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

This brings everything into perspective, and on behalf of the opposition could I offer our condolences to the family and to team Nash and to all the friends of Harriet at this very difficult time. I am afraid that coming back to the business before us sounds pretty crude after what has happened, but we appreciate what you have done, Senator Nash.

Minister Cash, you previously mentioned agreements that did not comply and you mentioned Probuild. One of the clauses that are in the Probuild agreement says the following:

If Probuild employs five (5) or more tradespersons in any one classification it undertakes to employ an apprentice(s) or make arrangements to host an apprentice from an agreed accredited group apprenticeship scheme.

Minister, would this be code compliant?

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

I pass on my condolences to Senator Nash and her team. In relation to the issue of apprentices, again, I confirm, as I believe I did in the debate last year, the code does not prevent or restrict the employment of apprentices or trainees. The code simply prevents union imposed pattern agreements from imposing a rigid ratio of apprentices or trainees for every building contractor, regardless of their size or ability to accommodate them. You will be aware—and I am sure my department has the advice for me in relation to what was actually moved by the crossbench last year and agreed to by the Senate—that a number of changes were made in relation to the code and the employing of apprentices, and the note to clause 11(3)(a) states—and this was included at the request of the crossbench and I believe, Senator Hinch, that this was one of your amendments:

… this does not prevent the inclusion of clauses in an enterprise agreement that encourage the employment of apprentices …

So that is allowed. Further, as a result of other amendments proposed by the crossbench in the original debate, the code at clause 24(2)(d) requires companies when tendering:

… to demonstrate a positive commitment to the provision of appropriate training and skill development for their workforce. Such commitment may be evidenced by compliance with any state or territory government building training policies and supporting the delivery of nationally endorsed building and construction competencies …

And 24(2)(e) requires companies when tendering to:

… include details of the number of current apprentice and trainee employees and the number and classes of persons that hold visas under the Migration Act 1958 that are engaged by the respondent, and that are intended to be engaged by the respondent to undertake the Commonwealth funded building work …

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

I just want to bring you back to the question, because none of that answered the question, and the question is pretty simple. It is not about positive commitments. It is not about competencies. it is not about compliance with state legislation. It is not about providing the details of numbers. It is about whether the clause in the Probuild agreement which says: 'If Probuild employs five or more tradespersons in any one classification, it undertakes to employ an apprentice or apprentices or make arrangements to host an apprentice from an agreed accredited group training scheme'.

This is a very positive commitment. The positive commitment is in the agreement. So can I ask again whether this clause would be code compliant under the new code?

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

I did actually answer your question and I stated: the code does not prevent or restrict the employment of apprentices or trainees. I took you through the provision in the code. Then what I stated was: the code simply prevents union imposed pattern agreements from imposing a rigid ratio of apprentices or trainees for every building contractor, regardless of their size or ability to accommodate them. So in answer to your specific question and the specific clause that you have put forward: it does impose a rigid ratio, so the ratio itself would not be allowed.

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

Minister, doesn’t this just show the absolute stupidity of elements of the code? This is not about improving productivity. It is not about making sure the industry has skills. I do not know what this is about. I do not know any other country in the world where unions cannot bargain to lift the skill base of an individual company or the skill base of the industry.

If the employer is prepared to sit down with the unions and negotiate an agreement that lifts the skill base, it is in the interests of the company to have those young workers trained. It is in the interests of the community and, importantly, it is in the interests of the individual apprentice—and their families, who would be glad to get their children into an apprenticeship. Why is this not code compliant? Why has this decision been made? Why has the government determined that increasing the number of apprentices in the industry and at individual enterprises is not code compliant? Forget the industry; why would Probuild not be allowed to compete if this clause is in their agreement? Why is competition diminished because a company is going to employ apprentices? What is the logic to this?

You have gone through the terms of the code but you have not come to actually advising the public, who are listening in now, nor to the satisfaction of the opposition, what logic there is to this prohibition on bargaining, and this prohibition on a company agreeing with its employees and a union about the ratio of apprentices to tradespersons. Can you explain the logic of this?

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

I am happy to address your question but I also want to basically disregard the majority of what you have said, because it is incorrect. Again—considering we are on broadcast and people are listening—I need to make it very clear: the code does not prevent or restrict the employment of apprentices or trainees. In fact, the code itself encourages the employment of apprentices and trainees.

And I will reaffirm for the record the note to clause 11(3)(a)—and this was included at the suggestion of the crossbench, and the government was more than happy to agree to it:

Note: this does not prevent the inclusion of clauses in an enterprise agreement that encourage the employment of apprentices.

As I said to you, Senator Cameron, the only part of that clause that would be non-compliant is in relation to the rigid ratio. You asked for the rationale as to why the government has made this decision. I will give you an example. Businesses, regardless of their size, should be able to manage the affairs of their own businesses. Despite the best efforts on behalf of employers—and in this case it is often going to be the small and medium employers—these clauses may be impossible to implement, especially for small businesses, despite their best endeavours, and result in a breach of the agreement unless the required number of persons are actually available to fill the positions. So what then happens is, because of the mandating of a ratio, you have just knocked out the ability for many small and mediums in particular to compete for government work.

Again, though, I go back to: the code does not prevent or restrict the employment of apprentices or trainees. In fact, what it does do is encourage the employment of apprentices and trainees, and that is specifically stated at clause 11(3)(a) of the code.

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

Minister, that is a nonsensical proposition that you are putting up. Here is a clause that is about a major building company agreeing to employ more apprentices in agreement with the union and its employees, and the bill restricts that. You talk about companies being able to manage their own affairs. Surely part of managing your own affairs is being able to negotiate an enterprise agreement with your employees and their representatives. That is managing your own affairs, surely. Yet what this bill does is stop what has been bargained for for many years in industries all over the country—an effective ratio of tradespeople to apprentices. In fact, if there were not clauses in agreements over the years, many of the 1.6 million Australians with trade certificates would have no trade certificate and no trade. I cannot understand for one minute why this would be a restricted element of the code. If you can explain it a bit better and go to the logic of it that would be handy, because you have failed to do that so far.

I want to go to another agreement. It is a Queensland agreement. The agreement says, 'In the event of redundancies required during the life of the agreement, in occupational classifications where both Australian workers and temporary foreign workers are employed temporary foreign workers will be made redundant first, given that temporary foreign workers are intended to supplement the Australian workforce.' Would this clause be code compliant?

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

Yes.

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

Minister, is it in the country's interest to have apprentices trained in our culture of thuggery and intimidation? We would like one day to have a discussion with you about Pauline Hanson's One Nation party's stated commitment to practical support for a practical apprenticeship training scheme.

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

Thank you, Senator Roberts, and thank you for the acknowledgement in relation to apprentices. Obviously it was at the behest of the crossbench, which the government was more than happy to accommodate last year, that specific provisions were inserted in the code that encourage the taking on of apprentices. You make one point which I will address. That is in relation to the culture of the building industry in relation to apprentices. No, it is not healthy to have apprentices or women or, in fact, anyone working in an industry that is marred by bullying, thuggery and intimidation. Every person in Australia, regardless of who you are, where you are from or where you work, you should be entitled to go to work every single day and know that you are safe in your workplace.

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

I will just note that workplace injuries went up the last time the ABCC was in place, which really gives the lie to what the minister has said. Minister, I want to ask you some follow-up questions to information that I understand you placed on the record during this debate. I understand you have informed the Senate that currently 18 companies are code compliant. If that is not right I would appreciate you informing—you are saying that is not right? I will carry on, and you can correct me if you wish. If that is not right, perhaps you could say how many companies are currently code compliant. Once you have answered that, as follow-up questions could you take us through what modelling you or your agency did in relation to arriving at the nine-month period which this amendment bill seeks to create, and what your modelling is in regard to how many companies will be code compliant, particularly in the context of companies which are tendering for government construction projects. Can you assure the Senate that there will be no delay to any single government construction project as a result of this legislation?

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

Thank you, Senator McKim. I have addressed quite a bit of your question several times this evening. In relation to what you said up front in relation to whether you had got what I said on the figure of 18 correct, the answer is that you were not correct. For the record, the question I was posed was how many tenders had been put out since the rules changed. Eighteen tenders have been put out.

More broadly, in relation to the question you asked, which has been asked by a number of senators today, I make the point again that the code is an opt-in scheme. You do not have to become code compliant if you do not wish. If you do not want to do Commonwealth-funded building work you do not have to. Companies can vary their agreements or make new agreements if they wish. If they do not wish to, they do not have to. The number of agreements that may require variation will depend on how many companies want to opt in to the system, are non-code compliant and want to be eligible to perform future Commonwealth-funded work.

Given that you have raised the issue again, I would also refer senators to past experiences with codes of this nature. You would be aware that this is not the first time that such a code has operated at a federal level or, indeed, even at a state level. Similar codes have been put in place, for example, in my home state of Western Australia and certainly in Victoria. The point I make here is that there was no transition period. This was the government's position, but we acknowledge that that was not accepted by the Senate.

In relation to those examples, though, where such codes have applied before there were numerous companies that were willing and perfectly able to become code compliant. There was no market failure. There was no shortage of competition to tender for government work. Any suggestion that this will be the case is simply not borne out by the actual evidence.

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

How did you then arrive at the nine months, Minister? Was there any modelling done? Was it based on advice from your department or was it just a political stitch-up?

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

Again, Senator McKim, I appreciate you have not been in the chamber. I have been asked this question a number of times by both representatives of the Australian Greens and the opposition. I have answered the question the same way each time—that is, as you would be aware, the government's preferred position was there was no transition period. That was not preferred by the Senate. I am a pragmatist. In life, you negotiate. The Australian Senate determined a two-year period. We are now in a position to determine a nine-month period. It is a matter of negotiation.

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

Minister, I just want to come back to your response regarding the clause I read to you—and I will read it again: 'In the event of redundancies required during the life of the agreement, in occupational classifications where both Australian workers and temporary foreign workers are employed temporary foreign workers will be made redundant first, given that temporary foreign workers are intended to supplement the Australian workforce.' Minister, you indicated, yes, that that was code compliant. Can I now take you to the code itself and clause 11(3)(h). If you read that clause in its context, it says:

Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), clauses are not permitted to be included in enterprise agreements that:

And then if you go to (h):

limit or have the effect of limiting the right of an employer to make decisions about redundancy, demobilisation or redeployment of employees based on operational requirements;

Could you now explain why this clause is compliant in the context of what the code explicitly says?

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

The code does not prevent employers from retrenching temporary foreign workers before Australian workers, as you have articulated. I am also advised that the ABCC itself has not assessed any clauses in enterprise agreements that relate to the redundancy of temporary foreign workers as not compliant with the building code. I am also advised that the purpose of the clause that I believe you are actually going to in relation to the agreement is to actually prevent a clause whereby you would specifically state 'last on, first off'. That is prohibited.

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

Minister, that is not what the clause says. This is a law we are debating. That is what you have indicated. Many times clauses in a bill or eventually in the act, as you are aware—you were a lawyer for big employers—you can look at them and then come back to the debate, like this debate, and make some assessment. But your answer goes nowhere near what this clause said. There would be massive confusion. Your statement is completely at odds with clause 11(3)(h). I know you have been getting some advice. Are you still saying that this clause is code compliant?

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

If I take you to page 12 of the code, the note under part (h) actually states:

Example: an arrangement or practice whereby employees are selected for redundancy based on length of service alone.

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

Minister, again: you are legally trained; I am not. An example is an example. It is not a definitive proposition. It is simply an example. So are you saying that clause (h) is absolutely defined by what is in the example? And, if so, why was the clause not drafted to reflect the example—and the example only?

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

Again, you do not like my answer, and I cannot assist you any further if you do not like my answer. I will read for you, though, from the explanatory memorandum in relation to the bill.

Paragraph 11(3)(h) prohibits clauses that limit or have the effect of limiting the right of an employer to make decisions about redundancy, demobilisation or redeployment of employees based on operational requirements. For example, a clause that:

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

Minister, this shows why this bill should not be passed by the Senate. It is so loose and so unclear in the drafting. It has been poorly drafted on your instructions—I do not blame the drafter for the issue. That is only one example of why this bill should not pass the Senate. On that basis, I move the opposition amendment (1) on sheet 8070:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 23), at the end of the Schedule, add:

6 At the end of section 34

Add:

(4) Provisions of the Building Code that are inconsistent with the operation of Part 2-4 of the Fair Work Act 2009 have no effect to the extent of the inconsistency.

This basically says that building and construction workers should be treated the same as every other worker in Australia. I will put it to you: not only every worker in Australia but workers who negotiate collective agreements all over the world are bound by the acts of parliament in their various countries. I am unaware of anything like this bill, which is designed for the code to absolutely diminish the bargaining rights of building and construction workers in this country.

No-one should have any illusion what this is about. This is about diminishing the capacity of building and construction workers—the chippies, the brickies, the boiler makers, the air conditioning mechanics, the lift mechanics and the crane drivers, ordinary workers out there—to try to get a decent living with decent conditions and respect on the job. This is part of the tradition of this government. This government's tradition is Work Choices. It is about diminishing workers' rights and workers' conditions in this country, and collective bargaining is absolutely anathema to this government and to your senior partner, One Nation. This is a real problem. This bill is designed to diminish ordinary workers' capacity to have a union go in and negotiate across a range of issues. That is available to workers around the country. Having a different set of laws for workers in the building and construction industry does not have any validity. There is no intellectual strength to why you are doing this; it is an absolute nonsense. Through this amendment, we are seeking to say, basically, that there are laws in this country that regulate bargaining, that those laws apply in all industries across the country and that building and construction workers are being treated differently.

We are also saying that this bill breaches workers' international rights and the international obligations of the government and this country, which have been freely given at the ILO. This bill places restrictions on ordinary workers designed to diminish their take-home pay, their conditions and their protections. I know what the response will be from the government: that it is about this alleged thuggery, that it is about all these bad things. The way coalition members describe the building and construction industry is far from the reality that ordinary workers in the industry experience. What the majority of ordinary workers experience is that a union goes in, negotiates a decent agreement and provides them with good wages, good conditions and rights at work. This is what you are trying to diminish. You are using the bad behaviour of a minority in the industry, you are reflecting the behaviour of a minority across the whole industry and you are then putting through legislation that massively diminishes the capacity of building and construction workers to access their rights to collectively bargain, consistent with Australian law and our international obligations. This amendment is designed to protect workers in the building and construction industry, to protect them from the ideological attack that is being mounted by this government and that has been mounted by previous coalition governments from the days of former Prime Minister John Howard and Work Choices.

In our view, this is a bill that should not be supported. The drafting of the bill is deficient. The minister has been unable to explain many elements of the bill in an effective manner. The minister has been unable to explain what the implications are for the industry. The minister has given answers here tonight that are at complete odds with the clauses in the code. It is a confusing, confused bill. The minister cannot understand the clauses herself. If the minister cannot understand the clauses and if the minister cannot read elements of the bill, what chance do employers and employees have of going out into the field and negotiating agreements that are supposedly consistent with this code?

The other issue is that it is not the industrial commission that will be determining code compliance; it will be the worst public servant in the country, Mr Nigel Hadgkiss. Mr Hadgkiss has surrounded himself with cronies and sycophants, and is simply there as a political weapon of the coalition. He is a publicly funded union-busting operative. He is one of the highest paid public servants in the country, but he has no idea about how his organisation operates. All he wants to do is apply this code in a manner that disadvantages Australian building workers. Let me say clearly that if this happens and workers are diminished in their capacity to bargain then small businesses all around the country will feel the pain when building and construction workers do not have the disposable cash to go out there and keep their economies and their communities running.

So this is a bad bill. This is a bill that should be rejected. The performance of the minister tonight clearly demonstrates her lack of understanding of the bill. It has been ideologically driven and it is about attacking workers' rights to collectively bargain.

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

The government will not be supporting the amendment moved by Senator Cameron. In making a few comments, I do note that Senator Cameron is talking to the bill. I would remind the Senate that the bill itself was passed last year by the Senate. All we are looking at tonight is an amendment to the transitional period. I also note that the amendment on sheet 8070 that Senator Cameron has just moved is in identical terms to the one that he moved last year during the debate on the ABCC, and I also note that at that point in time it was rejected by the Senate.

The practical effect of your amendment is to completely throw out the Building Code, holus-bolus, make it null and void, throw it out the window—you obviously know that. That is the effect this amendment would have if it were passed. Ironically, even Bill Shorten's 2013 Building Code would have fallen foul of this amendment, because it too contained requirements in relation to contents of agreements.

Senator Cameron, even though you are prosecuting arguments in relation to the bill which passed the Senate last year, I am going to make a number of comments that go directly to why we are opposing the amendment but also to why there are specific laws in relation to the building and construction industry. I will briefly recap. Several royal commissions have identified systemic unlawful behaviour in the building industry, including illegal industrial action, bullying, threats and intimidation of workers. The Australian Building and Construction Commission currently has 62 matters before the courts, as at 9 February 2017. The majority relate to alleged right-of-entry breaches, coercion and unlawful industrial action. The ABCC currently has 10 submissions and one application before the Fair Work Commission in relation to the right-of-entry permits of 15 CFMEU officials. The CFMEU is respondent in 57 matters currently before the courts. As at 9 February there were 110 CFMEU officials before the courts for 1,078 suspected contraventions.

In the 2015-16 financial year, the courts issued $1.826 million in penalties in Fair Work Building and Construction cases. The vast majority of those fines were against the CFMEU—$1.733 million. This was the fifth time in the history of Fair Work Building and Construction and its predecessors that the penalties awarded throughout the financial year were actually above $1 million. In the current financial year to date, the courts have issued penalties in FWBC/ABCC cases totalling $749,125, and, again, the majority were penalties against the CFMEU and its affiliates. So, in relation to why there is a building code—again, Senator Cameron, you are prosecuting matters in relation to a bill that actually did pass the Senate this year—those are the reasons. But, in relation to your amendment, again I say that the government will not be supporting it. Last year it was rejected by the Senate, and the effect of it, as you well know, is to completely make null and void the Building Code.

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

This is an opportunity for One Nation, for Senator Hinch and for Senator Xenophon to actually do in here what you preach outside, because workers will not be in a position to protect their jobs from workers from overseas on 457 visas and other visas. Workers will not be in that position in the case of a redundancy. Despite what the minister says, the code says something different. If there was even one reason why we should reject this it is the total confusion of the minister and the government about what is in the code and what is out of the code. And who is going to be the arbitrator on this? The worst public servant this country has ever seen, Nigel Hadgkiss. What happens when clauses go to the ABCC? They will lie there for months, for who knows how long?

One Nation does lots of preaching about Australian jobs, does lots of big talk about Australian jobs, lots of big talk about protecting Australian workers, lots of big talk about what they are going to do with apprentices. Now, Senator Hanson, is your opportunity to put the big talk into action. Stop saying one thing out there for political purposes and then when you come in here cuddle up with the Liberal Party and the National Party—not so much the National Party; we know you want to destroy them. Do not cuddle up with the Liberal Party and accept this code which denies workers rights that are rights that have been achieved and are acceptable everywhere else in the country, rights that have been achieved and are acceptable everywhere else in modern economies around the world. Why would One Nation stop workers negotiating about not being made redundant while foreign workers—who are there to be top-up workers—are on the job? Why would you do that? It is absolutely ridiculous. It just blows away your rhetoric about job protection and looking after Australian workers. It you support this bill it shows that you are a fraud. If you do not want to be a fraud, do not support it. If you want to be a fraud, support this bill. Then everyone will know that all your rhetoric stands for absolutely nothing and that you are committing fraud against the Australian public with your arguments for Australian jobs and that you are committing fraud against the Australian public with your arguments about apprenticeships. Do not be a fraud. Stand up in here for what you say out there and stop doing dirty deals with the coalition that mean workers rights will be taken away from them, that their wages will diminished and that their families will suffer. That is exactly what will happen if you support this bill.

I say the same to Senator Hinch. You cannot just jump from one position to another and leave workers exposed to bad legislation. This legislation is not understood even by the minister. This legislation will create chaos in the building and construction industry. This legislation means that thousands of agreements will be up for renegotiation. This legislation says that if you negotiate a ratio of apprentices you will not be AB code compliant—

Senator Hinch interjecting—

And rather than shout at me over the chamber, Senator Hinch, maybe you should go back and actually look at the Hansard to see what this minister has said tonight. This minister is totally incompetent, not only in relation to the bill and the clauses in the bill—she cannot explain them—but as the Minister for Employment she has no idea how the act works. She has no idea how bargaining takes place. She thinks there is going to be this magical situation where because the boss puts some pressure on workers they will just give in. There are going to be masses of companies that are not code compliant.

I cannot understand Senator Xenophon, who portrays himself as the hero of the working class. But when he gets an opportunity to actually do something practical about protecting workers from this mob across the chamber, who hate workers bargaining collectively, who want simply to look after the big end of town and the people who put money into their election campaigns and to hide where the money is coming from, Senator Xenophon really needs to have a look at what he is committing to. He is getting all uptight about what somebody is saying about him out in the public arena. This bill will diminish health and safety in the building and construction industry. This bill will ensure that there is chaos in the industry. This bill will mean that companies that are competitive will end up losing a bid—even though their bid is the best bid on cost, quality and delivery—to one of this mob's mates who cannot be as efficient but who have put money into the pockets of the Liberal Party for their elections.

Senator Hinch, Senator Hanson and Senator Xenophon, I do not believe you understand what you are going to do tonight, because if you did understand it you would not do it. The minister does not even understand the bill, with all the support she has. What you should think about is not the deals you can do, not who can do the dirtiest deal, not who can get the front page of The Australian, but about what is in the interest of workers in this country. This is not a contest amongst the minor parties for the best publicity and the headline in The Australian. Senator Hinch, let me tell you: the first chance The Australian has of doing you over if you ever stand up for workers in this place, it will do you over.

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

They did last December.

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

So do not think, because they gave you a touch-up when you did the right thing and then you do a triple somersault with pike and you are back here, that The Australian will think much of you. They will not, because I can tell you: not many people in here think much of you and what you have done. This mob over here think you are an easy touch. We think you cannot be trusted. The Australian construction industry do not know what to think of you, and Senator Xenophon is not much better. He should know better. He is more experienced. So I will give you some leeway, Senator Hinch: you just are not experienced. You are not used to bargaining. You are not used to negotiating. You are not used to getting done over. This is not you sitting with a big silver mike in front of you, pontificating about, 'Shame, shame, shame!' This is real life. This is not a plaything.

So what you need to do is think carefully about playing with workers' wages and conditions and workers' rights. The Housing Industry Association yesterday made it clear that the tactic that will be employed against building and construction workers is to force them into the commission and argue that they should lose their enterprise agreement and go back on the award rate, with hundreds and hundreds of dollars being lost by workers in the building and construction industry. This is not about efficiency. This is not about illegal activity. This is simply about this mob here having a hatred for collective bargaining in this country. One Nation, the Nick Xenophon Team and you, Senator Hinch, should not fall for this con job of a bill, which is hopeless in terms of delivering for working people. So, Senator Hinch, think again.

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

Senator Cameron, could I just remind you to address your comments through the chair.

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

Sorry. I apologise, Chair. Through the chair, Senator Hinch, have a think about this. Senator Hanson, have a think about this. Senator Xenophon, have a think about this. You cannot portray yourselves as heroes of the workforce and ordinary working families when you come here and deliberately introduce a code that restricts workers' rights to bargain.

Collective bargaining is the one way workers get decent wages and conditions, and building industry workers are not like white-collar workers—middle managers, to whom the human resource manager can walk in and simply say, 'We've restructured, and you're gone.' That is where we are heading with this. What we need is a bit of understanding, a bit of strength, a bit of courage of your commitments and a bit of delivery on your rhetoric. Come in here, protect Australian jobs, protect Australian apprenticeships, protect collective bargaining and protect the right of workers to have a union representing them, because this is nothing more than an attack on the Australian workforce, and you are facilitating it. Senator Xenophon, Senator Hinch and Senator Hanson are facilitating this debilitating bill, which will mean lower wages, lower conditions and less money in the community for small businesses.

Senator Hanson, if this went around and you still had your fish and chip shop and you were working near a building site, there would not be much fish and chips getting bought, because the workers would not have the money to buy the fish and chips. I have heard you pontificating about fish and chip shops in the past. Think about it: if building workers do not have the money to get takeaway fish and chips, your business is gone. Workers will be put on the award wage on this. The employers foreshadowed it yesterday. This is a terrible bill, this is a terrible code, and that is why we are saying nothing in the code should take away from the rights that workers enjoy under the general act. That is what we are saying. We are protecting workers' rights; you are going to take them away. You are going to allow employers to sack Australian workers and keep on workers from overseas on 457 and other arrangements. Have a look at clause 11(3)(h). When you sign that off, you are signing away the rights of working people in this country to protect their permanent construction jobs against 457 visa holders.

I would like to hear how you intend to justify this to the people to whom you portray yourself as the great defender of workers' jobs. The three parties have allowed themselves to be conned by the coalition. You have demonstrated so far that you do not understand these issues of importance to working people. Senator Roberts has continually run antiworker rhetoric. How One Nation can ever portray itself as a defender of workers and of Australian jobs has got me beat, and Senator Xenophon should know better. He just has given in. (Time expired)

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

My God   ! I think that was the speech of a unionist with his cap on. You are not a member of parliament; you sound like a unionist.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

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

Order!

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

Through you, Chair—sorry.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order, Senator Cameron! Senator Cameron, Senator Hanson sat in silence through your speech.

Really, was that the speech of a senator, or was that a unionist that is in here? I have to take this all into account. Actually, we have the crossbench here. We have people here, from Senator Hinch, who has decided now to do the right thing by Australian companies, workers and everyone here—and I congratulate him on that—and we have Nick Xenophon, who has looked at this, and of course we have Pauline Hanson's One Nation. Now, we have travelled Australia quite extensively. My background to do with workers and everything like that has actually put me in this position, and I have had a good look at this bill. I have spoken to the workers, I have spoken to small business, I have spoken to big business and I have even had the unions in my office—not once, not twice, but at least three times plus. I said to him, 'You are not doing the right thing,' and he looked across at me and he said, 'You are right. We are not angels.' He admitted it to me: 'We are not angels.'

I have had businesses saying they are being controlled by the unions—the CFMEU, threats. I remember, last year, the night that we stayed here till after midnight debating this bill. There were all the unionists walking the hallways here, trying to intimidate members of this parliament. Do you think that is the right thing to do in here? Shouldn't we be looking at the legislation and what is right for the people of this country? And that is how I think it should be, not intimidation by the unionists and actual threats.

So what are the unions doing now? Let us look at the CFMEU. What are they doing? They are putting ads on TV to try and intimidate the Nick Xenophon Team. Is that the way you do it? Is the way you do it like just prior to the last election, when the unionists turned up at my office with the media? They had brought all the guys that were on the building site across the road. They all came there. We asked them, 'What are you doing here?' They said, 'We don't know. We were told. Our bosses told us to come here.'

Senator Cameron says that I do not care about apprenticeships. That is not the case. From day one, I have been speaking to the Prime Minister about an apprenticeship scheme. We need to get apprenticeships going. I will fight tooth and nail, and I will keep going, till we get more apprenticeships in this country. Senator Cameron said I am not doing anything for the workers out there. What did the Labor Party do about 457 visas holders? The greatest number of 457 visas holders in the country was under Labor. Just last week, I sent a letter to immigration minister Dutton's office and to the Prime Minister's office to address 457 visa holders for the marine engineers, because the 457s are coming in and taking over the jobs of Australian workers. They have been lobbying in the parliament here for the last 18 months for someone to do something about workers coming in and taking over the jobs on the ships here in Australia. Where was Senator Cameron then? Where was the Labor Party?

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

On the picket line! I was on the picket line.

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

They were not to be seen. What about the 457 visas holders there, taking Australian jobs? The fact is that, if I am of the opinion that there are any 457 visa holders in this country taking Australian jobs, I will stand up, I will make a note of it and I will fight for those Australian jobs.

My grandfather came to Australia as a carpenter, from London. He was a Labor man. He was a unionist. He fought for workers' rights, and he got those workers' rights. If he saw the Labor Party of today, and the unions, he would turn in his grave, because they are not the Labor Party they were years ago. My parents were also Labor until they realised, and they changed. I did not know this. Actually I had no idea of my Labor background. My grandfather was on the Labor executive at the Ithaca in 1936, and I had no idea. You may criticise me for my fish-and-chip shop—

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

No, we respect you for that.

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

We respected you for that.

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

but that was a business that I had. I worked, and I worked damn hard, for myself and my four children—

Senator Cameron interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order, please! I remind senators that they all have a right to be heard in silence.

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

Did you sell halal snack packs?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Cameron! Senator Hanson, please go on.

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

I will ignore the smart remarks in this chamber—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That would be helpful.

because they are not worth acknowledging. My father worked 106 hours a week for 25 years to provide for his family. I know what it is to work. I will support the workers in this nation, and that is why I believe I am making the right decisions with this bill. If small and medium-sized business get out there and put themselves into debt to go and start their businesses, you will not have jobs for workers; and, if we do not protect that, we are going to have foreign investors coming into this country and bringing in their own workers. So there has to be a balance, and I am looking for the balance.

Like I said, with union members before the courts, the facts and figures show you. I have spoken to businesspeople, and one businessperson said to me, 'We had them there and they weren't going to work. They came into the office and they said, "Okay, if you want our workers here, we want a cheque for $5,000 written out,"' to pay the union membership fees of the workers that were there. I heard from another businessperson who said they delivered the concrete, but halfway through the pour they stopped. He said, 'We actually had to lose that money.'

That is what they do. It is all through intimidation, and we cannot allow that. We cannot have unions running and controlling this country. We have a job to do here. I do not believe in intimidation. If they want to have a go at me, that will not stop me. I will not be threatened. I will not be intimidated. I am here to do a job for the people of this country. You may not always agree with everything I say or do, but I will not lie to the people and I will not do the wrong thing by the people, because I have too much respect for this position. But, if those on the other side of the chamber want to have a go at me or tell their lies or their old rhetoric because they are buying votes out there and are not doing the right thing by the people of this country, then—heaven help them—I do not believe they should be here. This is too much of an important decision. I do support this bill and I will continue to support it.

I will not allow myself or any of my fellow senators to be intimidated. If they intimidate us this time they will do it next time when there is anything on the floor of this parliament that does not suit them. So I ask Senator Hinch and Senator Xenophon to stand strong on what their beliefs are and what they truly believe is right for the Australian people. Do not be intimidated by this because they will do it next time and they will continue to do it on and on.

To the people of Australia who may be listening to this: you may have your doubts about it, but I am trying to do the best that I possibly can to make the right decisions on your behalf. I believe that this is right for future generations, for work that needs to be done and to provide work for Australians. I will stand by that. I am not going to see Australian workers go down, and I would not support anything if I thought they were going to be wrongly done by. We have arbitration and industrial relations—all of that is in place. But I think that we need to protect Australian jobs and I think this is the way of doing it, not by letting the unions control this country.

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

Minister, the way you promote the ABCC sounds like the Liberal-National version of 'alternative facts'. Encouraging apprenticeships is not the same as requiring apprenticeships. You have attempted to hose down concerns that apprentices will not lose out under the Building Code. But that is the reality here.

Minister, you quoted clause 11(3)(a) and you said to us that it states 'encourage the employment of apprentices'. There is nothing about certainty in terms of numbers. We know that numbers of apprenticeship are crashing around the country. That is what you emphasised, Minister: encouraging apprenticeships. What is prohibited from the code is any clause which requires the employment of a certain number of apprentices. That is what we are losing, and that is why I called it 'alternative facts'. That is the scam you are running. You know that there is concern about apprentices and you know that that is a concern shared by many of the crossbenchers. You are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes by saying, 'We're encouraging it.' It is absolutely meaningless. It is your version of alternative facts.

We know how serious this can be because there has actually been—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's socialise employment!

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

I am happy to acknowledge Senator O'Sullivan, as always. We know how serious this has been because under the ABCC there has actually been a prosecution of a construction worker who was a delegate of the union who actually took up the issue of apprentices. It is worth sharing because this is an area where your deception runs deep, Minister. In 2007 a 65-year-old delegate of the union, Charlie Corbett, was prosecuted and fined by the ABCC due to his attempts to get employment for an apprentice on a site in the Latrobe Valley. This was a huge project—a $37 million project—and there should have been lots of apprenticeships. But under the way the government runs things, apprenticeships are crashing because it is not their commitment. Minister, you are running the biggest cartel, working with industry to cut corners so they can increase their profits at every turn. I say again: yes, there is clause 11(3)(a), but the version encouraging apprenticeships does not deliver what this country so urgently needs.

Minister, you have built your career on abusing construction workers, unions, delegates and the CFMEU. You have stood here in speeches and speeches, and time and again in question time and when you were on the backbench. There you were, yelling about abuse, swearing, violence, what you call thuggery and all of the allegations you have reeled off again tonight. Do not get me wrong; I will stand here. I do not want to hear sexism and I do not want to hear about any of the abuse. But what you are talking about are allegations—by far, the majority of them are. Certainly, some of them will end up with guilty verdicts, but by far the majority will not, just as by far the majority have already been dismissed over the years when there have been previous rounds. Let's remember that every Liberal-National government that comes in here has some form of a royal commission or something similar into unions. As I have said time and time again, when the Liberal-Nationals get elected they have to deliver for their constituency.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why do you take their money?

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

Their constituency, Senator O'Sullivan, as you know, is big agribusiness and big construction companies. They are there to help deliver by attacking the unions and weakening them. We are seeing another version of that right now.

Let's remember with regard to the building industry that it is not like here, where about the worst thing we can get is a paper cut. The construction industry is a dirty, hard industry. Shocking things go on there. What is particularly revealing about the minister is that in all those speeches she has given condemning the CFMEU, talking about all the allegations of sexism and abuse and reading out all those transcripts in her emotive way, not once have I heard her take up the issue of safety on the job. Today we have been reminded of how important that is, because today another construction worker has been killed. I understand he was in his fifties and was a construction worker on the Flinders hospital construction site. He was not the first worker to die on that site. That is partly why this industry is tough. It is tough for a whole range of reasons. But I do stand with the union because of what they do for occupational health and safety. I stand with them and I will continue to stand with them on this most important issue. The minister and the Liberals and Nationals have ignored this most important issue of workers' safety. We have heard this tragedy today of a construction worker while we were in here arguing the toss on legislation that should never have been introduced. We should remember some of the workers who have been killed to highlight how appalling this minister, this government and this legislation are.

Wayne Moore died on 19 March 2009 at the Mount Whaleback mine in Western Australia. There was unsecured grid mesh that gave away. There had been two previous incidents involving this mesh falling to the ground, and there had been complaints about it. John Holland, the company involved, failed to report these incidents. The court decided to impose the maximum penalty under the act of $242,000 on John Holland. All these examples that I am giving involve John Holland—a very major construction company who is very generous to the government. They keep on abusing the law time and time again.

Minister, you were going on about the CFMEU committing this crime and committing that crime? Why don't you go after the companies who are killing people? The way the industry works at the moment, they can do that—and even if they break the law they pay a fine. John Holland paying $100,000 to $240,000 is like petty cash to them. It is insulting—it is insulting to the family and to the memory of Wayne Moore.

In 2011 Anthony Phelan was sinking railway tracks near Perth's central railway station. He was wearing ear plugs, as he was required to do, and what happened? A high road vehicle had lost its braking and was coming towards him. The workers yelled at him to get out of the way, he had earplugs in so he did not hear them, and he was killed. The court determined that that was foreseeable—that that should not have happened. Again, the company was fined—in this case, $180,000. Then there is the 2011 case of Sam Beveridge, a 40-year-old diesel fitter employed by John Holland. He died after being struck by a falling beam. John Holland admitted it failed to provide Mr Beveridge with training on risk control. The company was again fined the equivalent of petty cash—$170,000.

The cases go on and on. It is tragic to read. I decided to read these out because it really exposes the minister and how she treats this portfolio. This portfolio is not about creating jobs. It certainly is not about workers' safety. It is about working with the construction companies so the industry will be more profitable for them. To sum up on the safety issue—these are shocking figures but they bring things together—in the 10 years from 2003 to 2013, 401 construction workers died from injuries sustained at work—401 families whose loved one did not come home that night. Surely that would be a sobering statement for all of us here. We all go home to our loved ones at the end of the week. We miss them. We look forward to it. I have heard the families of these people speak about this.

The minister abuses the CFMEU, but some of the finest work that they do is with the families who have lost their loved ones who were construction workers. There were fathers, uncles and brothers—all these families have lost someone. Although construction has about nine per cent of the national workforce, it accounts for 15 per cent of all workplace fatalities. That is why I speak so strongly about this, Minister, because in your time you have done so little about this. Again, I do congratulate the CFMEU. One of the initiatives that they have taken on board is MATES in Construction. They have annual dinners to raise money to assist these families and it is very fine work—very fine work that needs to be undertaken.

This is legislation that should not be passed. We have heard a number of speeches, and the way One Nation have handled this issue is very disturbing. Senator Hanson talks about protecting local jobs, particularly protecting local jobs in Queensland—her state. I imagine she has had a similar message in Western Australia. Senator Hanson has that message when she is out on the hustings, but when she comes here—like with the minister—she is hanging out with the elites in Canberra. There is an inconsistency all the time. What we have from Senator Hanson and her colleagues in One Nation is the very worst of both worlds. There is a racist rhetoric about overseas workers, but at the same time they are undermining local workers. They are undermining the conditions of local workers collectively organising in unions.

These are people all of us should be standing with in local communities—local communities who are doing it tough in terms of their pay and their conditions. All we are talking about is having a fair system—a fair system so that when people go to work their families can be confident that they will come home and so that workers' safety on the job is not being undermined and they can be confident that there will be decent pay at the end of the working week. And, yes, the companies have to do their job as well, but the conditions should not be cut to such an extent that working people suffer to the point that they lose their lives.

There is so much that is deeply wrong with this legislation. The amendments moved by Labor should be supported, and the bill should be voted down if they are not supported.

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

We have heard about fish and chip shops, and let me tell you very clearly that Senator Hanson never served jellyfish in her fish and chip shop. I cannot understand Senator Cameron. First of all he tried to cuddle up to us in his latest speech and then he started do denigrate us. Is he confused? No, he is not confused—he is desperate. Maybe he is blinded by ideology or corrupted by those who fund his party and its buddies the Greens.

Let us be very clear, this bill is a very short bill and it is about one thing and only one thing: decreasing the transition time from two years to nine months. Second, Senator Cameron's amendment seeks to gut the ABCC. It is outside the scope of this bill. It is a sneaky attempt to gut the ABCC and continue the corruption of labour under union bosses' control. It undermines safety and hurts small business, hurts union workers, hurts workers and hurts taxpayers.

This amendment is designed to protect the establishment elites that control the ALP—the union bosses and their corrupt ideology of control. Speaking of ideology, when Senator Cameron raised that during his latest speech, none other than Senator Chisholm stuck his nose in and then scurried away. He stated earlier today that I was the ideological warrior of Pauline Hanson. Never before has the ideological love child of Bill Ludwig ever gotten anything so right. He most certainly did not get the 2012 election right with his strategy of personal attack on Campbell Newman bringing the Labor caucus to a mere seven members. Wasn't that the Tarago party?

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Senator Roberts resume your seat. I would just remind the chamber that senators have a right to be heard in silence, but, Senator Roberts, I would also note to you that if you are inflammatory in your language you will get a reaction.

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

Thank you, Chair. I just need to respond to what the Labor Party has talked about today. You bet, Senator Chisholm, through you Chair, I am Pauline Hanson's ideological warrior. Our ideology is pro-worker and pro-human and I am a warrior for that cause. We stand up for the battlers, and that is why we support this ABCC bill and oppose Senator Cameron's amendment. We do not want the everyday worker ripped off, just like the workers of the AWU's faction are always ripped off by Senator Chisholm's ilk. Senator Chisholm and his ilk do not come into this chamber to stand up for the worker; they stick their noses in and then scurry out. They come into this chamber to collect $200,000 a year and brag about free tickets to as many dinners as they can get. They are social climbers who tuck their knees under every grubby dirty table from Fortitude Valley to Lakemba. Pauline Hanson's ideology is steeped in standing up for battlers, stopping them from getting ripped off—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I remind you to refer to Senator Hanson by her correct title.

Senator Hanson's ideology is steeped in standing up for battlers and stopping them getting ripped off, and I am proud of that ideology. I am proud to be called one of Senator Hanson's warriors, because, Senator Chisholm, through you, Chair, the policies that you pursued and executed during your failed tenure of the ALP's Queensland branch have been rejected by workers, who are flooding to our party in droves. I say to Senator Chisholm, through you, Chair: keep your personal and vicious attacks up, keep siding with union boss thugs, keep praying to the great Ludwig for guidance and advice, keep sending us your huddled masses. We say, 'Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to us. We lift our lamp beside the golden door.' Senator Pauline Hanson's One Nation will set them free. I acknowledge that quote that from the Statue of Liberty.

Senator Hinch and Senator Xenophon, we implore you to stand up and end the bullying, smears and intimidation. Ideology? No, never. Australia? Yes. Small business? Yes. Workers? Yes. Union members? Yes. Taxpayers? Yes.

Senator Rhiannon dared talk about safety. In my experience in successful overseas and Australian operations, safety improves when management accountabilities are clear and not undermined by unions that take no responsibility, especially with a clear agenda to disrupt and control and to fabricate safety claims. That denigrates safety; it distracts. Under the previous ABCC bill, safety improved. When it was removed by the Gillard-Shorten combination safety deteriorated. Now it will start to come back. The accidents that Senator Rhiannon took so cheaply are a symptom of the problem that the current Labor Shorten regime put in place in the Gillard years. Safety depends on transparency and clarity, not on a culture of lies, cover-ups and intimidation.

Let me cut to another point that the Labor Party and the Greens have raised: 457 visas. I will go through 457 visas issued to registered nurses. In 2012-13, under Bill Shorten as employment minister, there were 2,853; in 2015-16, there were 1,009. That is a 65 per cent reduction. The record high was under Bill Shorten. Let us look at 457 visas issued to carpenters and joiners, which Senator Marshall raised. In the Shorten years, 2012-13, there were 1,121; in 2015-16, there were 470. That is a 58 per cent reduction from the record held by Bill Shorten. Let us look at 457 visas issued for cooks—Senator Marshall, I think, raised cooks. Under Bill Shorten, in 2012-13, there were 3,041 visas issued for cooks; in 2015-16 there were 2,366. That is a 22 per cent reduction from the record held by Bill Shorten.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Roberts, please address members in the other place by their correct title. He is Mr Shorten.

Let us look at early childhood education. In 2012-13, under Mr Shorten, there were 76; in 2015-16, 74, a three per cent reduction from the record under Mr Shorten. Let us look at 457 visas issued to electricians. They are tradesmen involved in the building industry quite often. There were 610 visas issued by Mr Shorten as employment minister in 2012-13; and 2015-16 there were 181. That is a 75 per cent reduction. Motor mechanics: there is nothing more fundamental than that. We have plenty here, haven't we? In 2012-13, under Mr Shorten as employment minister, 1,536 were issued; in 2015-16, there were 690. That is a 55 per cent reduction from Mr Shorten's record.

This amendment is a farce. It is designed to gut the ABCC It has nothing to do with this bill. We oppose it.

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

I will make a brief contribution. My colleagues and I will not be supporting these amendments. Out of respect for Senator Cameron, I will outline why not. I do have some questions of the minister, relating to issues of safety. I will reflect on Senator Rhiannon's contribution and also on the issue of Australian-made goods in the context of procurement.

Firstly, on the issue of apprentices, previously as a result of negotiations with the government when this bill was last before this place there was a commitment to include specific reference to there being no prohibition in the Building Code on negotiating or encouraging apprentices in an agreement. That is something that the ABCC cannot in any way fetter. If an agreement is reached apprentices must be taken into account. I think that you do need a situation where businesses large and small in the contracting chain should be encouraged to have as many apprentices as possible.

The Senate transcript was part-published up to 9pm. The remainder of the transcript will be published on Thursday, 16 February 2017.