—as well as the Greens, in supporting the independence of the ABC, I would like to know whether he is comfortable that his support for this legislation will mean those significant changes to the ABC, or whether in fact he may be prepared to reconsider his position on those amendments.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can indicate that the first I was aware of these proposed changes that Senator Leyonhjelm had negotiated—the acronym is almost the same: ABC, ABCC and SBS—was when I read media reports on it this morning. I have not looked at them in detail. I understand there is a requirement that there be, in at least half the board meetings, some community consultation. I have not considered this at length. I am more concerned about budget cuts to the ABC and SBS. I am more concerned about getting rid of Fact Check, which I thought was a good accountability measure; there were suspicions that it was removed as a result of political pressure on the ABC, which the ABC, in fairness to them, denies.

I think that at the next Senate estimates we should ask the ABC what they actually think of these changes. If the extent of the measure proposed by Senator Leyonhjelm is that the boards open it up to questions from members of the public about what they are doing, that would concern me much less than issues of budget cuts and subtle pressures on the editorial independence of the ABC and SBS, in particular in respect of their investigative reporting.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just follow up on that. It appears that Senator Xenophon has not had the opportunity to look at the impact of the amendment in detail. I wonder whether he would still be comfortable signing off on a piece of legislation when he is not fully aware of the ramifications for the ABC, in particular the issue of challenging the independence of the ABC, which clearly this amendment does, and whether he would consider waiting until the Senate estimates process to get a gauge from the ABC as to the level of their concern. As Senator Xenophon says, we cannot be sure—given this amendment was something that was negotiated in secret with Senator Leyonhjelm and we have not had the opportunity to discuss it with the ABC—so is Senator Xenophon prepared to hold off on his support for this legislation until such time as we get some confidence that this is not a significant challenge to the independence of the ABC?

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are many things that Senator Leyonhjelm proposes that I am implacably opposed to. Some of them I find quite obnoxious, and he probably says the same about some of my ideas. This does not fall into that category. If the extent of the measure were that at a board meeting they opened it up to questions from the public about what they do—the terrific work that the ABC and SBS do—then I would not find that particularly objectionable. The method of it being negotiated may be unorthodox. I would imagine that at the next Senate estimates, if not earlier, we can hear from the ABC and SBS boards as to what their views of this are. If there is a real issue in respect of that then I suppose that would be a matter for further discussion. But this did not strike me as a deal-breaker in terms of requiring the ABC and SBS boards to meet with members of the public. It did not, on the face of it, strike me as an obnoxious idea. I am more interested in ensuring that the ABC and SBS have strong funding streams. The triennial funding needs to be expanded to either five-yearly or seven-yearly funding, a rolling funding basis, which I think would be more appropriate to ensuring the independence of the ABC and SBS, and there is the question of whether we look at funding models that are used for other public broadcasters, such as the BBC in the UK. In short, it is not a deal-breaker for me. It is something that is novel, perhaps a bit unorthodox, but I think requiring the board of the two major public broadcasters in this country to spend a bit of time taking questions from the public is not such a bad idea.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will move on to another issue that may or may not be a deal-breaker—I think it was a deal-breaker a week ago—and that is the issue of the 450 billion litres of water going to the Murray. Senator Xenophon quite rightly indicated that he was concerned about that a week or so ago, when he indicated that he would not support the passage of the legislation unless there was a commitment to the 450 gigalitres into environmental flows for South Australia. Could Senator Xenophon outline whether he has indeed secured any commitment for that 450 gigalitres of water into South Australia and, if so, what form this commitment takes.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to discuss this, even though it is not directly related to the legislation. I have had numerous discussions with both the Prime Minister and the South Australian Premier, the Hon. Jay Weatherill, in relation to this issue. In fact, I spoke to Premier Weatherill about these matters less than an hour ago. The Prime Minister forwarded a letter to the honourable Mr Weatherill earlier today, a copy of which was forwarded to me and to other basin first ministers. That is something that I have put online, with the permission of the parties involved, as I was copied in to it. It seems to me that there has been real progress made. I was concerned over the comments made by the federal water minister. I have had numerous discussions with the South Australian water minister, the Hon. Ian Hunter. I could say parenthetically that, despite the publicity about Mr Hunter's language, not once has he used a profanity in all my discussions with him in the last 10 days.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll have to speak to him about that.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You may provoke him to use profanities, Senator Gallacher.

I am very happy to table, in due course, the letter from the Prime Minister. It is online. But it now is the case that the issue of the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, something that the Australian Greens had a very strong and passionate interest in, as have I, over a number of years, is now elevated to the status of first ministers—to the Prime Minister, premiers and the Chief Minister of the ACT. So it is now going to be on the COAG agenda twice a year. It will now be subject to an additional Senate estimates hearing twice a year, in the cross-portfolio estimates, which will allow a significant degree of scrutiny of the plan and its progress, and I am aware that Premier Weatherill and Prime Minister Turnbull have had a number of discussions about this in recent days.

There is more work to be done. You cannot simply turn on the tap with respect to the 450 gigalitres, but you can make commitments and progress with respect to the water efficiency measures, whereby $1.78 billion was set aside. That is something that, as Treasurer Morrison reiterated to me today, is in a special account. It is not something that can be taken away. It goes beyond forward estimates; $1.58 billion of that is for the water efficiency measures in respect of the 450 gigalitres, for those on-farm efficiencies, and $200 million is to deal with issues of constraints.

The important issue is that if there has been any slowing down of the plan or there has not been that political will, then there is what has happened in recent days and the commitment that this will now be elevated to the top of the agenda of COAG twice a year, at a first ministers level, and will be elevated to a greater degree of scrutiny at Senate estimates. And of course I will continue to work constructively with Premier Weatherill to ensure that the plan is implemented fully and on time. I am reassured not just by the discussions I have had with the Prime Minister but also by the letter to Premier Weatherill, the commitment to a new process that we have never had before and my discussions with Premier Weatherill and South Australian water minister Ian Hunter.

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

I must indicate, again, that Labor is ready to vote on the Leyonhhjelm amendment. However, the issue that I did indicate earlier was that we have heard reports about the deal on this part of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 in relation to the ABC. I have not seen any written documentation on what the deal is. This is pretty typical of how this has been operating this week, both on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Bill and this bill. Deals are done behind closed doors. We come to the Senate. We are not sure what the deals are. But we are asked to vote on these issues.

I think it is appropriate that Senator Di Natale has been asking questions in relation to the ABC, because we know that the position of many of the extremists in the coalition is that they would love to see the demise of the ABC. You only have to be at Senate estimates over the years, listening to some of the grumpier extremists on that side of the chamber, in there sticking it into the ABC because they dare to run programs that are progressive, that support LGBTI people and paint them in a decent light. You just have to watch what they do week in, week out. That is why I would think that some would be very concerned about the implications of this deal.

Again, I have not seen the deal—I am not sure whether it is online—because I have been in here for some time. So, Senator Xenophon, are you prepared to table now—because we will be dealing with all these issues—all the agreements that you have signed off with the government on all related matters to this bill? I think that is important, so that we know what has been done. I also think it is important that this Senate actually protects the ABC. It is as if the ABC were the dominant broadcaster around the country, when in reality there is the Murdoch press, there is the Fairfax press, there are all of those TV stations owned by multibillionaires putting out all sorts of clearly biased views on issues. Yet the ABC is the one that is accused of being too left-wing. The ABC is accused of not having enough extreme right-wing propaganda on the ABC. Well, I thought the ABC had been set up exactly to make sure that there was a balance—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Balance'.

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

a clear view on the news, unbiased, not what Rupert Murdoch wants you to hear, not what Kerry Stokes wants you to hear, but exactly to report on the news and report on current affairs issues. You just have to watch Senator Macdonald, every time you talk about the ABC—I have sat through many, many estimates committees where Senator Macdonald, in his usual manner, is coming after the ABC on programs that they have run, on various issues. It all has to do with Senator Macdonald's extreme right-wing agenda.

So, I reckon this is an issue we have to be very careful about. We need to make sure we know what we are talking about in relation to the ABC deal that has been put in place. I again draw your attention to the fact that we have come here tonight and deals have been signed off in the back rooms and are being presented here as a fait accompli. Well, I have to say, I do not think the deals have been very good. I think they have been deals that the coalition must be rubbing their hands over, because no pressure has been put on the coalition to actually deliver on water. And I go back again to what Peter Hartcher said—that all that has been achieved is referral to the sinkhole of reform, and that is COAG. And there will be some report that could be done at estimates anyway. None of the issues could not have been dealt with by estimates.

Labor is very proud of the ABC and how the ABC has represented the news and current affairs and issues of public importance to the country and the community over many, many years. I do not want to end up in the same position as some other countries where you do not have a strong national broadcaster because the national broadcaster is intimidated by right-wing extreme views coming out of a government with no leader, a rudderless government where the extremists have got control and where the former Prime Minister, Mr Tony Abbott, is setting the agenda. Day in and day out, month in and month out, he is out there actually determining what has got to be done, where it should be done, how it should be done and when it should be done.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Temporary Chair, on a point of order: I know in committee we allow a lot of latitude, but unless we have moved on since I came down from listening to it on my monitor we are talking about an amendment on reverse onus of proof. I am not sure what Tony Abbott or the ABC has got to do with any of that. I am just wondering if you could ask the senator to stick to the subject before the chair.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the matter before the committee, but as you are aware, Senator Macdonald, debate can be wideranging.

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

Through you, Chair, to Senator Macdonald: if you had been actually been listening to the debate, you would understand that a deal has been done. That deal has been done in relation to getting this actual amendment through the Senate. The amendment is clearly linked to changes to the ABC, and Labor is simply saying to Senator Xenophon, 'Table all the agreements. Table all the documents you have in relation to the agreements that you have signed off. Let's have a look at them. Let's understand the context of where we are in relation to the deals that have been done.' I am looking at these so-called deals and it seems to me that it is capitulation. This is not dealing; it is capitulation. When you capitulate to the extreme right wing of the coalition, you will not get any sense out of them on any future issue you bring to them. They know that you will capitulate, they know that you will blink and they know that you are not going to deliver on the threats that you make. That is why Labor is so concerned to understand what is behind the agreement to take rights away from workers in relation to this bill. Labor is saying to Senator Xenophon, 'Why would you take rights away from workers when you could not deliver anything more than a talkfest about the South Australian water supply? You could not do anything better than that.'

This one is an amendment that we can agree to. We can agree to this amendment and we will agree to the amendment, but we want to make it clear to the Australian public that our agreement to this amendment is not based on some public Star Chamber every time the ABC board meets where you are going to have every right-wing ratbag from around Australia coalescing on the ABC board to give them a touch up so that they get the message that their programs should be right wing based and that they need more Sky-News-after-seven-o'clock type programs. What good is the rubbish that goes on Sky News after seven o'clock at night to the public? I actually saw it tonight; it is after six o'clock that the rubbish starts. It is early on sitting days.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is wrong with Richo? Don’t you like Richo?

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

I will take the interjection on whether I like Richo.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Kristina Keneally?

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

Kristina Keneally is on before seven o'clock when all the loons come out. They all come out with their right-wing rhetoric, banging the table, saying how bad it is that the working class have got unions to look after them, how bad it is that the Labor Party understands the science of climate change, how bad it is that people are concerned about CO2 emissions from the coal industry and how we should simply let the bosses get away with whatever the bosses want. You have just got to listen to that. Well, we do not want the ABC to turn into Sky News—certainly not after seven o'clock. Some of the programs on Sky are pretty good, but after seven o'clock I do not know what happens at Sky News. The werewolves come out!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Peter Beattie comes on.

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

Peter Beattie is there. I will take that interjection from Senator Macdonald. Peter Beattie comes on and who is it about with? It is the Hon. Peter Reith—'Mr Work Choices'. It is great that Peter Reith is there to try to control the werewolves of Work Choices. Surely, it is good that Peter Reith is there, but I would say to Peter Reith, 'Don't get infected by the post-seven-o'clock lunacy that takes place on Sky News.' We need an ABC that can reflect unbiased, genuine news to the Australian public and can provide unbiased, genuine current affair programs, not programs that say, 'Here we go; let's get stuck into the poor welfare recipient in some of the lower socioeconomic areas in this country.' That is not what we want. That is definitely not what we want!

So while we support this amendment—and I indicate that we are prepared to vote on this amendment now—I just want to indicate that we are not party to the dirty deal that has been done to force the ABC board to face up to all the right-wing extremists around the country or to get after the ABC. All the clones of Senator Macdonald out there, frothing at the mouth, with their aprons on to keep their suits clean—frothing, frothing against the ABC! What good will that do for broadcasting in this country? My view is that it will do nothing.

Again, I say to Senator Xenophon, if you are going to do dirty deals behind the scenes, let's see what the dirty deals are so that if we do agree with one of the amendments we will deal with the amendment. We will deal with this amendment right now. We are happy to deal with that amendment. But we need to know what the implications are for the bill down the track, what the implications are for the ABC, what the implications are for good broadcasting in this country and what the implications are for the people of South Australia, who will get nothing—absolutely nothing—but a talkfest, what Peter Hartcher described as the sinkhole of reform. That was well said.

Paul Kelly said that Senator Hanson was now a more effective and straightforward politician then Nick Xenophon. If it gets to that stage, Senator Xenophon, I have to tell you that you are not doing something right. I do not agree with everything that Paul Kelly says, but these are the comments that he has made tonight.

So there are real problems. We would like to vote on this. We would again say to Senator Xenophon to table all the documentation that he has in relation to the dirty deals that have been done to allow workers to have their rights stripped in relation to what I think is not a lot. That is our position and we would like to vote on this amendment.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did want to contribute to this important amendment, but before I do that can I just respond—this is a debate—to Senator Cameron. What did he call me? A 'right-wing ideologue'? Well, I have always classed myself in the moderate wing of the Liberal Party—not that we have factions within the Liberal Party. But I have always classed myself on the Left of the party. Now, I am fortunate that a lot of the things that some of my other colleagues raise I agree with, because we do not have these rigid factions like the Labor Party or the Greens political party. We are a party for all people.

I just wonder what Senator Cameron is on about. That was a 15-minute filibuster. He said about 15 times that he wanted to vote on the bill, but he kept talking for 15 minutes on a fairly simple amendment. But for some reason, Senator Cameron went off onto the ABC, South Australia and Pauline Hanson—and I can see Senator Xenophon trembling in his boots as a result of his vicious attack on him, saying that Pauline Hanson is more effective. That was a real killer, Senator Cameron!

Can I just say in relation to the ABC—Senator Cameron has been speaking about it; I was not going to, but this is a debate and he has raised the issue—that I wonder what Senator Cameron has against Sky News, when we have Peter Beattie, the former Labor Premier of Queensland, on Sky News? We have Graham Richardson, who I had the misfortune to be in this chamber with for a number of years many centuries ago. I know Richo, and I know what he is like. You should love him, Senator Cameron—although I suspect he was in the other faction to you.

And what about that respected former leader of the Labor Party, Mr Latham? He is on Sky News regularly. He was a revered leader of the Labor Party and we all think he is pretty good these days, actually! We agree with you Labor Party people! You are right with Mr Latham; he is quite an impressive fellow. And Kristina Keneally—I think she was a wonderful leader in New South Wales. I do not understand why the Labor Party dumped her. Why did they execute Kristina Keneally? I thought she was one of the best premiers that the Labor Party had had in New South Wales for a long period of time and yet the Labor Party got rid of her.

These people are all people on Sky News, and I do not understand what Senator Cameron has against all those Labor luminaries, unless it is of course that they are in a different faction to him—unless they are not in the CFMEU faction that I think Senator Cameron is in, and certainly Senator Wong is in.

On the issue of the ABC board going out into regional and rural Queensland, remote from the capital cities: I think it is a wonderful idea. I love the ABC. Can I just say that I love the ABC in regional Australia. They are doing what they are supposed to do by their charter, and I congratulate the communications minister for overseeing such a wonderful organisation in country and rural Australia. ABC Rural does not always agree with me—they do not always run me—but they are at least balanced. And I cannot say the same for what comes out of Ultimo.

I had the misfortune on Sunday morning to be riding my bike around and I had my earphones in—they were on ABC NewsRadio and they were broadcasting Insiders. I was too intent on my bike ride to stop and take the earphones out so I had to listen to it. It is the first time I have heard Insiders for about 10 years. I refuse to listen to it because if I want to hear that sort of stuff I will go along to the local ALP branch meeting. As I said on my Facebook page, the greatest thing about Insiders is that it means that Labor Party people do not have to go to a branch meeting on Sunday morning; they just turn on Insiders. They get all the info from the ALP and they get all the bias—the balanced board they always have! The bloke that runs that—wasn't he a former Labor Party staffer? Is that right? That Barrie Cassidy?

As I said, I do not bother. I would not listen to it normally, but I was forced to listen to it on Sunday morning and it has not changed in 10 years. It is just the Ultimo branch of the ALP, spewing out all the ALP lines all the time. At least on Sky News we get a little—is Bolt on Sky News? I do not watch it—

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So we get Bolt on Sky News. That is one side, and then on the other side we get Beattie, Keneally, Latham and all those Labor luminaries. At least on Sky there is a little bit of balance, but on the ABC it is just wall-to-wall Labor Party and lefty journalists who are renowned for their support for the ALP. If the ABC were to go out into non-Ultimo Australia, they would realise that there is a whole new world out there. The board would benefit from the views of people in other parts of Australia about the ABC and the one-sided approach they have. Someone mentioned Four Corners before. Four Cornershave done some good work at times, but usually they do not. I remember that, as minister for forestry, we had occasion to call them to order. I know that has happened a couple of times since, including that disgraceful program trying to destroy the Tasmanian salmon industry. I know Senator Bilyk would have been appalled at that. I am sure you would have complained to the ABC in your state, Senator Bilyk, because they were trying to destroy one of the major industries of Tasmania.

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

You did complain? I am sure you would have, Senator Bilyk. Thanks for confirming that. It is important that all Tasmanian senators—and I know Senator Lambie would have too, and I am sure even Senator McKim might have been able to avoid his bias—

An honourable senator interjecting—

Look, when you are dealing with the salmon industry in Tasmania, that is Tasmania. That program was so inaccurate, so vicious and so biased that even Senator McKim would have been unhappy with it. Ten or 15 years ago they did the same thing with forestry, and were forced to apologise.

Unfortunately, someone mentioned earlier that it is my birthday. Yesterday, Senator Cameron and Senator McKim referred to me 95 times in debate—my staff counted this up. I think they must like me or something.

A government senator: You are very popular.

I am only very popular with the Labor Party and the Greens, I have to say! But thanks for thinking about me and talking about me so often. I have my staff counting again today. I think today we are up to about 73, and the day is not anywhere near finished. I really find that very flattering, so thank you to the Labor Party and the Greens for your constant references to me.

Now, unlike Senator Cameron, I want to talk about the amendment before the chair. The amendment before the chair is about reverse onus of proof. Unlike members of the Labor Party, in our party we have a free voice. We are not lobotomised zombies—as some prominent Labor person referred to the ALP caucus; I do not want to mention names—when it comes to policy discussions. In our party, if we feel strongly enough about a matter we can cross the floor. We can certainly talk about it in our party room. There were a couple of issues about superannuation—I do not want to give away what is said in our party room—where I did say to the Treasurer, 'If these retrospective elements go through, you'll find me on the other side of the chamber, even if I am the only one.' And we are allowed to do that. Fortunately, it did not come to that, because there were amendments made that did away with the retrospective elements that I was concerned about. But we are allowed to do that in our party, and we do have these robust policy discussions in our party and in our backbench policy committees. We do not just sit there like lobotomised zombies and put a hand up when the Prime Minister says, 'Nod'. We do not do that in our party.

An opposition senator interjecting—

I am getting to the reverse onus of proof. When I saw this in this legislation, I was concerned. I do not like reverse onus of proof. In some matters it is essential. With some security issues, it is unavoidable.

Senator Di Natale interjecting—

Senator Di Natale, we have been in various committee hearings looking at legislation, particularly in relation to security matters, and I think you and some of your colleagues have raised these issues. But when it comes to security matters, when it comes to the safety of other Australians—

Senator Lambie interjecting—

Senator Lambie, we have to look after their safety, and in some instances you do have to impose laws that are more draconian than others. Without labouring the point, there is a time when that has to happen.

I know you were all praising Mr Castro before, so I will just divert a little bit. Senator Di Natale, you were praising Castro. There is an author in the Adelaide Advertiser called Caleb Bond. I do not know him, but he summed up Castro very well:

He was an evil, horrible man who impoverished a nation and killed many of his people.

He established concentration camps in which undesirable people were forced to work and subjected to a litany of abuses. The camps were crowded and the detainees slept on dirt.

Among the people thrown in those camps were homosexuals, who were described by the Castro government as "sick".

In fact, Castro said a homosexual could never be a proper communist because their sexuality "clashes with the concept we have of what a militant communist must be".

They were placed in camps to be "rehabilitated". Converted, in other words.

This is the guy that you said was a pretty good guy.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rice, on a point of order?

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On relevance. Can you please ask Senator Macdonald to keep to the question under consideration?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes, we are having a wide-ranging debate, but I do ask Senator Macdonald to address the amendment.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think he's getting dementia.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie is talking about dementia; she must have been looking in her mirror.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that the best shot you've got?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, you are pretty good at throwing around the insults. I suggest you have a look in the mirror once or twice. I am talking about human rights and the reverse onus of proof. I take those sorts of things very seriously. But Mr Castro did not, and I am just reminding you, Senator Di Natale, that this is a guy who you said was a great statesman and leader. But, with reverse onus of proof, I have always been concerned—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Di Natale, on a point of order.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is important that Senator Macdonald firstly address the question at hand but, secondly, he might want to reflect on his comments and check the facts, because he is misleading the parliament. I have not said a peep about Castro. He might want to check his facts.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Macdonald, could you address your remarks through the chair.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My colleagues tell me perhaps it was not Senator Di Natale as leader of the Greens, but one of his party. I read which one it was but it went in my mind and straight out again. Anyway, it was suggested that Castro was a bit of a statesman and I am just telling you what he was.

Getting back to the amendment that I want to speak about, but I am being attacked and the interjections are diverting me all the time, I am concerned about the reverse onus of proof, particularly in a bill like this one. I think that reverse onus of proof in security legislation is a very important and very serious thing designed to protect Australians but it is perhaps not justified in bills such as this. I have not heard from the minister so I do not know what the government's position is, but I will be supporting this amendment. I think the amendment proposed by Senator Leyonhjelm on the reverse onus of proof is one that does deserve the support of the chamber, and of the parliament, and I would certainly be urging my colleagues to support it. As I say, perhaps the minister has already mentioned the government's position; frankly, I do not know what it is, but I would be urging the government to accept this amendment because I think it does improve the bill and it adds to that suite of measures that we as a small 'l' liberal party, a party that believes in freedom and believes in the rule of law, would support. We understand these things and that is why I think it is worthwhile adopting this amendment to fix that reverse onus of proof issue. I would certainly urge the chamber to support the amendment.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to continue with some questions for Senator Xenophon, who again has indicated that he is likely to support this bill subject to the passage of amendments. I want to clarify two points. The first point is that Senator Xenophon, as I understand it, said last week he would not support this legislation unless 450 gigalitres was going to be returned to the Murray, and today he is saying he is going to support it in return for having the Murray listed as an agenda item on COAG. I want to be clear if that is the nature of the deal that he has. Last week Senator Xenophon made it clear—I think it was a sensible position—that he would not support this legislation, because he was so concerned about the 450 gigalitres being taken from the Murray, and now it looks like the concession he has achieved is that we have it as an agenda item for a meeting at some point in the future.

The second point I want to ask Senator Xenophon about is the protection of local jobs, and in particular the amendment that the Greens are putting forward on steel procurement. I know Senator Xenophon has expressed significant concern about this—it is a big issue in South Australia, and indeed in New South Wales. I know that Senator Xenophon did say during the last election campaign that he was very keen to see an overhaul of government procurement laws to ensure that Australian steel is used in taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects. We agree—we think that is a very important change. We recognise that there are significant jobs in Australia that are dependent on the steel industry, in particular a steel industry that works efficiently and that can be one of the most efficient steel industries anywhere in the world.

The Greens have put forward a steel procurement amendment to give force to Senator Xenophon's words, and that is to ensure that we mandate the use of local steel in a number of projects. We have, for example, costings that indicate if we were to mandate local steel in New South Wales we would get 10,000 jobs from that decision, 5,000 of them in the Illawarra. Of course in South Australia, in response to the Arrium crisis, we know it is critical that we support the local steel industry there. In light of that I am very keen to know whether Senator Xenophon will be supporting the Greens amendment to give force to his words—that is, ensuring that we have government procurement laws that mandate the use of Australian steel in Australian projects.

I would like Senator Xenophon to address both of those issues—firstly to confirm that, even though last week he said he would not deal with the government unless 450 gigalitres were returned to the Murray, today he is saying he is happy with this simply being listed as an agenda item at a COAG meeting, and secondly to clarify whether he will support the Greens local procurement amendment.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be as brief as I can. I thank Senator Di Natale for his questions. Firstly, in relation to water, I remind Senator Di Natale—he was not here at the time—that in February 2009 I secured a commitment from the Rudd government, after some considerable negotiation—it was a very long night on 12 or 13 February 2009—of almost $1 billion for the River Murray. There was $500 million in water buybacks, $200 million for stormwater recycling, which has impacts in urban areas and regional areas as well, and $200 million for river communities, as well as enhanced irrigation exit packages. That was hard-fought, and I do not think anyone could question the enormous benefits to river communities and to the environment of that biggest amount of water buyback. That is something that met with a lot of resistance at the time, but I got it through and it was done with absolute goodwill with the then Rudd government and with the support of the Australian Greens as well.

The position is this: the package, the plan, has been confirmed in terms of commitments by Prime Minister Turnbull to Premier Weatherill. The COAG process is important, as is the estimates process, but it is important to understand that my colleagues Rebekha Sharkie MP, the member for Mayo, who is absolutely passionate about the health of the river because her electorate encompasses the Lower Lakes, the lungs of the system, where it is so important to have decent water flows, as well as Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore and Senator Stirling Griff are absolutely committed to and passionate about the health of the river system. So, in relation to this, I am satisfied with the correspondence between the Prime Minister and Premier Weatherill about the commitments made and about the processes put in place. I am satisfied that this is a reset, with first ministers—the Prime Minister and premiers—involved in this process.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Senator Cameron, stop being so rude. I listened to you in silence. I just want to get on with this and answer the question, in fairness to Senator Di Natale.

My position has not changed; our position has not changed. We now have a process in place to ensure that these water efficiency measures can be carried out and that the money is spent. I am satisfied with this and I am also satisfied as a result of my discussions with the South Australian government. South Australia is the basin state that is particularly vulnerable to any drought, because we are at the end of the river system, and we know from great environmentalists and from those who are passionate about water, such as Professor Mike Young at the University of Adelaide, that great river systems die from the mouth up. To me, this was an important measure that was announced today. Of course, you cannot turn on the tap for 450 gigalitres instantly. That needs to be done by ensuring that there is a process of accountability in respect of this. I do not say this lightly to Senator Di Natale: we will be monitoring this, we will want to see the progress and the government is aware of how important this is to us—to my colleagues here in the Senate and to Rebekha Sharkie MP.

In relation to the issue of protection of local jobs, that amendment has not yet been moved. I do want to speak to it because I do want to ask Senator Cormann to table some documents in relation to the issue of procurement. I am very grateful to Senator Di Natale for raising that question. I also pay tribute to the work that Senator Rhiannon has done on the issue of procurement and local jobs.

At the moment, I understand that before us is an amendment in respect of reversal of onus of proof. I do want to have an opportunity to discuss issues of procurement, either when we are discussing Senator Rhiannon's amendment or at an earlier time, because I do want to ask Senator Cormann for documents to be tabled. I have even made a few copies myself here to make it easier for my colleagues both in the crossbench and in the opposition to get access to those documents about some very important changes to procurements that I think will make a very real difference to Australian jobs. I hope that has answered the questions satisfactorily for now, and I hope we can move to vote on the amendment that I have cosponsored with Senators Leyonhjelm and Hinch.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prior to the recent historic double dissolution election I voted against what is known as the ABCC legislation. I voted against these bills because I believed that to do so was in the best interests of Tasmanians, despite the double dissolution threat from the government and knowing that our jobs were on the line. The JLN policy, which I took to the election, was to oppose the legislation. You know what? You can make all the amendments that you like, but the bottom line is that no matter what colour lipstick you put on the pig, it is still a pig.

This legislation is bad law which erodes and attacks the fundamental democratic civil rights and liberty, under the Liberal government's pretext of 'tackling lawlessness and intimidation in the construction industry'. Well, if the government really wanted to do that—if they were serious—they would have listened to me before the last election and taken legislative steps to deregister the CFMEU and bring about a national ICAC. You want to talk about corruption? You want to talk about lawlessness? You think it only happens in the construction industry. Have a look what is happening in New South Wales. It is in your own party!

It is not just me who is saying this legislation is bad law. The Law Council of Australia, when you cut through all the lawyer talk, have effectively said that this legislation has more holes in it than a target at the shooting range. Okay, the Law Council did not use those exact words; however, they did say this about the legislation:

… it is inconsistent with those principles in many respects, including those relating to the burden of proof—

I will have a look at the amendment when it goes through—

the privilege against self incrimination, the right to silence, freedom from retrospective laws and the delegation of law making power to the executive. The Law Council's February 2016 submission also noted that it is unclear as to whether aspects of the Bill which infringe upon rights and freedoms are a necessary and proportionate response to allegations of corruption and illegal activity within the building and construction industry. For these reasons, the Law Council's primary recommendation was that the Bill not be passed in its current form.

In its latest Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee submission, the Law Council said:

The Law Council notes that the current Bill is identical in terms to the Bill before Parliament in 2013 and early 2016.

So nothing has changed. You over there did not try and fix it. You actually did not do anything. The ABCC legislation which was brought before the parliament about three years ago and then nine months ago is identical—what do you know!

This is the same legislation that gives a person of interest or witness to a crime an indemnity to murder, should they confess during one of these interviews where you lose your right to silence! How do I know that? Well that gem came from the minister's own mouth, in my office during a briefing on the ABCC legislation. It gets more bizarre. If you confess to a murder that was committed because of a dispute related to the building industry, you are granted an indemnity under this legislation. However, according to the minister, if you confess to a murder that is not related to the building industry, under questioning where you have no right to silence, you are not covered by any indemnity. More holes in it than a target at the firing range, hey! Even though I do not have any formal legal training—except for the training I received as an Australian military police member, I think it is fair to say that it is very odd that a minister can present legislation to this Senate which allows one type of murder to qualify for an indemnity while another murder does not. That situation must surely ring alarm bells for the crossbench senators sitting here listening to me right now.

So should the Law Council of Australia's previous submission on this unchanged legislation, which, in summary, allows for new coercive powers with retrospective operation, the exclusion of judicial review without proper justification, inappropriate delegations of legislative power, insufficiently defined and overly broad discretionary powers, inappropriately reversing the onus of proof in certain circumstances, and the exclusion of a particular legal practitioner from an examination. There is a lack of oversight in the process of authorising the use of extraordinary coercive information-gathering powers, and the legislation is incompatible with the right to freedom of association and the right to form and join trade unions. These are the reasons why the Law Council of Australia effectively say that this is very poor, badly written legislation.

We should be talking about the introduction of a national building licensing register to replace state-based arrangements, with a limit of one licensee per builder, and lifetime industry-wide bans imposed on those found guilty of construction-related fraud and tax evasion. Instead, we have this legislation, which the Law Council of Australia has laughed at. This legislation has no justification. It is simply designed to bash the unions, let's be honest; take away basic civil rights from ordinary citizens and blue-collar workers; and give the Liberal Party of Australia a political advantage over everyone else—or so they thought when they called an early double dissolution federal election. How did that go for you over there, by the way!

It is clear the best interests of Tasmanians are served by strongly opposing this legislation. Indeed, the average Tasmanian has little concern for this bill, to be honest. The average Tasmanian is trying to provide for their families and pay their bills, keep their jobs, find jobs for their children, access affordable and timely health care in a state public health system that is broken and badly damaged, pay their power bills, help their kids pay for their university education—thank goodness we did not deregulate universities when we are here last time—worry about the increasing lawlessness that is going on in our streets, not to mention the drugs, including ice, and the influence of organised crime going on out there while you are slashing the guts out of our Federal Police budget.

As I said, the Law Council found a number of key difficulties with this legislation. Other bodies, such as the Senate Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, have identified the same key concerns, which are, firstly, that the provisions of this bill only deal with corruption in the building and construction sector and not more broadly across various industries. Geez, why would that be! It applies a different set of industrial relations rules that apply only to persons associated with the building and construction industry. They provide new coercive powers with retrospective operation. There is exclusion of judicial review of certain decisions, without adequate justification, and contrary to a recommendation by the former Administrative Review Council. There are inappropriate delegations of legislative power, and insufficiently defined and overly broad discretionary powers. The legislation inappropriately reverses the onus of proof in certain circumstances and inappropriately prohibits entry onto premises without consent or warrant. There is a lack of oversight in the process of authorising the use of extraordinary coercive information-gathering powers. The prohibition of picketing and further restrictions on industrial actions have been found by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights to be incompatible with the right to freedom of association and the right to form and join trade unions. The Australian Building and Construction Commissioner may exclude a particular legal practitioner from an examination if the commissioner concludes on reasonable grounds and in good faith that the representative either will or may prejudice the investigation.

As I have mentioned before, during the last sitting of this parliament I had a meeting with Senator Cash and her legal adviser, and I raised the Law Council's concerns. We also talked about section 62 of the bill, which takes away the right to silence of an Australian citizen who appears before the commission. Section 62 allows the government to charge and have imprisoned an Australian citizen for six months should that citizen choose to say nothing and exercise the right to silence during an official interview. And Senator Macdonald is saying he believes in freedoms! Jesus. The section is found on page 49 of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and reads:

62 Offence for failing to comply with examination notice

A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person has been given an examination notice; and

(b) the person fails:

(i) to give information or produce a document in accordance with the notice; or

(ii) to attend to answer questions in accordance with the notice; or

(iii) to take an oath or make an affirmation, when required to do so under subsection 61(5); or

(iv) to answer questions relevant to the investigation while attending as required by the examination notice.

Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months

A couple of things came out of our discussion with the minister regarding section 62. As it is written, we are not sure if the imprisonment for six months for exercising the right to silence is a mandatory, maximum or minimum period of time. So, as soon as I have finished, if Minister Cash can get up and answer that, that would be great. It is bad enough that this extreme legislation is being entrusted to public servants with doubts over their qualifications, but to have a question mark over whether is it a minimum, maximum or mandatory sentence is just plain careless and an example of poor legislative drafting.

The minister tried to calm my office's fears about removing a basic civil liberty from Australian citizens, such as the right to silence, by informing me that the government had arranged for indemnity from prosecution for any crime should someone be forced to incriminate themselves during those extreme interrogations. When asked about the sorts of crimes that this indemnity covered, the minister was forced to admit that, even if someone had committed a murder but confessed to that crime during an ABCC official interview, they would receive an indemnity—as long as the murder was related to the building industry. But, if you have committed a murder that is not related to the building industry and confess during an interview covered by the provision of the ABCC legislation, then you do not qualify for an indemnity.

This response raised eyebrows at the Law Council. Firstly, it is ridiculous that this parliament is being asked to support legislation which gives you an indemnity from prosecution for murder, should you confess to it during an interview. And, secondly, it is completely bizarre that the minister and her legal adviser could suggest that one type of murder qualifies you for indemnity while another type of murder does not. According to this minister, if you bury the body under cement and say the murder was related to the building industry, then guess what? You have an indemnity. But if you bury the body in the woods and the murder was carried out because of a non-building related activity, you do not get given an indemnity from prosecution. And that was the point where it became very clear that this legislation was drafted by a room full of monkeys and a typewriter. It is bad, poorly drafted legislation. No matter how many times you go back to draft it and no matter how many amendments you put through, it is crap. If it was not crap, you would have got it right in the first place and we would not have had to go to a double D.

I admit there was a period when, in good faith, I would have passed this legislation had the government met certain conditions: deregistration of the CFMEU, the viewing of the royal commission secret reports—which I hope all the crossbenchers have actually looked at because if you have not you have not done your job and you have neglected to gather all the evidence—and the establishment of a federal ICAC. What is wrong with the establishment of a federal ICAC? What are you scared of over there? What are you scared of? After Brandis, I will tell you what, you should be shaking in your boots. Your integrity leaves a lot left to be questioned.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am well aware that Senator Lambie has problems at times with civility in this place, but could she refer to the senators by their correct titles, not just their surnames please.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie, I do remind you to refer to senators in the chamber by their correct title.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will do that. I am in a unique position to pass judgement on Commissioner Heydon's secret reports and findings. Unlike most Australians and politicians, I have read Commissioner Heydon's secret reports. They were fiction; they were a lie. There were no grave threats to the Australian state. If there was, ASIO would have been all over the Heydon royal commission like a rash. When I questioned ASIO at estimates about Heydon's secret reports, no copy had been referred to them, nor had ASIO even thought of asking for a copy. A royal commissioner who agreed to participate in a Liberal Party fundraiser lied to the Australian parliament and the Australian people about the seriousness of the threat to the Australian state through his investigations into union and other corruption. And this is a debate when the question 'Why?' must be asked.

According to Parliamentary Library research that I recently commissioned, the four big banks—CBA, NAB, Westpac and ANZ—over a five-year period from 2010-11 to the present day have donated $2.56 million to the Liberals, Nationals and LNP. That is why you will not see a banker lose their right to silence to prove their innocence if they are accused of an offence or crime in the finance industry. But, if this legislation passes, you will see a blue-collar worker lose their right to silence and the right of a presumption of innocence, while bankers are treated separately. Indeed, this law is so bad that citizens accused of murder and rape will have more rights than a construction worker if summoned under the ABCC legislation.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948 states in article 7:

All are equal before the law and are entitled … to equal protection of the law.

My question to you is: as it stands written, we are not sure if the imprisonment for six months for exercising a right to silence is the mandatory minimum or maximum period of time. (Time expired)

Question negatived.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Nick Xenophon Team amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8010 together:

(1) Clause 5, page 12 (after line 29), after the definition of WHS Accreditation Scheme, insert:

Working Group means the Security of Payments Working Group established by section 32A.

[Security of Payments Working Group]

(2) Page 28 (after line 9), at the end of Chapter 2, add:

Part 4—Security of Payments Working Group

32A Security of Payments Working Group

(1) The Security of Payments Working Group is established by this section.

(2) The functions of the Working Group are the following:

(a) monitoring the impact of the activities of the Commission on the conduct and practices of building industry participants in relation to their compliance with laws (security of payment laws) of the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories that relate to the security of payments that are due to persons in relation to building work;

(b) making recommendations to the ABC Commissioner about policies, procedures or programs that could be implemented to improve compliance by building industry participants with security of payment laws;

(c) making recommendations to the Minister about any matter that the Minister requests the Working Group to consider;

(d) any other functions conferred on the Working Group by the rules.

(2) The resignation takes effect on the day it is received by the Minister or, if a later day is specified in the resignation, on that later day.

32G Termination of appointment

The Minister may terminate the appointment of a member of the Working Group appointed by the Minister:

(a) for misbehavior; or

(b) if the member is unable to perform the duties of his or her office because of physical or mental incapacity; or

(c) if the member:

  (i) becomes bankrupt; or

  (ii) takes steps to take the benefit of any law for the relief of bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or

  (iii) compounds with one or more of his or her creditors; or

  (iv) makes an assignment of his or her remuneration for the benefit of one or more of his or her creditors; or

(d) if the member is absent, except on leave of absence, for 14 consecutive days or for 28 days in any 12 months.

32H Other terms and conditions

A member of the Working Group appointed by the Minister holds office on the terms and conditions (if any) in relation to matters not covered by this Act that are determined by the Minister.

32J Meetings

(1) The Chair must convene:

(a) such meetings of the Working Group as are, in his or her opinion, necessary for the performance of its functions; and

(b) at least 4 meetings of the Working Group in each financial year.

(2) The procedures to be followed at a meeting of the Working Group are to be determined by the Chair.

32K Annual report

The Chair must, as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year, prepare and give to the Minister, for presentation to the Parliament, a report on:

(a) the membership of the Working Group during the financial year; and

(b) the operations of the Working Group during the financial year.

[Security of Payments Working Group]

The issue of security of payments has been a vexed one and seemingly insoluble for many years. Back in 2004, at the time when the Cole royal commission findings were handed down, Commissioner Cole recommended we have a national scheme to deal with security of payments and that the current system in place of security of payments was woefully inadequate.

The report that was done by the Senate economics references committee into insolvency in the Australian construction industry, headed I just want to be paid, was tabled in December 2015. Senator Cameron is to be commended for playing the key leading role in driving that report. That report found a litany of failures across the country when it comes to security of payments legislation. It is done on an ad hoc basis. It is done on a state-by-state basis with varying schemes and complexities. In some cases it works, but in many cases it does not. One example of where it did not work was as a result of the Newman government in 2014 amending, in a very retrograde way, the security of payments laws—they were working quite well—as a result of pressure, I believe, from the big end of town to make it much more difficult for subcontractors to be paid.

This amendment establishes a process. I know that some will say, 'Well, it's just a process.' There are constitutional issues as to whether we can actually amend this at a federal level, but what we can do is drive the reform with a security of payments working group, which is designed to complement the new section 11 of the Building Code. The group will be made of employee, employer and contractor representatives and is required to meet at least four times a year. The group will monitor the impact the ABCC has on the conduct and practices of building industry participants in relation to security of payments legislation. A requirement to comply with security of payments legislation is not a new feature of the Building Code; however, the ABCC—or the FWBC in the past—has not undertaken any serious compliance work to ensure contractors are complying with their obligations.

As I mentioned previously, this amendment works in tandem with the new section 11D of the Building Code. It creates a new clause that strengthens the requirement for code-covered entities to comply with security of payments legislation. While the amendment could be criticised in that it repeats what is already contained in various state and territory security of payments legislation, the laws that the ABCC will be tasked with undertaking include compliance activities to ensure contractors are complying with their security of payment obligations. If, for example, during a building code audit an ABCC investigator is told by a subcontractor that they are having difficulty obtaining a progress payment from a contractor, formal compliance activity can be undertaken, together with other amendments that I am moving to ensure impartiality—to ensure that the work of the ABCC must be carried out in an impartial and effective manner which lends itself to administrative law remedies—that will give it more teeth.

This addition to the building code, together with the establishment of a security of payments working group, is designed to effect cultural and attitudinal change in the industry in relation to security of payments. Contractors will take security of payments much more seriously once they realise that not complying with security of payments legislation may result in an exclusion sanction. I would like to indicate again that the work that Senator Cameron did—and I was part of that committee; I attended a number of hearings—on insolvency in the Australian construction industry, which brought into issue security of payments legislation, was pretty fundamental work. I commend it to anyone on any side of politics to read this report for its substance, for the evidence that was given and for the conclusions that were reached.

I want to advance this. We have had this since 2004; the Cole royal commission said we had to get on with security of payments laws. Nothing substantive has been done in relation to this. I see this as a very useful and significant step forward to make an actual difference to security of payments laws. Senator Cameron, whatever differences we have, I think we are on a unity ticket when it comes to making sure that we have strong security of payments laws in this country. I would like to hear the minister's attitude to this amendment and on practical measures to resource this working group—to go through a process where we can have some real substance to advance this at a national level.

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

I would like to indicate that I am a bit disappointed that Senator Xenophon has reached another backroom deal that will not actually fix the problem. This security of payments working group is a working group. Senator Xenophon spoke about the Economics References Committee report which was called 'I just want to be paid'. Workers, contractors, businesses in that industry just want to be paid. What this does, as I read it, is set up a working group to monitor

the impact of the activities of the Commission on the conduct and practices of building industry participants in relation to their compliance with laws ( security of payment laws ) of the Commonwealth, the States and the Territories that relate to the security of payments that are due to persons in relation to building work;

It goes on to say: 'make recommendations to the ABC commissioner'.

Making recommendations to the worst public servant this country has ever seen—making recommendations to Nigel Hadgkiss, a discredited, biased political operative. How dumb can this get! This guy has no interest in any of these issues. He is the person who said that he has 'core business and nothing else matters'. Security of payments has never been a core business for this guy. The single biggest issue in the industry of non-payment is phoenixing—where a company deliberately goes bust and sets up as another entity with maybe not even the same board or the same directors but sets up with basic control of the puppets who are there doing their bidding.

This in my view will not work. The main loss of money in the industry—and there is $3 billion worth of unpaid debt or $2 billion according to ASIC and the ATO—comes out of phoenixing. All this talk of 'We will chase them down' and 'We'll have Nigel Hadgkiss out there fixing them up' is absolute Disneyland stuff. All this does is monitor the impact of Nigel Hadgkiss and his minions. It doesn't do anything. It makes recommendations to Nigel Hadgkiss about 'policies, procedures or programs that could be implemented to improve compliance by building industry participants with security of payment laws'. What is this?

Senator Xenophon talks about our committee's report. There are 44 recommendations in the report. Senator Xenophon, I do not know if you were there when the ATO and ASIC gave their evidence, but they indicated that they had set up a phoenix task force. They understand where the real problem is. It is not having Nigel Hadgkiss running around if he feels like it, reporting to some group under his basic direction. It is not that at all. It is actually dealing with the phoenixing in the industry and the money which that rips out of the industry. The task force that is there now has 16 government agencies on it. They are working on the big issue now, and you are trying to tell is that Nigel Hadgkiss is going to fix this up with some monitoring group, or work group, reporting to Nigel Hadgkiss and the minister. Nonsense! It is absolute nonsense. The real work is being done by this task force. One of the groups on the task force is Fair Work Building and Construction. When I asked them at estimates who attended on behalf of Fair Work Building and Construction, they could not tell me. Nigel Hadgkiss could not tell me; that is how much interest he has in this. This is another piece of flim-flam dressed up as some great breakthrough for working people and small business in the building and construction industry. It is nothing of the sort. The recommendations we put forward were about actual practical issues that could deal with this after hearing from businesses that had lost everything and hearing from small businesses that are getting ripped off by first- and second-tier building groups that line the pockets of the coalition for their election funding. We heard day in and day out at those hearings about this issue.

This is, in my view, another piece of flim-flam from 'Team Xenophon'. It will not do the business. You only have to look to see that two million bucks of this is from phoenixing. If those 16 agencies—including the ATO, the Federal Police, the ACCC, the departments of employment, environment, human services, immigration and border protection, migration, the state and territory revenue offices, the Australian Business Register, ASIC and the Crime Commission—cannot fix it, do you think this bit of nonsense is going to fix this issue? Of course it will not fix it. Labor have recommendations in the Economics References Committee's report that go to these issues and will fix them. We do not support this legislation. We think it is another example of 'Team Xenophon' being absolutely outdone by this government putting up an excuse to vote for legislation that is going to take rights away from workers to give them a veil of some kind of legitimacy—'Look at what we are doing. That is why you have to take rights away from workers—because we have these commitments.' These are commitments that are meaningless. These are commitments that will not deliver.

Sixteen different government organisations are dealing with the main issue: phoenixing. Nigel Hadgkiss does not have any interest in this. When I asked him about phoenixing, he said it was not his core business. Do you expect him now, because of this, to turn that around? Of course he will not. He has absolutely no respect for the Senate, no respect for the estimates process and no respect for individual senators. He briefs journalists on individual senators, and he briefs journalists on stories that attack working people in this country. This guy is hopeless. This guy is the worst individual I have ever come across in a decade of estimates. He does not know what he is doing other than he is simply going to attack the trade union movement.

This will not fix the problem for small business. Senator Xenophon says, 'Well, the government has done nothing about it and this is a step.' One of the steps is already there and that is the Phoenix Taskforce. That accounts for two-thirds of the nonpayments in the industry. If there is phoenixing going on, this working group will not be able to fix it. We know it is going on, and this will not fix it. This is another example where, in my view, Senator Xenophon has either not understood the issues or has done a deal. I do not know what the deals are, but I have seen nothing tonight to say that working people are going to get a fair go out of any of this capitulation to the government from the Xenophon team and the crossbench. You, too, Senator Hinch: I hope you have some amendments coming forward that are going to make it decent for ordinary working people in this country. You can give me a thumbs up and smile all you like, but I hope that is going to happen. This is a big test for the crossbench. Are they going to allow this flim-flam, this veil of an excuse, to go forward and put up this working group that will deliver nothing in the context of the nonpayments and insolvencies in the industry?

We had sons of successful business people coming forward to our committee in Perth. You were there in Perth, Senator Xenophon. We had a major first-tier building company send a big building company to the wall. The owner of that building company—a successful, highly respected Perth businessman—committed suicide because he could not pay his workers. Your working group will not fix that, your working group will not deliver and your working group is not part of a substantive piece of legislation that will resolve this issue.

The answers are in that report. Again, the crossbench had the capacity to force this government to deal with a report that they have ignored, a report that deals with the issues of the importance of nonpayments and insolvencies in the industry. But what did they do? They have given us a working group. It just beggars belief that they can have so much power and exercise so little of it. It is not an outcome that will deal with this issue. I am of the view that this is not acceptable. The crossbench could have had the recommendations of the references committee that Senator Xenophon speaks so highly of. I thank Senator Xenophon for recognising the role that I had: I was part of the committee process and part of the Senate process. I was pleased to be there. I was the senator who got this up and running. I was keen to try and deal with this. I did not want to see the suicides, I did not want to see the family break-ups, I did not want to see the small businesses going bust and I did not want to see workers not getting paid and not being able to pay the bills, leading to family disruption. We have come up with 44 recommendations. Those are the recommendations this government should have been forced to accept. If it had done that, we could have had trials in place to deal with this for projects worth more than $10 million.

This lot over here are pretty quick to force their ideology on working people. When we have the power and capacity to force reasonable positions on this government to safeguard workers, to safeguard small business, what do we come up with? We come up with a working group under the auspices of Nigel Hadgkiss, reporting to Nigel Hadgkiss—what an absolute joke! I have been disappointed in what has been done so far, but let me tell you: this is my biggest disappointment. I do not want to see more suicides, I do not want to see more businesses go bust, I do not want to see more family break-ups, I do not want to see workers not being able to put food on the table for their kids. The answers are in the Senate references committee report that Senator Xenophon was part of. And what do we get? We get a security of payments working group reporting to the worst public servant in the country. Why would we give Nigel Hadgkiss more power? Why would we give Nigel Hadgkiss more responsibility? I do not understand that. We should be getting rid of the guy. He is biased, he is incompetent, he is secretive, he is full of cronyism in that place, and we are giving him more if we support this tonight.

Well, Labor does not support this. These are devastatingly bad amendments trying to deal with an issue that is so important. This leads nowhere. No wonder the government are smiling over there. No wonder they think this is great. This is taking the play lunch off the Xenophon party. This is not good and this should be opposed, because there will be more deaths, more businesses going bust, more families busting up because we have not exercised the power that we have. (Time expired)

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The security of payments working group that the Nick Xenophon Team have put forward as their first set of amendments is no solution. It is not a fix. It really is an embarrassment. It is an embarrassment because it shows just how bereft this team has become when it comes to dealing with this legislation, because it does not deal with the problems of payments, of phoenixing and of the insolvency that is inherent in this industry and that will become worse under the legislation that we are now seeing. In fact, moving these amendments in the form they have been moved, with this extraordinary proposal of a working group, acknowledges that there is a huge problem. But all they come up with is a working group. I share Senator Cameron's concerns about this.

I have worked with Senator Xenophon on procurement issues. That issue will be coming up shortly in a Greens amendment. That is where I hope that Senator Xenophon will stay committed, as he has been in the past, on this very issue. This is where we can bring some substance into this legislation and ensure that at least one small aspect of it does the right thing for construction workers, the right thing for the people of Australia, rather than giving them such onerous legislation that will not be changed in any way with the amendments before us now.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron mentioned the issue of suicide several times, and I know it was a very heartfelt contribution. We are being broadcast. In the event that people out there are going through difficulty, I think it is always good to mention that Lifeline does provide an incredibly valuable service. Their number is 131114. For those who are doing it tough, who need help, there is help out there.

I accept absolutely Senator Cameron's sincerity, his genuineness and his very fine work in relation to this. But I do not accept that Senator Cameron will not at least support this working group. As inadequate as he may find it, it actually is a way forward. I suggest to Senator Cameron—I say this not disrespectfully to him—that when the Cole royal commission handed down its findings in 2004 about the need for security of payments legislation as a national approach, nothing was done in the six years of the Labor administration, of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. It is not a criticism; it is just an observation. This is an opportunity to do something about this. This is actually in concert with the code so that there are real sanctions if you do the wrong thing in terms of security of payments.

Senator Cameron mentioned the issue of phoenixing, and it is absolutely appropriate that he does so. The security of payments working group can look at issues of phoenixing in this sector. If there are directors that go from one company to another, they should not be getting Commonwealth money, Commonwealth jobs, and that is something that the working group could advance. Senator Cameron, I note your opposition, but please do not kill off this appreciable reform to deal with these issues. It is a step forward. I would like to hear from the minister as to her attitude, because we have spent a long time discussing this. There is no secret deal. I have been very open about the issue of security of payments legislation.

I will make one other observation, and that is in relation to Mr Hadgkiss. I said this in my contribution to the second reading debate. To say that I am unimpressed with Mr Hadgkiss as a regulator would be an incredible understatement. I have very serious concerns about the way he has been running the FWBC. Senator Cameron, whatever differences we may have on this, I have very real concerns about the way he has been conducting himself and the way he has been operating, and, who knows, there may well be a need for a separate Senate inquiry in relation to the conduct of Mr Hadgkiss, which I would very gladly support. I for one hope that he retires much, much sooner than later.

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

As I was about to board the flight to Canberra on Sunday afternoon I received a text from an old Canberra hand—as they used to call them—warning me to brace myself because it was going to be 'a very nasty week'. I had already had a taste of it over the weekend as the debate over the looming ABCC brawl played out on Twitter and other social media. There was the charming tweet directed at me showing a picture of a pair of bloodstained hands. Much was made on social media and in the MSM of my comment last week on AM that the Turnbull government might get a much sought after Christmas present with the passage of their ABCC legislation, which had been rejected twice before and was the trigger for the double dissolution, which blew up in the government's face, slaughtered their huge majority in the other place and elected minor party senators like me upstairs. What the Santa Claus predictors neglected to pass on was my important qualifier, which I reiterated on Twitter. I said that the government could get their ABCC legislation through, but to get my support they would need to accept some crucial amendments; otherwise I would say, 'Bah! Humbug!' and have no hesitation in voting it down. I repeated that at a press conference yesterday after we got a 24-hour extension from the government to submit amendments to their flawed legislation.

The tweeters who said I would have blood on my hands and would be personally responsible for any future worksite deaths—like that poor backpacker in Perth—had not, I bet, even seen the amendments about worker safety, about increased penalties for the bosses, about more protection for scapegoat subcontractors left holding the financial bag, and about retrospectivity. In fact, Senator Xenophon and I have made huge progress in negotiations with the government over subbie protection, and I thank him and his team for that. I have made progress with other issues, and I thank Senator Culleton for that. I called the tweeters 'Twitter sheep', and they are.

In considering this legislation I have met a number of times with the opposition leader, Bill Shorten; several times with the CFMEU, both here and in Melbourne; with Brendan O'Connor; and with Michael O'Connor. I have talked to union champion Senator Doug Cameron. I have talked with the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash, many times and I have met with the Prime Minister several times, as recently as tonight. And I have worked with the Nick Xenophon Team senators, and Senator Leyonhjelm, and Senator Culleton, and Senator Lambie in looking for genuine amendments that would improve this bill.

I have said countless times that I am pro-worker but anti-corruption. I remember when Norm Gallagher and the BLF used to come and monster me in my radio studio in Melbourne all those years ago. I am proud of last week's successful amendment on whistleblowers, which I co-sponsored with Senator Xenophon. I share Senator Cameron's and Senator Xenophon's fears and worries about some of the behaviour of the commissioner. I am proud of my amendment on ending auditor shams and auditor rorts, plus the promise from the government to extend whistleblower protection into the corporate world. I know, Senator Cameron, that you do not believe that, but I believe we will get our way.

To get my position on these amendments clear I went back to the sage words of my dear old grandma, who used to say, 'What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.' The clean-up of the unions must mean a clean-up of employers' behaviour too. There must be sanctions and penalties for employers found guilty of risky practices that lead to death and injury on our building sites.

I have told both the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, that my perhaps naive newcomer's dream is to get an ABCC bill through this place that will be so clean and just and fair that when the next Labor government get in they will not want to abolish it like they did last time. This can and should work for the benefit of workers and employers and work against the thugs, the goons, the liars and the cheats on both sides—yes, the liars, cheats and bullies on both sides. If we can achieve that then I will feel that some lasting good has come out of all this bitterness and brawling and protracted, decades-long 'us against them' class warfare. We can then have a better system for the benefit of our economy and all Australians, and we will all go home from here to a better, more certain Christmas.

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

The government will be agreeing to the amendments moved here tonight by Senator Xenophon. In the first instance can I say thank you to Senator Xenophon, Senator Stirling Griff and Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore for being available to work so constructively with the government in relation to amendments to the bill, in particular to amendments that the government agrees improve this piece of legislation.

There have been a number of comments in relation to security of payment tonight, and certainly security of payment has been identified by reviews and inquiries to be a major problem. It is a fundamental belief of the government and certainly, I believe, a fundamental belief of those supporting this amendment tonight that anyone who performs work in accordance with a contract should be paid without delay for the work that they have done. Everyone has a right to be paid for the work they do without being subject to unnecessary delay. Ensuring subcontractors are paid on time is essential for a strong and productive construction industry. I note in that regard Senator Hinch's comments that you also need to ensure that the head contractors are complying with their particular responsibilities in relation to payments. This, the government believes, is a sensible proposal that will assist the ABCC to bring about meaningful reforms and improve the compliance of building industry participants with security of payment laws. Again, I thank the crossbench for working constructively with the government to put forward what I believe are amendments that do enhance the legislation.

Question agreed to.

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

I move amendment (1) on sheet 8006 revised:

(1) Clause 34, page 29 (after line 19), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) Without limiting subsection (1), the Building Code must include provisions ensuring that no person is employed to undertake building work unless:

(a) the position is first advertised in Australia; and

(b) the advertising was targeted in such a way that a significant proportion of suitably qualified and experienced Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents (within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958) would be likely to be informed about the position; and

(c) any skills or experience requirements set out in the advertising were appropriate to the position; and

(d) the employer demonstrates that no Australian citizen or Australian permanent resident is suitable for the job.

As a union official who was active for 27 years, I have seen the rip-offs that have been taking place with some of these workers coming in from overseas—absolute rip-offs. I think first of all we should be ensuring that Australian workers get access to the jobs that are available if they are qualified and willing to do the work. I just cannot understand why One Nation would not support this resolution. This amendment seems to me to be consistent with the rhetoric about jobs, about ensuring that Australian workers get a fair go. That is simply what this is about. So I would ask all of the crossbench to support this, because this is one issue that we can be sure will be welcomed by Australian workers around the country, and that is that they get first chop at any job they are qualified and willing to do. That is the proposal that is here, and I say we should support it and that it is an extremely important proposition for all Australians, and I urge the Senate to support this.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This amendment provides all senators with a rare opportunity to address the issue of jobs, something that we hear so much about in this place and an area where we can make a real difference. I very much welcome the amendment, which is actually very similar to some amendments the Greens put forward—so similar, in fact, that the last line of this amendment is what we had in ours. But this one has popped up first, and we are keen to support it. It is important not just because it is about jobs but because it is about jobs in the context of this ABCC legislation. Currently there is no provision to ensure that Australian resident workers can get a job before those on temporary work visas. The bill includes a requirement for the building code, a very extensive code, to regulate what conditions apply on building projects. Employers that fail to comply with the code will be unable to work on government funded projects. So, there is a real complexity here around the issue of work.

For the Greens, the way we see this playing out and the reason we think this amendment is so important and that surely everybody should see their way through to support it is that if the position is advertised locally and a local is qualified and the right person for the job, then the system has worked, because the local person has a job. But if there is not a local person, if there are no suitable applicants for the job, then, with this system, the employer will be able to prove this and then move on to advertise and hire a worker from overseas. So, we have this very important provision here to put forward a process so that the advertisements are in place, so that Australian residents have a chance to find work. We know that the unemployment situation is incredibly serious across this country, particularly in regional areas, particularly for young people. This is quite a simple measure but a measure that goes to the heart of something that really needs to be sorted out.

We have heard many strong speeches about the need for local jobs here, and here we have this unique opportunity to address this very issue. While we come from many different perspectives in this chamber, I think one of the most common themes from all of us is the need for more jobs to be created across the whole country, for the future of the country and so that young people have a future to look forward to and people in transition can pick up work. There are so many reasons that this amendment should be supported.

I would argue that it is very important that we pass this amendment, because, as I said, currently there are no provisions to ensure that Australian resident workers can get a job before those who are on temporary work visas. We have an opportunity to fix that up in a very fair way. It does not penalise companies, because they can still move ahead and advertise for overseas workers if there are no locals to fill the jobs. We really can have a win-win here, and it is an amendment that we are keen to support. As I said, the Greens have an amendment that is very similar, and right now we have an opportunity to get something decent out of tonight.

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

The Australian government's policy is that Australians are first priority for jobs. Where there is an Australian who is ready, willing and able to undertake the particular job, an employer should look to that person first. But in relation to the amendment that has been put forward—and the government will not be supporting the amendment—there are already substantial protections for Australian workers under the standard Temporary Work (Skilled) (subclass 457) program, which includes a number of sponsorship obligations for employers. Also, Australian employers must formally attest that they have also employed local labour and have not engaged in discriminatory recruitment practices. Senators will be aware that these obligations are monitored by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

Visa holders must be engaged in accordance with workplace law and must show that they have the skills and experience relevant to the occupation. Visa holders also have to hold all relevant licences and certificates to work in an occupation. The current rules on labour market testing were put in place by the previous Labor government. Under new regulations introduced in November 2015, companies seeking to sponsor subclass 457 visa holders under a work agreement need to demonstrate that they have made recent and genuine efforts to recruit local workers first. To summarise, there are already strong protections in place and they are appropriately regulated by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection within the Migration Act framework.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a question for the minister. I just want to know about the 'genuine efforts' when it comes to advertising for jobs. Is it true that you have only got to put an ad in the newspaper twice and apparently that is what you call a genuine effort?

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

The current rules on labour market testing were put in place under the previous Labor government and, under these rules, employers must show that they have tested the labour market. One of those ways is, yes, putting an advertisement in the local paper because that is one way that you can obviously ensure that potential employees know that a job is available. The monitoring of it is undertaking by department officials in the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say through the chair and to the minister: I do not care whose market testing it is. Obviously if there is a problem you should fix it. Do not blame somebody else is. That is my first point. Putting two ads in a newspaper is not acceptable for all those Australians out there who are unemployed. That is not an effort and that is not being genuine.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Several years ago, when the Labor government was still in office, I moved a Senate inquiry into 457 visas and issues of labour market testing were raised. There were some improvements made by the Labor government and they were welcome. I think there is scope for further improvement. I have difficulty supporting this particular amendment because of its breadth. It requires, under clause 1(2A)(d) that:

… the employer demonstrates that no Australian citizen or permanent resident is suitable for the job.

I am not sure how that test would work in a practical sense. I understand the sentiments behind it. It also requires that a significant proportion of significantly qualified and experienced Australian citizens are aware of the advertising. How would that work on a regional basis?

I honestly want to see many Australian citizens and Australian residents filling jobs, but I think it is acknowledged by most sides of politics that there is scope and there is a need for 457 visa holders to fill genuine skills shortages. I believe that this ought to be dealt with in terms of quite broad changes to the Migration Act and a strengthening of labour market testing requirements. In that regard, I think the work of Dr Joanna Howe of the University of Adelaide has been quite instructive in that regard in looking at sensible reforms in relation to this issue. I will be speaking shortly in relation to procurement issues. I think having locally procured materials will have a very significant impact on local jobs and jobs growth. I have seen an amendment that Senator Hinch as well as Senator Lambie and Senator Culleton have moved in respect of procurement. That is my reservation with respect to this particular amendment—it would actually not be workable in the form that it is. But I think that it does highlight the need for further reform of labour market testing requirements.

The CHAIR: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Cameron on sheet 8006 be agreed to.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment 8 on sheet 8024, which is being distributed:

(1) Clause 34, page 29 (lines 17 to 19), omit subclause (2), substitute:

     (2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Minister:

           (a) must issue one or more documents under that subsection in relation to procurement matters relating to building work; and

           (b) may issue one or more documents under that subsection in relation to work health and safety matters relating to building work.

        (2A) A document issued under subsection (1) relating to procurement matters must include a requirement that a tenderer for building work must demonstrate the following:

           (a) the extent to which locally sourced and manufactured building materials will be used to undertake the building work;

           (b) whether the building materials to be used to undertake the building work comply with relevant Australian standards published by, or on behalf of, Standards Australia;

           (c) the whole-of-life costs of the project to which the building work relates;

           (d) the net economic impacts of the project to which the building work relates;

           (e) the jobs impact of the project to which the building work relates;

           (f) whether the project to which the building work relates will contribute to skills growth.

[procurement matters]

This is an amendment that goes to the question of the code.

I am sure that senators would be aware of how important procurement is when it comes to the question of providing jobs for Australians in Australia. The value of Commonwealth procurement contracts in 2014-15 were around $59 billion. That is a very considerable amount of money in terms of our capacity in this country to shape the kind of economy we have. We should, I trust, in this chamber be seeking to develop an economy with a diverse industrial base, capable of generating high-skill, high-wage jobs. We should not be entirely dependent upon the vagaries of the commodity market. What we have, of course, are current circumstances where there is increasing casualisation of employment. And, in fact, because we are so dependent upon the vagaries of the commodity market, increasing numbers of Australians endure insecure employment.

Now, the unique purchasing power of the Commonwealth makes government procurement of crucial investment a fundamental instrument for industry policy. Good government procurement policy is about getting value for money, and I do not walk away from that proposition—good procurement policy is about getting value for money. But it is also about ensuring that we build the capabilities of this nation. It is not about featherbedding local industry; it is about making sure we put in place a framework to make local industries stronger and more competitive using the unique purchasing power of government.

More than a million people are employed in this industry, as we have heard repeatedly throughout this debate on the question of the building and construction industry in Australia. So how the government actually spends its procurement dollar in this sector has a real impact on Australian jobs, on Australian industries and on the broader economy. This amendment seeks to harness the purchasing power of government in the building and construction sector. It amends clause 34 of the bill, which deals with the Building Code. It stipulates that, in relation to procurement matters, a tenderer for building work must demonstrate the extent to which locally sourced and manufactured building materials will be used to undertake the work, whether the building materials used comply with the relevant Australian standards, and whether the whole-of-life cost of the projects can be identified. And it seeks to establish the net economic impact of the project to which the building work relates. This amendment seeks to ensure that we have an understanding of the job impacts of any project, and whether the project will contribute to skills growth.

What we have is an amendment that, we would all have to acknowledge, is not new. This is exactly the same amendment that my colleague Senator Xenophon moved in the last parliament, so it clearly has enormous merit. If Senator Xenophon was able support this and move this proposition in the last parliament, I think we are entitled to know why he will not support it today. I am disappointed that Senator Xenophon, while recognising the clear and obvious merit of this proposal—Senator Xenophon who has shown such gusto on these questions in the past—has not moved this proposition here today. I am looking forward to hearing Senator Xenophon on why that is the case. I trust that he will have a good explanation.

It is a shame that this amendment cannot be applied more generally to Commonwealth procurement rules. I acknowledge that that is a weakness, because we are dealing here with the question of the Building Code and only the Building Code. These rules ought to apply to the economy-wide purchasing power of the Commonwealth of Australia. These are propositions which are entirely consistent with our trade obligations. They are entirely consistent with the need to build Australia and build Australian jobs, and to ensure that the Commonwealth is able to use its purchasing power to support the Australian people. So I am surprised that we have not seen these measures being advanced today. As I say, this was Senator Xenophon's amendment in the past, and I am very pleased that the Labor Party has the opportunity to take up this proposition here today, and I hope my colleagues in the Senate are able to agree with this proposition and amend the bill.

I will make a general point: we want this country to be one that makes things. We want this to be a country that generates high-skill, high-wage jobs, and I am particularly concerned about what is happening with our steel industry. We know how important the steel industry is to the building industry in this country. But it is not just steel. It is aluminium, glass, plastics, cement—all things for which we have an enormous capability in this country, if we were only able to utilise it. We need to ensure that the Australian government meets its responsibilities to the Australian people and ensures that it uses its purchasing power to secure that.

A Shorten Labor government is committed to ensuring compliance with Australian standards, and we made this point very, very clear with regard to steel, for instance—the steel that is used in Australian projects, whether in the public or private sectors, must be compliant with the standards used in Australia wherever we use Commonwealth funded resources. We know there are too many examples where substandard steel has been used in building projects—whether it be bridges, roadworks or buildings. The evidence put before the Senate inquiry has highlighted the consequences of importing cheap, substandard steel which endangers the lives of Australians. A Shorten Labor government is committed to ensuring that we use Australian standards in all federally funded projects, and that we ensure that the antidumping regulators have the necessary powers to do their jobs effectively.

We have also committed to ensuring that we have a national steel advocate that is there to preserve the supply chain when it comes to providing steel to contractors who work in the building industry. We want to ensure that we use locally produced steel in federally funded projects, and then report on that. It is all very well agreeing to propositions about our pious commitment to these principles, but we need a provision to ensure that standards are used and are reported upon and that there is a compliance mechanism in place. We want to ensure that the thresholds for the Australian Industry Participation plans are lowered so that we can get these measures put into circumstances where we are able to ensure that standards are actually applied. That is why we want to double the funding for the Australian Industry Participation Authority and appoint the relevant board—which, currently, this government has been somewhat tardy in doing.

These are measures that were good enough for my good friend Senator Xenophon to move in the last parliament. I trust they are good enough for him to support now, and I am looking forward to the support of the chamber for these very worthwhile and worthy propositions to preserve Australian jobs and build Australian industry.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Procurement is of course a matter that comes under my area of responsibility as the Minister for Finance, and I would indicate right up front that the government will not be supporting Senator Carr's amendment, even though we are sympathetic to what he is arguing. That is because a much better amendment has been put forward by crossbench senators, namely Senators Hinch, Culleton, Lambie and Xenophon. The government will be supporting that amendment.

Let me make some general points in relation to the issue. The amendments that the government will be supporting do change the code making power in clause 34 to require the minister to issue a document relating to procurement that will have the effect of requiring the preferred tenderer for building work to provide information about: the extent to which domestically sourced and manufactured building materials will be used to undertake the building work; whether the building materials to be used to undertake the building work comply with relevant Australian standards published by or on behalf of Standards Australia; the preferred tenderer's assessment of the whole-of-life costs of the project to which the building work relates; the impact on jobs of the project to which the building work relates; and whether the project to which the building work relates will contribute to skills growth. The issued document must also have the effect of requiring a funding entity to require building industry participants to use only products that comply with Australian standards.

The government understands, of course, that the building and construction industry is a key driver of growth and is vital to the competitiveness and prosperity of the Australian economy. The amendment that the government will be supporting, which has been circulated by crossbench senators, would ensure that the preferred tenderer for Commonwealth funded building work will notify the funding entity of the expected economic and social impacts of the project on the local economy. This includes the extent to which domestically sourced and manufactured building materials will be used to undertake building work. The proposed amendment which we will be supporting supports a fair, safe and productive building and construction industry, which of course is crucial to the Turnbull government's economic plan for jobs and growth.

In relation to paragraph 2(b) of the amendment put forward by Senators Hinch, Culleton, Lambie and Xenophon, Australian standards of course comply with international standards so do not cause any problems with trade agreements or other international undertakings but the Australian government is supportive, of course, of promoting the use of building products that comply with Australian standards.

I would also like to inform the chamber that I have had extensive discussions with Senator Xenophon, for a period in Senate estimates but more recently one-on-one in my office, in relation to the government's Commonwealth procurement guidelines. I am pleased to inform the Senate that the government has agreed on some improvements to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, and indeed coming into effect on 1 March 2017 will be a slightly revised set of Commonwealth Procurement Rules, which I table now. As I am on my feet, I will take the chamber through the relevant improvements that we have made.

The chamber will note that there are new rules 10.10 and 10.37. Where standards are applied it is important for integrity and probity that suppliers to government are capable of meeting standards. As much as anything this is important for ensuring that value for money has been achieved, that is, by ensuring goods or services are fit for purpose, and 10.37 sets the expectation for the level of verification for officials checking verification or seeking other forms of independent assurance that would satisfy a test of making reasonable inquiries. There is also a new rule, 10.18, which says that suppliers to government need to comply with regulations that are applicable to them, including Australian rules and any regulatory frameworks applying in other jurisdictions where relevant. Three of the most significant examples are specified in the rules covering labour, OH&S and environmental regulations. Where one of these areas of regulation is not applicable or alternatively other forms of significant regulation apply, then officials would use their judgement to make the appropriate inquiries. Inquiries by officials must amount to a reasonable effort. The rule does not require comprehensive compliance auditing that would add materially to the cost for taxpayers. The purpose is to ensure that there is sufficient evidence to give officials sufficient confidence in the veracity of any representations made.

There are also new rules 10.30 and 10.31. We will be requiring officials to take into account the economic benefit of a procurement for Australia as part of their decision making process. Our free trade agreements require that Australia does not engage in prejudicial decision making, but this does not preclude us from appropriately gathering information and looking at the full economic effects of a procurement as part of the decision making process. This is a reasonable addition to the process for larger procurements and one that allows us to balance our accountabilities to taxpayers and our undertakings to other countries.

As I have indicated, I have tabled the revised Commonwealth Procurement Rules, which come into effect on 1 March 2017. I thank Senator Xenophon and the Nick Xenophon Team for their constructive engagement with the government in relation to these rules.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I go to the comments made by Senator Carr. I could call him my good friend and I would actually mean it, but I am worried about what that might do to his preselection chances.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't worry, we'll look after that.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You'll look after your preselection chances! I have worked incredibly constructively with Senator Carr on issues of manufacturing, on the car industry and on shipbuilding. It has been a pleasure to work with him and, at the risk of making him blush, I thought he was an outstanding industry minister. Back in July 2014 the Finance and Public Administration References Committee published the report of an inquiry into Commonwealth procurement procedures. I pay tribute to my former colleague, former Senator John Madigan, who was a great advocate for local procurement. The amendment that I moved previously, that Senator Carr has so graciously copied, plagiarised, was based on the work of that report. I again pay tribute to former Senator Madigan for his work.

So why am I not supporting this amendment? Because what has been achieved, what Senator Cormann, the finance minister, has announced tonight—I want to go through it again—are the biggest changes to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules we have seen in many years. These are changes that have involved a lot of negotiation with Senator Cormann, in absolute good faith. I know we have had our shouting matches at Senate estimates, where we have argued about procurement issues, but I am so pleased to say that these changes are very significant and will make a difference—a real difference—because it is an instrument that is not disallowable; in other words, once it is tabled, that is it, these are the rules that are in place.

If we go to the issue of Australian standards, at 10.10 under the new procurement rules that will apply from 1 March 2017, where an Australian standard is applicable for goods or services being procured tender responses must demonstrate the capability to meet the Australian standard and contracts must contain evidence of the applicable standards. That is a sea change in what we have in terms of procurement rules in this country, ensuring that Australian standards are met. Senator Carr, in his contribution, made reference to Australian steel. This will make a real difference in ensuring that Australian steel is used not just in the context of the building and construction sector but across the board. These changes are across the board changes in respect of the $59 billion that the Commonwealth spends on procurement each year.

Clause 10.10 needs to be read in conjunction with 10.37, where it actually says where applying a standard—Australian or, in its absence, international—for a good service relevant entities must make reasonable inquiries to determine compliance with the standard. This includes gathering of relevant certifications and periodic auditing of compliance by an independent assessor. That reflects the approach of the South Australian government in terms of its Industry Participation Advocate, Ian Nightingale, who does outstanding work in that state. That will mean that it will have teeth, which will mean that it will be effective. It goes far beyond the amendment that I thought of and that I moved a couple of years ago.

In the terms of 10.18, officials must make reasonable inquiries that the procurement is carried out considering relevant regulations and/or regulatory frameworks including but not limited to tenderer's practices regarding: (a) labour regulations, including ethical employment practices; (b) occupational health and safety; and (c) environmental impacts. So if there is one company that has child labourers overseas or is pouring toxins into a river, these are the sorts of things that must be considered.

In terms of 10.30 and 10.31 about value for money and broader benefits to the Australian economy, for the first time ever, in addition to the considerations at paragraph 4.4 for procurements above $4 million, Commonwealth officials are required to consider the economic benefit of procurement to the Australian economy. That is a first. I want to congratulate the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, for taking a fair and pragmatic approach. One of the issues here is that we need to comply with our free trade obligations.

I have been a critic of our free trade obligations, but I am not a mug; I also understand that if we put something up that breaches the WTO obligations it will be struck down. That leaves another issue about whether we should have entered into those obligations in the first place, but we have and we are required to comply with the rules. These new procurement rules are WTO compliant, which is very important. They will be effective, and I give credit to Senator Cormann for the reasoned, measured approach that he took. We negotiated this in good faith and we now have something that will be unambiguously good for Australian industry in this country. We have made significant dramatic reforms in respect of procurement in this country.

So I commend these changes. They are not an amendment as such. They have been tabled. They are relevant to this amendment and to another amendment of Senator Hinch, which I will be cosponsoring. I want to make this very clear: this is a big deal. This is a massive change in procurement rules in this country, and I absolutely commend the government for going down this path. I want to thank my colleagues, Senators Kakoschke-Moore and Griff and Ms Sharkie in the lower house. This is something we have been absolutely committed to and passionate about. What we have done now is very significant. It has come about because of good will and good faith negotiations. I commend what Minister Cormann has tabled in the chamber.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the proponents of these procurement measures. It is unusual for me to do that. I acknowledge that this is a very significant change which the Labor Party supports, but this should not come at the expense of building workers. I acknowledge that these measures are good policy; they are clearly an argument that the Labor Party has pursued for a very long period of time. We were told, of course, that none of this could be done, because it was in breach of this or that or it offended this or that agreement. Now we discover that there is a political motive here. There is a political imperative and the government has to fundamentally change its attitude on procurement. These are measures which I support, but what are the circumstances that have led to them? This is a government desperate to find a mechanism by which it can secure a majority in this chamber to do over building workers. This is what disturbs me.

These are good measures, but why should building workers have to pay for them? These are measures that should benefit all Australians and be developed in such a way as to protect all Australian industry and allow Australian industry to participate in their country and in building their capabilities to secure the prosperity of the nation. Why is it that building workers have to be traded off to secure these changes? It strikes me that that is the real flaw here. There is an arrangement which is essentially immoral because it trades off one group of workers for another in circumstances which I say are totally unnecessary.

As to the measures that are contained in this procurement proposition, I think we should acknowledge just how significant the changes are. I trust, Senator Xenophon, that they are actually delivered. This is an intention the government has announced here. What is the status of the document? I ask the minister: is this actually a decision of government or an intention of government? It is important to distinguish between those two matters. As for the details of these changes to the guidelines that are being proposed, it strikes me that there are some very significant measures here. I cannot recall a set of circumstances where the Commonwealth procurement guidelines have looked at the overall economic impact of a project and, specifically, as outlined at 10.18, using these words:

Officials must make reasonable enquiries that the procurement is carried out considering relevant regulations and/or regulatory frameworks, including but not limited to tenderers' practices regarding:

a. labour regulations, including ethical employment practices;

b. occupational, health and safety; and

c. environmental impacts.

These are very good measures. But there is also a question here about value for money, because this is the great, thorny issue of procurement policy: how do you determine value for money? Should it be based on the cheapest price or the whole-of-life cost, or should it be based on the other factors that go to make up the actual project costs?

Then there is the proposal at 10.30—when the minister read it out, I did not hear him actually use the figure—which is:

In addition to the considerations at paragraph 4.4, for procurements above $4 million, Commonwealth officials are required to consider the economic benefit of the procurement to the Australian economy.

Now, the existing guidelines provide for a threshold amount of $80,000 for an FMA Act agency, and $400,000 for a relevant CAC act agency. But here is this new figure of $4 million. So my second question to the minister is: what is the relationship between the $4 million that you have announced tonight, according to the draft guidelines that you have tabled, and the existing division 2 of the Commonwealth procurement rules in regard to the threshold of $80,000 for an FMA Act agency and $400,000 for a CAC Act body?

I understand that there will be some vehicle to examine this matter—Senator Xenophon? I have heard a rumour that there is some sort of Senate or joint committee process. That is quite an important part of any of these things, because it leads me to the view that we need to establish what it is that the government is doing by enforcement, because, if we have entered into an arrangement here to trade off the interests of building workers to do this, then surely we have to understand what the terms are.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, this is not a draft document. These are the Commonwealth procurement rules which will come into effect as of 1 March 2017, which I said earlier. As Senator Xenophon rightly indicated, I will formally give effect to them through a non-disallowable instrument. That is a commitment that the government has made. It is a decision the government has made. It is something of course that comes within my direct responsibility as the Minister for Finance. I just say right up-front that, when Senator Carr refers to this document as a draft set of guidelines, that is not accurate. These are the Commonwealth procurement rules which come into effect on 1 March 2017, and the government will give effect to them formally through the relevant legislative instruments as a non-disallowable instrument.

In relation to the question about the $4 million amount—I actually referred to 10.30 quite explicitly. I am happy to read it out for Senator Carr. It does indeed say:

In addition to the considerations at paragraph 4.4, for procurements above $4 million, Commonwealth officials are required to consider the economic benefit of the procurement to the Australian economy.

That is the threshold that Senator Xenophon and I agreed, because the judgement was made that it was appropriate for this to be applied to appropriately material procurements because there is an additional effort involved, and that threshold is there, transparently disclosed, in the new Commonwealth procurement rules, which come into effect on 1 March 2017.

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

I rise to support Senator Xenophon and his comments and to point out why I will be voting against Senator Carr's amendment. Although a lot of what he said it makes a lot of sense and I support a lot of it, it is included in some of the stuff that Senator Xenophon and I worked on over time.

I just have to say tonight, Senator Carr, that you remind me a bit of the Greens on this one. I said once to the Greens, to Senator Di Natale, that I was going to make a movie about the Greens. I am going to call it A Bridge Too Far, because I get one of their motions and I read it and I get to clause 1 and I think, 'That's great.' I get to clause 2 and I think, 'That's great.' I get to clause 3: 'That's common sense.' I get to clause 4 and think, 'Not sure about that.' And then, at clause 5, I think, 'Oh God, I can't go along with that.'

So, Senator Carr, your amendment wants the tenderer to demonstrate:

… the whole-of-life cost of the project to which the building work relates—

that is extremely hard—

… the net economic impact of the project to which the building work relates;

… the jobs impact of the project to which the building work relates—

and finally, the last one, which I do not think I could ever come up with:

… whether the project which the building work relates to will contribute to skills growth.

I do not think you can do that very easily. Senator Carr, I like a lot of what you say, but on this one I will oppose you.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Xenophon. I just want to be clear about something Senator Xenophon said in expressing his opposition to the Labor amendment. Senator Xenophon indicated that he would not support the Labor Party's amendment on procurement because he had concerns over conflicts with WTO rules. I just want Senator Xenophon to reflect on some of the commentary he made during the election campaign, where he said, as reported in The Australian on 3 June:

… he will be ruthless in using his numbers in the upper house to impose his agenda on the next government, including that Australia withdraw from free trade deals at the heart of Malcolm Turnbull's growth strategy.

In particular, it says:

The South Australian … seized on the fate of Arrium's troubled Whyalla based steelworks to oppose Australia’s entry into a World Trade Organisation procurement agreement …

It gives me no pleasure to point out these huge contradictions in Senator Xenophon's position. It appears that during the election campaign Senator Xenophon indicated that he did not support the World Trade Organization's restrictions imposed on Australia, and that, in fact, he would use his position within the Senate to outline, or at least influence, Australia's stance on the World Trade Organization rules, and yet here his justification for not supporting this agreement is that he has concerns that this amendment would be in conflict with WTO rules. As I said, Senator Xenophon, the Greens and I have worked on a number of issues in the past, so it gives me no pleasure to point out that it appears there is a huge contradiction here. I would be interested in hearing from Senator Xenophon whether he has now changed his position on trade, his position on Australia's commitment to free trade deals and, in particular, our commitment to WTO procurement agreements, or whether he remains committed to what he said during the election campaign, which is that he does have huge concerns. If that is the case then obviously he would continue to support a sensible amendment that ensured that procurement policies were based on the national interest, even when they may have been or they may be in conflict with WTO rules.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I almost feel like a minister, without the pay rise, when answering these questions. I welcome the questions by Senator Di Natale. I do not resile from my position on free trade agreements. I think we have negotiated them very badly. I think we have compromised issues of sovereignty. The one good thing about the election of Donald Trump is that he is implacably opposed to the TPP and it looks as though the TPP will not go ahead. That is about the only thing I can think of, because I find many of his other views a complete anathema to what I believe in and stand for, particularly his views on race, religion, women and a whole range of other issues.

The amendment that was moved by Senator Carr was an amendment that I moved a couple of years ago in identical terms. But since that time I have negotiated, with the support of my colleagues, the biggest amendments we have seen to Commonwealth procurement rules that actually deal with these issues. They need, whether I like it or not, to be WTO compliant, because if they are not they will be struck down. That is a separate issue.

I say to Senator Di Natale that I hope we are pretty much on the same page insofar as if we can renegotiate agreements in the longer term then we should. I do not resile from that. But I am trying to get a practical and measurable outcome in relation to Commonwealth procurement rules. These changes to Commonwealth procurement rules are the biggest we have seen in terms of requiring the Australian Standards to be measured and goods and service supplies to take into account: labour regulations, occupation health and safety, environmental impacts and the regulatory frameworks running to that—ensuring that those Australian Standards for goods and services are subject to auditing and certification processes and, absolutely, for the first time, to turn on its head what we have done in the past by ignoring the economic benefit of procurement for the Australian economy by requiring that it must be considered for procurements above $4 million. That is a massive change. I have not changed. There is no contradiction. This is actually an improvement on the amendment that I moved.

I do want to take this opportunity to put on the record—and I would be grateful if Senator Cormann can confirm this—and I will be in a position to table this tomorrow—that the government is committed to a joint select committee process on procurement to report by 31 May 2017, which I genuinely hope the Australian Greens can be a part of. I have worked terrifically well with Senator Rhiannon on these issues. It will be a thorough process and it will be a well-resourced process in order to deal with these issues.

Right now, the Commonwealth government has not entered into the WTO procurement agreement—which I implacably oppose. Here is a mechanism where we have these changes that will make a very real difference in any negotiations with respect to any WTO procurement agreement that we may sign up to, because this will be embedded in Commonwealth procurement rules. As Senator Cormann has indicated, this is not a draft. This is actually a decision of government to come into effect from 1 March 2017. I hope that I have gone some way to answering Senator Di Natale's very reasonable questions.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not really, Senator Xenophon. Again, the proposition is very straightforward. You said during the election campaign that you would use your position, the balance of power, to rip up free trade agreements, and now what you are saying is that you will not support an amendment because it does not comply with the free trade agreement. So you have gone from saying, 'I don't support free trade agreements and, in balance of power, I will rip them up,' to now arguing in support of a free trade agreement, and not supporting a sensible amendment simply because you are worried that it is in contravention of a free trade agreement. It is hard to see that as anything other than a contradiction. I suspect there will be many people who will be concerned about your position now on free trade, because you made very strong noises during the election campaign about your concerns and yet here you are saying that you will use your position to ensure that we comply with free trade agreements. I cannot see how those two positions are reconcilable.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry if I have not appropriately articulated my position in relation to this. There is no contradiction for these reasons. In respect of this amendment, I did not say that this amendment did not comply with free trade agreements. I made the point that the changes to the Commonwealth procurement rules are a significant improvement on the actual amendment that Senator Carr moved—which was in fact an amendment that I would have moved, had the previous iteration of this bill got to committee stage. I am still concerned and still opposed to a number of the agreements we entered into. I am pleased that it looks as though the TPP will not be going ahead. That is a positive move in my view, given that the US appears to be pulling out of that agreement. I do not see any inconsistency. I will continue to campaign against free trade agreements that are not in our national interest. In terms of the practical reality if we move an amendment that is in breach of a WTO agreement, as much as I may disagree with it and as much as I may want to see it gone, then if that is struck out under the current WTO rules, as much as I disagree with them, then I would rather see an approach where we have rules that cannot be challenged because of the way they have been drafted such that they will be effective and make a real difference to procurement in this country with the $59 billion a year the Commonwealth spends on procurement.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just back to the amendment that Senator Carr has moved. The Greens are clearly on the record that we oppose a building code. If there is going to be a building code, then bringing in the issue of the local procurement of steel is certainly necessary. It is something that should be coming forward at this time of the amendments. However, the amendment that Senator Carr has put forward is clearly limited. The Greens have a more comprehensive position which we will still move. The reason it is limited is that it is based on standards. The whole issue with standards is that they are not enforced. So often it just does not happen. That is why you need steel procurement. We have examples of how this can be done properly, and I look forward to going into more detail when we come to the Greens amendment on it. We will support the amendment as it has been moved.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments on sheet 8024 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

I seek leave to move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8021 in my name and on behalf of Senators Lambie, Culleton and also Senator Xenophon, who did a lot of work on a similar amendment.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1 ) Clause 5 , page 9 (after line 26) , after the definition of full-time Commissioner , insert:

funding entity has the meaning given by subsection 34(2C).

( 2 ) Clause 34 , page 29 (lines 17 to 19) , omit subclause ( 2 ), substitute:

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the Minister:

(a) must issue one or more documents under that subsection in relation to procurement matters relating to building work; and

(b) may issue one or more documents under that subsection in relation to work health and safety matters relating to building work.

Note: A single document may contain the entire Building Code (including the matters referred to in paragraph (2)(a) and, if applicable, paragraph (2)(b)).

(2A) Without limiting subsection (1) or paragraph (2)(a),a document issued under subsection (1) relating to procurement matters must require a funding entity to ensure that the preferred tenderer for building work provides the following information:

(a) the extent to which domestically sourced and manufactured building materials will be used to undertake the building work;

(b) whether the building materials to be used to undertake the building work comply with relevant Australian standards published by, or on behalf of, Standards Australia;

(c) the preferred tenderer’s assessment of the whole-of-life costs of the project to which the building work relates;

(d) the impact on jobs of the project to which the building work relates;

(e) whether the project to which the building work relates will contribute to skills growth.

(2B) Without limiting subsection (1) or paragraph (2)(a),a document issued under subsection (1) relating to procurement matters must require a funding entity to require building industry participants to only use products in building work that comply with relevant Australian standards published by, or on behalf of, Standards Australia.

(2C) Each of the following is a funding entity :

(a) a non-corporate Commonwealth entity (within the meaning of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 );

(b) a corporate Commonwealth entity (within the meaning of that Act) that is directed by the Minister administering that Act to comply with the Building Code.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So as not to hold up the chamber, the government will support these amendments, as I flagged in my detailed contribution on this in relation to Senator Carr's amendment and for the reasons that I outlined in that contribution.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8021 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment on sheet 7984:

(1) Clause 34 , page 29 (after line 19) , after subclause ( 2 ), insert:

(2A) Without limiting subsection (1), the Building Code must include provisions ensuring that no less than 90% of the steel (other than excluded steel) used in a particular building work is manufactured in a blast furnace or an electric arc furnace located in Australia.

(2B) For subsection (2A), excluded steel means:

(a) any kind of steel that is not manufactured at any location in Australia and could not be manufactured in Australia for the purposes of a particular building work:

(i) at a cost ( a reasonable cost ) that does not exceed 20 percent of the base cost of the steel if manufactured in Australia; and

(ii) within a reasonable time; or

(b) any item made in Australia that is required to be made from a special kind of steel that is not manufactured in Australia and could not be manufactured in Australia at a reasonable cost; or

(c) any steel not manufactured in Australia for which the unit price would be 20 percent higher than the relevant price for steel specified by MEPS International Ltd or another global steel price prescribed by the regulations.

The Australian steel industry is on an knife edge. In Whyalla the steelworks are under administration. In Port Kembla the steelworks are somewhat healthier but, coming from that state, I know the fear the locals have, and I share them, that one morning you could wake up and the headline in the Illawarra Mercury could well be that BlueScope has closed its doors. That is why the amendment we are moving here is responsible. The wise thing would be for people committed to jobs growth to our regional areas and particularly to our steel industry—giving the steel industry in Australia of future—would support this.

There has been a great deal of work on this issue. I would certainly congratulate the South Coast Labor Council and the Australian Workers Union from the Illawarra because they have set out a very clear case around steel procurement and why this is a responsible way to go. We have just finished some debate on the issue of the future of the steel industry. Part of the problem with the former amendment was its reliance on standards. It might sound good in words and look okay on paper, but nothing really happens—it is not enforced; it is abused time and time again. Whereas if you have clear procurement requirement that a certain amount of steel has to be used in projects in which the government is involved must be sourced locally, then you really have a very easy solution to ensure that there is an ongoing market for steel produced in this country.

Costings show that mandating local steel in New South Wales alone will increase the annual construction budget by less than $34 million in return for maintaining 10,000 jobs—5000 of them in the Illawarra—and $10 billion in economic activity. This is comprehensive research that has been undertaken over a long time. This proposal for local steel procurement is not a radical idea. Today we were talking with BlueScope Steel about their very successful operations in the United States, where there is a Buy American program, which they acknowledge is not impacting on their local operations. It counters the false barrier which is often thrown up about the future of the steel industry when it is linked to procurement—'Oh, well, it is not compliant with trade agreements.' There are so many states in America with a steel industry that can operate under this Buy American campaign, and there is no way that they are not compliant with international trade agreements. The BlueScope people acknowledged in this meeting that, if there was a problem, they would have been jumped on and other companies would have been jumped on long before, but that is not the case because it has been worked out. I want to give emphasis to this because this argument we have heard, disappointingly, from Senator Xenophon, who has shifted his position considerably—not that I do not acknowledge that there has been some progress around the procurement issue tonight—but we should still be going to what this amendment sets out.

As I said, it is not a radical proposal. China and the US have reserved the right in trade agreements to exercise local procurement strategies over imports. So they are actually getting some balance back between trade agreements and their local industry. The extraordinary thing is that when successive Australian governments have negotiated trade agreements they have not looked after our steel industry the way China and the US have looked after theirs. Across the United States laws requiring domestic steel to be used in government infrastructure are already in place. As I said, they have done this in a number of states. The bill that was passed in the New South Wales parliament on the combined votes of the Greens, the Labor Party, the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party was based on some of the developments in the United States. So there is a movement here. It is possible. In the New South Wales situation, the bill has been passed, is now on its way and is waiting for debate in the lower house. We really should be catching up with these new trends.

We know that current production measures emit a lot of greenhouse gas emission—I totally acknowledge that. Nonetheless, we need steel to combat climate change. We need steel for so many things. We need steel for wind turbines. There are so many aspects to the renewable energy revolution that is occurring. Again, it is about getting the balance right and moving away from reliance on thermal coal as the energy source for the steel industry. We acknowledge that the issue with coke and coal remains a challenge, but there is fantastic research going on in this area. A lot of it—I am very proud to say—is coming out of the University of Wollongong Innovation Campus. Australia could lead the world in transitioning to a jobs-rich renewable-energy future and lead the world in developing clean steel production methods.

There is a real question here for Senator Xenophon and the whole Nick Xenophon Team. I am very concerned to hear the shift that has gone on in this debate. Ahead of the election, Senator Xenophon vowed to make the survival and future of Arrium in Whyalla a key election issue. He warned that, if re-elected, he and any parliamentary colleagues from his team:

… unashamedly use our votes to hold out for Arrium to get the help it needs.

He went on to say:

… Whyalla will turn into Australia’s biggest ghost town without Arrium operating and thriving. The cost of assistance now would be a fraction of the cost of the welfare bill and loss in tax revenue if Arrium falls over.

My colleague the Australian Greens parliamentary leader, Senator Richard Di Natale, has outlined this serious contradiction that we are now seeing arise within the Xenophon team.

Also very relevant to our considerations here is that Senator Xenophon outlined the policy below during the election campaign:

An overhaul of government procurement laws to ensure that Australian steel (and other locally manufactured products) is used in taxpayer funded infrastructure projects (whether federal, state or local where commonwealth money is involved) taking into account the social and economic benefits of local procurement. This would in-effect be a 'buy Australian policy' given the enormous flow-on benefits to the economy.

That was what the three senators from the Xenophon team took to the election. It is a very good position that we should be building on, working to get into the legislation that we are debating here in parliament and, hopefully, getting supported.

Having worked very closely with Senator Xenophon, I am deeply troubled by the shift that we see here. It was only a few months ago that those words were written. It was only a few months ago that the commitment to this was spelled out so clearly to South Australia in the federal election. And we can see the results. I am not saying that it was just around the steel procurement, but to go to four MPs in the whole parliament and three senators from one is a huge achievement. People have elected the Xenophon team on the basis of a range of promises and commitments. I would believe, knowing how serious the trouble is that the Whyalla steelworks is in, that that would have been a very significant promise when it was made.

These amendments the Greens are proposing will achieve what the Xenophon team set out in their policy document. I would argue that it is now time for the Xenophon team to match their rhetoric, to match the words that they went to the election with—this is very serious—and to support the Greens amendments. I would argue that it is not inconsistent with what they are doing with the government and with Senator Carr. There are steps that we can take in getting to a good position on a whole range of issues. We know there are complexities around the procurement issue, but I do not see contradictions. That is why I would argue the Xenophon team are contradicting what they have been supporting.

I urge all senators here today to get behind these Greens amendments. They are a way to protect local jobs and, most importantly, ensure that Australia has a steel industry now and into the future. Right now, what is happening in Whyalla and Port Kembla is very worrying. The steel industry is in a precarious position. It is bringing great uncertainty to local communities, which is something that we should address—and we can address it with this amendment. It is also bringing uncertainty to the future of the steel industry and has wide implications for our economy. So I recommend the Greens amendments to senators.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, the government will not support this proposed Greens amendment, which seeks to mandate the use of Australian steel. The Australian government procurement framework is based on the principles of value for money, open competition and nondiscrimination, which have applied under former governments of both persuasions, including, of course, former Labor governments.

Australia is party to a range of free trade agreements. International obligations arising from these agreements are reflected in the Commonwealth procurement rules, and these obligations include the requirement for non-discriminatory government procurement. It is important to understand that Australia's exporting businesses heavily rely on these arrangements, because we want our exporting businesses to be able to compete for business in these overseas markets. If we were to go down the path of discriminatory government procurement, then obviously the same would be directed at Australian exporting businesses in relevant overseas markets.

What the government has agreed with Senator Xenophon is not only a significant step forward in terms of the general issue that Senator Rhiannon raises; what the Nick Xenophon Team has done is be very mindful of the need for the change and the step forward to be sustainable—that is, not to be successfully challenged down the track. We have agreed improvements to the Commonwealth procurement rules that the Senate can have confidence will be in place on an ongoing basis, because they make progress in imposing some additional requirements, which Senator Carr has acknowledged as being good additional requirements. They frame it in a way that will ensure that Australia does not breach its international obligations. As such, these are rules that will make a practical and tangible difference. Of course, what Senator Rhiannon is proposing will essentially die at the first hurdle and not make any practical difference at all. One day the Greens will have to explain to me their strong support for steel in the context of their strong opposition to coal, but that will be a debate for another day.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate the chamber that, while we would all have to acknowledge that the crisis in the Australian steel industry has been caused by a glut of cheap imported steel, there have been numerous calls in public for Australian governments to mandate targets for the use of Australian steel. The usual proposition is for a 90 per cent mandate, which this amendment also puts forward. Labor's position is that we do not mandate the content; we mandate the standards. This is a very substantial difference. I think the one-size-fits-all approach that is being advocated in some quarters will not do the job, will not meet the needs of Australian industry. For instance, there are many gauges of steel that we do not have produced in this country anymore. In many defence contracts we will be required to. So there are some questions that have arisen in terms of the practicalities.

More particularly, I think on the issues of international trade and industry policy there needs to be a much more careful and nuanced argument so that the policy positions, which I think many in this chamber, particularly on this side, support will not be the subject of challenge and frustration by our competitors. I disagree with the minister to this extent. We do know that our international competitors are only too happy to use measures like this when it comes to their country. Try pulling this sort of free trade approach in the United States. I am not talking about under the new administration; I am talking about under the current administration. There are a whole series of legislative measures. In China there are a whole series of legislative measures in place which frustrate our capacity. Just recently BlueScope has been hit with savage penalties in the United States under their dumping regime, which is much more coercive and much more brutal than anything we would ever propose. We seem to maintain in this country a set of standards for us which of course are not applied by our competitors around the world. We do this in the name of free trade. I take the view that we can ensure that we preserve Australian industry capabilities and be consistent with our trade obligations if we use our heads. This is what I am concerned about with this measure. That is why I say that the position of the Australian Labor Party is that we mandate Australian standards. That insures, as we have seen in practical terms, that we can deliver.

In South Australia the Industry Participation Advocate of the Department of State Development, Mr Ian Nightingale, works across all sections of manufacturing industry. He has highlighted his role in terms of being a steel industry advocate in that state, which has seen his capacity to monitor the level of local products used and the jobs created in public projects, which are evaluated in terms of the economic benefit to the state. He has helped negotiate contracts to preserve the supply chain. For instance, the Auburn project allowed particularly the use of steel from OneSteel in Whyalla, which was then sent to Victoria to convert it to reinforced steel, and then sent back to South Australia to use on the project. We saw here that the capacity to coordinate and facilitate major projects was done in a much more flexible and effective means, supporting Australian industry, than we have seen in many other circumstances.

The evidence presented to the Senate inquiry on these matters highlighted that the contracts for state government public sector procurement, other than for building and construction, have seen an increase in local content of 40 per cent—that is, from 51 to 91 per cent. What we have seen in those circumstances is the work of ensuring the application of standards. I acknowledge that continuing work needs to be done.

Similarly, in Victoria the state Labor government is pursuing policies consistent with our trade obligations, in particular on the question of small and medium-sized enterprise arrangements within those agreements, to ensure that the rail crossings project is able to use local steel and to secure contracts with local steel fabricators to an extent unforeseen in recent times.

So it is possible to actually pursue industry policies consistent with our trade obligations which preserve industry capabilities and Australian jobs. Of course, it was a policy that this party, the Australian Labor Party, highlighted within government, and we have now announced a six-point plan that would see those provisions strengthened. The Buy Australian at Home and Abroad program would be strengthened under a Labor government. The industry supplier advocates would be strengthened under a Labor government. We would ensure that we have the capability to assist our supply chain companies to get contracts and keep contracts, but to do it on a competitive basis consistent with our trade obligations. We would ensure that we are able to use Australian product to build Australian capabilities and preserve Australian jobs without having to mandate it in the way that is proposed in this measure, and the Labor Party will not be supporting it.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sadly, when you hear Senator Carr speak like that you know he has been captured by the free traders.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Me? Me? I claim to have been misrepresented!

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you have, because you more than anybody should be standing up here and speaking about steel procurement. These arguments that have been thrown up have no basis. Let's go through them. The free trade one is a furphy. So many very capable people, like Senator Penny Wong, are so obsessed with free trade that all of you have become locked into this position.

The Bluescope one is an interesting one. North Star is their company in the United States. It is incredibly profitable at the moment, as is much of the steel industry in the United States. They have a Buy America policy. I asked the CEO from BlueScope about it today and he said that it is not causing them a problem with regard to any of the free trade agreements. Buy America is not a problem for them because it actually allows their operations to go ahead and does not contradict the trade agreements. Seriously, the government and the opposition should be getting their heads around this and doing their trade agreements properly. They are the ones who are penalising Australia while other countries, like China and the US, have worked it out. North Star's profits have gone up 160 per cent because it has worked out that you can have a local procurement position and you are not contradicting your trade agreements. Both sides of politics are so far behind on the developments that are occurring fast in that area.

The other area where Senator Carr criticised what we are saying was with regard to steel procurement. I would really urge senators to read the motion, because we have there the important subsection about excluded steel. We know that a whole variety of steel types are needed, depending on what the construction is, so we have in there a clause about excluded steel. If the steel that is required cannot be sourced in Australia, it can be sourced from overseas. Again, we have put in there a very responsible, clear position with regard to local procurement. If the steel cannot be sourced from Australia because it is not made here—or even, as we have got there, because it is not going to be available within a reasonable time—it can be sourced from overseas. That definition is there. So please do not misrepresent what is a very responsible position. Again, this is where we should be able to have unity to give some certainty to the steel industry and to advance trade agreements that are not living in the 20th century.

The CHAIR: The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Rhiannon on sheet 7984 be agreed to.

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

I, and also on behalf of Senator Lambie, Senator Culleton and Senator Xenophon, move amendment (1) on sheet 8022:

(1) Clause 16, page 21 (after line 7), at the end of the clause (after proposed subsection (2)), add:

(3) Without limiting subsection (1), the ABC Commissioner must perform his or her functions in relation to the following provisions of the FW Act:

(a) Chapter 2, including (but not limited to) in relation to wages and entitlements;

(b) Part 3-1 (general protections, including protection of freedom of association and prohibitions on coercion), including (but not limited to):

(i) section 351 (discrimination); and

(ii) sections 357 to 359 (sham arrangements);

(c) Part 3-3 (industrial action), including (but not limited to):

(i) section 474 (payments not to be made relating to certain periods of industrial action); and

(ii) section 475 (accepting or seeking payments relating to periods of industrial action);

(d) Part 3-4 (right of entry).

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

Thank you, Senator Hinch, for moving that amendment. The government will be supporting the amendment put forward. We accept that the proposed amendment will make it clearer that the ABC commissioner is required to exercise his or her functions in relation to a broad range of compliance matters.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to co-sponsor this amendment with my colleagues Senators Hinch, Lambie and Culleton. It requires the commissioner to perform his or her functions in relation to a number of matters, including wages and entitlements, protection of freedom of association, discrimination, sham arrangements and a number of other matters, including right of entry, because there has been concern that the current FWBC director has not been carrying out these functions, and it is important that the commissioner is required to do so. This gives it some statutory teeth and, arguably, administrative remedies in terms of mandamus should the commissioner fail to do so.

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

Well, well! Let's see how this works. I am quite happy with this proposal, but while you have Nigel Hadgkiss, the worst ever appointment to a senior Public Service job in the country, this will be a battle. This guy has got complete contempt for the Australian parliament, the Senate and the estimates process. This is the guy who told estimates he does not keep a diary and then, when there was a freedom-of-information request, he provided a bit out of his diary. The guy tells lies. The guy is not fit to be in the position he is in. I have not agreed with a lost that Senator Xenophon has said tonight, but I certainly agree with Senator Xenophon that this guy should not be in charge of anything when it comes to integrity. He should not be in charge of looking after supposedly unbiased approaches on workers' rights. He has a terrible reputation. His actions have been biased. His actions have been criticised by the judiciary. He is absolutely hopeless. To get him to actually look after anything other than what he wants to look after will be something we will need to look at. I look forward to the next estimates. Trying to keep this guy on the straight and narrow is a very difficult job, but I will give it a good shot. I will be looking at this very closely to make sure that Nigel Hadgkiss actually does the job that he is supposed to do, because for the last number of years he has not been doing it. He has been setting up a little team of cronies within Fair Work Building and Construction and he has been setting up an agenda that he wants to pursue regardless of what the act does. All this mob over here, this rabble of a government, this rabble sitting opposite want to do is cut loose on workers' wages and conditions. We will support this amendment because it is about time there was accountability for Nigel Hadgkiss. We need accountability on what is the most unaccountable senior public servant in the country.

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

Despite Senator Cameron's cynicism—and I am sure that we will surprise him—I believe that this amendment will ensure that clear instructions are in place as to what the ABCC remit is and what the commissioner has to do and must do. I have to say that I am proud to have extended this to include sham contracting and wages and entitlements.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The significance of this amendment is that it gives the right to issue a writ of mandamus against whomever is in this position as ABCC commissioner—and I hope it is not still Mr Hadgkiss—which I expect is something that will be a very powerful mechanism not just for accountability but for enforcement. I am glad that Senator Cameron welcomes that. You actually have a right to the writ of mandamus if the commissioner does not do his or her work.

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

I find it absolutely unbelievable. I do not have an argument with you on this, Senator Xenophon. But why would we need a writ of mandamus to make a public servant carry out the responsibilities under the act that they preside over? It is absolutely ridiculous. Again I indicate that I am with you: if this Nigel Hadgkiss is leading the ABCC then I predict all sorts of problems. All the vision that you have for the ABCC, no matter how flawed that vision is, will never come to fruition if Nigel Hadgkiss is leading the fair work building commission. If anyone ever deserved to lose their job it is that guy. I have spent my life saving people's jobs, but this is one job that should go. Nigel Hadgkiss incompetent, overbearing, secretive and he thinks he is the J Edgar Hoover of Australia. That is who he thinks he is. He should go—I agree with you, Senator Xenophon.

The CHAIR: The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Hinch on sheet 8022 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment on sheet 8020 in relation to the functions of the Federal Safety Commissioner:

(1) Clause 38, page 32 (after line 22), after paragraph (c), insert:

(ca) auditing compliance with National Construction Code performance requirements in relation to building materials;

This relates, very briefly, to the issue of compliance. We have seen the dramatic moves forward that we have made in relation to procurement, but this relates to the Federal Safety Commissioner having the ability to ensure compliance with Australian standards in relation to materials used on building sites that are subject to the code. That is a significant move forward and it is an enforcement mechanism which has already be agreed to.

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

The government agrees with this amendment because it believes that all building materials used on Australian building sites should meet Australian standards. The government already uses its influence as a client and as a provider of capital to drive improved standards and culture within the construction industry by its continued commitment to the Federal Safety Commissioner's work health and safety accreditation scheme. The amendment would extend that influence to driving improved compliance with existing requirements to use building materials certified to comply with Australian standards. I thank Senator Xenophon for moving the amendment.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment on sheet 8020 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I, and also on behalf of Senator Culleton, move Derryn Hinch's Justice Party revised amendment No. 1 on sheet 8016:

(1) Clause 119, page 97 (after line 6), after the clause, insert: 119A Review of operation of this Act

(1) Before the end of the period of 12 months after the commencement of this section, the Minister must cause to be conducted a review into the operation of this Act.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the review must consider whether a decision that a person has not, or is not, complying with the Building Code should be subject to merits review.

(3) The Minister must cause to be prepared a report of a review under subsection (1).

(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the completion of the preparation of the report.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just clarify that it is the revised amendment? Sheet 8016, clause 119, revised—is that correct?

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

Yes, it is. This is a review of the operation of the act.

Question agreed to.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the Nick Xenophon Team amendment No. 2 on sheet 8012, which is consequential on the amendment No. 1 on sheet 8012:

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 2), omit the heading.

[judicial review]

(2)Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 3 to 6), to be opposed.

[judicial review]

This relates to judicial review. This amendment will mean that decisions made under the ABCC legislation—for example, the issuing of a compliance notice—are subject to judicial review. This is the first time an industrial relations law will be subject to judicial review and is a significant amendment which will add a layer of review and improve accountability. This is something that the Law Council of Australia has had a very strong view on. It will ensure that there will be that element of scrutiny. I commend this consequential amendment to my colleagues. I am happy to answer any questions in respect of that.

Question negatived.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the Nick Xenophon Team amendment No. 1 on sheet 8012 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of Senator Hinch, I move Derryn Hinch's Justice Party amendment No. 1 on sheet 8023:

(1) Schedule 2, item 14, page 13 (line 8), omit ", other than regulation 7.13,".

It relates to legal expenses. I note that Senator Hinch is not in the chamber at the moment, but my understanding is that this would make it much less onerous. Senator Hinch has just come into the chamber—he can save the day and refer to his legal expenses amendment, which I am sure he is dying to speak to!

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

You are watching the new boy, all right! Sheet 8023—I have it here. Thank you, Senator Xenophon—we are trying to do some team work here. At this stage of the night we are trying to get as many amendments through as we possibly can. The Senate knows what it is about, so thank you.

Question agreed to.

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw Australian Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet 7983 and I move Australian Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet 8003:

(1) Clause 34, page 29 (line 29), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) If the Building Code includes provisions in relation to building enterprise agreements:

(a) the provisions may only apply in relation to a building enterprise agreement made on or after the commencement of this section; and

(b) any building enterprise agreement made, or approved under the Fair Work Act 2009 before the commencement of this section is taken to comply with the Building Code.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rhiannon, there are just some questions: I understand that it is not on the running sheet but that it has been circulated previously?

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. This amendment is about the Building Code. The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 will not only put in place a new politicised union-busting commission but it will also usher in a new Building Code. This is really what we need to concentrate on. The Building Code is the essence of the problem that we have here; it epitomises the seriousness of what we are dealing with. It is the Building Code that will have enormous detrimental impacts on workers and employers in the industry. The government's Building Code will put severe limits on what can be covered by workplace agreements. If a company negotiates an agreement that does not conform to the requirements of the code, the company will be ineligible for Commonwealth funded projects. This is where the government has come up with a scenario to really lock in a code that will really restrict companies being able to get on with their workforce and get the job done. The government is saying that they have put improving productivity into the bill now—the improving productivity bill—whereas this will in fact do the reverse, because it is so onerous in the way it will play out. It will be particularly punitive to companies that are attempting to do the right thing by the workforce and to actually work in a reasonable way.

We know that more than one million Australian workers will be impacted by the new code. This includes not only employers tendering for government construction projects but also all employees of the entity tendering for the government work working in the private sector, all entities that supply transport or prefabrication manufacturing to government jobs, and other entities that include contracting for transport suppliers. Again, this is why the Greens and the people opposed to the ABCC give such emphasis to the Building Code. Here, as you can see, the reach of it is enormous; it reaches right into the transport industry as well as the construction industry. Those who want to destroy the union movement go as far as they can to achieve that by gaining maximum control and by being so punitive right across the construction industry, pulling in the transport aspects as well.

The Building Code not only prohibits union-friendly clauses, the code will also prohibit major existing employment conditions for construction workers. Again, this is where we see the seriousness of this agreement. For example, the code prohibits 76 clauses in a construction ETU agreement for electricians. I will go through what those clauses are. When I am spelling them out, keep Work Choices in mind, because this is why the Building Code is being called 'introducing Work Choices by stealth'. Remember there were many problems with Work Choices and many onerous aspects to it, particularly because it is stripped down the agreements that workers should have the right to collectively determine with their employer. It removed the ability for workers to do that. Here is just one example from an ETU agreement, which, as I said, the code would totally remove 76 clauses from. These include clauses that: prevent unlimited ordinary hours worked per day; guarantee the employees' ability to have a day off on Christmas Day and Easter Sunday public holidays; encourage employment of apprentices; discourage discrimination against mature workers; include agreed stable and secure shift arrangements or rosters; ensure construction workers' conditions and entitlements cannot be eroded; provide for equality and fairness on-site for construction workers; and impact on the rights of construction workers to have a safe workplace.

This is what we have been talking about through the second reading debate and in the committee stage—how sinister this ABCC legislation is. It is about smashing working conditions and how workers collectively come together to improve their pay and improve their conditions. That is a most extraordinary list. And how horrible as we come into Christmas. I so love this time of year, yet here we read that, if you work for the ETU, in your agreement for electricians—my dad was actually an electrician for a long time—you could lose the ability to have your Christmas Day and your Easter Sunday and your public holidays. People here are going to be enjoying their public holidays. I bet everybody here is looking forward to Christmas. And this is what we are about to do: we are about to come forward with legislation that has a building code in it that would knock out all those conditions for working people.

The coalition rip into the CFMEU time and time and again. I put on the record again my congratulations to the CFMEU for continuing 150 years of really solid work—not just for their own members, but work that has benefited working people across this whole country by establishing standards and conditions. And here we are at 10.20 pm, two days to go before the end of parliament, and you bring this in? It is so ugly.

I know, from some of the meetings I have had with construction workers and people who work in the industry, that many employers are actually concerned about the code, not only because the code will increase costs and risks to companies and remove conditions to maximise labour productivity, but also because the code introduces 8,465 words of prescriptive red tape, removing entities' managerial rights to employ staff in accordance with their own commercial practices. This is, again, where it is punitive to the companies that are not going along with the ideological obsession of the government to smash the union movement. Lots of companies work very productively and constructively with the union or unions that cover workers in their workplaces. But, no, this government wants to remove all that; they want to end that. That is what this Building Code is about.

The major cost will be the cost to productivity. This is where it gets extraordinary. You listen to the government bang on about productivity all the time. They vilify the Greens and have a go at Labor now and then, making out that we are damaging the economy, yet here they are coming forward with measures that will not improve productivity, as it states in the bill, but will set it back. The title of this bill is a real reminder that when governments come forward with a title that sounds pretty good, then your alarm bells should really ring. You should well and truly be alert that they are up to something—and, indeed, they are with this legislation. As I said, the major cost will be the cost to productivity from removing the conditions which have underpinned high productivity in construction, including the productivity and motivational effects of workers' perception of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, respectful and trusting relationships with their employers and across worksites, and safe working hours and conditions.

The Building Code introduces unprecedented government intervention. It is extremely ugly; it is extremely wrong. We see intervention, auditing, compliance costs and liabilities to businesses—this is one of the great untold aspects of this story. Very few people who have written about it in the mainstream media have identified this, so, while there is an aspect of corporate Australia really driving the government to come forward and get this legislation passed as soon as possible, there are many businesses that just get on with their business, that work pretty well with their work force—they give them a pay rise now and then, negotiate with the union when they come forward. But now they are going to be hit with this auditing, the compliance costs and various liabilities. They are not happy with what the government is doing; they can see what is going on here.

There will be an operational cost of having to negotiate with employees on pay, conditions, job security and access to their representatives. These operational costs will be imposed if you go along with what the government is up to here. There are legal and operational resources to revive project planning, scheduling, re-contracting and monitoring of providers, and then there is complying with the code obligations on a daily basis. The compliance here is enormous—and remember, this is the party, the Liberals and Nationals, who bang on about red tape. They come forward with their various bureaus and task forces to remove red tape and say it is bad for business, but here they are becoming so extreme in how they plan to implement this Australian Building and Construction Commission, with the centrepiece being the Building Code. Their aim is to wind up unions, to make Australia union fee or to have them so compliant, like they are in some countries, that they lose the muscle that they need. Many times in this debate we have heard how unsafe workplaces have become when unions cannot get out there and organise. That is why we need the unions.

What we have here are a whole lot of measures that are going to make it harder for business, like compliance costs, the intervention, the auditing—all this has to be paid for; it all takes up time and they have to make provision for who is going to do it and when they are going to do it, and what happens if it is not done on time. This is red tape in an extreme form. But the government do not talk about that—they do not own up to the fact that that is part of what they are up to. Then there are the increased insurance costs to cover increased risks and liability. That is the cost and liability increase for commercial builders of having contractors or other suppliers banned by government. Remember, that is how this can play out. If you have not complied with the government, that is how it will play out. The Greens amendment certainly should be supported.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The core issue here, as far as Pauline Hanson's One Nation is concerned, is freedom versus control. That is the issue, the bottom line. Look at phoenixing, which Senator Cameron discussed a while ago. The key point in phoenixing is not to counteract it; the key point is to prevent it, and breaking the big business cartel that involves the CFMEU and major companies is the key to preventing that continuing. The key to phoenixing is preventing it, and that is what this bill does. This bill is not an attack on unions—this bill is about breaking the cartel in the building industry that is suppressing initiative, suppressing innovation and suppressing freedom in that industry.

The key point to phoenixing is breaking the cartel between big business bosses and CFMEU bosses. The key point to safety is breaking the cartel between big business bosses and CFMEU bosses. The key point to efficiency is breaking the cartel between big business bosses and CFMEU bosses. The key point to rewarding work for people in the construction industry and for honest everyday workers is breaking the cartel between big business bosses and CFMEU bosses. The key point to lower costs and to higher value for taxpayers while maintaining honest workers' wages is breaking the cartel between big business bosses and CFMEU bosses. The key point to safeguarding small business in this country, whether that is suppliers or whether that is subbies, is breaking the cartel between big business bosses and CFMEU bosses.

This is the house of review, not the house of repetition, which we have been subjected to by the other side this evening. The key part of the ABCC reform is the Building Code, and the key part in coming to our conclusion to support this bill is in listening to the people. We have heard stories from small businesses, from subbies, from labourers, about the large companies controlling this industry, pushing risk down to the lowest levels where there is no protection. Some of the amendments from the crossbenches have addressed those issues. The key point is that large companies are suppressing competition to remove competition from smaller companies and preventing them becoming larger companies. The key point is that the larger companies are maintaining a cartel. This is where the 30 per cent needless increase in costs is, meaning that large companies stand to make more money just by basing their work on a commission. They do not hire many people, they do not employ many people—they hire subbies who take the risk and then they skim a commission off the top. If the bill overall is 30 per cent higher, they make more money for nothing.

Grace Collier, the journalist and industrial relations consultant, has talked about this at length—about the big companies controlling this cartel and being rampant thanks to support from the CFMEU bosses. We see the need for an IR carve-out to be restricted, because that is being abused in this industry in particular, where they are hiding behind the IR carve-out to force subbies to take on their own large-company employment agreements. We see thugs or bullies—100 or so—in front of the courts for intimidating people and other breaches of law. This bill is about restoring lawful behaviour to this vital industry—one of the largest industries in this country.

The unions themselves, at a very senior level in this industry, met with Pauline Hanson, me and some of our staff and admitted to us that they are no angels. They are no angels indeed! They admitted that they needed to clean up their act. They have had years to do that and they have never cleaned up their act. That is because they are incapable of it. They are incapable of it because they do not understand the issues and the consequences of their bullying behaviour. They do not have the incentive to fix up their act: they do not want to fix up their act, because they are in a very cosy position of having a monopoly—a cartel.

They have protested at our office simply because our leader now Senator Pauline Hanson said that she was in favour of accountability, open disclosure and integrity. So they bullied our office. They tried to break into our office. They graffitied our office. Then they insulted our staff and intimidated our staff.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who's they?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The CFMEU. The people who fund your party, to a large extent. No wonder you support them, Senator Hanson—Senator Hanson-Young, rather. How could I mistake the hair! Sorry, Senator Hanson. Small business, in terms of subbies—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I take a point of order?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Up you get!

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, on a serious point of order.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to remind Senator Roberts that it is nice to refer to people as their appropriate names in this place. I do not appreciate being referred to as Senator Hanson.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I have noted your point of order. Senator Roberts, please resume, and direct your remarks through the chair, if you would.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is rare that I get to insult two people at once with just one comment, but there you go! I have just done it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Or complimented them, Senator Roberts. Please continue.

Small businesses are a major loser here. I have honestly seen large muscly men afraid of nothing except the CFMEU. Because they have been afraid, they have told us that they cannot tell their stories without confidentiality and that we cannot identify them, their companies, their employees or their families, because they are afraid for their employees and the families of their employees. This is Australia in 2016—almost 2017—and we have decent people, hardworking people and honest people living in fear. Surely, that is enough to get support for initiatives like this.

Then we have taxpayers—our bosses; the people we serve—paying 30 per cent above what they should for hospitals, for schools, for roads and for other infrastructure. That means that when we pay for three hospitals right now we could be getting a fourth for nothing; we could be getting a fourth road for nothing; we could be getting a fourth school for nothing. That is exactly why this bill has to be passed: we need to suppress the lawless behaviour on construction sites. That lawlessness goes to senior levels of major companies. Remember that that is the key to this bill. The key to this bill is breaking the backs of the cartels that are run by large companies in this country.

Those that are driving and controlling these cartels have tentacles throughout this parliament and throughout state governments—tentacles that reach to the Greens Party, the ALP and the Leader of the Opposition in the lower house. He is connected with GetUp!, being on the foundation board of directors. The CFMEU are funding GetUp! to the tune of $1.4 million. Then what does GetUp! do? GetUp then destroys the coal industry and is proud to do so, along with the Greens. The Greens are proud to destroy the coal industry.

What about honest union members paying their dues; turning up for work regularly; being bullied, intimidated and suppressed at work; and not being able to develop pride in their work; not being able to get a regular pay; not being able to improve safety; and not being able to improve security? Coming from the coal industry I know that we have progressed in the coal industry from the days when hundreds of men would get killed underground and the days when lungs would fill with coal dust, and people would suffocate and choke. We see the industry free from black lung thanks to regulations for safety, thanks to dramatic improvements in technology and thanks to dramatic improvements in management.

Honourable senators interjecting—

It still seems that in some parts of this chamber people think it is safety or productivity. It is quite clear, as I said earlier on today, that safety enables productivity. They are not mutually exclusive; they are mutually beneficial.

So black lung has now reappeared, very sadly, for a small number of people in our industry. Four of the eight levels of responsibility for workers' health are controlled or affected by the CFMEU directly—either union members, team supervisors, check inspectors or district check inspectors. They are funded by the industry, and yet all four of those levels have had to have been accomplices in ignoring safety procedures and good health procedures underground to see black lung come back. Then the CFMEU stands up, grandstands and blames everyone but the CFMEU.

Then we see, and I have experienced this, subtle intimidation at union meetings. I have stood up to those union bosses at those worksites and I have slowly been able to swing people around to common sense and to not being intimidated by union bosses. We see subtle intimidation, orchestration and making sure that people are coerced into backing union bosses' advice.

We talk about progress and the dramatic improvements in coalmine safety. They were made possible by the good work of many men and women and by invoking science, discipline and good management as well as some regulation. But look around at the benefits of our modern technology. We want to reverse this in the building industry. There are eight keys, in my experience, to human progress. The first and most important is freedom—the freedom of people to come up with ideas, the freedom of people to exchange ideas and the freedom of people to build on ideas. This ABCC bill is about restoring freedom so that people can share, innovate and create. It is about the freedom to innovate.

The second of the eight keys of progress that I see as essential is rule of law. Rule of law is fundamental to protecting people, rule of law is being smashed on building sites in this country and rule of law needs to be restored. The third is making sure that we have good, constitutional governance, and that is what I see the government doing here—making sure it fulfils its responsibilities to the people of Australia and workers on construction sites. The fourth key to progress is secure property rights, so that money cannot be stolen and property cannot be stolen, and we see this here as part of the protection. The fifth one that I have seen is honest money. That is not affected here. The sixth is fair tax, the seventh is families and the eighth is cheap, reliable energy.

We can see that we cannot continue to have human progress while sacrificing rule of law, sacrificing freedom and sacrificing property rights. Then of course we get onto tax. That is a subject that I see as needing a lot of attention in this country.

What I have also seen and been very encouraged by is the teamwork from the crossbench senators. I want to acknowledge especially Rod Culleton, Senator Xenophon, Derryn Hinch, Jacqui Lambie and everyone who came together on this. Rather than just criticising the government for some of the shortfalls in their bill—and there always will be, because all we have on one side are narrow views—there has been a coming together of many people listening to their constituents and actually building an even better ABCC bill. I am not happy with every aspect of it. I am not happy with the two-year transition, but that, I understand, has been discussed with Senator Xenophon, Derryn Hinch and also—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, would you use the correct title for each of our colleagues, please. Thank you.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry—Senator Hinch. So it is the teamwork that I am very proud of amongst the crossbench senators, especially of my colleague Senator Culleton, who has been very busy in the last few weeks and has worked extremely hard on this.

I still see the need for other changes in industrial relations in this country. I have mentioned them before. The IR carve-out is a source of abuse right now. It needs to be narrowed. With that in mind, I wrote to the Minister for Employment some weeks ago and also to the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, and asked them to review the IR carve-out through the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman, with a view to narrowing it to stop the abuse that is going on right now.

I also believe that, even though we are putting in place more federal legislation, once the industry is tightened up and brought back under rule of law, we need to get the federal government out of industrial relations, just like we need to get it out of health and education, and restore them to competitive federalism under sovereign states.

I really commend the government for having the initiative to bring this bill forward. I also commend the government for having the sense to listen to us expressing our constituents' views. I commend this bill to the Senate.

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

What can I say after that lot! I want to come back to what we were actually debating, and that was Senator Rhiannon's amendment on sheet 8003. I think that is where we were.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Correct.

We have gone around the world in 80 days, looking at all sorts of nonsense and theories and rubbish from Senator Roberts.

I just want to indicate to Senator Rhiannon that, while we understand the sentiments behind your amendment on sheet 8003, we would draw your attention to the amendment on sheet 8015, which Labor will move later in the evening, which I think deals with the issues you are raising, but in a more comprehensive manner. I just want to draw your attention to that. So we will oppose this amendment, but only because we hope that you could support our amendment on 8015, because I think it would achieve what you are trying to achieve but in an even more comprehensive manner than your amendment on sheet 8003. That is where we were.

I also understand that there are another two amendments being circulated. One of them, I think, is Senator Xenophon's amendment on the AAT—I am not sure we have a number for that yet—

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sheet 7954.

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

sheet 7954—and that is basically about restoring one of the key concerns that Labor have among the many fundamental concerns that we have about this bill, and that is oversight of what was then the Fair Work Building Commission and now, if this bill goes through, oversight of the ABCC. Senator Xenophon, I have not had a chance to look at that amendment, but you know that the oversight that was done by the Ombudsman was diminished oversight in relation to what the Fair Work Building Commission had, so this is a return, basically, to Fair Work Building Commission oversight, where the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would have oversight in relation to the operation of the Fair Work Building Commission—and, I assume, through your amendment—under the ABCC.

I understand there is another amendment, which is a Senator Hinch amendment, in terms of a two-year transition period. We will have a bit of a look at both those amendments right now. I am not sure if we have the two-year transition amendment yet. I think it is still in the system somewhere. Once we get a look at that, I do not think we would need to spend a lot of time considering supporting them. We would, I think, be inclined to support those two amendments. We just want to have a look at the details, so we would not be holding the process up on them. Certainly in relation to the area that we are discussing now—that is, amendment (1) on sheet number 8003—I would like to indicate that we will not support that. We will be looking to deal with these issues on sheet 8015. I might just leave my comments at that. We can then deal with the other amendments that are before the committee.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to add some comments in relation to this amendment, as outlined by Senator Rhiannon. Ironically, this goes to one of the fundamental issues referenced by Senator Roberts. He spoke a lot about freedom and a lot about the idea of workers being able to have protection and a safe environment for the work that they do in their workplace. I find it incredibly ironic to have a senator stand here in this place and spout support for fundamental aspects of workplace conditions, such as what we heard from Senator Roberts, when, in fact, this piece of legislation does anything but provide more protections for workers. In fact, this entire Building Code, which this amendment goes to, is going to create massive chaos within the building and construction industry. What we are going to see, undoubtedly, is a lowest common denominator response: lower safety standards and lower conditions for workers. Those workers who already have worked and fought long and hard for conditions that ensure that they can do their job safely and that their employers ensure that they are looked after—to make sure that their families, when they say goodbye to them at the beginning of the day, know that when they go off to work they are going to work in safe places with regulations that will protect them—will be starting from scratch because this Building Code is effectively going to tear those conditions up.

If anyone wants to come into this place and say that voting for the ABCC legislation is about protecting workers, they have got rocks in their head. It is anything but that. The mass chaos that is going to be created by this bill across the board, particularly in relation to this Building Code, will mean that conditions that have already been fought for and have already been in place are going to be revisited. This has nothing to do with freedom at all—in fact, it is the exact opposite. The government and the minister in charge will be able to stick his or her finger in every pie in relation to workplaces right across the country—mass chaos. So much for small government, Senator Roberts. This is going to create the biggest government intervention you have ever seen in this industry. It is not going to be pretty, and it will not only be workers who end up unhappy.

As we know, the rest of this legislation is an opportunity for the government to thump their chest about their desire and their obsession with union bashing. That is, of course, where Senator Roberts's real passion for this issue lies. He stood here in this chamber—Senator Abetz would be very proud of you, Senator Roberts. You and he see eye to eye when it comes to bashing unions. I can tell that already, and I have only been in here for about half an hour listening to your drivel. It is ridiculous to see an entire industry and all of its workers tarnished with the brush that you have given them. The union bashing that has gone on in this place for the last 24 hours, and last week when the previous bill was debated, is just astonishing. You would think there are no other issues going on in government right now. You would think that there were no other big issues facing the Australian people when you hear the government's obsession with beating up on union members and unions. These unions have fought long and hard for workers to be protected so that they have rights at work and so that they have safety standards to ensure that they do not die on the job.

I must say, Senator Roberts, I was extremely concerned with your continued obsession with big, muscly men. That line kept coming out over and over again, and I have heard it all night. You have an obsession with big, muscly men. I do not know what your problem is, Senator Roberts.

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

Through the chair, if you would, Senator Hanson-Young.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, Chair, I do not know what Senator Roberts's problem is with big, muscly men. The fact is it does not matter what your size is in this country; you deserve rights to safety and protection at work, whatever your job is and whatever your physique may be. I know we are being broadcast, so you may not be able to see the stature of Senator Roberts, but I can understand why, perhaps, Senator Roberts is intimidated by people who may be a little bit larger and more muscly than him. But it is not an excuse to come into this place and demand that people, regardless of their stature, regardless of their size and regardless of what industry they work in, do not deserve rights to be protected at work or to be assured that those safety precautions are there.

This amendment goes directly to the element of retrospectivity. We do not want to see those protections, particularly in relation to safety and the basic welfare of workers, ripped up because this piece of legislation is pushed through tonight or in the early hours of tomorrow morning. We need to make sure that when people are working in dangerous environments and tough environments such as construction sites across this country—whether you are building the new hospital in Adelaide or whether you are on the building site of a housing development in Sydney or whether you are in a suburb in Brisbane—they know the rights that they have fought for, to have safe working conditions, are absolutely underpinned and insured. I am extremely concerned that the way this code has been drafted by the government will create massive chaos. People will have to renegotiate those very basic principles. It will create a situation where even employers will be scratching their heads, saying, 'We thought we went through all of this. Why do we have to do this all over again?'

In yesterday's the second reading debate I was particularly concerned with the welfare of young workers in this sector. There will be young electricians or labourers on worksites who, because of the intimidation that will be supercharged through this legislation, will not be able to stand up for themselves on these sites. They will not have the protection of a union which comes in to say, 'Hang on a minute. The safety requirements that should be there are just not there.' We are telling young Australians that they have to get into the workforce and that they need to get skilled up to go out and get a job—we keep hearing that from this government over and over again—but the government is kicking young people because they are unemployed and they do not have work. Here we are with a sector that desperately needs workers, particularly young workers, and we are about to say, 'Go on, go into this sector, go off into this industry,' where people will be intimidated to stand up for their own rights to be protected in the workplace.

We know that the last time the ABCC laws were in place deaths on worksites went up. That is the truth: the number of deaths on worksites went up the last time the ABCC legislation passed this parliament. People were intimidated to point out that something was not safe. Young people were not encouraged to look out for each other in case they were seen to be troublemakers on the construction site. For a number of senators in this place who sprout a whole lot about the rights of individual freedom, it astounds me that the ability for workers to defend themselves against the big bosses is being undermined. In fact, workers are going to be punished under this legislation. We do know that deaths on construction sites went up the last time the ABCC laws were in place. I do not want to see that happen again.

I remember talking to a number of workers after a young colleague of theirs died on the site of the new Adelaide hospital. It was a tragic circumstance where young person went to work. He had been told to stop bludging and go and get a job. So he got a job in one of the toughest environments and he died. He did not get home that day; he did not even get his lunch that afternoon. That is not the type of circumstance that should be ignored as we debate this legislation. The protections that currently exist in people's employment arrangements—protections that have been fought for long and hard between employers, employees and their representative unions—must be maintained. Despite all of the government's spin and despite the idea that they want government out of people's lives, this bill does the exact opposite—it injects government into the lives of construction workers and their families.

It is not going to be pretty. We will see more dangerous worksites, people intimidated from standing up and speaking out about even basic things like the hours people have to work without a break. Why should it be that an employer and a group of employees in a particular company will have to go back and start from scratch when it comes to agreeing to how many hours those people must work? It is ridiculous and it has absolutely nothing to do with productivity—it is the exact opposite of what you would be doing if you wanted to promote productivity in the building and construction sector.

It is the damn shame that Senator Bob Day is not here because I would love to ask him questions about the productivity of his worksites and how he would respond if the government wanted to get its fingers into the arrangements that had already been worked out in his construction sites and projects. He would be saying, 'Get out of this. I've worked this out. My workers are happy; I am happy. You can bugger off. We don't have to review all of this.' But here we are with the government of the day pretending that they care about productivity and pretending that this is all about a small-government agenda when in fact it is all about being the big bogey man that comes in to intimidate workers and push them to the sidelines—while the government uses this as part of its propaganda against the union movement. It is pathetic; it is unnecessary. For any senator in this place to stand here and start sprouting that this is about freedom, you have rocks in your head. I commend the amendment to the chamber and I hope that my words of reason perhaps have had some impact on Senator Roberts.