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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

Today I introduce the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017.

The building and construction industry is a vital sector of the Australian economy. Ensuring an efficient, safe and law-abiding building and construction industry is crucial to promoting jobs, driving economic growth and managing the transition to a more diversified economy.

This is why the Government last year re-established the Australian Building and Construction Commission to ensure building work is carried out fairly, efficiently, lawfully and safely for the benefit of all Australians.

A crucial factor to drive reform and boost productivity is the content requirements for enterprise agreements contained in the Codefor the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016.

This is achieved by prohibiting restrictive clauses in enterprise agreements that limit the ability of a contractor to manage its business or improve productivity, as well as those that give unions disproportionate power on building sites.

This Bill amends the expiry of transitional 'grace period' from 28 November 2018 to 31 August 2017, for enterprise agreements made before the Building Code commenced on 2 December 2016. While new enterprise agreements made after 2 December 2016 must comply with the Code, building industry participants covered by existing enterprise agreements will have until 31 August 2017 to ensure their agreements are Code-compliant.

The Bill also limits the exemption to building industry participants submitting expressions of interest and tendering for Commonwealth-funded building work. This means enterprise agreements will need to comply with the Building Code before contracts are awarded and work gets underway.

Finally, the Bill makes appropriate transitional arrangements for those who have submitted an expression of interest or tendered for relevant building work from 2 December 2016 until the Bill's commencement to ensure they remain eligible to be awarded that building work until 28 November 2018. For the avoidance of doubt, if a building industry participant submitted an expression of interest or tendered for building work on or after 2 December 2016 and was awarded that work before the commencement of Schedule 1 of the Bill, the building industry participant is entitled to undertake, or continue to undertake, that work after the commencement of Schedule 1.

The Bill does not introduce any new requirements.

These amendments will ensure key provisions of the Building Code that seek to improve productivity and reduce costs will be achieved in a more timely fashion.

In turn, this will create the conditions needed to fund the construction of more schools, hospitals and other important social infrastructure, at a price we can afford.

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

I rise on behalf of Labor to oppose this bill. This bill is a blatant attack on workers and unions in the building and construction industry, and, as we have seen, it is about trying to push this attack wider than the building and construction industry. It is using the most incompetent public servant that I have ever come across, Mr Nigel Hadgkiss, as the hatchet man for the coalition government to attack working people, attack their wages and attack their conditions.

There has been a whole army of coalition members getting up and attacking the CFMEU—attacking union officials doing their job. The overwhelming majority of workers in the building and construction industry would not recognise their industry as the industry that is purported to be the problem industry that comes out of the mouths of coalition MPs day in and day out. The overwhelming majority of building and construction workers go to work knowing that they have respect because they have a strong union. They go to work understanding that their boss cannot simply dismiss them as many white-collar middle management workers are dismissed and treated badly around the country. That cannot happen to building and construction workers because they have an effective union out there working day in, day out for them.

This building code is designed to restrict effective bargaining in the industry. It is designed to destroy effective trade unionism. It is targeted against the CFMEU in particular. Let me tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, when this happens building workers' wages and conditions will fall. The standard of living of building workers will fall. It has huge implications for building—

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

A complete lie!

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

Senator Macdonald, you can call me a liar all you like, but what I am prepared to do is stand up for building workers, stand up for effective trade unionism and stand up—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, a point of order?

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

Madam Deputy President, is it within standing orders for a senator making a speech to deliberately misrepresent something someone else might have said or otherwise?

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we are getting into debating territory, Senator Macdonald.

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

On the point of order, this disgraceful excuse for a senator has been interjecting on every point I have made.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, that is also a debating point.

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

I withdraw.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

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

Everyone knows what Senator Macdonald is about.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, resume your seat, please. Senator Macdonald?

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

A point of order, Madam Deputy President. If I said Senator Cameron was a liar, I withdraw that. But can I say that I did not. I said that what he was saying was a complete and abject lie and I stand by that.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Macdonald. You are either withdrawing something or you are not. Please continue, Senator Cameron.

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

Thankfully there may be some decency somewhere in the body over there, but I am not sure it comes out too often.

This is about reducing the wages and conditions of building and construction workers around the country. We do not support illegal behaviour. We do not support bullying and intimidation. We do not support criminality. If there is any of that going on then it should be dealt with by the appropriate authorities; not by some incompetent public servant earning hundreds of thousands of dollars whose sole job is to diminish effective trade unionism in the building and construction industry.

The rhetoric we hear from the opposition is overstated, it is McCarthyism and it is demonisation. That is what they are all about. They have been doing this day in and day out. Living standards will be crushed if this bill is implemented. The Law Council, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights have all pointed to the diminution of working people's rights as a result of this bill. The Law Council has said that it will negatively impact numerous rights currently guaranteed by Australian law. We hear lots of talk about Australian law and no other law applying, but if you are in the building industry you do not even get access to Australian law. That is the bottom line here. Australian law is being diminished for workers because they work in a certain industry and, for some of them, because they belong to a certain union. This is what is happening. The Scrutiny of Bills Committee looked at this and identified a range of human rights and legal obligations that we have as a country that are being diminished.

This is an important issue. I have to say to you that this must be a new record for a bill in this place. The original bill was passed on 1 December 2016. We have had four sitting days since then and there was one sitting day before Senator Hinch's dirty deal with the government was announced in the press on 8 February. The bill effectively lasted one day. It is no wonder that people have got real problems with politicians. Senator Cash, the Minister for Employment, came out on 2 December, the day after the bill was passed—the bad bill that we do not support—and said:

A new era for Australia’s building and construction industry has started from today. An era in which law and order is restored and respected.

Thanks to this Government, we now have a genuine watchdog … to enforce tougher laws and a stronger Building Code.

She said:

New enterprise agreements made from today must comply with the new Code in order to be eligible to be awarded Commonwealth-funded work.

Building contractors covered by enterprise agreements made before today now have until 29 November 2018 to ensure their agreements are Code compliant. Enterprise agreements are made at the time that employees vote to approve the agreement.

I will repeat that: they have until 29 November 2018 to ensure that their agreements are code compliant. She said:

Enterprise agreements are made at the time that employees vote to approve the agreement.

The obligations in the former Building Code 2013 will continue to apply to Commonwealth-funded building work for which expressions of interest or tenders were issued prior to the commencement of the new code.

So here we have the minister saying what a great victory it was for the government and what a fantastic thing this bill was and yet the bill lasted one day. I bet that is a record.

I hope Senator Hinch does not do anything controversial in the next four years, because I tell you that if he does he is really going to be a worried man. Somebody came up to him in a post office and said: 'This is no good. We don't like what you have done,' and Senator Hinch, after criticising all of the other crossbenchers, decided he would change his mind and go to the Prime Minister and offer himself up to bring this bill back. What credibility is left for Senator Hinch? This is a guy who basically engineered his chief of staff to leave because he did not have the experience and did not have the courage to stand up in this place for some decency for workers. So, because of the controversy that surrounded this decision, his chief of staff ended up having to leave. He was a well-respected chief of staff, an experienced chief of staff, and Senator Hinch got rid of him. So if Senator Hinch has no credibility with his own staff, if he cannot treat his own staff properly, how can we expect Senator Hinch to treat workers in the building and construction industry properly. Senator Hinch will wear this for all of his time in the Senate. What he has done is create chaos in the industry, because he just does not understand how the industry works.

Then, on 30 November, we heard the Prime Minister praising the crossbench for backing the legislation—this is the legislation we are getting rid of now in order to change it—and said the government had 'delivered on an economy-boosting election commitment'. He said, 'We feel pretty good about it, I have to tell you. It has been a slog.' So everything was okay after the bill was passed: it was all hunky-dory; there were no problems. The Prime Minister said it was okay. Senator Hinch in the Sydney Morning Herald article said that he had been thrust into the spotlight over the negotiations. Well, he was a reluctant little cookie in the spotlight, wasn't he? He actually tried to gazump every other crossbencher in to grab the limelight. What is it he used to say on his program? Shame! Shame! Shame! Let us apply that to Senator Hinch. Senator Hinch: Shame! Shame! Shame! Because what you have demonstrated is that you are not prepared to stand up for working people in this country. You have absolutely no idea of the implications this has for stability in the industry. You have no idea about what it means for ordinary working people. The Housing Industry Association were at the hearing of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee on Monday, telling us on the inquiry that there will not be a problem, that this will be fixed, because there are mechanisms in the act to make sure this can be done smoothly. Do you know what that mechanism is? It is that the employers can make an application to the industrial commission and can get the workers' wages reduced to the award wage to force them to accept the changes that the bosses will need in order to comply with this new act, if it is passed today.

So it is about coercion from the employers, not the union movement. It is about forcing workers onto the award wage, about building and construction workers all over the country having massive cuts to their take-home pay. Don't this mob here understand, don't the Housing Industry Association understand, don't the Master Builders Association understand? I hope maybe One Nation might understand that if workers have their wages cut in half then they are in real trouble. We heard Senator Hume talking about how difficult it was as a single mother to bring up her kids on a $200,000 basic wage. Go and try and bring your kids up on the wage of a building worker if it is cut in half. This is absolutely ridiculous. There are 3,300 agreements that have to be renegotiated because of this bill's going through. They are 3,300 agreements that were legal. We had the Department of Employment, with its lame excuses, at the Senate inquiry on Monday saying that it had from 2014 to deal with this. But since 2014 the bill had been rejected twice. But what the department now seems to think and what this government seems to think is that they can make a pronouncement about what might happen in the law and then try to enforce that on unions, on workers in the building and construction industry and on employers in the industry. It was rejected twice by the Parliament of Australia. It was rejected twice, but the department—in the worst submission I have ever seen from the department—comes and tries to justify that. The department had better understand that under a Labor government the laws will apply and the processes of parliament will apply and they will not be making submissions like that ever again. They cannot force employers and unions to bargain on the whim of a minister, and that is what has happened here. They cannot do that. It is unacceptable. It is not democracy, nor is it how it should work in this country.

We need to talk about the implications of this. The implications are that we have a code determined by a conservative minister that is imposed upon the bargaining processes between employers and unions in the building and construction industry and wider. I do not have time to go through every aspect of the code, but I was a union official for 27 years and I negotiated with employers year after year after year—probably more negotiations than anyone in the Senate.

What we are not allowed to do in the building and construction industry is to specify the number of apprentices that may be employed or engaged on a particular building site. We have done that for years. If it were not for the trade union movement negotiating with companies all over the country there would not have been a supply of skilled tradespeople around the country. They were in agreements everywhere—ratios of apprentices to tradespeople—to help young kids get a job. Yet One Nation are going to stop that happening. One Nation are going to stop the capacity for unions to negotiate with the employers on that.

We have always been able to ensure that workers on a building site are lawfully entitled to work in Australia and to negotiate that and put a clause in. That is not allowed. So all the rhetoric about Australian jobs from One Nation means absolutely nothing because what they are going to do today if they support this bill is stop workers in the building and construction industry ensuring that workers who come here are legally in the industry.

The other thing is if workers are made redundant—if there are redundancies in the building and construction industry—they are going to stop Australian workers keeping their job in a redundancy process, because what this allows is the employer to keep 457 foreign workers on the job in preference to Australian workers. One Nation is going to stop that. One Nation has to explain to Australian workers why, after all their rhetoric about Australian jobs, they are going to stop negotiations in an enterprise agreement that made Australian jobs for Australian workers. It is absolute hypocrisy from One Nation if they accept this. They will have an opportunity to deal with this during the course of this debate, but they will never be able to stand up with any credibility to talk about protecting Australian workers if they support this bill. Neither will Senator Hinch or Senator Xenophon. None of them will be able to stand up with any credibility.

Workers cannot negotiate about the footwear or safety wear to get Australian-made safety equipment, which creates jobs in Australia. One Nation will be stopping Australian workers getting Australian-made safety equipment and footwear if they support this bill. I just do not think they understand it.

They will be stopping workers being able to negotiate with their employer about getting training on asbestos awareness—a killer disease. These are the types of things that are in the code. They do not apply anywhere else in Australia, and they do not apply anywhere else in the world. As I understand it, there is nowhere in the world, where there is organised labour in first world countries, where workers are faced with bargaining restrictions like this.

The other issue is that this code would mean that building work on electricity and natural gas, water, waste water or telecommunications—essential services—will be affected by this code. South Australian unions, which have not had a dispute for 10 years, are having their agreement ripped up because of this. They will have to renegotiate their agreement. There could be, for the first time in 10 years, industrial disputation over this. There are 3,300 agreements to be renegotiated. There will be chaos in the industry. There is incompetence from the minister and from the department. There is an ideologically-driven ABCC. That is what we are faced with here. It is an absolute disgrace. (Time expired)

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

The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017 provides a direct insight into how this parliament operates. It is really quite ugly when you consider what has played out since we were last here in that late-night sitting, debating the ABCC. The Greens have been on the record for many years—since it was first proposed—saying that this commission should never have been brought in. We have also been consistent in our opposition to this legislation. My colleague in the House of Representatives, Adam Bandt, who is our industrial relations spokesperson, put a very clear case why this legislation should not be supported when making his speech on this bill; it is worth noting that that debate was gagged.

What I meant by my opening remarks—that it provides an insight into how this parliament works—is shown not only by how the Turnbull government does deals with the crossbenchers but by how it does not work for the common good or in the best interests of the majority of people in this country. It looks after its own constituency time and time again. We are seeing this in a crude, blatant way here. Its constituency—big business and big construction companies—were furious about what had happened and that the government had agreed to what is really a responsible amendment to a damaging piece of legislation. The amendment was not going to make a huge change, but they did not even want that. That is what is going on here. I will go through it in more detail, but the reason we are back here now, again debating about the ABCC—which relates to the building code—is to overturn that amendment. We are now going to see crossbenchers now voting against the amendment that they brought here to try to make that legislation more workable. It is extraordinary how this has played out. You might think that this is a house of review and that this is an institution of democracy, but what is going on here makes that farcical and really exposes where the influence lies.

Let us go back to that night of 30 November 2016. It was a late-night sitting, and there were discussions all over the place about what the amendment should be and how it should work. It was Senator Hinch's amendment which dealt with the building industry code. I acknowledge there are sharp differences about it. For those of us who are opposed to it, it is a very notorious and worrying aspect of how the ABCC plays out. The code is an instrument that would be made by the minister following passage of the legislation. Why is the code of such great concern to the Greens, to the unions and to working people? It is because it dictates what can and cannot be in enterprise agreements in the construction industry. This is where any decent person should really be worried and say: 'That just should not be on. We're in the 21st century. We need to have some standards here.' But, no, this is what the code would do: the provisions requiring a minimum number of apprentices, for example, or giving union safety delegates greater rights are all prohibited, if the employer wants to get any work on Commonwealth funded projects. That is what is encapsulated here. Senator Hinch's amendment was really minimal. All it did was provide for a grace period of two years before the code came into force. It did not change those very worrying aspects of the code and how the code will play out. It just provided a grace period giving the industry time to negotiate or renegotiate agreements. The amendment was supported by everyone and my recollection is that the chamber did not divide. So that is all it was. It was really allowing the industry to come to terms with these enormous changes. It was very important for businesses and contractors to be able to get their business practices in order.

But what happened? We heard Senator Cameron detail it. I was there and heard Senator Hinch fess up where he was being lobbied from. He tried to make out it was in the post office when ordinary people came up and spoke to him. He needs to tell us where the pressure was coming from—from the Prime Minister's office down out into the corporate world. How extraordinary that he has decided to overturn what is a minimal but still important aspect. We know how this place works—you get in little things to improve bad legislation. That is how we viewed it and I felt that is how he viewed it too. But sometime last week the pressure came to a head and we saw Senators Hinch and Xenophon announce that they would reverse their support for that grace period of a couple of years to get things in order.

Now this week we are back in parliament and the rush is on to get it through parliament. It was gagged in the lower house. There was a quick inquiry. It is a really dirty job being done by Senators Hinch and Xenophon and the Xenophon team. It is really disappointing. We heard some of their speeches and when I sat in the inquiry listening to them they were still saying they were committed to getting good outcomes. You cannot say this is a good outcome by any stretch of the imagination. It really now does come down to an issue of trust because what we are seeing here is that even when they secure wins—and I even find it hard to describe that amendment as a win; it was a very small step to improve dangerous legislation—they go and undo their deals. They undo such a minimal aspect of the legislation.

I cannot believe that they were not embarrassed when whoever it was from the Prime Minister's office or the corporate interests put it to them. Surely they would have said, 'It is really minimal what we did. We did it ourselves. That will look really embarrassing. We cannot go there.' But they are the ones now who are racing into the headlines to say, 'Yes, we will throw that measure that we got in place so the industry can renegotiate and reorganise considering the enormity of the changes encapsulated in the legislation that we passed last year.' That is why people are saying it looks like big business runs this parliament, runs some of the crossbenchers. I often do not say that they run the Liberal-National parties because the interests so coincide. Liberal-National parties know what their job is, and their job is to deliver for corporate interests. That is their constituency. We understand that. That is how that works.

Now we have this extraordinary situation where we have something that will actually cause chaos in the industry. Although I have said it is a minimal measure, it is still important in terms of what the industry now has to go through. If we lose this two-year grace period, what will happen will be very tough on the industry. There will be job losses and chaos. It is hard to say at the moment but I guess that it will play out to benefit the bigger construction companies. They will be favoured in how this will all work out.

The senators who are about to backflip on this need to recognise that, if they vote for this bill and it passes, it will remove transitional arrangements that were previously agreed to. The result in effect will mean immediate compliance with the new building code. Senator Hinch negotiated the grace period because immediate compliance is really impossible. Compliance will be needed by any company wishing to successfully tender for government work. This is where it is really going to sort things out in terms of who gets the government contracts.

The evidence to committees and discussions in the media have highlighted that there will be chaos in the building industry. That came through very clearly when we had the inquiry on Monday. Thousands of agreements will need to be negotiated and renegotiated. That is a huge amount of work. Many companies will not be able to tender for government work over the next 12 months as agreements covering the workforce will not comply with the Building Code. That is the essence of this situation. It just cannot be done. That means there will be many contractors—large, small, middle-sized contractors—who will be affected. The CFMEU has estimated that there could be 3,000 contractors affected. The job losses and dislocation will be huge.

We hear from the government side so often about the pressures the government is under and the pressure businesses are under and how they have to manage red tape. What this legislation will do to the contractors in the businesses involved in the construction industry is require them to expend more resources in preparing tenders in the almost three months since the most recent changes were made and all their efforts in trying to achieve that could amount to nothing. That renegotiation will be time consuming and it will be costly, and so many of the tenders already prepared in what we know is a costly process could well be wasted.

What does it mean? It means that experienced and qualified contractors who have got settled industrial agreements and have their employees in place will be punished for nothing more than because Senator Hinch has been embarrassed or wants to be inside the Prime Minister's club and has decided to backflip on his own agreement. You cannot call the Senate a house of review today.

Other evidence that was given at the inquiry was that many contractors could well be afraid to oppose the changes publicly, because to do so would damage their commercial interests. So to say that there is no business voice expressing concern about this denies the reality of how the construction industry works. We know it is a cutthroat industry, we know it is tough, and this amendment is just going to throw it in more disarray.

It is also important to share with the Senate some important evidence that was given by the Electrical Trades Union. They highlighted about the electricity sector—

Senator Seselja interjecting—

I acknowledge the interjections from the Senator—always happy to get that on the record, Senator Seselja. The Electrical Trades Union highlighted how the electricity sector in states such as South Australia could be harmed by the passage of the legislation and the code, as employers—this is the key bit—seek to widen its coverage beyond the building industry. So it looks as though South Australia is where this is first going to happen. It was always one of the major concerns, and it was recognised that when the government started on the course of bringing in the ABCC and the Building Code they were attacking that sector of the industry first and then it would be expanded to other areas to make it harder for workers to collectively organise, to go on strike and to work for safer conditions on the job, for better conditions and for fair pay and conditions overall. It was always the concern that it would go beyond the building industry, and here is evidence given to a parliamentary inquiry that that is about to happen.

This again is where the senators on the crossbench should recognise and understand what they are signing up to. The government might make out that it is being responsible and that this is about controlling industry and making it work more successfully, more productively, more efficiently, more professionally—all those words that it comes up with—but the reality coming out of South Australia is that the electricity industry, which has not had industrial disputes for decades, could well now be going into a very unsettled period because something similar to the Building Code could be imposed there.

Did Senator Hinch learn about that when he was sitting down at the Prime Minister's table saying that, yes, he was happy to roll over and get rid of his own minimal amendment? My guess is, no, he has not been informed of the fall implications of what is going on here with his own amendment and with the wider way that this Building Code will work.

We also need to recognise that the public will be harmed by this bill. This is from the CFMEU submission to the inquiry:

Because of the reduction of eligible contractors, Australian taxpayers will be deprived of the benefits of the ordinary competitive commercial tender process that is essential to the delivery of quality and value-for-money construction work.

Again, how could one deny that that should be the basis of how public works are undertaken? Isn't that the right way to get value for money and to ensure that we have good outcomes here that are financially responsible? That is another aspect that is going to be lost in terms of how this is all playing out.

In terms of the evidence in the submissions that came before the committee inquiry about this legislation, first off, I am certainly happy to put on record that I thank those who came forward very quickly to do that. What much of the evidence in the submissions set out is that the Building Code will prohibit from agreements clauses that limit the casualisation of the building industry, those that set apprentice numbers, those that limit access to overtime on health and safety grounds or those that restrict the use of foreign visa holders in favour of local workers. So we are going to lose all those areas under this Building Code. That is really insidious at a time when there is growing youth unemployment. We know it is getting harder to get apprenticeships. And now setting apprenticeship numbers cannot be included in the agreements. Issues of health and safety are locked out. That should be fundamental to how all these agreements are negotiated. Again, I include that to remind ourselves of how damaging, backward and dangerous the Building Code is and the ABCC that is driving it.

The code will also allow the reinstated ABCC to rule many other areas of enterprise agreements that are favourable to workers as noncompliant. So it does not stop what I have just listed—limiting the casualisation of the building industry, issues to do with apprentices, issues to do with health and safety and restricting the use of foreign visa holders. It does not stop that. If the pressure has come from big corporate interests involved in the construction industry in wanting to overturn this very minimal, responsible amendment, surely they will be out there pushing hard for there to be further measures deemed to be noncompliant.

We are in a shocking situation with how this is playing out right now. There was this compromise position that was reached last year. Again, let's remind ourselves: it reflected the view of the majority of the Senate. No division was called. It was seen that it was a responsible measure. At that time, we congratulated Senator Hinch and his staff for working on it so thoroughly. Again, I have called it minimal, but that is what we do in this place when we have legislation that we disagree with—we come forward with these measures to try to save something.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No you don't; you just vote against it!

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

I am happy to acknowledge Senator Seselja trying to come in on the debate. As was discussed at the time, the amendments would have allowed a more realistic time frame for the industry to transition to new agreements that complied with the code. I wanted to give that some recourse. That is the essence of the bill now before us. It is not setting up the ABCC or the Building Code; it is just around that issue of dealing with the transition to new agreements that comply with the code. The grace period has been thrown out.

It is deeply shocking that we have arrived at this point. We have seen the Xenophon team and Senator Hinch come forward with a useful suggestion, and now they have smashed their own suggestion. The trust that one builds up in this place in terms of how one works together has clearly been damaged or, one could say, removed entirely. It is not just that they have reversed their position on a vote but they have reversed their position on their own amendment—their own suggestion that they brought in here to try to salvage a serious problem that they identified, recognised and came forward with a view on. Well, the government still gets what it wants; it just has to wait a bit longer.

The trust has gone: the backflips that we have viewed are extraordinary. I would really urge the crossbenchers—and it looks as though they have done a deal—at this late stage to reassess what they have done, recognise that they did the right thing back at the end of 2016 and that this bill should not go through.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against this Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017. I am very proud of the fact that Labor maintains its opposition to this bill, as we did to the original legislation that was passed only in November last year. It is very surprising that the government would need to bring back amendments to this legislation so soon after passing it. You would think that it would at least give it a little time to operate, to see how it was working. But, of course, some very interesting deals were done over the summer break.

The practical effect of this legislation is that if it is passed—and, obviously, that really does rely on the hands of the crossbenchers—it will prevent building companies from entering into enterprise bargaining agreements with unions and their workforce if those enterprise bargaining agreements contain particular clauses. I will go to that shortly. It will prevent building companies from tendering for Commonwealth building contracts if their enterprise bargaining agreements contain certain clauses, even if those clauses are reached as a result of a negotiation with construction unions and their own workforce.

It is pretty funny to see a government, the Liberal Party and the National Party, that is supposedly all about the free market—which is all about leaving employers and their workforces and unions to work things out for themselves rather than having the heavy hand of government come in and tell them what they can and cannot do—on this occasion abandon those free market principles and want to interfere directly in the negotiations that employers undertake with unions and their workforces. That will have a very intrusive effect on the kinds of things that employers, employees and unions can negotiate and, of course, only in one sector of the economy, being the construction workforce.

I do not really expect anything different of the LNP, as they are known in Queensland, or the Liberal Party and National Party down here. We know that their track record over many years is that they are not actually supporters of working people or their interests. We are seeing that flow through in terms of very poor wages growth in the economy at the moment. Average working people are struggling more than ever under the policies of this government. So, as I said, I do not really expect to see anything different from the LNP. We know that they hate unions and we know that they want to keep average working people's wages down.

But given all of the carry-on that we in Queensland have been seeing, particularly from the One Nation party over the last few months, I really did expect to see something different from them. In Queensland, day after day we have to put up with Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts travelling all around the countryside pretending to be the friends of battling people, struggling people, struggling families, blue-collar workers and pension recipients—all of those kinds of people. I have been saying for some time now that that is nothing more than a fraud. If you actually look at what One Nation does—

Senator Roberts interjecting—

Senator Roberts is over there chuckling; chuckling about the fact that he sells out working people, along with his colleague Senator Hanson. If you have a look at their track record, that is what they do every single time they come into this parliament. Today is no different.

Let's look at some of the things that are going to be prevented as a result of this legislation. If Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts and the rest of their One Nation colleagues vote for this legislation it will mean that if building companies want to get work from the Commonwealth they will not be able to have enterprise bargaining agreements that include some very important provisions that you would expect a party like One Nation, which says it is the friend of battlers and blue-collar workers, to support. But no.

These are some of the things that the One Nation party are getting ready to support. If this legislation goes through, enterprise bargaining agreements will no longer be able to include agreements reached by employers, unions and their workforce to insist on footwear and protective safety equipment being Australian made. Am I the only one who has been listening to Senator Roberts? He continues to chuckle over there. Am I the only one who has been hearing Senator Roberts and Senator Hanson running around the countryside talking about the importance of sticking up for Australian-made products and jobs for Australians?

What they are getting ready to do is vote for legislation that is going to stop building companies, unions and workforces agreeing to insist on Australian-made protective equipment and footwear. How is that assisting Australian workers? How many jobs are going to disappear as a result of this legislation going through and building companies and their workforces no longer being able to reach agreement to have Australian-made equipment?

But it is not just that. If this legislation goes through, building companies and their workforces and unions will not be able to insist on clauses in enterprise bargaining agreements that require training for asbestos safety. How many dozens, hundreds, thousands of Australian workers have died over the last few decades as a result of terrible practices around the use of asbestos? I would have thought that a party that stands up for the battlers, that stands up for blue-collar workers who have to handle this kind of dangerous product, would actually be voting to insist on training around asbestos safety. But, no, what One Nation is planning to do today, what Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts are planning to do today is say that enterprise bargaining agreements can no longer have clauses that require asbestos training to happen. How is that going to help battlers? How is it going to help workers? Again, Senator Roberts is sitting there chuckling about the fact that asbestos training, which saves people's lives, is going to be taken out of enterprise bargaining agreements if companies want to get Commonwealth contracts.

There are other ones if this legislation goes through. Currently companies are able to have—oh, the chuckler has a point of order.

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

Senator Roberts, a point of order?

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

A point of order: the speaker at the moment, Senator Watt, does not know what is going on in my mind, yet he is telling the people of Australia.

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

That is not a point of order, Senator Roberts.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One point I will agree with you on, Senator Roberts, is that I do not know exactly what is going on your mind, and that is a state I really want to remain in.

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

A point of order, Senator Seselja?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt knows that the proper way to debate in the chamber is to address his comments through the chair. I would ask him to direct them through the chair.

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

Thank you for the reminder. I remind senators to address their comments through the chair.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us get back to what One Nation is going to be voting for. Currently, building companies are able with their workforce to enter into enterprise bargaining agreements that place restrictions on the use of casuals and people who are hired on a daily basis. If this legislation goes through they will not be able to have such enterprise bargaining agreements anymore. So what One Nation is preparing to do in supporting this legislation is clear the way for building companies to be able to get rid of permanent workforces, get rid of full-time or long-term employment that puts bread on the table for construction families and allow employers to bring in more casuals, more labour hire and more daily hire. How is that going to assist the battlers that One Nation says it stands up for? How is that going to assist the blue-collar workers it says it cares about?

This legislation will remove the inclusion in enterprise bargaining agreements of clauses around ratios of apprentices. Currently, many enterprise bargaining agreements around the country that, as a result of agreement between employers, unions and workforces, require that a certain proportion of the workforce be apprentices. That is good for the country, it is good for young people and it is good for our future workforce, but One Nation is getting ready to take away that right. No longer will building companies be required to have a certain proportion of their workforce be apprentices. One Nation is out there talking about how it wants to fix youth unemployment, how it wants to give young people a chance. What do you know? It is coming in here and is going to vote directly against young people. It is selling young people down the drain, just as it is getting ready to do with the Newstart cuts that the government want to bring in and that it is preparing to support also.

Finally, for over 20 years we have been hearing from Senator Hanson about how she does not like foreigners and how it is all about Australians and local workers rather than overseas workers. Get this: if this legislation goes through, the ability of building companies, unions and their workforces to enter into agreements that place restrictions on the use of overseas temporary visa workers is going to be removed. Right now there are many enterprise bargaining agreements in the construction sector across the country in which employers, unions and workforce have reached an agreement that if you want to hire temporary overseas workers you have to comply with Australian laws. One Nation is getting ready to make it impossible for companies to reach such agreements. I know of one particular agreement in the construction sector in my home state of Queensland which contains a clause that says that if a construction company is going to make people redundant local workers cannot be made redundant before temporary overseas workers. It seems like a reasonable thing to me. It seems like the kind of thing the battlers would want. It seems like the kind of thing that One Nation is out there beating up foreigners about every single day of the week! It is coming here today to remove those clauses from enterprise bargaining agreements. If One Nation supports this legislation, construction employers will be able to employ temporary overseas workers willy-nilly, without any restrictions being placed on them. They will be able to lay off local workers before laying off temporary overseas workers.

Senator Roberts and Senator Hanson, how is that helping the battlers that you say you represent? It is not. You are complete frauds. Every time you come in here, you vote against the interests of the people you say you represent. Before long, they are going to start knowing about it. The reason they are going to know about it is that people like me are going to come in here and hold you to account repeatedly. Every day of the week in Queensland, we have to suffer by listening to you saying that you stand up for battlers, that you stand up for average working people. We all know that you do not. We all know that you are an offshoot of the LNP. We all know that you are up to your necks in preference deals with the LNP in Queensland. So it is no surprise that you are all going back to your LNP roots and voting for policies that harm battlers—policies that sell out battlers and working people—and that are just about getting more money for the big end of town.

There is one party in this parliament that is not going to cop that, and that is the Labor Party. We have always stood up for battlers. We have always stood up for working people. Our record shows that, with the number of policies that we have introduced over the years that have delivered time and time again to battlers. We are still doing it now, despite not only the opposition of the government, the LNP—who we do not expect anything better from—but also the opposition of One Nation, who say one thing and do another.

To give you one example, the city of Townsville is struggling in the post-mining boom. They have got unemployment of 11.2 per cent. They have got youth unemployment of 17.6 per cent. If One Nation get their way and this legislation goes through, there is nothing in it for unemployed people in Townsville. They will be exposed to the risk of being laid off from construction sites before temporary overseas workers are laid off. They will be exposed to the risk of being replaced by casuals, being replaced by daily hire workers, rather than being made permanent employees. There is nothing in this legislation for young unemployed people. One Nation are getting ready to remove the requirement for employers to employ a certain proportion of apprentices. To those 17.6 per cent of young unemployed people in Townsville: 'Sorry—One Nation are not here to help you. They're going to sell you down the drain.' You had better get used to it. They have been doing it ever since they got elected. They are getting ready to do it on pension cuts, on family tax benefit cuts and on Newstart cuts. Now they are doing it with workplace conditions. As I say, I do not expect anything better from the LNP, but I do expect something better from a party that say they are for battlers. But as we all know, last time round Senator Hanson exposed herself as a fraud. She said she would do one thing and did another. They are getting ready to do it again. One Nation Mark II is nothing more than a political fraud.

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

When I returned to my Melbourne office last Friday morning, there was a CFMEU tent pitched outside with a banner saying, 'Hinch sells out workers—shame!' They also started bombarding Twitter and my personal Facebook page with posters and billboards. They even photoshopped a photo of me taken here in the Senate to make it look like I was giving a Hitler salute. The caption said, 'Derryn Hinch votes yes for more visa workers.' On Twitter and Facebook, union heavies like Dave Noonan and John Setka claimed I was in favour of increasing the number of 457 visas. As I said on social media, they will stop at nothing. This is such a despicable, lying, orchestrated CFMEU campaign.

Senator Watt, in relation to the building code amendments last year, I voted with the Labor Party to make it compulsory for companies to advertise nationally for Australian workers—plus imposing other conditions—before applying for 457 visas. This is unlike Labor, who, under Mr Shorten when he was industrial relations minister, brought 457 imports in to work at KFC. The Labor amendment, which I supported and which was carried says:

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

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

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

and this is important—

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

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

Now, at Monday's public hearing into the ABCC legislation, I asked the union's national secretary, Mr Noonan, if they had run a similar orchestrated hate campaign about 457s against Bill Shorten when he was industrial relations minister and, as I said, issued more 457s than any of his successors. I do support 457 visas, but only where specific skills are needed and only when an Australian worker is not available to fill that job. It is a disgrace and it is a scandal when foreign workers are being brought in for one supposed reason and they end up working in fast food shops, or restaurants or, yes, on building sites. And to run a campaign saying that I am some sort of champion of 457s at Aussie battlers' expense is disgraceful.

But do not let the facts get in the way of a good story. That also explains the various reactions to my decision over the break that brought this legislation back into this place today. I explained the reasons why I changed my mind about reducing the two-year delay in implementing the new ABCC legislation to nine months. I explained it in The Australian, in the Financial Review, in The Guardian, on Crikey and on PM Live. And remember, the government's original position, which I did not vote for, was for the new compliance rules to kick in from April 2014, when the changes to the building code were first mooted. I do not like retrospective legislation and that is why I held out against that position and again held out when the government negotiated out to nine months with some other crossbenchers.

In the last week of sittings last year, I had a meeting with the Prime Minister. He took out a piece of paper and wrote the date, 'November 29 2018' on that piece of paper and pushed it across the table. And with the word 'compromise' in my head, which people do not do often here, I signed it—a two-year delay. According to the commentariat, I was in the pocket of the CFMEU: I had been bribed, they had paid for my election campaign, et cetera or I was just an inexperienced dill who had been conned by the union.

Now, I will be honest, I thought subcontractors would be happy. Some building code amendments negotiated by me and Senator Xenophon—who, I may add, is also being subjected to union thuggery and robocalls as we speak—were to protect whistleblowers and the 'subbies', who are at the end of the payment chain when builders go broke and they get stranded. Instead, during the break, I talked to a lot of people and they were not happy. Senator Cameron mocks me for talking to a tradesman in the post office. Well, I will talk to people anywhere, any time and I listen. I listen, Senator Cameron. I am not just cemented into the union dogma that you have been for decades. And from those conversations, I realised the bill that I had cast a deciding vote on—a bill I genuinely believed would help workers—was actually hurting workers. Subcontractors and several small and mid-level builders told me, in person, on the phone and by email, that they probably would go broke if they were forced to wait for two years for the new code to kick in. Some even hated the nine-month clause.

So I changed my mind. I listened, I got some new facts and I approached the PM. There was no dead-of-night deal, as Mr Noonan claimed for the media. There was no deal at all. I did not horse trade and I did not hold out for any favour in return. I asked for none and got none. I believed then, and I still believe, that if you are involved in legislation and if you are involved in hurting people you are trying to help then man up, own up and do something about it. That is what I did.

Senator Cameron, a former union leader, scoffs at me for talking to somebody in the post office. Well, let me finish with something a man told me in the office lift, Senator Cameron. He had just seen the CFMEU tent and the 'Shame, Hinch, shame' poster. He shook my hand and said:

You must be doing something right if you've made an enemy out of that mob.'

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The backflip we have seen from the crossbench on this legislation is extraordinary. Their position on what was already bad legislation, which they sought to temper somewhat and where things had been previously negotiated and agreed, is going to make this bad legislation even worse.

It was bad legislation when we saw it in the 44th Parliament in 2013; it was bad legislation when it was defeated in the Senate in August 2015; it was bad legislation when it was introduced again in February 2016 and defeated in April 2016; and it was bad legislation when the government went to a double dissolution election over it—so bad, in fact, that you did not even talk about it during the election campaign. You did not talk about it at all. It was a double dissolution trigger, and here we are in yet another attack on workers, because that is what this is. It was bad legislation when we debated it in this place in November last year, when, sadly, it eventually passed. The reintroduced ABCC bill passed the parliament with the agreement of many of the crossbench despite many concerns that we raised on this side and the concerns of the community, unions and workers.

These concerns have not gone away and, in fact, they are being exacerbated today, because it is bad legislation that is about to get much worse. The government has, apparently, already changed its mind on the commitments that were made in this place in 2016, after the crossbench came running to them. Senator Hinch has changed his mind. Here we are again, after this place sat late into the night to pass this legislation. The legislation only commenced operation from 1 December last year and, even before it has had a chance to take effect, you already want to change it. It turns out that the bad, draconian legislation you put before us was just not draconian enough. What will also have to change as a result of this amendment bill is the building code that the minister issued, which only took effect on 2 December last year. What we have here is a government that keeps changing the goalposts on Australian workers. Australian workers are suffering because of the shambolic and chaotic government we have in this nation.

It is disappointing to me that members of the crossbench who gave commitments to the Australian people are now cosying up to the government and reneging on those commitments. To me it makes one thing incredibly clear: a vote for One Nation is a vote for the Liberals. It is an anti-worker vote and, as my good colleague highlighted, it is anti-battler. A vote for Senator Hinch in this case is also a vote for the Liberals, with huge consequences for Australian workers. For workers in the construction industry—as if they were not concerned enough about the re-establishment of the ABCC—the government is changing the rules to a game they have already started playing, and it is disgraceful.

These amendments wind back the exemption period for non-code-compliant companies from two years to nine months—that is, to 1 September 2017. This is a recipe for industrial chaos. It limits the exemption so that companies that are not code compliant may tender for but not be awarded any Commonwealth building work within the nine-month exemption period, and this is extraordinary. It means that companies that have had signed workplace agreements approved by the Fair Work Commission—and these are agreements that commenced before the original legislation passed—will need to either renegotiate these agreements in a very short time or not tender for Commonwealth building work at all. This completely undermines workers' wages and conditions, because it undermines their negotiating position. You are therefore inviting very tense negotiating periods within the renegotiation of these EBAs, and I do not think that is the kind of thing we want to see in our workplaces.

Reports suggest that 3,300 agreements will need to be renegotiated in just the next six months. These are, rightfully, unionised, law-abiding, reasonable companies and their workers with negotiated EBAs under the laws of the day. We in this place are not supposed to like retrospective legislation, which is why the crossbench agreed to the delay in the implementation of this legislation, so that it had an exemption period. You negotiated that, and I did not think it was good legislation, but you did that, noting that this would be a problem in our workplaces. And you have reneged on that. Companies have negotiated on the understanding that they would be locked into an agreement for a specific period of time, and that is how negotiating is supposed to work. Enterprise agreements should give companies and workers the certainty of conditions over a set period of time. That is the whole point. But this will no longer be the case, and these agreements will need to be renegotiated—and they will need to be renegotiated under these draconian laws—because, despite the fact that they were negotiated in good faith and entered into legal enterprise agreements, they will now need to comply with a code that was brought in after those agreements were finalised. This is an extraordinary thing to do to the conditions of workers in these industries.

The ACTU said in its submission to the Education and Employment Committee that the impact of this bill will be immediate and significant market disruption. Is that really what you want to invite into the construction industry? While Labor has made it clear time and time again that we do not support the existence or the substance of the code, it is completely unreasonable for the government to expect these companies and their workers to renegotiate agreements that have already been negotiated in good faith and agreed to by their employees. Here we have a code that is designed to make it more difficult for workers and their unions to negotiate workplace agreements. It makes it harder for workers to exercise their rights as union members and delegates, and you are now seeking to do that sooner rather than later by disrupting the current EBAs.

What we have here in the new code and the act are significant changes for workplace agreements. For example, section 11 of the code now prohibits any clause that could put limits on the right of an employer to manage its business or improve productivity. Now, let's have a look at some of these types of clauses. They are quite reasonable clauses where you are trying to balance business and productivity, but with other outcomes that are also important, and they are outcomes like training, like occupational health and safety. The CFMEU in its submission warned that this will mean clauses designed to rein in the casualisation of the industry, mandate apprentice numbers, limit excessive overtime on health and safety grounds or restrict the use of foreign visa holders in favour of local labour.

These are some of the kinds of clauses that will be seen to be in breach of the code. Now, if people do not think it is legitimate for people in their workplace to work together and say, 'Look, we want to maximise local employment, we want to maximise jobs for the young people in our local community, we want to make sure that when we are relying on each other on-site to do dangerous and difficult jobs that people have had the appropriate rest periods and are not working too long a shift''—when workers work together to say, 'We want to work with the company to work out what is in the best interests of our site and our industry'—for that to be seen in breach of section 11 I find absolutely extraordinary.

Essentially, any clause that protects the rights and interests of workers can be ruled as non-compliant and could need to be changed. Thousands of workers will be impacted by these changes over the next six months. Thousands of workers will have conditions that they negotiated in good faith with their employers stripped away. At the very least, the government should exempt these companies from the operation of the code until their existing enterprise agreements expire. That would be the reasonable and fair thing for you to do. Those companies should also be allowed to bid for Commonwealth contracts. In fact, it would be reasonable and fair to repeal this legislation and the code in its entirety. What we have before us is not legislation that is fair, nor do we have a government that is fair. The government is not fair to workers and especially not fair to unions—because they do not believe in unions—and it is clear that this government does not believe in the rights of Australian workers. They do not want workers in this country to have their freedom to bargain for their own interests in the workplace. These are very important traditions in this country which uphold or underpin the living standards which most Australians enjoy. All this is off the back of organised labour in this country, and this is why, relative to other countries, we enjoy much higher living standards. It is something that the government does not give unions credit for.

The government does not believe that workers should be entitled to representation and support in their workplace. We have seen that time and time again as the government brings legislation before this chamber to undermine that representation. What they especially do not like is the collective power that comes with collective bargaining and unionism. It seems also that the government does not like productivity, because if there is one thing we know it is that the ABCC has never and will never improve productivity. When the ABCC was last in place, worker fatalities went up while productivity went down.

In conclusion, the bill to amend the BC legislation can be seen to be part of a pattern of ongoing dysfunction and incompetence on the part of this government. It demonstrates to the people of Australia that Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has his hands in the pockets of big business and that he is not here to represent everyday Australians. This bill makes bad legislation worse and it should not be passed.

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

Of course, the Greens will not be supporting this bill, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017, and there are many reasons we will not be supporting it. The prime reason, however, is that it takes a shockingly bad piece of legislation—which removes rights from a group of ordinary Australian workers simply because they happen to work in the construction sector—and makes that bad piece of legislation even worse—makes it even more draconian.

Over the summer we have learnt a couple of things. Firstly, as if we needed any more confirmation, we have learnt that big business actually runs the agenda of many people in this place. We have seen over the summer that the big corporates have reached their shadowy hands into this Senate to ensure that people like Senator Hinch and Senator Xenophon change their position based on the flimsiest and most spurious of arguments. We have also learnt that those two senators, Senators Hinch and Xenophon, will actually wilt under the slightest pressure exerted by the Liberals and big corporates in this country. We have heard a lot about 'the human headline', but I have to say that it is the human backflip that we are dealing with here today.

This bill and sordid negotiations that have happened behind closed doors over the summer and in the early sitting days of this year tell you, unfortunately, that, if parliament legislates and strikes what it collectively believes to be an appropriate balance but if big business does not like that balance, then big business is going to come and get you. It is going to come and get you while you are lying on the beach drinking your daiquiris or whatever you do over the summer. Ultimately, it is big corporates that have reached their shadowy hands out to Senator Hinch and to Senator Xenophon and his colleagues and have got them to change their position. Clearly, neither Senator Hinch nor Senator Xenophon can be trusted on issues around standing up for the rights of ordinary Australian workers.

We should not be surprised that the Liberal Party and One Nation will do everything they can to erode the rights of so many ordinary Australians. The Liberals do not make any bones about it—they are basically the agents of the big corporates in this place because, of course, they get massive donations from those big corporates and they are expected to deliver for them when they are in this place. One Nation, of course, are the ultimate political hypocrites because they pretend to stand up for the Aussie battlers. But who can forget late last year when they came in and voted for a tax cut to the top 20 per cent of earners in this country and abandoned the other 80 per cent of workers. Again, it is nothing we should be surprised about from the Liberals; but it is also an example of the extreme hypocrisy of One Nation.

I expected better from Senator Hinch and I expected better from Senator Xenophon. They made their deals last year; they arrived at their positions last year; and here we are again with some of the biggest backflips it has been my misfortune to see in about 15 years of political life in this country. It is extremely worrying that when legislation passes this parliament it is simply regarded as up for grabs by big and powerful lobbyists who will reach their shadowy hands out to convince weak, compliant Senators like Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch to change their positions. Unfortunately, the collective backflip of Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch sends a message that, while the Senate may be a house of review, there are certain senators who do not take that obligation seriously and are prepared to trade away whatever they have previously negotiated. When someone comes along and tickles their tummy, they will simply roll over and deliver what they have been asked to do.

After this performance, I will not be trusting Senator Xenophon or Senator Hinch to negotiate on behalf of the people that we are here to represent. I won't be trusting them to deliver protections for ordinary Australian workers who happen to work in the construction industry. I certainly won't trust them when they say they have negotiated a position with the government, because I now know what everyone in the country should now know—and particularly in the context of Senator Xenophon, the people of South Australia should know, and in the context of Senator Hinch, the people of Victoria should know—that when Senators Xenophon and Hinch tell you they have negotiated a position and it is going to be made into law, they will be quite happy to vote against it the following week if someone in the big corporate world in Australia reaches out, taps them on the shoulder and tells them to get rid of whatever deal they negotiated. They are clearly more concerned about currying favour with big corporates and big business than with standing up to protect people's rights at work. Obviously, they will trade off rights at work if big business asks them to do it.

Unfortunately, this is going to set an incredibly poor precedent in this place, because we have legislation coming up about many important issues. We have legislation coming up about paid parental leave, child care and cutting the tax rate for big business. The people in this place, this chamber, will be making a decision on these incredibly important issues and unfortunately some of them now by their own admission and their own actions are prepared to vote one way one day and say, 'Look, it's all right; we've given the government something they want, but we have got this for you over on the side,' but then they will take way that side deal the very next day. So we do not know what Senator Hinch and Senator Xenophon are getting for the grubby deals that they have done with the Liberals.

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

Nothing.

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

I will take that interjection. 'Nothing', said Senator Hinch—nothing. I do not presume that Senator Xenophon will have got nothing, because he is a wheeler and dealer, but for Senator Hinch to roll over and get nothing for selling out construction workers in this country says a lot more about him than it does about anyone else in this chamber. If Senator Xenophon, his colleagues and Senator Hinch vote for this bill and it passes the Senate, they need to know that their credibility as defenders of workers rights in this country is completely shot—it is gone forever—because we now know that they are prepared to trade and do side deals and that those side deals will be up for appeal effectively the very next day, if they have the chance. The Greens opposed the original legislation, the ABCC bill, in this Senate and we will be opposing this amendment legislation in the Senate today.

I have to say that there ought to be something in political life for standing up for your principles. I also have to say that one of the reasons that we are all collectively on the nose in Australia is that far too many of us do something or say something before an election and then fail to follow through and show consistency with the issues we campaigned on, once we have been elected to this place. There is also something to be said for standing up for your principles, even if you have to have a few difficult conversations from time to time. I have no doubt big business were knocking the doors down on Senator Hinch's office and Senator Xenophon's office. Well, there comes a time in public life, there comes a time in politics, when you have to stand up for your principles and stand up for what you believe in, and this is one of those times. The Greens are going to stand up for our principles. We are going to stand up for what we believe in because, in doing so, we are standing up for ordinary Australians who work in the construction sector.

Make no mistake, this legislation is not only going to be bad for ordinary Australian workers who work in the construction industry; it is going to be bad, as many speakers have pointed out already in this debate, for productivity in this country—and productivity, I would have thought, is something the Liberals could get behind. But evidence and history has shown in previous iterations of the ABCC that, unfortunately, the workplace safety record got worse and productivity went down. That is a lose-lose situation. Australian workers, whether they work in the construction sector or the forestry sector, whether they are public servants or any other type of worker, have a right to have a legitimate expectation that when they go to work in the morning everything that can be done will be done to ensure that they can go home at night to their families or to their accommodation and still be fit and still be healthy and not have their health and physical capacity impacted unduly by the work that they do. Unfortunately, we are going to see—I predict quite confidently now—that the same things will happen this time as happened last time, and that is a decrease in productivity and an increase in workplace injuries.

Let's be clear about the changes to the grace period that are contained in this legislation. Remember, this came from an amendment moved by Senator Hinch, which provided for a grace period of two years before the code came into force. That was intended to give everyone time to negotiate or renegotiate new agreements. It is worth pointing out that there was no division in the Senate—no division—when that was put. It was passed on the voices and therefore we are entitled to assume that it was passed with the support of every single person in this place. Now we are debating a bill that is being rushed through the parliament—a gaged debate in the House of Representatives—and a triflingly short one-week inquiry that gives effect to the human backflip from Senator Hinch. The Greens will not be supporting this legislation. We will not be supporting it for a range of reasons; but, ultimately, we are not going to support it because we are going to stand up for our principles here. We are going to stay consistent to what we have always said about the ABCC, and that is that it is unnecessary, it is draconian and it is an attack on the rights of ordinary Australian workers who work in the construction sector and, more broadly, it is clearly designed to pull down a union, the CFMEU, acknowledged as one of the largest and most powerful unions in this country. For a union to be attacked in such a way when their only crime in this context is standing up for the people who are their members and the people who work in the construction sector is actually an attack driven by political ideology, not by a desire to make life any better for people at work and their families.

We stand firmly where we have always stood on this issue: firmly behind the rights of working Australians, firmly behind the rights workers in the construction sector. And we stand against the sorts of grubby political backflips that we have seen manifesting over the summer and in this place last week and this week, delivered in a synchronised diving exercise by Senator Hinch and Senator Xenophon. When you see the synchronised diving at the Olympics, you wonder at the miraculous way that they can stay so in line all the way from the platform down into the pool. We are seeing the political equivalent of that here today, where they have left the platform at the same time, they have gone up and done the big, fully extended backflip on the way down and they have hit the pool in here today at exactly the same time. Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch are the synchronised backflippers of Australian politics.

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

If we ever needed any evidence of this government's chaotic state of affairs, if we needed any evidence of a government that seems to be lurching from one half-baked proposal to another then I think the evidence is before us with this particular bill, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017. It is less than three months ago that this chamber had the opportunity to consider the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2016. The Prime Minister came away from that crowing about the passage of the legislation restoring the ABCC. He said this was a vital economic reform. Of course, now this government wants to scrap its own reform.

The Labor Party said that the ABCC bill was wrong in principle. We said that it was going to lead to a reduction in productivity and to work sites in this country becoming much more dangerous places. The law passed with the support of many of the crossbenchers, including senators Hinch, Hanson and Xenophon. In fact, they were so proud of the amended bill they helped the government push it through the parliament but it seems that they have had a change of heart as well. Indeed, the specific provisions that are amended by the present bill were proposed for the earlier bill by Senator Hinch and accepted by the government. It is reported that Senator Hinch—and I think he confirmed it here today—had a lunch with the Prime Minister during his summer break. It is quite clear that the Australian working people have been left to pick up the tab for that lunch. We know that this is a continuation on the war against building workers which has been initiated and prosecuted by this government for many years.

We know that one of the great fundamental divides in politics around the question of who gets what, when and why is in the issue of industrial relations. The fundamental question arises because working people want to regulate their working environment so as to improve their capacity to enhance their living standards and their conditions at work, and of course conservatives have argued for the deregulation of the working environment to allow employers the maximum flexibility and maximum capacity to improve their profit position. This fundamental divide has been the issue that has characterised Australian politics for pretty much the last 120 years. The great moments in history have often been around this question of the capacity of unions and working people to defend themselves. The great strikes of the 1890s were such a catalyst for the formation of the Labor Party because of the perception that developed widely in this country that, industrially, workers could secure only so much because they could always rely upon conservative forces using the state to try to bash them into submission.

The capacity of the state to undertake anti-union or union-busting activity has been a hallmark of conservative politics throughout this period. We have seen that through various stages. I will not go through each and every one of them, but the principle remains the same today. The fundamental principle of the Liberal Party is its commitment to union-busting activity. It is not just the smashing of organised labour; it is the smashing of workers' capacity to defend themselves. Why is it that the union most directly in line now is the CFMEU? It is because it is one of the strongest and most effective unions in Australia today. It is not just the smashing of the CFMEU that is at stake here; the issue affects all workers and their capacity to organise. Breaking the CFMEU is fundamental to breaking all unions in this country.

I am particularly concerned by Senator Hinch's role in this. Senator Hinch at the last election made commitments about industrial relations. He made commitments to the Victorian branch of the Labor Party, upon which he received a preference arrangement from us. Senator Hinch, I defy you to deny that. Those commitments have now been broken. You have categorically broken your word on the approach that you would take on industrial relations, a matter of such importance to us that we made it a condition of providing support in preferences at the last election. I put it to you, Senator Hinch, I hope this is your last term, because we will not be doing it again—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Address your comments to the chair.

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

because of the fundamental breach of faith that you have undertaken by this action and the actions that you have taken—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, address your comments to the chair.

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

to aid and abet conservative forces to break the union movement in this country. Senator Hinch, you enter into a political dialogue on the basis of integrity—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, please resume your seat. The reason we ask senators to address their remarks to the Chair is so that the debating points are not personalised. If you want to complain about Senator Hinch's actions you can do so to me.

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

I have. I have complained bitterly to you about the fact that Senator Hinch has broken commitments he has made in industrial relations questions, particularly in regard to the ABCC bill—commitments that were undertaken and accepted in good faith, which now are clearly not being honoured.

The consequence for workers directly in regard to this matter is that we see now simple matters like the purchase of Australian work clothing not being allowed; provisions to protect Australian workers in terms of redundancy are not allowed; and, arrangements to actually ensure the employment of apprentices are not allowed. We have not heard any response to these charges. The Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016 prohibits the inclusion in agreements for construction work on Commonwealth projects of requirements such as the ratio of apprentices to trades people; mandated consultation on the hiring of overseas workers; mandated the use of Australian-made clothing; and the mandating of asbestos training. Is that a fact, or not? No-one has been able to deny that that in fact is the position.

Under the act that was passed last year, against the Labor Party's advice, companies with non-compliant enterprise agreements could still be awarded contracts until November 2018. This bill seeks to amend those arrangements. So, to accommodate the changes that result from this particular measure, 3,300 companies will have to renegotiate their enterprise agreements. As a consequence of those changes, companies with agreements that have been approved by Fair Work Australia but are not code-compliant will be forced to make grossly unfair commercial choices. Either they will have to decide not to tender for Commonwealth building work or they will have to renegotiate their agreements by August. They may well face a situation where they have the best value for money for any contract arrangement but will be excluded from tendering for any Commonwealth work. This is draconian. It is grossly unfair. It demonstrates the hypocrisy of the arrangements. This government says it wants to deregulate and it wants people to have freedom of choice. If they choose the union, if they choose to organise together, they will be regulated in such a way that they cannot organise their own protection.

It would seem to me that this is not just something that applies to the building industry. What is happening here—and we have seen it emerging already in the power industry, with the ETU in South Australia, and in a number of other areas—is that this is a process that will go through all of industry. This is the approach this government takes. If they can get away with slashing the CFMEU's capacity to organise, it will flow through to other areas. We are seeing this in the change in industrial relations practices that are taking place not just on building sites. This is the establishment of an aggressive, damaging industrial environment that this government is keen to foster, and it will undermine not just blue-collar workers. And this is not just conversations that occur in lifts or in post offices.

Take for instance the approach in science and research. One in five science jobs in public agencies have been lost since this government came to power. It is not just a question of reducing resources at these agencies. It is about changing the industrial environment. Education department data shows that as many as 90 per cent of research academics across our university system are on limited-term all casual agreements. In The Australian today, there is a report that the employer body, the Australian Higher Education Industrial Association, in the name of simplicity is seeking to strip back enterprise agreements. The same rhetoric is being used, although they have not yet come to the point where they are trying to accuse academics of various heinous breaches of the law. No doubt, if necessary, claims of that type will be made.

Under the so-called cover of efficiency, scholarly values that have been in practice for centuries are at risk. These practices have underwritten public confidence in academic expertise and scientific integrity. Take a very specific example. It is accepted in industrial relations practices in this country that an expiring enterprise bargaining agreement should continue until a new one is in place. In December last year, Murdoch University in Western Australia repudiated that convention. While I do not normally discuss the individual industrial relations of specific universities, Murdoch University, which had been negotiating the terms of a new agreement with the National Tertiary Education Union, applied to Fair Work Australia to terminate the existing agreement. The university is also taking legal action against the union and two of its officials in Western Australia for alleged misrepresentation—misrepresentation for arguing their case! In any workplace, such tactics would be regarded as hostile and aggressive. In the higher education sector they are unprecedented. There is very broad support in this country for the public university system. People are proud of our universities. They are institutions that foster a civilised discourse, diversity of opinion and open inquiry. They recognise that it is a good thing that such institutions are publicly funded. But I am sure there would be much less support for the notion that universities should behave as Murdoch University has done in this particular dispute.

Australians do not expect universities to act like ruthless private corporations or building developers, which is what is now happening. I do not believe it is chiefly because of a particular set of university administrators who have suddenly become more belligerent. What is happening at Murdoch has to be understood in the context of what is occurring in Australian industrial relations and, in particular, in the higher education debate. Australian budget proposals to deregulate university fees and increase the proportion of students contributing were essentially a shift towards the privatisation of the university system—a shift towards a system in which short-term commercial gain would increasingly determine a university's priorities. This is a shift which, I might add, has been stalled in this Senate—we have twice rejected the government's proposals regarding this. We will wait and see how people stand up to any pressure in that regard. The plan remains on the table, with the Abbott-Turnbull version of an Americanised, privatised and corporatised university system remaining government policy.

Something that is happening at Murdoch University really disturbs me, and that is the standard of the enterprise bargaining process. Although the government has had no part in the negotiations, the government must bear some responsibility—I would say considerable responsibility—for shaping the industrial relations environment. Terminating the enterprise agreement would mean reverting to basic award coverage. We see that in the building industry, where basic award coverage would see substantial reductions for building workers. In this case, the university would be able to decide which, if any, of the existing above-award conditions and entitlements of employment are maintained, as they would in the building industry. That would be of concern not only because of the reduced material entitlements under award conditions, the consequences of which would be bad enough—pay cuts for academic staff of between 25 and 40 per cent; for professional staff, pay would be cut by 39 per cent; employer-provided parental leave would be eliminated; and misconduct and unsatisfactory performance processes would be removed—but, even worse, we would see profound consequences for the nature of academic work and for the standing of the university: the protection of academic freedom would be eliminated and provision for the regulation of academic workload would be eliminated. Murdoch University's Strategic Plan 2012-17 sets out a list of values that it says are:

… an intrinsic part of the University culture. These values give a sense of identity and a continuing context for all its activities.

The values that they talk about are 'scholarly integrity', 'equity and social justice', 'sustainability' and 'global responsibility'. But what is occurring at the university are actions that are fundamentally undermining those assumptions; it is a course of action that imperils the university's own declared values. Abandoning formal protection for academic freedom is incompatible with a commitment to scholarly integrity. A university, by definition, is an institution that facilitates the free exchange of arguments and ideas among scholars, and between scholars and the wider community. Some might say surely Murdoch University would not risk its reputation by obstructing the free exchange of ideas. But, sadly, the university administration have already shown they are willing to countenance restrictions on freedoms. In negotiations, a definition of misconduct has been proposed that would include any breach of policy or regulation. Any action by an employee deemed to pose an imminent risk to the reputation, viability or profitability of the university—I emphasise 'profitability' of the university—would be classed as serious misconduct, punishable by dismissal.

It takes no particular special insight to understand the existential threats that this would pose to all academic freedom in this country, should such a process be established. We can see parallels between what is happening with enterprise bargaining at a university and with what is happening in the building industry. It is indicative of a government that is hostile to the interests of working Australians across the entire economy. If the government does not abandon its goal of trying to privatise our public institutions by stealth, then we will see this whole process being extended throughout other government agencies.

If the government does not abandon its attack on unions and workers—which we see in the construction industry—working people across all industries will have cause for real concern about the consequences for them, particularly if the government is successful in smashing the CFMEU and smashing the capacity of building workers to defend themselves against the actions of employers who have shown, time and time again, their capacity for mendacity, their capacity to exploit workers, their capacity to treat workers in a manner which is just downright dangerous, their capacity to do anything to secure a contract and to secure their profits. These are the questions at stake here, not whether or not someone stops you in a lift and says, 'Sorry, I think you've done the wrong thing, Senator'—a someone who was already hostile to the capacity of working people to defend themselves, a someone who has an interest in undermining the fundamental principles of industrial relations in this country. The government is attempting to criminalise normal industrial actions that are undertaken in the pursuit of increasing people's living standards and defending their rights at work.

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

Well, what a funny world we live in, when I look across at the Greens and the ALP and I recall what they have been saying today. But first, as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I must congratulate Senator Hinch for his actions late last year and for going out to listen to the people and then taking note of them. He is not pretending; he is taking note of what his constituents said in Victoria, and he has the courage to stand up for them and to stand up for small businesses. I congratulate the senator.

I was a member of the CFMEU for three years, because, after graduating from the University of Queensland with an honours degree in engineering, I decided I better go and learn something. So, rather than taking an office job as an engineer, I worked as a coalminer, mostly underground at the coalface, for three years around various parts of Australia, and I got a feel for the coalmining industry and miners themselves—salt of the earth.

Yet the CFMEU in its mining division, for political reasons, is destroying the Australian coal industry by funding organisations like GetUp! and non-government organisations, who are also funded by overseas interests, and who are trying to kill Australia's coal industry. And they have been doing this for 10 years, sabotaging the coalmining industry and killing the coalmining industry. That is the status of the CFMEU. It is a grubby political organisation hell-bent on political control, not workers.

As members of the ABCC committee yesterday, we listened to testimony from various witnesses, and when the unions came to give their case we heard very little about the transition period and very little about their case as to why we should not go from two years down to nine months. What we heard mostly about was why we should not adopt the ABCC bill. It is already adopted. This has got nothing to do with the adopting the ABCC bill. It has got everything to do with bringing the benefits of the ABCC bill in sooner rather than later—the benefits in terms of safety, income and security to taxpayers, union members and small businesses, nothing else. It is about shortening the transition from two years down to nine months, and it is a matter of whether or not some businesses, small businesses, will survive or not. That is reflecting how much intimidation and coercion they are facing. Their businesses are in jeopardy of being shut down, as Senator Hinch correctly discussed. This is also about ending the cartel, not in two years' time but nine months' time—the cartel of major businesses that is colluding with the CFMEU to control our industry, the construction industry—and it is about bringing the benefits of the ending of that cartel in more quickly for the taxpayers and for union members.

I dislike regulations. We know that. Yet the CFMEU has been so intimidating over so many years. It is controlling the construction industry and killing small businesses. We need to protect small business and the construction industry and union members and the taxpayers. We need this as soon as possible.

I thank the members of the Labor Party who have spoken this morning for the wedge. Our people, though, are not stupid. The people who support Pauline Hanson's One Nation party are voted us into this Senate because they know we will stand up and tell the truth, and that is what we do. They are not going to take any notice of the Labor Party. In fact, the Labor senators this morning have shown how distant they are from reality. It was the ALP, as Senator Hinch correctly pointed out, that brought in massive 457s under Bill Shorten's period as the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Bill Shorten is now the leader of the ALP in the House of Representatives.

Senator Watt—my goodness—he decries us for going out across Queensland to listen. He is welcome to stay in his Surfers Paradise penthouse. They serve their bosses—and they are the union bosses—including the CFMEU. We—Pauline Hanson's One Nation party—have shown for 20 years we are not intimidated by threats and thuggery. We also know, as Pauline Hanson has shown for 20 years, that those who smear us do so because they fear us. What have they got to fear from this lady and from me? The truth. That is the only thing they have to fear.

We have Senator Xenophon complaining about robocalls. We get threats too but we do not worry about it. We just keep doing what we have been doing. We have seen the CFMEU with its insidious reach; the tentacles going all the way through to the senior levels of this parliament. We know that parties are receiving money from the CFMEU. We know that members of the lower house are receiving money from the CFMEU. I was even been called by a member, before the ABCC bill came up, who told me not to support the ABCC bill. Then I found out he was funded by the CFMEU. The sooner this power over this parliament ends, the better it will be.

Our voters have a very, very strong moral compass and a strong work ethic. We respect that and admire that and we fight for that. That is what we are about. We say the things that need to be said and do the things that need to be done. We listen, we speak and we serve. That is why we are advocating support for this amendment, this new bill, to get the improvements due to the ABCC in sooner rather than later. We want it in in nine months. Thank you.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand here as a humble servant of the people of Queensland and Australia. It is always interesting to listen to Senator Roberts. The reality is that Senator Roberts is the ideological warrior for Senator Hanson. He pursues an anti-worker agenda wherever he can. They are going to be held to account for that in their electorate. That is the reality of this situation and that is what they are going to have to face up to over the coming months.

It is really disappointing that we are seeing the return of this bill to this chamber after the Christmas break. As Donald Trump would say: I declare that sad. Because, whilst many of us would have taken time over the Christmas break to reflect on the year gone by and think about the year ahead, it looks as though Senator Hinch took his time to look at what he could do to hurt workers in Australia. That is really disappointing. I would echo the thoughts of Senator Carr when he highlighted some of the commitments that Senator Hinch gave in regard to what legislation he would support in this parliament. It is disappointing that he has backtracked on that. The workers of Australia are going to suffer the consequences of that.

I also know that some of those senators have complained about being held to account for their actions in this chamber. Well, unions have been doing that for 100 years. They will continue to do it for 100 years. They hold politicians of all persuasions to account for their actions in parliament. They have an absolute right to do that, and if you do not like it, stop voting for antiworker laws. It is as simple as that. The LNP are going to come back in this parliament again and again as they pursue an ideological agenda to hurt workers in this country. They think that they have got the crossbench on the book, who are going to vote with them every day of the week. If you do not like being held to account for it, do not do it. Go out there, listen to workers and hear about the results that this has.

We have all seen what happens when the Liberal National Party gets its way in the Senate. Their Work Choices agenda was a relentless attack on working Australians. The Australian people clearly saw this for its overreach and were happy to turf them out in 2007. We have seen that at various state levels as well, where we have had Liberal-National Party administrations come in and try to hurt workers. They have suffered the consequences as a result. But now we see further amendments to the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 less than three months after the passage of this act. What a shambles it is from a government that had to horse trade on provisions late last year, and now we are back having to have a second crack at it.

What would these latest amendments do? They would wind back the exemption period for non-code-compliant companies from two years to nine months. They would limit the exemption so that companies that are not code compliant may tender but not be awarded any Commonwealth building within the nine-month exemption period. The effect of this amendment on companies who have signed agreements with unions that are legal but not code compliant is that they will make a commercial decision not to tender for Commonwealth building work or they will need to terminate agreements and renegotiate. However, the determination process may open up the ability of unions to take protected industrial action, as is their right. So this government is willingly trying to cause industrial unrest to achieve their misguided goals. Labor did not support the Building Code or the two-year transition period. This amendment will lead to further chaos in the building industry as a result.

What we saw back in 2007 was that the coordinated and effective campaigning of the union movement was able to successfully oppose the Work Choices agenda. Those opposite have clearly forgotten the lessons of that time. They continue to come in here and pursue an antiworker agenda, and at the moment they have a Senate crossbench that is prepared to support them.

So let's be clear about this amendment bill. It will make it easier for companies also to also hire foreign workers. Whilst at one level you get Senator Roberts, who claims to stand up for Australian workers, he has done nothing in this chamber to do any such thing. All we see are crackpot conspiracy theories. He will be blaming the CFMEU for the United Nations, the way he is going at the moment. In the last term we saw the absolute beat-up of the royal commission on trade unions conducted by Dyson Heydon. Let's not pretend that this legislation brought about better workplaces or safety for workers. Those opposite have never wanted that. Despite their protests to the contrary, they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to do anything in regard to the criminal rip-offs that have been happening at 7-Eleven. They are happy to stand up and attack the unions on the one hand but remain silent while workers in this country are being ripped off. The government has also done nothing to look at the widespread corruption and rorting of 457 visas and the temporary work visa program.

When you look at this government's actions as a whole, you can clearly see that the only interest they have in the workplace is when they think they can get away with some union bashing. They are also apparently opposed to red tape, unless it is red tape that restricts the work of unions. Perhaps if they paid as much attention to managing the economy as they do to managing unions the country would be better off as a result. What we have seen when we look at wage growth is the lowest wage growth since the measure started being reported in 1998—1.9 per cent over the last year. This is a government without any long-term agenda for the country, without any reason for being in government other than attacking workers and their role in the workplace. They want to attack unions and workers until Australia is a sort of low-wage, easy-to-fire country racing to the bottom on pay and conditions. The government admits the growing debt but refuses to scrap its $50 billion worth of tax cuts for big business. Add to this the lowest wage growth in two decades and the lowest participation rate in a decade and you have very poor set of economic circumstances. The trickle-down economics that was comprehensively disproved back in the 1980s is back with this government, and they are pursuing it relentlessly.

The ABCC breaches the principle of equality before the law. Workers in the building and construction industry should be subject to the same rules as other workers. This legislation extends the reach of the ABCC into picketing, offshore construction, transport and the supply of goods to building sites. If Malcolm Turnbull had his way, construction workers would be hit with a $36,000 fine for acting on safety conditions at work. What could be more important than that in the building industry, where we have seen deaths very recently?

They try to claim that this is going to give a substantial benefit economically, but analysis by the Parliamentary Library shows that when the ABCC was last in operation between 2004 and 2012, the cost of non-residential building grew faster than CPI. So it actually cost more to build when the ABCC was around, not less. And although the government's attack on unions is driving record low wages even lower, it seems the Prime Minister and the Treasurer cannot actually get their arguments straight. The Prime Minister says that the ABCC stops excessive wages growth, whereas the Treasurer says it will support wages growth. Whilst we have the lowest wage growth in two decades, you would think that the Prime Minister and Treasurer would at least get their story straight.

It seems this government will use every argument it thinks suited to try desperately to pass this bill. In addition to the economic argument, we repudiate this bill because of its restrictions on democratic rights. Under the ABCC, workers will be guilty until proven innocent. This is a shocking reversal of the presumption of innocence. The principle that the prosecution bears the onus of proof against an accused is regarded as a cardinal principle of our system of justice. Criminals such as drug dealers are protected by the presumption of innocence, but, under Malcolm Turnbull's ABCC legislation, construction workers are not. So it just goes to prove that this is nothing more than an ideological attack on unions.

We on this side of the chamber recognise the important role that unions play in Australian society. They are created and registered for the purpose of representing Australian employers and employees. But they also represent their members before industrial tribunals and courts, and work with government on policy matters ranging from employment issues to economic and social policy. Despite the claims of those opposite, Labor supports strong and proportionate regulation on registered organisations and unions. But it comes as no surprise to anyone that this government is constantly being overly alarmist when it comes to matters remotely related to unions. We of course understand that the trade union movement has an important role to play in Australian society. Some of the achievements the union movement can take credit for are: the eight-hour day; better workplace health and safety; pushing for equal pay for women; superannuation; and Medicare.

Those opposite would have us go down the path of increasing inequality and increasing entrenched disadvantage. Their goal is not to support stronger unions, representing the interests of working people. Their goal is to destroy the link between trade unions and the only political party that acts in the interests of working people, the Australian Labor Party. You can see this through their mishandling of the current public sector agreements at the federal level. There have now been 73 rejections by public sector workforces of proposals put forward by this government. That is leaving almost 100,000 public servants at the federal level without an agreement that expired in mid-2014. That is a clear example of this government's anti-worker agenda.

Labor will continue to oppose this legislation. We urge crossbenchers to rethink their position on these issues because anti-worker legislation is going to continue to come. The Labor Party will continue to oppose, and the crossbench must take a serious look at their actions.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to strongly oppose the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017. The government have certainly chosen to go to war with the union movement to suit their ideological agenda and to support their mates in the big end of town. There has been a lot of rhetoric about how this bill and the ABCC will usher in a brave new world for Australian workers, how they will drive down house prices and how there will be jobs for all—a utopian workers' paradise, apparently.

Let me tell you what this legislation and the government's ideological drive to cripple the trade union movement will actually do. What they will do is further entrench inequality. And I would like to tell you a story that is quintessentially Australian. I am certainly very proud of being a descendant of a people who, a short time ago, were paid for their day's labour in rations. While white Australians were enjoying a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, First Australians, Indigenous Australians, were rewarded with flour, sugar and tea, and a bit of salt beef if they were lucky.

In the 1960s, the drive and push for equality of wages came from the union movement—not from the bosses, not from the wealthy landholders, not from the government but from the Australian union movement. Ordinary working men and women, white men and women, saw the appalling living conditions, the unfair treatment and the lack of monetary compensation paid to Aboriginal workers, and they said, 'No. This isn't the Australian way.' In 1963 the Australian Council of Trade Unions put out a policy position announcing there must be an end to wage discrimination. Union representatives joined the Equal Wages for Aborigines committee and helped finance a leaflet, Equal wages for Aborigines: There must be an end to wage discrimination. The leaflet urged unionists to protest to the Minister for Territories about the low wages for Aboriginal pastoral workers in the Northern Territory.

In 1964, the North Australian Workers Union presented a case for equal wages for Aboriginal pastoral workers. The cattle industry, the largest employer of Aboriginal labour, was not legally required to pay Northern Territory Aboriginal drovers more than roughly three pounds per week. White drivers got five times this amount. Two years earlier, the electoral act had extended voting rights to Aboriginal people, but, industrially, they were still outside the award structure which guaranteed fair wages to workers.

The Australian industrial system, built up over more than half a century, also laid down working conditions—annual and sick leave, and workers' compensation. Aboriginal workers, however, were specifically excluded from awards in jobs where they were most represented, such as in the pastoral industry. The North Australian Workers Union application to vary the Cattle Station Industry (Northern Territory) Award 1951 to include Aboriginal pastoral workers was the first of three such awards to come before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in 1965. This application was a test case. The majority of the 2½ thousand pastoral workers classified as wards under the Northern Territory ordinance were paid no more than three pounds three shillings three pence per week. That equal wages committee opened its petition campaign with newspaper advertisements asking the public, 'How equal is an Aborigine on three pounds three shillings three pence per week?'

It pointed out that these low wage rates were inconsistent with stated policy that Aborigines should enjoy the same rights and privileges as other Australians.

In March 1966, the commission brought down its long-awaited decision on the proposed variations to the Cattle Station Industry (Northern Territory) Award 1951. It agreed to the deletion of the clauses which excluded Aboriginal pastoral workers from the award but deferred the date of implementation to 1 December 1968. This deferral was the last straw for unions and for Aboriginal pastoral workers who were the ringers of the Top End. In April, Lupna Giari, also known as Captain Major, the head Aboriginal stockman at Newcastle Waters pastoral station, led a walk-off of about 80 pastoral workers and their families. News of this strike spread, and in August 1966 Vincent Lingiari, the head stockman at Wave Hill, south of Darwin—one of the largest pastoral leases in the Northern Territory, owned by the wealthy British Vestey family—also led 200 workers and their families in a walk-off. They set up camp at Daguragu, or Wattie Creek. The Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, FCAATSI, supported these walk-offs and encouraged public donations to help the striking families. It was the meatworkers' union that placed a black ban on Vesteys' meat.

Fifty years ago, the Wave Hill walk-off initially started as an industrial action, but it became about much more than wages. Unions and workers drew attention to appalling living conditions and the poor quality of food and, at Wave Hill, they also drew attention to the fact that they were working on Gurindji land, the land of their forebears. The dispute widened, and it certainly deepened. It became a claim for land. This industrial dispute, born from the unfair and unequal treatment of Aboriginal workers, out of sight and mind of governments and the powerful, was supported and boosted by the trade union movement. It was where the beginning of the Aboriginal land-rights movement gained incredible momentum, eventually resulting in a Commonwealth act, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.

In many ways, it has led to me being able to be here in the Australian Senate, the equal of every single senator here. I am here as a legacy of the men and women who fought for these rights, supported and assisted by the union movement. It is a great legacy because it showed unions that Indigenous workers were willing to fight for wage equality, and it shifted unions to the role of supporting and fighting for all workers, not just white workers but black workers too.

I have heard talk in the Senate, in debate over related bills, about black bans. Let me tell you: we know all about black bans. We know all about blacks being banned from work and from equal wages. It is not history; it is happening today, under the CD Program. CDP forces the overwhelmingly Indigenous population of remote communities into labour with none of the benefits of employment enjoyed by every other Australian worker. These workers' labour is without the protection of federal OHS standards or workers compensation, and they earn no superannuation. It is no wonder that First Nations people cannot rise above deep disadvantage, when financially there is no road out of such poverty. For women, there is no independent financial future to assist them out of lives riddled with violence.

I am sure the union movement will not allow a policy which denies workers their rights and creates a two-tiered unemployment system to stand. The ones who are again pushing to change this out there in our regions across the country, fighting for a fair day's pay for a fair day's work for those on CDP, are the unions. The unionists are the ones calling attention to a policy which denies workers their rights today and creates a two-tiered unemployment system right now.

Trade unions have been longstanding supporters of Indigenous rights and the fight for justice for Indigenous Australians. Unions have campaigned for education in the Northern Territory to ensure that Indigenous Australians in remote communities can get access to quality schools and an education which respects culture. Recent events in the Northern Territory and the treatment of young Indigenous people in juvenile detention centres show that the struggle for Indigenous rights has not ended and that the trade union movement still has a vital role in ensuring justice and equality for Indigenous Australians, just as it has a vital role to play in ensuring fair and safe work practices around Australia, especially in regional and remote workplaces. In workplaces hundreds and sometimes thousands of kilometres from the nearest work safety office, it is union members who do their best to ensure safe work practices. It is the unions that give the moral support, the mental support, for workers embattled in their workplaces in those remote regions.

Let me share with the Senate just one example of hundreds. A schoolteacher, an amazing woman who had worked to get to where she is today and who is one of the first Aboriginal women schoolteachers in this community, had been living in a government house, just like every other teacher and colleague of hers was doing at that time. But an authority from above said that anyone who was a local person could not live in a government house. She is a traditional owner of her region, and she had studied and worked hard to be there beside her teacher colleagues, and all of a sudden she and her family were to be kicked out of their home. Why? Because she was considered a local. Yet everyone knew she had nowhere to go. Every other house of her family's was overcrowded, with 15 to 20 people, and her only choice was to go and live in a tent out on her country. Who was it that stepped up to support this woman? This is just one story in hundreds. It was the union movement, and a bit of common sense came into play and she is still in her house. Well, what do you know? On construction sites, mines, pastoral properties and in remote communities, it is often the union members who are left to speak up to protect themselves and their colleagues.

Yesterday we heard about the dismal inroads being made into the unacceptably high rates of Indigenous unemployment, highlighted in the Closing the Gapreport. There has been a decline in the Indigenous employment rate since 2008. In 2014-15 the Indigenous employment rate was 48.4 per cent, compared with 72.6 per cent for non-Indigenous Australians. For Indigenous Australians living in remote areas like the Territory, it is even worse. In 2014-15 only 35.1 per cent of Indigenous people of working age in very remote areas were employed, compared with 57.5 per cent of those living in major cities.

The construction industry is an important player in the limited employment market that exists in very remote areas. And a lot of this work is government funded building work. The amendments to this bill have the potential to throw the industry into further chaos and confusion, with who knows what effect this will have on the already abysmal employment rates in the bush. This legislation will undoubtedly further entrench inequality in our society. It will widen the gap between the haves and the have-nots. What is truly, intrinsically Australian is a striving for equality, for a fair go. That is what unions are all about. And that is what this government's agenda seeks to destroy.

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

I rise today to speak against the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017. As we have heard a number of times already this morning, this bill is being rushed through the parliament in record time, despite the fact that last year we spent many late nights in this place debating elements of this legislation at length. We even went to an extraordinary double dissolution election on this precise issue. So, despite the fact that the parliament debated this legislation for hours upon hours, thrashed it out and amended it, with the Senate having reached a point a compromise, we now hear that, because big business mates have got in the ears of Senator Hinch and Senator Xenophon, an extraordinarily fast-tracked amendment bill was rushed through the House yesterday. The debate was gagged in the House yesterday and the bill was sent straight to the Senate to be ticked off and rubber-stamped.

The truth of the matter is that this bill is all about doing the bidding of big business. That is what is going on here. Despite hours and days and weeks and months of negotiation to try to put some protections for workers into the ABCC legislation, we knew the government did not want to do that; we knew business did not want to do that. Despite getting promises from a number of people on the crossbench that those protections would be there, four months later the government have gone weak at the knees. They have rolled over. Someone—heaven knows who—has tickled the tummies of both Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch. So, rather than sticking by what they said—that they would give Australian workers, business and workplaces the opportunity to understand what these new rules would mean and to renegotiate in a timely and reasonable manner—we now see that grace period being scrapped. Big business never wanted that grace period there in the beginning. Tony Abbott, who we know is still pulling the strings in the party room—

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

Mr Abbott.

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

The former Prime Minister, Mr Tony Abbott, is still pulling the strings in the Liberal party room. He never wanted a two-year waiting period, he never wanted the opportunity for workers to know what their rights would be and he never wanted unions and workplaces to organise so that they could at least get themselves in order. So, what do we see after the summer break? Backflip after backflip from the Xenophon political party and Senator Hinch.

One of the things that I think is most extraordinary about what we are debating here today is that in my home state of South Australia Senator Xenophon spent weeks and months running around South Australia telling workers he had their backs. He went up to Whyalla and told the steelworkers: 'Don't worry, mate. Don't worry, I will work it out; I will look after you. I will make sure you don't get screwed by the government's ideological attack on construction workers and steelworkers across the country. I will make sure that I have your back.' That is what Senator Xenophon carried on with around South Australia for months. He went to Whyalla and he spoke to construction workers in Adelaide. He spoke to the workers who are currently building the new hospital in Adelaide; sadly and tragically, there have been a number of deaths on that construction site. He went to those workers and said: 'It's okay, trust me. I will look after you.' Four months later, nothing has been delivered. Senator Xenophon says one thing in South Australia and does another thing here in Canberra.

The pressure of big business on both the Xenophon political party and Senator Hinch must have been immense over the summer break. Why would you want to bring this debate back to this chamber—after the hours, weeks and months worth of debate, to then, after the summer break, say, 'Let's bring it all back on again. Maybe we were wrong and we should not have stood up for workers in the way we had. Okay, we will bend over backwards for you.' The pressure from big business on the Xenophon political party and Senator Hinch must be enormous. I would like to know exactly what Nick Xenophon is getting out of this grubby deal. What is he getting? The only thing he is delivering is uncertainty, chaos and a massive risk to workers back home in South Australia.

Do you know, the thing that worries me the most about the ABCC legislation and the ideological attack on workers' rights from the Turnbull government is that it has a real effect on people's lives. In 2007, at the height of the ABCC laws and the commission working in overdrive—the first time around—at the height of the ABCC intimidating construction workers in their workplaces into not standing up and speaking for themselves, fatalities on construction sites were higher than they had been previously. In 2007, there were 53 deaths on construction sites—an immense spike in fatalities and deaths from 2005, when the ABCC started operating. In fact, there was a 37 per cent rise in fatalities.

The government wants to run its line that this bill is meant to be all about cracking down on criminal behaviour. I am sorry, but what is more criminal than having young Australian workers going to work one day and never coming home again? I will tell you what is criminal: the intimidation of young workers on sites into not being able to stand up for their own protection and not being able to say, 'Well, actually, I am not climbing up that thing because the safety harness is not up to scratch.' What is criminal is intimidating young workers out of being able to ensure that they are protected so that they can go to work without the fear of dying on the job, being hurt or being injured. The statistics do not lie. We know that safety records and safety standards have dropped as a result of the intimidation by the building and construction commission and through the intimidation of workers into not being able to protect themselves, day in, day out, in the workplace. Of course, this bill does nothing to deal with the issues of criminality, anyway. That is left to the police forces and the courts, as it should be. This bill is all about delivering for big business mates of the Turnbull government and whatever grubby deal that has been done that has made Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch backflip so badly.

I heard Senator Xenophon at the Senate doors this morning, sounding very upset that South Australian workers were calling him out for his despicable backflip. There is no-one in this place who has as fragile a glass jaw as Senator Xenophon. He is thin skinned and spineless, because he promised South Australian workers that he would stand up for them. He promised to get protections. Four months later, he is backpedalling and backflipping, and there is not an explanation as to why. Why do we want to create chaos across the building and construction industry that is going to limit the protections of workers, limit the protections particularly of younger workers and apprentices and put their lives at risk? That is what is going on here.

There is a rally today on the streets of the state Parliament House in Adelaide. People are very upset about the fact that they have, effectively, been lied to or strung along by the Xenophon political party. They want to be able to express their democratic right that they are not happy with the behaviour and the backflipping of their state senator. They are rallying on the streets. The very same organisation that Senator Xenophon promised he would protect them from, the ABCC, has threatened those workers for daring to carry out their democratic right to have their voices heard today. Workers have been told they are going to have their pay docked by at least four hours for participating in the rally on the steps of Parliament House today—for daring to stand up and ask why it is that their elected member of parliament, who told them he would look after them, has now sold them down the river. They are being intimidated by the very same organisation, the ABCC, that Senator Xenophon said he would protect them from.

I know Senator Xenophon has not spoken yet. It would be good to hear from Senator Xenophon, when he does come in, as to why on earth we have to rush this legislation through and undo a compromise position that the Senate had got to. The Senate is the house of review. We are empowered to amend legislation and to try and fix it and make it better.

I did not agree—and the Greens did not agree—with a number of the amendments Senator Xenophon was meant to have achieved last year. Nonetheless, that is the way this place works. But now he is backflipping. He went to South Australia and said one thing there and then came to Canberra and did another. He cannot be trusted to stand up when the pressure is on. He is doing the bidding of big business, and he is delivering to the Turnbull government their ideological attack, once again, on Australian workers. It is pathetic, and we still have not heard a good explanation as to why. I look forward to hearing it directly from the horse's mouth.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young, and I would just remind you to address senators and MPs by their correct title.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the minister, Senator Cash, for obviously looking at the speaking list, realising that I was about to get on my feet, and racing down as quickly as she could to hear me speak.

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

Absolutely.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know I am about to make a compelling argument. And given the number of backflips that have taken place through this legislative process on this bill and related matters we will not be surprised that after listening to me you want to come and negotiate with the Labor Party and we put this bill to bed and send it back to the House of Representatives unpassed. I am available, and I am at your disposal for that to happen, Minister.

We need to understand that around a decade ago this parliament passed the Fair Work Act. It was passed with the support of the now government but then opposition, the Liberal-Nationals coalition. Since then, workers and employers have been legally negotiating agreements that suit their circumstances and apply to the building industry or any other industry where negotiations take place. Those agreements have been negotiated within the law. In many instances—in the construction industry in particular, because that is what this bill is about—unions and employers have negotiated ratios of apprenticeships. We know there is a severe shortage of skilled tradespeople in this country. And with big jobs, especially government-funded jobs, they have negotiated that where there is a certain number of tradesmen there will be an apprentice. That is the way we keep our skills training base up. It reduces the need to import overseas workers to fill those skills gaps. We are happy to do that when we have the skills gaps, but it is incumbent upon us to ensure that we fill those skills gaps ourselves. So, that is a common clause in many agreements.

A common clause is also that Australian-made material should be used wherever possible—for instance, Australian steel or Australian protective clothing. That is a legal clause in many, many agreements, particularly in the construction industry. Clauses have also been negotiated about limiting the time you can be casual. Casual employment is for top-up, interim workforce needs. But what we have seen over a period of time is that people are just put on as casuals—they are employed by the hour—and it is not casual employment at all; it is full-time employment, but they are just paid as casuals. So, there is no security, and they cannot go to the bank and get a loan, such as a car loan. It is no way to be able to plan your life.

So, many agreements have said that you cannot be employed for more than six weeks as a casual. One would think that if you are employed for six weeks as a casual then the job is not casual but is much more permanent than that. That is a legal agreement that has been negotiated in these clauses. Often agreements also include clauses that say that as the job winds down the people who should be put off first are those who were employed on a temporary basis—457 visa holders, for instance—who are there to top up a skills shortage, and as the skills shortage removes itself then those should be the first people put off. That is a legal clause.

But last year, with the passing of what we all refer to as the ABCC legislation, a clause was put in that made it retrospectively illegal if you wanted to apply for government-funded work or partially government-funded work. Clauses that were legal one day could not be in place if you wanted to tender for government-funded work. It had a retrospective application. So, what was normal practice, what was absolutely legal with the passing of the bill last year, became effectively unlawful if you wanted to bid on those jobs. And of course some of the government-funded works, partially or wholly, are some of the biggest jobs around. Most builders and most contractors want to be able to bid for that work, but there are thousands upon thousands of agreements that were legally negotiated and that are still in force that now exclude those people from bidding for work.

So, last year amendments were moved to say, 'Well, we know it's retrospective, but we'll allow two years for people to renegotiate those agreements'—and these are not things that can simply happen overnight; workers want a say in what they are renegotiating and employers want a say in what they are renegotiating, and negotiations have to take place. It is not something that just happens straightaway. And even though I completely oppose the bill as unnecessary, the two-year clause acknowledged that this bill had retrospective effect. It was making something that was legal one day illegal the next day for those wanting to bid for any government-funded or partially government-funded work. It acknowledged that. I do not know why it was two years. We know the department did not recommend that, and I do not recall anyone asking for that. But Senator Hinch advised us on Monday that he met with the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister put a date on a piece of paper two years from the passing of the bill and slipped it across the table to Senator Hinch, and Senator Hinch looked at it and signed it.

The Prime Minister's proposal was to have a two-year period in which people had an opportunity to negotiate new agreements so they could tender for work. These are existing agreements that are legal, in place and legally negotiated and that could be used while they tendered for government work over that two-year period. Most people would say, 'That sounds more than reasonable.' And so people continued on in that process until we get here this year. Apparently over Christmas, Senator Hinch spoke to some people and changed his mind, saying that two years was too long and he wanted to make it nine months. And here we are.

Even though it was the Prime Minister's idea to have two years, they have now decided to make it nine months, which effectively makes the agreement retrospective from Day 1. That is because tenders cannot simply be put in overnight. In the building and construction industry you have to cost the job, you have to look at the material costs, you have to look at a whole range of factors and so a tender takes some time. For some of the bigger jobs you can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on tender documents and, in fact, on really big infrastructure projects, big companies would spend more than $1 million simply on the tender document just so they can tender.

Who is going to tender for any of this work when you only have nine months? It takes some time to establish the tender and then the tender has to be considered, but unless you have an agreement that is code-compliant by the end of the tendering process—and there is no certainty that that will happen—you cannot tender. In effect, this says to every builder: 'Unless you have a compliant agreement right now, don't bother to tender.' Why would you spend money tendering when you don't even know if you can be awarded the contract? Why would you do that? Why would you invest money which is potentially completely wasted? This is the ridiculous process that we find ourselves in. Is the government simply hell-bent on saying, 'We want our restrictive clauses in the code to apply effectively from now'? It does not matter that there are thousands upon thousands of agreements that are legally in place and legally binding right now.

If you cannot change your agreement—and one party cannot do that arbitrarily—you cannot tender for government work. How is this? If you do not want to tender for government work, you can say, 'We should give preference to Australian-made steel and Australian-made protective clothing.' But if you are going to take any government money on any building projects you can't do or say that. There is no way the government is going to spend money if someone has an agreement which says preference should given to Australian-made materials, to Australian-made health and safety equipment. That is a great government looking after as all, isn't it? A great government!

Perhaps you want to ensure that this country has another generation of skilled tradespeople, but if the government is going to be paying you, it will not let you do that. There is no way is the government going to spend money ensuring that this country will have the skills that it needs for the future. No way! That is a government looking after our interests, isn't it? They are so beggared by their ideological hatred of the trade union movement that they are prepared to make this industry unworkable and to sacrifice good policy—good clauses in good agreements—for that end.

Let's understand that this is what that is all about. Ever since the day that they supported the Fair Work Act, they have been trying to walk back from it. This bill before us today amends the ABCC Act, which was one of their steps in walking away from it, and this is another. It is about ideology. I do not like the bill, but if it is there—it is not about ensuring people are not caught up and disadvantaged by the retrospective nature of its application. This bill takes away an existing opportunity. It is a ridiculous proposition. The government and the parliament should not make laws that allow you to do one thing on one day—to have something that you legally entered into—and, if you want to apply for government work, make that invalid the next day. They insist on nine months, but as I have said it is a ridiculous time frame to negotiate, register a new agreement and put in tender documents. It is just not going to happen. You might as well say that there is no leeway at all.

The government argues that it put out a draft code in 2014 and so industry participants all knew that this is what the government wanted to do. It is an argument I hear, but twice during that period—between then and now—the parliament rejected those bills. Wouldn't you think: 'Well, the government put out a draft back in 2014, which had to be underpinned by legislation but that legislation was defeated by the parliament twice.' Doesn't that suggest to you that you wouldn't not be bound by that? What you are doing is legal and it suits your interests. Many builders and certainly all the unions want to support this country with clauses that give preference to Australian-made materials. That is a good thing, but for the government to say, 'You can't have that if we are paying the bills or part of the bill, you can't have that.' Those agreements, which were legally entered into, must be allowed to stand over a transition period.

Most agreements are negotiated for a three-year period. My personal view is that, if you have an agreement in place and you want to bid for Commonwealth work, you should not have to comply with this code until your agreement has expired and you negotiate a new one. It should be a very transitional arrangement. But two years is two years, and we are now not even going to have that. As I said, this legislation is primarily about the ideology. I think it is a disgrace. I think the government should accept their Prime Minister's original proposal of two years. It was his idea; but, as we have seen time and time again in this parliament in particular, what the Prime Minister may say is never supported by his party. This is another example of Mr Turnbull saying 'two years'—a two-year transition period—writing it on a piece of paper and slipping it across the table to Senator Hinch, but then his party and Senator Hinch change their minds and say: 'No. Just because it is the Prime Minister's idea we're not backing that.' So we get to the situation where we have a problem.

Why nine months? Again, it just seems like another arbitrary figure. No-one has told me that the Prime Minister has crossed out 'two' and put nine months and slipped it across the table. At the hearing on Monday, I asked the department whether they provided any advice to the government about what would be an appropriate transition time, and the answer was no. The department did not provide any advice. I asked the department how many agreements this would impact on. They had no idea. They did not know. This is a great way to make policy and then rush it into the parliament for us to legislate on when the department cannot even advise the government on how many agreements this policy will affect. My view and the evidence that I have seen suggests it will affect many, many thousands of agreements. I think the CFMEU said they were looking at 3½ thousand agreements which they are respondents to. I could stand corrected, but I thought it was in that order. I know that in the electrical industry it is many thousands. I know that there are 900 non-compliant agreements alone in Victoria. When you look at the plumbing industry, it would be on the same scale. Even if we were able to get negotiations happening quickly, the Fair Work Commission could not deal with all of those agreements in the nine months, anyway.

Again, this is just a figure that has been plucked out of the air. It does not seem to have any basis. It is simply about getting this code in place and it operating as quickly as possible to the detriment of companies that have lawful enterprise agreements and that still might like to bid for Commonwealth funded or partially funded work—but they cannot, even though they have legally negotiated those agreements. Those agreements still stand legally, but the companies cannot bid for any government-funded work. What does taking out so many people from being able to bid in the first place do? It means less competition, more cost. Ultimately, that is the potential outcome. You are reducing the number of builder-contractors who can bid for particular jobs, and the cost will go up. I cannot say for sure that will be the outcome but it looks like a logical outcome to me if you take away the competition. Virtually every builder-contractor of any significant size that is tendering for the larger jobs would have already negotiated an agreement. They are not going to spend money on tendering for a job that they may be excluded from, even if they are the best contractor, at the best price and with the best ideas on how to do it. They may be excluded from all of those things purely because they do not have a new agreement to interrupt the old legal agreement that is in place.

The government should reconsider this legislation. The crossbenchers should also reconsider it. I prefer that they just vote the code down completely—disallow it. The parliament settled on two years last time. That is where we landed. Everyone has been working on that basis since then, and now we are going to change the rules again. This Senate should reject that approach and it should oppose this legislation.

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

Last year the expression 'post-truth' was the Oxford Dictionary's word of the year. Now post-truth is defined as relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion that appeals to emotion and personal belief. Post-truth politics has been described as a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored. As one Washington political commentator has noted, post-truth politics means disseminating phoney facts which pass into history unchallenged. Sadly, that is what the CFMEU has done in recent days. They have used members' fees to conduct a large-scale media campaign targeting me for supporting changes in the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017. The campaign is not just post-truth; it is dishonest, it is devious, it is misleading, it is mischievous, it is manipulative, it is aggressive, it is unethical and, dare I say, it is corrupt. The CFMEU's campaign against me is using billboards, robocalls, radio, television and newspaper ads to spread a pack of unsubstantiated lies based on emotion and falsehoods. I want to address those in due course. What we have at stake here is a debate about whether we need these changes. These changes are needed because small and medium operators in the building sector will suffer unduly if they are not brought into place.

As we are all aware, the Senate passed legislation restoring the ABCC at the end of last year. The restoration of this controversial statutory body was the subject of a double dissolution election. At the core of it is the effectiveness of the code. I noted in my second reading speech on 28 November last year that there had been agreement in the past from the opposition that the building and construction sector needs a strong regulator—words no less than the current opposition leader talking about this sector needing a different set of rules. There was acknowledgement that there was need for a specialist division to deal with these issues. The real issue has been the Building Code. The government claims that the Building Code is essential to drive reform and to effect cultural change. The unions, in particular the CFMEU, claim that it will reduce the number of apprentices, increase the number of foreign workers on building sites and make worksites more unsafe. These claims are false. They are lies. This debate was intense.

I had many productive discussions with the CFMEU last year, which led to my office securing a number of amendments. These amendments included: introducing judicial review for the first time; legislating for impartiality of the ABCC Commissioner and for the right of the union to take the commissioner to court if there was no impartiality—a right they did not have before; maintaining safeguards for the use of examination powers; and also reversing the onus of proof that stop-work meetings were taken for safety reasons, which was unfair and onerous on unions, so it was in line with the Fair Work Act. On any objective measure these were good amendments that strengthened the rights of the union and strengthened the rights of workers. I also secured a range of amendments to the Building Code, including a strengthened security of payments framework that is now underway so that contractors who do not comply with security of payment legislation face exclusion from Commonwealth funded building work.

We are now seeing a lot of these issues being debated again. It is worth mentioning that we have seen, as a result of negotiations in the debate on that bill, the biggest changes ever to Commonwealth procurement rules to ensure not only that the steel used in Commonwealth funded work not only complies with Australian standards and takes into account Australian work practices, employment practices and environmental practices but also, fundamentally, that any work over $4 million must take into account for the first time the economic impact of procuring locally. These are big changes. These are changes that no less than Senator Kim Carr, the shadow industry minister, praised. He made it very clear that he opposed the ABCC legislation but acknowledged that these were real, significant and stunning changes to procurement laws in this country that will make a real difference to Australian standard goods being used in construction work.

We are seeing these issues being debated again, and we are dealing with the issue of the commencement of the Building Code. I supported the legislation last year and I supported a shorter, nine-month transition. The Senate passed an amendment initiated by Senator Hinch that pushed this date to 29 November 2018. We have heard that over the course of the summer break Senator Hinch changed his mind. Despite claims to the contrary, he did this because of the small-to-medium subcontractors in the building industry, who feel that they are being bullied and threatened and intimidated. That is my position. That is the position of our team. We need to bring this on. I too have spoken to those smaller and medium contractors who feel that they do not have the protection needed and that this will force them out of business if we have an undue delay.

That has triggered a campaign by the CFMEU. I say, more in sorrow than in anger, that I have now had to seek legal advice in relation to billboards. We will see how the defamation laws of this country deal with that matter. The CFMEU says I have betrayed the steel industry. The changes to Commonwealth procurement laws are dramatic and will be enforced from March this year. This will give local industry an advantage in bidding for a share of the $60 billion annual procurement expenses that the Commonwealth government incurs each year. These changes will favour local steel producers in particular. No less than the Australian Steel Institute came out saying that these are big changes that will make a very real difference to the Australian steel industry. These changes have been welcomed by no less than Mark Mentha, the administrator of Arrium, who has spoken out about this and who at the moment is going through a process of selling Arrium to a number of potential bidders. These procurement rules will make it easier to secure the future of Arrium and the many thousands of jobs in Whyalla and around the country that rely on the future of our steel industry.

I have been a vocal supporter of stronger anti-dumping protections to minimise the amount of imported Chinese steel that floods the market. Several years ago Brendan O'Connor, as minister, acknowledged that the Labor government was forced to bring about some changes as a result of the bill that I put up, and Senator Cameron had a very constructive part to play in that process. We still need to reform dumping laws even further, and there will be a resolution in the Senate tomorrow on this.

The claim about making workplaces unsafe is the worst of all. This claim is not backed with any evidence, and this is just appalling. Clause 9.3 of the Building Code is explicit in ensuring workplace health and safety laws are key to this code. Companies put their ability to undertake Commonwealth funded work at risk if they breach workplace health and safety requirements. The Building Code does not make any changes to the right of entry for safety purposes. As I said earlier, the rules were strengthened to give unions the right to stop work without the onerous provisions of the previous code under the previous act. These are matters that must be taken into account.

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

Just admit you've sold out.

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

I will not be lectured to by anyone in this chamber or by the unions when it comes to industrial safety, given that I pushed for industrial manslaughter laws which I still support.

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

You're a hero!

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

Do not be so rude, Senator Cameron.

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

You're an absolute hero to the working class!

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

Sarcastic, rude; you are not advancing this debate.

I supported for many years and continue to support industrial manslaughter laws, because if an employer puts a worker's life at risk and that worker's life is lost then the chain of responsibility needs to go to the very top of management. What I have done in the South Australian parliament is a matter of fact. When it comes to issues of asbestos and safety, in 2005 the South Australian parliament, in a very rare event, passed a private member's bill I introduced to ensure that the workplace compensation mechanisms for asbestos victims and their families were overhauled. They were radical changes that both Labor and the Liberal opposition supported at that time. They were real changes that have helped many hundreds of asbestos victims in South Australia and are still in place.

I want to go to the issue of the code. The 2016 code contains a workplace health and safety conduct clause, but Labor's 2013 code was silent on this issue. The 2016 code mandates compliance with safety laws and sets specific requirements for asbestos training and safety, but Labor's code was silent on these issues. The 2016 code contains penalties for not complying with workplace health and safety laws, but Labor's code was silent on this issue. The 2016 code requires tenderers to demonstrate past compliance with workplace health and safety laws, but Labor's code was silent on this issue. The 2016 code prevents work going to companies that have breached workplace health and safety laws, but Labor's code was silent on this issue. The 2016 code prevents head contractors from using subcontractors who have breached workplace health and safety laws, but Labor's code was silent on this issue. That is a matter of fact.

To say that I have betrayed apprentices is again more lies and fearmongering. The code does not prevent or restrict the employment of apprentices. During negotiations with the government, the government agreed to include a legislative note after subsection 11(3)(a) which states that it does not prevent the inclusion of clauses in an enterprise agreement that encourage the employment of apprentices.

These are the sorts of the matters that need to be put in relation to this. So, when Mr Brendan O'Connor in the other place talks about issues of asbestos and safety, those comments are unfounded. They are false. It is part of the post-truth world we now live in.

In 2005, those laws for asbestos compensation were adequately overhauled. In 2004, the industrial manslaughter legislation I introduced into the South Australian parliament was not supported by the major parties, but, interestingly, the Australian Greens in the South Australian parliament picked up on those laws and to their credit they acknowledged the work that I had done a number of years earlier in relation to that. These Commonwealth procurement rules are something that the Labor Party never brought into play when they were in power. They had an opportunity to do the right thing by Australian industry and by Australian workers. As a result of good faith negotiations with the government those rules have now been changed, significantly and substantially. Dare I say, I am sure there are some in the Labor Party and I daresay in the coalition—and Senator Cash is nodding her head—who probably were pretty nervous about these changes brought into play. But these changes are a big deal for Australian jobs and for Australian industry, and I do appreciate the comments of Senator Carr in relation to this.

In terms of foreign workers, Senator Cameron knows that we worked together on a Senate inquiry in 2012 on 457 visas and other visas and called for tighter rules to give preferences to local jobs. The security of payments legislation reforms will make a big difference to many thousands of subcontractors who have been dudded in the past.

In conclusion, we will have a substantial committee stage for this bill. My colleagues and I do not support a gag on debate. This will go on as long as it needs to so that all the questions can be asked—so that everyone can ventilate their point of view. We do not support a gag, in the way that senator Cameron and others did and in the way that the Greens did in previous debates. We are in the grip of post-truth politics, where it is more important to tell the story you want rather than tell the story that the people should know. That is why this legislation is important for making sure that the code does what it is meant to do. What is in it for us? That is a question that was posed by Senator Hanson-Young. It is about the small and medium operators not being pushed around. It is to ensure that we have a strong construction sector they can employ more and more Australians on decent wages and conditions.

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

I rise to sum up the debate on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017. I extend my thanks to all senators who have contributed to this debate, particularly those on the crossbenches. I understand there will be an extensive committee stage for the bill, so, on that note, I commend the bill to the Senate.

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

I indicate that there will be a number of amendments for the committee stage. We are just in the process of finalising them now. As you are aware, this bill was brought on quite quickly. It is an extensive bill with some complex and complicated aspects to it. We will have the amendments distributed as soon as possible—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, I can advise you that time for this whole debate will expire at 12:45. So we will go into committee but it will be for only a moment or so—

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

A couple of minutes.

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

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

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

It now being after 12.45 pm, we will move to senators' statements.