Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (10:11): On 6 October this year there was an incident in my home state that shows that safety on a worksite is more than just a political plaything for those opposite. I can remember where I was when I received the news. I was travelling from Townsville to Mackay when they announced that two workers had been killed after being crushed by a 10-tonne concrete slab at Eagle Farm racecourse. Those two gentlemen were Ashley Morris, a 34-year-old, and Humberto Leite, who was 55. I pass on my condolences to their families and friends.

Media reports revealed that several workers walked off that job in the days before the deadly incident, with one worker quoted as saying, 'It is the first time in my working life that I have walked off a project.' A manager of the project has since been charged with two counts of manslaughter. In terms of the media reports of these deaths and what has occurred since, it sounds like a very, very tragic case. I will read part of the recent media report on the ABC news.

Two construction workers killed at Brisbane's Eagle Farm racecourse managed to escape one falling concrete wall only to be killed by a second, police have alleged, after the builder in charge of the site was arrested at the international airport.

Claudio D'Alessandro, 58, appeared in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on Wednesday on two counts of manslaughter, after being charged on Tuesday.

D'Alessandro was arrested at Brisbane international airport, where he was embarking on a spur-of-the moment, four-day holiday to the Philippines.

The report went on to say:

The court was told the men were helping to install a four-walled "foul water settling tank" consisting of four individual walls, each about four square metres and weighing about 10 tonnes.

The walls were lowered individually onto the floor with a crane, with the first three walls, once in place, being "tied" to each other across the top corner by use of adjustable temporary bracing.

…

A police affidavit stated that the men were working in a "pit" under D'Alessandro's instructions trying to lower the concrete walls when they began to collapse.

The pair managed to "ride down" one concrete slab as it fell but were crushed after the wall's failure caused a second slab to topple forward.

It sounds like a particularly horrific death for those poor workers. Again, my condolences go to their families and friends.

This was a shocking incident, which was made worse by the documents submitted in court showing that the deceased workers had actually raised significant concerns with their manager about the safety of the work they were doing in lowering the concrete panels into place. Yet those opposite want to reduce the ability of workers to raise these types of concerns, making it more difficult for unions to hold employers accountable for the safety concerns of their workers.

In light of incidents such as this, it is fairly remarkable that the government are still pushing the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill through in the same form it has been in since 2013. But I think this gives you an understanding of their motivation. This is just the latest plank in their attack on workers. The idea behind this bill, which was what the double dissolution election was fought on, had previously been rejected by this parliament a number of times. The rationale for the double dissolution was barely mentioned during the two-month campaign. It is really no wonder that their campaign was off the rails.

But here we are, almost five months later, and finally they are bringing this legislation into the Senate for debate. What we are seeing from the LNP government is a continued ideological attack on workers. We have already seen reports in the media over recent days that that attack is only just starting and that they are only going to push further and harder next year in a return to a Work Choices style environment. The difference is that they are doing it piece by piece these days, but the outcome is still the same. It is an attack on workers and it is one that Australians are waking up to.

It is also what we see from LNP governments across Australia. In my own state of Queensland we saw, on the election of the Campbell Newman government, a harsh antiworker agenda that targeted unions and did nothing for the workers of that state—and they are still paying the price for. This is an antiworker, anti-union agenda, and they are happy to pit the workers against other people in Australia and really play a divisive game in this country.

We already know what Senator Brandis thinks of his LNP colleagues in Queensland. But this is really following the LNP playbook that we have seen around Australia over a number of years. The mock outrage from the LNP about being on the side of the workers is really nonsense. The public are not buying it, and we will absolutely be exposing that, when we look at the examples that I have already given.

Whilst Labor are focused on listening to workers across the country, the LNP are focused on attacking them. This legislation is a great example of how badly the LNP government are faring. Whilst many people throughout Queensland are suffering economic uncertainty around high unemployment and high youth unemployment and uncertain future employment opportunities, in the last five months I have seen this firsthand in the time I have spent, particularly in regional Queensland. I have made trips to Cairns, Townsville, Mackay and Gladstone over the last couple of months and I have had many meetings with communities, businesses and workers in that time. Not one person has mentioned the ABCC bill as being important in their lives. I think that the focus of those people is on the practical economic opportunities that they want to see in central and regional Queensland, where the future jobs are coming from, improving their local economy and particularly jobs for young people, because they really want to see the next generation of people growing up in regional Queensland getting the opportunity to stay and continue to work in those areas.

It is important to look at the motivations behind this bill and what is driving the LNP. Any resolution on this bill would only be a significant step forward for the government's anti-union, antiworker agenda. The government has said they will come back with further changes in terms of workplace relations laws that this government wants to pursue. It is part of an ideological crusade against workers.

We have all seen what happens when the coalition gets their way in the Senate. Their Work Choices agenda was a relentless ideological attack on working Australians. The Australian people clearly saw through this overreach and were happy to turf them out in 2007. It was through coordinated and effective campaigning that the union movement was able to oppose Work Choices, and those opposite have not forgotten. That is what happens when you try to take on blue-collar and white-collar Australians and attack their rights at work. Now they are trying to nobble these bodies who are best placed to oppose this antiworker agenda. If they can tie up these groups who represent employees in red tape, they can get more of their antiworker reforms through over the next couple of years.

I note that on three separate occasions the government has tried to get this bill through and three times it has failed. This is apparently one of the two bills that needed to be passed so urgently that they called for a double dissolution election. Only now, in late November, is the government bringing this back into the Senate. I also note that the Senate has hardly been overrun in the intervening months.

Last term we saw the absolute beat-up of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, conducted by Liberal Party supporter and partisan commissioner, Dyson Heydon. What has changed in this legislation as a result of a royal commission that went for 18 months—

The PRESIDENT: A point of order, Senator Macdonald?

Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr President, is that reference to a distinguished member of the judiciary appropriate in the Senate?

The PRESIDENT: Thank you. He was a former member of the judiciary when he was performing in that capacity. This has come up before and it has not been ruled out of order. Senator Chisholm, you are in order.

Senator CHISHOLM: What has changed in this legislation as a result of a royal commission that went for 18 months and cost almost $60 million? Absolutely nothing. Again, absolutely nothing has changed in this legislation, and no other legislation has been brought forward. But the ideological war continues.

I note with interest that Senator Roberts, when speaking last week on the registered organisations bill in the chamber, showed just how aligned he is with the Turnbull government's misguided views. Senator Roberts even tried to claim that he was the real battler in this scenario, railing against what he called a 'cabal of elites' in the union movement. What an alternate universe he lives in. Perhaps the union movement should feel proud that they have now joined the likes of the United Nations and global banking elites in the cabal that Senator Roberts believes is running the world. I am beginning to suspect that the cabal of elites includes anyone who is not Senator Roberts.

Going back to the government's motivations, let us not pretend that this legislation as it stands is about better workplaces or stronger unions. Those opposite have never wanted that, despite their protests to the contrary. Some examples of this include the fact that this government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to take any interest in the criminal rip-offs occurring at 7-Eleven. Even with new revelations we have seen over recent days with regard to Caltex service stations, I am yet to hear any government members speaking out about this issue in the media. It will be a real test over the coming days as to whether they are prepared to do that. They were happy to stand up and attack unions, but they remained silent while workers in this country were being ripped off, being paid below the minimum wage.

The government have also done nothing to look at the widespread reports of corruption and rorting in the 457 and temporary work visa programs. When you look at the 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 a bit of union bashing and attacking workers. They are apparently opposed to red tape—unless it is red tape that restricts the rights and role of unions in Australian society. Perhaps if they paid as much attention to managing the economy and creating jobs as they do to attacking unions, our country would be whole lot better off. If they were paying attention, maybe we would not have the lowest wage growth since the measure started being recorded in 1998—a figure of 1.9 per cent over the last year. Maybe if they were watching the economy, the participation rate would not have fallen 0.6 percentage points over the past 12 months to 64.4 per cent, the lowest rate in a decade. And maybe if they were paying attention, they would have noticed that the participation rate for young people fell 1.5 percentage points over the past 12 months to 65.9 per cent, the lowest rate experienced over a 30-year period and one that is particularly being felt in all sections of Queensland.

The government do not have any long term agenda for our country and do not have any reason for being in government other than attacking and vilifying those who they see as their opponents. The government are asleep at the wheel. They want to attack unions and attack workers until Australia is a low-wage, easy-to-fire society, racing to the bottom on pay and conditions. The government are well on their way to tanking the economy. We heard recently that the government are moving away from their commitment to a 2021 budget surplus. Amidst this growing debt, the government are refusing to scrap their $50 billion worth of tax cuts for big business. This just shows you how wrong their priorities are. Add this to the lowest wage growth in two decades and the lowest participation rate in a decade, and you have a really poor outcome for people looking for jobs and employment opportunities. Trickle-down economics was comprehensively disproved back in the 1980s, but the government seem to be a bit late in learning their lesson.

So what does this bill actually do? It really goes to the ABCC restricting the democratic rights of people. The Law Council says that the ABCC laws are 'contrary to the rule of law', an irony lost on the Prime Minister, who previously claimed that the ABCC is required to 'return the rule of law to the construction industry'. The ABCC breaches the principle of equality before the law as well. Workers in the building and construction industry should be subject to the same laws that apply to other workers. This legislation extends the reach of the ABCC into picketing, offshore construction and the transport and supply of goods to building sites.

The Australian Building and Construction Commission does not deal with criminal behaviour but has criminal justice powers. It does not matter how many times the government refers to criminal conduct in the same sentence as the necessity to revive the construction watchdog. It does not change the fact that it is a civil regulator. The government's bill removes the current protection which requires the director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to issue an examination notice. This is equivalent to the police being able to conduct a search without going to a magistrate to justify why they need a warrant.

History shows that when this commission is in place workplace deaths and injuries increase. I mentioned at the start of my speech the tragic deaths of two Queenslanders that occurred only a matter of months ago not far from where I live. If Malcolm Turnbull has his way, construction workers will be hit with a $34,000 fine for acting on safety concerns at work. This is clearly untenable in an industry that is so dangerous. Last time this was the case we saw more workplace deaths and more serious workplace injuries.

During the period of Work Choices and the ABCC under John Howard fatalities for all workers increased by more than 25 per cent, while fatalities for construction workers skyrocketed from an average of 2.5 fatalities per 100,000 to almost five fatalities per 100,000 workers. In 2007, when the ABCC was last in place, worker deaths on construction sites hit a 10-year high, with 51 workers killed. After Labor abolished the ABCC, workplace deaths dropped by 60 per cent. 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 the CPI, so it actually cost more to build when the ABCC was around, not less.

Although the government's attack on unions is about driving record low wages even lower, it seems the Prime Minister and the Treasurer cannot get their argument right. The Prime Minister says the ABCC will stop excessive wages, whereas the Treasurer said it will support wages growth. With the lowest wage growth in two decades, you would think the Prime Minister and the Treasurer would at least get their stories straight. It seems this government will use whatever argument they think is most popular in order to desperately pass this bill—and we have seen that applied to other legislation as well, including the backpacker tax.

In addition to the economic argument being wholly repudiated, we oppose this bill because the ABCC restricts democratic rights. There will be a presumption of guilt 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. This is nothing more than an ideological attack on workers and unions.

We on this side of the House recognise the importance of unions. They play a fundamental role in Australia's workplace relations system. They are created and registered for the purpose of representing Australian employers and employees at work. Unions 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 of registered organisations and unions.

But it comes as no surprise to anyone that this government is constantly being overly alarmist when it comes to any matters remotely related to unions. We of course understand that Australia's trade union movement plays a critical role in our economy. There is a lot to thank unions for—everything from the eight-hour day to better workplace safety, to pushing for equal pay for women, to superannuation and to fighting for Medicare. The trade union movement has an important role to play in Australia's workplaces promoting productivity. Those opposite would have us go down the path of increasing inequality and increasing the entrenched disadvantage that we see in Australia at the moment. 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 which acts in the interests of working people, the Australian Labor Party. Their goal is to destroy the capacity of trade unions to organise and to bargain collectively. You can see through their mishandling of current public sector agreements they do not even know how to negotiate effectively and in good faith with unions. You could not see a clearer example of the government's antiworker agenda than that.

This government's workplace agenda of course ignores the range of entities and bodies that we have seen under pressure with various ICAC-related issues in New South Wales. But the government is doing nothing to deal with transparency issues around donations. There needs to be a stronger push by the government in regard to that issue over the next couple of months to ensure a review takes place. To wrap up, there is no doubt that this antiworker assault by this government will only continue. We have seen that over the course of the last week and we think that will continue. The government has already said that in media reports over recent days. I oppose the bill.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (10:31): On behalf of the union movement in Australia, tiny though it is, I want to thank Senator Chisholm for his defence of union bosses and trying to protect the privileged position that those union bosses enjoy, using the levies of their workers, given by the workers to the unions for serious matters, but we find those levies ending up in brothels, being spent on holidays or being used for real estate purchases by union officials. Senator Chisholm says that this debate on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill is about safety, it is about looking after workers. It is about neither. It is not about bringing back Work Choices, as Labor speakers would have us believe—it is about productivity for our nation; it is about giving people a fair go. It is about helping workers to achieve what they want to achieve in a free, open and bully-free marketplace.

Senator Chisholm spoke on behalf of the union movement, and well he would—his career has been as an official of the Australian Labor Party, who are funded entirely by the union movement. Without the union movement the Labor Party would not exist and Senator Chisholm would not have been able to be state secretary for a while; he would not have been able to be the campaign director for the Labor Party. We should always remember when talking about the union movement—I mentioned it was tiny—that ABS statistics show that no more than 11 per cent of workers in the private sector choose to join a union. You would think, listening to Senator Chisholm and others who will no doubt follow him, that the union movement is this great body that looks after the interests of workers—but only 11 per cent of workers in private industry choose to join a union, which means that 89 per cent of workers in the private sector choose not to join a union, because they see what the unions have done to our country and they see that people who even used to be members of this parliament, after they were union officials, have ripped off the workers' money. That is why 89 per cent of workers in the private sector choose not to be in a union.

If you take it across the board, only 17 per cent of all workers in Australia, including government sector workers, choose to join their union. That means 83 per cent of workers in Australia make the decision not to join a union, and they seem to get on okay with their safety issues. They seem to not be worried about this government bringing in Work Choices again. When you hear Labor Party people speak, you have to understand that they are wholly-owned property of the union movement, and they are fighting a life-and-death struggle to maintain the privileged position of some of the union bosses.

As of October this year, 113 CFMEU officials were before the courts for more than 1,100 suspected contraventions. In recent years the courts have imposed more than $8 million in fines for the CFMEU's breaches of industrial law—and, if time permits later on, I will go through some of those particular cases. So I am often absolutely amazed that Senator Wong, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, refuses to condemn the CFMEU's, but then I recall that she worked for the CFMEU before she came to this parliament.

These cases are not stories; they are court records. These are not political comments. These are comments of the judiciary, which indicate the sort of notorious category these unions have for noncompliance with the law. A federal court judge said of the CFMEU that they ought to be an embarrassment to the trade union movement. They certainly are an embarrassment to most Australians.

But I do want to get on and talk about some aspects of the bill. The important part about this bill is the cost to our economy. When the ABCC was last in power, before the time of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, the rate of industrial disputes was five times the average across all industries—that is, the rate of industrial disputes in the building industry were five times the average across all industries. During the time that the ABCC was in operation, disputes fell to just two times the average. On average since the ABCC's subsequent abolition, disputes have gone back up to five times the average across all disputes.

I am Queensland senator. We are very proud about the Commonwealth Games coming to the Gold Coast region. But, at the rate industrial disputes are going on the building sites, we will not be ready for the Commonwealth Games when they are due. It disturbs me greatly as an Australian senator and as a Queenslander that this union thuggery is putting at risk the Commonwealth Games. Again, if time permits, I will give you some examples of that later on.

After the ABCC was abolished in 2012—and who do you imagine was in charge of industrial relations at the time? Mr Bill Shorten, the current leader of the Labor Party—the rate of disputes in the construction sector increased by some 40 per cent. You can say what you like about statistics, but that increase of 40 per cent, with the abolition of the ABCC, is just mind-boggling. The rate of industrial action in the construction sector is now nine times higher than the average across all industries for the June quarter. The source of that is the ABS. Currently, two out of every three working days lost are lost due to industrial disputes in the construction industry—again, these are not Liberal Party allegations; these are the Australian Bureau of Statistics' actual figures. Infrastructure like schools and hospitals costs taxpayers up to 30 per cent more because of the extraordinary amount of working days lost due to industrial action at building sites.

Again, figures and statistics run off the tongue easily, but this is taxpayers' money invested by various governments around the country in schools and hospitals, but instead of costing $100 million it is costing $130 million. That is taxpayers' money that is being wasted because of industrial disputes. The economic impact of this lawlessness in the building and construction industry costs every single taxpayer in Australia real money.

I just want to again refer to the previous speaker in this debate, Senator Chisholm, who was making derogatory—and, I thought, unparliamentary—remarks about the royal commission that exposed so much union corruption. He said it cost $60 million. That is a lot of money, but can I just remind senators and those who might be listening to this debate that, thanks to Labor's reckless spending during the six years that we had Labor as a government, we are now paying $30 million a day in interest on money that Labor borrowed overseas. This royal commission was expensive, but it cost two days' interest that we are paying on the debt that Labor ran up in its six years in government. These things need to be kept in perspective.

The purpose of the bill is to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission that was in place from 2005 to 2012 until such time as the unions imposed upon Mr Shorten to abolish that commission. Why did they impose upon him to abolish it? Because it was interfering with the rorts and rip-offs, that particularly the CFMEU were involved in, in the construction industry. Labor did replace that with a much weaker building regulator, Fair Work Building and Construction, but their much weaker—and less telling than the ABCC that we are trying to reintroduce—maximum penalties for breaching the laws were cut by two-thirds. The fair work commission has no power to enforce the law when affected parties—for example, a building company and a union—have entered into a settlement. You know what they are about and, if time permits, I will give you some examples of that later. The ABCC's compulsory powers were retained, but are now subject to a sunset clause and will expire on 30 June next year, and there is no effective building code to regulate employer contact.

The ABCC bill will restore penalties to their former levels. These penalties will still be substantially lower than the equivalent penalties under equivalent legislation such as the Corporations Act and the Competition and Consumer Act, but, still, they are more in line with the seriousness of offences. The new bill will remove the inability of the law to be enforced where private 'settlements' occur. Under the current legislation, if an employer and a union settle any related civil dispute between them, even for a nominal sum, the fair work commission has no power to bring the proceedings or to continue any proceedings to enforce the law. This is like the police having no power to prosecute a driver for running a red light and causing a crash if the driver reaches a private settlement with the other driver. It takes away the law and allows these 'settlements' to take place.

The bill will also introduce an effective building code to be made as a legislative instrument under the act. This will impose a range of requirements on employers in the building industry. This does not apply to unions or employees; it is totally directed at employers. These requirements must be met by an employer that wishes to tender for Commonwealth funded building work and these include compliance with all relevant laws—workplace, taxation, safety and immigration. It seems from the previous speaker that Labor do not understand this. This building code will have a real enforcement on employers to do the right thing and comply with the law in relation to workplace laws, taxation, safety—I emphasise safety—and immigration; all of those issues. Companies will not get Commonwealth government work if they do not comply with this building code, which sets out very strict relations involving safety, among others. Employers who breach any of these legal requirements—for example, by underpaying employees, breaching safety requirements or employing staff who do not have valid work visas—risk being declared ineligible to work on projects funded by the Commonwealth government. The code will also protect smaller subcontractors from unfair practices by head contractors.

As I said, there are currently 100 or more CFMEU officials before the courts. The courts have imposed more than $8 million in fines for the CFMEU's law breaking. It does not seem to deter the CFMEU. They just levy their workers a little bit extra, so that they can pay those $8 million in fines. The fines, as they currently are, do not seem to deter the CFMEU at all, and that is why there is a need to increase the penalties.

The previous speaker, Senator Chisholm, spoke at some length on safety. There is not an Australian who does not want to see other Australians safe at their workplaces. This bill does not amend any workplace safety laws—in spite of what Labor speakers would have you believe. The ABCC legislation will not prevent legitimate safety issues being raised or addressed by employees, unions or health and safety regulators. The rate of construction industry deaths has been trending down for the past decade from 5.8 per 100,000 workers in 2003 to three per 100,000 workers in 2014. Even one is one too many. But to suggest that this bill will lessen safety standards is ridiculous and another part of the union scare campaign.

I will conclude with an example of the CFMEU thuggery that this bill is trying to address. In 2014, two Fair Work inspectors attended the Ibis hotel construction site in Adelaide, at the request of the site manager, to investigate possible right-of-entry violations. A number of CFMEU officials were at the Ibis hotel site at the time of the inspection. In the presence of the inspectors, the site manager asked the CFMEU officials to show their right-of-entry permits. No permits were produced by the CFMEU officials. One of the inspectors took photographs of the CFMEU officials and their interactions with the site manager.

A CFMEU official, who has been named in this parliament before, Mr Perkovic, approached the inspector, stood in front of him, pushed him and made a number of threatening comments, including, 'You effing maggot, what are you taking a photo of me for, you piece of'—S something something something.' Further: 'You effing coward, I'll effing take you to school. Your a effing piece of'—something beginning with S. Further: 'You effing piece of S. You're going to have a heart attack. Look at you, you're excreting yellow, you piece of S.' That is just one example. I have pages, but time is not going to let me go through them.

There is lawlessness in the construction industry and it is costing each and every taxpayer money. It is not about safety; it is about retaining the privileged position of some union leaders. I repeat: the unions only speak for 11 per cent of workers in the Australian industry framework. This bill is essential to bringing law and order back into the building and construction industry and to getting rid of the rorts and rip-offs that are costing taxpayers real money, money that could be diverted to hospitals, schools and other infrastructure. It is essential that this bill be endorsed. I know the Labor Party will never support it, and neither will the Greens, who are recipients are big donations from the unions, but I would hope the crossbenchers understand the absolute importance of having law returned to the building and construction industry.

Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (10:51): I rise to oppose this bill, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. I have to say that that is the first time I have ever heard a government senator say that one death in the construction industry is not good enough. It is something that we do not hear the government talking about at all. Unfortunately, we then went on to hear about the privileged position of union officials, and certainly—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Sterle ): Senator Macdonald, a point of order?

Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr Deputy President, standing orders require that senators not be verballed. My comment was: 'Even one death is too many.' I think Senator Lines might have meant that but her—

Senator Jacinta Collins: She was commending you.

Senator Ian Macdonald: Yes. Thank you for what you said.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Macdonald. There is no point of order.

Senator LINES: Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle. But, Senator Macdonald, to finish your contribution by claiming that, somehow, union officials have some kind of privileged position flies in the face of the number of deaths we have seen in the construction industry and the many times union officials have been prevented from entering sites to talk about safety issues. It is a shame that your contribution ended in that way.

If media reports today are correct we hear that some crossbenchers are prepared to trade human rights for water. Of course I want the best for the Murray-Darling Basin and for the Murray-Darling states, but simply to trade away the rights of workers for, perhaps, a better deal on the Murray basin is obscene. The so-called deals we have seen in this place in support of legislation are poor indeed. Last week we saw a deal made for the sake of a five-year moratorium on a particular aspect of a bill, when anyone who understands the Constitution and how governments work would know that you cannot trade away what a future government might do. So I am appalled to see today that there might be some water deal for support of a bill which absolutely, categorically breaches human rights, in this case the rights of construction workers.

As a former chair of the Senate Education and Employment References Committee and deputy chair of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, I heard in the many inquiries that we held on this piece of legislation about its impact on human rights and how it breaches the United Nations conventions on the rights of association, the freedom of association and so on. This is what crossbenchers seemed perfectly willing and comfortable to trade away for a completely unrelated deal on water. They traded the human rights of workers for a water deal, which, as we said, may or may not be a good deal. Looking at the record of crossbenchers and their deal making, the winner is always the government—and the loser, in this case, will be the human rights of construction workers.

We need only look back at the disgraceful treatment of Mr Ark Tribe, who was persecuted for years over charges which ended up being dropped, to see how fraught, ill conceived, poorly constructed and unnecessary this legislation is. There are already laws in place to deal with issues when they get out of hand. Of course, I do not stand for that—if someone breaks the law they should be prosecuted—and it is certainly not what Labor stands for. But I too want to focus on safety issues in the construction industry, which are shocking. It is an industry where lawlessness relates to safety—and that is what we should be focused on. I want to talk about the recent tragic deaths of construction workers right across Australia over the last couple of months. These construction workers left home for work, were killed at work and did not return home that evening. Imagine the impact that seeing a death at work has on other workers on the site, the trauma of having to deal with your mate who has lost their life. And then, of course, there is the impact on the family and friends of that worker. Suddenly that worker is taken away from them, is no longer around, because they died at work—in Australia. That is something we should all be saying is completely unacceptable. It is something that we as a parliament should be acting on—but, seemingly, we are not.

I want to talk about the most recent deaths that occurred on construction sites across Australia. On Thursday, 6 October, at around 4 pm, two men were working in a confined evacuation at the Eagle Farm Racecourse in Queensland. They were installing tilt panels for a large drainage pit. There was not any proper access or egress. They had to enter down an embankment to perform the task. The grossly inadequate bracing system that was being used failed. This caused the first panel, weighing 10 tonnes, to come tumbling down. The workers managed to scramble out of the way. Tragically, within seconds, the second panel came down on top of them, crushing them to death. There was not any adequate exclusion zone in their work area as a backup and these two workers had nowhere to go.

On Monday, 10 October, while working on Finbar's Concerto Apartments project in Perth, 27-year-old German backpacker Marianka Heumann was applying sealant to speed wall panels surrounding an air duct when she fell 13 floors to her death. She was working for a builder who reputedly refused the CFMEU their legal right of entry to inspect safety concerns and is well-known for employing unskilled backpackers in high-risk construction jobs. As if to add to the heartbreak, builder Gerry Hanssen sent a bizarre email to Marianka's family following the incident in which he implied that it was Marianka's fault and she would have been sorry for letting everyone down. Further, when Marianka, just 27, a person here on a working holiday with full expectations that she would return home, fell to her death it was just business as usual on that Finbar site: the concrete pour continued. A worker fell to her death and a concrete pour continued! Business went on as if nothing had happened. The site was not closed. Blood and strewn work clothing were clearly visible and accessible, and there was no effort to ensure that the scene of the fatality was not contaminated. Finbar did not even call the police, because they were so busy making sure their concrete pour continued. That was left to an ABC journalist. It was as if the fact that Marianka lost her life did not even matter—an issue worth no more attention than a dropped tool or a broken machine.

Further, on Tuesday, 25 October, while working on the Porter Street project in Ryde, 55-year old Mr De Silva died when he fell approximately three metres from formwork deck onto reo bars. The bars were appropriately capped, but the fall was enough to take his life. Twenty-eight per cent of deaths in the industry are caused by falls from heights, and again in this case, just as in the Finbar case, the edge protection was inadequate. Indeed, at the Finbar site there had been five complaints to WorkSafe in Western Australia. Orders had been issued against Finbar, and one of those orders was around edge protection.

On Wednesday, 26 October, while working on the Probuild Melbourne Convention Centre expansion, a 54-year old boilermaker was killed in a crushing incident while operating a knuckle boom. This worker leaves behind a wife and two adult children, both in the construction industry. At the time of the incident, he was working alone, welding amongst steel frames. Workers and the occupational health and safety representatives were the first to attend the scene. These representatives—as you know full well, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, but for those who are listening—are people who are elected from among their peers to be safety reps on site. They made an extraordinary effort to rescue the crushed worker and begin first aid. I simply cannot imagine the trauma for that family and their friends, and for those around who witnessed the fall and who began immediate first aid. Where workers leave home in the morning, they should expect to come home again at night without this horrible fear of death or severe injury in the construction industry, but that is what we have in Australia, particularly in Western Australia. These are needless deaths. There should not be any deaths, yet the deaths continue.

Again in Western Australia, at the Bennett Street site, where two temporary visa workers from Ireland lost their lives while they were on their tea break, unions such as the CFMEU had made more complaints to WorkSafe about suspected safety breaches at sites like this. JAXON, which is a big builder in Western Australia and has a lot of the big construction sites—along with Hanssen—is at the top of the CFMEU's list when it comes to making complaints about safety. The JAXON sites have attracted more complaints than has any other builder in Western Australia, yet we see nothing has happened. Two young Irish backpackers, whose families I met, tragically and shockingly lost their lives whilst at work. I know that union officials have been denied right of access to these sites—particularly from JAXON—at least 16 times, but you will not hear that from those opposite.

We hear a lot from the government, particularly the Prime Minister and the minister, about how this legislation, if passed, will improve productivity in the construction industry. They have not given us any facts or figures on this, and they are not a government who rely on facts and figures; they just make it up and hope their rhetoric gets them the line of the day. The Prime Minister and the minister have said that somehow this legislation in and of itself is going to improve productivity. If you look at the full definition of productivity, measured correctly, it includes fair working conditions, the right of freedom of association and the role of unions, which this legislation will clearly curtail, because that is what it is all about. Good productivity is where workers sit down with their unions and talk about issues with employers.

It is about fair employment and fair working conditions, not the $20 an hour that Marianka was earning on that Finbar site. That is what she was earning, even though the rate should have been higher than that. It seems as if she was being ripped off. After I raised the matter at Senate estimates, the Fair Work Ombudsman raided that site. At that Finbar site they will find, I am told, that, of the around 300 workers on site, about 250 are temporary visa workers. That is not a rare occurrence in the CBD construction industry in Western Australia; it is the norm that we have inexperienced temporary visa workers flooding construction work in the city. Marianka, who tragically lost her life on the ABC Finbar site, after two months—which is about how long she had been employed at the site—was regarded as one of the experienced workers. That does not add to productivity. So, when those opposite talk about productivity, it should also include a good safety record, and we do not see that in Western Australia at all.

You will hear from those opposite about how the number of deaths have gone down. We should not be counting any deaths. Zero should be our target, but they will applaud the fact that the number of deaths have gone down. But, actually, if you look at the period over which the ABCC legislation was in place you will see that the number of workplace deaths grew. That is a fact. As I said, we should be focused on zero deaths, not whether there were three deaths or four deaths. There should be zero deaths. But, of course, you will not hear that from those opposite.

You will hear a lot from the government about the militancy and so on of union officials. But, actually, CFMEU members rank safety as their top priority. They rank safety as something that they want to see improved on building sites. Is it any wonder when we have seen five tragic deaths over the last couple of months on building sites right across Australia? I know that in Western Australia deaths are on the increase in the construction industry. That impacts on productivity.

We hear nothing from those opposite. I have never heard the government say that it wants to act on these workplace deaths—never. It might try to pretend that as the federal government it has nothing to do with safety. Well, it does. Certainly it should be pushing it through COAG and doing whatever it can to make sure that workers come home from work at night. It is a pretty simple ask. Yet we see in Western Australia shocking things going on in the construction industry being completely ignored by the Turnbull government. There is the use of temporary visa workers. When we raised this as an issue somehow we were accused of being racist and whatever else. But the fact is you cannot have good safety, good productivity and fair working conditions when you have a site that is being run by temporary visa workers.

This is at a time in Western Australia when we have record unemployment levels. They are climbing in WA. I think we are now the stand-out state when it comes to unemployment levels. This is a state where the mate of those opposite Premier Colin Barnett has squandered the mining boom. He has absolutely squandered the mining boom. We now have unemployment at historically high levels in the southern suburbs. We know that in the construction industry in Western Australia there are a lack of apprentices. We know that even the Master Builders association, the government's mates, are calling for something to be done, because we have seen an absolute downturn in apprenticeship numbers.

When you look at the construction industry in the CBD, if it is being run through labour-hire companies and temporary visa workers are being used, is it any wonder we do not have apprentices. Those employers are quick to make a buck. I do not stand in the way of people making a profit, but let's not make a profit on the back of safety. That is wrong. We have seen a downturn in apprentices to the point where the Master Builders association is calling on the government and, indeed, has called on the federal government to do something about it. We have record high unemployment in Western Australia. We have appalling rates of death in the construction industry in the CBD. All of this simply goes unnoticed by the Turnbull government because they have an ideological hatred of trade unions. This is why they want this legislation. It is absolutely clear. If they were really concerned about productivity they would be talking about the death rates in the construction industry. They would be standing up and demanding we get to zero deaths in the construction industry. But, no. There has been absolute silence from those opposite on the issue of workplace deaths.

I will keep speaking out on this because I have met the families. I have seen that ABC Finbar site on St Georges Terrace in the city. It is a disgrace. It looks like a rubbish tip. Is there any wonder there are safety issues on the site when it looks like a rubbish tip? Yet those opposite do nothing. They bang on about union officials while the death rate in construction continues to climb.

Senator PATERSON (Victoria) (11:12): I am very pleased to rise to continue to the debate on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. It is pleasing again for the second week in a row on a Monday morning to begin on a positive note dealing with such a substantive and important piece of legislation. I hope this week proves as successful for the ABCC bill as last week proved for the registered organisations bill. I again commend Senator Cash for her leadership in this area and tireless efforts to secure the government's key election commitments in this area.

I will note up-front that I have listened carefully to the contribution of Senator Lines and particularly her comments about safety. I congratulate her for taking this issue as seriously as she does. I will just flag that later on in my remarks I will address some of the criticisms of the government that she made and respond to some of those issues. But I thought it might be more helpful to begin this morning by just talking about exactly what this bill seeks to do, what it is seeking to address and why the government sees this is such an important priority.

As I suspect all senators will know, this bill seeks to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission which previously existed between 2005 and 2012. When the previous Labor government abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission in 2012 it replaced it with a much weaker building regulator—the Fair Work Building and Construction body known as FWBC. In a couple of key and important areas the FWBC and the laws that Labor put in place are weaker. Firstly, the maximum penalties for breaching the law were cut by two-thirds. That has obviously had a very significant effect on the behaviour of in particular the CFMEU. Secondly, FWBC has no power to enforce the law when affected parties—for example, a building company and a union—have entered into a settlement. So if the union is able to coerce and intimidate a building company into agreeing to a settlement on whatever terms, the FWBC has no power to intervene, even if it is in contravention of the law. Thirdly, the compulsory powers, which the ABCC had, were retained but they are subject to a sunset clause that will expire on 30 June 2017. No doubt, many in the CFMEU are circling that date in their calendars and looking forward to that day, if this Senate does not act upon Senator Cash's bill. Fourthly, there is no effective building code to regulate employer conduct, another important matter that must be regulated.

What this ABCC bill seeks to do is, firstly, to restore the penalties to their former level. They were originally recommended in 2003 by the Cole royal commission, and so this bill is seeking to return to those recommendations. These penalties will be substantially lower than the equivalent penalties in other equivalent legislation—for example, in the Corporations Act and in the Competition and Consumer Act. Secondly, it seeks to remove the inability for the law to be enforced where private settlements occur. As I have mentioned before, if a union is able to coerce a building company into agreeing to a private settlement, the FWBC is not able to enforce the law. That is an extraordinary and unusual circumstance. If any related civil dispute between an employer and a union is settled, even for a nominal sum, FWBC has no power to bring proceedings or to continue any proceedings to enforce the law. This is the equivalent of the police having no power to prosecute a driver for running a red light and causing a crash if the driver reaches a private settlement with the other driver. We would never tolerable this in other areas of law.

Thirdly, this bill seeks to retain the compulsory evidence-gathering powers that Labor retained but which were due to sunset in 2017. That is a very important measure. Fourthly, the bill will introduce an effective building code to be made as a legislative instrument under the act. This will impose a range of requirements on employers in the building industry. It will not apply to unions or employees. These requirements must be met by an employer that wishes to tender for Commonwealth-funded building work. These include compliance with all relevant laws—it does not seem like a shocking or unreasonable requirement to me—such as workplace, taxation, safety, immigration, et cetera. Any employer who breaches any of these legal requirements—for example, by underpaying employees, which is an important issue raised by Senator Lines, or by breaching safety requirements, which is a concern to this government and to those opposite, or by employing staff who do not have valid work visas, which is a problem that all of us agree it needs to be addressed—risk being declared ineligible to work on projects covered by the Commonwealth. I think that is an entirely appropriate measure, given that taxpayers' money is involved. Importantly, the code will also protect smaller subcontractors from unfair practices by head contractors. That is a worthy and sensible initiative.

I want to commend to the Senate an article that was published in the Australian Financial Review last week. It was written by Gerard Phillips, who is a partner in the labour and employment workplace safety group at K&L Gates, which is a global law firm. He has gone through and analysed, in a reasonable and dispassionate way, the key measures of the bill. I wanted to share with the Senate his conclusion about some of the aspects of the bill. I will not read the entirety of the article but some key aspects of it. It appeared on 22 November in the Financial Review:

The bill proposes expanding the definition of building work to cover transport and supply to building sites. This is a necessary and desirable measure because as history has shown the Construction, Forestry, Manufacturing and Energy Union (CFMEU) has often pursued suppliers and transport companies to put commercial pressure on the builder. By choking off its supply line and pressuring innocent third parties, the CFMEU's tactic is to cause a collapse in the builder's resistance in enterprise agreement negotiations.

He goes on to say:

How any member of parliament could think that a provision dealing with this deliberate behaviour is a bad thing defies belief.

I agree. Analysing another aspect of the bill, the increased penalties, he refers to a judgement in which Justice Christopher Jessup stated:

…that the CFMEU's "record of non-compliance with legislation of this kind has now become notorious. That record ought to be an embarrassment to the trade union movement ... quite obviously over the years the CFMEU has shown a strong disinclination to modify its business model in order to comply with the law."

As Mr Phillips says:

These are very strong words for a judge and in the clearest terms possible he is making out the case for higher penalties. Quite simply the current regime of penalties, set by the former Labor government, is no deterrent at all to the CFMEU. Breaking the laws of this land has simply been priced by the CFMEU as the cost of doing business. Given that the penalties are obviously no deterrent they need to be increased to a level where observance of the law becomes the more desirable alternative.

That is an entirely reasonable point, and I commend that analysis by Mr Phillips in the Financial Review to the Senate.

What this bill seeks to address is the problem in the building and construction industry that has clearly been identified by two royal commissions, by extensive public commentary and by media reporting. As we all know, there are now more than 100 CFMEU officials before the courts. That is an extraordinary number. If any organisation in our society had a hundred of its members before the courts, we would regard that organisation as rogue, totally out of control and in need of action to address it. Clearly, there is something systemically wrong in this industry. The courts have imposed more than $8 million of fines for the CFMEU's lawbreaking—and that is under the revised lower maximum fines introduced by the previous government. Sadly, it is clear and it becomes clearer every day that this does not deter the CFMEU. If the penalties are not enough to deter lawbreaking, then surely the penalties need to be increased. Master Builders Australia has estimated that infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and roads cost taxpayers up to 30 per cent more because of industrial action and delays at building sites. I will come back to that point later on.

Large building contractors are currently free to lock out smaller contractors in the industry by discriminating against those who do not have a particular type of EBA favoured by the large contractor and/or by the unions. As we know, there is from time to time in this industry a cosy relationship between large unions and large construction companies that is to the detriment of small- and medium-sized firms in this industry. Big unions and big employers do collude and they do lock out smaller players from building sites.

The ABCC was abolished by Mr Shorten in 2012, and the rate of disputes in the construction sector has increased by 40 per cent. In all other industries, the rate of industrial disputes has declined by 33 per cent. So the building and construction industry has become spectacularly less harmonious and a less efficient industry as a result of the change in laws.

One really clear piece of evidence that there is a cultural problem in the industry is that the participation of women in the industry has declined in the last two decades, against the trend in most other industries. How can we attract more women to this industry if we cannot change the culture? This is an issue that I know many senators have genuine and sincere concerns about, and I would encourage them to apply those genuine and sincere concerns in other policy areas, in other spaces of the economy, to the construction industry.

As I foreshadowed, I will address some of Senator Lines' comments, Senator Lines made a number of comments about safety. It was certainly sobering to listen to her and to hear about the cases of workplace deaths that have recently occurred. I can only concur that they are incredibly troubling. I know that they weigh heavily on the minds of all senators—not just on that side of the chamber but on this side too. She is absolutely right to say that we should be pursuing a goal of zero deaths in the construction industry—in fact, in all industries. No worker in any workplace should be injured; no worker on any worksite should be killed. I certainly support the sentiments of Senator Lines' comments.

But this bill, the bill to re-establish the ABCC, does not make any changes to workplace safety law. Nothing in this bill changes workplace safety law in any way. It does not prevent legitimate safety issues being raised or addressed by either employees or unions, or, particularly, by health and safety regulators, who have the most important responsibility to ensure that our workplaces in Australia are safe.

Senator Lines mentioned that one of the encouraging things in recent times has been the decline of construction industry deaths. She is right to say that a decline is only a start, and that we hope to get to zero—and I concur. Nonetheless, I am pleased that there has been a decline. The number of deaths per 100,000 workers in 2003 was 5.8; that had dropped to three per 100,000 workers by 2014, the most recent figures available. That is pleasing and I hope that continues, and I see no reason why and I have heard no evidence that this bill will adversely impact that trend in any way.

What it seems to come down to for those opposite—and I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong—is that anything which reins in the CFMEU at all, anything which seeks to ensure that the CFMEU is compliant with the law, somehow means that workplaces will be less safe. That is tantamount to arguing that the CFMEU cannot do its job without breaking the law and that it is okay for the CFMEU to break the law because it has a higher end in mind which justifies the means. That is a really strange and unusual logic.

Unfortunately, we know the CFMEU has a track record of misusing safety concerns as a cloak for its other activities. There was a particular case that I think illustrates this very powerfully. Of course, the CFMEU has an important role in ensuring safety, but, any time it uses the thin veil of 'safety' to achieve its own objectives, it undermines its important role in upholding safety. It is understandable that people have become cynical about the CFMEU's statements about safety when it engages in conduct like that.

I quote from a media release from the FWBC on 9 July 2014. It has two important features, quotes from an important court case, by Judge Burnett; and the conduct of the CFMEU in a particular dispute:

Federal Circuit Court Judge Burnett has said the actions of CFMEU officials Kane Pearson, Joseph Myles and Shane Treadaway on a Brisbane construction site represented a 'gross failure of corporate governance on the part of the CFMEU and its affiliates'.

As we have seen in other cases, this is an extraordinarily damning indictment of the CFMEU by a judge.

In February this year, Judge Burnett penalised the CFMEU and the three men a total $38,500 for hindering, obstructing and acting in an improper manner on a Brisbane construction site on 11 February, 2010.

The media release goes on to quote some of the phrases and sentences that Mr Pearson and Mr Myles engaged in on the site. I am not going to even attempt to read them out, because I will have to stand here and bleep myself continuously, such is the nature of the language. But I think it is language which we are all familiar with because we have heard it in so many hearings and courts over the years.

One of the key things that were interesting about this was that Mr Myles, Mr Treadaway and Mr Pearson said that they needed to access this site, using their right-of-entry powers, for safety reasons. But Mr Treadaway brought with him an EFTPOS machine and was seen walking around the worksite with it. I acknowledge I have never worked on a construction site and I am no expert in construction safety. But I am not aware of any purpose that an EFTPOS machine could be used for to assist safety. I am aware of other purposes for EFTPOS machines. It could be used for taking payments, for example. It could be used to take the payment of union dues, for example. It could be used to sign up on the spot any workers on that site who are not union members and give them a speedy way of doing so. But I cannot see how that relates to safety in any way. That is one of many pieces of evidence that the CFMEU has abused these laws.

I turn now to the important matter of productivity, the economic impact of this bill and the importance of this industry. As I have spoken about before—and other senators have too—the rate of industrial action in the construction sector is far higher than in other industries. In fact, the latest ABS data, from the June quarter, shows that it is nine times higher than the average across all industries. This obviously has an impact on productivity. Currently, of all the days lost in the economy to industrial disputes, two out of three are in the construction industry. That is despite the fact that the construction industry employs only a small proportion of Australians, not the vast majority.

Infrastructure, as I have said before, like schools and hospitals and roads, will cost taxpayers up to 30 per cent more because of the extraordinary amount of working days lost due to industrial action at building sites. This is what the ABCC seeks to address. The construction industry is our third largest industry. It contributes eight per cent of GDP. It employs nearly 1.1 million Australians, and there are more than 300,000 small businesses in the building industry. There was an interesting article published in The Australianlast week, by Ewin Hannan, which detailed the massive total cost of this disruption and disputation by the CFMEU and the impact it has on our economy. A total of $100 billion worth of projects have, in some way, been delayed or disrupted by CFMEU activity. Some have already been before the courts, where the CFMEU has been found guilty of workplace law breaches, and some will be coming before the courts in the coming months.

The Prime Minister was interviewed by Neil Mitchell about this very topic on Melbourne radio on Friday. Of particular concern to me, as a Victorian senator, he highlighted how serious this impact has been on my home state. He said:

… let me give you some good Victorian examples. There are 270,000 Victorians working in the construction industry. There are 22 Victorian CFMEU representatives before the courts for breaching of industrial law. In Victoria over the last decade the CFMEU has been fined $4.3 million – to the highest level in any state. And they have been found to breach the law on building sites in Victoria on including a project for 58 schools, road and rail projects, Mitcham and Rooks Road rail separation, Southern Link upgrade, the Florey Neuro Science Institute at Heidelberg, the Simpson Army Barracks, Melbourne Institute of Technology.

I mean the CFMEU's lawlessness in Victoria is so well known. Now, if we can get the rule of law reimposed, restored in the building sector, that will increase productivity, it'll increase the ability of people to work in the industry because they won't have to get past the union, being able to dictate which subcontractor, which tiling contractor for example can get a start and of course it will, by reducing that industrial lawlessness, you'll reduce the cost of these union jobs.

That is a very important point by the Prime Minister and, in my remaining minute, I want to highlight a case in my home state of Victoria which has been adversely impacted by the CFMEU—something which I hope, with the restoration of the ABCC, will not be allowed to happen again.

One of the cases which the Prime Minister referred to is the Mitcham Road and Rooks Road rail separation and station upgrade project. A Federal Court judge has condemned the CFMEU for a 'pattern of contravention' of workplace laws. In reviewing a schedule of the CFMEU's previous contraventions, Justice Jessup found it painted 'a depressing picture' which 'bespeaks an organisational culture in which contraventions of the law have become normalised'. Justice Jessup's comments came as he penalised the Victorian CFMEU $48,750 and its official Joseph Myles $6,375 for unlawful conduct at the $140 million Mitcham Road and Rooks Road rail separation and station upgrade project. This is just one of the many examples of the way in which taxpayers and citizens are having good services, good infrastructure, delayed or denied to them because of the militant behaviour of the CFMEU, and it is yet one more example of why the restoration of the ABCC is necessary.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (11:32): I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2016 and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013.

It does not matter whether it is the Liberal Party under Prime Minister Howard, Prime Minister Abbott or Prime Minister Turnbull—those opposite have waged an ideological war against working people and their representatives, the trade union movement. But this ridiculous pretence, this charade, this farce—that the government's anti-worker agenda is actually advancing the interests of working people—would be laughable, almost comical, if the consequences were not so serious. Real people and real lives are at stake. I find it incredible that those opposite would actually think ordinary Australians would fall for their pantomime act when they pretend to stand up for workers. When John Howard as Prime Minister declared, 'This government is the best friend the workers of Australia have ever had,' it was simply farcical. Mr Abbott then took it to ludicrous heights when he declared that he was the best friend workers had ever had. The Liberal Party must take the Australian public for mugs, if they are going to attack the trade union movement and undermine workers' rights and then try to buddy up to workers and pretend to be friends with them. We know that, no matter how hard they try to pretend, attacking workers' rights is in their DNA. What those opposite fail to realise is that Australian workers can see through this facade, because actions speak louder than words.

When it comes to these bills and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, two things are abundantly clear about the government's motives. Firstly, despite being the triggers for the double dissolution, passing these bills was not really the reason for the double dissolution. It has been almost five months since the election, and close to seven months since it was called, yet here we are debating these so-called urgent bills in the last sitting fortnight of the year. It goes to show that Malcolm Turnbull's decision to prorogue parliament and to call a double dissolution election was motivated entirely by politics. It was a blatantly political move, the primary purpose of which was to keep Mr Turnbull and his government in power. He knew that the Australian public were starting to see through his facade and he was rushing to get the election out of the way as soon as possible. But he had to deliver a budget first, to make up for the government's absence of a policy agenda. It is the people of Australia who are now paying the price for this political stunt. For all Mr Turnbull's talk about innovation and agility, this government is limping on, stuck in a quagmire, beset by internal squabbles and a budget deficit that deteriorates every day.

The second thing that is abundantly clear to the Australian public is that the government is continuing the decades-old Liberal tradition of waging an ideological war against the unions. So obsessed is this government with its attack on trade unions that in the last six months of the previous term it had no substantive policy agenda—except for some bizarre thought bubbles about states raising income taxes and the anti-union bills we are dealing with this fortnight. While the parliament should be debating real solutions to the challenges facing Australia, we are being dragged into this government's ideological battles and its obsession with organised labour. At a time when billions of dollars are being sent offshore through dodgy multinational tax avoidance arrangements, when there are reports of workers being exploited and ripped off by big businesses in the way they were at 7-Eleven, when there is widespread misuse of 457 visas and other temporary work visas, and when there are ongoing calls to clean up Australia's banking industry because of the way they are treating customers, this government's priority is going after the union movement.

As I mentioned in this chamber recently, even when the Liberals had a case of misappropriation of funds within their own party in Tasmania, they swept it under the carpet, allowing it to balloon into a much bigger issue. They did not go to the police, which they should have done. They did not bother informing people. They let Mr Damien Mantach get away with misappropriating funds, and every Liberal Tasmanian senator sat quietly over on that side and let it go through. They swept it under the carpet, because they were so concerned with workers' rights that they could not bring themselves to realise that bad things were happening in their own party. They are a disgrace.

Yet this government is obsessed with the trade union movement. Their ideological war has been waged on several fronts. One of those fronts was the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. That was $60 million of taxpayers' money spent primarily to pursue legitimate industrial activity under the guise of pursuing trade union corruption. This political witch-hunt was exposed as an ideological exercise when the commissioner accepted an invitation to a Liberal Party fundraiser. The best indication yet of the political nature of this exercise is that, now that the royal commission has concluded, not one piece of legislation has been introduced to the parliament and not one piece of legislation has been amended arising from the commission.

When a former Prime Minister told us Work Choices was dead, buried and cremated, this government has instead taken an incremental approach—a sort of boiled-frog approach, so to speak—to stripping away workplace entitlements. In the previous parliament those opposite introduced legislation that will make it more difficult for union representatives to enter workplaces or talk to workers. They attempted to reintroduce Australian workplace agreements via the back door by weakening the better off overall test. The government dumped Labor's Clean Start for Cleaners contracting principles, cutting the wages of cleaners who clean the buildings of government agencies, and their highly centralised approach to bargaining across the Australian Public Service sought to put strict caps on conditions and pay increases.

The government has flagged attempts to cut paid parental leave for thousands of parents, mostly mothers, referring to many of them as 'rorters, double dippers and fraudsters'. While those opposite learnt the hard way that Work Choices was a step too far, they have opted instead for chipping away slowly at the conditions of Australian workers.

Another front in the government's war was the registered organisations bill—the bill which, sadly, passed this place last week and was designed to bury trade unions in red tape in an effort to render them ineffective. Labor's amendments would have led to a bill that genuinely improves trade union governance, and the government's rejection of those amendments revealed something very sinister about their real agenda. It revealed that the government was not fair dinkum about improving union governance.

The latest front is this bill to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission. To understand what the ABCC is, we simply need to look at its record when it was previously established. It was a draconian body with extraordinary coercive powers that compromised basic civil liberties. The unfettered coercive powers of the ABCC included conducting secret interviews. Those interviewed had no right to silence, were denied the right to be represented by a lawyer of their choice and faced the prospect of imprisonment if they refused to cooperate. This could happen to any one of you—in the chamber, or in the gallery even—if you get on the wrong side of what this government wants. As Nicola McGarrity and Professor George Williams from the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales observed:

… the ABC Commissioner's investigatory powers have the potential to severely restrict basic democratic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence.

This view is backed up by a 2010 report released by the International Labour Organization's Committee of Experts, who said that the ABCC was likely to breach a number of labour standards, including freedom of association, the right to organise, and collective bargaining.

These bills also remove the current protection that requires the director of Fair Work Building and Construction to apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to issue an examination notice. Removing this protection is like allowing the police to conduct a search without applying to a magistrate for a warrant. It means there is no administrative protection against abuse of power by the regulator. These bills extend the reach of the ABCC into picketing, offshore construction and the transport and supply of goods to building sites. In doing so they undermine the principle of equality before the law.

The government has failed to make the case for the ABCC's powers and lack of oversight. The government keeps bringing up examples of alleged criminal conduct to justify the reinstatement of the ABCC. Yet the ABCC, despite having justice powers similar to those of a criminal watchdog, is actually a civil regulator, so any criminal allegations the government brings up to justify these bills are simply a furphy, a red herring, and a distraction from its real agenda.

As with the registered organisations bill which we debated last week, the government's rhetoric on this bill implies that it is filling some kind of policy vacuum—as if the choice we have to make is between the ABCC and no regulator at all. The problem with that rhetoric—and this is what the government will not acknowledge—is that there is already a building regulator in place, and it is called Fair Work Building and Construction. Not only is there a regulator in place, but it is doing a good job. In fact, Fair Work Building and Construction is achieving better outcomes than its predecessor. Fair Work Building and Construction already has coercive powers which, according to its last annual report, were used 14 times in its 124 investigations. With the exception of an aberrant quarter in September 2012, the number of days lost to industrial action were lower under Fair Work Building and Construction than they were under the ABCC.

Since the abolition of the ABCC in 2012, productivity in the building and construction industry has increased every year. Fair Work Building and Construction outperformed the ABCC in many other areas. They undertook more investigations, concluded more investigations and brought matters to court faster. Despite widespread evidence of corruption and malfeasance on the part of employers the ABCC, when previously established, focused almost entirely on pursuing the investigation and prosecution of workers and trade unions. In contrast to the ABCC's record, Labor's Fair Work Building and Construction recovered $1.6 million in wages and entitlements in 2012-13 and closed 63 sham contracting investigations—issues which the ABCC comprehensively failed to address.

In fact, by targeting workers, the ABCC actually made the situation a lot worse for them. They compromised the ability of workers to campaign for workplace safety, which led to an increase in fatalities in the industry. A Safe Work Australia report released last year showed that there was a 37 percent increase in workplace deaths in the industry and that the rate of deaths dropped again after the ABCC was abolished. We heard from Senator Lines earlier about some of the awful cases of deaths in workplaces and how they were treated by the companies—not even calling the police, and letting concrete pours continue. You do have to stop and wonder what those on that side of the house are happy to support. I am not exaggerating when I say that the evidence of past performance bears this out. More workers may die as a result of these bills. I know those opposite will claim that I am being alarmist when I say this, but I take the issue of workplace safety very seriously indeed. When you compare the performance of the two agencies—the Liberals' ABCC and Labor's Fair Work Building and Construction—the verdict is quite clear. Those opposite are proposing to change a regulator which has proven to be successful, and which is kicking goals, with one whose performance has been thoroughly underwhelming. There can be no argument that these bills should be introduced because the means justify the ends. As history reveals, under the ABCC the ends would not be achieved.

To summarise, here is what the government is proposing: they are seeking to reinstate the ABCC—an institution which trampled on democratic rights and civil liberties and which undermined the principle of equality before the law, an institution which pursued trade unions and workers while ignoring corrupt behaviour by employers, an institution which slowed productivity growth in the building and construction industry and compromised workplace safety, and an institution which has had less success in concluding investigations and bringing matters to court than the current regulator.

I suggest to those opposite that they drop the pretence that this bill has anything to do with stamping out criminal behaviour in the building and construction industry, because I really do not think anyone is buying it. We on this side can see right through it, and so can the Australian people. The government's attempt to reinstate the ABCC is nothing more than a continuation of their ideological attack on the trade union movement. There is no justification for these bills. The only reason the government want these bills in place is to undermine, on behalf of Mr Turnbull's mates in big business, the bargaining power of trade unions. The entire motivation for these bills is the government's seething hatred of the notion that workers in the construction industry can organise together. It offends their sense of free-market ideology. So intense is their hatred of a united workforce that they are willing to replace a highly effective organisation with a dictatorial and ineffective ABCC. The very issues that the ABCC ignored—the rights of workers to safety, proper pay and entitlements, and an end to sham contracting—are the real issues facing the building and construction industry. Labor's Fair Work Building and Construction is dealing with these issues, and this government should get out of the way and leave it to get on with the job that it is doing so well.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (11:47): I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. I comment first on the name of the bill—'improving productivity'. We know that this bill is not tackling the key issues that are required to improve productivity. This bill is basically an attack on unions. The ABCC has been hanging over this parliament for the whole 2½ years that I have been here. It has been the subject of a lot of debate. The Greens have been opposed to it from the very beginning because it is clear that it is setting out to attack people's rights to fair and reasonable employment conditions in the building industry. It was one of the triggers for the double dissolution election but then hardly rated a mention during the whole election campaign. That is understandable; it is not the key issue in the electorate. Most people are not concerned about supposed corruption in the building industry. But it is the concern, the fixation, of the government because they want to attack their political enemies. It is not about getting rid of corruption. If they were interested in getting rid of corruption, there are a lot of other things that we could be doing. This is a way to attack their political enemies.

Over the 2½ years that I have been here, parliament has exposed this government's supposed concern over corruption and wrongdoing as farcical. If there is criminality in employment in the building industry, if there is criminality by unions, why do we not address that through the criminal justice system? If the law is not strong enough then strengthen the law, but strengthen it so that it applies to all and is not just focused on people working in building and construction. The government is not interested in doing this. It wants one rule for its political enemies and other rules for the rest of business. The Australian people are starkly aware of this truth. It has been made even clearer by the government's refusal to support the Greens' call for a royal commission into the big banks and the financial sector—a sector where we have heard time and time again of alleged misconduct. This white-collar crime has affected the lives of tens of thousands of victims. So why is the focus just on unions? We already have a construction industry watchdog—Fair Work Building and Construction. Again, if there are things that are not working to address criminality then strengthen the controls in that commission. We do not need to set up another commission that is going to make unacceptable, undemocratic attacks on people working in the building and construction industry.

If the government were serious about tackling corruption and wrongdoing overall, it would get behind the Greens' call to set up a royal commission into the financial sector and the Greens' call for a national ICAC—an ICAC that would be a broad-based, national anticorruption watchdog with the power to look at employers as well as employees, not only in the construction industry but in every industry. It would have the power to look at politicians as well as public servants and decision-makers. Instead of supporting the creation of these two important bodies, the government is continuing its attack on unions through the creation of the ABCC. This bill to bring back the ABCC is a linchpin in the government's ongoing attacks on unions.

Let us think about unions and why they have survived and are such a vital part of Australian society. Unions look after workers. Trade unions were founded with the purpose of protecting the rights and interests of the workers they represent. We see time and time again that, when things go wrong in workplaces, it is the union that steps up and looks after affected workers. It is the same in the building construction industry, with the CFMEU stepping up time and time again to defend and to advance the rights of building construction workers. It is not the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate, which is what this government wants to turn into the ABCC.

This bill would give workers in the construction industry fewer rights at work just because of the industry they work in. It would give them fewer rights at work than accused criminals or even accused terrorists. With this bill, the government wants to set up a new secret police in the construction industry that would have the right to take workers off-site and pull them in for questioning. They will not have the right to silence and they will not be able to talk to others about the fact that they have been pulled in for this secret questioning. This is not the type of Australia that I want to be living in, where we have a secret police that can pull people aside and they cannot even talk to anyone about the fact that they are being accused of these actions. It is a star chamber that they want to set up, without justification.

There are real issues in the construction industry that need to be addressed. There are people being injured and tragically dying on construction sites every week. Construction sites have the potential to be very dangerous places unless you get conditions right, unless you have all the watchdogs, unless you have the safeguards. When we see attacks from the government trying to reduce these safeguards, then we see an increase in injuries and deaths at work.

There are other issues in the construction industry. There are many workers coming in from overseas who are being exploited, who are being employed by labour hire contractors, who are working for $10 or $12 an hour. The government could be working to stamp out that sham contracting, but no. The government come along and say, 'There are problems in the construction industry and we want more powers to deal with them.' Are they coming along and saying, 'There are too many people dying in the construction industry every week'? No. Are they saying, 'We're finding too many exploited workers coming in from overseas, working for $10 or $12 an hour'? Are they dealing with that? No. Are they saying there are not enough locals, not enough apprentices or that there are not enough jobs for them? No. They are coming in and saying, 'We want you to give us more powers so that we can prosecute the very people at workplaces who are looking after the interests of people who turn up to work and who do not come home at the end of the day.'

We could be looking at sham contracting. We could be looking at the practice where subcontractors, who are under a lot of pressure, sometimes from big international developers, say, 'We'll give you a job, but only if you pretend you're an independent business, come along with an ABN and look after your own insurance and holidays.' The government could be tackling sham contracting, but they are not doing it.

Other parts of this bill also deserve attention. I am particularly concerned about the building code that is being set up by this bill and the limitations that that building code is going to put on enterprise agreements. Under this bill, if there is a clause in your local workplace agreement that says, 'We want to make sure that young Australians get a job, so we are going to guarantee that there will be a certain percentage of apprentices on this job so that young people can be trained up,' this building code will say that you cannot do that. If you want a clause in your agreement that says, 'We are going to give a certain number of positions to Indigenous Australians to ensure that they get a step up,' or, 'We are going to have some requirements about local labour to ensure that local workers get some of the spoils of international investment and the mining boom,' this building code will say that that cannot happen. The code will prohibit clauses that require employers to look for local workers first.

It will prohibit clauses that prevent unlimited ordinary working hours, which means that unions will not be able to place restrictions on the number of hours worked. That in itself is going to lead to an increase in worker deaths and work injuries because of fatigue, because of workers being forced to work longer than is safe. Not being able to place limits on the number of ordinary hours worked is going to really challenge the ability of workers to have stable and secure shift arrangements and rosters, which will impact on their family lives. It means the whole work-life balance of being able to go to work knowing that these are the hours you are working and that you are going to be able to get home to pick up your children from child care is not going to be possible. It means you can say, 'Yes, I can work tomorrow because I know that my children have child care,' and then be told, 'No, you are not working tomorrow,' or that you can suddenly be asked to work on a day when you do not have child care for your children.

This building code is going to prohibit union officials from coming onto the site to assist with dispute settlement processes. It is going to prohibit limits on labour hire and casual work. All of these things that have been included in enterprise agreements and included in workplace practices are there because they lead to much better conditions, lead to much safer and more sociable working conditions, and lead to workers actually having decent rights at work.

The key thing is that, by having this building code, this supposedly free market government are going to have a seat at every negotiating table around the country. They are going to be able to write what is in and out of our enterprise agreements around this country. They are going to be able to say, 'Well, you might have negotiated yourself some good conditions, but we don't think they are good enough, so by force of law we're going to take them away from you.' They are going to impose a code under this legislation that says to a subcontractor or a small company: 'If you ever want to get work on a government job, you'd better not promise to take on more apprentices. You'd better not promise to take on more Indigenous Australians. You'd better not give the union representatives the right to come in and inspect safety, because if you want that we're not going to give you any work.'

The government are claiming that they are improving productivity and cracking down on wrongdoing in unions, yet the Greens and the Australian people see this for what it really is. It is an attack on people's rights at work and it is a distraction from dealing with the very real issues of corruption and wrongdoing that span every industry. The Greens oppose this bill but, even more so, we want to stop the charade of attacking one particular section of society that just happens to be the political opponent of the government. So let's use this as an opportunity to tackle corruption more broadly. The Greens have for many, many years pushed—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Rice, you will be in continuation. The debate is now interrupted, pursuant to an order made earlier today to enable the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, to make an explanation.

Senator RICE (Victoria) (13:39): We need to stop the charade of attacking one particular section of society that just happens to be the political opponents of the government. Let us use this as an opportunity to tackle corruption more broadly. For many years, the Greens have pushed for a national independent commission against corruption—a national ICAC, a national corruption watchdog—because we know that is what is needed, rather than this ABCC bill that just tackles one part of society. We need a national ICAC because transparency and integrity are fundamentally important.

I urge all members of this house to support our second reading amendment, ditch this bill and get on with establishing a national anticorruption watchdog. I move our second reading amendment:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate calls on the Government to introduce legislation to establish a national independent broad based anti-corruption body that has wide ranging powers, including the power to investigate politicians, and that this bill should not come into effect until such legislation has been passed by the Senate.".

I also want to foreshadow amendments that we will be moving in the committee stage if this bill passes through its second reading.

Given that the building industry code is going to regulate, in the smallest detail, what can and cannot be in every building enterprise agreement around the country if this bill is passed, then at the very least we can try to ensure that this highly prescriptive building code at least does some good. When we know that Prime Minister Turnbull desperately wants this bill to be passed before Christmas. He went to an election on this bill and his authority is tied up with getting this bill passed. This is putting the crossbenchers in a very powerful position. Our amendments that we are moving will see whether these crossbenchers are actually willing to stand up to the government or whether they are going to roll over and have their tummies tickled.

The Greens will not be supporting this bill even if it is amended, because we reckon that it is bad legislation. However, if there are crossbenchers who want this bill passed—the One Nation team, the Nick Xenophon Team or Senator Derryn Hinch—then at the very least we think that they should use their power to ensure that this highly prescriptive building code does some good. To that end, in the committee stage, we are going to be moving two sets of amendments: one on local steel and one on local jobs.

The local steel amendments are going to be amending the bill so that the building code must include a requirement for 90 per cent local steel to be used on any project covered by the code, with exemptions for special steel that cannot be obtained here or manufactured here at a reasonable cost. This would be a big boost for steelmaking in this country, especially boosting and really improving the conditions that Arrium are operating under. Senator Xenophon talked big about supporting Arrium in the lead-up to the election. Supporting our amendments will be his chance to do something about that.

On local jobs, we will be moving amendments that will require that, where the building code applies, jobs have to be advertised locally and the employer must demonstrate that there are no suitable local applicants before guest workers can be used. We have been advocating this position for a long time. It will be a test for the crossbenchers—for the One Nation team, the Nick Xenophon Team and Senator Hinch—to put their votes where their rhetoric is and to support local jobs.

We are calling on the crossbenchers, those who profess their commitment to Australian jobs and industry, to do something about it and to support our amendments. Will the crossbenchers be rolling over, having their tummies tickled and giving a Christmas present to the government with very little to show in return? By supporting our amendments, they will be able to do something to support their local community, support local jobs and have a small positive coming out of what is overall very bad legislation.

In conclusion, the Greens would prefer this bill to be rejected in its entirety. We think it is bad legislation, it is scapegoating workers in the construction industry and it is giving them fewer rights than accused criminals. It does not tackle the real issues of corruption in our society. The Greens are calling upon this Senate to reject this bill, to move on tackling corruption across society and to legislate for a national ICAC.

Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (13:44): I too rise today to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. When I worked in the Army I worked for General David Morrison, the Chief of Army. One of the things he said that got a lot of publicity has stuck with me: 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept'—not just in defence, but in all industries. Certainly that is applicable in this place and it is certainly applicable to the millions of men and women who work in and around the construction industry. From four royal commissions over the last 40 years the facts are absolutely crystal clear. The construction industry has been, and remains, uniquely rife with corruption and bullying. Circumstances exist still, today, for workers that would be totally and utterly unacceptable in this day and age in any other workplace in this country. It is absolutely clear that the ABCC worked. It should never have been gotten rid of by those opposite, and it is desperately needed again.

Despite all of the tummy-tickling rhetoric from those opposite, the bill is all about protecting Australian workers. It is about stopping union thuggery, but it is also about improving productivity and reducing construction costs in our most vital of industries. Ultimately, when you reduce the costs you create more jobs and you create more wealth. The 165,000 sparkies, the 124,000 carpenters, the 87,000 plumbers, the 46,000 painters, the 43,000 civil engineers and the many thousands more concreters, plasterers, brickies, tilers and other very hardworking tradies belong to our third-largest industry and are subject to utterly appalling standards of behaviour and criminal activity in the workplace. As I said, if these workers were in any other industry, and not one protected by those opposite for so many years, it would not happen.

I will go through shortly some of the more egregious and outrageous things that workers in this industry have to put up with, because those opposite walk past it every single day. They are your mates, they are your ex-colleagues, they are your donors—but that is absolutely no excuse for walking past the appalling things that happen in thousands of worksites in the construction industry every single day. These hardworking men—and all too few women—deserve that we stop walking past them and what they have to put up with every single day.

In my home state of Western Australia workers suffer from some of the most horrific circumstances, as they do nationally. The 2015 Federal Court case Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Upton imposed fines totalling $24,000 on the CFMEU and its official Bradley Upton for racially abusing a site representative on a construction site. The court described the conduct as 'disgraceful behaviour'. Mr Upton made obscene remarks to a site representative and told another to hit the representative after he became agitated about the meeting room assigned for discussion with workers. Mr Upton made the most obscene, abusive and offensive comments—far too revolting for me to repeat here in this chamber today, but I am sure some of my colleagues here know exactly what comments I am referring to. These comments and this behaviour would never, ever be tolerated—and have not been tolerated for decades—in any other workplace. Justice Gilmour further commented on Mr Upton's comments, stating:

I regard Upton’s conduct as deplorable particularly so for someone acting in his official capacity …

Supposedly on behalf of his workers. Justice Gilmour went on:

The language used as well as being repeatedly obscene, had a particularly nasty racist overtone.

It makes me wonder where the Human Rights Commission was in relation to this matter, but I digress. In relation to the CFMEU, the court said:

The CFMEU has a significant record of noncompliance with the provision of industrial legislation … There is a history over a number of years of contraventions on industrial law by CFMEU officials, for whom the CFMEU is responsible, and which have involved those officials, variously, in using obscene and threatening language, making threats of assaults and in some cases involving scuffles and physical altercation.

In another incident, according to the royal commission the union official Michael Greenfield told female workplace inspectors—again, this is far too obscene for me to read what he actually said—that they were 'f'ing dogs'. He also said to them, 'I hope you brought your kneepads, you are going to be doing expletive expletive on those dogs all day in the workplace.' Can you imagine any other workplace in this nation where female workers would come onto a worksite or into workplace and be told, when they entered, 'Did you bring your kneepads because you are going to have to perform a sexual act on all of us in this workplace'? That is what he said, and it is completely and utterly appalling that those opposite are doing nothing to address this endemic problem.

This is not something new. Four royal commissions in 40 years have found the same thing over and over again about the CFMEU—there are endemic criminal activities within the building and construction industry, and workers are repeatedly and regularly subject to unacceptable behaviour. The impact of this is felt far further than the direct impact on workers—our whole economy suffers, because we are paying up to 30 per cent more for building and construction works in this country. Think about the implications of that. In my own home state, the taxpayers of Western Australia are paying 30 per cent more of their taxes for construction jobs simply because of the corruption and other activities that happen in the unions. We could be building 30 per cent more schools and public infrastructure—but, no, it is going into the coffers and the deals of the trade unions. It is very shameful.

Last Monday night in this chamber, the Senate passed the first tranche of legislation to deal with these issues—the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill. This will ensure that rogue union officials are subject to the same standards and accountability as corporate and charity organisation directors. But again those opposite fought the government at every turn on this basic level of accountability for union officials. That is absolutely disgraceful. Why should union officials not be accountable to their members for how they use their money? Those opposite should also be working with the government to make sure that the millions of people who work in construction and manufacturing workplaces are treated with respect and are not subject to criminal behaviour.

As I said, the construction industry is an integral part of the Australian economy not only for the approximately one million jobs it directly creates but also for establishing the infrastructure that we need for long-term economic development. It is Australia's third largest industry and actually contributes eight per cent GDP to this nation. Last year in my own wonderful state of Western Australia the $31 billion construction industry accounted for a full 11 per cent of gross state product. However, the systemic culture of abuse, corruption and bullying that riddles the construction industry in my home state, as it does elsewhere in the nation, makes Australia a less appealing place for both domestic and overseas companies to invest. Why would you invest when you do not have certainty but have corruption and bullying? You do not have certainty. You may as well put your money somewhere else. All of us in Australia suffer because of that.

Mr Shorten abolished the ABCC in 2012. After that the rate of disputes in the construction industry increased by 40 per cent while in other industries the rate of disputes declined by 33 per cent. All other industrial disputes declined nationally by 33 per cent but—surprise, surprise!—with the ABCC gone, again the rate of disputes increased by 40 per cent in the building and construction industry. Unsurprisingly and additionally, the significant cultural problem of bullying and abuse in the workplace has seen decreased participation by women in the building and construction industry. The Productivity Commission notes that, of the 19 industry divisions in our economy, construction has the lowest rate of participation by women, at just over 11 per cent of the workforce, compared to nearly 46 per cent across all other industries. With the conditions that men and women, particularly women, have to put up with in the construction industry, is it any wonder that we have so few women joining and staying in that industry?

For many years it has also been very clear that the commercial building and construction sector provides the worst examples of industrial unlawfulness. Again you do not have to look at just the last royal commission report; all three proceeding royal commission reports said the same thing over and over again. It is a corrupt industry, it is a corrupt union and it is a totally inappropriate workplace for so many men and women to work in. Thirteen years ago the Cole royal commission found:

… an industry which departs from the standards of commercial and industrial conduct exhibited in the rest of the Australian economy. They mark the industry as singular.

This means that this is a unique industry with a uniquely corrupt and inappropriate organisation in the CFMEU. Again this is nothing new but it is unique in this country. Also 13 years ago, the industry was:

… marred by unlawful and inappropriate conduct. Fear, intimidation and coercion are commonplace. Contractors, subcontractors and workers face this culture continuously. At the centre of this culture and much of the unlawful and inappropriate conduct is—

guess who?—

the CFMEU.

The Cole royal commission also said:

The CFMEU exercises a position of dominance and power often disproportionate to its on-site presence, in terms of the number of workers on-site who are members of the CFMEU.

If you took the findings of the Cole royal commission and the most recent royal commission, you would see that they are saying the same thing over and over again about this union.

I am incredibly proud that the Howard government was prepared to step in and make the tough decisions to clean up this sector for all of the men and women who work within it. That I think is great government—taking the tough but necessary decisions. The establishment of the ABCC in 2005 provided a genuinely strong watchdog for what is a uniquely corrupt and awful workplace for so many men and women to work in. It was a strong specialist regulator that enforced the rule of law to the building and construction sector.

What were the results? Yes, there were results. When the ABCC was introduced there was a decrease in lawlessness in the building and construction sites. It was clearly making a difference, which is why those opposite hated it so much and the now Leader of the Opposition abolished it. Senator Di Natale's assertion that the ABCC did not make any difference is demonstrably and factually wrong. When the ABCC existed the economic and industrial performance of the building and construction sector improved. The figures are very clear. According to the ABS, estimates of industry multifactor productivity showed that in the six years from 2004-05 to 2011-12, its final year of operation, the labour productivity index for the construction industry rose from 83 to 100—a 20 per cent increase in a few short years. This is clear evidence that the ABCC was actually working.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator REYNOLDS: It would have been terrible for you to realise that the ABCC was working, just as it will work again when reintroduced by this government. The most recent royal commission findings once again lift the veil on what everybody in this industry has known for over 40 years but previous governments were either unwilling or unable to tackle. The Heydon royal commission again reported that there is still 'a culture of wilful defiance of the law which appears to lie at the core of the CFMEU'. Since 2005 the CFMEU has had to pay $8 million of its members' money in fines—$8 million of the membership dues paid by the CFMEU membership have been paid for wilful breaches by the union officials of legislation. As the royal commission found, they continue to wilfully flout the law and keep using their members' money as a bit of an ATM to pay for their own fines. This systematic and volatile culture of bullying, corruption and harassment that was again identified by the most recent royal commission reinforces the need for active enforcement of workplace laws.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Reynolds, you will be in continuation. It being 2 pm, we now move to questions without notice.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (15:37): I seek leave to amend business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name and in the names of Senators Griff and Kakoschke-Moore, for today concerning a reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges, before asking that it be taken as formal.

Leave granted.

Senator XENOPHON: I amend the motion by omitting in subparagraph (a) the words 'domestic preservation orders' and substituting' domestic preservation notices'. I move:

That the following matters be referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report by 14 August 2017:

(a) the implications of the use of intrusive powers by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including in relation to electronic surveillance and metadata domestic preservation notices, on the privileges and immunities of members of Parliament;

(b) whether current oversight and reporting regimes on the use of intrusive powers are adequate to protect the capacity of members of Parliament to carry out their functions, including whether the requirements of parliamentary privilege are sufficiently acknowledged;

(c) the need for specific protocols to be developed on any or all of the following matters:

   (i) access by law enforcement or intelligence agencies to information held by parliamentary departments or departments of state (or portfolio agencies) in relation to members of Parliament or their staff,

   (ii) access in accordance with the provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 by law enforcement or intelligence agencies to metadata or other electronic material in relation to members of Parliament or their staff, held by carriers or carriage service providers, and

   (iii) activities of intelligence agencies in relation to members of Parliament or their staff (with reference to the agreement between the Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service); and

(d) any related matters.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (15:39): by leave—I move:

That the following matters be referred to the Standing Committee of Privileges for inquiry and report by 14 August 2017:

(aa) whether protocols for the execution of search warrants in the premises of members of Parliament, or where parliamentary privilege may be raised, sufficiently protect the capacity of members to carry out their functions without improper interference;

(a) the implications of the use of intrusive powers by law enforcement and intelligence agencies, including telecommunications interception, electronic surveillance and metadata domestic preservation orders, on the privileges and immunities of members of Parliament;

(b) whether current oversight and reporting regimes on the use of intrusive powers are adequate to protect the capacity of members of Parliament to carry out their functions, including whether the requirements of parliamentary privilege are sufficiently acknowledged;

(c) whether specific protocols should be developed on any or all of the following:

   (i) access by law enforcement or intelligence agencies to information held by parliamentary departments, departments of state (or portfolio agencies) or private agencies in relation to members of Parliament or their staff,

   (ii) access in accordance with the provisions of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 by law enforcement or intelligence agencies to metadata or other electronic material in relation to members of Parliament or their staff, held by carriers or carriage service providers, and

   (iii) activities of intelligence agencies in relation to members of Parliament or their staff (with reference to the agreement between the Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service); and

(d) any related matters, including competing public interest considerations.

Question agreed to.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:40): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The government opposes this motion. The matters proposed to be referred to the Senate Standing Committee of Privileges are excessively broad in scope and extend to matters of intelligence and law enforcement oversight that are more properly dealt with in other contexts, including the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Not only are our intelligence and law enforcement agencies already subject to robust oversight of legislation in operations; but shortly our intelligence agencies will be subject to further scrutiny in the context of the independent review into Australia's intelligence community announced by the Prime Minister on Monday, 7 November.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (15:41): I seek leave to make a brief statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You have been given one minute.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: The opposition supports this motion as amended and thanks Senator Xenophon for putting these matters before the Senate. The amendments that I have moved are on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges. Let me say briefly that there are some matters before the committee arising out of matters we are currently considering. With the courtesy of Senator Xenophon, we have discussed those issues and amended the motion so that they fit with current work before the privileges committee.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (15:41): I seek leave to make a short statement of no longer than one minute.

Leave granted.

Senator XENOPHON: To put this on the record: this reference to the Senate Standing Committee on Privileges is about the issue of metadata domestic preservation orders and the chilling effect that such orders can have on the provision of information to members of parliament in order to enable them to carry out their functions. This is not about the executive arm of government. The issue of privilege and the work of parliamentarians ought to be a matter for the Senate to determine, and that is why this reference to the privileges committee is so important.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, as amended, be agreed to.

Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:49): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to improve donation transparency and accountability, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator FARRELL: I present the bill and move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator FARRELL (South Australia—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (15:50): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

Senator FARRELL: I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I am pleased to introduce this legislation, which demonstrates the commitment by the Australian Labor Party to vital reforms in the area of political donations, disclosure, and election funding. On behalf of the Opposition, I have presented these changes to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act) and reform Australia's electoral laws in line with clear and unambiguous public expectation.

The measures contained in the presented Bill seek to deal with four key issues surrounding the conduct of electoral fundraising and expenditure.

Primarily, the Bill seeks to address the intricate issue of receipt of gifts and donations from foreign entities. This has been an issue that has attracted widespread public attention, and it is clear the public want this Parliament to act. The amendments presented in this Bill seek to make it unlawful for candidates, registered political parties, and members of Senate groups to accept donations or gifts identified as foreign property.

The amendments presented in this Bill also make it unlawful for persons or entities to receive overseas or foreign gifts that are used solely or substantially to incur political expenditure. In addition, this Bill seeks to extend the prohibition on anonymous gifts to associated entities and third parties, with the intent of ensuring disclosure is not avoided through such entities.

This Bill seeks to ensure the source of all political donations which could affect political decision-making are clearly identified, the public in turn can scrutinise the receipt of such donations and any possible effect on decision-making, and the Australian Electoral Commission has authority and jurisdiction over all such matters.

Secondly, this Bill addresses the long overdue need to reduce the amount of donations where the identity of the donor remains anonymous from a threshold of "more than $10,000" (indexed annually to CPI) just down to $1,000. The Opposition believe that once an organisation is paying more than $1,000 their identity should no longer remain anonymous.

Thirdly, this Bill seeks to close a loophole in the current Electoral Act, where entities may be avoiding disclosure regulations by making donations to various branches and divisions of the same political party in an effort to remain under the disclosure threshold for each donation. This Bill would ensure those branches and divisions are considered as the same political entity for the purpose of the disclosure requirements.

The fourth and final key issue addressed in this Bill is the prevention of the current possibility of candidates and groups obtaining windfall payments of electoral funding as a result of standing for election or political office. The intention of these measures is to link the payment of electoral funding to the political expenditure incurred by that party, candidate, or group. This therefore would seek to ensure that election funding is used for its intended purpose of communicating with the public and the Australian electorate.

To ensure that these four issues can be addressed to the satisfaction and confidence of the public, this Bill seeks to extend penalties and offences under the Electoral Act to encourage compliance. This reflects the need to demonstrate to the public and political entities the very serious nature of political integrity, and to inspire faith and confidence in our democratic institutions.

The Labor Opposition is committed to ensuring transparency and accountability throughout our political system, and the measures outlined in this Bill address those matters which undermine public confidence in our great democracy.

I commend the Bill.

Senator FARRELL: I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator URQUHART (Tasmania—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:51): At the request of Senator Brown, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than 3.30 pm on Tuesday, 29 November 2016, the government's response to the report of the Community Affairs References Committee entitled, Extent of income inequality in Australia—Bridging our growing divide: inequality in Australia.

Senator McGRATH (Queensland—Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) (15:51): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator McGRATH: The government intends to provide a response to the committee's report by the end of December. In order to give the report the attention it deserves, it would be premature to provide a response in the time frame indicated by the motion. As a result, we oppose the motion.

Question agreed to.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:05): I move:

That the Senate take note of document No. 12 on page 6 of the Order of Business—the Australian Public Service Commission's State of the Service Report 2015-16.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (17:07): I move:

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

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS (New South Wales—Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (17:07): 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—

India is the world's largest democracy, an emerging Asian superpower, an influential regional power and a strategic partner for Australia. Australia's growing collaboration with India on energy security and trade is an investment in the future of both countries.

Links between the Australian and Indian people have never been stronger, with over 450,000 people of Indian origin living in Australia. The 2011 census indicated Punjabi was the fastest growing language in Australia. The Indian diaspora in Australia remains engaged in developments in India, shown by the reception Prime Minister Modi received when he visited Australia in November 2014. The Nuclear Cooperation Agreement has delivered on a key priority for both our governments and, I know is an important symbol to the Indian origin community here reflecting the great strides made in our bilateral relationship.

Nuclear power is an important part of India's energy mix. It will help India reduce its carbon emissions and provide it with the secure supply of power it needs to underpin its ongoing economic development. The opportunity for Australia to supply uranium to India and to help to fuel that development is a significant one. Uranium mining companies in Australia are already negotiating the first contracts for what promises to be a significant trade.

As the fastest growing major economy in the world, with GDP growth rates consistently above seven per cent, India has a substantial and growing need for energy to sustain its development, and nuclear power will play a key role. Around 300 million Indians live without access to power. By 2050, when India's population is expected to reach 1.7 billion, India aims to provide 25% of its energy from nuclear power. Completion of the reactors already under construction will add substantially to India's existing nuclear power generation capacity. To fuel that capacity, India will need up to 2,000 tonnes of uranium each year.

Negotiations on a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement, to enable uranium sales to India, began under Labor in 2013 and were brought to a conclusion by the Coalition the following year. In 2015, members of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties from across the Parliament indicated their support for bringing the bilateral agreement into force.

The Australia-India nuclear cooperation agreement is underpinned by a robust safeguards regime applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency (the IAEA). IAEA safeguards ‎apply to the civil part of India's fuel cycle, where Australian uranium and any nuclear material derived from it will exclusively remain. The measures in place to prevent the diversion of Australian uranium from the civil part of India's fuel cycle are at least as strong as those in place for other export destinations. These include explicit commitments by India in a binding bilateral agreement with Australia, and robust inspection and accounting procedures enforced by the IAEA.

Successive Australian Governments have pursued a nuclear cooperation agreement with India with attention to the fact that it is not a Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the NPT), including how the special case of India relates to Australia's commitments under that treaty and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Thus, when I introduced the Australia-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement to this House in October 2014, I noted that trade in uranium with India had only become possible in light of changes to international guidelines on nuclear supply to India in 2008, agreed by the 48 members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (the NSG), including Australia. The NSG includes all of the major nuclear supplier countries and others that are active in non-proliferation efforts. The National Interest Analysis document that I tabled alongside the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement noted that "in light of the unique framework within which nuclear cooperation with India is proposed, the Government is considering legislation to clarify the legal basis for uranium transfers to India". The Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill is the result of that consideration.

The Bill provides that decisions approving civil nuclear transfers to India are taken not to be inconsistent with Australia's obligations relating to nuclear safeguards under the NPT and the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, if particular conditions are met. Those conditions relate to the application of nuclear safeguards under India's agreement with the IAEA as well as the Australia-India Agreement on civil nuclear cooperation.

Although it remains outside the NPT, bringing India into the non-proliferation mainstream has cemented its commitment to key non-proliferation initiatives. It has also paved the way for India to deepen its strategic relationship with the US, Australia and other Indo-Pacific democracies. An India, keen to work closely with likeminded countries, is clearly in Australia's security and economic interests.

The evolution of international policies to enable nuclear cooperation with India and to draw it more fully into the non-proliferation mainstream was led by the United States between 2005 and 2008 with the support of Australia, and other countries. In 2008, the NSG accepted that, on the basis of commitments and actions by India in support of nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear trade with India would be possible. As part of that deal, the NSG recognised that there is no practical way for IAEA safeguards to apply comprehensively to nuclear activities in India while India retains nuclear weapons. Rather, India would negotiate a new safeguards agreement with the IAEA to apply safeguards to India's civilian nuclear facilities, including those fuelled with imported uranium.

The NSG decision recognised India's commitments to support international non-proliferation efforts, including continuing its moratorium on nuclear testing, to separate its civil and military nuclear activities and to accept IAEA safeguards on the former. In the years since 2008, India has met these commitments. India has brought its Additional Protocol with the IAEA into force. India has maintained its moratorium on nuclear testing and it is working with Australia and others to promote negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty. As part of its separation of civil and military activities, India committed to designate 22 civil facilities for the application of safeguards by the IAEA. All 22 are now under safeguards.

The Civil Nuclear Transfers to India Bill reflects Australia's decision to supply uranium to India on the basis of the NSG decision and the safeguards that India and the IAEA have put in place to implement it, as well as the conditions in the Australia-India agreement on civil nuclear cooperation. This will give legal and commercial certainty to uranium mining companies in Australia so that they may fulfil contracts to supply Australian uranium to India with confidence that exports would not be hindered by domestic legal action relating to the scope of the nuclear safeguards that the IAEA applies in India.

Australia has a hard won reputation as a reliable, cost-effective supplier of energy and India is a large and growing market. A number of Australian uranium companies are actively pursuing the new market opportunity that India presents.

Given that nuclear energy is a zero-emissions source of baseload power, I said in October 2014 that I expected support for the Australia-India Nuclear Cooperation Agreement from across the political divide. Trade under that agreement, together with the growing dialogue we have with India on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, will further reinforce the non-proliferation commitments that India has made in recent years, and will help Australia and India to build an enduring bilateral relationship.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Back ): In accordance with standing order 111, further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to 7 February 2017.

Senator FAWCETT (South Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:08): Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports on legislation as listed at item 16 Nos 1 and 4 on today's Order of Business together with the documents presented to the committees.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Senator BILYK (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:09): On behalf of the Chair of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee, I present the report on the Commonwealth funding of Indigenous Tasmanians together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Co-Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (17:09): I present the interim report on closures of electricity generators.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Ordered that consideration of the report be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (17:10): I rise to strongly oppose the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. Over the course of this debate and, in fact, over the last three years, as this government has pursued their ideological agenda to cripple trade unions in this country, we have heard a lot from the government about why these bills are allegedly necessary. We have heard that they are the key to unlocking productivity in the construction sector and the economy more broadly. We have heard that they will drive down industrial disputes. We might as well have heard that they would cause world peace! You would think that every problem in the world is going to be solved by the passage of these two bills, when in fact what they really are this government's only agenda for this country—their ideological crusade to cripple the trade union movement, which will undoubtedly further entrench inequality in our society.

These bills will not help the economy one iota. They will not help the community and they will not help working people. Instead, they are just a cynical, politically-motivated attack on hardworking Australians that will, tragically, put construction workers' lives at risk. These bills are a continuation of the $80 million political witch-hunt established by the then Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, in the form of the Heydon royal commission. That was the failed royal commission that has resulted in prosecution after prosecution falling over for lack of evidence. That royal commission, as we would all be familiar, was going to expose what was alleged to be endemic corruption within the trade union movement. It was going to line up all sorts of prosecutions of people within the trade union movement. To date, to my knowledge, it has resulted in an only one conviction and led to prosecution after prosecution falling over for lack of evidence.

Time and time again we see this Liberal Party government using taxpayers' money to pursue their own agenda to support their mates from the big end of town and appease their backbench. This is just like their $50 billion company tax cut, which will not deliver jobs and growth to ordinary Australians but will deliver a windfall gain to multinational corporations, who do not need a leg-up from the Australian people. Similarly, the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, has been pursuing his own agenda—and the Liberal Party's own agenda—through the $150 million plebiscite on marriage equality. We know that the only reason that is being done is to appease his backbench.

This government likes to moan about not having any money, about deficits—while, of course, the deficit is rising under their leadership—but they always find the money to deliver to their mates at the top end of town, with a company tax cut, a political witch-hunt in the guise of a royal commission and with things like a wasteful, divisive plebiscite. So I am proud to stand against this ideologically-driven government and these ideologically-driven bills, and I will oppose the changes to legislation, which are proposed here, that will seriously harm the economy and working people.

It is ironic that we should be talking about bills that are attempting to cripple the union movement because, if there is one organisation that would benefit from collectivism and sticking together, it is this very government. Instead, this government is completely divided. Last week we saw the ongoing civil war that is the federal Liberal party room come to Queensland. Senator Brandis was caught on camera calling his Queensland state colleagues very, very mediocre. Within an hour, the Queensland LNP member for Ryan, Ms Jane Prentice, was on Brisbane radio asking people to look at Senator Brandis's own performance and then later that very day every single Queensland National Party senator refused to support the Prime Minister's gun laws. Even just last night, we had former Prime Minister Tony Abbott yet again begging for a return to the front bench while, at the very same time, digging the knife further into his replacement, the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull.

Who could ignore the war that Senator Cash, the Minister for Employment, seems to be waging against her own LNP staff members in their ongoing enterprise bargaining dispute? If only there were some sort of organising body that those staff members could join that could advocate on their behalf. Of course, there is such a body, and that body is the trade union movement of Australia. Trade unions are terribly important to our society and to our democracy. They are the single biggest roadblock to the deepening inequality we are seeing in our society.

What a joke to see the government try to portray themselves as the defenders of working people. They would like to think that we have not been witness to their repeated attempts to undermine and dismantle trade unions and workplace protections that apply to everyday Australians. They would like to think that we were not witness to their disgraceful introduction of Work Choices under the Howard government—one of the largest and most ruthlessly coordinated attacks that we have ever seen on Australian working families. Of course, the government do not just attack the rights of working people and working Australians via their workplace rights. At the very same time, they impose cut after cut on social security benefits and services like education and health. In every part of their agenda—whether it be these kinds of bills to take away workplace rights or whether it be their other legislative proposals around social security benefits, health and education cuts—they are absolutely unforgiving in taking away the rights and entitlements of Australians, which have been hard won over generations.

So the government are not the protector of Australian workers. They never have been and they never will be. They do not speak for workers or their families, and they do not represent them. In fact, they do the very opposite by taking away rights and entitlements that have been won over generations.

I hate to break it to the government, but it was not them that gave Australians rights within the workplace. It was trade unions and Labor governments working together to ensure that the average working person does have some rights, does have some ability to stand up for their own pay and conditions, and does have the right to combine with other people that they work with to take on the power that their employer might have. Unions and Labor governments continue to play a pivotal role in advocating for the rights of Australians within the workplace.

Even now, unions are pushing for paid domestic violence leave so that victims of domestic violence can take leave to attend court hearings, to move house to escape a dangerous situation, and to attend medical and psychologist appointments. It would be good for the government to recognise the need for those kinds of rights in its own enterprise bargaining with its own employees.

Just last week, this government took its first step in its antiworker agenda when, without notice, it suspended standing orders to push through the registered organisations legislation in the dead of night. This, of course, was one of those bills that were held up as the reason that we needed to have a double dissolution election. Then we promptly never heard anything about it again through the election campaign. But, finally, this government pushed that legislation through in the dead of night. And what a triumph it considered that to be! I suppose if I were in the most unproductive government that Australia has ever seen, I would be pretty thrilled to pass a bill as well! Not that long ago, when Labor was in power, passing legislation used to be simply called governing. That was the daily business of government. But this government is so unproductive, so divided and so hapless that merely passing a bill is something that it considers worthy of celebration.

Now, in the following week, the government has decided to move on to the second step in this package of unfair and antidemocratic bills, through what has become known as the ABCC bill. This is just another unjustified attempt by this government to demonise Australian workers and dismantle the trade union movement that protects them. Unfortunately, it seems that this government has learnt absolutely nothing from the election, which saw it just squeeze back into government after launching a range of policies that were going to hurt everyday Australians. Unfortunately for this government, everyday Australians are not interested in policies that attack everyday people, and that is what this bill will do.

One of the government's main excuses for why it says we need the ABCC back is that it will improve productivity on construction sites. But, sadly for this government, the evidence is very clear on this front and it completely contradicts what the government argues. We do not need to just rely on modelling, theories or speculation about what will happen under the ABCC. We can turn to recent history, because it was not that long ago that the Howard government introduced the ABCC. The proof is in the pudding there about what actually happens in construction workplaces when this kind of authority is brought into existence. When we look back at what happened last time we had the ABCC, the facts are indisputable. They show that, without doubt, reintroducing the ABCC will be an absolute jobs killer. Again, this is an example of the Turnbull government putting its own ideological antiunion agenda above productivity and above economic growth that all Australians can share in.

This government has been caught out misrepresenting the supposed improved productivity that the ABCC will generate. The Prime Minister has claimed on occasions that ABCC, when it was introduced last time, improved productivity by 20 per cent. But journalists such as Bernard Keane have pointed out that there is no source that can be found to explain this alleged 20 per cent rise in productivity that apparently occurred the last time we had an ABCC. This statistic has been called out as being wildly inaccurate, but nevertheless the government insists on continuing to use outdated and wildly discredited data to push their agenda.

The government continues to cite a report published by Independent Economics, formerly Econtech, which claimed that the impact of workplaces practices, including the ABCC last time around, on productivity was an improvement of 9.4 per cent. As we know from this government, it does not let facts get in the way of a good yarn. On this occasion, again, its facts do not really stack up. It is not just me saying this. Former Federal Court judge Murray Wilcox said of the 2007 Econtech report that the government relies on 'is deeply flawed and it should be widely discredited,' yet this government continues to wheel out this figure as an argument for why we need the ABCC back. But, of course, we do have an institution within government that is fairly reliable when it comes to statistics. It is not a reliable when it comes to running a census, but on the provision of statistics like workplace—

Senator Bilyk: Due to staff cuts.

Senator WATT: I take the interjection from Senator Bilyk. Unfortunately, the ABS has been crippled by staff cuts and funding cuts. Let us not worry about these dodgy reports that are being held up by the government to justify their actions and let us look at what the Australian Bureau of Statistics says. They say that in the seven years before the introduction of the ABCC, construction industry productivity increased more than it did in the seven years that the ABCC existed. Last time around, far from the ABCC lifting productivity in the construction industry—which is what we are continually told by government ministers is what happened and will happen again if these bills are passed—the evidence shows that, last time we had ABCC, construction industry productivity fell. It only turned the corner and only started improving once Labor, upon its election, got rid of the ABCC. In fact, productivity has been higher every year since the abolition of the ABCC in 2012.

I say to the crossbenchers, as they are making up their minds about how to vote on this legislation, do not believe the government when they say to you that this is the key to unlocking construction industry productivity. The evidence is there. We do not need the dodgy reports that have been put together by consultants to tell us what may or may not happen. Let us just look at what happened last time we had this ABCC. The Australian Bureau of Statistics very clearly says, and it has the statistics to back it up, that productivity fell the last time we had an ABCC and construction industry productivity improved when the ABCC was gotten rid of by the Labor government. If anyone is actually serious about lifting productivity and the construction industry, then the best way to do that is to make sure that we do not have an ABCC.

Not only does this legislation damage Australia economically but it also increases the safety risks for the men and women working in the construction industry. In my former life as a lawyer, at one of Australia's leading law firms that acts for working people and their unions, I heard too many stories about everyday working Australians who went to work and then never came home. That was the daily bread and butter of the law firm that I acted for. It was representing people who had either been horrifically injured or killed in workplace accidents. Unfortunately, again, the evidence shows that this ABCC, if reintroduced, will actually lead to an increase in workplace accidents. Ordinary working people in Australia will suffer the consequences if this bill goes through.

Let us look at what happened last time. From 2003 to 2013, 401 construction workers died from workplace injuries. Prior to the introduction of the ABCC, the fatality rate for workers within the construction industry was falling. When the ABCC was introduced in 2005, the fatality rate was 3.51 fatalities per 100,000 workers. In 2006, one year after the ABCC was introduced, the fatality rate increased to 4.7 and it again increased to 4.73 in 2007. Two years running after the ABCC was introduced, workplace accidents increased. Again, the evidence is there. The ABCC, last time around, drove down productivity in the construction industry and drove up accidents in the workplace, which actually affects people's lives.

The fatality rate exceeded the 2005 rate every year until 2012, when the ABCC was replaced. Every year that we had the ABCC in existence, the fatality rate of construction workers on the worksite increased. It was only when the ABCC was taken away in 2012 that that fatality rate decreased. Anyone who wants to hold themselves out as being a guardian of the rights of working people, have a think about that: when we did not have an ABCC, people were actually safer in the workplace than they were when we did. That is very easy to explain: it is because the ABCC inevitably will be used to restrict the rights of unions to enter workplaces, to stand up for safety breaches and to take action against employers who are not doing the right thing on safety. If we take where unions' rights to do that, then the people who will suffer are the average working people on those construction sites. I think that is shameful.

The safety of workers will also be compromised by the building code that is going to accompany this bill. That building code will apply to construction sites that receive government funding. I will not go into detail about the effects of that because of lack of time. But there will be all sorts of restrictions placed around building projects that are being funded by the government, which will make it even harder to force companies to hire local workers and to invest in training local people. It will, as I say, lead to very big changes to people's working hours, extending their working weeks, in industries that are inherently dangerous and it will expose people to unsafe working conditions.

One of the other arguments that we hear often from government ministers, as to why we need an ABCC, is that it is the only way to rein in the big, bad unions that are disrupting workplaces all around the country. Again, the facts do not support what the government is saying. Apart from one quarter in September 2012, which was a bit of an aberration, working days lost to industrial action per 1,000 workers are now lower than they were in the time of the ABCC. Again, let us look at the facts and let us look at what happened last time. Last time when we had an ABCC, productivity went down, workplace accidents went up and industrial disputation went up as well. On every ground that this government puts forward for why we need the ABCC, the facts do not back them up. I can only assume this is because we really have entered the era of post-fact politics. This government does not really seem to care too much about what the facts demonstrate as long as it fits their ideological obsession with taking away the rights of trade unions and working people.

The last point I would like to make is that this legislation is not only economically counterproductive, dangerous to working people and dangerous to the economy in the sense of increased industrial disputes but it is downright undemocratic. If the ABCC is re-established, it will have coercive powers that will compel workers to be subject to secret interviews and workers will be denied legal representation. What other situation is there in this country where we have legislation that denies working people their legal rights in this way—that makes them subject to secret interviews and denies them legal representation? Many unions have pointed out that people charged with serious criminal offences sometimes have more rights and more legal representation than union members and union officials will have if this ABCC is re-established. Nicola McGarrity and Professor George Williams, from the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales, say:

… the ABC Commissioner's investigatory powers have the potential to severely restrict basic democratic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence.

I remember the days when we had a Liberal Party in this country which stood up for those kinds of values of liberal democracy and those sorts of basic rights, but, unfortunately, those values have gone out the window under this government.

In conclusion, let us not pretend that this legislation is anything but what it is—thinly veiled union bashing. It is an attack on the organising bodies that working people have long relied on to protect themselves from governments like this. This government has form. Every time it gets into power it tries to take away union rights and working rights, and it is doing it again now. (Time expired)

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (17:30): I rise tonight to speak to the Australian Building and Construction Commission legislation and put on record my opposition to it, along with that of my fellow Greens colleagues—a number of whom have already spoken about the legislation. We need to be absolutely up-front right from the get-go. This legislation is designed simply as a union bashing exercise. It was the baby of former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and you have to wonder what on earth is going on in the current Prime Minister's office when he continues to skip and whistle to the tune of Tony Abbott week after week, despite the fact that Tony Abbott, one of the most unpopular prime ministers the country has ever seen, was booted out a year ago—was dumped by his own colleagues. Now he stands in the shadows puppeteering every action of Prime Minister Turnbull. This legislation is one of the best examples of that.

This legislation is the whole reason that we went to an extraordinary election earlier this year—the double dissolution election—and the infamous eight-week election campaign. It was to give the Prime Minister the numbers that he would need in order to pass this bill. He did not get them. Even in his own perhaps frayed wisdom he realised that the Australian people were not going to be voting for a Prime Minister on the basis of a public campaign against some of the hardest working members of our workforce in the country—our building and construction workers. Every day they are out there on building sites; every day they are working hard to make sure that Australians have homes and that there are buildings for people to work in, and they do so under extremely difficult circumstances. In fact, fatality rates in relation to construction workers soared, sadly, last time the ABCC existed. There were more deaths on building sites when the last piece of legislation was enacted that made it more difficult for unions to represent workers to ensure that workplaces were safe and to give individual workers the protection to stick their head up and say, 'Hang on, I'm not going to do that, because that's unsafe.' It is extraordinary that the spike in the death rate on working sites correlated so clearly with the last introduction of the ABCC—you would wonder why any government would want to do that again. But this government is obsessed—absolutely obsessed—with union bashing. That is what all of this is about. It is being fanned by some of the more ultra-right members of the crossbench, who are seeing this as a brilliant opportunity for them to use this desperation from the government as their bargaining chip to get their agendas up.

I want to go to the issues relating to Senator Leyonhjelm, who has been out crowing for the last week about the list he has demanded from the government in order to secure his vote for the ABCC legislation. It is an ever-growing list. We even had more things added to it this morning. Firstly, I want to point out how extraordinary the reports are in relation to the Prime Minister declaring and demanding that his own Liberal Party administration drop the legal challenge to Senator Leyonhjelm and his party, the Liberal Democrats, over the use of the name. The Prime Minister himself has requested that the Liberal Party of Australia stop their legal challenge and withdraw from the courts, in order to satisfy Senator Leyonhjelm. If that is not an inducement, what is? This government is so desperate to get this legislation through that they are now willing to, effectively, not just trade on their name but give their name away—sell their own name in order to secure a vote for this piece of legislation. It is extraordinary. If we had a federal anti-corruption body like an ICAC in this country, that is exactly the type of thing that would be referred to it. How on earth can a Prime Minister put an inducement like that on the table and nobody bats an eyelid? It is extraordinary.

We know that Senator Leyonhjelm's shopping list is growing longer day by day. Today, we heard about his obsession with attacking and beating up the ABC and SBS broadcasters—they are now in Senator Leyonhjelm's firing line. He did not get the importation of the Adler and more firearms into the country, so he has decided to have a go at shooting the ABC and SBS. What an extraordinary precedent for this Prime Minister and his frontbench to suggest that our national broadcasters can become bargaining chips in this type of policy and vote negotiation only minutes before midnight. It is extraordinary. It sets a very dangerous precedent.

At a time when journalism is under pressure in this country, when we need robust, independent, well-funded journalism more than ever to scrutinise the government of the day and other interested groups and when the ABC and SBS in this country are held so dearly in the hearts and minds of the Australian people we see the Prime Minister so desperate to get his Tony Abbott legislation through this chamber that he is going to trade away the rights and protections for the ABC. I do not know exactly what the deals are—none of us do, and that is precisely the point. We do not know the details of these deals but we do know that Prime Minister Turnbull and his ministers are prepared to sell anything in order to get this legislation through this place before Christmas. It sets a very dangerous precedent.

We know that the ABC and SBS need to be strengthened and funded properly. We need them more than ever when we have such alarmist and crazy propositions being promoted by the ultraright wing in this country. The last thing we want is these public institutions caught up in the clutches of the ultraright in this place and on the crossbench. It sets a very dangerous precedent. While we have Senator Leyonhjelm negotiating this you can bet your bottom dollar that Senator 'Wackiest', also known as Senator Roberts, will be looking at this and taking inspiration from this—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson-Young, I remind you that personal remarks are disorderly. I invite you to reframe your comments.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: I believe the wackiest senator in this place is Senator Roberts. I believe he will be taking inspiration from this deal struck by Senator Leyonhjelm today. We know that the ultraright who sit here on the crossbench would love nothing more than to take pot shots every day at our national broadcaster. They desperately want in their clutches the possibility of dismantling the ABC. Of course there are members of Malcolm Turnbull's own frontbench and backbench who want to do the same. Tony Abbott could not be prouder of a deal that both gets through his union-bashing legislation and gives a good kick to our national broadcaster on the way through. Tony Abbott would be very proud of this deal indeed. It shows how desperate this government is to get this through before the end of the year.

This legislation is incredibly undemocratic in that it attacks a select group of the Australian community, some of the hardest-working Australians that this nation has. It treats them as second-class citizens under the law. This is not good enough. That is not how we should be treating Australian workers at a time when unemployment is rising, particularly amongst our young people. We need our construction sites to be safe and good places to work. We know we need young people in this sector more than ever. Treating them as second-class citizens just is not okay. I do not care how much Tony Abbott wants to thump his chest when it comes to beating up on the unions or how desperate—

Senator Fawcett: Madam Deputy President, I have a point of order. I remind the senator to address members from the other chamber by their correct title.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Fawcett. Yes, I do remind Senator Hanson-Young and other senators that it is appropriate to use proper titles when referring to members in the other place and of course in here.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG: Mr Tony Abbott is so prevalent in this debate that it is hard not to use his name so casually when referring to the drafting of this legislation. Mr Abbott's whole persona is in this legislation. It is Mr Abbott's legislation that is now being prosecuted desperately by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.

However, let me return to how undemocratic this legislation is. It undermines the basic rights of construction workers to be treated equally under the law. It does things like take away their right to silence. Heavens above, why is that needed? We have the common law in this country that everybody has to abide by. If somebody is not abiding by it then you tell the police and they will go in, investigate, charge, arrest and prosecute. Why are we making a particular group in the Australian community suffer more than other ordinary everyday Australians? It is beyond me. The government has not provided the evidence or a clear case at all of why this is needed.

One thing the Greens will do throughout this debate has been spoken about several times by my colleagues already, but I want to reiterate. We oppose this legislation—we always have and we always will—however, if it gets through to the committee stage, we will move some amendments to try to make things at least a little bit better. One of those things is really important for my home state of South Australia. That of course is the code to mandate the use of Australian steel. We know the steelworks in Whyalla are under immense pressure. We have construction projects right across the country, many of which are commissioned by state and federal governments and relevant agencies. If we are going to go so far as to implement particular building codes then let us ensure that it is mandated that 90 per cent of construction uses Australian steel. That would keep our steelworks in business and ensure that we do not see further deterioration of our steel industry. It is something that would be very important for South Australia—in particular, for Whyalla—but it would also have positive knock-on effects across the country. We know there are also steelworks under pressure in New South Wales, and it would go some way towards dealing with those issues as well.

The reality is that this legislation is one of the cruddiest, nastiest and most pathetic pieces of legislation that this parliament has had to deal with in a long time. We have debated it before. This issue has been hanging around since Tony Abbott was desperate to bring it back when he was Prime Minister, but it did not pass this parliament previously; it was rejected strongly by this chamber previously. Now, because there is some change in the make-up of the membership and the various voices being represented here, Malcolm Turnbull wishes to bring it back. The bill itself has not changed. It has not got any better—in fact, you would almost argue it has worsened, because the government's arguments and position for why we need this little piece of legislation have gotten weaker and weaker as the days, weeks and months have gone on.

I am not just concerned about the elements of this legislation that treat construction workers as second-class citizens and second-class workers in this country; I am very concerned for the safety and livelihoods of young workers on these construction sites. I was in Adelaide only a few months ago when there was another death on the construction site of the new Adelaide Hospital. It is not okay that we see workers, young or old, with families, sons and daughters of everyday Australians, going off to work in the morning and not coming back at night because an accident on the worksite which could have been avoided has cost them their life. What are we going to do when young people on these sites are too intimidated to speak up and confront their boss when their boss says: 'Nah, don't worry about it, mate, it'll be fine. She'll be right'? What are you going to say to the mother or the father of a young worker who dies on a construction site because the safety checks and balances are just not there?

It is about building a culture that promotes advocacy and safety. It is about trying to ensure that our young people, who we desperately need in this sector and in this industry, know that they are going to be looked after when they get there, that they are not going to be abused and treated appallingly, and that there are people who will listen to them when they say: 'No, I don't want to get up that high. I don't think that scaffolding is safe.' Who is going to stand up for these overtired and delirious young workers, pushed to work extraordinary hours in order to finish the job, with the pressures of deadlines, if the government has stripped away their ability so speak for themselves? If their unions are beaten up and kept off site, who will they turn to then? We are setting up a recipe for disaster for young construction workers right across this country, the moment this piece of legislation enters the parliament.

While Senator Leyonhjelm might want to trade off his vote for the ABCC, thinking it is a bill on the ABC—his chance to get stuck into the national broadcaster—and Mr Abbott is rubbing his hands together in glee because he cannot believe his luck that his two favourite things are going to happen at once, the young workers on our construction sites are the ones who are going to suffer. It is their parents and their loved ones—perhaps their young children—who will wake up the next day and realise that the deaths on our building sites could have been avoided if the culture had been different and if people could have spoken up and refused to work in dangerous circumstances, and if there had been independent inspection and analysis about how safe things really were on those sites.

The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 is about union-bashing for the government, but for the rest of us it is about protecting the rights of workers, particularly those young people who we desperately need to give an opportunity to get back into the workforce, and about the protection of proper safety regulation and implementation so that they can do their job properly. I do not want to see this setting a precedent, where every time a government cannot argue their case, they start to trade away basic elements in other areas, whether it is our national broadcaster; the importation of guns, for heaven's sake; or, indeed, dropping legal challenges outside of the parliament in order to secure people's vote. This is inducement at its most sickening level, and if we had a national ICAC—which we should—this type of carry-on and deal-making would not cut it.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) (17:51): Can I just say, before I start my remarks, that I am not the minister summing up; I am merely a senator making a contribution to the debate.

After listening to the previous contribution, I am really quite astounded to hear this kind of thing in this place from a member of a party that has traded their votes on numerous things when they were part of the government. It is quite extraordinary, when the boot is on the other foot, that Senator Leyonhjelm, Senator Xenophon and a number of others seeking to get good outcomes for their states by suggesting that some other legislation might be looked at are somehow seen as doing something that is outrageous and never been done before. If you have a look at the track record of people in this place, apart from the two major parties, you will see this is an age-old tradition that has been going on since any parliament ever started. So I will just put that little piece of hypocrisy on the record before I start my contribution on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and a related bill.

The reality is that this bill was brought in in 2013. It was one of the things that the coalition government said that they were intending to pursue when they were first elected to government in September 2013. It was to reinstate the Australian Building and Construction Commission because we believed that the Fair Work Building and Construction commission was a weaker regulator and that we needed to get back to a position where we had strengthened this particular industry.

It seems really quite extraordinary that in much of the comment that has gone before us you can have one side of parliament saying one thing and the other saying something completely different. If you research and have a look at the statistics, it seems quite bizarre. But the other side seem to be able to rummage around and come up with a whole heap of weird and wondrous numbers.

But there is nothing weird and wondrous in the numbers. As of October 2016, there were 113 CFMEU officials before the courts for more than 1,100 suspected contraventions in relation to building laws. It does strike me that that statistic is a matter of fact. If anybody can go out and find evidence to suggest that that is not the case then please do. But it is very hard to move away from something that is quite clearly available in the public domain. Yes, 113 CFMEU officials were before the courts last month. In recent years more than $8 million in fines have been imposed for breaches of those laws. Once again, these are matters of fact. They are not matters of supposition. We did not just makes them up; they are on the public record. The reality is that we need to do something about that. No business, no union and no individual should be allowed to continue to break the law at the kind of rate that we have seen the law being broken on construction sites and to get away with it.

Probably the most distressing thing about this is the cost to our economy. We in this country are trying very hard to deal with the debt and deficit problem to ensure that we are going to have a prosperous economy so that our children into the future are going to be able to live the lives that we expect for them and that we are living at the moment. But unless we do something about the productivity of this nation we are not going to achieve that. We really have two choices in dealing with our debt and deficit. We either increase the productivity within Australia or we focus on our export market. This government would like to do both so that we can move to a more prosperous nation where we can afford all those wonderful things that we would like our children to have without continuing to go deeper and deeper into debt.

It is really quite disturbing when you find that the rate of industrial action in the construction sector is now nine times higher than the average across all other industries. That is a pretty serious statistic. Currently two out of three working days lost to industrial disputes are in the construction industry. We in this place all sit and debate time and time again about absolutely essential infrastructure for education and health care. Our schools and our hospitals costs 30 per cent more than they need to because of the number of days that are lost due to industrial action and other activities that occur on building sites. So it does not take terribly long to start painting a picture about why it is so important that we put these reforms in place.

I must admit that I have always been a great believer that if you are doing the right thing you should never fear anybody having a look at what you are doing. It is a little bit like complaining about getting a speeding fine if you were speeding. If you are not speeding then you are not going to get a speeding fine. If you are not doing anything wrong on a construction site, the ABCC is not likely to interfere in any way with what you are doing.

To once again reinforce the importance of this particular piece of legislation, the construction sector is the third largest industry in Australia and it contributes eight per cent to our GDP. It employs nearly 1.1 million Australians, and there are more than 300,000 small businesses that rely on this sector for their very existence. You would have to say that it is a tremendously important industry.

One of the things that we have heard time and time again in the contributions that have been made in this place since the debate commenced is about the issue of safety. I would just like to put on the record that I find it quite extraordinary that anybody would use safety as an issue to try to scaremonger, because there can be nothing more important than the safety of Australian workers. I do not think there is any deviation between any of the parties in this chamber or in the other chamber on the importance of safety. But we have to be real and we have to tell the truth about safety. The ABCC bill does not amend any workplace safety laws. I think that is extraordinarily important to mention.

We saw the same kind of hysteria occur prior to the election over the debate about owner-drivers and the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. We saw the TWU trying to prosecute the issue that the changes they were proposing would deliver safety. One of the most despicable things I saw occur during that particular debate actually occurred in my home state and Senator Hanson-Young's home state of South Australia when the TWU wheeled out a lady who had lost somebody due to trucking accident. She was particularly upset, as you would imagine, having lost a very close member of her family in a trucking accident. The union was yelling and screaming that their owner-driver changes would have assisted this particular lady's loved one to not be involved in an accident. But it was not an owner-driver accident that caused that death. So I think when we start talking about the very important issue of safety we need to make sure that we back it up with the truth and do not just use scaremongering. I can assure you that the distress that was occurring because of this particular instance is something that I never want to witness again.

The ABCC legislation will not prevent legitimate safety issues being raised or addressed by employees, unions or health and safety officers. The rate of construction industry deaths has been trending down for the past decade, and we should all be very proud of that fact. It really does strike me as somewhat mischievous, to say the least, to use the safety of workers as a method or tool by which to try and wedge a particular situation. The reality is, if you look at some of the comments that have been made before, that it does not seem an unreasonable thing for a government to be seeking to legislate to stamp out thuggery, lawlessness and bad behaviour in any industry. I cannot understand why anyone in this place would not see the desire to do that, together with the desire to return productivity to an industry sector, which has so much capacity to have a positive benefit on the Australian economy, as a positive thing. Even the royal commission suggested that it was absolutely essential that we combat an industry that was characterised as experiencing lawlessness. What other industry in Australia would believe that lawlessness, thuggery, bad behaviour, physical abuse, discrimination and the like were acceptable ways to conduct yourself in any work environment? It does a disservice to every other industry sector which abides by the law and the rules to think that there could be as sector which thinks that because of their might and their power that they can behave beyond the law and do not have to meet the same requirements as every other worker and industry in Australia.

The reality is there is a toxic culture in the CFMEU, and it causes big problems. We intend to fix it. The ABCC, in its previous existence, had a proven track record of dealing with many of these issues. It tackled the lawlessness and thuggery in our building industry. It was the tough cop that enforced the law. As I said, if you are not breaking the law, you do not need to have the law enforced. If everybody is out there doing the right thing and not being lawless, then nobody should be even remotely concerned about any watchdog on the beat. By ensuring unlawful action could be appropriately investigated, dealt with and penalised, the ABCC got the results and the productivity that the building industry so desperately needed in this country.

Before the ABCC was introduced by the Howard government, the rate of industrial disputes was about five times the average across all industries. During the reign of the ABCC's operations, disputes fell to just twice the national average. On average, since the ABCC's abolition, disputes have gone back to five times the average. It does not take a rocket scientist to realise that the very presence of the ABCC created a much better culture on building sites and, commensurate with that, an increase in productivity, which benefited all Australians—and not just those people who were the beneficiaries of building site activities. We all benefit when the productivity of any industry rises, and especially one as important as the construction industry. Since the ABCC was abolished in 2012 by Mr Shorten, the rates of dispute in the construction sector have increased by 40 per cent. This is against a trend in all other industries, where the rate of industrial dispute has declined by 33 per cent. It makes it that much worse when you consider that not only is it going up but it is going up against a downward trend in every other sector.

When the ABCC was in force, the productivity in the construction sector grew by 20 per cent; since the ABCC was abolished productivity has flat lined. There are some pretty significant statistics on the public record; they are not something that can be disputed or made up; and they point to the need to restore a level of lawfulness to our building sites to ensure that we deliver the kind of productivity to the construction sector that is expected from such a major sector in our economy. If any other sector of the economy was not lifting its weight to the same degree that this one was, I am sure there would be an absolute outcry.

I am sure there are many others in this place who would like to make a contribution on this bill, but suffice to say I, along with my coalition colleagues, commend this bill to the Senate. We see it as such a fundamentally important reform to enable all the businesses associated with the construction sector to feel that they are playing in fair and reasonable environment but most particularly so that we can return productivity to a sector that is so tremendously important to the future of Australia.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (18:05): Before turning to the substance of the bill, I would like to take a moment to look at the path it has taken to get here. When the Prime Minister used this bill is a trigger for a double dissolution election, he talked about how important and urgent the bill was. That is not borne out in any way by the path that the bill has taken. The first time it came to the Senate was in February 2014. It was in March 2015 that we had the second reading debate. We had constant delays; it sat on the backburner for months at a time; and, suddenly, it became very important when the Prime Minister dipped in the polls and started having difficulty in negotiating in the Senate. This bill has never been about policy for all of the window dressing. This is simply a bill about politics and about tactics.

The double dissolution election was four months ago. There have been seven clear sitting weeks since then. If the bill was so important, why are we only getting to it now? The answer is of course: just tactics. The government were holding off because they were worried it would not pass. Now the Prime Minister thinks that he might get a win, and he desperately needs a win—because this is a Prime Minister that desperately needs a win to keep him going over the summer break. But the problem is that this would be a win that only helps the Prime Minister and does absolutely nothing to address the issues that we as a nation are actually facing.

Way back when, in the Prime Minister's letter to the Governor-General, he said that the ABCC bills 'represent important elements of the government's economic plan for jobs and growth, and of its reform agenda'. If what the Prime Minister said in that letter is true, if that is the plan for jobs and growth, and its reform agenda, then that is very disappointing and we should be very, very worried. I understand that the Prime Minister needs to throw some red meat from time to time to the right wing of his party. His hold on his leadership is tenuous, and they ask more and more of him. But he did promise economic leadership—that was his pitch. That was his reason for displacing Mr Abbott as leader of the coalition. He did that because he said that Mr Abbott had failed to deliver economic leadership. But we are not seeing much economic leadership here. Instead, the Prime Minister is going back to basics, back to what is always trotted out when the Liberal Party are in trouble, and that is some pretty unproductive union-bashing.

There are real economic issues that we should be talking about instead of this. In the last fortnight, the ABS issued its labour force figures, and we see that employment growth has slowed to 0.9 per cent, down from 1.9 per cent months ago. There are now 1.8 million Australians who are unemployed or underemployed. We know what that means for those families and we know what that means for the long-term ability of those people to contribute to the economy. Wage growth has hit a fresh low—below two per cent. Workers across all industries are seeing pay increases that barely match the cost of living.

The deficit continues to blow out. We have had a report which projects a further $24 billion deterioration of the Commonwealth budget under Mr Morrison and Mr Turnbull. That follows a deficit for 2015-16 that blew out by eight times what had been projected at the 2013 election. But the only plan that is ever presented by those opposite is cuts to services, and an unfunded corporate tax cut that will blow out the budget even further.

We could talk about housing—the fact that a fraction of rental and share house accommodation is affordable for people who live on government payments, that young people's rate of property acquisition is falling or that older people are trapped in inappropriate rental accommodation. In the last year, we had a committee inquiry into women's economic security in retirement, and people told us that the single biggest predictor of whether or not an older woman will live in poverty in retirement is whether or not she owns her own home. Do we see any comment about that, any action on that? We see nothing—absolutely nothing. All we see is a bill which claims to support jobs and growth but which has a very, very tenuous relationship indeed with that agenda. There are no plans.

In the Prime Minister's letter to the Governor-General, he also said:

The ABCC Bills relate to one of the largest sectors of our economy, which employs over a million Australians and is responsible for around 8 per cent of GDP. The re-establishment of the ABCC aims to improve productivity in this crucial sector, protecting and promoting employment.

But the thing is the ABCC did not lift productivity last time. The Productivity Commission looked into it and said that the evidence for aggregate productivity increases and cost savings was 'weak'. The Prime Minister has claimed that re-establishing the ABCC will increase productivity by 20 per cent. Nobody knows where that figure comes from. What is clear is that the introduction of the ABCC saw the number of workers' deaths climb. The truth is that, if you want to lift productivity in the Australian economy, there are better places to start.

The finance sector is much bigger than the construction sector, and much more systemically important. You have to remember that it was not industrial relations in the construction sector that jeopardised the entire global economy eight years ago. Hundreds of thousands of Australians did not lose their retirement savings because of misconduct on building sites. It is the finance sector, isn't it, that has been embarrassed by all these financial scandals decorating the front pages of our newspapers, and that has been examined in this place and in Senate committees, with calls for a royal commission? But we do not see a special institution being created to oversee that sector, do we? No. In fact, we see a repudiation by the government of any need to examine in any serious way the shortcomings in that industry that are holding back productivity not just in that sector but across the economy. There is no response—nothing meaningful. We do not see anything about that.

What we see instead is this bill, a Trojan Horse of a bill, the effect of which is excessive and unfair regulation that is out of step with the needs of workers and the needs of the construction industry. At the heart of this is simply union-bashing and an antiworker ideology.

Senator BURSTON (New South Wales) (18:13): I rise to speak in support of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. This bill would re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. I believe this legislation is in the national interest because it will boost the productivity of our building and construction industry, which employs more than one million Australians. It will also increase the natural justice, fairness and decency of workplaces around Australia, and all Australians have a stake in that.

When I was a boilermaker, I belonged to the metalworkers union. Subsequently, I was a teacher and belonged to the New South Wales Teachers Federation. So I have extensive experience of unions and unionised workplaces. I have seen the good work they do, protecting workers rights, but I have also seen things that are bad for the economy and for fair play.

Following my five-year boilermaker apprenticeship—and I served that at BHP Newcastle, probably one of the most dangerous sites at that time, where up to eight people a year, on average, were killed in industrial accidents—I worked at the Liddell power station in the Hunter Valley in 1969, during its construction. Following that time, I worked at Kurri Engineering, where I witnessed vexatious strikes by the union. They called strikes on the flimsiest of excuses. Unfortunately, the company operated on a strict timetable. The union knew this but nevertheless persisted in what amounted to guerrilla industrial relations. 'Wildcat strike' does not really describe the systematic sabotage I saw. As a result, Kurri Engineering went bust. Everyone lost their job. That was a blow to economic productivity and to jobs, and it was a blow to natural justice. Everyone at that business witnessed the cynicism and the ruthlessness of the union officials and saw them get away with it. Their members suffered, as did the company—and nothing has changed. The rule of law must not only be returned to building sites; it must also be seen to be returned. Let us hope that the passing of this legislation symbolises in the public mind that justice has at last been done.

The arguments against the bills ignore these realities. Consider the opposition's argument that the proposed legislation would reduce workplace safety. They complain that the legislation would reduce flexibility for union safety officials entering worksites. In particular, the legislation reverses the onus of proof onto employees who cite safety concerns as justification for unilaterally stopping work or taking other measures that disrupt their work group's functioning. The legislation would require employees to prove that they were not motivated by any reason other than safety. The opposition make their argument out of context. They do not admit to the sorry history, the sorry reality, of union disruption. If the onus of proof remains with employers, worksites can continue to be disrupted by unscheduled stop-work meetings and walk-offs. The legislation will in no way diminish existing safety regulations and procedures, but it will reduce the hooliganism of some unions and the class-warfare group culture that inhabits them.

At the last election, the government campaigned on these bills. It promised to re-establish the ABCC and it was returned to office. One Nation disagrees with the government on a range of issues, but it is right on this one. The Australian people are sick and tired of misbehaviour on worksites. They want the rule of law returned to the building and construction industry. They want an end to thuggery. One Nation supports this bill.

Senator SMITH (Western Australia—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (18:17): It is a pleasure to make a contribution to the debate on these important pieces of legislation, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. In name, this legislation is about the building and construction industry, but it is also important to the strength of our economy as a whole. Of course, this is a debate which has long been running. In my view, it is a debate which has gone on for much too long. This really should not be an issue of great controversy. After all, this legislation merely seeks to ensure that those who work in the construction sector are able to go about their work day to day without experiencing harassment and without experiencing threats and intimidation at the hands of rogue union officials. This legislation does nothing more than make certain that the rule of law is respected on construction sites across the nation—just as we expect the rule of law to be observed and respected everywhere else across our country.

I find it absolutely extraordinary that, in effect, we have been having a debate on this legislation for more than three years and through the life of two parliaments. It is really quite incredible that, for the life of two parliaments now, senators opposite have come into this chamber and sought to explain away and to make excuses for thuggish and intimidatory behaviour on the part of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the CFMEU. The people of Australia have now voted for this legislation twice. It was a key element of the coalition's industrial relations platform that was taken to the 2013 federal election, and, of course, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013, which is now before us, was one of two bills that led to the double dissolution election in July this year, at which the coalition government was re-elected.

I say to the Labor Party: there comes a point at which you have to accept that the game is over, that the game is up. The people of Australia long ago woke up to the real reason for the Labor Party's stubborn attitude to what is a sensible, prudent piece of legislation. It is unfortunate that the Australian Labor Party cannot survive without the rivers of cash that flow to it from the CFMEU. In fact, I and many Australians find it tragic. Of course, I disagree with the Australian Labor Party on a great many policy issues, but, despite those disagreements, I acknowledge that their party has a proud history and genuine policy achievements to which it can point. That is why I find it tragic that, after more than a century of existence, the Labor Party now finds itself dependent on donations from a discredited and corrupt organisation like the CFMEU merely to survive.

However, the Labor Party's financial problems should not become the nation's problem. In particular, they should be not used as an excuse to hold our economy's third largest sector to ransom, because problems in the construction industry are problems which ultimately affect every Australian. In day-to-day life, all of us are dependent on services delivered by the building and construction sector, in the sense that we simply cannot survive without the infrastructure it creates. The houses and apartments we live in, the offices we work in, the shopping centres in which we purchase our essential goods and services, the roads and public transport systems which we use to reach them, the schools and universities we send the next generation of Australians to learn in and the hospitals we need, which deal with the health challenges of an ageing population, all have to be constructed. So we need to be very clear about the fact that, when we talk about issues in the construction industry, we are very much talking about issues that impact our daily lives.

Putting aside those practicalities, there is also the fact that the building and construction industry is the nation's third largest industry, responsible for generating around eight per cent of Australia's gross domestic product. It is responsible for employing around 1.1 million of our fellow Australians. Within the industry, there are around 300,000 registered small businesses, many of them family-run and operated. Accordingly, maintaining the health of our building and construction industry is critical to Australia's overall economic wellbeing, and it is the view of this coalition government that the construction sector cannot be healthy so long as it remains host to the toxic culture of lawlessness that permeates the CFMEU.

This bill will finally re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, a genuinely strong and independent watchdog that will maintain the rule of law to protect workers and constructors and improve productivity on building sites and construction projects, whether they be onshore or offshore. This legislation will at long last reverse some of Labor's changes to the nation's workplace laws which underpinned the Australian Building and Construction Commission before it was abolished by the Gillard government in 2012, when the now Leader of the Opposition was the responsible minister.

The bill will reassert the rule of law on Australia's construction sites, preventing unlawful industrial action, unlawful picketing and coercion and discrimination. I think it is worth noting just how widespread the problem has become across our country. If you accepted the word of Labor senators who have participated in this debate, you would think we were discussing a very minor problem, but that is far from the truth. As of October this year there were 113 officials of the CFMEU appearing in courtrooms around the nation, between them charged with over 1,100 breaches of the law. Over recent years penalties totalling around $8 million have been imposed on the CFMEU for breaching the law.

Then there is the question of productivity in the sector. The current rate of industrial action in the construction sector is nine times higher than the average across all other industries in the economy. Two out of every three days lost to an industrial dispute in this country are lost within the construction industry. Since Bill Shorten abolished the ABCC as industrial relations minister in 2012 there has been a 40 per cent increase in the rate of disputes in the construction industry, while the rate of disputation across other industries has declined by 33 per cent on average. When the ABCC was still in existence, productivity growth in our construction industry was around 20 per cent. Today, it is flat.

By any measure, these are not inconsequential statistics. They tell a clear and compelling story—a story that needs to be corrected. Can you imagine if we were talking about any sort of organisation other than an Australian union? If it was a major company—dare I say a major bank—and 113 of that organisation's officials were appearing in courtrooms across the country, charged with breaching the law, do you think for a moment that the Labor Party's attitude would be, 'There's nothing to see here; please move on'? Yet because it is the CFMEU, without whom today's modern Labor Party cannot survive, we have been subjected to the sorry sight of Labor senators trooping into this chamber to try to defend the indefensible and in the process destroying a once proud Labor legacy.

What is most staggering in all of this is the Labor Party's refusal to learn from history, because we have been through this sorry exercise before. In 2001, when the Howard government was in office, the Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry found serious and systemic breaches of the law on the part of the CFMEU. In relation to my own state of Western Australia, that royal commission found that 'the rule of law has little or no currency in the building and construction industry in Western Australia', that the building and construction industry in Western Australia is 'marred by unlawful and inappropriate conduct' and that 'Fear, intimidation and coercion are commonplace.'

It was this type of behaviour that the ABCC was designed to address—a strong specialist regulator that would tackle the problem head-on and enforce the rule of law in the building and construction sector, and from the time the Howard government established the ABCC until such time as Bill Shorten abolished it in 2012 it managed to do this very effectively. In fact, research undertaken by Independent Economics found that, because of the cost and efficiency improvements that flowed through the construction sector as a result of having the ABCC in place, consumers were better off by around $7½ billion every year. Any responsible political party would look at that and concede that the ABCC was of enormous benefit to the Australian economy.

You might have thought that instead of putting so much time and energy into first abolishing the ABCC and, since 2013, fighting efforts to re-establish it every inch of the way the Labor Party would have been better served by convincing its CFMEU allies to operate within the confines of the law. Yet so weak has the modern Labor Party leadership become that instead of working with decent unionists—and, of course, there are plenty of them—to clean up the situation, Labor has capitulated to those thugs who run the CFMEU. Again, this demonstrates an utter failure to learn the lessons of history.

Again, I turn to a living, breathing example from my own state of Western Australia. Notorious CFMEU boss Joe McDonald's history of criminal thuggery is well known to Western Australians. It became a source of national embarrassment for then Labor leader Kevin Rudd in the lead-up to the 2007 federal election. To give Mr Rudd his due, he was unwilling to have a thug like Joe McDonald in the upper echelons of the Labor Party that he led. He subsequently ordered Mr McDonald's expulsion from the party. Julia Gillard, former Labor Prime Minister, was right onboard at the time, saying, 'Kevin Rudd and I have made it clear that under our leadership of the Labor Party there will be zero tolerance for unlawful behaviour and thuggish behaviour in Australian workplaces.'

Yet, as was often the case, Ms Gillard's principles came a distant second to the political imperatives of her party. During her time as Labor leader, Joe McDonald was readmitted to the ranks of the Australian Labor Party and he has systemically worked his way back into the heart of its internal affairs in Western Australia. And less than one month ago we had a powerful demonstration of just how tight a grip Joe McDonald now exerts over the Western Australian Labor Party when a video emerged of him boasting to a meeting of workers about just how far-reaching his influence is within the Australian Labor Party in Western Australia, reaching all the way to its leadership here in Canberra.

Sitt ing suspended from 18 : 30 to 19 : 30

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (19:30): I move:

That the debate be adjourned.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the debate now be adjourned.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (19:37): I move:

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

The PRESIDENT: The question is that that motion be agreed to.