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

I stand to oppose this bill on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. Working people have got a lot to fear from this bill and a lot to fear from this coalition government. We have a government with a weak Prime Minister. It is a government which is controlled by the extremists in the coalition. We have a Prime Minister with no values and absolutely no principles. He will do whatever he needs to do, whatever he has to do, to placate the worst elements in the coalition, and this bill epitomises some of the worst elements of the coalition in its antiworker approach to Australian workers around this country. This is a Prime Minister who has no coherent economic plan—no plan on how to take this economy forward. So what do you do? You simply attack the trade union movement and give in to the worst elements in your party.

We had this GST plan from the Prime Minister. A GST was going to be put in place. When that fell apart—it did not last very long—the plan was that the states could tax themselves. That did not last very long either. And then we got down to the nitty-gritty of the coalition: their economic plan to attack the trade union movement and provide a $50 billion tax cut to some of the biggest corporations, some of the multinational corporations, in this country, which give money to the coalition to allow them to run their election campaigns. So the money would go back again through the public purse in a $50 billion tax cut to the big end of town. In addition to that, the government want to give the big end of town even more rights over working people. They want to take their rights away in order to limit bargaining in this country like no other country in the world. No other advanced country in the world has laws like those being proposed by this government right now.

We certainly know why the government are running this agenda. This is a former Prime Minister Tony Abbott special: attack the union movement. When you are in trouble, break glass, attack the trade union movement—and this government is in trouble. They are an absolute rabble. They are fighting with each other. They have no agenda for this place other than to attack workers rights. This is a government that has not got a lot of legs; it has certainly got no backbone in terms of looking after ordinary working people. It will give in to former Prime Minister Abbott, because former Prime Minister Abbott is gunning for the current Prime Minister. We know that there is chaos and division within this government. We saw it the other day when Mr Abbott was publicly telling Mr Turnbull that we should revisit the 2014 budget. Remember that budget? It was the budget that was going to cut pensions; the budget that was going to take rights away from some of the poorest and weakest welfare recipients in the country. People who cannot look after themselves were going to be thrown to the wolves. Young Australians who may live in an area where there are no jobs, where too many people are looking to get into too few jobs, would have to live on fresh air for six months. This is the type of government that it is. And we see the pressure to revisit that—cutting pensions and coming after the poorest and weakest in our society.

And part of this is their industrial relations agenda—because the one thing that stands between unscrupulous employers and bad governments like this government is the trade union movement of Australia, which has won every significant right for workers in this country. This is not a government that has ever stood up and supported increases for workers in the old Fair Work Commission. They have never done that. They have never stood up for workers. In fact, their DNA is laid out for all to see. You do not need a microscope to see their DNA because it is written all over them—and it is Work Choices. It is about forcing workers to negotiate individually with their employer. It is about subjugating workers to the will of the employer. It is about complete managerial prerogative for the company and the boss over individual workers.

If that had been the state of industrial relations in this country over the last so many years, what would the living standards of workers be now? Those living standards would be down the tube. Those living standards would be decimated. If workers think it is hard enough to make ends meet under this government, it would have been impossible to make ends meet if there had not been strong trade unions out there bargaining for the trade union movement and then those increases flowing through to the rest of the non-unionised economy. These are the issues that underpin this bill. It is about giving more power and more rights to the people who sit in the back of their Bentleys handing out brown paper bags with $10,000 in them to Liberal candidates in Newcastle—the property developers who want to build their properties cheaper and cheaper and do not want to pay a construction worker a decent rate of pay but are prepared to send a brown paper bag with 10 grand in it over to a Liberal politician, in breach of the law.

We hear much from this mob about the rule of law. But look at the Liberal Party in New South Wales. When they are faced with 10 Liberal Party politicians having to resign or get kicked out because of breaches of the law, what do they do? They sack the ICAC commissioner and they get rid of ICAC's teeth. That is what they do—because they do not want to be embarrassed with their faulty memories in front of ICAC. They do not want to have to front up to show where the money is coming from to fund their election campaigns. We know where it is from. It is from the property developers. It is from the big tier 1 companies that are going to benefit from this bill. This is all about payback to the big companies in return for diminishing workers' rights.

If this bill goes ahead, we have heard arguments that it will reduce costs in the building industry by 30 per cent. I have not seen any economic modelling or arguments to say that that is the case and would then lead to improved productivity because you reduce costs. Those two things actually do not go together. But let us think that that is right. If there is going to be a reduction in costs of 30 per cent, who do you think will be shouldering that reduction in costs? It will not be the executives on multimillion-dollar salaries. It will not be the human resources officers earning half a million dollars a year. It will not be the management group. It will be the carpenters, the riggers, the boilermakers, the fitters and the tilers who go out there every day and give a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. They are the ones who will lose from this bill. They are the ones who are being attacked. You will get all this argument about 'this unlawful industry'. Well, I put it to you that building workers go out there every day in this industry and they never experience anything like what we hear from those opposite. They do not experience it. They have a decent enterprise agreement through their unions—mainly the CFMEU in the building industry, a union that is out there looking after working people. But what do this mob do? They pick the worst elements. And there are bad elements in every area. You only have to look at the banking industry. They will not have a royal commission into the banking industry, will they? No—because the banking industry is the big end of town. It is too powerful and there is too much money going into their coffers for them to actually take the banking industry on.

But they will take on the union movement because the union movement is what actually keeps wages and conditions up in this country. As we see wages stagnating in this country, never has there been a greater need for strong trade unions in this country, not weakened trade unions. And if there are people misbehaving, if there are people breaking the law, they should be dealt with under the law. There are more than enough laws without bringing in a bill like this, which provides power to probably the worst statutory office holder in the country, Nigel Hadgkiss. Mr Hadgkiss, who will head up this body, has an absolute contempt for accountability. He has a contempt for the Senate. He has a contempt for the estimates process, which is about public officers coming here and being open with the parliament about what they are spending money on and what they are doing. He has an absolute contempt for that. He has a contempt for senators in this place. In fact, this is a statutory office holder who has lied to my face on at least three occasions. I have asked for him to provide his diary—as many, many public servants and statutory officers have to do—for accountability issues. And this statutory office holder, Nigel Hadgkiss, says: 'I don't have a diary. I don't keep a diary.' Can you imagine any senior public servant, any statutory office holder, who does not have a diary?

We said, 'There must be some way that people keep tabs on what you're doing.' When I asked the chief financial officer of the Fair Work Building Commission why Mr Hadgkiss did not keep a diary and did they keep a diary and did they know what he was doing, they said no.

So we have a public officer who wants to operate in complete secrecy. What we have found out is that he does have a diary, because under a freedom of information request we got a copy of one part of his diary. So this person lies to the Senate. This person is a bully, this person is unaccountable, this person is into cronyism and gets rid of whoever he does not like within that organisation and puts his own cronies in. He is surrounded by cronies. He is vindictive against anyone who would stand up to him. He is absolutely secretive and, as I have indicated, he has lied to the Senate. This is the man who is in charge of the Fair Work Building Commission now and who they obviously want to put in charge of the ABCC, if ever it comes in.

There are a number of amendments before the Senate today. Senator Xenophon has put up a range of amendments. I must say, I have not had a chance to see the detail of those amendments, and here we are because the government wants a victory. In my view, this is going to be a Pyrrhic victory if it goes through. I need time and the Labor Party needs time to sit down with Senator Xenophon to ask some questions about the implications and the intent of some of the amendments that will be coming through. There is a need to do that. This is a bill that is complex. This bill, in terms of its impact on ordinary Australians, is absolutely terrible. This is a government which, as I said, have Work Choices in their DNA. They will attack the trade union movement. If there are people doing the wrong thing they should be dealt with under the laws as they exist. We have a regulator—a very strong and powerful regulator in the Fair Work Building Commission—but what this does is impinge even more on workers' rights to collective bargaining. So we will have a number of issues that we want to raise.

In closing, Senator Cash, do you intend to appoint Mr Hadgkiss as head of ABCC? If so, why— (Time expired)

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

The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 is ruthless, not just to building workers but to all working people in Australia and all Australians. While in the first instance it is directed at building workers, the intent is to weaken industrial relations across the board, and if that occurs the flow-on impact for all Australians is huge. Organised working people established so many of the conditions that we all enjoy in this country, not just conditions of work but so much to do with our health conditions and our education conditions. Right now we have to deal with the ABCC legislation. We are in committee and we are about to get our teeth into the amendments. But we also need to acknowledge the context. There is now a real desperation around the Turnbull government. The clock is ticking down on the last few days of parliament. They have left it to the last hour and this legislation has to be passed. It is not legislation that will bring benefits to the country but legislation that delivers for the constituency of the Turnbull government.

The Turnbull government have some big friends in corporate Australia. They donate millions of dollars to the government and they expect something in return. While they are friends, the Turnbull government are probably looking forward to a few Christmas parties and sharing a few cocktails and a few drinks with their corporate colleagues, their corporate mates, who have helped deliver them into power. But they would know that those apparent corporate friends can turn on them if they do not deliver, and right now at the top of the agenda they have to deliver. The registered organisations bill went through, but the ABCC legislation is what they want in their pocket and they want it before Christmas. Corporate Australia is sweating on it and, as I said, they can change overnight for the Turnbull government.

This is shocking legislation because what it would do to a section of the workforce is treat them as second-class citizens. They would have reduced legal rights and reduced rights at work—something that we have not seen in Australia for a while. You would probably have to go back to how we treated Indigenous people before the 1960s, before the 1967 amendment, when you had second-class laws for a group of people who were working for greater productivity in Australia and working to assist all of us with the benefits that come when you have new hospitals, new schools and homes are built—all those sorts of things.

It is important, as we go into the committee stage and start considering the amendments, to remember why the government is doing this. This is where the big lie comes in. It is very relevant to our debate now. The government has a constituency, corporate Australia, that wants the industrial relations laws of this country weakened. That is in fact what all conservative governments have done. You can go back to the Menzies government. Penal powers were part of the arbitration act then. Ordinary Australians opposed that very strongly. Going through the Fraser government and the Howard government, they have all had their signature legislation to do something similar, but you would probably have to come to this legislation to see something as atrocious as what the Turnbull and Abbott governments have come up with.

Why do they want it? Why do they want the industrial relations laws that affect working conditions and affect how union officials operate in the workplace? Why is this legislation being brought forward? If you weaken working conditions, if you weaken how unions can operate and if you weaken how working people can come together and collectively organise, you are actually assisting the corporations to increase their profits, because the fewer conditions and the fewer regulations they have to cope with the more they can get away with doing a whole lot of things. That is why you have heard so many of the speakers in the second reading debate detail the tragic deaths that are occurring on our building sites. That is a result of poor occupational health and safety standards, and we will see that occur more.

But also, if unions are weakened, working people cannot come together so readily and collectively organise, and it is harder to get pay rises. This is the reason the government is doing it: corporate Australia wants it. Corporate Australia is on the earth—its job, its legal requirement, is—to do the best for its shareholders. What do its shareholders want? Its shareholders want more profits. They want more money in their pockets. That is its job.

And that is where the job of governments should be to get that balance right, to ensure that we have fair industrial relations so unions can organise and workers can come together collectively and so the young apprentice who turns up on the job, has only been there for a few days, is ordered to go on to the roof and do some repairs and ends up falling off might have a bit of back-up to say: 'Hey, don't do that, mate. That's actually unsafe. We need to ensure that you've got a harness on.' They are the sorts of practical things that we are dealing with here.

We know the speeches from the government benches were really disgraceful. You really would not have thought people mattered from the way they delivered their speeches. That is why the coalition are desperate to get this legislation through. They want to be able to go to their Christmas parties and enjoy it there with the developers, with the property investors, who are hanging out and who have been lobbying hard for these changes.

The other part of this story is that the government, Senator Cash as the responsible minister and Prime Minister Turnbull, the leader of the government, cannot go out and say: 'We really have to get this legislation through. Our corporate backers, who give us all these donations, really want us to do it.' They cannot say that. Obviously, that is not going to wash with the public. It would really give you an insight into how government works. So they come up with their reasons, and the reasons they have come out with are quite unbelievable. I will just give you a couple of them.

Prime Minister Turnbull linked the whole issue of union activity with the housing crisis. I suppose he, or maybe somebody's office, thought: 'Let's solve two problems in one. We'll blame the housing crisis not on the way we run government, with our negative gearing and our capital gains tax discounts; we'll blame it on the unions.' This is from the Prime Minister. He expressed sympathy for 'young Australian couples that can't afford to buy a house because their costs are being pushed up by union thuggery'. According to the government, that is one of the reasons why we need these rules.

I have to say that the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, really took the cake when he came up with his excuses. This is a quote from Peter Dutton:

When young Australians go to an open house this weekend, to a unit that they may not be able to afford or that they have been saving up for, they know that that unit is more expensive because they have seen building costs increase as a result of the involvement of the unions and bikies.

Now they have even pulled the bikies into it as causing the housing crisis.

There they are blaming the unions for the housing crisis. That one blows up in their face, because, if you look at all the causes of the housing crisis, there is no link here. It is worth going through this, because these are the lies the government has been relying on to try and justify the legislation that we now have before us. We are now about to start debating the amendments, so it is very relevant when senators come to consider the amendments.

These arguments from the likes of Prime Minister Turnbull and Minister Dutton rely on various hypotheses. I will just go through them. They include that union activity has expanded in construction, that construction wages and labour costs have accelerated as a result, that total construction costs have also accelerated correspondingly and that housing prices rise in tandem with escalating construction costs.

Let us look at the reality here. This falls over monumentally. How Prime Minister Turnbull allowed himself to go out with that one, I do not know. Maybe he did not have enough sleep that night. At any rate, I will just go through how they all fall over. Average earnings in the construction industry have grown more slowly than the Australian average over the last five years. Real wage increases in construction have been slower than real productivity growth, with the effect that real unit labour costs in construction have declined.

Then we have construction labour. Construction labour accounts for only 17 to 22 per cent of the total costs of new building. Construction costs in turn account for less than half the market value of residential property. And then there is the main issue—if you want to go back to where they probably started their thesis—that in the housing industry there is very low union activity. Not many construction workers in the housing industry are members of a union.

I thank the Centre for Future Work and the Australia Institute for that analysis, because it is very useful. Here we have a Prime Minister trying to justify why we need to rein in unions, rein in those bad construction workers and bring in the Australian Building and Construction Commission. He says it is because we have a housing crisis and young people particularly cannot afford to buy a house. They heap it all onto the union movement. It all falls over entirely. If we had some honesty from the government, they are the sorts of things that they would bring into this debate that we are considering right now.

The Greens have voted against the legislation in the second reading. We will vote against it in the third reading. But we will move amendments, because at times it is necessary to do that. With appalling legislation that looks as though it could be about to become law, we will do what we can to improve it. Still, our clear position is that it should not pass.

Some of our amendments will be around the issue of procurement. Surely, when we come to talking about the building industry—particularly when you are hearing from the people on the government benches about how we are going to bring in the ABCC and productivity will increase, the economy will bloom and all the rest of the Christmas fairytales that they come out with—if you are sincere about that, what you should be committed to is a building code that includes a requirement for procuring local materials. The steel industry should figure strongly in that, and it would bring such benefit to the country, as the steel industry in this country is on the edge of collapse. Again, it is extraordinary that the government is not giving this more attention. How can you have a country the size of Australia without a steel industry? We have an opportunity to address that in this legislation.

Then there is the issue of local jobs. The Greens will move amendments to require that, where the code applies, jobs have to be advertised locally and the employer must demonstrate there is no suitable local applicant before guest workers can be used. There are a number of people on the cross-bench who regularly talk about the need for local jobs. Here is their opportunity to stand up for local jobs, which are very relevant to this legislation. There are many unemployed construction workers in this country, who often become fly-in fly-out workers, which really disrupts communities. Why is that? It is because they cannot find local work. All senators have an opportunity here to support some very responsible amendments that would help boost productivity in this country and ensure there is jobs growth, particularly in regional areas and in states where there is growing unemployment.

Those are some of the issues that we are looking forward to getting our teeth into, because right now the question is: Minister, can you explain how the housing crisis is in any way associated with the so-called union thuggery that you have been talking about for so long, considering that there is minimal union activity in the housing industry. I ran through the various parameters. None of them stack up to show that there is any link between increased union activity and the housing crisis. I do think that would be a wise starting point for you, to inject some honesty into this debate.

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

I actually have a question for the minister, which is what the committee stage is about. The committee stage is not about making 15-minute speeches after you have had your chance for 20 minutes in the second reading debate.

I have been listening to this debate quite intently. I have been trying to understand just what it is that the Greens are opposed to in this bill. I am sure Senator Rhiannon does not support the sort of thuggery that we have heard of from union officials or the sort of thuggery, against women in particular, that we have heard of in the royal commission and in various court proceedings around the country. I am sure Senator Rhiannon would not be involved in that. I know Senator Rhiannon was quite openly a member of the Communist Party in days gone by. I sort of understand her political philosophies from that. That is fine. It is a free country. You can support communism if you like. That is one of the glories of being a free country such as this. I am trying to understand why the Greens are opposed. I have listened intently to everything Senator Rhiannon has just spoken about—I was listening on the TV monitor upstairs before I came down—and I cannot find any reason why the Greens would be so opposed to this.

It suddenly occurs to me that perhaps the Greens are getting some political donations, some cash donations, from the CFMEU and others.

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

Surely not!

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

I don't know, and that is why I am exercising my right in this committee stage to ask the minister. Minister, can you assist me. Do you have any information that might answer my query? Do the Greens get money donations from the CFMEU or any other trade union? That can be the only reason why the Greens are so opposed to this.

I know why the Labor Party is opposed. I can understand that. They are all here because the unions put them here. They only stay here for as long as the unions give them the tick to stay here. Senator Cameron, who is in the chamber, will know this well. His good mate George Campbell fell out of favour with the unions, and as a result of that Senator Cameron was able to come in. It was nothing Senator Cameron did; it was the unions that did it. So I understand the Labor Party as clearly as a bell. I am not in any doubt as to what that is all about. But I cannot understand the Greens, unless there is an element of monetary donation to the Greens political party. I know the Greens got the biggest corporate donation in the history of Australian politics—$1.6 million from a single businessman. It was the biggest donation ever. I understand that. That is why there were certain funny arrangements made in Tasmania a few years ago, including an attempt to have tax free status for a certain newspaper that was associated with, perhaps, the donor. But that is all past history. I understand that, but I cannot understand why the Greens are so opposed to this particular bill, unless there is a simple explanation. That might be it; it might not be. I am just wondering whether the minister can help me on that.

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

I will turn to Senator Cameron's question first. Senator Cameron asked me about the appointment of the director of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. In response to that question I refer you to clause 4 of the transitional bill, which provides for the continuation of the appointment of the director.

In response to Senator Rhiannon's question in relation to the impact of costs in the housing market, when you have an increase in costs in the commercial construction sector there is an obvious flow on through the whole construction market. What this bill is designed to do is, obviously, increase productivity and decrease costs in the commercial construction sector, which would have obvious flow ons in relation to the housing market, as you so referred.

In relation to the question posed by Senator Macdonald, my understanding is, yes, the Australian Greens are or have been in receipt of monies from the CFMEU. It might be that Senator Roberts, who articulated this in his very good speech to the Senate last night, is able to refer to it and provide more information to the Senate, unless of course the Australian Greens would like to.

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

Far be it from me to raise the issue that Senator Rhiannon has raised but, as I understand it, Senator Rhiannon was talking about not the commercial building industry but the residential building industry, because that is where the Prime Minister and you, Senator Cash, were saying it would cost more to build a house unless this bill goes through. That is an absolute nonsense. The residential building industry is very, very likely unionised, and it is certainly not unions that determine the rates of pay and conditions in the residential building industry.

I want to go to two other matters while I am on my feet. Given that Senator Macdonald has set the standard by speaking for 10 minutes before asking a question—especially when he said he was going to ask the question and not make a speech—I think the rules have now been set by the other side. There are two issues I want to raise. The first issue is: what is the driver of much of the problem in this industry? What is the impediment to productivity? What is the issue that individual contractors, small businesses and employees face? The issue is that they are not getting paid for work that they do. They are not getting paid. I was very pleased to seek the establishment of an inquiry into insolvency in the building and construction industry. There are lots of things that go to productivity that are much wider than whether there is some rough-haired, stupid union official going onto your site and getting into a brawl with a boss. Come on! That is not the issue. The issue is companies not paying their bills and phoenixing. They are coming back without paying their bills and establishing themselves again as a company.

I saw an analysis of this by a company called Sutton Douglass Lawyers. If you are talking about getting some reasonable industrial relations in the industry then you have to deal with the $3 billion of unpaid bills in the industry that see workers going without any money, companies going bust because they are not getting paid and families breaking up because the chief earner in the household has got no money coming in—and you know all the drama that that can cause in a household.

This firm, Sutton Douglass Lawyers, says that there are a range of issues that go to insolvency, that there are a number of issues that come through. One of those, basically, is that if you do not get paid when you are running a small company then workers are underpaid or paid irregularly. It is not the Labor Party and it is not the unions who are saying this; this is a big-end-of-town litigation company that deals with these issues. They say workers are underpaid or paid irregularly. They say suppliers are not paid. They say superannuation payments are not paid. We know this mob opposite do not care about superannuation. They have never supported a superannuation increase for workers ever since they have been in parliament—and ever since superannuation has been around. Sutton Douglass Lawyers also say workers have their employment status changed from permanent to casual. How often have you seen that happening? Again, this is big-end-of-town lawyers saying, 'Here are the implications for the industry of not paying your debts.' The implication is that warranties or guarantees provided for workmanship by the old entity have become unenforceable and worthless. So, if you actually get a block of flats built and there is a warranty on that flat, the company simply goes bust and phoenixes up again—they might be building the block of flats next door. There is no warranty and there is no comeback on that company. Sutton Douglass Lawyers also say that workers are pressured to take leave while the businesses transfer from the old entity to the new and the interest of company owners and directors takes priority at the cost of creditors, who do not get paid.

There is a detrimental effect on the community, there is an erosion of the revenue base and there are increased enforcement costs that stem from the avoidance of regulatory obligations. We had much evidence from the Australian Taxation Office and ASIC about the problems that they have dealing with this issue of phoenixing. Sutton Douglass Lawyers go on to say that, by not paying their taxes and employee entitlements, companies have an unfair competitive advantage. So you have companies that are out there battling to do the right thing—paying the wages of workers week in and week out, paying the proper tax and fixing the warranty issues up—and then you have these phoenix companies that are just going bust and getting an unfair advantage.

This is the type of behaviour that this government is supporting with this bill. Make no mistake about it: this is the type of behaviour that this government is supporting. I will come back to this down the line, because there was a report that had 30-odd recommendations. This government has not responded to a single one of them.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Forty-four recommendations.

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

There were 44 recommendations. There has not been one response from this government.

I want to go to the second issue that is a big problem, and that is this code. Imagine giving the worst public servant in the country the decision as to whether unions are bargaining effectively with employers. Mr Nigel Hadgkiss—a guy who is arrogant, out of touch and simply doing the bidding of the government—has now got the right to determine whether a company is bargaining with its employees. It is not the Fair Work Commission or the old industrial commission anymore. Part of the problem is not just the issues in the bill as they stand but also the code and the implications of the code. The code prohibits a number of clauses in these agreements. Remember, Mr Hadgkiss is the guy who is going to determine these issues. Under the code that is developed by this government, you cannot negotiate to have apprentices employed under your agreement.

I was a union official for 27 years. I negotiated agreement after agreement after agreement that said that a company would employ apprentices, not only for the benefit of the company but for the benefit of young workers trying to get an apprenticeship. Under the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013, if the CFMEU or any union seeks to have a clause in the agreement for the employment of apprentices, of young kids—no, that is illegal. How stupid can this government be to do that? What is the point of trying to deny young workers access to a job when it is the union movement that has been out there pursuing apprenticeships for as long as I have been in this country? It is the union movement that has championed apprenticeships—not this mob over here, who simply complain about them costing too much and who, through Senator Birmingham, gives $2 million to a former senator who sent his own building company broke. They were going to give $2 million to his pet project. This is the sort of behaviour of this government—you cannot negotiate to employ an apprentice; you cannot put local workers ahead of temporary foreign workers.

I thought One Nation were out there being the champion of Australian workers, yet they are going to sign off on this so that foreign workers will get in before an Australian worker. There will be no checks and balances coming from One Nation. All the rhetoric is out there from One Nation about the need to give Australians jobs, but they now have a chance—there is a test for Senator Hanson and her mob now. We will be moving an amendment to give priority to Australian workers. Let us see how big they are then. Let us see how good they are then. All the rhetoric you get from them—we will see whether there is any substance to that. Today is the chance that they have.

What happens if you encourage the employment of a mature age worker? You might have a rigger or a carpenter or a builder's labourer who has worked in the industry for 30 or 40 years, and then the young buck comes in—the 21-year-old labourer—and, because he is bigger and stronger and faster, he gets the job, and 40 years of hard work in the industry stands for nothing. Well, the CFMEU stands up for their members. The CFMEU stands up for mature age workers and wants to give mature age workers a fair go. Even if the boss agrees to do that, this bill outlaws that in the code—absolute nonsense.

What about encouraging site employment levels that maintain safe staffing—safety? Senator Rhiannon outlined some of the issues. Two Irish backpackers—backpackers, inexperienced people—were killed under a massive slab of concrete in Perth. A young female German backpacker fell many metres to her death on a construction site in Perth. Do you hear anything said by this lot over here about that? Absolutely nothing. All they want to do is stop the unions being able to negotiate safe working conditions and safe numbers on the job.

Here is another one for One Nation. This bill makes it illegal to negotiate with a company to use locally manufactured products and building materials on the job. So we will just bring it all in from China, from Korea, from Thailand. Do not give anybody a fair go in Australia. That is what this bill does—stops a fair go for Australian industry. One Nation have already said they are going to sign off on it. So much for the great protectors of workers in this country—One Nation—when you just cave in on these significant issues.

The employment of safety officers on the job is not allowed. How ridiculous is that? And, if you want to discourage casual employment so that a worker gets a decent number of hours on the job, the code makes that illegal. Casualise the workforce, internationalise the workforce, exploit the workforce—that is this mob over there. Even if a property owner wants to invite a union official onto the site of their own property, they have to go through Nigel Hadgkiss, the worst public servant ever to put a foot in this place. No wonder the advisor in the box is smiling—you have seen him in operation. I certainly know that the public servants have been raising big eyebrows about the operation of this guy. Even if you agree that a union official can come onto your property, this bill outlaws that.

This bill outlaws consultation about the use of subcontractors. This lot want to get the worst subcontractors in the country with the worst wages, the worst conditions, the worst employment ever, to come onto the job and undermine decent wages and decent conditions fought for by the CFMEU and the other unions. That is what this lot are about. They are absolutely hopeless. If the union negotiate with the employer that there will be no cashing out of entitlements, that entitlements will be maintained, that the workers will take their entitlements from one job to another, that is illegal. For Nigel Hadgkiss to be taking over the role of the Fair Work Commission to police this is an absolute outrage.

There is plenty there for One Nation, plenty there for Senator Xenophon, plenty there for Senator Hinch—and Senator Leyonhjelm: well, who knows? We will see where you stand on these issues today. We will see whether you actually stand for Australian workers. We will see whether you actually stand for safety on the job. We will see whether you actually stand for older workers. We will see whether you actually stand for young workers getting an apprenticeship. We will be watching how you vote on every one of those issues. This code is a disgrace. Minister, do you intend to proceed with the code? (Time expired)

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will of course be joining with my colleagues in the Australian Greens to oppose this terrible, draconian, antiworker and antiunion legislation. But I have been listening, like Senator Macdonald, very carefully to this debate and I have been reflecting on the contribution that Senator Macdonald just made—though I guess it was more of an unstructured rant than a contribution. I have been wondering why Senator Macdonald and his colleagues in the Liberal Party are in fact so supportive of this terrible, draconian legislation. I know Senator Macdonald's history. I know he has been a member of the Liberal Party for a long period of time, and that is fine; it is a free country. But, as I was wondering why they are so supportive of this terrible legislation, it came to me in a blinding flash: political donations from the property development industry, because over the last five years the Liberal and National parties combined have received, at the very least, $10.3 million in direct donations from the property industry. And who stands to gain most from this legislation? It is the property industry.

Minister, the question for you is identical in spirit to the one you responded to Senator Macdonald on when he asked you about donations the Greens had received. I ask you: can you place on the record, Minister, how many millions of dollars the Liberal Party has received in donations from the property development sector in this country over the past five years? If you cannot place that on the record today, could you please come back into the chamber and provide us with that advice in the future, as I believe you committed to doing for Senator Macdonald.

I am not going to stand here and listen to the rubbish and the drivel coming out of Senator Macdonald's mouth without pointing out the rampant hypocrisy behind his words. He might want to get up and cast aspersions at my colleague and friend Senator Rhiannon in this place, and he is entitled to do that, but he is going to cop it back every time. We are going to expose his hypocrisy. We are going to expose the links between political donations to the Liberal Party and the National Party from the property development sector, who stand to profit massively from these pieces of legislation.

Do not even get me started on the donations that the Liberal and National parties receive from the fossil fuel industry in this country. In order to receive those donations, they of course deliver massive public policy outcomes for the fossil fuel sector in this country, including about $24 billion—that is billion with a 'b'—of direct taxpayer subsidies to the fossil fuel sector in Australia in every budget. While on the one hand this week they are trying to claw back some money from backpackers who contribute to the agricultural sector in this country, on the other hand they funnel out the door these massive donations, many billions of dollars a year, to the fossil fuel sector in return for the significant donations they receive from the fossil fuel sector. Of course, it is the same with property developers. Those opposite claw in money in political donations—$10.3 million to the Liberal and National parties combined over the past five years—and they deliver outcomes. Make no mistake; that is what Senator Cash is sitting in here doing today, flanked by Senator Cormann and Senator Fifield, with Senator Paterson up in the back row. They are delivering for their major donors and their mates in the property development sector.

I will say to Senator Macdonald—even though he is not in the chamber at the moment he can always read the Hansardthat if he is going to get up and have unstructured rants at the Greens then he can expect to be called out for being a hypocrite. He can expect to have his party's very close links with the property development industry, including the millions of dollars in donations it receives every year, called out and exposed.

Minister, the question to you is: exactly how many millions of dollars has the Liberal Party received from property developers? Could you take that back through five years and provide a breakdown on an annual basis please.

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

I stand as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. These bills are about unravelling building industry cartels, and their union cronies are caught in the crossfire. The bills are about protecting and restoring this industry from the grip of the cartels. Above all, these bills support freedom—freedom of choice for union workers, whether or not they want to be in a union; freedom of choice for subbies; freedom of choice for small business; freedom of choice for taxpayers, so that we do not have to keep paying exorbitant rates for buildings that are controlled by a building industry cartel that includes the CFMEU. These bills support small business. These bills support taxpayers. These bills protect honest union members from their union bosses. These bills support the building industry.

I have had the pleasure of talking with Ken Phillips, who has explained to me how small businesses have been crippled by big businesses that want to suppress small business competition. They are pushing the risk down to the small businesses and they are doing the union's bidding. Unpaid bills certainly are rife in the industry—we know about that—and that is due largely to the power and control of a few large companies.

When I listen, in Queensland, to big, burly, well-muscled men running their businesses and they are in tears because of fear for their families and their employees then I know we have got a problem. Yet what did we hear from the Greens and the Labor Party last night? We heard about Fidel Castro, who destroyed his nation. We heard endlessly about Work Choices, ice dealers, diaries, fatalities. Fatalities are sad, but the fact is that safety improved under the previous ABCC provisions.

We heard all about the Chicken Littles—bwok bwok bekerk!—all the scratching and running around in this house last night, all the pecking, pecking, pecking, the Chicken Littles. I do not know which bill Senator Cameron was reading, but I—

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

Senator Roberts, resume your seat. Senator McKim, a point of order?

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, the point of order is that the Senate is a workplace for a number of people, such as people in Hansard, who listen very carefully to the contributions. I think that deliberately tapping the microphone should be ruled out of order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator McKim, you have made your point. Please resume your seat.

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

I have read the ABCC bill from cover to cover, including the building code, and it does nothing that Senator Cameron alleges. The CFMEU is supposedly bargaining for its members, yet it funded GetUp! to the tune of $1.2 million in 2010. And what I am going to discuss next is a very sad thing, and that is black lung. Black lung is a crippling disease in the coal industry, and we thought it was ended thanks to legislation, thanks to modern equipment and thanks to modern high-velocity ventilation. But in Queensland recently we have seen black lung recur. The CFMEU controls four of the levels of responsibility for preventing black lung, including two levels that are paid for by the industry and for which the CFMEU are responsible. That is an indictment of the CFMEU's attitude towards safety.

We see the CFMEU allied with activists and with GetUp!—who are also connected with American billionaires—funding the destruction, and they admit this, of this country's coal industry. And they are closely allied with President Obama and senior people from Hillary Clinton's campaign. This is indeed payback, as Senator Cameron said, for the people in Australia, for the honest union members, against the large building companies and the CFMEU cronies.

Senator Cameron, in my view, is of the old days, when might was right, when safety was seen as a cost. And then it was a constant battle, because the old view was that safety cost money, and that is no longer appropriate. Senator Cameron still sees safety as an alternative to productivity. It is not, and I will get on to the solution in a minute. In the old days, quality was seen as cost. It is not a cost, but that is what it was seen as. So, companies, managers, people throughout the country and people throughout the world thought that higher quality meant higher cost. That has also been tipped away. The environment was seen as a cost, and the Greens still see it as a cost—to the detriment of our civilisation. But times have changed. Safety now is seen to improve productivity. That is why safety makes commercial sense. When people focus properly on safety they improve the work processes, the work environment, and that leads to fewer injuries, fewer near misses and less waste of materials. Safety improves productivity.

This bill is about putting responsibility back on the employers in this industry, and that will improve safety, as it did under the old ABCC. Quality improves productivity. Maybe people in this chamber are not aware of what the Japanese did. The Japanese focused on quality and dramatically improved productivity, and that has given us the modern miracle of modern manufacturing, which reduces costs. The same miracle will start to apply much more rapidly in the construction sector once management is allowed to behave properly and once the senior management of major companies are required to manage properly. We now see that the environment improves productivity, because the environment is despoiled by pollutants. Pollutants are waste, and when we reduce waste we improve the environment, we improve costs. The Greens, though, seem to think that civilisation and the environment are mutually exclusive, whereas they are mutually beneficial.

I have been made aware of some hours of work—or maybe they are hours of recreation—on the Karara worksite under a greenfields agreement. A typical day during a negotiation—which the taxpayers are paying for—is a 6.30 start; from 6.30 to seven o'clock, workers arrive and attend prework meetings with the relevant foremen. Sounds good. From 7.30 to 9.30 there is a union communication meeting. But wait for it: that is the first communication meeting that they are entitled to. From 9.30 to 10.00 is a scheduled smoko break. It must have been a pretty hectic meeting! And then from 10 o'clock to 11 o'clock there is 'limited work'. From 11 o'clock to one o'clock is—wait for it—the second union communication meeting. The union is not very good at communication, I guess! From one o'clock to 1.30—of course, after a tiring morning—it is necessary for a lunch break, and then from 1.30 to 2.30 there is another hour of 'limited work', and then from 2.30 to three o'clock, knock-off, with a staggered finishing time between 2.30 and 3 pm. So, two hours of work—sorry: two hours of 'limited work'—in an eight-hour day; amazing.

Who is paying for this? We are—the taxpayers. The taxpayers are paying for this. Senator Cameron does not seem to understand economics. He feigned ignorance that the building construction industry does not affect house prices. When the price of apartments rises, the price of houses rises. It is that simple: supply and demand. Everyone knows that—well, I would have thought everyone knows that. Some building workers, contrary to what Senator Cameron said, actually go out to work every day, but they cannot get work. They cannot get work because they are black banned, and sometimes they are threatened and are under intimidation. And it is not only them but also their families and their work mates. Dyson Heydon and many judges have confirmed that. Around 100 CFMEU officials are before the courts—and Senator Cameron raises accountability. That is the core of this bill. But how can we have accountability when workers, when foremen, when shareholders, when owners of buildings have to go through the court system to get it? It is not right. This bill and the building code in particular pushes accountability back to where it belongs—to the head of the senior companies. This bill is about freedom, accountability, safety and workers' rights, and improving every one of them.

Senator Rhiannon talks about protecting the CFMEU. Why? It is because it is a major source of Greens' funds. Another point I want to address is the use of labels by members of the ALP and members of the Greens in this Senate. When I hear someone being labelled as arrogant, as a liar et cetera then, to me, it means that the person using the label does not have the evidence. That, again, is an old, outdated tactic and displays behaviours that are no longer productive. In fact, the old unions, which Senator Cameron seems to exemplify, stifled workers, disconnected workers and stifled apprentices. When people are not free to use their talents through demarcation, it has a very crippling effect on work pride and work satisfaction.

I am of the understanding that when Bill Shorten was minister for employment the number of 457 visas increased dramatically. I am also of the understanding that the board members of GetUp! included Bill Shorten, an ally of the CFMEU. I am also of the understanding that under the previous Labor government Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonald's used 457 visas. I may be wrong about that, but that is what I have heard.

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

Would you like lies with that?

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

Sorry?

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

Direct your comments through the chair, thank you, Senator Roberts.

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

Restricting subbies to a CFMEU panel and not being allowed to employ anyone else, apart from those in the CFMEU panel, discriminates heavily against the worker.

I was in a discussion with Senator Pauline Hanson and one of our office staff some months ago and I had the privilege of being with senior members of the ACTU and the CFMEU and I asked them for their opinions on what the big issues are that are facing this country. One of them said, 'The need to increase wages.' None of them said tax. Tax is crippling our industry in this country and crippling payrolls because we are taxing payrolls and we are taxing gross incomes. That means a decent increase to a person's gross income is prohibitive when it comes to employment in many industries. We are taxing people out of work because the tax system is antiquated and designed for another era.

The ACTU does not raise tax. The opposition leader in the lower house does not raise tax. He said he would not raise tax. The Prime Minister has said that the government will not raise tax. And, yet, jobs are supposed to be a big issue. We must address tax so the cost-of-living pressures are removed from everyday builders and their employees. It seems to me that everyday people are cannon fodder for the ALP unions cartel—the machine that tries to control, in cahoots with big builders, this building industry and is holding our country back. We need to protect small businesses and subbies. We need to protect honest workers, and we need to protect the taxpayers from union cartels in collusion with big business.

Then I come to the Greens—again, the Greens. Only the Greens could tell us that depreciation is a subsidy on hydrocarbon fuels. Only the Greens could lack understanding of accounting so that they could classify depreciation as a subsidy and talk about it in isolation as if only the hydrocarbon industry is getting it. I am tired of the rants, I am tired of the labels and I am tired of the old-world tactics. I need to help this country get on with coming back into the 21st century and improving the efficiency, safety and security of this industry. I am very much in favour of this bill.

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

I would just like to respond to a question that was asked by Senator McKim in relation to political donations. All campaign donations received by the coalition are disclosed in accordance with the law and those disclosures are publicly accessible, which is, again, consistent with the law. In response to a question from Senator Cameron in relation to the building code, the answer is, yes, we intend to proceed with the building code.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did have a series of questions that I wanted to put to the minister, but I think, unfortunately, time will not permit me to be able to have the back and forth that I would like to have. But there are a few questions that I would like to ask and I would like to get some responses back.

Minister, have you had a chance to read the report that was produced by the Senate Economics References Committee, Insolvency in the Australian construction industry? I believe it was tabled in the Senate on 5 December last year.

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

If I am referring to the right report then, yes, I have been briefed on it.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, did this report produced by the Senate Economics References Committee play a role in the development of this piece of legislation?

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

No.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, that is disappointing. There were 44 recommendations made. It was quite a bipartisan inquiry. I want to give credit to Senator Cameron, who I think initiated the inquiry. Frankly, while I had the role of chairing the committee, it was Senator Cameron and Senator Cameron's office that did the bulk of the work and then I think Senator Ketter finally presented it. The report itself had 44 recommendations that went to the heart of the issues affecting the building industry. They were largely around the issues of phoenixing—how companies are phoenixing and what the impact of phoenixing has been. Minister, how does this bill, as it currently stands unamended, address the issue of phoenixing in the industry?

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

Thank you, Senator Dastyari. As you correctly pointed out, this Economics References Committee report was tabled in December 2015. You would be aware that the legislation was drafted, I believe, over three years ago now. Obviously, the legislation is in the same form as it was when introduced, given that it was a double dissolution trigger.

In relation to the question that you asked: my understanding is that there will be amendments moved by some of the crossbenchers which will address in further detail the concerns which you raised.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, the report itself came through with 44 different recommendations. Again, not having seen the amendments that you are foreshadowing I may speak a little broadly to the issues that were raised regarding phoenixing and, I hope, to those who are in the process of looking at this issue.

This has been a very politically-charged debate over the past few years. This report was not a politically-charged one; some of the reports that we deal with in this place are and some are not. This really highlighted this incredible issue of phoenixing. Again, it was Senator Cameron who bought it to my attention. It is the situation whereby people within the industry will set themselves up to fail: they will subcontract work, will not pay those workers, will feign insolvency or become technically insolvent and then recreate a similar company with a similar name and with a similar board of directors—or second cousins, or friends, or next-door neighbours or faux, sham boards—to recreate themselves.

The evidence found in the inquiry was that some of the horrendous, terrible and deplorable behaviour that has gone on in this industry has occurred as the result of people desperately trying to make sure they get paid. People have hired some horrible people. Let me be clear: that is the wrong thing to do. Nobody should condone that and nobody supports that. What I think is unfortunate is the legislative environment that allows phoenixing to happen to the extent to which it is happening. It creates an environment where desperate people have done desperate things. It is horrible behaviour and it should not be supported. But at the same time, we should look at how we frame an environment where it is not necessary—where that type of behaviour is not needed.

With some of these subcontractors, the fact is that they have to price into their own business models the notion that from time to time they are simply not going to get paid—that people are going to come and shut down their businesses. There is frustration in many of these circumstances. To see someone who owes you money for work you have conducted properly reappear a week later with a different company but with a slightly amended company name is actually a huge problem that is affecting so many lives. There were 44 recommendations by the Senate inquiry, largely around bringing the Corporations Act into line with the insolvency act and also about the powers and focus that ASIC is going to have. I think that is a step in the right direction, in so far as we are having a genuine discussion about how we improve the construction industry. The priority should be phoenixing and how some of these companies have behaved.

Minister, again, I think it is disappointing that it is correct when you say that this piece of legislation was produced three years ago. I feel that this is something which could have been incorporated—or should have been incorporated—into any discussion that we were having around this industry. What the Senate economics committee found was that there was no bigger issue than phoenixing. At a practical level it is affecting those who are trying to make a living or to run a business from day to day.

But here we are again, debating this bill one more time. I hope that after we defeat this bill certainly then the government will move on and shift its focus elsewhere. But in the last week of the parliament, six months after an election, here we are debating this bill one more time. Frankly, look at the priorities we should be dealing with—

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

This is what the election was about!

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you say that this is what the election was about. During the election campaign you guys were not talking about it! They were not talking about this! During the election campaign they could not run further away from this issue. What they are doing now in the last week is trying to stitch up as many deals as they can! Dirty deals being done dirt cheap in this place!

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order!

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were on a bus in Chinatown!

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And you are trying to pull together whatever you can! I am not going to be lectured by Milo man over there! And I am not going to be stirred by your sticky fingers!

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

Why are you using chopsticks?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Dastyari—your comments through the chair, please. And the speaker will be heard in silence

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Chair, I am not sure if that is an interjection I should be taking or leaving. Against my better judgement, I think I will let that interjection stand.

This is a bad piece of legislation. This is a piece of legislation that has been defeated time and time again because it does not achieve what it sets out to achieve. This is a bill which is nothing more than a relentless attack on the Australian trade union movement by an ideologically-driven government that is out of ideas, that is out of direction and that is only unified by hate. And when they are not hating each other, when they are not splitting amongst each other, they turn around and start attacking others. And I note that the soon-to-be former Leader of the Government in the Senate has walked in to start question time.

I will say this: this is a bad bill. This is not a bill that should be supported. This is not a bill that should be passed by this Senate, and I await the Senate defeating this bill one more time.

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

I have a question for the minister, but before I ask my question of the minister, and in the spirit of goodwill, I want to offer some thanks to other senators. Let me thank Senator Dastyari for very kindly pointing out that it is not a good idea to hire standover men to collect debts from people. That is a great concession on your part, Senator Dastyari, thank you for that. I hope you sent that memo to the CFMEU, because they have not been following your advice on this. That is perhaps why this legislation is necessary.

I would also like to thank Senator McKim for proving that unconstructed sprays are not the preserve of just government or opposition senators, but of the crossbench as well.

Progress reported.