Does any senator wish to have the question put on any of those proposals? There being none, we will proceed.

Senators, after question time on Monday last, Senator Bernardi asked whether I had made a ruling in relation to photographs being taken by senators in the chamber. I indicated that I had not. However, I do now, in relation to some events that have occurred in the chamber. In accordance with standing order 184, which provides that order shall be maintained by the President, I make this ruling.

This ruling relates to senators taking photographs in the chamber and, more broadly, to the use of electronic devices in the chamber. It reflects what has been accepted practice for many years, which I set out in a procedural bulletin of September last year and which my predecessor, President Hogg, advised in 2011.

I ask that all senators be mindful of this ruling and bring it to the attention of each senator's staff. A copy of this ruling will be circulated to all senators this morning. I thank the Senate.

On behalf of the Chair of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Senator McKenzie, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

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.

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—

A complete lie!

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—

Senator Macdonald, a point of order?

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?

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

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

Senator Cameron, that is also a debating point.

I withdraw.

Thank you.

Everyone knows what Senator Macdonald is about.

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

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.

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

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

Senator Roberts, a point of order?

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.

That is not a point of order, Senator Roberts.

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.

A point of order, Senator Seselja?

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.

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

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.

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.'

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.

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.

Nothing.

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.

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—

Address your comments to the chair.

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

Senator Carr, address your comments to the chair.

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—

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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—

Mr Abbott.

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.

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

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.

Absolutely.

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.

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.

Just admit you've sold out.

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.

You're a hero!

Do not be so rude, Senator Cameron.

You're an absolute hero to the working class!

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.

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.

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—

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—

A couple of minutes.

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

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

In late January this year, as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I was privileged to participate in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference on the Rule of Law and Human Rights, which was held in Westminster. Mr Graham Perrett, the member for Moreton and the deputy chair of the committee, also attended. The three-day conference focused on the role of parliamentarians and the implementation of human rights. The conference also discussed human rights and the universality of human rights and how, as politicians, we can engage effectively in that. The conference was an initiative of the Commonwealth and was strongly supported by the House of Commons, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Forty-nine participants from 19 Commonwealth and other non-Commonwealth countries engaged in wideranging dialogue and workshops. Conference outcomes are contained in the conference communique, called the Westminster declaration.

Personally, I found the conference very timely and relevant and it has greatly assisted me in my understanding of my role and responsibilities, both as a senator and also as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Topics of discussion ranged from the recognition of human rights to modern antislavery legislation, and to the ways that parliaments should, and could, interact with human rights commissions. During the conference, participants were briefed on contemporary international human rights issues, and we were provided with the opportunity to engage with panellists and participants on all of those issues. We also had the opportunity to observe a UK Joint Committee on Human Rights hearing—an inquiry into human rights and business. We also conducted a mock hearing ourselves, and an inquiry on modern slavery.

A key re-occurring theme throughout the conference was the universality of human rights, but what came out was not just the universality of human rights but the universality of commitment on all sides of politics to human rights. One of the striking things that came out of this, for me, was the challenge that all of us in this place have in balancing democratic freedoms with human rights. Neither of these issues—democratic freedoms or human rights—are left or right issues; they are human issues.

So I left with the thought that the real challenge for all of us in this place lies in determining where contemporary societal norms lie in balancing human rights with our democratic freedoms. Topics of particular relevance to the Australian participants, myself and Mr Perrett, were: the best practices and benchmarks for parliamentary human rights committees, the challenges and opportunities for parliamentary human rights committees, and how parliamentarians can work productively with their national human rights institutions, which in Australia is the Australian Human Rights Commission. We also explored ways human rights committees can engage more widely with a civil society and non-government organisations on human rights. I think that is a particularly timely issue for us here in Australia.

One of the most illuminating topics of discussion were the challenges, but also the opportunities, for human rights committees to work cooperatively with executive governments to ensure that our domestic human rights are protected, not just the human rights of those we engage with overseas. One of the most profound observations that I came back with was that a strong reminder that all members and senators are custodians of democratic freedoms in Australia. In particular, the first article of our Westminster declaration reminded us of this responsibility as parliamentarians. And I would like to read it out: 'We recognise parliament as a key institution safeguarding and upholding the rights of citizens, and its corresponding role in the promotion and protection of human rights and the rule of law, as well as respecting and embracing diversity and pluralism.' While it is something that I am sure everybody in this place would agree with, the challenge for all of us is how we actually balance that and make sure that it reflects contemporary societal norms.

This article and these discussions also reminded me—and, I think, all of us in this place—that our Australian founders of our Constitution and our nation did not create a bill of rights. They did it very deliberately, because they believed that in our Westminster style of representative government, which is now enshrined in our Constitution, it was the responsibility of citizens to ensure that democratic freedoms and other rights, like human rights, were implemented through their elected representatives, which of course is all of us in this place. This does require a very difficult balancing act between competing freedoms and rights, such as human rights. One or the other has to be restricted, because no democratic freedom today in any country is truly free.

This is a very challenging task. I think all members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights are finding this in their inquiry into freedom of speech currently. I think this particular inquiry also reminds us of the importance of these public discussions, as painful and as difficult as they may be for some participants. They are quite challenging discussions for many in the community. I think the importance of this inquiry, and I hope many others like it is, is that it reminds us that, through this ability to facilitate and engage in these robust and, importantly, respectful debates, we are able to discharge one of the most important and fundamental responsibilities of all of us in this place.

In a perverse way, at the conference it was quite a relief to me to realise that these challenges that we confront every day in this place are in fact universal and are experienced by parliamentarians in all other parliaments, regardless of their systems of government. It was also very clear to me that freedoms are never protected through restrictions on freedom of speech, no matter how difficult the conversations actually are. No minority has ever been protected through restrictions of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is actually the best protection for any minority group in any country, as difficult as it is to manage sometimes. So I came away very clear that we need to find a way in this country to encourage more of these discussions and debates that have happened through this freedom of speech inquiry.

We also had very lively and informative conversations between delegates about the challenges and opportunities for parliamentary human rights committees and/or parliamentarians to work productively with their national human rights institutions, which of course in Australia is our Human Rights Commission. I think that Belgrade principles, which relate to the relationship between national human rights institutions and parliaments, provide a very robust and sound framework which this parliament could use to assess the operation of the Human Rights Commission. This is an issue I am now addressing through the Joint Standing Committee on Human Rights.

Further, we spent a whole day at the conference on modern slavery and what modern slavery offences constitute today. It was revealing and shocking to learn the scope of modern slavery within the UK today and the support that UK citizens and companies inadvertently provide to it overseas. The UK's 2015 Modern Slavery Act is designed not only to consolidate the previous offences but also to address and mitigate modern offences of trafficking and slavery. So I returned home with an even deeper conviction that this is an important issue for Australia to now address. I believe that the proposed inquiry into this matter by the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade is timely. It could be a very effective means of inquiring into modern slavery—how we can legislate from it and learn from the experience over the last two years of the UK implementing this legislation.

Finally, some in this place know that I have been actively championing for the past 12 months against a form of what I believe is a form of modern slavery, and that is orphanage tourism. This is now a huge, multibillion dollar international industry and what I believe to be organised crime. This is where well-meaning tourists from Australia and many other countries—they are cashed-up and have good intentions ripe for exploitation and scams—go to orphanages or institutions. But, instead of being genuine orphans, over 90 per cent of these children have been taken—generally by deception—from their families. They have been trafficked on false papers; they are subject to servitude, slavery and sexual exploitation. Most Australians would be horrified to know that they were supporting this trade inadvertently; they are thinking they are helping children. This is one issue I have been raising in Australia, and internationally with the Commonwealth. I am hopeful that any inquiry into modern slavery will have a look at this form of criminal activity, at a minimum to make sure Australians become responsible and smart volunteers overseas.

I thank the parliament—both presiding officers—for the opportunity that this conference afforded me. Thank you.

I rise this afternoon to speak about Mr Turnbull's performance last week and his poor treatment of ageing and aged care. I know the Liberals love their theatrics, but I cannot imagine my constituency in my home state of Tasmania were particularly interested in Mr Turnbull trying to secure his own job by attacking Mr Shorten last week. In fact, the constituents I spoke to on my return on Friday until I left on Sunday to return here showed great disappointment, frustration and disgust, quite frankly, at seeing a Prime Minister act in that way. It is one thing for the Prime Minister to throw a few punches, as I said, and it is one thing for him to try to shore up his backbench, but there is another thing that has to be considered, and that is that his rant was obviously all about trying to secure the support of his backbench.

I do not think that my constituency or others would see anything clever about Mr Turnbull's outburst in the House of Representatives last week. His comments were built around insult rather that wit. It was one of the nastiest speeches we have seen from the Prime Minister since his petty election night dummy spit. Those on the other side in this place might have loved Mr Turnbull's take-down of Mr Shorten, claiming that he is a statesman and that he was just being open and honest. But the people of Australia saw right through that. They saw right through the comparison that it is okay for people on that side of the chamber to put their feet under the table with millionaires, but how dare a Labor person aspire to associate and represent all Australians? It was a very, very poor and desperate attempt by Mr Turnbull to get the sort of support that he needs to remain leader. The only thing Mr Turnbull was doing was auditioning for his own job. He will do and say anything to retain that position. He is actually quite obsessed—if you watch question time or read the transcripts, you see that Mr Turnbull is forever talking about Mr Shorten. Just like in his Press Club address the other week, Mr Turnbull said absolutely nothing about jobs for people—nothing at all. He had no strategy on the economy; he has demonstrated no strategy when he is talking about other people's jobs in this country; he is just obsessed with keeping his own.

The truth is that people do not feel that Malcolm Turnbull is fighting for them. They just feel that he is fighting for himself. That was clearly demonstrated in the House of Representatives chamber last week. Quite frankly, I think the Australian community are sick and tired of politicians who attack each other, who are more focused on their own internal battles within their own political party. They are sick of the dysfunction of this government, a government in which it does not matter what they touch—it turns to stone. They cannot do anything in terms of building the morale of the Australian community. They are not focused on creating more jobs in this country. We know they are not interested in protecting Medicare. We know they are only interested in cutting money out of the education and health systems. They are not doing anything at all about housing affordability.

Mr Turnbull's meltdown—that is what it was—was all about himself and the dysfunction and those people who are already starting to do the numbers behind the scenes. If you want to have the confidence of the Australian people it might be a good idea if the Prime Minister and his colleagues, both in this place and the other chamber, got out and started listening to what the real concerns of ordinary, everyday Australians are. They are hurting. They are hurting because of the cuts to the health budget. They are hurting because this government has yet again rubber-stamped an increase in premiums for private health insurance. The figures are really quite alarming when it comes to those that are now being forced out of private health insurance because they can no longer afford it. We know that when you talk about health, the first thing that comes to people's minds in the community is how much it is costing them now to go to the GP and how much it is costing them to be able to afford the tests that they need, whether it is pathology or scanning, and that there is an increase in costs for everyday Australians being able to access health care in this country. It is all about the strategy of those on the other side who want to undermine Medicare and the universal health system in this country.

In stark contrast to Labor, the Liberals have kicked off this year with no direction, no plan and, above all, no narrative. Unenlightening and uninspiring is a recurring theme for the Turnbull government and what most people are saying. Mr Turnbull's uninspiring, do-nothing approach extends to government policy. It is in the forefront of education, tax, the economy, child care and, of course, aged care. We know that this government does not really care about older Australians. When he had his fourth reshuffle of the ministry, I think it was, what did he do for older Australians? He relegated ageing and aged care to the outer ministry—a junior minister. I am not saying that the new minister does not have some compassion and ideas in relation to policy around ageing and aged care. But the reality is that if you are not sitting around that cabinet table you do not have the same support for arguing with your finance minister and your Treasurer to invest the money that needs to be invested in ageing, dementia and providing the best possible care for older Australians.

I often speak in this place about the lack of concern by this government that has been demonstrated over and over again when it comes to aged care. If we go right back to when Mr Howard was Prime Minister, we know that for 11 long years he did nothing. Sorry—he did do something on Mrs Bishop and the kerosene baths issue. But, in terms of real reform in this area, nothing happened until Labor came to office and until the former minister Mark Butler actually worked with the then opposition to build a framework going forward for aged care.

Those on the other side can shake their heads. They do not like to have the facts put on the record. But anyone who has followed this debate around ageing in this country would very well know who has the runs on the board. Then what did we have under Mr Abbott? We did not even have anyone who had any compassion or any vision when it came to age care. And then we had the experience of—wait—Senator Fifield! He was a minister who had the framework in front of him. All they had to do was roll it out when they came into government, but they could not even do that. He took his eye off the ball. He had no interest. His interest was in other areas. It is all very well to have interest in other areas, but in this country we need a government—and it really does not matter whether it is a Liberal government or a Labor government going forward—to address the issues that are confronting our community with an ageing population. It will have to be addressed by not only this government but future governments.

Today, we are launching a report into the rise of dementia in this country. And it is alarming. I want to give a plug: at 3.30 this afternoon go to the Senate alcove, where the book, about the challenges before us, will be launched by Alzheimer's Australia. Dementia in this country is the second leading cause of death of Australians. A lot of people do not understand that, but it is also a disease that affects too many families. And it is increasing every single day. The cost to our economy and our health system is escalating. So we need more money in funding. We need more money in health prevention so that we can change the way we live our lifestyle in this country to try and prevent this disease. A cure for dementia is still quite some way off.

When it comes to the government, they have been neglectful at the very least in relation to how they have treated older Australians. And the list goes on and on. So I want to call on the government today to take a leaf out of the book of the Australian Labor Party and put ageing and aged care in the forefront of the government's future development when it comes to policy priorities.

I am a keen birdwatcher. I even have a list for Parliament House, although it is barely into double figures. But there is a good spot for watching birds, and that is Malabar Headland. It is one of those spectacular sandstone cliff faces that pushes off the east coast. There you can see many wonderful marine birds—gannets, shearwaters, gulls, terns. I have never been lucky enough to see an albatross but I know others have seen them.

There are some in here!

And I acknowledge the interjection for some reason. But when I do see these birds and visit this spot, what is in my mind is the impact that plastic pollution is having on these wonderful marine birds. There are many academic studies that should be alerting us to what is an incredibly serious environmental catastrophe that is building.

One particularly significance study is called, Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds is global, pervasive, and increasing. It is by Chris Wilcox, Erik Van Sebille and Britta Hardesty. The study found that seabirds are particularly vulnerable to plastic pollution. The marine birds have been widely observed to ingest floating plastic. Worryingly, the study found that the impact of plastic is greatest at the southern boundary of the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic oceans. That is an area has been thought to be particularly pristine, and now we hear this alarming news.

The authors of this study describe how the threat to population numbers of marine birds from plastic pollution is geographically widespread and rapidly increasing. Also, the United Nations Environment Programme, in its yearbook for 2011, gave us a really big wake-up call. Sadly, I do not think it has been heard or acted on to the degree it should be. It described marine plastics as a new toxic time bomb. This report identified that the harm from plastic comes from not only entangling wildlife—and we have all seen those tragic photographs—or from being mistaken as food by marine birds and other animals but the accumulation and concentration of chemicals such as polychlorinated biphenyls and the pesticide DDT. This is the thing that I really wanted to speak about today. So much of marine wildlife—fish, molluscs and other marine creatures that people eat, and that our birds and other animals eat—are becoming full of very dangerous chemicals because of the plastic that is filling our oceans.

There has been a Senate inquiry into this—and I congratulate my colleague Senator Peter Whish-Wilson for initiating it. The report was called, Toxic tide: the threat of marine plastic pollution in Australia. I understand that it has had an impact—that the urgent need for container deposit legislation, something the Greens and so many community and environment groups have campaigned on for years, is now being seriously considered and, hopefully, fast-tracked by state governments. But the problem is so serious it needs to be given greater, more detailed attention.

I draw senators' attention to the work of the National Toxics Network and, in particular, their submission to that inquiry that I just mentioned. Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith is an international expert in this area. Fortunately, she lives in Australia and gives particular attention to these issues. What I am reading here is from one of the recommendations that the National Toxics Network made to that Senate inquiry. They have called on the government to address the inadequate regulation of industrial chemicals in Australia. They note that there are over 38,000 industrial chemicals listed on the Australian Inventory of Chemical Substances, of which fewer than 3,000 have been assessed for their health and environmental impacts. They go on to detail how life-cycle assessments of industrial chemicals must be undertaken—something that the Greens strongly agree with. The National Toxics Network has also called on Australia to adopt the idea of an industrial chemical regulator that has the power to enforce its recommendations for risk reduction and the power to ban industrial chemicals where the risks to the environment and human health are too great and cannot be managed. That recommendation very much feeds into the growing concern about plastic pollution in our oceans, which is also about toxic chemical pollution.

This issue has been back in the news this week, with further information released from various studies. Scientists at Ghent University in Belgium have identified that people who eat shellfish are consuming up to 11,000 plastic fragments in their seafood each year. That is a very worrying report. Then there is Plymouth University in Britain. Last year, they reported that plastic was found in a third of British-caught fish, including cod, haddock, mackerel and shellfish. Fish was once regarded as a healthier option than red meat and poultry, but now, if you do eat meat and fish products, fish and seafood is looking like the dangerous option. At Plymouth University their marine laboratory has released film of zooplankton eating microplastics. I wanted to mention that to really try and get across how pervasive this is. 'Pervasive' is the term being used when we talk about the levels of pollution, because when the zooplankton are eating microplastics it is penetrating right through the food chain up into the fish products that so many people eat regularly in their diet.

In my opening remarks I mentioned how I am a keen bird watcher. I have only ever seen one albatross in my life, and hopefully one day I will see another one. But I particularly wanted to share this: albatrosses are really being hit hard by plastic pollution. There is a wonderful albatross called the Laysan albatross, and it is found across the North Pacific. Until recently, its numbers had been increasing. It was thought they were populating new islands or possibly repopulating them. But now they are being hit very hard by this pollution, both in terms of getting caught up in the plastic and in terms of what happens when it is ingested. Some of the studies have found that it is particularly hitting the young albatrosses very hard. The little chicks are dying before fledging. Necropsies carried out on the chicks—I had only heard of autopsies—have found that their stomachs are filled with plastic trash.

The impact on our biodiversity is huge—there are impacts on the population numbers, obviously, and there is the issue of animal cruelty. But what has mainly prompted me to make this speech today is my concern about the toxicity of these plastics that are entering our food chain and the impact that is having on so many species, and particularly on humans. We need to look after our own species, but we are not doing a very good job. There are now some very wise recommendations on what we need to do about this crisis, and they should be acted on.

I stand today to speak not just for myself but for my colleagues: Senator McGrath, who sends an apology for not being in the chamber; Senator Macdonald; the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan; and, from the other place, Deputy Prime Minister Joyce, Mr Entsch and Mr Christensen.

Are you leaving us?

No such luck. I am here to speak about a remarkable woman who left an indelible mark on the fortunes of all North Queenslanders. Noeline Ikin was a member of our political party in my home state of Queensland, but she meant much more than that to the people who knew her, to her family and to her communities of interest.

Perhaps one of the most tragic things about the features of these opportunities to speak is that we all too often only speak highly of people when they have passed. I am disappointed to say that this speech is no different: Noeline tragically passed away on Saturday, following a 13-month battle with brain cancer. She faced every step of her health challenge with a smile on her face and an ongoing concern for how her plight impacted on her loved ones. Noeline was well known for her concern about the welfare of those around her. In fact, it was this feature of her character that drove her to enter politics in a very active way. She was a candidate who truly had the blinkers on for what would serve her home electorate of Kennedy. Noeline was one of the most passionate advocates for the future potential of northern Australia and the people of her home electorate of Kennedy that anyone could cross paths with. She was a frequent visitor to these halls of our parliament, where she unashamedly and determinedly fought for the interests of her region in Queensland, notwithstanding that she was not a member of the parliament. Noeline was only a little over five feet tall, a fact that she often made fun of herself about, yet she had the tenacity and the courage that would be the envy of any politician in this parliament.

In fact, Noeline very nearly entered our parliament and, on the way, she became renowned as an unlikely political giant killer. She was the woman who nearly toppled Bob Katter in the 2013 federal election. During the election, there was a debate in the media over whether to call her the 'Katter killer' or the 'little battler'. Noeline, being the person she was—a person who valued kindness over raw strength—said she always preferred being called the 'little battler.' Indeed, recent events in her health struggle have proven that to be true. With her strong community spirit and old-fashioned hard work, she very nearly did the impossible. Through real grit and determination, she achieved a massive 17 per cent swing against the incumbent Bob Katter in the 2013 federal election. It was the biggest swing in that seat since Federation. In fact, she won the primary vote by more than 15,000 votes. It was only preferences from the Labor Party that allowed Bob Katter to return to parliament. Some believed that taking on Mr Katter in the sprawling rural seat he had held since 1993 was an impossible political assignment. Many higher profile candidates had tried and failed to do so over the preceding two decades. And that is what made Noeline's achievement so remarkable.

The electorate of Kennedy is a sprawling and almost intimidating electorate to a political novice. But Noeline accept the challenge with gusto. It became a case of honest, grassroots campaigning, in an electorate that really values this attitude among its elected leaders. Noeline spent months in the run-up to the election campaign sleeping by the side of the road in her swag, meeting with constituents and community groups and advocating for real change in her home electorate. It was a message that voters responded to. Noeline came closer than any person in more than two decades to toppling the incumbent member. On election night, Noeline sat in the Mareeba Memorial Bowls Club and watched the results as they came in. On that day in September 2013, many thought she had taken the electorate. It is fair to say there are many in the Kennedy electorate who still wish she had taken control of the seat.

I think it is reasonable to say that her achievement and her tragic decline will mean she will be remembered as one of the great 'what-ifs' of Australian politics. But it was Noeline lkin's ability to connect, especially to the people of the bush, which will be remembered most by those who knew her best. No matter where she went, there was no doubt the diminutive, softly-spoken but determined woman made her mark on the hearts and minds of North Queenslanders. She will forever hold a special place in the hearts of North Queenslanders for her unashamed willingness to fight for their interests, and she will be remembered as a very courageous, active member of our political movement in that state.

Noeline was an especially passionate advocate for the people of the Gulf of Carpentaria. She based herself in Georgetown, which is one of those proud outback towns that battle drought and floods with equal determination. As CEO of the Northern Gulf Resource Management Group, Noeline blazed a trail for the NRM movement when many in the cattle industry were sceptical of broad changes to the way Landcare and other projects were funded by government. Whether it was fighting for exceptional circumstances funding for flood impacts on graziers or battling to protect wetlands on gulf stations or supporting and underpinning the live cattle trade, Noeline had a clear idea of what was best for her community and was never afraid to push for change.

Following the 2013 election, she became an unabashed fighter for the issue of rural debt loads among gulf landholders. She was frequently in Canberra, often at her own expense, meeting with ministers, senators and members, discussing the issues that mattered to the people of Kennedy. Her tenacity saw Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, and now Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, launch investigations into the level of debt being carried amongst northern farmers.

But, speaking more broadly, it was her bright and positive attitude that made her a much-loved figure among our LNP members across the state of Queensland, particularly in the north. At any meeting of the LNP, especially in North Queensland, her health plight was a frequent point of discussion in these past 12 months. People worried about her. People cared about her. And I think it is very safe to say that my LNP people really loved her.

As many of the people in this chamber will understand, it is no mean feat for any politician, let alone a prospective politician, to generate such strong feelings of devotion amongst party members. Yet Noeline achieved this, and she was never far from the thoughts and prayers of the people in my party as she faced her challenge. One of the frequent comments about her cancer battle was how she handled it with genuine courage and good humour. Perhaps there is no higher tribute we can pay to Noeline than to say that she put the welfare of others first, even in the closing months of her life.

Noeline has left behind her partner, Trevor, and her daughters, Gabriella, Kiralee and Tabitha. And our thoughts and prayers are with them during this difficult time. Many tributes to Noeline have already been delivered since her passing at the weekend. Some have called her an angel of the bush. Others have said she was one of North Queensland's favourite daughters. But all that has been said has been in reverence to her real spirit of community—her care and devotion for others, and her true grit during times of adversity. These are all attributes every person might hope would be said about their short time on this earth. And, in tribute to Noeline, no kinder words could be said.

I rise in senators' statements to make a contribution about the work of the Public Works Committee, the longest standing committee of the parliament. It looks at the purpose of proposed work, the suitability of that work, the need for and advisability of the work, and the cost- effectiveness of the proposal, whether it is revenue producing and its current prospective value. I have been a member of the Public Works Committee since about July 2011. We do lots of work. Lots of appropriations pass through that committee. From time to time you take note of the Australian National Audit Office reports, because the ANAO forensically audit the expenditure of this money.

One particular department comes to mind, and that is the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. They have an unenviable record. I will quote from two Australian National Audit Office reports. The report of 13 September 2016 states:

Of most concern is the department’s management of processes for contract consolidation and the open tender. The Australian Government intended that these procurement processes would rein in the growing expense associated with managing the centres. In both cases, the approach adopted by the department did not facilitate such an outcome.

The report of 16 January 2017 states:

The Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s management of the garrison support and welfare services contracts at the offshore processing centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea (Manus Island) has fallen well short of effective contract management practice.

…   …   …

The audit recommendations are intended to address the significant weaknesses observed in DIBP’s contract management practices.

So it was extremely interesting to see a procurement from this department come before the Public Works Committee.

I want to say right at the outset, there is no criticism of the wonderful people in that department. They serve Australia well and they do a stunning job. A very successful job is done by all of those workers. Where the department has fallen well short is in its demonstrated capacity to appropriately and prudently manage government expenditure.

They came to a sectional committee of the Public Works Committee last Friday with a proposal to spend $256 million—that is right, $256 million—fitting out some premises; not buying some premises, not leasing some premises, but fitting them out for $256 million. They came to that committee with a horde of staff. There were probably 25 support staff. The challenge they had was that they could not answer our questions. Our questions were simple and clear. You have to demonstrate cost effectiveness. Last time I looked, 85,000 square metres into $256 million came out to about $3,000 per square metre. It is obviously at the very high end of a fit-out. Our parameters have been $1,200 to $1,800 per square metre. They were way over that. They were right up at the top. But they said:

Don't worry. There is a lease incentive in there. The landlord is going to give us $212 million—$212 million of that $256 million is a lease incentive.

We said:

Gee, that sounds good. We must be paying a couple of dollars over the longer haul on the lease payments.

But they are not disclosed. When we probed them on the lease payment, we found out that only half of the $212 million is actually a lease incentive in reduced outgoings. The other half is a loan. It is capital advanced up-front by the landlord and then amortised over the period of the lease. We said we had some clear concerns—and I say 'we' in the collegiate sense; this is a bipartisan committee with members of the House of Representatives. Senator Smith, Mr Coleman and myself were the sectional committee.

As always in these circumstances, I went back to the manual. The manual says this:

Whole-of-life and cost-benefit analysis

Because lease incentives used to finance projects can lead to hidden ongoing costs to proponent entities, fit-out projects utilising lease incentives should provide an analysis of the benefits gained by financing the works through lease incentives, rather than full financing of the works by the proponent entity.

So we have two departments here now. We have the Department of Immigration and Border Protection, run by the Hon. Peter Dutton, who has a horrendous track record—ably demonstrated buy the Australian National Audit Office—of not submitting to government and public works scrutiny and not passing expediency motions in the House of Representatives to cover the urgency of his works. It was demonstrated by the Australian National Audit Office. And we have the Hon. Mathias Cormann, the finance minister, who signed off on this on 3 February 2016, not giving his own committee, the Public Works Committee—it is a government-controlled committee; it is chaired by the government—the information to allow us to properly test the probity of this arrangement. I have to tell you this, it is the biggest single fit-out the Public Works Committee has looked at in six years, and I have been on the committee for that whole six years. We are probably going to find out it is the biggest single fit-out of all time.

But that is not the issue. If we are spending $250 million fitting out premises, what are we paying on the lease? If there is a $200 million incentive, where is that coming from? Where is the probity and the disclosure? I will give you an example: 1 Canberra Avenue was the last such proposal that came to the Public Works Committee. It was for $32 million worth of fit-out for 1,400 people. The Department of Finance gave the committee a figure of $195 million as the lease figure for 1 Canberra Avenue. On AusTender three months later, it came out that it was $376 million for the lease; the reason is that they give you net present value. The average elector in the street would have no idea what 'net present value' means, and I would say there are a few in this parliament who would struggle with 'net present value' as well.

So this project is enormous. It is probably the single biggest offering of lettable area—85,000 square metres—in recent memory in Canberra. As a committee, we are asked to just tick off $250 million-odd worth of expenditure because there is a lease incentive from a landlord. Well, I have to tell you, I do not think we are going to do that. To put it into perspective, we all drive past 1 Canberra Avenue all the time. There are 1,400 people there and it cost $32 million to fit out. This involves 6,000 people, four premises and $250 million worth of expenditure. The committee is being asked by the finance minister and the Hon. Peter Dutton to tick off on it as if there are no issues and no problems. As I say, that is unlikely to happen from my perspective. I do not speak for anyone else on the committee, but I will put my arguments very clearly that we need full transparency and full disclosure. We need to know what the square metreage is that you are paying at those 85,000 square metres, where this lease incentive is coming from and why you are taking capital from a developer and amortising it back over the lease. We want to see the whole-of-government cost of this project and the economics of moving from a larger footprint to a smaller footprint, and it should all be abundantly clear and disclosed transparently, both to the committee and to the taxpayer.

I accept there may be commercial-in-confidence figures around the place that would affect negotiations, and they are appropriately dealt with in camera. I actually know a few figures, which I will not disclose here. Suffice to say this, if we are paying $256 million or $257 million for a fit-out and the landlord is very generously advancing $200 million plus of his own money, where is the rest of the deal? Why isn't it transparent?

The Hon. Mathias Cormann lectures this side of the chamber about fiscal responsibility and prudent spending of government money. When he was in opposition he claimed that he was an advocate of transparency, that everything should be fully disclosed in sunlight so we can see what is going on. Well, I would like to get the answers to this. I would like those two ministers to put on the record the answer to what the hell they are doing.

I want to open by saying that I am so thrilled with the input that One Nation had into the compulsory land acquisition in Queensland, with the farmers there, and to see that it has been stopped. Now it is up to the farmers whether they want to sell their land. That was a great win, and it all came down to people power. The part we played was to bring it to the public's awareness, and getting the Prime Minister to actually have a look at it, and the defence minister. So, I am pleased by the way it went.

But it just never ends. Now that that has been finalised, I find I am facing the battle of the canegrowers in North Queensland. And I ask myself, what is happening in this country? Looking back 20 years, I had farmers coming to me—it was like shutting down the farming sector, whether it be the pork industry or the chicken farmers or the dairy industry. It seems to be one after another. We seem to be destroying our agricultural industry in Australia. And I keep asking myself, why? Why can't we in this place see what is happening and start to help these people?

It is not just about the dollar value, to me. It is more important than that. It is about a way of life, and I think that is so precious to people. And I hear it all the time, from migrants who came out here many years ago. They opened up the lands—the Germans, the Italians and all the different migrants who came here and created the farming. Especially in North Queensland, it was the Italians. And now we seem to be forever just propping them up or destroying whole industries.

Let me explain to people who do not understand what is going on. Queensland Sugar Limited is a not-for-profit service organisation that provides raw sugar marketing, pricing, finance and logistics services to the Queensland sugar industry. It has been going for about 70 years. They operate about six bulk sugar terminals on a cost-recovery basis and are owned by Queensland canegrowers and millers, returning all net returns to the industry they serve. So, it is set up for the canegrowers. But under Labor, in 2009 Wayne Swan, as Treasurer, allowed the sale of the sugar mills in the Burdekin to a Singaporean foreign investor to the tune of about $1.7 billion. Now the problems have started, because the canegrowers need to have what is called an on-supply agreement. The have a cane supply agreement with the mill, and then the mill must make an agreement with Queensland Sugar as an on-sale. But now they cannot have that agreement; they cannot get an agreement with Wilmar. So, Wilmar is holding up negotiations.

How important is this? Well, a crop has to be harvested, so the canegrower, by the time he cuts his cane, has 12 hours to get it to the mill to be crushed. Canegrowers cannot take it anywhere else in the Burdekin, because Wilmar owns the four mills. So, the canegrowers are really held to ransom if they do not get that on-supply agreement with Wilmar and QSL. QSL has been there marketing for many years. As I said, they have been doing that for the canegrowers for 70 years—a not-for-profit organisation. They are there to look after the canegrowers. Wilmar owns 30 per cent in Queensland Sugar. What this all comes down to is that the Queensland state government in 2015 passed the Queensland marketing choice legislation. But it is very loose. They have not looked after the canegrowers.

Unless these canegrowers get this agreement sorted out with Wilmar and QSL, they will find themselves in dire straits, because they have to harvest their crop by May or June this year. Now, Wilmar is also a marketing body, and they are holding out because they want to handle the marketing for the canegrowers. But Wilmar does not have a very good track record on this, because they have been going for only about six or seven years. So they are trying to do deals in Asia, and the deals they do may not necessarily give the canegrowers the best value for their crop. So the canegrowers do not have a choice of marketing.

This is something the canegrowers have taken to Barnaby Joyce. At the end of last year he promised them that a deal would be signed by Christmas. Nothing has been done. I have had meetings with Wilmar. I have had meetings with QSL. I have had continuous meetings with the canegrowers to try to work this out. Wilmar will not come to a meeting with the canegrowers and QSL together. They refuse to. And this is all about the canegrowers. They will not even talk to them. They will not sit down in a joint meeting. I was able to get the canegrowers and Wilmar together, but can I get the three of them together? No, because Wilmar refuses. Why?

And there is talk about this being political. Wilmar's willingness to engage in negotiations was initially extremely limited, as it instead focused its efforts on political lobbying to seek repeal of the legislation that permits marketing choice. Their commitment to talks appeared to increase in mid to late September 2016 as growers became more vocal about the delays and Wilmar's conduct attracted political and regulatory scrutiny. But despite this, the deals have not been secured. For all the canegrowers in North Queensland, production is about 17.8 million tonnes. In the Burdekin it is around six or seven million tonnes. So, we are talking about a lot of sugar.

The whole area around the Herbert and Burdekin Rivers produces about 60 per cent of Queensland sugar. I cannot understand why this government does not do something about the situation. I have said all along that foreign investment is fine, but foreign control—no way. We have to be very vigilant when we allow foreign investors come into this country and buy up our assets, especially essential services. We do not have any control, and this case shows that. They are holding cane growers to ransom, and the government cannot do anything about it. I believe it should be up to the federal parliament to move on the code of conduct. A code of conduct was undertaken here in 2015 on the marketing of the sugar industry, but nothing has been done about it.

I have cane growers just about on their knees and their wives are distraught over this whole thing. They have no future. I have one cane grower who has been in the industry for 30 years and he is telling his kids not to get into it. He said, 'I have been destroyed by the whole lot.' They do not get support or any help whatsoever. We have the best sugar in the world, and we have Asia and Japan vying for our sugar. At the present moment we have one of the highest prices for sugar and yet they cannot secure deals because Wilmar is controlling the whole marketing structure and they will not come to an agreement with Queensland Sugar Ltd. The growers cannot do anything about it. They are turning to us in this parliament to help them. This is their livelihood; this is their future; and this is the future of this country; and we cannot lose it. I am asking members of this parliament to please support me and please support these cane growers by putting pressure on the federal and Queensland governments to do something about this because we owe it to them—we are their representatives.

I rise to place on the record my concerns about a pattern of activity around the office of the Member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby. This involves claims spanning a decade that he has housed a taxpayer-funded 'dirt unit' in his electorate office.

On 25 November last year, journalist Brad Norington with Rosie Lewis published a story in The Australian revealing that a blogger by the name of Peter Wicks, who runs a website called Wixxyleaks, is actually a taxpayer-funded staffer working for the Member for Melbourne Ports. Mr Wicks' Wixxyleaks website claims to be independent, but it often smears members of the Labor Party, the Greens, coalition parties and others, while promoting certain Labor factional players, like Senator Kitching.

According to the story, Wicks is close to new Labor senator and Danby ally, and now senator, Kimberley Kitching, as well as being close to Ms Kitching's husband, Andrew Landeryou, the backroom operator, former blogger and friend of Labor leader, Bill Shorten. According to The Australian:

Mr Wicks has not disclosed his role as a paid political staffer on his Wixxyleaks website—

Senator McKenzie, there is a point of order.

I ask that the senator refer to senators and members of the House of Representatives by their correct title.

I would remind speakers to use the appropriate salutations.

So that would be Labor leader Mr Shorten.

that often makes defamatory and factually incorrect claims in attacks on the Coalition and many others.

Nor has he revealed his personal ties to Senator Kitching and Mr Landeryou, both firm backers of Mr Shorten's dominance of the ALP Right faction in Victoria.

Senior ALP and union readers of Mr Wicks's blogsite say it has become more clearly identifiable lately as propaganda for Mr Shorten's side in politics.

They suggest it could serve as a front for Mr Landeryou, who closed down his own 'poison pen' Vexnews website in 2013 at Mr Shorten's request—but could be back in business if he was using Wixxyleaks as a new outlet.

Vexnews talked up Mr Shorten while publishing allegations against people regarded as critics or opponents. "You can see the hand of Landeryou in some of the latest posts," one reader claimed.

Melbourne ABC radio broadcaster Jon Faine said during one of Ms Kitching's earlier bids for a prize Labor seat in 2013 that she brought "baggage" with her husband.

"There are many people intimidated by Andrew Landeryou and the way he uses Vexnews to bully and undermine and ruin people's reputations," Faine said.

The Australian sought comment from Mr Wicks about his dual roles as a blogger and political staffer and whether he was receiving assistance with his blog. A fellow staffer in Mr Danby's Melbourne office said Mr Wicks was in a meeting and not available, possibly for hours. Mr Wicks did not return later calls.

Mr Danby defended the blog and praised Mr Wicks's communications skills in his role as an electoral officer.

"As a zealous champion of free speech, I, of course, will do nothing to interfere with his highly regarded blog-writing, although, of course, expect this would only ever be done in his own time, not while at work," Mr Danby said.

Mr Danby subsequently wrote a letter to the editor, stating that, since joining his staff in October, Wicks had only blogged three times and not during work hours.

Mr Danby's letter to the editor does not conclusively refute the claims that Mr Wicks' blogs are simply a private activity. If one looks at Wicks' posts since his employment by Mr Danby, three out of five are devoted to defending Kimberley Kitching and the HSU's Diana Asmar from media criticism or attacking Kathy Jackson—hardly causes removed from the factional interests of his employer, Mr Danby.

Before commenting on the Member for Melbourne Ports' history of hosting such operators in his office I wish to examine the relationship between Mr Danby and Kimberley Kitching's errant husband, Andrew Landeryou.

Senator McAllister, a point of order?

Again, Senator Kitching is entitled to be referred to by her correct title.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I would remind Senator McKenzie to use correct titles.

My apologies—Senator Kitching. He is notorious for his Vexnews blog which operated from 2008 to 2013. Vexnews claimed to be 'First with the worst'. It was an amalgam of defamation, vendetta, rumour and fiction, often aimed at opponents of the Shorten faction, who by contrast were promoted. There is no doubt that the Member for Melbourne Ports is a political ally of the Landeryous. Indeed, Mr Danby acknowledged Landeryou's help in his maiden speech to parliament in 1998. After the recent federal election Andrew Landeryou and David Asmar, along with two other men, were arrested for allegedly vandalising Greens and Liberal polling material at multiple polling stations from Elwood to Port Melbourne and allegedly driving at volunteers who tried to stop them. Fairfax Media reported at the time that the men had been released without charge but were still being investigated. I understand this matter is presently before the court so I will not comment further. According to Fairfax:

Mr Landeryou is understood to be a personal and political confidant of Mr Shorten—

the Leader of the Opposition—

All four men were heavily involved in the election campaign of Michael Danby, the Labor MP for Melbourne Ports who fought a close three-way contest to eventually declare victory, in a campaign he described as "ugly".

So it is clear that there are strong links not only between the member for Melbourne Ports and the Landeryous but also between the Landeryous and the opposition leader, Bill Shorten.

The member for Melbourne Ports has been an unashamed booster of Senator Kitching's ambitions to attain a Senate seat, regaling ABC viewers with a tale of her using Argo-like sleuthing abilities to clean up the HSU, which has subsequently been debunked. Everyone knows that Senator Kitching's Senate candidacy was supported behind the scenes by Mr Shorten. One might be tempted to dismiss the member for Melbourne Ports' association with both Peter Wicks and Andrew Landeryou as just poor judgment about staff and associates were it not for the fact that Peter Wicks' exposure as a part of a dirt operation centred around Mr Danby's office is actually a case of history repeating itself.

In 2006 another taxpayer-funded adviser to Mr Danby was accused of blackening the names of MPs and compiling dirt files on them. Specifically, Dr Adam Carr, who worked for Mr Danby, was accused of doctoring the online biographical entries of dozens of Labor MPs and Liberals, including then Treasurer Peter Costello and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. Two Labor MPs, Julia Irwin and Jennie George, complained to then Opposition Whip, Roger Price, that Dr Carr had placed unpleasant biographical material about them on Wikipedia.

According to an article in the SundayHerald Sun, Mrs Irwin, the then member for Fowler, said she believed Dr Carr was 'getting dirt on people'. The article went on to say:

"People who are ALP staffers should not be doing that type of thing," she said.

Ms George, the member for Throsby and a former ACTU president, is believed to have complained that Dr Carr wrote she was a member of the Communist Party in the 1970s.

The entry was later changed to describe her as an "alleged" former member.

The Whip would not comment, but it is believed he warned Mr Danby to rein in his staffer.

At the time, the member for Melbourne Ports denied the allegation, and Mr Carr claimed that, while he had edited the Wikipedia entries of many MPs, Mrs Irwin's Wikipedia entry had been changed by an anonymous user. Despite his denials about Adam Carr's activities, Mr Danby has shown himself more than eager and willing to use his material when it suits him.

In 2011 Mr Danby became involved in a war over edits to Senator Lee Rhiannon's Wikipedia page, with user 'Intelligent Mr Toad' duelling with NSW Greens staffer Chris Maltby over Maltby's attempts to expunge details of Senator Rhiannon's communist past. In parliament, Mr Danby denounced both Maltby and Senator Rhiannon but did not refer to 'Intelligent Mr Toad', who was editing Senator Rhiannon's Wikipedia page to include the references being expunged. The thing is that 'Intelligent Mr Toad' was an alias used by Adam Carr, although he had at this time moved from Mr Danby's payroll onto David Feeney's.

If one were so inclined, one could trace an unbroken line of defamation linked to the member for Melbourne Ports, starting with Adam Carr and continuing up to today with Peter Wicks. The unfortunate thing about the activities of Mr Carr, Mr Landeryou and Mr Wicks is that truth is often dispensed in favour of smear. To call it muckraking is rating it too highly. And the thing is that, when such online operations are being deployed not so much against the coalition but against the internal opponents of the Shorten faction, as well as Labor's Green rivals, they are not being used to promote friends of that faction, such as Senator Kitching. It is no wonder Labor has been on the brink of exploding over such shenanigans.

I rise today to speak about climate change, because I am angry. I am angry about the way that this government persists in treating climate change like a joke. Images of the Treasurer laughing as the frontbench pass around a lump of coal will show up in the history books. They will be in the history books when our future generations look back and wonder about the failure of this generation of politicians, of members in our chamber, to take meaningful action on one of the greatest threats of our time.

The very, very sad development this year is that the coalition are no longer content with being ineffective on emissions reduction policy. The coalition actually seem to want to emit more carbon just to prove a point and to throw some red meat back to the political base in their party room. Now we are talking about plans for new coal-fired generators. The government seems to want to go beyond being simply useless—which I guess we may have been able to live with for a short period—to being deliberately harmful. I do not know if this is just cynicism—cynicism of the highest order—or wilful blindness. But, either way, I want to put this on the record: ignoring climate change is more than just a failure of public policy; it is an ethical failure. It is a betrayal of future generations. What makes this all the worse is that this is not about policy; this is about retail politics. It is a cheap shot in the culture wars.

The government would like to paint climate change as an elite preoccupation—and we hear that all the time—but it is in fact ordinary people who bear the cost of climate change. And there is a sad irony here, because in the past two weeks Australia has suffered heatwaves and bushfires. There has been record-breaking heat on the east coast. Not every hot day is a result of climate change but climate change means we will be having more and more hot days.

It was 46 degrees in Penrith last Saturday, but it was just in the pleasant mid-30s in Point Piper. What is the mean income in Wentworth? It is $109,000 a year and it compares very favourably with the mean income in Lindsay, which is just $54,000. That $54,000 gap is going to make quite a big difference to your ability to cope with a 46-degree day, because if you live in a wealthy suburb and have a lot of money you can insulate your house and you can put on the air conditioning, but if you live in the western suburbs, if you live in western New South Wales or in the country, you cannot afford to do anything about the heat that is being caused by these hopeless policies, these ineffective policies, on climate change. (Time expired)

) ( ): I advise the Senate that Senator Payne will be absent from question time today and tomorrow on ministerial business. In Senator Payne's absence, I will represent the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Defence Industry, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister for Defence Personnel and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of Anzac.

My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator Canavan. Does the minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, who, when asked about the Western Australian preference war—these are his words, not mine—said this:

This is what happens when you start picking on your business partner or your girlfriend—one person scratches and the other person scratches back.

Did he really say that? Was the Western Australian National Party's decision to preference the Greens over the Liberal Party the Nationals 'scratching back'?

The PRESIDENT: Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan, Representing the Deputy Prime Minister, you can take that question in whichever way you would like. It does not directly relate to your portfolio, but it does relate to statements made by the Deputy Prime Minister, so I will allow you to answer the question how you would like to.

Thank you very much, Mr President. I cannot confirm or deny for you, Senator Sterle, that Mr Barnaby Joyce has made comments like that. It certainly sounds like comments he would make, from good knowledge that I have, Senator Sterle, so I will take it on face value that those were comments he made. But, of course, I am not going to comment on the preference arrangements that the Western Australian Nationals enter into. They are an independent and affiliated body of the federal National Party, but they do make their own decisions on matters that are in their interests. I will let them explain those interests to the Western Australian parliament and the Western Australian voters. However, what I am sure, Senator Sterle, they will be explaining to those Western Australian voters is that the best form of government for the Western Australian people will be a Liberal-National government after the election.

We know from records that the best form of government is a Liberal-National government for our country. Whether it is in Western Australia or over here on the eastern seaboard, the relationship we have between our two parties is a strong one and has delivered strong results for our nation. That is what I will be focused on over the next month, reminding the people of Australia that if they want to continue to have a strong economy in the west, if they want to continue to benefit from the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been invested in the regions through the Royalties for Regions program in Western Australia, they will need a Liberal-National government to do that.

We know if they do not have that, if they have a Labor government, there will be a Labor government pushing for renewable energy targets that are unachievable. They will be shutting down coal mining in places like Collie. They will be taking away the industrial advantage that Western Australia has, the future promise of developing Western Australian resources like their gas resources and like northern Australia. The Labor Party will ignore those, come back to that small part of Western Australia down in Perth and not develop those resources. Let's hope that a Liberal-National government in Western Australia is elected and I wish them all the best in that election.

Honourable senators interjecting—

On my left and my right. Senator Sterle, do you have a supplementary question?

I do, thank you, Mr President. I refer to reports that the Deputy Prime Minister on Monday described the Greens as 'the most dangerous party in politics.' Does the minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, or does he support the Western Australian National Party's decision to preference the Greens above the Liberal Party?

I completely agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that the Greens are the most dangerous political party in this place. I am sure they revel in that description, but they are dangerous to this country because they are allowed to be dangerous, because you guys partner up with them. That is why they are dangerous. There is only a small number of them here, Senator Sterle, in case you have not noticed, but it is only because you enable and give them power that they have that label of being dangerous. That is why they are dangerous, Senator Sterle, because when you guys get over on this side, suddenly you start doing deals with them and you start implementing silly ideas like a carbon tax that you do not even take to the Australian people, but you implement them because you need to have their support. That is why they are dangerous. They are not dangerous because the Western Australian Nationals have preferenced them. That is not why they are dangerous; they are dangerous because you put them into government when you were last over here on this side of the place. We will not be letting that happen in the west, we will not be letting that happen here; the only way that will happen back here in Canberra or Perth is if Labor is elected again.

You're in bed with the racists and the bigots. Do you feel good about that?

Order on my right. On my left. Senator Sterle, a final supplementary question?

Thank you very much, Mr President.

The Nationals have been jilted.

Shush, I am trying to talk. I should get the first question every time. This place has not been this happy for years.

Your question?

Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with Senator Cormann's statement that the Western Australian Liberal Party's decision to preference One Nation above the National Party is 'sensible and pragmatic'?

I gather you have finished your question, Senator Sterle.

I am not exactly familiar or sure what Barnaby Joyce thinks about every comment that my good colleague and friend Senator Cormann might make, but, Senator Sterle, I am sure there are other avenues you can try to get Barnaby's opinion on that.

You represent him, actually. I thought he ran you, or is it the other way round?

What I would say is that the Liberal and National Parties have a strong relationship. I know in the context of this discussion there have been descriptions of some parties being sophisticated or what have you. May I say over here, Senator Sterle, we are a proud and independent party in the National Party.

You've been treated like doormats—sophisticated doormats.

We make our own arrangements. While I do not particularly care if we are considered sophisticated or not, we are actually happy to be unsophisticated over here. When I look around at my colleagues, some of them—I hope they do not take it the wrong way—are particularly unsophisticated. If these latte-sippers over here on my right want to be sophisticated, they can go right ahead. We will be unsophisticated right here.

It is a very hard act to follow! My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister update the Senate on what the latest report on government services shows in relation to school funding?

Thank you, Senator Paterson, for your question. I know that you, Senator Paterson, are driven by wanting the facts and accurate data and information. Quite recently the Productivity Commission released its annual report on government services, and that report provides for interesting reading, which those opposite in particular would benefit from undertaking. It shows that between 2005-06 and 2014-15—over a decade up to the most recent data that is available—total funding from state governments, territories and the Commonwealth to all schools increased by 58.2 per cent, with Commonwealth funding during that time going by 58.2 per cent, compared with state and territory increases of only 18 per cent. Commonwealth funding for government schools has grown in real terms on a per student basis over that decade by 72.4 per cent, compared with average state and territory funding growth over that time of only 9.4 per cent—a vast difference and notably far higher than Commonwealth growth in funding to non-government schools of 25.7 per cent. The total Commonwealth per student increase in funding in real terms grew by 43.7 per cent, compared with that of the states and territories, which grew by just 7.2 per cent.

But what is remarkable is that if you look at a shorter time frame over the five years of the most recently available data, six of the eight state and territory jurisdictions actually reduced their investment in Australian schools. It came at the same time as the Commonwealth government was increasing its investment.

Opposition senators interjecting—

And the worst offender, I am sad to say to the South Australian senator, was the South Australian Labor government, which cut by five times the amount of extra federal funding they received, on a per student basis. (Time expired)

Senator Paterson, a supplementary question?

Will the minister advise the Senate on which states are cost-shifting?

We do see that over that five period six of eight states, all except for New South Wales and Tasmania, were states in which funding went backwards. But South Australia well and truly was the worst offender by far, with a cut of 2.1 per cent to their government schools and across the board. Yet the same state is quite happy to go out and attack the federal government, even though we are giving them money on one hand while they are pocketing it with the other. They are happy to spend South Australian taxpayers' money on campaigns attacking us, on campaigns that are bordering on corruption, when you see the state government getting a grant application on one day and approving it on the same day, to run a partisan political campaign in the middle of the federal election campaign. All the while they are deceitfully failing to actually use the extra federal funding we have given for increases in schools instead of pocketing it as budget savings— (Time expired)

Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister outline the Turnbull government's vision for future school funding?

The Turnbull government absolutely will continue to grow school funding in the future, from last year's record level of $16 billion to more than $20 billion by 2020. That is funding growth above inflation and above projected enrolment growth. It is real growth into Australian schools, despite all the lies that we hear from those opposite and some of those on the crossbenches. Yesterday Dr Ken Boston, one of the authors of the Gonski report, called out the fact that what Labor pretend is the Gonski report is of course far from what was recommended.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator O'Neill!

Dr Boston said, 'The Gillard and Rudd governments did not adopt the Gonski report, and neither has the current Labor opposition.'

Opposition senators interjecting—

No, listen to this: 'The Gonski report did not see additional funding as the key to improving Australian education.' The Gonski report, if you bothered to read it, was a far more complicated document than those pretending that billions of dollars makes a difference. It is about how you use it most effectively— (Time expired)

The () (): My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Has the Liberal Party explained to its preferred partner, One Nation, that its omnibus bill will see new single pensioners $365 a year worse off and couple pensioners $550 a year worse off?

What we are trying to explain to all senators and to all of the Australian people is that unless we get the budget under control it is not in the national interest, because they will be not enough money for future generations to fund decent social welfare provisions and all of the other things that the nation needs. Senator, you have consistently voted in this chamber against budget savings. Through you, Mr President, you, Senator Brown, and those who sit behind you, have consistently voted in this chamber against budget savings, including budget savings that you yourself had booked in the 2016 election. So, Senator Carol Brown, we know what the Labor Party's attitude is to budget savings. To promise them in the election campaign and then vote against them in the chamber and prevent the government from taking the measures that are necessary to bring the budget back into balance, that is your approach.

Well, Senator Brown, on our side of the chamber we take a very different approach. We do not spend money that we cannot offset with savings—

Order! Pause the clock. Senator Gallagher, a point of order?

On relevance—the question was around whether the Liberal Party has explained to its preferred partner, One Nation, about the cuts to pensions.

The minister commenced his answer by indicating that he not only has explained to those senators but to all senators, and then he went on to explain, as we heard the minister say. So the minister has been relevant. Minister, you have the call.

So that is what we have explained to every senator in the chamber, including you, Senator Brown, though you do not seem to want to listen to the fact that this country, which inherited a worse financial position from the previous Labor government than any incoming government had ever inherited in Australian history, has had to take measures in order to get the budget under control, and that includes the savings measures that we have brought before the Senate—$13 billion worth of savings measures, which you have consistently blocked. So it does not lie to you, Senator Brown, or to those who sit behind you, to criticise the government's visions— (Time expired)

Senator Brown, a supplementary question.

Has the Liberal Party explained to its preferred partner, One Nation, that the government's plan will see over 665,000 single parent families lose $354 per year when this government scraps their family tax benefit B end-of-year supplement?

I have to set you straight, Senator Brown, because what you have just said to the chamber is wrong. In fact, under the changes introduced from 1 January 2017, nine out of 10 pensioners will either be better off or have no changes made to their pension.

Order! Pause the clock. Senator Wong, a point of order?

On direct relevance: the supplementary question was about a different aspect of the omnibus bill which was referred to in the primary question. It was not about pensioners at all—I know Senator Brandis has just found the brief—it was about single parent families.

Thank you, Senator Wong. I will remind the minister of the question.

The government is currently spending around $42 billion a year, so we have acted to make the age pension fairer and more sustainable to provide more help to pensioners with modest needs. As a result of the changes, more than 170,000 pensioners with modest needs will have their pensions increased this year.

Order! Pause the clock. Senator Wong, a point of order?

On direct relevance—I will speak slowly so perhaps he can find a different part of his brief: the question is about single parent families and cuts to the family tax benefit; it is not about pensions.

Senator Macdonald, on the point of order?

Mr President, that was an awful insult to you. The Leader of the Opposition said she would speak slowly—she is obviously referring to you, as she must—so you could understand her. I ask you to bring the Leader of the Opposition into some form of courtesy and respect for the standing orders.

Thank you, Senator Macdonald. I did not take the senator's comments the way you have interpreted them, although every time senators make remarks they are addressed to the chair and not to individual senators. So you are technically correct, Senator Macdonald, but I did not take the point of order from Senator Wong to be directed towards me, although technically it could be interpreted that way. I remind the Attorney-General that he has 15 seconds left in which to answer the question.

I am trying to explain to Senator Brown the way in which the government is meeting the fiscal challenge which we inherited from those who went before us. (Time expired)

Senator Brown, a final supplementary question.

Has the Liberal Party explained to its preferred partner, One Nation, that the government's plan will leave 1.5 million Australian families worse off?

Senator Brown, that is simply not the truth. We have not said that to anyone, because it is not the truth. Senator Brown, rather than mislead the chamber, as you just did, with an erroneous question asserting a falsehood, what you ought to do—as I said in response to your primary question—is back the government in trying to find the budget measures which you yourself, in the 2016 election, booked as Labor Party savings measures. Yet, having promised to make those savings were you to be elected last year, Senator Brown, you now come into the chamber and vote against them. Whether we are talking about the age pension, whether we are talking about payments to single parents or whether we are talking about other aspects of the welfare system, there will not be enough money for any of those beneficial social provisions of the future unless we repair the budget now. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Minister Canavan, our new best friend from the Nationals. I refer to reports today that Adani, the huge Indian multinational company that plans to build Australia's biggest coal mine, have been involved in corruption, tax fraud, labour exploitation, money laundering and the poisoning of rivers and coastlines. Minister, what due diligence have you done to assure the Australian community that these abuses will not be repeated here in Australia by the Adani Group?

I thank Senator Di Natale for his question. I have seen those reports this morning; I have not read every word but have looked through them. From my interpretation of them and also from the advice I have received from my department, there is nothing new in these reports this morning. Many of the issues raised by them are to do with allegations that are not proven at this stage, and others are well known and have been well known to Australian regulators now for the past few years.

I think we have very robust environmental and approval standards in this country. We have a proud record of environmental protection. We have an excellent and pristine environment in many parts of our country that we all want to protect. This project has been through those approval processes at the Queensland government level and has been through those processes at the federal government level. Different political parties, as governments, have looked at these projects and accepted and approved them with very stringent conditions—hundreds of conditions, with more than 30 here at the federal level. We have done the due diligence on these projects, we have looked at those issues that have been brought forward and we have concluded that we are very confident that our laws will be upheld, that our laws are appropriately designed and that our environment will be protected.

We must be clear. If Senator Di Natale is alleging that we have not done that due diligence properly through those approval processes, it is placing a slur on those public servants and independent regulators who have looked at them themselves and concluded these things. That has been the advice to government; that we can approve these projects, and that we can do so in a way that protects the environment and creates lots of economic opportunity and jobs for all Australians. I am confident that will happen and I hope this project does proceed.

Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question.

Given that the minister has indicated that he is prepared to give a billion dollars of the public's money to this company, what assurances has he received that this money will not be laundered through Adani's 13 Australian subsidiaries based in the Cayman Islands, or indeed that we will not see a repeat of the 60,000 tonnes of coal spilt off the coast of Mumbai, with no clean-up action, right here on our Great Barrier Reef?

Again, up-front, I outline and confirm that I expect all of Australia's laws to be adhered to, and that I have confidence in the power and record of our regulatory authorities. I am confident they will ensure that will happen, and I am confident it will happen in this case.

In the specific project that Senator Di Natale has raised, there is a proposal at the moment from Adani—and from the Queensland government, may I say—to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to look at lending money to Adani to build a rail line to open up the first coal basin in our country for 40 years. Almost every minerals province in this nation has been built—

Order. Pause the clock. Senator Di Natale on a point of order?

Relevance. My question went specifically to the fact that Adani has 13 Australian subsidiaries based in the Cayman Islands, and I wanted an assurance from the government that the money given to Adani would not find its way into a tax haven in the Cayman Islands?

Thank you, Senator Di Natale. Senator Canavan did go part way to answering that question. I will remind him of the question, but he did go part way by saying he expected Adani would obey all Australian laws. Senator Canavan.

Mr President, I am happy to clarify that those laws include our tax laws. For Senator Di Natale, I can say that I expect those to be approved. I have sought advice from my department. There is nothing illegal in Adani's corporate structure. Their corporate structure is not overly more complicated than others that operate in this country. I have confidence in the ability of Australia's authorities to apply our laws. (Time expired)

A final supplementary question, Senator Di Natale.

The ombudsman in one of the states of India delivered findings that Adani had bribed the police, local politicians, Customs, the pollution control board and the port department. In the absence of any federal anti-corruption watchdog here in Australia, how can the minister be confident that the unlawful exchange of money has not already occurred or will not occur into the future?

I reject any suggestion—and the Senator has not produced any evidence—that Australian officials are in any way connected with that. I think, again, that is a slur on Australian officials.

Senator Di Natale from the Australian Greens, I do wonder why you raise these issues about a company based in India and you do not raise the same issues about other companies that have been accused of those practices. Senator Dastyari, to his credit, has raised those issues, which are of great concern and which do concern regulatory authorities in this country who are making sure that laws are enforced. The Greens are only raising issues about one company, which happens to be based in India. The question has to be asked: are they truly the champions of diversity that they purport themselves to be? They do not look all that diverse, looking at them. And they are not bringing issues to this place that reflect the diversity of the resources sector around the world. They are focussing on one company because they do not want jobs created in regional Queensland. (Time expired)

My question is to the

Thank you to the honourable senator for her question, coming as she does from Victoria, which is the home of many of our great scientific and research organisations. Investing in Australia's research and science capabilities has been pivotal throughout our history and will continual to be so into our future. It plays an essential role in the quality of our lives, from the economy into our health. That is why we are looking as a nation at where our investment in science and research can be used to most effect in the national interest. We are doing that collaboratively with the science and research community, through our Chief Scientist, and with industry, through Innovation and Science Australia.

We understand that our investment now facilitates the creation of new ideas tomorrow. Looking no further than CSIRO, a world-leading public research body responsible for scientific discoveries that span our history as well as our homes, from some of the most big-picture inventions, like wifi, through to the more mundane, perhaps, but very useful, like Aeroguard. It was CSIRO that designed the world's first plastic bank notes with optical variable devices to help secure currency against forgery, a solution which has brought integrity to our currency system both here and abroad.

CSIRO is not alone. We have critical infrastructure across the government which also quietly contributes to our ongoing success as a country. Recently our investment in the Australian synchrotron assisted the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, Australia's oldest and most venerable research institute, to develop a drug called Venetoclax, a drug which targets chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, a prominent cancer that 1,300 people each year are diagnosed with. The use of the synchrotron enabled researchers to map the protein structures of the cancer, allowing a more targeted and effective treatment with fewer side effects. There are countless other examples which highlight the enormous value of our science investment for the nation as a whole.

Senator Hume, a supplementary question.

Can the minister update the Senate on the findings of the Performance review of the Australian science and research system?

Thank you. For those who do not know, Innovation and Science Australia, which looks at innovation and science across the whole of government, recently released its Performance review of the Australian science and research system. The review examined how well we create knowledge, how well we transfer that knowledge and how well our businesses apply that knowledge in developing new goods and services. It found we have the fourth-highest proportion of innovative small- and medium-sized enterprises in the OECD, with 58 per cent introducing new products and process innovations. It found that as a nation we are good at coming up with good ideas but we need to work on turning those ideas into a reality. Our diverse backgrounds, strong risk appetite and major investment in research support an environment ripe for a transitioning economy.

The review found that we had world-class researchers and great research-to-research collaboration, but we need to build stronger links between our research and business communities. This review allows us to measure our improvement and to identify our weaknesses. It provides data to help us plan for a more prosperous future. (Time expired)

Senator Hume, is there a final supplementary question?

Can the minister explain why a long-term strategic direction for the Australian innovation, science and research system is critical?

We have had a sustained period of economic growth in the last 25 years, which has delivered jobs and improved living standards. On average we enjoy some of the longest lives, best quality services and most livable communities in the world. But as we look forward to 2030 considerable changes await. It is essential we invigorate our growing markets if we are to have a prosperous future. Our science and research capability is core to that prosperity. We are focused on creating a smart nation which draws on this strong research to help boost our economy. We are doing that through our National Innovation and Science Agenda. Innovation and Science Australia is putting together a plan on how we prioritise our innovation and spend over the period to 2030. It is a plan which, I hope, both sides of politics will be able to look back on and say that it created a bipartisan commitment to strengthening our science and innovation capability in the interests of all Australians.

My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Minister, in the final sitting week of 2016 the VET Student Loans Bill passed the Senate. At that time the Nick Xenophon Team expressed serious concerns about the skills gaps that could result in vital areas, such as creative arts, disability and mental health, as a result of certain courses no longer being funded by VET Student Loans. At the time you agreed to allow not-for-profit training providers to offer courses which are not on the eligible course list if they can demonstrate employment outcomes. Further, you agreed to continue discussions with respect to applying that employment test to private providers who have not rorted this system and who stand to lose significantly under the reforms. Can you advise whether the Department of Education has done any modelling on the skills gaps that will develop in areas such as creative arts, mental health and disability services as a result of the courses in these sectors no longer being funded by VET Student Loans?

I thank Senator Kakoschke-Moore for her question and her ongoing interest, along with that of her colleagues, in the VET Student Loans program and these issues. As the senator would be well aware, the government set these skills lists for eligibility under the VET Student Loans program on the basis of a course or its discipline being listed on two different state or territory skills list, providing a basis upon which to be confident that there was a need for such courses as well as ensuring that we had certain safeguards in place for the STEM and agricultural disciplines as well.

As the senator would be aware, during the legislation that was considered we did make further changes which provided for other opportunities for particular providers to have particular courses listed during that time. Given the way the senator worded her question, I think is important to highlight that not all creative arts courses or all courses in any field were ruled out. Indeed, VET Student Loans will support students in courses of graphic design and visual arts, acting, dance, screenwriting, screen production and media, live production, professional writing and editing, jewellery and object design, photography and music industry, as well as in fields such as counselling, community services and mental health. So there are a wide range of disciplines that are covered. We are, though, intent on ensuring that this is a durable program for the long term, and we have committed that, starting later this month, a review will begin of the methodology underpinning eligible course list. Of course I would expect that the review will undertake its own assessment of skills gaps. I am confident that that process, in which providers as well as industry and others can have input, will provide an opportunity for thorough assessment to ensure that relevant and needed courses are available to all students in an ongoing sense.

Senator Kakoschke-Moore, is there a supplementary question?

Have you, as the minister, approved any not-for-profits to offer courses not included on the eligible course list since the VET Student Loans legislation passed and you committed to considering not-for-profit registered training organisations offering particular courses if they could show employment outcomes?

I can certainly confirm that a further 23 courses have been approved for individual providers who have demonstrated strong employment outcomes consistent with the commitments and changes made during the Senate debate on that legislation. I can further add that of those 23, four individual TAFEs, government-owned training organisations and for-profit providers are approved to offer a further nine creative arts courses on the list. So we have certainly opened that up and undergone a proper process of assessing those individual cases and, as I said, approved 23 courses, nine of which are in the creative arts fields.

Senator Kakoschke-Moore, is there a final supplementary question?

Minister, do you intend to apply the same criteria that are being used for not-for-profits to for-profit registered training providers? When will those for-profits have the ability to make an application?

During the Senate debate we gave the commitment clearly to extend scope to not-for-profit providers. I also gave a commitment that I was happy to continue discussions with NXT in relation to how we might be able to consider worthy cases from other providers in this area. I understand that my office has continued meetings with your offices over recent weeks and I am certainly happy to reiterate that commitment to work with you if there is an appropriate way with appropriate safeguards so that we do not repeat the types of mistakes that we saw in relation to the VET FEE-HELP scheme that the previous Labor government implemented.

My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash. Former Prime Minister Keating's inspired action to move ASIC to Gippsland in the 1990s now supports 230 local jobs. The Rural Industries RDC relocated to Wagga Wagga, and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's planned move to actually reside within the Murray-Darling Basin, hopefully at Shepparton, is also similarly inspired by the current federal government. Can the minister update the Senate on the government's plans to increase opportunities in the regions and through their program of decentralisation of government agencies?

I thank Senator McKenzie for her question and for her tireless work for regional communities. Unlike those opposite, we on this side of the chamber, the Liberal-National coalition, are strongly supportive of regional communities. We are a government that wants to invest in those communities and to invest in their futures. We want those communities to have good jobs, high-paying jobs and better access to services.

Part of our commitment to growing jobs outside of our major capital cities is to look at opportunities to decentralise government agencies to rural and regional areas. We clearly took these plans to the 2013 federal election and we then went to the last election with specific relocation initiatives—relocations that we have now secured a clear mandate to deliver.

Some of the agency relocations that we have already commenced include: relocating the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation to Wagga Wagga; relocating the Grains Research & Development Corporation to Toowoomba, Dubbo, Northam and Adelaide; relocating the Fisheries Research and Development Centre to establish a southern headquarters office in Adelaide; and relocating the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority to Armidale.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left!

A great move for the people of Armidale!

Also, we know how important it is, as Senator McKenzie has referred to, that for Traralgon and the wider Latrobe Valley community we protect the hundreds of Australian Securities and Investment Commission's jobs that are based there. As senators would be aware, the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee is conducting an inquiry into this very issue. I strongly encourage all of our people in regional communities and rural stakeholders to have their say and to actually send Labor a message by saying, 'Those of us in regional communities deserve to have jobs, too.'

Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question.

A fantastic answer by the minister. Thank you so much. As a senator that sits on that committee, I am looking forward to those submissions from across regional Australia. Can the minister explain how the government's decentralisation agenda is benefiting regional communities?

I can. We might not be all that sophisticated in this corner but we understand regional communities. Our decentralisation agenda is all about the region. It is about growing our regions; it is about strengthening our regions. On this side of the chamber, we know that when our regions are strong the nation is strong. There is no doubt that delivering more jobs and better jobs to regional areas will ensure the long-term economic sustainability and prosperity of those communities.

While government continually promotes regional areas to the private sector as a great place to invest, government also has a role to play in boosting jobs in our regions. Relocating government agencies is not a new idea. Indeed, as Senator McKenzie has indicated, it was the previous Prime Minister Keating pushing this. We know how successful decentralisation has been in the past in transforming regional communities. This government is going to do the drive to see it happen again.

Senator McKenzie, a final supplementary question.

Is the minister aware of any other plans or approaches to regional development?

Yes, I am aware of alternative policies. They reside with those sitting opposite in the Labor Party. Those opposite are against boosting jobs in the regions because they just pay no attention whatsoever to regional communities. They do not believe in regional committees, they do not want to invest in regional communities, they do not believe in delivering new jobs to regional communities.

Mr President, listen: not a sound from the other side—not one bit of interjection saying that I am wrong, because they know I am right. We do not apologise for investing in regional communities. We never apologise for taking decisions that are going to provide a sustainable future for regional communities to provide more jobs. And part of that is looking to decentralise to get those public sector jobs out into the regions where they deserve that investment, because it is regional Australia that drives this country.

My question is to the Minister for Finance. Due to the decisions taken by the adults in this place, every Australian child has a $90,000—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Bernardi, I will get you to start again.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order! If we could just have a bit of quiet, particularly on my left.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Gee, it is necessary from Senator Polley—her interjections.

Order! Senator Bernardi, could you start your question again?

Thank you. I will. My question is to the Minister for Finance. Due to the decisions taken by the adults in this place, every Australian child has a $90,000 Commonwealth debt hanging over their head. That is $500 billion in total. It is not being repaid and it continues to grow every single day. Australian Conservatives stand ready on the crossbench to rein in that debt by reducing wasteful spending.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Order on my left!

With very little to show for a decade of reckless government spending, it is time to shine the cleansing light of transparency on how the government are using taxpayer funds. Minister, will the coalition set up a searchable payment portal comprising real-time disclosure of all Commonwealth spending so that parents can see what they are getting for their children's $90,000 debt?

I thank Senator Bernardi for his question. We of course share his concern about the state of the budget that Labor left behind and, in particular, the spending and debt growth trajectory that we inherited from the Labor Party. As Senator Bernardi would know—because he was, of course, a valued member of the team that worked to repair the damage that Labor did to the state of the budget in Australia—we have so far implemented about $250 billion worth of budget improvements over the medium term. Now, there is much more work to be done.

The first thing that we should be doing is to pass about $13 billion worth of unlegislated budget improvements that are already reflected in our budget. As Senator Bernardi would know, on current projections our budget is projected to return to balance by 2020-21. That does require that we do pass all of the budget improvements that are currently reflected in the budget. We certainly urge all senators—Senator Bernardi, Labor senators and all crossbench senators—to support the government's plan. From there on in, obviously, being in surplus means that we are in a position to start paying down Labor's debt.

In terms of the specific proposal that Senator Bernardi put forward, I will take that on notice, and we will consider whether that is something that we might be able to assist him with further.

Senator Bernardi, a supplementary question.

Minister, governments have gone to great lengths to hide controversial spending, resulting in federal freedom of information requests surging by 60 per cent over the last five years. There were about 38,000 in the last reporting year. The US, the British and many European governments run online, searchable, spending disclosure gateways, enabling taxpayer and journalist scrutiny. These gateways have saved national budgets hundreds of millions of dollars. Why don't we have searchable gateways so taxpayers can scrutinise spending?

Of course, in Australia the budget and the performance of the government against the budget is scrutinised by none other than the very august Senate estimates committee process. Obviously we are always happy to take on board any suggestions on how the scrutiny of government performance can be further improved, but, as you would appreciate, this government complies with the same accounting standards and submits itself to the same accountability processes as governments of both political persuasions in the past.

Senator Bernardi, a final supplementary question.

New Zealand has taken out the top spot in the last two Open Budget Index transparency rankings. Despite the index rating over 100 countries, Australia has never featured. I understand the Prime Minister wrote to them on 24 November 2015 saying that we would join. Why is it taking so long for this government to catch up with Trinidad and Tobago and Timor-Leste, and be in the Open Budget Index rankings?

I note that Senator Bernardi references a letter from the Prime Minister. I will seek advice from the Prime Minister and get back to the senator.

My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. I refer to recent reports revealing that Domino's franchisees have engaged in widespread underpayment of workers and, in some cases, visa fraud. Why in the eight months and the eight parliamentary sitting weeks since the 2 July election has the government failed to introduce legislation to protect workers across Australia from systematic exploitation such as that seen in Domino's and 7-Eleven?

Thank you, Senator Farrell, for the question. Let me make it very, very clear—and, I have to say, I would expect that there would be consensus on this within this chamber—employers who exploit workers should be under absolutely no illusion: this government will not tolerate the exploitation of workers. In relation to your specific question, you will be aware that the government intends to introduce its robust legislation in relation to stopping the exploitation of workers very shortly. I look forward to the support of those opposite in relation to this legislation.

In terms of the action the government has taken since first being elected to office—not recently, but in 2013—we have done several things to ensure that we tackle the issue of exploitation. In six years those on the other side failed to take one step or introduce a policy that would tackle exploitation. In fact, when the current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, was the relevant minister, do you know what he did, Mr President? He slashed the funding of the Fair Work Ombudsman by 17 per cent, from $150 million to $124 million. But he actually went further than that: he cut their staff by 20 per cent, from 900 to 723. This government on the other hand has taken several positive policy steps to ensure that the exploitation of vulnerable workers is addressed. But I look forward to, in a weeks time, getting the agreement of those opposite to support our strong, robust policy. (Time expired)

Senator Farrell, a supplementary question.

Given the minister has just confirmed that the ministerial working group was established some 489 days ago, why has the government delayed taking any meaningful action to prevent exploitation of these workers in Australia?

I completely reject the premise of your question, Senator Farrell. As I stated in answer to your primary question, this government has taken a number of steps to address the exploitation of migrant workers. In particular, I look forward to the strident support of those opposite when, very shortly, we introduce into the parliament our robust policy to ensure that employers who exploit workers are properly punished. In relation to what we have done, as you would be aware, Mr President, this government established Taskforce Cadena in June 2015. This is a joint task force looking across portfolios, targeting and disrupting criminals organising visa fraud, illegal work and the exploitation of foreign workers. We also took the important policy step of requiring a valid pay slip as proof that work had been paid before you can get your second working holiday visa. (Time expired)

Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question.

Isn't it clear that the Turnbull government is more focused on its own internal division than on protecting vulnerable workers from exploitation?

The answer to your question, Senator Farrell, is no, but I will just remind you of the steps that your government took in relation to protecting foreign workers. It was your government that slashed the budget of the Fair Work Ombudsman; we have recently given the Fair Work Ombudsman an additional $20 million to make up for your shortfall. It was your government that slashed the staff of the Fair Work Ombudsman. It was your government that failed to introduce any policies to deal with the exploitation of foreign workers; we on this side have consistently introduced policies. But, as I said, the good news is this, Senator Farrell: you and I can sit down next week, we can work through our policy and, if you like, when we return in the week of 20 March, we can put it through, hopefully with the support of others, on Thursday as a noncontroversial bill.

My question is to the Minister for Communications and Minister for the Arts, Senator Fifield. Can the minister please update the Senate on what the Turnbull government is doing to create opportunities for audiences to access Australian arts and culture?

I thank Senator Reynolds for her deep and genuine interest in the arts in regional areas. We have spent some time together talking to groups in the west. It is quite fortuitous that Senator Reynolds asked this question today, as applications for the latest funding round for the Visions of Australia program have opened. This is one of a number of programs which are designed to increase opportunities for audiences, particularly in regional and remote Australia, to enjoy different forms of arts—recognising that the arts are not something that are solely the preserve of the cities, that the arts are alive and well in regional and rural Australia.

Visions of Australia is administered by my department and it provides funding for exhibitions of Australian arts and culture to tour other venues, with a focus on the regions and remote Australia. An example is that recently this program funded the National Motor Museum in South Australia to support the tour of their Bush Mechanics exhibition. This is based on the popular TV show of the same name and focuses on the role of the car in Aboriginal life in Central Australia. The Visions funding will support this exhibition to tour to new places, including two very remote communities in Central Australia. The program also encourages partnerships across the collections sector, mentoring and skills transfer. The Tamworth Regional Gallery, for example, is receiving funding to tour an exhibition showcasing the work of contemporary textile artists from each state and territory. This is a great example of a regional community developing a nationally significant exhibition that will then go on to tour other communities who might not otherwise have had that opportunity.

Senator Reynolds, a supplementary question.

Can the minister also explain how this program benefits audiences, in particular, in rural and regional Australia?

The program really is of great benefit to audiences across Australia. It provides development funding to help with the planning and design of exhibitions. It also provides funding to help with the costs of taking the exhibition to tour different venues. Each tour must include at least three venues outside the organisation's state or territory. Tours to regional venues are given a higher priority for funding so that particular audiences outside the major population centres who might not have the opportunity to see the exhibitions otherwise will have the chance to do so. Again, can I highlight—I am sure all colleagues would agree with me—that the arts are something that are an important part of all our communities. They are not something that are just the preserve of the capitals or major metropolitan areas; indeed, they are a vibrant and important part of regional and remote Australia.

Senator Reynolds, a final supplementary question.

Thank you very much, Minister. That is very good news, and there are certainly many Western Australian arts organisations that I think could benefit from this. So could the minister please advise how any arts organisations can apply for funding?

Sure. As I mentioned earlier, the funding round opens today. Applications can be made through an online submission to the department's website. Funding will be allocated on a competitive basis. Applications will be assessed by panels of assessors made up of external experts and internal department staff.

I would encourage all my colleagues here who take a deep and abiding interest in the arts to talk to their communities—as senators, all of us represent regional and remote Australia—and to direct them to www.arts.gov.au/visions to see the full program, the guidelines and the eligibility. Colleagues, do note that applications will need to be submitted by Friday, 10 March. I do think all colleagues here have an important role to play to make sure that organisations who can benefit from this particular program are made aware of it.

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Cash. I refer to Senator Hanson, who, in her first speech, said that the Family Court system is leading to men murdering women out of—and I quote her directly—'sheer frustration'. Has the minister ever raised with Senator Hanson concerns about the impact of such harmful statements on Australian women?

I thank the senator for her question. In the first instance, can I state that I think all of us in this chamber would agree that violence against women and children, but also men, is completely, utterly and totally inappropriate. I think we all agree that it is a national priority—it certainly is for this government, but I would hope that it is for any government—to tackle the issue.

In relation to the comments made by Senator Hanson, I have had several discussions with Senator Hanson in relation to a number of issues, but I do not propose to canvass them in this chamber. But I would again say that I would hope that everybody in this chamber takes the issue of reducing violence against women and children seriously.

Senator McAllister, a supplementary question.

Does the minister agree with the One Nation candidate for Pilbara, David Archibald, who has called for welfare for single mothers to cease, saying they are 'too lazy to attract and hold a mate'?

The answer is no.

Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question.

Did the Minister for Women express her views about the damaging statements of Senator Hanson and One Nation's candidate for Pilbara whilst wining and dining Senator Hanson and her chief of staff in order to secure One Nation preferences?

I actually take the subject of reducing domestic violence very seriously. My views on this subject are well known.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order on both sides! I cannot hear the minister's answer. Minister.

I will not stand here and—

An honourable senator: It is called belittling.

exactly—belittle the subject or play petty politics with it. If you choose to, that is your choice.

My question is to Senator Canavan, the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Can the minister update the Senate on what the government is doing to ensure that Australian consumers have clear and accurate food origin labelling information?

I thank Senator Williams for his question. At the start and outset, I acknowledge his longstanding interest in this issue and, indeed, his long campaigning for clearer and better food labels on Australian products. It has been something I know he has been at for years and it is a tribute to his hard effort but also a reflection of why we should work hard in this place. You can get results. It can take some time at times, but Senator Williams, you have had a win here with the government supporting you to introduce clearer labels for Australian consumers. And we are doing that because Australians want to back Australian farmers. They want to back Australian food manufacturers. But previously and until now they have had a hard way of doing that in the shops, because it has been hard to distinguish from the labelling that is on our products what truly is Australian-made and what only might be partly Australian-made.

Until now, many labels were able to use a made-in-Australia logo or label when only small amounts or minor processes like packaging, slicing, diluting, crumbing or canning were the elements that were made in Australia. The changes that this government is making will ensure that consumers will know that behind their purchase will be real Australian jobs and/or Australian food grown in Australia. The reforms will ensure that a new logo system will apply. It is in a transition period at the moment. People will be seeing these logos in their shops at the moment. From 30 June 2018, Australians can go into a shop and, if they see a kangaroo triangle, it will indicate on the food packaging that there are real jobs or manufacturing behind the processing of that food. There will also be a bar chart underneath it which identifies the proportion of Australian ingredients grown by our Australian farmers. So this is an excellent initiative that we are rolling out that Australians have wanted. The Australian government has listened, and it will now be easier for Australians to back their fellow Australians in food manufacturing and farming.

Senator Williams, a supplementary question.

I thank the minister. I am glad I got it through before I died of old age. Can the minister outline what benefits these changes bring to businesses and consumers?

(—) (): As I was saying to the senator's earlier question, this is something that Australian consumers want. We know that because surveys have revealed that 74 per cent of Australians think it is important or very important to be able to identify the country of origin of their food. And almost three-quarters thought the changes to a country-of-origin food labelling are required and 71 per cent—so almost all of those people—are prepared to pay more for it. Only two or three per cent of those people that thought it was important were not willing to pay more. This is something the consumers want. They are willing to pay for it and therefore it is right and proper that the government does take action to ensure that Australian consumers can have what they want. And that will also mean that not only will Australian consumers be able to exercise their choice in the supermarket; it will also mean that those choices flow through to protecting and ensuring that Australian businesses can compete in the marketplace and can sell that they are a good business providing jobs for Australians or Australian farmers. (Time expired)

Senator Williams, a final supplementary question.

Can the minister inform the Senate of how business is responding these changes?

As I said earlier, there is a transition period at the moment, so there will be some labels in supermarkets occurring right now. I give credit to those companies such as Beechworth, Mersey Valley and Nando's, who are already taking action to put their country-of-origin labelling system up to date with the new requirements. By the 31 June 2018, the new labelling system will be complete. The government is ensuring that people understand this new labelling system. Last year, there was an education campaign that ran in April, and soon the government will be recommencing that education campaign to let Australian consumers know what these labels do mean and make sure that they can have an impact in the supermarkets of our country. We designed these labels based on consultation with the Australian consumers about what was clear and important for them, and it is great to see these changes now rolling out and producing benefits for Australian consumers, farmers and manufacturers.

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

by leave—I move:

That—

(1) The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017 have precedence over all government business until determined.

(2) If by 7.20 pm today, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017 has not been finally considered:

  (a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to not later than midnight;

  (b) the routine of business from not later than 7.20 pm shall be government business only;

  (c) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after it has finally considered the bill or at midnight, whichever is the earlier; and

(d) if by 2 pm on Thursday, 16 February 2017, the bill has still not been finally considered:

     (i) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment,

     (ii) the routine of business from not later than 8 pm shall be government business only,

     (iii) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm, and

     (iv) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after it has finally considered the bill listed above, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.

The reason the government moves this motion is to ensure that the amendments to the ABCC Act which the bill contains are dealt with this week. This is important legislation. We have heard from the minister, Senator Cash, on many occasions the reasons why the government considers this to be important legislation. I will not detain the chamber now to rehearse the reasons—the motion is self-explanatory—but I seek the cooperation of honourable senators to ensure that this important legislation, which is a priority for the government, is determined without delay.

I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate for the comments he has just made. I move an amendment that I hope is being circulated shortly:

Omit all words after "That—", substitute:

"(1) The Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017 and Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017 have precedence over all government business until determined.

(2) If by 7.20 pm today, the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017 and Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017 have not been finally considered:

(a) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to not later than midnight;

(b) the routine of business from not later than 7.20 pm shall be government business only;

(c) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after it has finally considered the bills or at midnight, whichever is the earlier; and

(d) if by 2 pm on Thursday, 16 February 2017, the bills have still not been finally considered:

(i) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment,

(ii) the routine of business from not later than 8 pm shall be government business only,

(iii) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm, and

(iv) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after it has finally considered the bills listed above, or a motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister, whichever is the earlier.

The amendment has not been circulated. Is it something you can just articulate briefly, Senator Gallagher?

Thank you. I was hopeful that it had been circulated. The amendment that I seek to move to the motion is to give precedence to the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017 and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017 over all other government business until determined. There are also some changes to paragraph (2) of Senator Brandis's motion, inserting those three bills and giving them precedence above other government business.

The reason we are doing this is that it allows these bills to be dealt with this week as well. We acknowledge the government's priorities, but the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, has made it very clear that he would like to see reform in this area. The community would like to see reform in relation to parliamentary expenses. It has taken some time to get to this point. We have seen a number of scandals involving members of the government that have required this legislation to be brought forward. It has been debated in the House, and it is only right that we deal with this legislation in this sitting week. We want to make sure that these bills are dealt with. There is the chance that, if the motion is supported without this amendment, that will not be the case and these bills will then be held over until the March sitting.

This amendment would still allow for other government business to be dealt with within the extended hours that the government seek, but it would prioritise these bills, and I think the community expects this. We have seen a lot of commentary around the need to reform the entitlements of members of parliament, and this amendment—hopefully with the support of other senators in this place—will ensure that that debate happens, and then we can proceed with other government business over the next two days.

The government does not support the amendment moved by the opposition, not because we do not support efforts to deal with the package of parliamentary entitlement reform bills through the Senate efficiently this week but because the government's priority today is to deal with the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017 first. We do not want to delay the passage of this important productivity-enhancing bill in any way. That is why the government will be voting against this amendment. However, should this motion pass unamended, and once the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017 is dealt with, I foreshadow on behalf of the government that it is our intention to move a further, separate motion tomorrow to ensure that we can deal with the package of parliamentary entitlements reform bills before the Senate rises tomorrow.

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher to the motion moved by Senator Brandis to vary the routine of business be agreed to.

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Brandis to vary the routine of business be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Brown today relating to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017.

My question today to Senator Brandis was about the omnibus bill and the cuts that are contained within it that will affect pensioners, families, young people and many, many more. This bill represents $5.6 billion in cuts to Australian families. My question to Senator Brandis was whether he had spoken and explained these cuts to One Nation, because it is very important, as we look at the proposal that will come before the Senate, that One Nation understands exactly who will be affected by these cuts and by this bill that will come here.

Senator Hanson should come clean—she must come clean—on where she stands on this unfair omnibus bill. Australian families deserve to know. One Nation need to understand that these cuts will have a significant impact on families, on new mums, on pensioners, on people with disability, on carers and on young job seekers. They want to know where One Nation stands. Does One Nation stand alongside those on the other side—the Liberal Party and the Nationals—on the side of harsh cuts to everyday Australians? Or will they, as the Labor Party will, oppose the government's cuts and stand on the side of fairness and of hardworking Australian families and pensioners? It is important to know.

Of course you will, even though you advertise them as your own cuts!

Perhaps Senator Brandis would care to listen, because he did not seem to understand in question time what this bill is proposing to do. It is important, I believe, to outline just what these cuts will mean for Australians.

They include cuts to family tax benefits—cuts that will leave a typical family on $60,000 over $750 a year worse off. They include cuts to paid parental leave that will leave 70,000 new mums worse off. They include scrapping the energy supplement—a $1 billion cut for pensioners, people with disabilities, carers and Newstart recipients. They include a five-week wait for Newstart, forcing young people to live on nothing for five weeks. We have had this before the Senate before and it has been rejected. To expect people living on Newstart to live on nothing for five weeks before they can access income support is completely and utterly disgraceful. They include cuts to young people between the ages of 22 and 24 by pushing them onto the lower rate of youth allowance—a cut of around $48 a week, which is a cut of around $2½ thousand a year. They include scrapping the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment. They include a cut to the pension of migrant pensioners who spend more than six weeks overseas. These are some of the $5.6 billion worth of cuts that are wrapped up in this bill.

I ask the question and the Australian people ask the question: does One Nation support the Turnbull government's cuts in this bill, or will they stand with Labor? Will One Nation stand up for pensioners? Will they stand with Labor to make sure that this bill is rejected? Will they fight these cuts? Will they oppose this bill? They are the questions One Nation needs to answer because this bill is an absolute attack on the most vulnerable people in Australia. Those people are the ones that are saying to One Nation: 'Do not support this bill. Do not support this government in their attack on us.' (Time expired)

It is amazing that Senator Brown has made comments about One Nation supporting this bill. I do not think I have actually put it out there that I am supporting the bill, so it is speculation again.

Let's get this right: we are hitting $500 billion in debt. For years we have seen both sides—mainly Labor—buying votes. 'Let's just hand out more and more money and buy votes.' I remember when John Howard's government came in they handed over, I think, around $22 billion in surplus after they took on a $96 billion debt from the Labor Party. So the government got it right and they had a surplus there when they handed over to the Labor government. Ever since then there was Kevin Rudd—didn't we love the over $900 he handed out to every Australian? That was really wonderful. A great move. I think it was $75 million that went overseas to people living overseas. The money was never spent here in the country.

Senator Brown talked about the Newstart allowance. A person that finishes school has to wait for five weeks to get Newstart allowance. If they finish school in November then they say, 'I can get the dole.' They go in and they get the dole. They get the dole all over Christmas. Why go and work? They are getting a handout. There is no incentive to go and work. There is no incentive to apply for a job. Then comes February, when it is time to start back at school, and they say, 'Oh no, I'm going back to school now, so the government won't have to pay me any more money.' It is not the taxpayers' responsibility. It is encouraging these kids to say they should get out and look for work, especially at a time of year when we have tourism and over the Christmas period.

Jobs—she talked about the Newstart allowance. What I can pick up out of this program—the omnibus—is the incentive from the government to give youth a chance to work. They are offering them $200 extra a week on top of their Newstart allowance—$200 a week extra if they want to go and work. The employer who takes them on in long-term employment are going to get between $6,500 and $10,000. What they are doing is encouraging our youth, who sit around and do nothing. They are tied up in drugs, tied up in gangs and out in the streets, causing problems. There is an incentive that you really should get out and work.

Let us talk about the pensioners overseas and about how we are cutting the pensions. Why should the Australian taxpayer be paying someone who wants to go overseas for more than 26 weeks at a time or up to 26 weeks at a time? Their pension is sent to them. Their families get the money here in Australia. I am told all the time that much of that money is going out through the post offices. The amount of money that is leaving Australia to go to overseas for these people to get their pensions is not staying here in Australia. It is not creating jobs. It is not creating wealth here in Australia.

These people come here to Australia as migrants. They are not here for a lengthy period of time. Then they get on the pension. They say, 'I want to go back and live in my country of origin,' and we are supporting that. I think it is reasonable to say that if they want to leave Australia for more than six weeks at a time then they have to answer the taxpayer about why they should get their pensions. This is reasonable. If you have been a taxpayer in Australia for 35 years or more, that is fine. Then it goes on a pro rata basis. That is being responsible, and we are being accountable to the taxpayer.

I have put up other options to the government such as my apprenticeship scheme. I am saying that, if we pay for an apprenticeship scheme of 75 per cent of the first year's wage, 50 per cent of the second year's wage and 25 per cent of the third year's wage, that would be a great scheme.

If you talk about child support—these child agencies—where is your accountability? What did the Labor Party do about it? A couple of guys in New South Wales ripped off $27 million. Another one here in Canberra ripped off $1.2 million. Where is your accountability to the taxpayer? If we do not start reining in this debt and stopping this handout welfare mentality, there is not going to be enough money to look after the pensioners, the aged, the sick and the hospitals. That is what we need. So stop buying votes and get responsible, because the people are depending on us.

I want to return to the question asked of Senator Brandis and the answer. I listened very carefully to his answer. He was basically asked, 'What has he done with respect to explaining to his new preferred partner, One Nation, that single pensioners will be $365 a year worse off and coupled pensioners $550?' That is a pretty straightforward question. He said: 'I'm explaining it to the whole Senate, not just to One Nation. I am explaining it to the whole Senate.' I said earlier in the week that you have to own the work you do in this Senate and, if you support this cut to single pensioners and coupled pensioners, you have to own that work. People will say, 'Who voted for the measure that took $365 or $550 off me?' The answer from Senator Brandis was, 'One Nation is likely to support that because they look at the economic rationalist picture.'

As Paul Keating said: 'We're not on the side of privilege. We're not on the side of power. We're not on the side of big business. We are on the side of the angels.' We are on the side of the pensioners—single pensioners who are going to be ripped off $365 a year and coupled pensioners $550 a year. You can come in here and you can lecture the chamber about gross debt. Last I looked, America owed more than its total bloody economy. China owes more, and it is almost impossible to decipher the Chinese figures. There are not enough auditors and accountants in the world to work out what is going on over there. You can come in here and say: 'We've got a $500 million debt, and we need to take it off single pensioners and coupled pensioners. We need to take it of single parent families. We need to take it off 655,000 single parent families. We need to take $354 a year off them.' Why? Because this government wants to give tax cuts to big business and all of this responsibility has to be paid by the most vulnerable in the community.

How will One Nation explain to the Australian voter that they have been part of a process which will mean 1.5 million vulnerable single pension, coupled pension and single-parent families will lose amounts between $365, $354 and $550 per year? How will they go out and explain that? How will they go out and say: 'We're looking after you. We're looking after the vulnerable in Australia'?

Senator Hanson can have her views about youth not seeking employment. I do not see it. I live in one of the poorest suburbs in Adelaide, in Kilburn. I am very proud to live in that suburb. I have lived there for 20 years. I see people going out every day looking for work. I do not see them lining up to lie down and get on the dole. I see them out there challenging themselves to go and find jobs. I see a very different Australia to Senator Hanson, who says that people just say: 'Oh well, I've finished school. I might as well get on the dole.' I see then come into my office and ask for jobs, for trainee positions, all the time. That is true of almost all the businesses around the area where I live. People are applying for work. They are not looking to get on the dole and bludge their life away. So I have a very different view of the world.

Look, if One Nation goes hand in hand with this government to attack the conditions of single pensioners, couple pensioners and single parent families for $354, $365 and $550, hopefully that cohort of people will recognise who did it. They will then have to own their handiwork and, hopefully, they will not attract as many votes as they attracted in the last election.

This is a continual theme from this government: 'We've got to fix the deficit! We've got to fix the budget! How do we do it?' They do it by attacking the most vulnerable people, the ones with less capacity to pay and the least ability to tighten their belt: 'We're not looking at transfer-pricing. We're not looking at offshoring by companies that are avoiding tax responsibility. We're going to hunt down single pensioners, couple pensioners and single parent families.' Come on! You have to own your work. If you vote for this sort of stuff you will get it back in the ballot box, hopefully in spades.

One of the things I always like to wake me up in mid-afternoon in this place is a lecture from the Australian Labor Party about how to manage the economy. I come from a Labor household, believe it or not. I grew up in a Labor parish—Catholic—in the fifties. I have said before in this place that if my dad could he would punch his hands through his coffin lid and mark the box: 'I'm Labor, whoever the candidate is.' But that was that Labor, and now we have this Labor; and to be lectured by you on economic management is absolutely offensive in my view.

I am on a unity ticket with Senator Hanson in relation to the reflection she had on your responses to this very responsible legislation. This problem has to be fixed. We have a $320 billion debt. It belongs to us. It belongs to everyone on the floor. It belongs to the people up in the gallery. It belongs to all the people out in the country. There is no nefarious thing at the bottom of the garden that owns the debt. It is our debt. It is a national debt and it will impact on us. It impacts on us now. When these good people go to borrow money for their homes they are paying nearly three-quarters up to one whole point, of interest because they are competing for money that the Labor government had borrowed over a very short period of time.

When the Labor Party to came into government the debt was zero, there was $60 billion in the Future Fund, which has now grown enormously under the very competent management of people like Peter Costello, a former very well respected member in the other place. Those opposite really do think that this debt is going to evaporate. They really do think that these structural deficits, where we are borrowing something like $40 billion a year, $1 billion a week, to pay debt and to pay for things that we cannot afford in this nation, things that were left on the balance sheet of the nation, that went unfunded. They are important things in some instances, mind you. The national disability scheme is one of them. We should have put that in place 50 years ago, not five years ago, but no-one put anything on the other side. We want to restructure education, do all of these monstrously wonderful things and throw on at them, kick buckets and buckets, but there was no money left in the forward estimates by the Labor Party when government transitioned to us.

What the good people of this nation know—particularly those who are in my age group, because we have watched it over 30 and 40 years—is that Labor comes to power and Labor does some good work on occasions. I can say that there are things this nation has now that it would not have if it was not for the Labor Party. But every single time they had just with the plastic out and go for years and run up enormous debts, and the people out there very concerned about it. They understand basic economics. They understand that you cannot spend more than what your income is. So what happens is that after a while they get alarmed and they put our government in to bring the debt back down. After a few terms they get a bit tired, the belt is a bit tight for them with the austerity measures, and they groan, 'Gee, Howard's a good operator. Gee, Howard's done well for the economy. Gee, Howard and Costello have put this nation in a very strong position.' What do they do? They nod off; they are not thinking, and they put the Labor Party back in, and they have a credit card in each hand and up the bill goes again

And a GFC!

I will tell you now, I look back and I do not understand how you could run up a $300 billion debt in six years, despite thousands of dollars being given to people. Clive Palmer has declared that he got one of the cheques for $900. Clive Berghofer in my community—net worth $300 million—got a cheque, and then some pink batts up in the roof and a whole host of other things.

What I say to you people is: I join the unity ticket with One Nation here. Do not lecture us on matters of the economy. You are absolutely hopeless. You are hypocritical. You cannot count. You need to take your shoes and socks off every day and run a toe up for every billion dollars of repayment on debt, which could have been spent in our electorates on hospitals, education, defence—a whole range of things. Do not come in here an lecture me, today or any other day.

After that unedifying contribution from Senator O'Sullivan I cannot leave that diatribe unaddressed. Senator O'Sullivan, it is unfortunate that you are leaving the chamber at this point, but I think it is important for you to understand that when the IMF did a study in 2013 about which were the most wasteful periods for government spending in the 50 years to 2013, it found that it was two periods of the Howard government that were the periods of the most profligate spending in Australia's history in that 50-year period. It was former Prime Minister Howard, when the rivers of gold were running in at the peak of the mining boom, who was spending hand over fist. At the end of former Prime Minister Howard's period of government, when he was again spending hand over fist to overcome the electoral poison that was WorkChoices at the time, the IMF also identified that as a period of government that was profligate in its spending. It was needlessly wasteful spending. So I am not going to sit here and listen to Senator O'Sullivan's contributions, which paint a picture that Labor governments have been economically irresponsible. That is not true. The period of spending post the GFC by the Rudd government was not identified by the IMF as profligate spending. I think that needs to be said to place the economic position of the Labor government on the record. I am grateful that Senator Hanson is in the chamber to hear that. I encourage her to look at that IMF report.

The information provided by Senator Brown in her question to Senator Brandis illustrates the twisted priorities of this government. Senator Brandis claimed that he had explained the need for these cuts and he said that they are essential for budget repair. This is plain wrong. Unlike the government, Labor is committed to budget repair. Unlike the government, Labor is committed to preserving Australia's AAA credit rating.

Budgets are about choices, and this government, time and time again, makes the wrong choices: cuts to pensioners, cuts to single parents and cuts to low-income families. First, if the government was really serious about budget repair, they should abandon their plans for the $50 billion corporate tax cut. Handing out cash to big businesses—like the Commonwealth Bank with its $4.9 billion half-year profit, which was announced yesterday—amounts to corporate welfare. I understand that about $7 billion of that $50 billion corporate tax cut would end up in the pockets of the four major banks.

Labor stands ready to work with the government to repair the budget in other ways, such as looking at reforming negative gearing and reforming capital gains tax concessions. Labor has demonstrated its willingness to work with the government to repair the budget, for example, in the omnibus savings bill last year. But budget repair has to be done in a way that is fair. That is the Labor way. This latest bill, which cuts money for pensioners, single parent families and 1½ million people across the board, is not fair. The government's calls for budget repair are hollow. The recent budget update shows that deficits have blown out by $10 billion over the forward estimates, and, since their first budget, the deficit for 2017-18 has blown out tenfold from $2.8 billion to $28.7 billion.

I noted Senator Hanson's contribution and I am somewhat heartened by the fact that, in her opening comments, she indicated that there was speculation about what the position of One Nation would be. I encourage One Nation to have a look at these cuts more closely and I would ask them to stand with Labor to protect pensioners, to protect young people and to protect the—(Time expired)

Before I get further into taking note of the answer by the minister to the question asked by Senator Brown, I want to respond a little bit to what Senator Ketter said. He quotes some report that concluded that the Howard government was the most profligate spending of governments and that its spending was during a period of rivers of gold. But the facts are that the Howard government inherited debt from the previous Labor government and, when the Howard government left office, it had paid that debt off. That is a clear and simple fact.

The facts are that when the Rudd government first took office, it inherited money in the bank, and when the Rudd-Gillard years finished, they did so heading towards $300 billion worth of debt accrued. Those are simple facts, and you can spin what happened in the meantime, and what happened under Howard, any way you like, and you can quote any report you like, but the fact is that when you have strong income coming in, you have the ability to spend a little bit more, to be a little bit more, and, to use the word you used, be profligate in your spending. Because you have the income, you can spend a little bit more. But the reality is, as with any household, when income falls, you need to adjust your spending to suit the income. Of course, that might mean that, in the terms you are using and of the study that looked at this, you become less profligate if you do cut your spending. But the reality is, under Rudd and under Gillard, any savings they made—they used to quote new taxes as savings—were way insufficient to be able to cut the cloth to suit the income that was coming in. As a result, at the end of that period, the Australian government, which, as was very eloquently pointed out by Senator O'Sullivan, had accumulated debt which is now payable and owed by every single Australian taxpayer, including not just those who are paying taxes now but those who will be paying taxes next year and probably those who will be paying taxes in 10 years. And maybe even in 20 or 30 years we will still be paying back the debt that was put in place under Rudd and Gillard and, in the absence of change, will be growing at a faster rate than it is now.

On that, as noted by the minister—I have taken note of his answer, but it is relevant to the matters that Senator Ketter raised—we have put in place, through this place since we got in, savings measures that will reduce our debt by $250 billion over the forward estimates. That is not to say that it is not going up. It is still going up, because the trajectory that we inherited would have had us placed far worse than where we are today if government had not changed in 2013. Despite our best efforts to put in place a range of measures that would have actually addressed that trajectory more quickly, brought debt down more quickly and brought us to the point where we would have been in a budget surplus earlier than we otherwise would have been, and which have been blocked by this Senate over and over again, we have still managed to put through measures that have delivered $250 billion worth of savings.

Coming more specifically to the question that was asked and the answer by the minister, I am not exactly sure what the ALP or what Senator Brown was trying to achieve by asking this question, other than to try to bludgeon One Nation into not making considered and well-thought-out decisions to support the government where it is appropriate. Quite clearly One Nation has positions that not everybody in this place always finds agreeable. The ALP has positions that I do not always find agreeable. Every party in this room has positions that other parties find disagreeable, and that is why they are members of other parties. That is the nature of democracy: we have different views on different things.

But what we have discovered so far with One Nation, if you put aside those positions that they have and that they hold very, very strongly and on which they are not going to move—some of which we do not agree with and some of which we disagree with most vehemently—the fact is that outside of those particular issues, One Nation will sit down and have a mature conversation with us about what we are trying to achieve. And if we can convince them of the merits of our case, as we appear to have done with the omnibus bill, then they will agree to support us. That is the nature of democracy: being able to sit down with other people and convince them that we have a case that stacks up, and if they agree then they will agree to support us on the floor on the chamber. And that is what they have done.

You try to spin the omnibus bill as being all doom and gloom, but the reality is that it is spin, and it is misrepresenting the omnibus bill. There are 18 schedules in this, which deliver a whole range of very beneficial outcomes for Australians across the board in a whole range of areas. (Time expired)

The time for the debate has concluded. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Brown be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

On behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, I give notice of my intention at the giving of notices on the next sitting day to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 and No. 3 standing in my name for 30 March 2017 proposing the disallowance of the Army and Air Force (Canteen) Regulation 2016 and the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Education and Training Measures No. 4) Regulation 2016, as well as business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name for 20 March 2017 proposing the disallowance of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Industry, Innovation and Science Measures No. 2) Regulation 2016. And I seek leave for three minutes to make a short statement on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee.

Leave is granted for three minutes.

I thank the Senate. I make the statement on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee in relation to my intention to withdraw the notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Industry, Innovation and Science Measures No. 2) Regulation 2016. Scrutiny principle of the committee's terms of reference requires the committee to ensure that an instrument is made in accordance with statute. This principle requires that instruments are made in accordance with their authorising act as well as any constitutional or other applicable legal requirements. The committee notes that in the Williams No. 2 case the High Court confirmed that a constitutional head of power is required to support Commonwealth spending programs. As such, the committee requires that the explanatory statement for all instruments specifying programs for the purpose of section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Industry, Innovation and Science Measures No. 2) Regulation 2016 explicitly state for each new program the constitutional authority for the expenditure.

This means that where multiple heads of legislative powers are relied on in an instrument to support a program or initiative the committee expects an explanatory statement to provide a clear and explicit statement of the relevance and operation of each head of power relied on. This enables the Regulations and Ordinance Committee to effectively undertake its scrutiny of such regulations. Noting the information provided in relation to this instrument by the minister to date, the committee has resolved on this occasion to withdraw the protection notice of motion. However, in light of the committee's concerns regarding the absence of a clear and explicit statement of the relevance and operations of each constitutional head of power relied on to support the Commonwealth spending authorised by the instrument, the committee has requested further information on this matter in its Delegated legislation monitor No. 2 of 2017.

The committee also wishes to remind ministers that the Senate has rejected government claims that there is a longstanding practice of not disclosing privileged legal advice to conserve the Commonwealth's legal and constitutional interests.

Pursuant to standing order 78(1) I give notice of my intention at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 3 standing in my name for 20 March 2017 proposing that paragraphs 23(b) and 23(g) of the Superannuation (prudential standard) determination No. 1 of 2016—Prudential Standard SPS 510—Governance be disallowed.

I, and also on behalf of Senators Leyonhjelm, Lambie and Griff, move:

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 November 2017:

(1) The number of women in Australia:

(a) who have had transvaginal mesh implants;

(b) who have had transvaginal mesh implants who have experienced adverse side effects; and

(c) who have made attempts to have the mesh removed in Australia or elsewhere.

(2) Information provided to women prior to surgery about possible complications and side effects.

(3) Information provided to doctors regarding transvaginal mesh implants and possible complications and side effects.

(4) Any financial or other incentives provided to medical practitioners to use or promote transvaginal mesh implants.

(5) The types and incidence of health problems experienced by women with transvaginal mesh implants and the impact these health problems have had on women's lives.

(6) The Therapeutic Goods Association's:

(a) role in investigating the suitability of the implants for use in Australia;

(b) role in ongoing monitoring of the suitability of the implants; and

(c) knowledge of women suffering with health problems after having transvaginal mesh implants.

(7) Options available to women to have transvaginal mesh removed.

(8) Any other related matters.

I, and also on behalf of Senator McGrath, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that 15 February 2017 marks the 75th anniversary of the fall of Singapore;

(b) acknowledges the significant contribution made by Australian forces in the defence of Singapore and in the Malaya Campaign, particularly:

  (i) the Australian 8th Division's efforts at the Battle of Muar, which saw a successful ambush of Japanese forces,

  (ii) the Australian forces who saw the first and fiercest attacks of the Battle of Singapore, and

  (iii) the 1,800 Australians who died during the Malayan Campaign and the Battle for Singapore;

(c) notes that the fall of Singapore saw over 15,000 Australians become prisoners of war and that many of these prisoners would die in captivity; and

(d) acknowledges that for many Australians, their experience as prisoners of war during the Second World War impacted thousands of families.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) the 2/10th Field Regiment was an artillery regiment within the 8th Division 2nd Australian Imperial Force, composed almost entirely of Queenslanders from across the state, and

  (ii) the Regiment:

(A) formed and trained at Redbank in Queensland in July 1940,

(B) boarded the Queen Mary at Circular Quay in Sydney and embarked for Malaya on 4 February 1941,

(C) disembarked at Malacca in Johore on 19 February 1941 and played a vital role in the Malayan campaign and in the defence of Singapore,

(D) was among the 15,000 Australians who were surrendered to the Japanese at the fall of Singapore on 15 February 1942,

(E) was dispersed to camps across South East Asia and Japan after being transferred to the Changi prisoner of war camp, and

(F) suffered, for the remainder of the war, cruel and inhuman conditions as prisoners of war, with 286 of the 846 men dying;

(b) further notes that today marks the 75th anniversary of the fall of Singapore;

(c) further notes that:

  (i) the 2/10th Field Regiment Association was formed in 1947,

  (ii) since then, the Association has held an annual public remembrance service to commemorate all of the Australian servicemen and women who fought and gave their lives during the Malayan Campaign, as Singapore fell, and as Japanese prisoners of war, as well as those who have since passed on,

  (iii) this annual service brings together friends and family of those who served, as well as representatives from the army, navy and air force, the nurses, the widows, the prisoners of war, the Government of Singapore, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and the Returned and Services League, and

  (iv) to commemorate the 75th anniversary, the Association will be holding a service on 19 February 2017 at the Shrine of Remembrance in Brisbane; and

(d) commends the Association for its dedication to:

  (i) maintaining contact between the remaining men and women who served in Malaya and Singapore and their families, and

  (ii) keeping alive the memory and sacrifices of those who have fallen.

Question agreed to.

I, and on behalf of Senators Bilyk, Duniam, Polley, Urquhart, Abetz, Bushby and Singh, move:

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges Tasmania has the defence knowledge, capabilities and capacities to participate in the defence industries sector;

(b) notes that:

  (i) the University of Tasmania, through its world leading marine research, engineering and training facility the Australian Maritime College (AMC), is the acknowledged Australian leader in maritime education in both technical skills and research,

  (ii) the AMC has developed a range of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUV) which are suited for defence purposes and provide the opportunity for:

(A) increased consolidation of research and innovation at the University of Tasmania Inveresk site,

(B) the redevelopment of the University of Tasmania, AMC Newnham site, and

(C) associated local advanced manufacturing, particularly in North and North West Tasmania,

  (iii) the state-of-the-art AUVs enable a broad range of scientific, industry and defence-related projects by facilitating exploration and data collection in remote and inhospitable locations,

  (iv) the AMC has the capability to lead or play a key role in any necessary training associated with significant defence projects, such as the Future Submarines Program,

  (v) in addition to the defence opportunity that the AUVs represent, Tasmania already has a number of industries with the capability to participate in defence-related industries supporting, for example, combat reconnaissance vehicles, shield and antenna protection and marine survival,

  (vi) defence industry opportunities for Tasmania will deliver a range of significant social and economic benefits across the state, including a growth in industry research and increased employment through advanced manufacturing, and

  (vii) there is unequivocal and mutual support from both Labor and Liberal parties at a state and federal level for Tasmania as a key centre for defence research, development and industry; and

(c) calls on:

  (i) the Department of Defence to continue to work with industry with the goal of ensuring Tasmania is as integrated as possible in Australia's defence capability, including defence research, associated education, training and manufacturing, and

  (ii) the Government to continue working collaboratively with the Tasmanian Government so Tasmania can play its role in the defence research and manufacturing industries sector.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

This notice of motion is brilliant. It acknowledges that Tasmania has defence knowledge, capabilities and capacities to participate in the Defence industries sector. It outlines a brilliant plan using the resources, research and technical skills of the University of Tasmania through the Australian Maritime College for Tasmanian business to win a share of our nation's massive Defence budget. However, I cannot vote for it because of one significant fault. The Liberal and Labor senators who have crafted and signed this notice of motion have not acknowledged that the author of this plan is Professor Peter Rathjen, the Vice-Chancellor of UTas. As this notion of motion stands, the people of Tasmania could be tricked into believing this was created by the Liberal and Labor Parties. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, not taking credit for the work of others. I know it is Professor Rathjen's plan because he told me about it on Tuesday, 7 February and I relayed it personally to the Prime Minister on Wednesday, 8 February and the Leader of the Opposition on Thursday, 9 February. Let's give credit where credit is due and show some leadership. Goodness me!

Senator Carol Brown interjecting—

Order! Senators Brown and Lambie.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I want to put on record that the University of Tasmania has no greater friend than the Australian Greens. The scientific community and the research effort across all our research institutions have always had the support of the Australian Greens. We support the relocation of the Newnham campus to Launceston and the future it will bring to our town. We always work constructively with the University of Tasmania for a clean, green and clever future in Tasmania. However, we are a party a very strong principles—and we are proud of that—but we cannot be seen to be supporting Defence expenditure on projects for which we have very little information at this stage. Procurement it may be, but $80 billion is a lot of money that we could be spending on a lot of important things in this country, including on other research programs at the University of Tasmania.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 221 standing in my name for today, relating to the WestConnex project.

I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

  (i) the Australian National Audit Office has undertaken an audit to assess whether appropriate steps were taken to protect the Australian Government's interests and obtain value for money in respect to the $3.5 billion in funding committed to the WestConnex project,

  (ii) the report concludes that the May 2014 decision to make the $500 million advance payment led to the project being approved without there being any documented analysis and advice to ministers that the statutory criteria for giving such approvals had been met, and

  (iii) funds have been paid in advance of project needs and the payment method did not adequately protect the Government's financial interests; and

(b) condemns the Government for advancing federal funds to projects including WestConnex, the East-West Link and the Perth Freight Link prior to proper business cases being developed or approved by Infrastructure Australia, and diverting funds from public transport projects which had business cases and Infrastructure Australia approval.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

WestConnex will deliver real benefits to millions of people in Western and South-western Sydney and it will provide greatly improved connections to the CBD, Inner West, airport and port. WestConnex has already been assessed by Infrastructure New South Wales and Infrastructure Australia as delivering positive economic benefits with a 1.7 benefit-cost ratio. It is expected to deliver $20 billion worth of economic benefits to the New South Wales economy and stimulate local economies. These facts are unchallenged by the audit report.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes the Redfern Statement Parliamentary Event that took place in the Great Hall on 14 February 2017;

(b) acknowledges the Redfern Statement, which was presented to the Prime Minister at the parliamentary event, sets out a plan for addressing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples' disadvantage and progressing reconciliation with our First Peoples;

(c) notes the Redfern Statement Engagement Approach for 2017, including a forum, workshops and a national summit; and

(d) calls on the Government to commit to this Engagement Approach and ensure that a National Enduring Agreement or Framework is produced prior to the 2018 Budget, following the national summit.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The coalition government has committed to do things with Indigenous Australians. Part of that commitment is working with stakeholders such as those involved in the Redfern alliance, led by the National Congress. The government does not support this motion, as it seeks to commit us to the Redfern alliance engagement approach and framework. This framework is the subject of ongoing discussions with the National Congress. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs has spoken to the chair of the National Congress, who was not aware of this motion, and the government will continue working with Congress, rather than supporting this motion.

Question agreed to.

I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 2 23 standing in my name.

I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Turnbull Government's plan to reduce schools funding will result in a $335 million cut from the following South Australian schools:

Unley High School: $1 551 000

Elizabeth North Primary School: $627 000

Blackwood High School: $1 072 000

Blair Athol North School: $513 000

Brighton Secondary School: $1 849 000

Nuriootpa Primary School: $388 000

Port Augusta Secondary School: $757 000

Mount Barker Primary School $504 000

Mount Barker High School: $662 000

Goodwood Primary School: $440 000

Goolwa Primary School: $431 000

Cowandilla Primary School: $470 000

Salisbury Downs Primary School: $408 000

Happy Valley Primary School: $403 000

Riverdale Primary School: $434 000

Berri Primary School: $403 000

Mount Gambier North Primary School: $428 000

Modbury High School: $1 159 000

Gilles St Primary School: $457 000

Glenunga International High School: $2 000 000

Woodville Gardens School: $763 000

Adelaide High School: $1 624 000; and

(b) calls on the Minister for Education and Training to inform the Parliament which classes, programs and students will suffer as a result of the schools funding cuts.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

There are no Commonwealth funding cuts to South Australian schools. Total Commonwealth funding over the budget and forward estimates will increase by 23.5 per cent to all South Australian schools and by 32.9 per cent to South Australian government schools. Although a full signatory to the so-called Gonski deal, Jay Weatherill's state Labor government has reduced state funding for government schools by around five times the level of growth in federal funding. State hypocrisy reached spectacular heights when, over 2013-14 to 2014-15, Commonwealth funding to government schools increased by $12.2 million while the South Australian state Labor government slashed funding by $56 million.

Question agreed to.

I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today Senators Gallagher, Hanson and Siewert each submitted a letter in accordance with standing order 75 proposing a matter of public importance. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Hanson:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

Due to excessive remuneration paid to the CEO and their Directors, the need to remove and replace the Board of Australia Post.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

In recent weeks it has been brought to the attention of the Australian people what the CEO of Australia Post is being paid. It was a complete outrage. It was raised last year but nothing much happened about it. It was raised again this year. In 2009 the board of Australia Post reported in the annual report that the managing director and some key senior executives were all employed under ongoing employment contracts, which could be terminated with 60 to 90 days notice. In the case of the managing director, he would be entitled on termination of his contract to 60 days pay at 1.5 times his base salary. We can only guess what it is now. Apparently, they are reluctant to put in full reports. You ask the question: why? Since then the board has progressively provided less and less remuneration information.

Seven years ago, the Australia Post annual report named the highest paid individuals and reported their individual remuneration. In 2016 we know only that 20 people shared a pot of $18,702,653. We had to rely on the media to find out that the managing director was paid $5.6 million. He did not need it, because he gave over $2 million to charity. The payment of $5.6 million to the managing director of a government business enterprise is excessive. At some level, the board must know that payments to senior staff reduces the dividend payable to government, which was just $20 million in the period 2015-16. The Prime Minister's solution to this mess is novel. He suggests the Australia Post's managing director give back any amount his conscience advises.

The board members of Australia Post are weak and lost. The Prime Minister's idea of a voluntary return of salary already paid to the managing director of Australia Post and other key executives has little chance of success. It is self-evident to every Australian, except the board members of Australia Post, that $5.6 million is excessive remuneration for the managing director of Australia Post. The Australia Post board has proven itself incapable of bringing remuneration into line with community expectations. The Prime Minister's solution is unworkable. I have no choice but to try and fix the problem with a private member's bill, if I get the full support of my fellow senators, who must also be appalled with this disgusting remuneration package.

The board's failure to manage remuneration is just a symptom of a wider failure at Australia Post. The postal network is an essential service for the elderly, the homeless, others without a fixed postal address and people in rural and remote areas of Australia. Australia Post is required by law to provide a postal service even where it is unprofitable to do so. This is its community obligation. It is rural and remote post offices, which are often owned and managed by one person, which provide the essential postal service. Shockingly, these small businesses have found themselves bullied by Australia Post, locked into unfair financial agreements and unable to get paid for work done under contract. The board of Australia Post has failed to implement the recommendations made by the 2014 Senate committee report titled Performance, importance and role of Australia Post in Australian communities and its operations in relation to licensed post offices.There is no doubt that the current board of Australia Post needs to be replaced. I would expect the new board members to implement the Senate's recommendations.

The current business model which operates at Australia Post needs to change. It is unAustralian to shift the responsibility for meeting non-profitable community obligations to franchisees in rural and remote Australia and then not pay them for all the work they do. It was never intended that the board of Australia Post, with its overpaid managing director, would misuse the market power given to it by the parliament. The unconscionable contracts with Australia Post franchisees must be changed so that it is not possible for someone to work for half an hour and get a payment of 34c. The government's usual response of writing to the board and calling the chairman to the Senate to answer questions is a demonstrated waste of time. The Labor Party attacked me for supporting some of the government's measures in the omnibus bill, saying that it is hurting pensioners and the needy. Shutting down the Australia Post board and their remuneration would clearly not hurt pensioners, so I expect their support. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Communications are the two shareholder ministers in Australia Post. It is time for a 'please explain' to Australia.

Can I begin by thanking Senator Hanson and One Nation for raising this issue in the chamber and for their public advocacy about this issue because I absolutely share their concern about both the remuneration received by the CEO of Australia Post and, even more importantly in many ways, the way in which Australia Post tried to conceal that information from the public to prevent exactly this sort of debate from occurring in the chamber and in the community.

I should make two quick relevant declarations. Senators may be aware that their former colleague and my predecessor, the much beloved Michael Ronaldson, was recently appointed to the board of Australia Post, although this is not something that I have canvassed with him. And I have been lucky enough to chair the relevant committee, the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee. I can share with the Senate that, unfortunately, I will no longer be chairing this committee as I am going on to other things, but I will come to that in a moment.

As senators would be aware, in the last round of Senate estimates, Senator Urquhart and Senator Dastyari asked a series of questions to the CEO of Australia Post about the executive remuneration policies at Australia Post. In my view it should not have been necessary for them to ask these questions, because the standard practice at Australia Post in the past has been to publish in their annual report this information, but Australia Post recently ceased to publish that information for reasons which I will come to in a moment, so it was necessary for senators Urquhart and Dastyari to question them on this. At Senate estimates the CEO took the questions on notice, was not able to provide the questions immediately and undertook to get back to the Senate with his answers. Australia Post took the full amount of time available through the estimates process before they replied to the committee, which is their right, but I suspect that it would have been easy and quick for them to find this information. I do not think it would have taken much digging for them to find this information.

When Australia Post did decide to provide the information to the committee, they requested that they do so only on the basis that it be given to us confidentially. This is a deeply concerning thing which I spoke about in the Senate last week when we first tabled this information in the Senate. It is disturbing for a number of reasons. Firstly, as all senators are aware, Senate estimates is required to be conducted entirely in public. It is not permissible for the Senate to receive information during estimates that is not public. Secondly, it is up to the Senate committee itself to determine whether in normal circumstances a witness can provide information on a confidential basis. It is for the Senate committee to invite the witness to provide it on a confidential basis; it is not for a witness to take it upon themselves to provide it on a confidential basis, and yet that is what Australia Post requested.

The committee, through me and the secretariat, engaged in an exchange of letters over a number of months with Australia Post to ask them to substantiate their claim that it was necessary that this information not be made public. I have to say I was disappointed with the sorts of reasons that Australia Post provided to the committee, and that was one of the reasons the committee saw fit to release all the correspondence and the information provided by Australia Post last week in the Senate. Among the reasons that Australia Post requested that the information remain confidential was that it could potentially damage the organisation in a commercial sense, that it could breach the privacy of the individuals involved and that it could damage the reputations of the individuals involved.

Australia Post also asked the committee, if we were to decide to release the information, to give them a grace period of about a week before releasing the information, to allow them to prepare some stakeholder management before it was to become public and, obviously, an item of interest in the media. This was something which was also of great concern to the committee. It is not an option for the committee, once it has decided to receive information and to publish it, to withhold publishing it for the convenience of an organisation which was obliged to provide that information in public in the first place. I suppose we have seen, in the media coverage over the past week, why Australia Post was reluctant to have this information in public and why they wanted time to manage their response. But just because there is tough public scrutiny of the expenditure of public money does not mean that it is acceptable for the Senate to participate in shielding that information from the Australian public.

I am personally very glad that this information is public and I am glad we have had the debate about it that we have had over the past week. My view is that it is the role of the board of an organisation to set the remuneration policies for that organisation, including a government business enterprise, but they should do so mindful of the fact that it is a government business enterprise, that it is wholly owned by Australian taxpayers, that over its many decades of history it has received substantial assistance from taxpayers, particularly in the form of monopoly protection from competition, and that its current profitability and current performance are inextricably linked to the taxpayer support it has received over its history. So to argue, as Australia Post did, that in some way it should not be required to make this information public, because Australia Post has made disbursements to the government and has been a source of revenue for the government in recent years, was another concerning aspect of our interaction with Australia Post. The very fact that taxpayers do receive money from Australia Post and it is a significant sum of money is one of the reasons we are entitled to take interest in this matter.

On the merits of the remuneration of the CEO in particular, I agree with comments made by the Prime Minister and many others that it is excessive, and I think any fair assessment of the facts, looking internationally and in Australia, demonstrates that it is excessive. Many people in Australia in this debate have focused on the salaries received by comparable post organisations around the world, meaning senators would have heard that Canada Post pays their chief executive about half a million dollars Australian, the US Postal Service a little bit more than half a million dollars Australian, the French postal service A$634,000 and the privatised UK Royal Mail pays its chief executive A$2½ million, which are all substantially less than Australia Post pays its chief executive, even though these organisations are comparable in size, scale and complexity. But actually I am very interested in comparing it to the private sector alternatives, because some of the arguments made in the media by people advocating on behalf of Australia Post in recent weeks have concentrated on the fact that the CEO of Australia Post could command a very good salary in the private sector. I do not doubt that for a moment, but it is instructive to look at how much organisations of similar complexity and size which are much more profitable than Australia Post pay their CEOs.

The three comparisons I have particularly in mind are three of the major banks: the ANZ, the National Australia Bank and Westpac. Each of these organisations paid a similar amount of remuneration to their CEOs in the most recent financial year, ranging from just a little bit over $5 million at ANZ to just a little bit less than $7 million at Westpac, and so they are in the same ballpark as the CEO of Australia Post yet these organisations have revenue many times higher than that of Australia Post, have more employees than Australia Post and certainly are far more profitable than Australia Post. In the case of ANZ its revenue is $21 billion; in the case of NAB its revenue is $20 billion; in the case of Westpac it is $22 billion, compared to $6.6 billion for Australia Post, and these organisations all posted very healthy multibillion-dollar profits that were returned to their shareholders, in contrast to the very slim profits provided by Australia Post. I appreciate that Australia Post is operating in a difficult and changing commercial environment and I would not begrudge in any way a very generous remuneration package for the CEO of Australia Post. But I think the $5.6 million that the Australia Post board has decided was appropriate to pay the CEO is the kind of decision a board would make only if they knew that it would not be something that would be publicly scrutinised. I do not think any board member in their right mind would think it would be appropriate to pay a wage like that, if they knew it was going to be subject to public scrutiny.

Listed companies in Australia are legally required to reveal the remuneration packages of their senior executives and I do not think we should expect any less a standard from a government business enterprise. In fact, I think we should expect a higher standard, given the fact that taxpayers' money is involved. But listed companies, through the Corporations Act, are also subject to a vote by their shareholders, and if a remuneration package of the senior management is voted down twice at a listed company there is an automatic spill of the entire board of the organisation. I am not proposing that the federal government spill the board of Australia Post—certainly not now or any time soon—but I am asking the board of the Australia Post to take their obligations very seriously and disclose relevant information at the upcoming Senate estimates. Unfortunately, I will not be there as I am moving to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, but I have every confidence in my colleagues in the Senate to do so.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this matter of public importance today as I believe the issue of the executive remuneration is one that the community is interested in, and it is a matter of significant public debate. In relation to the specifics of the MPI, which singles out one CEO and the board of Australia Post, I support the comments the Leader of the Opposition and others in the opposition team have made—that the level of remuneration is certainly out of touch with community expectations. I think the issue about not being transparent about the total remuneration package is an issue that certainly needs continued focusing on, and I certainly support Senator Paterson's comments there.

When spending taxpayers' money there comes with it the need to be transparent and accountable about that money, how it is spent and what it is going to. It is very easy to do that as there are standard ways in which that information is provided, whether it be through quarterly or annual reports of organisations. It is not onerous and it certainly is not red-tape regulation. It is a very important measure for instilling public trust and confidence in areas where taxpayers' funds are being spent.

I think we also have to acknowledge that some of the broader community concerns about executive remuneration have to be seen in context, where we have rising inequality and growing disadvantage, and where a lot of the political debates are around cuts and savings and what those cuts and savings are targeting. Vulnerable members of the community, whether they be low-income families or pensioners, people who have kids in school, or people who use the hospital system, we are all being told we need to tighten our belts and ensure that public money is being spent wisely. Then, people would read headlines about one public official, in a sense from a government business enterprise, earning that type a salary.

When I was reading on this topic today I found it interesting that both the United States and the United Kingdom have made changes to their remuneration reporting structures. From 1 January 2017, American companies are now required to disclose the ratio of pay of a CEO's annual total remuneration to the median annual total remuneration of all company employees. In the UK they are also subject to a variation of the CEO pay ratio rule, with relevant regulations requiring disclosure of CEOs remuneration, also with their employees. In Australia, companies do not have to disclose this ratio, although, as Senator Paterson said, they do disclose information about remuneration for executives. The author of the article, Associate Professor Julie Walker from the University of Queensland, makes the point that disclosing the ratio provides greater transparency around CEO pay and places some constraints on escalating executive remuneration. CEOs in the US are paid around 300 times the median employee wage, while in the UK the ratio is roughly 183 to 1.

I will mention briefly the issue of transparency. The salary information has been released publicly as a result of Labor's pursuit of the matter through the relevant committees. It is essential on issues such as these, particularly when it involves the spending of taxpayers' money, that politicians, senior executives of departments and general expenditure are all subject to appropriate scrutiny in the public's eye. This is also appropriate for the CEO of Australia Post.

I think it is fair to say that the rate at which several CEOs are paid in Australia is also seen as being too much and out of touch with community expectations. For example, look at the national average wage in Australia—it is approximately $81,000—and compare it with the salaries and bonuses of CEOs in Australia. Commonwealth Bank CEOs earn 67 times the average salary. The CEO of Fortescue owns 64 times the average salary. For Ramsay Health Care it is 56 times the average salary. For Wesfarmers' CEO it is 54 times the average salary. For Sonic Healthcare it is 54 times the national average salary. The list goes on and on. Even one of the lower-paid CEOs on this spectrum—at Nine Entertainment—still owns 12 times the national average salary. I think we have heard from constituents—I certainly have here in Canberra—that they believe these levels of remuneration are very difficult to justify and are certainly too high. I think there is something to that. It is something we should be aware of.

Coming back to the issue that has been identified with the CEO of Australia Post, I think it is important to note, as part of this debate, that we on this side of the chamber also acknowledge the challenges that Australia Post faces with its business. There has certainly been a big decline in revenue and an increase in competition, and obviously fewer letters are being sent. You need to balance these discussions; you need to have rational discussions—it cannot be just the shock and awe headline. You need to understand that you need to attract good people to the role of CEO—you need someone who is experienced, who can deal with the very significant business transformation that is occurring at Australia Post, and who can lead that organisation and take them through all of those challenges and still return a profit for the taxpayer.

I certainly do not underestimate the challenges that face the Australia Post CEO, and I think that when executive remuneration for a GBE is being settled appropriate steps should be put in place to have the job scoped and independently assessed on where it would fit within other executive structures. Again, it is not hard to do. Most governments run GBEs, and there are processes that can very easily be put in place that scope and weight a job and make recommendations to the board about appropriate remuneration. If that was followed in this case, it would be interesting to see how that final salary was arrived at. But we should give the opportunity to the board to explain the remuneration settings, not just for the CEO but for other executives in the organisation, and, indeed, to explain how board remuneration is set as well. That is something that I looked at pretty closely here in the ACT with GBEs like Icon Water, which went through a similar process a couple of years ago with concerns around the remuneration of the chief executive. They went through a process—I think a good process—to ensure that the remuneration level that was set was justified with an appropriate assessment of work-level standards conducted independently of the board. Again, I think we also need to acknowledge that this is a time when we are seeing flat wages growth, seeing jobs lost, seeing high levels of youth unemployment and seeing constant public dialogue about cuts to pensions, people having to tighten their belts and the need to rein in government expenditure. When that is 95 per cent of the public discourse in this country, and then people turn a page of the paper, if they do that anymore, or swipe their iPad, and see that someone earns $5.6 million, it just does not make any sense to them—and I completely understand that.

I think it is worth this chamber continuing to look at executive remuneration and look at how those decisions are taken and, absolutely, to make sure that there is appropriate transparency and accountability and really good processes in the boards of management for how executive remuneration is dealt with in their agencies—that there is a policy in place, there is independent review, and every single salary that is subject to a particular contract of employment is justified by a very thorough process which looks at the work that is being done and the adequate remuneration that should be paid for that job—nothing more and nothing less.

I am happy today to debate executive pay. In this time of inequality, it is absolutely essential that we have this public debate. I am happy to debate the functioning of Australia Post, and I am on record as saying that we need executive pay cuts in both the public and the private sector. I have gone head to head with Australia Post and Ahmed Fahour at least a dozen times over the treatment of Australia Post franchisees, and, like Senator Ruston, I have been involved in a very long Senate inquiry process and in senate estimates.

But I fear that Senator Hanson has not raised this matter of public importance today because of her concern about runaway executive pay. I fear Senator Hanson has not raised this MPI because she is interested in the future of Australia Post. Senator Hanson has raised this MPI because Ahmed Fahour is a Muslim—a high profile, successful Muslim. It is no coincidence that the same senator who has publicly said we are being overrun by Muslims is targeting one of Australia's most successful and high-profile Muslims. Take a look at the One Nation website. There is an article there about Ahmed Fahour, calling him 'the Lebanese born CEO of Australia Post'—as if his ancestry is somehow relevant. The author of the article remains anonymous. The article mentions that he got a tax deduction for donating money to the Muslim museum, as if this is also somehow relevant. Also, Senator Hanson has been on record in the press recently talking about Ahmed Fahour's tax deduction for the Muslim museum. The One Nation website even names members of Ahmed Fahour's family as if they were relevant, and it puts the names of his family in capital letters, to highlight that they are Arabic surnames. Perhaps Senator Hanson should actually visit the Muslim museum, an excellent exhibition designed to break down ignorance and fear in this country around the Muslim religion and the Muslim community.

If One Nation really cared about rich people being paid too much, they would not have stood in this chamber, only months ago, and voted to give the wealthiest 20 per cent of Australians a tax cut—a pay rise. I certainly called out Senator Hanson on this at the time. She gave Ahmed Fahour—a CEO who, I agree, is paid way too much and that needs to change—a $315-a-year pay rise. He is a guy who earns five or six million dollars a year, or more. Senator Hanson and the One Nation party were happy to vote for him to have a pay rise. So do not think you can use this chamber for racist witch-hunts and get away with it—the Greens will call out One Nation every time.

This is an issue that we will face at estimates in a week-and-a-half's time. We will have the Chair of Australia Post, and then we can do our job properly and actually get some information from Australia Post so that we can actually make an informed decision. But let's be clear about this—and let me finish on this note—One Nation does not represent the battlers in this country. One Nation gave the wealthiest Australians a tax cut at a time of massive rising inequality. When we needed to be tackling inequality, they voted to cut social support for the poorest— (Time expired)

I am pleased that Senator Hanson has put in the MPI for today on this particular issue. I would like to start my contribution to this debate by stating my personal position as a senator for Tasmania with regard to the issue of Mr Fahour's salary, and the transparency of GBEs and government entities more broadly. Personally my view is—and I am pretty sure it is consistent with that of the minister, the Prime Minister and the government—that the board needs to act. They need to address this issue and bring into step with community expectation the level of executive remuneration at Australia Post.

I cannot let the last contribution go without response—and, look, I am not going to commentate on Senator Hanson's motives and—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—Go on, Jonno, have a go!

I will not be commentating on Senator Hanson's motives. I am more interested in ensuring that we actually get value for money out of taxpayer dollars, that government owned businesses operate as efficiently as possible and that the taxpayers of Australia have an understanding of how the businesses are using the money that is available to them, including for executive remuneration. Taxpayers are in effect shareholders.

My position is that Australia Post executive remuneration should be in line with community expectation, and I hope that the board acts and ensures that it is in line with community expectation. I am pleased that both Senator Lambie and Senator Urquhart are here. I am sure that travelling in the state of Tasmania they would have had much the same feedback as I have had. When you talk to the licensees and franchisees of Australia Post right across the state you understand just how hard they work to earn the small amount of money that they do in providing the service that they do. These are the people that make the organisation tick, the ones that get the letters delivered—in the case of contractors. And they are certainly not on $5.6 million, far less. I have had a number of franchisees, operators and licensees make that point to me that they feel particularly aggrieved at how the top end of the business is paying itself while the people that make the organisation tick are not getting the same sort of treatment.

You also have the users of the service, and we have seen constant increases in the price of stamps. I understand there are reasons for that, but it flows into a point that Senator Gallagher made before with regard to what the average punter would think when they see news of salaries of this magnitude being paid, in effect, to people that work for government entities—in this case, Australia Post. I think that is a fair point. There is all this commentary about people struggling to pay their power bills and make mortgage payments; people who have lost their jobs; keeping up with health insurance premiums and the like. What do those people think when they see an individual taking home a salary of $5.6 million? I think that is a fair question to ask.

If you do a quick google—and I did—with regard to what Mr Fahour's salary equates to in terms of weekly earnings, it works out to be something like $84,615 or thereabouts. Compare that to what I understand to be the average Tasmanian annual salary of $69,518, or roughly $1,336 per week. When an individual on that amount of money is trying to pay their bills, keep their lights on, feed their kids and get their kids to school and they see an individual earning that amount of money, you can understand the shock and the horror that they may express.

We have also heard in the debate already comparisons to CEOs of other companies, larger companies overseas, privately owned companies or publicly listed companies. I have two examples here. The CEO of Google—a company without which, I suspect, much of our research would not be done—earns $652,000 per annum plus stock options, and the CEO of Yahoo earns $1 million. Mr Fahour is well in front of them on those numbers.

But, again, back to the points made by individuals in our community. I have been provided with a copy of a letter to the editor of the north-west Tasmanian newspaper The Advocate.I wanted to read it out to show the sentiments that are being expressed in our home state:

The Australia Post CEO total pay of $5.6m per year is getting some attention, as it should. Australia Post argued to the Senate Estimates Committee that releasing the information would potentially damage the Australia Post brand.

Well yes. Australia Post has 33,000 employees, 17,000 contractors, and the combined salary benefits of its six (6!) most senior managers matched half its profit. This is simply obscene.

The fix is simple, and it is not the CEO gifting back a few million. All government businesses, State and Federal, must be required to report at least as extensively as shareholder companies. Shareholder company annual reports provide board and executive salaries in detail. They also meet continuous disclosure requirements.

As a sense check, the head of the US Postal Service, as 10 times the staff size, is currently paid around a 10th of the pay, 'just' A$540,000.

Can we please make sure the Turnbull Liberal Government response to the current heat in this issue is not to pressure the Aust Post CEO to gift back some pay. Although I am okay if that is part of it.

Fundamentally there is an issue of accountability of GBEs. That Australia Post argue non-disclosure with Senate Estimates indicates to me there is a cultural problem. I would also suggest that it would be extremely naive to assume that Australia Post is unique, and not representative.

Nothing bad, that I can see, other than the cost of reporting overhead that we already put on private listed businesses would be imposed.

If I am entitled to ASX reporting requirements on a $1K investment in a business of my choice, why am I not entitled to at least the same level of transparency and accountability of my taxpayer 'owned' share of Australia Post, which I cannot reallocate?

That was from David Owens from Parklands in north-west Tasmania. I think he made some valid points there.

Other speakers have also touched on the issue of transparency. I think Senator Hanson made the point about declining transparency. With Senator Urquhart in the chamber I would like to reflect on the difficulty we had at the last Senate estimates nailing down a time, and the amount of time we would have available to us, to interrogate the officers from Australia Post. As the chair, Senator Bushby, noted in the Hansard at the time, the estimates calendar is available from late the year prior and everyone knows when they are going to be required to turn up and provide evidence at Senate estimates. But in the days before, the committee was receiving advice that maybe the CEO and officers were not going to be available for the full time that they were requested to be there, or that he was only available for a certain time. It all adds to this concern around transparency. I think we really need to keep a check on that.

I think Senator Gallagher's point in the last contribution, that we should give the board the benefit of the doubt, is the right one. I am not sure I agree with Senator Hanson's call just to sack them on the basis of remuneration. I do expect them to act on that the community concern, the government's concern and the opposition and crossbench's concern. As the minister has already said on this issue, they do need to give more rigorous consideration to the remuneration packages offered to senior executives so that they are in line with community expectation. They need to be conscious of the reaction when these figures come out. As Senator Paterson said, there was a reason why they did not want to disclose this figure, and that was, I am pretty sure, that they knew the reaction they were going to get.

In terms of reducing executive remuneration, they should take that into account when seeking to reduce operational costs. The point was made by Senator Whish-Wilson in his contribution that instead of hitting up the franchisees every time, we should be looking at the top end as well. I think that is a fair point. Some of the figures quoted with regard to the work that franchisees and other operators do, where they get a minimal amount of money for some very heavy workloads, need to be taken into account when they are trying to manage their costs.

So I finish where I started off, calling on the Australia Post board to respond to these concerns to ensure that there is transparency and to ensure that executive remuneration of this organisation is in line with community expectation. There is nothing wrong with transparency. Every senator in this room, every six months, gets a phone call from their local paper wondering why they have printed on so much paper, why they have taken a flight here for work or why they filled up at this petrol station. Transparency is good and we should ensure that it exists. (Time expired)

I rise to make a contribution on this matter of public importance debate. To put it mildly, Senator Hanson has jumped the gun. While there are not any One Nation senators on the Environment and Communications Committee, I would hope that if Senator Hanson is calling for the board of Australia Post to be sacked, she might have taken a slight interest in the opportunity to ask questions of the chair of the board at estimates in less than two weeks time. Typically, the Australia Post chair does not attend estimates, but last week I requested that the committee expand the requested witnesses from Australia Post to include the chair of the board, Mr Jon Stanhope. Mr Stanhope is also the chair of the remuneration committee and is conducting a review into the processes that led to how the managing director's salary was set. I thank my colleagues on the committee for agreeing to invite Mr Stanhope, and I look forward to pressing him and his colleagues on their decision-making processes for setting executive remuneration at Australia Post.

In this place we pride ourselves on hard interrogations of public and private officials on matters of interest to the Australian public. As senators, we have immense power to ask questions and command answers. But when faced with a problem such as excessive remuneration, simply throwing her hands in the air and declaring that it is all too hard and that a whole board should be thrown out might get a Senator Hanson story in the press, and the senator's outrage might appeal to her base, but calling for a specific board to be sacked because you are unhappy with the excessive salary package of one managing director demonstrates a lack of imagination and that there is likely something deeper at play.

Since coming to this place I have maintained a strong interest in the management of Australia Post, and in particular how decisions of management affect workers, licensees, contractors and rural and regional communities across Australia. Along with a number of colleagues from across the political spectrum—I notice in the chamber Senator Anne Ruston, who was the chair of the committee when we did the Australia Post investigation into LPOs sometime ago and had an inquiry that went for quite a long time—we have pursued Australia Post about their declining mail volumes, their service delivery, difficulties with the increasing parcel volume and management's treatment of contractors, licensees and workers. The managing director, Mr Fahour, and I have had numerous heated exchanges over the past few years. On many occasions I have been bitterly disappointed in the quality of Mr Fahour's answers. The issue before us today has come to air because of questions asked by myself and Senator Dastyari in estimates in October last year. We asked why the annual report from last year did not include a breakdown of senior executive salaries, as the report only listed an aggregate of $12 million, which is an increase of $4 million on the aggregate from the year earlier. At the hearing, Mr Fahour argued that Australia Post followed a direction under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act:

We followed the instructions issued to all GBEs two years earlier about how their annual report was to be presented and we are complying 100 per cent with the instructions given to us.

As Senator Paterson said in his contribution, Senator Dastyari and I insisted that Australia Post take on notice the breakdown of senior executive salaries. Australia Post responded to the committee in December last year, with the corporate secretary requesting that the evidence be treated as commercial in confidence and not disclosed to the public. In the letter, the short-term employee benefits and post-employment benefits for Mr Fahour were disclosed. However, the corporate secretary claimed that information on executive salaries contains personal and sensitive information and the disclosure of such information in the public domain might be prejudicial against those individuals to whom the information relates. I felt that this was an extremely weak excuse. Corporations in Australia must disclose their executive remuneration and must provide a breakdown of base pay, bonuses and other payments. And no mention of the section of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, referred to by Mr Fahour at estimates, was made in this letter.

The committee wrote back to Australia Post in January noting that Post did not make a claim of public interest immunity to withhold information from the committee. Rather, Post provided some information, namely Mr Fahour's salary, and requested that it not be published. The committee noted that Australia Post volunteered this information and that the committee believes it is appropriate for Mr Fahour's salary and the salary of all senior executive service at Australia Post be disclosed to the Australian people. The committee gave Australia Post an opportunity to respond before we were to make the documents public. The response did not convince any of us to not disclose the information provided. The second letter from Post cited legislative requirements, public interest immunity claims and commercial confidentiality as reasons that the salary of Mr Fahour and the Australia Post executives not be made public.

I note that the requirements under the PGPA Act changed in July 2015 on the direction of the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. In seeking to streamline reporting and reduce red tape, the minister changed the requirement from individual reporting to aggregated reporting of executive pay. Commonwealth entities could volunteer more information but were now able to be less transparent than corporations regulated under the Corporations Act. Given the outrage from government senators and members, including the Prime Minister, about Australia Post's lack of transparency and the excessive salary of the managing director, it would be interesting to examine in coming months if Minister Cormann seeks to reverse his 2015 instruction or if the outrage from the government is as confected as it seems.

As I mentioned earlier, the letters from Australia Post also made claims of public interest immunity based on the information being personal and the disclosure of this information may be prejudicial. Notwithstanding this ridiculous motion by Senator Hanson, the media attention that I have seen flowing from the disclosure of Mr Fahour's salary has been based on comparisons with comparable postal services across the world and other managing directors and CEOs in Australia. Further, Australia Post claimed that the public disclosure of executive remuneration would in no way be of any relevance to the community because no public money or resources are used to fund the company. I recall reading this part of the letter, and it really took my breath away. It was such a ridiculous proposition—that the shareholders of a corporation, namely the Australia people, should not have access to the remuneration of executives simply because no public money or resources are used to fund the company. No public money or resources are used to fund many of the corporations regulated under the Corporations Act, but they disclose their executives' salaries.

The final argument made by Australia Post against transparency of this information was on the grounds of commercial confidentiality. Post argued that, as over 70 per cent of its business operates in a commercial environment, disclosing the salaries and other payments to executives may 'harm the commercial interests of Australia Post'. This letter then goes on to claim that senior executive contracts include a confidentiality clause and that disclosing remuneration will be in breach of the terms of their employment. Come on! These arguments are not backed up with any evidence that the commercial interests of Australia Post would be impacted—it is just an assertion—and are in complete ignorance of Senate committee rules and orders.

I congratulate my colleagues on the committee and the committee secretariat for working together on this matter and for responding firmly on the grounds of the public interest in the disclosure. I really hope that Mr Fahour, Mr Stanhope and their team have learnt from this experience and that, in a fortnight's time at estimates, they come prepared to work with senators to explain the decision-making process for setting the remuneration packages of senior executives and to provide information that improves public confidence in Australia Post. While the business is changing and there is incredible strain on the traditional mail service which requires hard decisions to be made, this must not be done in secret.

Senators may recall a long Senate inquiry—as I spoke about earlier—into Australia Post and its relationship with licensees. It ran for over a year and reported in 2014. The Senate inquiry uncovered a range of issues with the management of Australia Post, and it is pleasing to note that Australia Post has acted on a number of recommendations of that inquiry to better support licensees and staff. But those licensees are still struggling. The average postal worker earns enough to get by but also faces a lot of uncertainty in their working future as the business restructures and seeks new opportunities.

I believe that it is vital that the Licensed Post Offices, who are the heart of so many rural communities, the contractors who deliver our parcels, the permanent staff in Post-owned stores and those who manage the complex logistics of sorting and delivering mail and parcels, and the Australian public are engaged in a respectful and honest fashion by Australia Post management. I do not support this motion from Senator Hanson. I look forward to questioning Mr Fahour and Mr Stanhope. (Time expired)

Ditto to what Senator Urquhart said in terms of both the substance and the sentiment of her contribution. I find myself agreeing with what she said.

Most Australians—and many in this place—are disturbed by the secrecy surrounding the managing director of Australia Post's salary package, which is in the order $5.6 million. Only after probing by Senators Urquhart and Dastyari, and with Senator Paterson's assistance, has this come to light. To pub test this number it is worth noting that our Prime Minister earns about $520,000 a year—one-tenth of the remuneration of the Australia Post CEO. To compare apples and apples, the US Postmaster General earns about $540,000—one-tenth of the remuneration. A further point worth raising is that the managing director is on an indefinite contract at the pleasure of the board. It has been revealed that he can be terminated on 12 months notice with payment in lieu—a $4.3 million lump sum payment. It is a good gig if you can get it.

I am very concerned about the secrecy surrounding this and the need for transparency. So how did we get to this point? Let us try to unravel this. In turn, is there a way forward to reform the current system? I believe there is. Australia Post is a government business enterprise under the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. The principal executive officers of GBEs have their salaries set by the Remuneration Tribunal. For example, the managing director of AEC is on a salary from $469,000. The head of the Defence Housing Australia is on a band salary of between $237,000 and $470,000. The Remuneration Tribunal Act defines the head of Australia Post as a principal executive officer, but it turns out that the remuneration of the Managing Director of Australia Post is not set by the tribunal but rather by the board of Australia Post. This comes about because section 86 of the Australian Postal Corporation Act entrusts the board, not the tribunal, with the setting of the managing director's salary.

I direct no ill will at Mr Fahour. To his credit, he has listened to the crisis facing licensed post offices and there have been improvements. Much more needs to be done but, as the saying goes, 'You don't get what you deserve; you get what you negotiated.' He seems to have negotiated well; perhaps the board did not negotiate so well. What we need to do here is not only examine this matter carefully and forensically at estimates but also repeal the relevant sections of the Australian Postal Corporation Act to place the remuneration arrangements of this government business enterprise back into the hands of the Remuneration Tribunal. Transparency demands this reform and indeed the pub test demands this reform. We need the transparency and we need the rigour of the Remuneration Tribunal being involved in this. It is an anomaly that this is simply left up to the board of Australia Post. The sooner we reform this, the better, and it is something that I believe the people of Australia demand.

I rise to support the matter of public importance. I agree, and I am sure the overwhelming majority of Tasmanians believe, that due to the excessive remuneration paid to the CEO and directors there is a need to remove and replace the board of Australia Post. The Prime Minister earns $522,000 a year; the Managing Director of Australia Post, Mr Fahour, earns $5.6 million a year. In seven years, Mr Fahour's salary has doubled, in an organisation which the Australian government has significant influence over because it is a government business enterprise—and a government business enterprise has shareholder ministers on its board.

Last year Mr Fahour opted to forgo his $2 million bonus after public controversy. He donated that money to an Islamic charity run by his brother—I believe it is called the Islamic Museum of Australia, in Melbourne. A respected ABC political commentator, after research and crunching the numbers, says:

… chief executive of Australia Post is not just the highest paid man in the Commonwealth's service, he appears to be the highest paid postal executive on the planet. In fact, Australia Post's old annual reports suggest the top five executives all make more than $1 million a year.

And on Mr Fahour's watch postage stamps have climbed from around 50c to $1—they have doubled. While I hold the board of directors responsible, I also say that both Labor and the Liberals share the responsibility for the unreasonable spending of taxpayers' money. I would like confirmation that no political party or candidate has benefited from the generosity that subsequent governments have lavished on Mr Fahour and his lucky family. As a principle, I do not believe any person or organisation who receives money from or does any form of business with the government should be allowed to make political donations. Preventing such donations would go a long way to cleaning up corruption in Australian politics.

Mr Fahour's salary and bonus is an insult to every struggling Tasmanian. It is an insult to the brave and hard-working Australian Federal Police officers who may have to endure a cut in their danger money. Average AFP families whose breadwinner watches terrorists and organised criminals will, under this government's plans, lose $30,000 a year. The reduction in AFP resources has already been felt in Tasmania. While Mr Fahour became the world's best paid postal executive, this government removed 27 Federal Police officers from the Hobart airport after a $22 million budget cut, announced in the May 2014 federal budget. Hobart is now the only capital city airport in Australia without a permanent AFP presence. This government really needs to get its priorities right.

Order! The discussion is concluded.

On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I present Delegated Legislation Monitor No. 2 of 2017.

Ordered that the report be printed.

On behalf of the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the report on the provisions of the Fairer Paid Parental Leave Bill 2016 together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

On behalf of Senator Polley, I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Scrutiny Digest No. 2, dated 2017.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I present the report of the Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

The definition of marriage is an issue that is deeply held by many people in Australia and, accordingly, the government's position has been and continues to be to allow the people of Australia to have their say via plebiscite on whether that definition should change. It is a matter of record that the government's legislation to enable a plebiscite was defeated in the Senate last year, in November, but it still remains the government's policy position. As part of the preparatory works for the plebiscite, the Attorney-General released an exposure draft for comment, which formed the basis of a vote by the Labor, Greens and NXT parties to create this select committee to examine the exposure draft, with a particular reference to the requirement for, or efficacy of, religious freedoms.

I think it is important to note that evidence before the committee confirmed that, under jurisprudence in international law Australia is not required to make a change to the definition of marriage, but nor is there an impediment to it doing so. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has made it clear that, as long as the nation has legislation to both recognise and protect same-sex relationships, as Australia does, then the right to freedom from discrimination and equality before the law is fulfilled. That is because, under article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, marriage is defined as being between a man and woman, and the European Court of Human Rights has made a number of judgements in recent years supporting this approach.

What I am coming to here is that the context of this inquiry, therefore, was not that a change is inevitable, but, if a future parliament chose to legislate for a change in the definition of marriage, it would potentially enliven the right to the freedom of thought, conscience and religion in a range of areas. Evidence to the committee demonstrated that there are substantial matters of human rights law to be dealt with that extend well beyond the Marriage Act itself. So, if Australia is to remain a plural and tolerant society where different views are valued and legal, legislators must recognise that this change will require careful, simultaneous consideration of a wide range of specialist areas of law, as opposed to the common perception that it involves changing just a few words in one act of parliament. People on both sides of politics who support a change have made comments in the past to the extent that it is a quick and simple change. But what this inquiry has demonstrated very clearly is that there are actually quite extensive areas that need to be considered. And if Australia is to remain that plural, diverse community, where different views are protected, then those changes need to occur in a coordinated manner, not with some lagging others, particularly given the record in Australia of previous attempts to align or reform laws such as anti-discrimination laws across the nation.

As chair, I wish to record my appreciation for the collegiate manner in which members of the committee and witnesses have approached this inquiry. The members of the committee and the witnesses come from a wide range of lived experiences and positions on this topic. They have different understandings of how the institution of marriage should be defined. Yet, despite that, I am pleased to report to the Senate and to the Australian public at large that this has been a good example of where legislatures can work constructively together to explore the differences and to place on the public record a report that identifies these fundamental rights that must be carefully considered, respected and balanced in any future legislation that a parliament may approve.

So, having provided that broad contextual statement, I would like to touch on some of the key points of the report. The report is split into two large areas. The first deals with the exposure draft itself and particular provisions in that but fairly quickly then moves into the third chapter, which deals with the issue of human rights, which is where much of the discussion occurred in terms of which rights apply and how they intersect and where they intersect and how they should be balanced. That issue of balance is important, and the committee was particularly seized by the comment of Professor Patrick Parkinson, who indicated that, on this topic, balance does not mean that one right is crushed under the weight of another. In fact, that lines up with the international jurisprudence and guidance on this issue that says that nation-states should lean towards supporting the right, and any limitation must be subject to legitimate purposes and be reasonable, and the least amount of impact that can be used.

Australia has signed up to seven core United Nations treaties. In general, those treaties show that any limitation must be prescribed by law in pursuit of a legitimate objective and be rationally connected to its stated objective and be proportionate in the way to achieve that objective. The rights we are talking about here are outlined in article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ICCP; articles 2 and 26, the right to nondiscrimination; and article 18, which is the right to freedom of thought and religion and conscience, which is split into two parts, one being to hold it and one being to manifest it.

As I mentioned in my opening comments, there is international jurisprudence that says that Australia has no obligation to change our current definition of marriage, because under international law we do not offend any human rights law as long as we provide an alternative recognition for same-sex relationships. That position has been challenged by a number of people, who claim that the case of Joslin, being 17 years old, is now outdated. But, given that there has been no subsequent judgement by the Human Rights Committee and that the average in terms of judicial authorities citied by courts is over 18 years, then the proposition that something that is 17 years old and has not been superseded should be ignored is hard to sustain, particularly given that the European Court of Human Rights has in recent years had four judgements that go to very much the same outcome.

There has been a lot of discussion on how to balance the rights. I would encourage people to read the report, because all the committee members basically come from different lived experiences and perspectives, and we have managed to provide a committee report that everyone has signed up to—there are no dissenting reports— because these are the issues that we hold need to be debated carefully and considered carefully by any government that moves ahead. But there are areas—for example, whether freedom of religion should be treated as an exemption or whether it should actually be a protected right, and whether it applies just to organisations, as is the case with much of our antidiscrimination law currently, or whether, as our obligation under the ICCPR clearly indicates, it applies to individuals. The question then is: how do we make sure that we allow people to live without discrimination but, at the same time, allow people to exercise their individual freedom of religion, conscience and belief? Some of the arguments that go to that focus around whether discrimination is solely on the basis of the protected attribute or whether it is in conjunction with, in the case of marriage, a union of two people who may have that protected attribute. I think that is an important distinction for parliament to consider when it debates this in future, because we have had cases put to the committee where individuals have demonstrated over years of practice of, for example, running a business, that they do not discriminate solely on the basis of a protected attribute. In fact, some had friendships and longstanding client-business relationships with people who were same-sex attracted, but when it came to the institution of marriage, they chose to say, 'We prefer not to provide a service.' That was a step too far for some people, but it is indicative of the kind of deep issue that any future government would need to grapple with should a bill pass in this area.

Again, people who came to this do not necessarily agree. I am a supporter of traditional marriage and I would like the definition to stay as it is, but this is an important piece of work because, if the parliament ever chooses to go down the path of changing, this is the scope of issues that we will need to carefully consider in order to keep Australia a diverse and plural society.

Today, in the tabling of this report, we see a significant step forward in the path to marriage equality in our country. It has been wonderful to work across the parliament with my colleague Senator Kitching and senators from the Liberal Party, the Greens and the crossbench—I give my thanks especially to the chair, Senator Fawcett—to find consensus on the details of marriage laws. It has been a pleasure to work through these issues with you in a collegial manner, even when we have differing views.

The work of our committee demonstrates that it is not difficult to create laws that uphold both religious freedom and the freedom to marry. The work of the committee shows that we can make progress on marriage equality in this parliament without compromising the rights of those who hold different views about marriage. We can, for example, extend access to civil marriage to all adult couples, while allowing religious ministers and religious celebrants to only perform marriages in accordance with their own doctrines and beliefs.

These issues are personally important to me. For myself, I would like the right to be married. Please do not ask me about my plans to get married because I cannot yet make them until this parliament addresses those laws. But I recognise that the beliefs and aspirations of Australians are deeply held. As the report shows, people in the LGBTI community who want to get married do not want to exercise these rights at the expense of other people's freedoms. On the day we make promises to love our partner in sickness and in health, we want to be surrounded by the people who respect and support the commitment we are making. We know and understand that people of faith feel the same, including many GLBTI people of faith.

I know that my own beliefs about marriage are deeply personal and the last thing I want to do is impose my views on others who take a different view about its definition. To do so would be a great disservice to its importance and to the couples, the communities of faith and the GLBTI community. I know gay and lesbian couples and trans and intersex people excluded from the Marriage Act around the country feel the same. I, and thousands of GLBTI Australians want the right to marry. We also understand that Australians of faith want to uphold marriage in accordance with their own doctrines and beliefs. As this report shows, that is not difficult to do. I commend the report to the Senate.

Can I thank Senator Rice for the courtesy of allowing me to speak ahead of her. I know she was a member of the committee.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to this report. The road to marriage equality has been a long one. It was some 13 years ago that the Marriage Act was amended to explicitly exclude non-heterosexual couples. Since then, the debate has been hard fought—a fact that would come as no surprise to all senators.

For those of us who fight for equality, it is a deeply personal debate. It is deeply personal because the law excluding us from the institution of marriage is a clear statement about how our relationships are regarded—a clear statement that our relationships are regarded as lesser than those of our heterosexual brothers and sisters. It is also a clear statement that, despite all the progress in Australian society, we have a long way to go in achieving equality. On the other side of the debate, whilst I do not agree with the position of those who have fought against marriage equality, there is no doubt that their views are strongly held.

And so, with strong and deeply held views on both sides of the marriage equality debate, it is no surprise that this debate has, unfortunately, so often descended into a partisan, acrimonious debate. It is a truth of which no political party in this place is innocent. Not too long ago, I said in this place that momentum for change continues to build and the forces of change will not go away. Certainly, we have seen those forces working to win the hearts and minds of Australians. Most Australians no longer ask why; they ask why not.

Support for marriage equality does not require political courage. It requires members of this place to do what they were elected to do, and do what the overwhelming majority of Australians want: to put aside partisanship, to work together, to compromise and, above all, to come on to the floor of this parliament and vote. The example of this select committee and its establishment is one we have to look at. Led by Liberal Senator Fawcett, it is a committee that includes members from the coalition, Labor, the Greens and the Nick Xenophon Team—a multiparty committee, established to work to achieve common ground in the interests of progressing the debate on marriage equality, to discuss and interrogate competing rights and freedoms: the right to marry, the right to religious freedom. And the result is a historic consensus report on marriage equality legislation.

This committee, made up of members of parties from all corners of this parliament, has reached a historic agreement on how we can move forward and achieve marriage equality. And we ought pause to consider the enormity of that achievement. In a debate so often mired in partisanship, mired in acrimony—a debate characterised by finger-pointing—we have a spirit of cooperation and agreement around this report. The parliament should follow the example of the Fawcett committee.

The committee reached agreement on several difficult issues, including whether ministers of religion should be permitted by law to act on their beliefs should they decline to marry same-sex couples, whether there should be a separate category of 'religious marriage celebrant' and whether civil celebrants ought be required to uphold the law if marriage equality proceeds. The report also seeks to ensure that exemptions for religious organisations in relation to same-sex weddings should be precisely defined. There are and will be parts of the report that I am sure I will not personally agree with, and there will be parts with which I do agree, but I am certain others in this place will not. Surely that is the definition of compromise.

This report is a historic step. This committee has demonstrated that this parliament can work together, that we can put aside partisanship, that we can balance competing views and competing rights and freedoms and achieve a just and sensible outcome. And I do want to congratulate Senator Fawcett, the chair of the committee, and Senator Pratt, Senator Kakoschke-Moore, Senator Kitching, Senator Paterson, Senator Rice, Senator Smith and Senator Williams for their work on this and the way in which they have approached their task. The report represents a significant and important moment in this debate.

The clouds of partisanship have parted. Let's take this moment and use it well, because we must now, together, take the next steps, to work together, to compromise, to end this debate and to achieve what is the will of the overwhelming majority of the Australian people.

Being part of the Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill has been satisfying, rewarding and demanding. And it has been a refreshing experience to be part of a committee that has worked collaboratively and has been determined to reach a consensus position, and I really do want to commend my fellow senators on the committee who were so open to working together, particularly the chair, Senator Fawcett.

The committee heard from people from across the political spectrum on their views about marriage. We became highly informed about the differing views towards marriage equality and how they could potentially be accommodated. Marriage equality is an issue that has become politicised and polarised in Australian society. Despite this, polls consistently show that around two-thirds of Australians want to see the definition of marriage broadened to enable two people who love each other and want to make a permanent commitment to each other to marry, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.

The Greens recognise that despite this majority there are deeply held, primarily religious, concerns amongst other Australians, who sincerely believe that marriage can take place only between a man and a woman. In essence, the work of our committee was to explore whether we could bridge that gap between those who see marriage as a matter of equal rights for all and the portion of the community who have that firm religious belief. And I think we did. We have reached a consensus view, which is outlined in this report, that shows that we can protect religious freedoms and finally legislate for marriage equality.

I want to outline the areas I think are most significant where the committee has made some important consensus recommendations. The first is concerning the use of inclusive language. The committee supported the use of 'two people' or 'two adults' as the appropriate definition to broaden access to marriage for all Australian adults regardless of sex, sexuality or gender identity. We recommended that any future legislation to amend the Marriage Act should simply be titled the 'Marriage Amendment Bill'.

We found that there is broad agreement for ministers of religion to have a right to refuse to solemnise a marriage that is not in accordance with their religion, and the Greens believe that the committee's findings lead to a very clear position that the proposed section 47 of the exposure draft in fact reduces the religious freedom for ministers of religion compared with the existing section 47 of the Marriage Act, which allows ministers the broadest grounds to refuse to solemnise a marriage.

We found that the proposed section 47A of the exposure draft—that marriage celebrants should be able to discriminate against same-sex couples—would continue to single out and allow discrimination against LGBTIQ people by any celebrant. Importantly, the committee has proposed that, instead of allowing blanket discrimination, a better way forward is to create a class of independent religious celebrants so that those celebrants who wish to refuse to solemnise same-sex marriages on religious grounds would be able to do so. This would then enable a clear distinction between those celebrants with religious beliefs and civil celebrants who conduct secular marriages on behalf of the state and who would not be able to discriminate. The Greens fully support and endorse these proposals.

A key issue addressed by the committee was the proposed new section 47B of the exposure draft that stated that a 'religious body or a religious organisation' should have the right to refuse to provide facilities, goods or services for or 'reasonably incidental to' same-sex marriages. Regardless of the views as to whether this was appropriate or not, the committee recognised that section 37 of the Sex Discrimination Act already provides an exemption for religious bodies and organisations. As such, further exemptions are not needed.

The committee thoroughly considered the international human rights context of the issue of equal marriage. We found that there have been no international human rights decisions that oblige Australia to legislate for same sex marriage, but also, and perhaps more significantly, that there are no legal impediments to doing so. It is notable that the only UN Human Rights Committee considerations and findings on equal marriage, Joslin v New Zealand, was in 1999 and, despite finding that New Zealand was under no legal obligation to legislate for equal marriage, nonetheless New Zealand did so in 2013—just the other side of the ditch, and so similar to us—so, come on Australia! The Greens believe that Australia should reflect the views of the majority of the Australian population and act to end discrimination of LGBTIQ Australians and legislate for marriage equality as over 20 other nations have done.

The committee spent a lot of effort considering how to best balance the rights of non-discrimination for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer Australians and the protection of religious freedoms. We did not come to a definitive position on whether there were any grounds for discrimination on religious grounds by commercial providers of goods and services—for example, florists, photographers and wedding-cake bakers. What the committee did find, however, was that these issues went beyond marriage and intersected with our anti-discrimination laws. The Greens believe that any further consideration of the balance between religious beliefs and the right to not be discriminated against should be addressed in the context of our broader anti-discrimination laws, not through the Marriage Act. We further believe very strongly that our existing anti-discrimination laws are already sufficiently robust so that legislating for marriage equality can happen now and it does not need to wait for any review or reconsideration of these laws.

We also know that there are massively greater numbers of florists, photographers and bakers who would be thrilled by legislation for equal marriage rather than being challenged by it. That said, we are supportive of reviewing our anti-discrimination laws to consider strengthening current protections for religious freedom.

The proposal to be able to discriminate on conscientious grounds was probably the most controversial aspect of the exposure draft. We noted that conscientious belief to allow discrimination against a class of persons would be unprecedented under Australian law. It is worth quoting the committee view that:

… the Committee would be disinclined to disturb decades of anti-discrimination law and practice in Australia.

I particularly noted the Australian Human Rights Centre's view that:

The idea that a personal moral view could be used to treat someone unfairly because of a particular attribute strikes at the very heart of the rationale for our discrimination laws to begin with, which is all about ensuring equal treatment regardless of particular personal attributes. Introducing a justification for discrimination on the basis of a personal moral view is giving a blank cheque to discriminate.

We believe the evidence presented to the committee strongly supports a position to reject the inclusion of 'conscientious belief' in any legislation for marriage equality.

In conclusion, this process has given me hope. By working together, we have shown a path towards ending the discrimination. When I first spoke in the Senate, I looked at my partner Penny and said: 'We are proud of our status as a same sex couple who have been legally married in Australia, and I am resolute that all couples should be able to share this right. The time for marriage equality in Australia has come.' I think of all the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer people I have talked to since that moment—of the people who have found love and who will find love soon enough. To them I say: have hope. You will be able to show your love before the law. It might be overdue, but it is coming.

Today we have taken the next step towards equality. We have shown that the parliament can work together and that we can do this. Now it is time for us to do our job and have a free vote right here in the parliament. By continuing to work together, we can catch up with the rest of the world on equal marriage and show that love is love.

I liken my journey on the issue of marriage equality to that of many, many Australians. I started out unconvinced. I could not understand the arguments and the passion that many people had for the cause, but over the course of four and a half years now I have travelled a great distance, as the great bulk of Australians have.

This report today is important for a number of reasons. Of course, as we have heard, it is important because there is a consensus report. Of all the reports that have come to the parliament on this issue of marriage previously, this is the first that comes with a consensus position. This is the first that does not litigate the arguments for and against—they have been well litigated—but points to how we might give effect to this important reform. It is also powerful because it has demonstrated to the country—and, indeed, to the whole parliament—and to those in our community who have strong interests in this debate about marriage that parliament, and indeed the Senate, can demonstrate the necessary mature approach and the necessary collaboration, putting partisanship aside, to discuss and move forward on what is a very important issue.

It does identify areas of commonality and, of course, it does identify issues of competing concerns, particularly around the issue of anti-discrimination and religious expression, but, importantly, these are not new issues—they have not fallen out of the sky. They have been the focus of debate and discussion in other facets of our law. Importantly, as I said, this report now talks about how, and not if. The areas of contestability have been narrowed. Where there are issues, they are now clear and the position of people prominent in our community—prominent on both sides of the debate—have been put in one place for people to peruse. As I said, these issues are not new. They are not unknown to us. In fact, large parts of existing Australian law already provide a strong, clear and tested approach for balancing these issues. Importantly, as the report highlights, there are matters that parliament can and should resolve and, I am confident, will resolve. There is nothing to fear from changing the definition of marriage to one that gives every Australian the opportunity to share in this tried and tested institution.

This year, next month in fact, marks the passage of the Marriage Bill 1961 through the House of Representatives. It is worth reminding ourselves that, when it was introduced to introduce uniform marriage laws in Australia, it was contested. But it is also important to remember that, since then, it has been reformed by parliament on no fewer than 20 occasions.

Let me just share with the Senate a brief summary of the issues that have been canvassed in the report. Time won't allow me to go into them in any great detail. The summary of issues requiring careful consideration have been identified as follows: the definition of marriage; the exemptions for ministers of religion; the exemptions for marriage celebrants; the issue of exemptions for a religious body or organisation; international jurisprudence on the introduction of same-sex marriage; the issue of goods and services; the right to refuse on the grounds of conscientious belief; and, importantly, a broader protection for the right to freedom of conscience and religion. These issues have been canvassed in other jurisdictions around the world already, and much reassurance can be taken from the experience of those jurisdictions. It is worth remembering that Canada, the United Kingdom and New Zealand have already legislated for marriage in 2005, 2013 and 2015 respectively. Their experiences, I would argue, show again that there is nothing fear; indeed, there is nothing controversial.

Let me just briefly read from the report with regard to a number of popular issues or popular points of contention. On the issue of goods and services, I draw people to paragraph 3.78. I will read it into the Hansard. It says on the issue of goods and services:

… it should be noted that the Australian Parliament has previously determined the ability of religious organisations to discriminate in the provision of goods and services (including hiring of facilities for weddings or marriage related services such as catering) to discriminate where this discrimination would accord with the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of their religious order or would be necessary to avoid injury to the susceptibilities of adherents to their religion.

And importantly—

The amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 … that enshrined this position were passed with support from the Labor Government and Coalition … led by Tony Abbott.

So we have an experience in our country where partisanship can be put aside, where the parliament can be its better self and come to an agreement about how these issues can be advanced.

Let me go briefly to the issue of religious freedom, which I personally think is a very important one. At section 3.129 the report states:

The Human Rights Law Centre were also strongly supportive about ensuring that religious freedom should be better protected in law—

The report goes on to quote the Human Rights Law Centre:

We are also very happy for the provision around religious freedom to be framed in a positive way. Religious freedom should be protected in law. Indeed, we are on record in a number of inquiries supporting the addition of religious belief to protections under federal anti-discrimination law.

That is important, because not only has the Senate this afternoon come to a consensus view but in the community people with different attitudes to the issue of marriage have united around what are the important issues. Indeed, on religious freedom, I would argue there is broad support in the community for the proper treatment of that issue.

The idea that the institution of marriage should not be shared with others does not make sense. There has been one other significant contribution to the marriage debate in the last six months, and that is the contribution of none other than Paul Ritchie, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's speechwriter. Again, let me read into the Hansard what Paul Ritchie said in his book titled Faith, love and Australia: the conservative case for same-sex marriage. He says: 'Marriage in the words of the columnist David Brooks makes us better than we deserve to be. Our lives are always better when they are shared and they are more meaningful when others are at their centre. In life's dark times we are strengthened and in the good times our joys are multiplied. Surely they are joys that should be shared by all.'

Let me just make two other points. I want to reflect briefly on what I think is the misguided view that there are electoral consequences to dealing with the issue of marriage. I want to remind the Senate that the Conservative government in the United Kingdom legislated for same-sex marriage in 2013. Two years later, the Conservative government was re-elected with a substantially increased vote, achieving the first Conservative majority government in 23 years. Let me add to that. In New Zealand, the conservative National Party government led by John Key legislated for same sex-marriage in 2013. In the following year, his government was easily re-elected. But, more importantly, let me just reflect on this point. Even those who have previously been prominent opponents of same-sex marriage have indicated that the opportunity to see changed laws in practice has led them to reverse their position—most notably, the new New Zealand Prime Minister, Bill English, who opposed same sex-marriage in New Zealand. He noted:

I'd probably vote differently now on the gay marriage issue. I don't think that gay marriage is a threat to anyone else's marriage.

Finally, there is Nigel Adams. He is not known us. He is a member of the House of Commons. Just this month he said to the House of Commons:

I thought at the time what I was doing was right but having now reflected and seen how that Act has made such a positive difference for thousands of couples around the country, I deeply regret that decision.

He went on to say:

… if I had the opportunity again, I’d vote differently. I want to apologise.

This is a very, very fraught issue because it goes to the core of people's identities.

But to go back to where I started: the Senate has lived up to and exceeded expectations. I congratulate my Senate colleague Senator Fawcett for his very, very careful, considered stewardship of the committee. I congratulate and thank all senators who made their time available to listen to the views of others and bring this consensus report to the Senate.

Thank you, Acting Deputy President Bernardi.

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. … It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

That quote is part of the judgement of Justice Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Obergefell v Hodges (2015) decision. This decision required the states and territories of the United States of America to legalise same-sex marriage. I have now read the judgement, but you can read the story of this case as told by the petitioner, James Obergefell, in his book, Love Wins. I would recommend this book, as it tells the story that the most human and the best part of all of us yearns to hear—that is, that we can love and be loved.

Last week, many politicians, leaders of the armed services, public servants and parishioners attended St Christopher's Cathedral in Forrest for the ecumenical service to commemorate the commencement of the parliament for 2017. The reading given by the Leader of the Opposition was a very well-known reading from Corinthians. I had just finished reading James Obergefell's book, and I was struck by the similarity of the sentiments expressed by Mr Obergefell, by Justice Kennedy of Supreme Court and by the passage from Corinthians—I think many would know it—which ends:

And now faith, hope and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

I think many Australians and indeed many in the GLBTIQ community have been on a journey. Many Australians will always believe that marriage is only between a man and a women. Of course, there have been many twists and turns on this path. As Shakespeare recognised:

The course of true love never did run smooth.

For example, in the 1970s there were some on the extreme left of politics, including some student organisations, who regarded marriage as prostitution and an institution that should be outlawed—nay, criminalised. Some might say the change in this view of marriage from that view to the view that there should be the right to marry for all is a win for those who believe in the institution of marriage. Often times the conservative side of politics, it seems to me, does not always live by conservative values at all.

The committee also spent many hours considering the rights of people and what happens when those rights do clash. It has been put to me that not every Senate committee is so collegiate and so pleasant. At the moment, I do not believe this can be so. I would like to thank the chair, Senator Fawcett. Senator Fawcett has been unfailingly fair and has been an all-round fantastic chair, so I would like to thank him particularly. I would also like to thank Senator Pratt, who was the deputy chair, and senators Paterson, Smith, Rice and Kakoschke-Moore. I would also like to thank my family and friends and people to whom I reached out to solicit their views on this issue, which ranged through everyone from conservative commentators to Supreme Court justices to taxi drivers to all people in between.

This committee worked through some difficult conversations about the balancing of rights—and this has been spoken about by other senators—acknowledging and never forgetting that we live in a diverse and tolerant society where we allow people to believe and advocate in same-sex marriage and to believe in traditional marriage. This committee was determined to acknowledge both sides of the debate, and I think the report reflects that. It is important to note that in our society we must allow people to express their views, and it is even more important—vital—that people in our society have the right to hold many beliefs. I say that because there was discussion about whether some of the exemptions should be given, and I think the report reflects a balanced view on that.

I think we would all accept that rights come with responsibilities. This debate is often framed in terms of rights, and some of the previous senators have explored those. I want to turn, though, to the other side of coin—that is, the responsibilities that come with rights. If we accept that committed, loving relationships strengthen our society then gay and lesbian marriages entered into will also strengthen our society. There was a time when 'till death do us part' meant exactly that. It also means that people celebrate the better times and work through the harder times, and I think that this makes us all better human beings and allows us to live fuller lives.

I want to end with a quote from Justice Kennedy in the Obergefell case again. He said:

Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.

This consensus report that the committee has tabled and delivered today, I think, reflects that we can now go forward, examine marriage and legislate for marriage so that all Australians may enjoy that institution.

Although I have been in this place for only a relatively short space of time, I suspect it is a rare occasion when a Senate or select committee report is tabled with this degree of consensus among the committee's members. I suspect it is even rarer when a report relates to an issue which has been so divisive in both the parliament and the general public. So at the outset I want to acknowledge the incredible work of my parliamentary colleagues in reaching consensus on the terms of this report and the issues it has identified as needing careful consideration as they relate to legislating for marriage equality.

In considering the exposure draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill, the committee focused on key provisions, including the nature and effect of proposed exemptions for ministers of religion and the nature and effect of the proposed amendments on the Sex Discrimination Act. It also considered potential amendments to improve the effect of the bill and the likelihood of it achieving the support of the Senate.

The Nick Xenophon Team's position on marriage equality has been clear for some time. Our support for legislation that enables same-sex couples to marry was never going to waver or be in doubt, regardless of the findings of this committee. However, this inquiry was an important opportunity to give due consideration to the form the legislation we believe should be introduced, should take. And because the Nick Xenophon Team supports same-sex marriage, subject to exemptions for churches and religious bodies, it was an opportunity to hear from these and other stakeholders.

Based on the submissions and evidence presented to the committee, I note that there is broad support for ministers of religion to have the right to refuse to solemnise a marriage that is not in accordance with their religion. However, the report acknowledged protections afforded within section 47 of the Marriage Act and the inconsistencies between proposed exemptions in the exposure draft and exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act. It concluded that the intersection of these laws is a complex matter that requires further expert consideration beyond the ambit of the exposure draft.

With respect to exemptions for a religious body or organisation the committee acknowledged the range of views on whether such bodies and organisations should have the right to refuse to provide facilities, goods or services for, or reasonably incidental to, same-sex marriages. The committee suggests that some of these broad terms should be defined and that 'reasonably incidental to' needs to connect to the provision of goods or services to a marriage ceremony.

Whether same-sex couples are allowed to marry in Australia is not a decision which directly affects me or my Nick Xenophon Team colleagues. I was able to marry my husband, Simon, and we recently celebrated our 10-year wedding anniversary. But to LGBTIQ members of our community it is one of the greatest steps towards equality this country can take and does directly affect their lives and their relationships.

I hope that, just like the committee was able to come together on this report, we can come together as parliamentarians and get on with the job of making laws for this country so that all couples can be afforded the same rights in marriage.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Fawcett be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows:

Community Affairs Legislation Committee—

Discharged—Senator Dastyari

Participating member: Senator Singh

Appointed—Senator Singh

Participating member: Senator Dastyari

Economics Legislation and References Committees—

Discharged—Senator Bernardi

Participating member: Senator Macdonald

Appointed—Senator Macdonald

Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees—

Discharged—Senator Paterson

Participating member: Senator Reynolds

Appointed—Senator Reynolds

Participating member: Senator Paterson

Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees—

Discharged—Senator Bernardi

Participating member: Senator Paterson

Appointed—Senator Paterson

Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—

Discharged—Senator Reynolds

Participating member: Senator Williams

Appointed—Senator Williams

Participating member: Senator Reynolds

Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee—

Discharged—Senator Reynolds

Participating member: Senator Fawcett

Appointed—Senator Fawcett

Participating member: Senator Reynolds

National Integrity Commission—Select Committee—

Appointed—Senators O'Sullivan and Smith

Participating members: Senators Abetz, Back, Bushby, Duniam, Fawcett, Hume, Macdonald, McKenzie, Paterson, Reynolds and Williams

Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee—

Discharged—Senator Bernardi

Appointed—Senator Abetz

Scrutiny of Bills—Standing Committee—

Discharged—Senator Bernardi

Appointed—Senator Hume

Senators' Interests—Standing Committee—

Discharged—Senator Bernardi

Appointed—Senator O'Sullivan.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

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—

PARLIAMENTARY ENTITLEMENTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2017

I am pleased to introduce the Parliamentary Entitlements Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, a Bill which largely mirrors the provisions of the 2014 Bill of the same name, to implement the changes to the Parliamentary Entitlements and Life Gold Pass Acts.

On 9 November 2013, the Government announced changes to strengthen the rules governing parliamentarians' business expenses. On 13 May 2014, the Government also announced, as part of the 2014-15 Budget, changes to Life Gold Pass travel.

On top of the changes outlined in 2014, this Bill significantly accelerates the termination of access to travel under the Life Gold Pass scheme for the vast majority of pass holders, including former Ministers, Presiding Officers and the Leaders of the Opposition.

The Bill ceases Life Gold Pass travel on the day it commences for all current pass holders, other than retired former Prime Ministers and their spouses and renames the remaining benefit parliamentary retirement travel.

Specifically, the Bill:

Further, the Bill:

o The 25 per cent penalty loading will not apply where an adjustment is made within 28 days of the date the claim was made, or where the adjustment was the result of an administrative error by the administering department.

Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948

The Bill contains sensible reforms to improve accountability in the spending of taxpayers' money, which strengthen the parliamentary work expenses framework.

I foreshadow that this Government will soon bring forward further legislation as it implements the Prime Minister's recently announced reforms to the management of parliamentarians' work expenses, and recommendations of the Review Committee: An Independent Parliamentary Entitlements System.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

INDEPENDENT PARLIAMENTARY EXPENSES AUTHORITY (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2017

This Bill supports the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Bill 2017 by addressing consequential matters that would arise from the enactment of the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017.

The Bill would provide exemptions to the freedom of information scheme established under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority in relation to documents requesting that the Authority give personal advice relating to parliamentary work related travel expenses and allowances to parliamentarians and their staff. The exemption also extends to any other documents connected with the performance of those functions.

These exemptions are intended to ensure that the Authority can provide frank advice to parliamentarians and their staff, and to encourage parliamentarians and their staff to engage with the Authority at an early stage to seek guidance where they are unsure of their travel expenses or allowances.

Debate adjourned.

I move:

That resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

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—

TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (BOURKE STREET FUND) BILL 2017

Today, I introduce a bill to enable the tax deductibility of donations to the Bourke Street Fund, following the senseless and vicious attack in Melbourne on 20 January 2017. In doing so the Commonwealth Parliament is working with the Victorian Government to support the immediate families of the deceased, as well as those injured and their immediate families.

Australians are rightly as one in our condemnation of this evil act. But we are also united in our empathy for those whose lives have been lost and our desire to console those for whom life will never be the same.

In doing so we are resolved to focus on how we might help.

Donations from across Australia are indeed a measure of our community's genuine desire to help and sustain the victims of this terrible crime.

As such to facilitate donations this Bill amends the list of deductible gift recipients in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. The 2017 Bourke Street Fund Trust Account will be added to the Act, for a five year period, from 21 January 2017.

Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Minister, could you advise me how many companies in the building and construction industry do not have a 2016 code compliant agreement?

Thank you for the question, Senator Cameron. I think you would be aware that the government is not in possession of that information, for a number of reasons, but, for the record, I point out that, as you are again aware, building industry participants have had, since April 2014, advanced notice of the fact that the government intended to issue a new Building Code. In fact, you would also be aware that there are a number of agreements that have specifically put in place clauses within them—for example, the Lendlease Building CFMEU New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and Tasmania Agreement 2016, which provides:

Compliance for government funded building work.

(a) It is recognised by the Parties that whilst this Agreement is in operation, Commonwealth, State or Territory Governments may impose particular requirements on the content of enterprise agreements in order for the Company to be eligible for future government funded building work. It is essential that the Agreement is compliant with any such requirements in order for the Company to remain eligible to tender for future government funded building work. If any new requirements are promulgated during the life of this Agreement, which impact on the content of this Agreement, this clause will be applied.

That is Lendlease, but I am advised, arising from the committee hearing yesterday, that there are some 3,300 agreements that would not be compliant. That information was made available yesterday. Were you advised of that information?

I am aware that the CFMEU are claiming all sorts of things in relation to the passing of the amendment to the Building Code.

This is a serious issue. The evidence we have is that many companies will be facing a situation of having to renegotiate their agreements, and even Lendlease would have to renegotiate their agreement. Have you had advice—I do not want to know what the advice is—as to the implications of another bargaining round arising from this bill, if it is passed?

Senator Cameron, the answer to your question is no. In relation to what you are implying, you seem to fail to understand certain things. In the first instance, compliance with the Building Code is voluntary. It is an opt-in scheme. If companies do not want to undertake Commonwealth funded government work they do not have to opt in to the scheme. There are also, as you know, many, many companies that have held out since they were given the advance release of the Building Code, many of them small and medium businesses, and they are ready, willing and able to negotiate with the CFMEU, should the CFMEU wish to negotiate with them.

In relation to those who have a non-compliant agreement, if they do not tender for and are not awarded government work, again, the provisions of this code do not become relevant for them until they do that. For those companies which currently have a non-compliant agreement, they do not have to renegotiate their entire agreement, Senator Cameron. That is wrong. All they have to do is vary the clauses that will offend the provisions of the Building Code. For example, if a company has an agreement that has one clause in it that offends the Building Code and the company wishes to tender for a future project, that company merely has to vary that one particular clause—that is it—to become compliant under the Building Code.

Again, for the record, certain companies—for example, Lendlease—have already negotiated with the CFMEU. This agreement I have here is an agreement that was made in 2016, which specifically, at clause 7.3, provides—for the benefit of those listening to this debate I will read it—as follows:

7.3 Compliance for government funded building work

(a) It is recognised by the Parties that whilst this Agreement is in operation, Commonwealth, State or Territory Governments—

Not just the Commonwealth government—

may impose particular requirements on the content of enterprise agreements in order for the Company to be eligible for future government funded building work. It is essential that the Agreement is compliant with any such requirements in order for the Company to remain eligible to tender for future government funded building work. If any new requirements are promulgated during the life of this Agreement, which impact on the content of this Agreement, this clause will be applied.

The clause goes on, so clearly the parties had a very clear intent that in the event that the Building Code, in this case, was to change, they would enable the following:

(b) In this event, the Parties—

Lendlease and the CFMEU; they are the parties to this agreement—

agree—

It is already agreed between Lendlease and the CFMEU; that is not in dispute—

to apply to the FWC to terminate this Agreement in accordance with the Fair Work Act (within 7 days of any such requirement being promulgated) and the Company and Employees will commit to negotiating a replacement Agreement which is compliant with any such requirements.

But they go on further to state: 'The company will seek to ensure that no employees are financially disadvantaged as a result of the termination of the agreement'. So, Senator Cameron, what you have there is a clear acknowledgement—by, in this case, Lendlease and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, or the CFMEU, New South Wales, Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and Tasmania—that in the event that the laws change, the union and the company have agreed to do what they need to do—application within seven days—to ensure the agreement complies with the relevant law.

Minister, I am not sure how long it is since you have practised industrial law. It is a fair while since I have been involved, but what I can tell you is that when you talk about 'renegotiation' it means renegotiation; it does not mean a defined outcome. Does the minister then accept that if the agreement is terminated workers would be entitled to take protected industrial action to deliver on the outcome of the agreement?

Industrial relations laws will apply.

Minister, you identified one company that has that clause; you have not been able to identify any others. So can I ask you this: how many lift and escalator companies have compliant agreements?

Thank you, Senator Marshall. I appreciate the significance of the question, given your background. In response to your question: to date, I am advised that 16 per cent of companies have been identified as having such clauses in their agreements. That is a significant number of companies. That is based on a survey by the department.

In relation to your question, I do not have those specifics. But I can tell you this: I have spoken to a number of small to medium businesses who are involved in the industries which you just referred to. And guess what? They cannot stand up to the CFMEU, they cannot stand up to Lendlease; they cannot stand up to Probuild. That is why we are moving this amendment with the crossbench, because we are here today to say to the big end of town and to say to the CFMEU—and not just them alone. I am not going to blame the CFMEU here, because in this game it takes two to tango. So I am going to lump Lendlease in there and I am going to lump Probuild in there, on Hansard. I am going to say to them: 'The reason we are doing this is to stop your cartel-like behaviour'.

I will stand up here every single day of the week and go into bat for the small to medium businesses who do not have the purchasing power, who do not have the voice and who rely on us. That is the person Senator Hinch spoke to in the post office. He proudly stood here today and relayed that story. They are the people, Senator Cameron, we are here today to help. Quite frankly, I can say to the big end of town: 'You are big enough and ugly enough to look after yourself'. That is evidenced by this agreement here between Lendlease and the CFMEU. But, in relation to the little guys that you are referring to, they need this chamber to do the right thing by them and give them a chance to participate in the third-biggest industry in Australia.

Thanks, Minister, for that answer, but it really did not go to the question that I asked. I will just make a couple of points. The CFMEU does not have members in the lift and escalator industry so it is not about standing up to them. The sorts of companies that would be tendering for the work that the Commonwealth is involved in are not small- and medium-sized companies. It is quite a unique industry. They are not little companies. Otis elevator, for instance, is part of United Technologies, which is probably one of the biggest global entities in the world and which has enormous resources in their human resources department. You have Kone elevators, which again is one of the largest construction companies in the world. You have Thyssenkrupp. These are not small companies that are at anyone's mercy. The question I am really going to is that this is quite a niche industry, but it is crucial in the building and construction industry. I am just trying to confirm with the department, because they should know. This is not a lot of companies to check whether they have agreements or not. My advice is that none of them have compliant agreements. Not one.

So when we get to the stage of whether these companies want to bother tendering for jobs, if they do not have a compliant agreement in the short space of nine months in which they are going to be allowed to tender, they are just not going to bother. How is any construction project going to proceed? I suppose there will be some construction projects that do not involve escalators, but it is hard to imagine what they would be. The government is rarely involved in construction that will not have lifts or escalators, even if it is a matter of disabled lifts. So we are going to have a situation where potentially none of those companies are able to change their agreement in this short time frame. It is not as easy as simply saying that people will agree to change it. There is a process by law which people have to go through to get a change. I will ask more questions about the timing of that again, but I hope that in the small period of time that I have been speaking the department has been able to give you some advice about how many companies in the lift and escalator industry, which is nothing to do with the CFMEU, will have code-compliant agreements.

Senator Marshall, I do not have that information; however, again I go to the point that this is an opt-in scheme. If you do not want to perform Commonwealth-funded work, you do not have to. It is as simple as that. It is an opt-in scheme. Building industry participants have now had since April 2014 to bring their enterprise agreements into line with the new Building Code. I am advised that over 600 companies sent their agreements to the Department of Employment to be assessed against the advance release of the code since April 2014. Master Builders themselves have publicly stated that there are contractors that have enterprise agreements that comply with the 2016 code. As I have already stated, 16 per cent of companies have the clauses that have been referred to in relation to changing the agreements when the law changes.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is this: is the CFMEU honestly going to say no to their members having jobs? I think the answer to this question has to be no. It is up to the CFMEU. If a company with a non-code-compliant agreement has to become code compliant within this period of time in order to be able to undertake Commonwealth government work, that is the choice the CFMEU have. Do you know what I would do if I were the CFMEU? I would renegotiate as fast as I could if I was dinkum about my members actually undertaking work and having jobs, as opposed to—I have the article here somewhere—threatening to close down Australia. If this Senate today votes on this small amendment to this bill—they have openly issued a statement on 15 February. The summation of the statement is that they are so offended that they will close down Australia. I say this to the CFMEU: you can close down Australia. It is up to you. But you can also do the right thing by your members and ensure that in the event—because it may not occur—that the person or company you are working for becomes subject to the code and is required to have a code-compliant agreement, you are going to do your dammed hardest to ensure that you can front up on Monday morning with a job. That is the decision the CFMEU can make. They can shut down Australia or they can ensure that their members have jobs.

Thank you, Minister. Again, you went back to the CFMEU. The CFMEU do not have any members in the lift and escalator industry. I take it that the department has not been able to advise you, so I suspect that my information is right—that there is not a single company that has a compliant agreement. How many companies in the air conditioning industry have agreements that are compliant with the code?

Again, I am not in possession of that information, but I stand by my previous answer.

Again, I find it extraordinary, given that the department is there. The debate always seems to be about the big building companies and the CFMEU. The industry is much broader and more complex and detailed than that. Again, my advice, and it is only advice, is that not one air conditioning company in this country has a code-compliant agreement. It is hard to imagine that the Commonwealth will be funding any building and construction projects that will not need air conditioning contractors, as with my last question about lift and escalator contractors. I find it extraordinary. We talk about the 3½ thousand CFMEU agreements, but in the rest of the industry we have air conditioning, lifts and escalators, mechanical services, plumbing, electrical, boilermaking and steel fixing, civil engineering, mechanical engineering—the list goes on and on.

The amount of agreements the CFMEU has is only a portion of the agreements. Again, my estimation and advice is: in excess of 6,000 agreements are non-compliant in the industry. Six thousand have to be renegotiated and have to go through the process of getting changed through the commission. My advice is that that generally takes 12 weeks. So if we assumed that everyone could come to an agreement tomorrow about getting their agreement code-compliant, it would be 12 weeks before they even started to get to the commission. That is my advice. That is the way the commission has operated—by the time the agreements are voted on and registered. There has to be a period for the vote to take place. So, only then, in excess of 6,000—and this assumes that everyone can reach agreement then—goes through. You could do back-of-the-envelope figures, but I suppose it is an agreement being processed every couple of minutes in the commission to meet the nine-month deadline. Again, then you have companies saying 'Well, if we're not absolutely sure that we're going to be within that nine-month deadline, why would we spend and invest the money to tender only to find out that we might be over that nine months, and it's money down the drain?'

I have asked about air-conditioning. Maybe I could ask about mechanics services, as well. How many code-compliant agreements in the mechanical services component of the construction industry are code-compliant?

Senator Marshall, I see that you and I are going to be playing a tag team all night. Again, I am not in possession of that information. But, in relation to a number of the points that you have made—again—it is an opt-in scheme. It is as simple as that. If you want to undertake Commonwealth government work, yes, you will need to be code-compliant. If you do not, the scheme has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Everybody you refer to has had since April 2014 to get their affairs in order. There are numerous companies out there who have code-compliant agreements. In relation to those who do not, it is only if they are going to be affected by the changes to the code that they will have a vary their agreements. They have a considerable period of time in which they can do that under this amendment—until 31 August 2017. I would also say to you that this is something that the commission does on a regular basis. I am not going to underestimate the capacity of your appointment to the commission, President Ross, to undertake or to discharge his job in an incredibly diligent manner. This is bread-and-butter core business for the Fair Work Commission.

But I would also point out, Senator Cameron, as you know, government tenders are not awarded overnight. There is a process that needs to be gone through. During that time, these companies have the opportunity to vary their agreements—but only in the event that they require to.

Minister, you have descended into the rhetoric almost immediately about closing Australia down. But you have also raised the issue of cartel-like behaviour and you have accused Lendlease and Probuild of engaging in cartel behaviour. This is the rhetoric that One Nation have been espousing. Senator Roberts has been espousing this as cartel behaviour. You have now adopted One Nation's rhetoric on this. I also would like to ask you: have you advised or notified ACCC of cartel behaviour of these companies? And if you feel there is that cartel behaviour—as you have publicly indicated here—and if you have not advised of that behaviour, why not?

Also, in relation to the survey that you say you did in the elevator industry, can you advise me what other areas of the building and construction industry have you conducted surveys? What were the outcomes of the surveys and what did the surveys comprise of? What was being asked in the surveys?

Senator Cameron, again, as last time, it is clearly going to be a very, very long night. In relation to the cartel-like behaviour, you will be aware that what the code is seeking to do is break—we admit it—the cartel-like behaviour between head contractors and unions.

While they often directly employ few workers on site, big builders often enter into deals with unions that seek to mandate the pay and conditions for all subcontractors on site. This is directly relevant to small and medium enterprises who need to have the freedom to make a deal with their employees free of coercion. For example, the CFMEU's pattern bargaining agreement, which they require everybody in the chain to adhere to, contains a raft of restrictive work practices. It is okay for the big end of town; they can afford that. But the small and medium businesses are the ones who, unfortunately, do not have the power or the money to necessarily comply with these pattern bargaining agreement requirements. And, as such, they are quite literally not able to participate in the industry.

In terms of the survey that I referred to, as I said, 16 per cent of the agreements that the department had assessed had clauses in them that directly relate to the cause that I read out in relation to the renegotiation of agreements. My understanding is that the ACCC is currently investigating cartel behaviour within the building and construction industry—and the example given is, obviously, Boral.

It certainly is going to be a long night, because it is obvious that you are scrambling—as you did when we last debated the bill. Minister, I am really surprised that you do not understand the basics of your portfolio. You talk about agreements covering everyone on site; Minister, you would be aware, or you should be aware, that agreements do not cover everyone on site. You should correct that position, because it has not been legal to have pattern agreements on sites for many, many years. I am not sure why you are using this rhetoric about agreements covering everyone on site. You mentioned Boral. You have basically named and shamed two companies, Lendlease and Probuild, and I am asking you whether you have referred Lendlease and Probuild to the ACCC. Do you have evidence of cartel behaviour that breaches the ACCC legislation? You shake your head, so you have no evidence. I think it is outrageous that you have no evidence, shaking your head, 'No, I've got no evidence,' and yet accuse companies who have operated legally in enterprise bargaining for years.

You raised the issue of 2014. I want to draw your attention to the fact that on two occasions parliament rejected the bill that would have provided for the code that is now in place, and no company had a legal obligation to comply with a code that had not been subject to a legislative change within parliament. Really, your capacity to understand these issues to me seems to be less and less every time we are here. That is why it becomes a long night, because either you or the government do not understand how industrial relations works in this country. I asked you, 'Have any other surveys been done?' and I thought it would have been an easy answer—either surveys have been done or they have not. If no surveys have been done, are you relying on the MBA for your advice as to what is happening in the industry?

Prior to the ABCC bill passing last year, Master Builders Australia advised that the overwhelming majority of its members had enterprise agreements that are code compliant. Also, many enterprise agreements, as I have already stated, include clauses that commit the parties to amendments in the event that the new code is introduced. As I have also stated, the department has undertaken an analysis of a number of agreements and found that 16 per cent of agreements had these types of clauses.

Minister, I am still not sure. You are saying that it is 16 per cent across the board. That means that 84 per cent do not have such a clause. That is why I think many companies are concerned about stability in the industry and about the capacity of the industry to deal with this change in such a short period. Minister, the day after the bill was passed you issued a press release—

Who's scrambling?

Sorry?

I don't think the minister is scrambling. Do you need a hand with your papers?

No, I am fine. Minister, you issued a press release which basically said that companies had until 2018 to become code compliant. What changed?

Senator Cameron, as you would well know, the government's position for many, many years now has been very clear: the government's preference was to have the relevant provisions of the original bill commence following gazettal. The government's position was not preferred by a majority of people within the Senate and, as such, the government sought an accommodation with the crossbench, as Labor and the Greens refused to deal with the government in relation to ensuring prosperity and productivity in the building and construction industry.

You say the government sought an accommodation. Senator Hinch indicated that he went to the government—that is on the public record. Senator Hinch also indicated that the Prime Minister wrote on a piece of paper, and passed that piece of paper over to Senator Hinch, with the 2018 date. Did you have any involvement in determining the 2018 date and are you now saying that Senator Hinch's view of what happened where the Prime Minister offered up the 2018 date is wrong?

Senator Cameron, I have made statements on many occasions since coming into government that I do not reveal the contents of negotiations with the crossbench. That would just be inappropriate. The government's clear position was that we would have preferred the relevant provisions of the original bill to commence following gazettal. That position was not supported by a majority of senators, and we were able to negotiate a position which the government ultimately agreed to and which was passed by a majority of the Senate.

Minister, I also wanted to take up a similar question to that which Senator Cameron asked about how the change came about, because it was only a few months ago that we were here and the two-year grace period was agreed to by the Senate. I notice that you have changed your language somewhat, putting it on the crossbenchers, but we know it went through unanimously; it was agreed to. So, my question is: when did you change your mind and decide to bring legislation back to the parliament—the legislation that we are now debating? When did that change and what was the catalyst? It is a very big change. In November you signed off on legislation—the two-year grace period was unanimous. So, for the understanding of how the government works and, most importantly, going to the heart of what we are debating here, that needs to be unravelled. It is important, if this is a house of review and you are committed to that openness and transparency, to understand the process here. That should be answered.

Thank you for that question, Senator Rhiannon. Again, the government's preference—it has been since we first introduced this legislation a number of years ago—was to have the relevant provisions of the original bill commence following gazettal. It is a fact that the government does not have the numbers in the Senate and therefore we need to negotiate passage of legislation. Last year we were able to negotiate passage of the legislation and the benefits of that legislation through the Senate. However, we were also given an opportunity—and I do not know about you, Senator Rhiannon, but I am someone who is always looking to improve what the government can do. We are now in a position whereby we can improve on our first attempt, and that is what we are doing.

So, Minister, do we understand that you are acknowledging what happened when we were last debating the ABCC legislation? As you know, there were a number of amendments that were agreed to in the end. Are you acknowledging that the legislation was rushed, that it was sloppy in the way it was handled and that there were a number of things that you were not happy with, so we well could be revisiting this time and time again when you get the numbers? Is that how this government is now going to conduct itself? It rushed something through so that you could go out there before Christmas and say that you have achieved what you went to the election with. But then you will chip away at the crossbenchers and you will bring in the big guns to put the pressure on, and we could be facing a piecemeal approach to how sloppy legislation has been dealt with in the past. Surely that is the essence of what you are saying.

It appears the minister is not going to respond to that. I would like to ask the minister more about the agreements. One of the things that concern me is how the commission is going to process this change in such a short, narrow time frame. I have one question and then I might ask a few more that the department might have to run around and get information on. The first question I have relates to the 16 per cent of agreements that the department said they have tested that are code compliant. It was 16 per cent of what?

Senator Marshall, to be clear, this was 16 per cent of the agreements that the department looked at that had that clause. They looked at 100 enterprise agreements and found that 16 per cent of those agreements had these types of clauses. As I said though, prior to the passing of the ABCC, Master Builders advised that the overwhelming majority of their members have enterprise agreements that are code compliant.

Thank you for that, Minister. And that is fine—they have done the sample of 100. And maybe the MBA are right—maybe the majority of their members do—but they rarely actually employ people on building and construction sites. They are effectively a manager of contractors and subcontractors, and of course they are the people that need to be on the sites to do the work. So how many agreements do we think are in the building and construction industry—not just the CFMEU but across the whole industry, including mechanical services, electrical services, air conditioning, the civil component?

I am not in a position to give you a figure, but I think on any analysis there would be thousands.

I agree, but I think it is probably tens of thousands. It does concern me that the department cannot offer that sort of advice. The whole thrust of this amendment is reducing the transition time to enable the agreements to become code compliant. One would have thought some analysis had in fact been done on whether it is even physically possible to have agreements transfer to code compliance in this space of time. If the department is able to find that information, that would help me. Can I ask then: what does the department predict is the amount of time taken from an agreement being reached, voted upon and lodged in the commission to a decision being made? How long will that take per agreement?

Senator Marshall, as you would know, the normal processes apply. In the event that the CFMEU—I will use the CFMEU as the example union—activates this clause within seven days they will be seeking to vary their agreement, and then the normal processes of the commission would apply.

Seven days is the process to apply to get to the commission, but before that, there has to be a process of negotiation and consultation that satisfies the legal requirements of doing that in the first place. Again, my advice is that that is at least 28 days then the seven days will kick in and then there is a process of how busy the commission is going to be at that point in time, with potentially tens of thousands of agreements lining up. Can I ask whether the Fair Work Commission has been consulted about its capacity to actually vary potentially tens of thousands of agreements over the next nine months.

I think you are actually underestimating and undermining the work of the Fair Work Commission. This is bread-and-butter work for the commission.

Companies and the unions have had the opportunity since April 2014 to become code compliant. Again, it is an opt-in scheme. You do not have to opt into this scheme should you not wish to. If you do not wish to then you do not need to vary your agreement. In the event that you do wish to, and you do not have a co-compliant agreement—because a number of companies have code compliant agreements—then you merely need to seek to vary the offending clause. If it is one clause, you merely seek to vary one clause.

But the reality is, whether it is one clause, 10 clauses or 50 clauses, the time process for negotiation, consultation, lodgement and assessment is fixed. It is going to take that long anyway.

Again, I do find it somewhat surprising and, in fact, somewhat alarming that the department, first of all, cannot tell us how many agreements there are in the industry. They have done a sample to determine that they believe that 16 per cent are code compliant, so 84 per cent are not code compliant. If we are talking about tens of thousands of agreements, we are potentially talking about tens of thousands of agreements that are not code compliant.

I do not really want to get back into the argument about whether they should have had code compliant agreements. Quite frankly, the legislation had been defeated twice. I think it was quite reasonable for a lot of people to assume that they did not need to be that code compliant because the parliament had actually determined this issue on two occasions. In any case, the 2016 code is different from the 2014 code and we have had that evidence; it has been presented to the committee and in the reports.

Again, I would like to know what the estimation is. If I just do the rough calculation, I think the commission is probably trying to process an agreement every four minutes. That is assuming that the potentially tens of thousands of agreements are all agreed immediately. If you accept that, even with the whole nine months, you cannot get through it. You cannot do it; it is a physical impossibility. The point I am trying to find out is: does this amendment actually enable people who might want to become code compliant, even if they wanted to and even if they did everything in their best endeavours with their workforce, to achieve that goal? That is my question.

I suggested earlier that we would be here all night and I know we will not be, because you came down to listen to my second reading speech and I could see in your eyes that I got you halfway to the line. I know you are on board and you are convinced with the strength of my argument and I know you are listening very intently now.

You have a department that has the job of collecting these statistics. Again, I find it incredibly frustrating that we just seem to have arbitrary numbers pulled out like 'two years', which was just written on a piece of paper by the Prime Minister and slid across the table to Senator Hinch. And we know that was not advice that the department provided because they gave that evidence. Now we have a nine-month transition period. We know that was not the advice of the department because they gave us that evidence. Clearly, it is now pretty obvious to everybody that they would not have given that advice because, for a start, they do not even know how many agreements are in the industry—and they should. They believe, however many it is, that 16 per cent may be code compliant so 84 per cent are not but they do not actually know what that figure is. They certainly have not sought any advice from the Fair Work Commission about their ability to process such a number of agreements. In fact, they seem to have provided no advice to the government.

So we are actually making policy that can have a significantly detrimental effect on industry and companies just based on an arbitrary number of nine months. Maybe I am missing something but I have to say I find that extraordinary. I thought that in this place, and certainly as part of the committee process, we tested how rigorous the policymaking process was in what we are debating and what is in front of us. It appears there was no policy making here. It was simply a number pulled out of thin air an applied with no testing against reality and no testing against capacity. I find that extraordinary. I know in the next couple of hours you will, ultimately, agree with me. You will withdraw the legislation and we will be able to move on. It will not be a late night. I can see many on your side agree with me already.

Minister, I want to go back to a question Senator Cameron asked earlier, and it concerns the inquiry. Before you were a minister, when you were in opposition, you would have sat on these inquiries, and I am sure it says probably somewhere in Hansard, somewhere in committee reports, that you acknowledged the importance of it. And he asked whether you had been informed that there could be 3,300 agreements that would not be co-compliant. The impression I got—and this is what I want to check—from how you handled that question was that your office had not made you aware of what happened at that inquiry. So, my question is, have you been briefed about what happened at the inquiry into this legislation this week?

Yes.

This is a huge part of what we are debating, that there could be so many of these agreements—thousands of agreements—not co-compliant. And in answer to an earlier question, you appeared not to know about it. Surely that was in the briefing. Is it a briefing just along the line that there was an inquiry today? Or were you actually given information about it that you considered before you came into this debate? I mean, this is very relevant. Are you taking the Senate processes seriously?

Unfortunately I am tempted to actually respond to you. This bill has been presented to the parliament on a number of occasions. There have been copious Senate inquiries into it. Another Senate inquiry—you are right—was held on Monday. And yes, I was briefed on that inquiry.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I am seeking through these questions to protect workers, union members, small business and taxpayers. My first question to the minister: it seems to me, Minister, that the key and perhaps only question, the only issue here, is the decrease in the transition period from two years to nine months—nothing else. Anything else is a distraction from this bill and outside the intent and scope of this bill. Secondly, given the ABCC's benefits to workers, small businesses and taxpayers, isn't that necessary to get the ABCC into place as quickly as possible?

You are correct: the exemption currently runs until the end of 28 November 2018. This bill will, if passed by the Senate, bring this exemption forward to 31 August 2017, and this is obviously key to ensure that there is a level playing field for all involved, regardless of their size, as soon as possible. And I have been very up-front with the Senate: the government's preferred position was that the provisions commenced following gazettal. But we also acknowledge that that was not the preferred position of the Senate, and we are very happy that we have been able to work constructively with the crossbench, and Senator Hinch in particular, to put in place a nine-month transition period—bearing in mind that April 2014 was when notice was first given.

Minister, just to clarify further: that is the only issue under discussion, as I understand it, in this bill—reduction from two years to nine months in the transition period?

As I said, yes, the exemption currently runs until the end of 28 November 2018. The bill will bring this forward to 31 August 2017. It is a very short amendment.

Again to the minister: during the committee stages yesterday Mr David Noonan from the CFMEU said that Assistant Commissioner Fontana from the Victorian police recanted his original statements, and I read one of those statements, and that statement said:

… union officials use organised crime figures to act as debt collectors in the industry'. Specifically, Victoria Police has intelligence which indicates that members of outlaw motorcycle gangs now regularly undertake debt collection for union officials.

In his response, Mr Noonan from the CFMEU said that subsequently Assistant Commissioner Fontana had retracted those statements and apologised.

Now, I have since checked the Heydon royal commission transcript, and it says quite clearly that the CFMEU's barrister's question to Assistant Commissioner Fontana was:

In your written statement you do not describe Mr Meyer as a union official. Paragraph 48 is the place in your statement where you mention the CFMEU.

And Assistant Commissioner Fontana said, 'Sorry, you're right,' and then the barrister for the CFMEU said, 'Of the Comanchero sergeant-at-arms, Norman Meyer?' and Fontana said yes. And then the barrister for the CFMEU said, 'But in your oral evidence you have described him as a union official.' And then Assistant Commissioner Fontana said, 'I've got that wrong; I apologise.'

In other words, Assistant Commissioner Fontana said that he apologised for confusing Meyer as being a union official when in fact he was a union member only, and no-one disputes that he is a member. What I am saying is that yesterday in the Senate committee hearing Mr Noonan for the CFMEU made a number of false and misleading statements that misrepresented the truth. So, that is the first one: there was no apology for his allegations about the CFMEU from Assistant Commissioner Fontana, and there was no retraction of his claims about the crimes associated with the CFMEU.

I further take note that in his response to me yesterday Mr Noonan for the CFMEU said words to the effect that the CFMEU has zero tolerance for criminal activities and does not endorse criminal involvement in the union. Yet surely people are aware that in recent years several CFMEU officials have been purged by Mr Noonan for blowing the whistle on corrupt dealings between the CFMEU and organised crime figure George Alex. Whistleblowers have made claims that Alex was paying cash to the CFMEU officials.

For an organisation that has 'zero tolerance', I think they were Mr Noonan's words, it is quite clear from an article in The Herald Sun that the unions muscleman, Norm Meyer, has been revealed as the key player in the standover tactics for the militant CFMEU and the building industry. I also have a photo here of a police raid on an outlaw motorcycle gang clubhouse which prominently features Norman Meyer who is a member of the CFMEU and connected with the Victorian CFMEU assistant state secretary Shaun Reardon and is connected in turn to the CFMEU state secretary John Setka. Then I have a photo here—it is a notorious picture, I am told—of Norman Meyer walking with an outlaw motorcycle gang T-shirt under an open CFMEU jacket alongside the Victorian CFMEU state secretary Shaun Reardon. I am wondering how much credibility Mr David Noonan has, because it is quite clear that there is a lot of tolerance for organised crime and corruption within the CFMEU. Further, I understand that some of these links have been drawn to the attention of Mr Albanese and Mr Bill Shorten. In fact, in response to whistleblowers' claims David Noonan summonsed the whistleblowers and then dismissed the whistleblowers. Far from having zero tolerance for crime and corruption, it seems that the CFMEU has zero tolerance for whistleblowers.

My question is: how can we take the CFMEU seriously? How can the ALP, Greens and independent MPs and senators condone anything but putting an end to this corruption as soon as possible? Senators Hinch and Xenophon have been smeared in attempts to intimidate and control their position and to change their position. This is just unacceptable, and it reaches right through this parliament with people outside the Greens and the ALP—independent MPs and senators—receiving money from the CFMEU. The CFMEU is trying to intimidate honest senators who have gone out to listen to their members and then act in response to their constituents. How can we tolerate this? I put it to you, Minister, that the sooner this ABCC comes into place the sooner we start ending the corruption that has its tentacles right through this parliament.

Thank you, Senator Roberts, for those comments. I wholeheartedly endorse them. Royal commission after royal commission would endorse the comments that you have made. This is a vital sector of the Australian economy, and our role in this chamber should be to ensure that it is as efficient, safe and law-abiding as possible because when that industry performs in that manner it creates more jobs and gives more Australians opportunities. That is all we are trying to do.

Minister, I want to go back to the issue of your survey that showed that only 16 per cent of the industry agreements surveyed were code compliant; and so, obviously, 84 per cent were not compliant. When you talk about a level playing field, it seems to me that the concept of a level playing field for the coalition is that the 84 per cent have to move over to where the 16 per cent are to create that level playing field. It just does not make a lot of sense when you have a situation where 84 per cent of the industry will have to go through extensive negotiations. If you have ever done any negotiation, you would know that even getting a change to one clause can be a lengthy and complex negotiation. Given that you have put so much effort into dragging 84 per cent of the industry over to the 16 per cent, I am wondering how many of that 16 per cent made donations to the Liberal Party's election campaign. I am also wondering in relation to competition in the industry if, as Senator Marshall has indicated, there are delays in getting agreements firstly negotiated and secondly approved, why would the coalition be creating a circumstance where a non-code compliant company could provide the lowest cost tender with maybe a shorter time frame, the best quality outcomes against a code-compliant company. Why would the Australian public be disadvantaged by not being able to have the benefits of the non-code-compliant company providing a better outcome in terms of economics, quality and delivery in the industry? What does this mean for competition? Have you received any advice about the implications for proper competition in the industry arising from this amendment?

Up-front I need to say to you that you are completely wrong in your analysis of the figures—completely wrong. You have also verballed me, I will not say deliberately; I am sure you have merely made a mistake. We did not say that 16 per cent of agreements were code compliant and therefore it automatically meant that 84 per cent were not. That is wrong.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

I said that the department had undertaken a survey of 100 agreements and had found that 16 per cent of those agreements include the types of clauses which I had referred to—in other words, when the law changes, the union has already agreed that the parties will renegotiate or vary the agreements.

It goes back to the basic premise, Senator Cameron. This is an opt-in scheme. You need to opt in to it. No-one forces you to opt in to it. If you want to participate in Commonwealth-funded works—some do, some don't; that is the nature of the lay of the land—and you do not have a code-compliant agreement, you need to vary your agreement. You have a nine-month lead-in time to do that. The number that vary their agreements will depend on the number who want to do future government-funded work. That's it.

Minister, what if no-one opts in?

Senator Cameron, I actually do not even know how to answer that question, because it is so obtuse.

Senator Rhiannon interjecting—

It is hypothetical but obviously it will open the market up to a whole lot of other players who are prepared to opt into the system and currently have code-compliant agreements.

Minister, isn't it true that there are many, many small contractors who are more efficient, who are trying to get into this field and who cannot because they are locked out of a monopoly controlled by the cartel, particularly by the CFMEU's lists? That is the first thing. The second thing is that a non-code-compliant company would be burdened by inefficiencies and rorting. So it would be preposterous that they could be the lowest bidder. This is about protecting workers, small businesses and taxpayers; therefore, we need to ignore what I perceive as Senator Cameron's perception that turns economics on its head.

Again, Senator Roberts, thank you very much for those comments. All I can say to you is: yes and yes.

Minister, we have been trying, patiently, to get some information as to what the implications of this bill will be in the context of competition and in the context of capability—that is, having the companies that can go out and do the work. Given that you have indicated that only 16 per cent of the 100 companies that were surveyed have a clause that goes to renegotiation, it means that even in those 100 companies there are many companies that would have to go through a full process of seeking to have, first of all, negotiations with the unions that are party to the agreement and then get the agreement before the commission and go through the whole process in the context of delivering a bargaining outcome. That is the issue: getting a bargaining outcome. What you are saying is that you do not have a clue about how many companies do not have an agreement. That does lead to what Senator Marshall has indicated—chaos in the industry, a position where competition is diminished in the industry and where companies that may have been financial donors to the Liberal Party are advantaged against companies that have simply abided by the law and negotiated agreements under the Fair Work Act. Minister, have you got any idea of the number of companies that will have to go through a process of renegotiation in the building and construction industry? If you do not know, why have you supported this bill? Why are you proposing this bill when you obviously do not understand the implications for competition and continued efficiency in the industry? Why?

Senator Cameron, thank you. I do not think I need to tell anyone in this chamber that, in terms of the CFMEU donating directly to the Labor Party, one of the reasons the CFMEU and Labor are able to fund campaigns against Senator Hinch and Senator Xenophon is the millions and millions and millions of dollars that they have, much of which is funnelled directly into the Labor Party's coffers.

Mr Chair, I have answered this question several times tonight. Unfortunately, Senator Cameron does not like the answer, but we know why. He is completely, totally and utterly opposed to law and order within the building and construction industry. Senator Cameron, it is a choice. It is an opt-in scheme. It is a choice whether a building industry participant or a company wishes to tender. It is a choice. No-one is forcing anyone—unless, of course, you want to talk about a particular union, the CFMEU, forcing someone to take on the terms that they want them to take on and then passing them down through the chain so that small and medium players who cannot afford these terms are completely locked out of the third largest industry in Australia. Again, it is opt-in. They have had over two years in which to get their affairs in order. They are now able to get their affairs in order by 31 August, and many companies are already code compliant.

Minister, when the transition is completed, wouldn't there be increased competition in the industry? If that is correct then my faith in people shows that there is an incentive for people to become code compliant. That will mean that all the hurdles to getting code compliant will be overcome through an innate cooperation between people, and small companies in particular will find it very easy to get code compliance. What this really brings is a culture change, once the transition is completed, that will bring increased safety and increased efficiencies for the taxpayer, small businesses and union members. So I put it to you that with the ending of the cartel, there will be increased competition, we will get compliance and we will get the code implemented very quickly.

I will just briefly respond because I understand we are about to interrupt business for a condolence motion.

The answer is yes, Senator Roberts. Again, I go back to a discussion we had earlier on this evening. If a particular union wants its members to have a job, if it wants its members to be able to go onto a building site and work, it will vary the agreement in the event that it has to. But you are right: what this does is give a level playing field to all participants, but in particular the small and medium players who, to date, have been locked out.

Minister, it is clear that there has been a lot of debate about this already, but I just want to seek some clarification of some numbers. How many companies currently are tendering for Commonwealth business and how many of those companies do you know are currently compliant with your new Building Code?

Thank you for the question, Senator Rice. I am advised that since the new code commenced on 2 December there have been 18 tenders.

That was not my question, Minister. I wanted to know how many companies are currently tendering for or working on Commonwealth building projects.

I have nothing to say.

That, I would have thought, was a pretty basic question of knowing the extent of the number of companies that are currently tendering for or currently working on government projects. How can you have any idea what the impact on the building industry is going to be if you cannot even supply us with that basic information?

Minister, Senator Cameron said that he has done some negotiations—so have I, industrially. In fact, I led the negotiation and the implementation of the first modern award in the coal industry in the 1990s, at a time of considerable turmoil. It was a radical change for those days. I have worked through years as a miner, as a member of the CFMEU, and I must say I am appalled that the CFMEU now gives money to GetUp! in close association with George Soros, who has done a lot of damage in many countries of the world. I understand that GetUp!'s foundation board of directors included someone by the name of Bill Shorten. It is ironic that the CFMEU's practices lead to increased funds for the CFMEU taken from the taxpayers and that those taxpayer funds are then redistributed to an organisation like GetUp!, which is going hell for leather to smash the Australian coal industry. So the CFMEU, which pretends to cover coalminers, is actually funding the organisation that is trying to destroy the coal industry. That just gives me a little bit of a background picture on the CFMEU as it is today.

In fact, in 1991 I had dealings with a man for whom I had some respect as a CFMEU vice president at the time, and he told me that the CFMEU was heading in the wrong direction because it was not serving its members. Now, we can see. The cartel behaviour has been raised—this was something also that either Senator Marshall or Senator Cameron raised earlier—to the public media and has been discussed extensively by journalists. And I have raised with you, Minister, that we need to look at narrowing the IR carve-out and look at getting the ACCC involved, and I have had discussions with the ACCC chair into narrowing the IR carve-out.

Would you like me to repeat that? Is it not true that I have requested that the ACCC chairman consider doing a review of narrowing the IR carve-out? Further, is it not true that I have spoken in this chamber on the need to send industrial relations back to the states so that we can restore competitive federalism in this country?

by leave—I thank the Senate for its indulgence in giving me this period of time to speak. We have had a change of arrangements in the Senate today, and I do appreciate the Senate's indulgence.

I rise to pay tribute to Harriet Nixon, who was tragically killed just after Christmas in a terrible freak accident. She was only 21 years of age—and right now she would be telling me to get it together, so I promise I will. Harriet was a family friend and also worked for me here in the building as an intern for the last two years. She was a beautiful young lady and such a wonderful young Australian. It was a tragic accident. To have that happen to somebody so young who had their whole life in front of them was just so absolutely tragic.

The outpouring of love and support that Harriet received from the moment of the accident, through the funeral, and since has been an absolute testament to her. When she was in the hospital the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, came to the hospital so that he could be by her bedside; the Prime Minister rang her parents, Ralph and Fi; Julie Bishop, the foreign minister, rang her parents; and over 1,200 people attended her funeral. I think that was just extraordinary.

The funeral was a beautiful celebration of her tragically short life. A wonderful story was told about Harriet, who had amazing confidence—just simply amazing. I think it was at five years of age that she learnt how to sing the national anthem. I think her mother had been doing the flowers for the Olympics—I will correct that if it is wrong—and Harriet learnt the national anthem, both verses I might say! She went on to sing it at her school and then rang up Macca on a Sunday morning on the ABC and proceeded to sing the national anthem. She proclaimed to him very confidently that she knew the national anthem—both verses—and went on to sing it on the radio. I think it was an extraordinary thing. So must so, on 15 January, after Harriet had passed away, Macca spoke about it on his show. He said:

I always like to talk to youngsters that call the program from time to time.

I don't know what to do is about the young voice and young Australians.

About 14 years ago I had a call from a little seven-year-old girl who had just learnt Advance Australia Fair and she wanted to sing it for Australia; her name was Harriet Nixon.

Some little time after that we were doing some drought relief concerts, one in Melbourne at Dallas Brookshire and one in Sydney at Castle Hill.

I asked Harriet to come along and open the show and sing the national anthem.

You should have been there. You may have been.

It was a marvellous moment, and I remember watching from the side of the stage and at the end of it I saw one bloke leap up and jump to his feet and the whole audience stood and gave little Harriet a standing ovation.

An unforgettable moment, especially for her.

Time moves on. Harriet went to primary school, then high school at Geelong Grammar, and then to ANU, where she was studying Arts/Law while she was working.

I opened the Tele last week and read with disbelief that Harriet Nixon, 21 tender years, had been killed by a falling tree branch while helping to set up a music festival on the New South Wales Central Coast.

I have a picture of the little Harriet on my desk that was taken at our drought concert in 2003.

She has a special place in our hearts and in everybody's hearts. Like everybody she came in contact with, we are bereft.

You might remember late last year I spoke to a padre in Iraq before Christmas and I asked him about the job of padreing (if you like) and he said, 'Ian in the gladdest and the saddest of times words will prove to be inadequate.'

And this is such a time. I cannot find any way to explain this tragedy.

She was such a wonderful young woman.

To her parents Fiona and Ralph, and sister Alicia, our love.

We have all lost a very special young lady.

To have somebody like Macca take the time to acknowledge Harriet's beautiful laugh; it was just incredibly special.

In my office we have Team Nash. We are very fortunate in my office to have Team Nash, because I have the most wonderful people who work with me. It is not your normal office. We are more like a family and I know how much they have all been just shattered by Harriet leaving us. Adam said that she was just so pure. I think Andy really encapsulated it when he said she was a ray of sunshine. I would like to read what Nathan, Les, Adam, James, Steph, Nick, Elizabeth, Brett, Whilemina, Fiona, Ryan, Fi, Andy, Catherine, Josie and Jock have written for Harriet:

For Harriet

A huge smile and a huge heart.

This is how we will remember our beautiful and beloved colleague, Harriet.

Harriet was a rare person.

She had charisma in spades.

She had a unique ability to make you feel like you were the only person in the room. She always had time to talk, and would listen with vigour.

She was highly intelligent, wise and accomplished beyond their years. But she was also very humble.

She was organised—

She was certainly organised!

driven, and capable, and she was incredibly caring and kind.

She was elegant and gorgeous, yet she was also modest.

Her boundless optimism and energy was contagious. Anyone who met her could not help but be in awe of this amazing person. She was an inspiration to everyone around her.

There was nothing that you couldn't like or adore about Harriet.

And despite her many commitments with work, study, university, sport and charity, she always made time to help others. She was a devoted daughter, sister, friend, girlfriend, and colleague.

Harriet, it was a pleasure working with you and knowing you. We will forever cherish our memories of you—our walks up Red Hill; dancing in campaign T-shirts in Lismore; tennis matches after work; your lists of the best cafes and restaurants in Canberra; lessons in constitutional law AND microeconomics; planning amazing holidays; and teaching you Turkish.

We were so excited to see the woman you would grow into.

We are so grateful for having had you in our lives and are incredibly proud to be able to say 'I knew Harriet'. You have left a lifelong, lasting impression on us and we are so much better for knowing you.

We will never be able to hold you, or hear you, or speak to you Harriet, but we will never forget you.

I know that other staff who are not in the office at this point in time, but were at the time of Harriet—both the Matts, Stafford and Harris; Sarah; Alison; Jake; Sam and Emma—I know how much you all cared, as well.

The Young Nats were amazing. Harriet took to the Young Nats like a duck to water. I sponsored her for her first Young Nats conference and she was so appreciative. I would like to read from Jess Price Purnell, who is the Young Nats state president in New South Wales:

The first time Harriet walked into the 2015 Young Nats Conference in Corowa, we were all blown away by her presence. Only was she gorgeous on the outside but on the inside too.

While Harriet's time with the Young Nats was cut far too short, in the two years she was a part of the organisation, she made a huge impact.

Whether it was debating fiercely on the conference floor or dancing the chicken dance after eating too many deserts at our conference dinner, everyone knew when Harriet was in a room.

It was an absolute pleasure to have Harriet on the executive of the Young Nationals as the New South Wales Southern Regional Coordinator and I know every You Nat member will cherish the moments spent with her.

Harriet's friends and family were the most important thing in the world to her. They all adored her and she adored them. And, as has been said, there was so much to adore about Harriet.

My nieces, Sam and George—Sam is here tonight—were incredibly close to Harriet. I want to read a few words from Sam:

Harriet was the most talented and brilliant young woman. She was mature beyond her years and always showed responsibility. Harriet was respectful and kind to people.

I often asked Harriet for advice, as she was wise and so grounded. She would listen and then in her very proper voice—

She did sound quite posh—

give her thoughtful words of advice. You would not find a more honest and trusted person to talk with.

Harriet embodied everything that was good about this world and as we remember her smile we will be grateful of the time we shared with her. Harriet filled our lives with happiness, and valued above all her family.

We all thought deep in our hearts that Harriet herself would one day get the opportunity to make many addresses in parliament as she was so talented and committed to making a difference.

And Sam, about that, I think you are absolutely right.

Here tonight are Ralph and Fi, Harriet's beautiful parents, Sinny, her beautiful boyfriend, Sinny's mum, Zee, and all the others here in the chamber tonight. I want to acknowledge my colleagues the member for Riverina, Michael McCormack, and the member for Calare, Andrew Gee. This is a moment for an extraordinary young Australian. She was so special. She had her incredible life before her, but what I think is amazing is that she packed into 21 years more than most people do in their lifetime. She was extraordinary. One minute she could be trekking up a mountain in trekking gear and the next minute be dressed up for a dinner looking like Audrey Hepburn—I am not kidding; she really did look like Audrey Hepburn.

To finish, Harriet had this amazing ability to instil in people incredible hope for the future of the nation. She embodied everything that was good with optimism and hope. She made the most of every day. Her charity work was incredible. Everything she did, she did to the nth degree. It may only have been a very, very short life, but it was a life that was so well lived, and she gave so much to those around her. Macca said, 'How do you make sense of something like this?' I think there is probably only one answer. Be you religious or not, I think the only answer is that God needed another angel, so he took Harriet.

To Ralph and Fi and Alicia, from David, Will, Henry and me and my beautiful team Nash, our loves goes to you and our strength goes to you, and beautiful Harriet will always, always be in our hearts.

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

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

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

Minister, would this be code compliant?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And then if you go to (h):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 At the end of section 34

Add:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Hinch interjecting—

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

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

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

They did last December.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Order!

Through you, Chair—sorry.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, we respect you for that.

We respected you for that.

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

Senator Cameron interjecting—

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

Did you sell halal snack packs?

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

I will ignore the smart remarks in this chamber—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That would be helpful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's socialise employment!

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

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

Why do you take their money?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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