The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
Construction Industry Amendment (Protecting Witnesses) Bill 2015
The Grattan Institute notes that at the macro (i.e. economy-wide) level, 'there is no clear link between labour productivity growth and IR laws', and also 'at a firm level there is no obvious link between IR reform and productivity changes.'
Despite these observations, industrial relations (IR) is one of the key productivity battlegrounds in the construction industry.
Much of the focus in recent times has been on the potential reinstatement of the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC).
There has been considerable debate about the degree to which the ABCC is a positive for productivity in the construction industry. A series of benchmarking studies commissioned by the ABCC and the Master Builders Association have sought to portray the ABCC as the driver of improved productivity in the construction industry. These studies have been critiqued and the analysis found wanting on a number of methodological grounds.
… you meet with the industry players on a regular basis—some 50-odd times—and you have got Master Builders providing training for your people. Have you heard of a regulatory capture?
I am not sure what you are talking about, Senator.
You do not know what a regulatory capture is? I think Mr Corney is trying to explain it to you.
I am not familiar with it, Senator, no.
You are not familiar?
… Wilcox was satisfied that the Parliament, in introducing the Fair Work Act, had recently considered what the federal labour inspectorate should look like and what the necessary and appropriate powers of such a body would be. His view was that whilst there might be some temporary short term focus on the construction industry, this should be through administrative arrangements only and could be carried out through the FWO. There should be no ongoing statutory agency like the FWBII and no ongoing need for coercive powers of the kind provided for by this Bill.
Mr Latham asked what the ramifications would be if—
did not enter into an enterprise agreement with the CFMEU. Mr Edwards—
answered that the CFMEU was going to 'f*** you over'.
This is but one of many examples of the CFMEU's sense of entitlement to pursue its objectives by any means, lawfully or unlawfully.
In the weeks following the accident Mr Shaun Reardon (the Assistant State Secretary of the CFMEU) attended the site, shook the fence and yelled obscenities and threatening comments.
Get rid of these scabs out of our industry. They will never be forgotten.
Grocon flew these grubs to Queensland to cross a picket line and is paying them to do its dirty work in Victoria. Get rid of these scabs out of our industry. They will never be forgotten.
… consistently opposed the introduction and use of these powers in industrial matters since their inception. The power, and the criminal sanction which attaches to it, are excessive, unnecessary and inconsistent with internationally recognised labour standards and the industrial norms of a modern democracy.
The ability to compel a person to provide information is vital to protecting workers and witnesses who stand up to unlawfulness and intimidation and assist the regulator in its investigations. The powers also ensure the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate is able to carry out its investigations effectively and break down the 'culture of silence' and retribution that exists in the industry.
We certainly have people in mind who have told us things off the record, but who are not prepared to go that one step further to provide a statement or to give an affidavit. But they have indicated that were we to exercise a compulsory examination that, obviously, they would come in and tell us what they saw and what they witnessed.
Given that the Federal ALP is desperate for funds, surely we can say that we will help them if and only if, they abolish the ABCC.
I can tell you for a fact that unions are donating to Federal Labor for outcomes not promises.
… the Construction Industry Amendment (Protecting Witnesses) Bill 2015 … amends the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act 2012 (FW (BI) Act) to extend the period during which the Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate (FWBII) can apply to a nominated Administrative Appeals Tribunal presidential member for an examination notice by a period of two years. Under the current provisions of the FW (BI) Act, the capacity for the Director to make such an application will expire on 31 May 2015.
3.The FW (BI) Act now provides that the Director may apply for an examination notice in circumstances where he/she wants to obtain information relevant to an investigation into a suspected contravention of the FW (BI) Act or a designated building law by a building industry participant. Once issued, these examination notices can compel a person to give certain information or documents to the Director, or to attend in person before the Director to answer questions relevant to an investigation not less than 14 days after the examination notice is given. A failure to comply with these notices is a criminal offence attracting a penalty of up to six months imprisonment. The common law privilege against self-incrimination which would otherwise apply is overridden by the FW (BI) Act.
4. The power to issue coercive notices in construction-related industrial matters, supported by a criminal sanction for non-compliance, has existed since the introduction of the Building and Construction industry Improvement Act in 2005.
5. In 2012, following the Wilcox review, the FW (BI) Act came into effect. This Act retained the coercive powers/criminal sanction until May 2015. It also introduced a number of statutory safeguards designed to minimise the chances of this intrusive power being abused.
… this Bill, the Construction Industry Amendment (Protecting Witnesses) Bill 2015, will extend the period during which the Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate can exercise the agency's compulsory powers.
The Bill will extend the powers for a further two years. All other aspects of the current legislation are unchanged, including the automatic immunity given to a witness over their evidence.
The power, and the criminal sanction which attaches to it—
are excessive, unnecessary and inconsistent with internationally recognised labour standards and the industrial norms of a modern democracy.
The ability to compel a person to provide information is vital to protecting workers and witnesses who dare to stand up to unlawfulness and intimidation and assist the regulator to clean up the industry. The powers also ensure Fair Work Building and Construction is able to carry out its investigations effectively and break down the 'culture of silence' and retribution that exists in the sector.
Dear Premier
I refer you to what is allegedly a secret report, as well as a Cabinet in Confidence Report, authored by Nigel Hadgkiss, a former Construction Code Compliance Chief. Mr Hadgkiss is now a Director of the Fair Work Building and Construction Commission.
I have been reliably informed that one of the main purposes of the Report was to examine the connection between organised criminal gangs and the building and construction industry in Victoria.
A number of media stories have alleged that the Report given to the Victorian Government in 2013 warned of illegal behaviour during the Grocon dispute was "the tip of the iceberg" in an industry where "unlawful activity extends beyond unlawful industrial relations conduct into serious criminal activity".
Media reports in the Herald Sun on 1 April 2014 allege that strong links between a number of outlaw bikie gangs and the provision of drugs and prostitutes to the workers during the construction of the desalination plant also occurred.
I am very concerned about the alleged links between organised criminal gangs and Australia's Building and Construction industry and would appreciate if you could provide me with a copy of Mr Hadgkiss' Report.
I believe that Mr Hadkiss' Report is an important document which would allow me to become fully informed as I prepare to cast my vote and make a decision in the Federal Senate regarding the Australian Building Construction Code legislation. I understand the original terms of reference included:
I also believe that an updated final report was submitted by Mr Hadkiss in August 2013 with additional terms of reference:
I would appreciate it if you could please provide both these reports by return.
Yours sincerely
Senator Jacqui Lambie
The Senate divided. [12:08]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
That this bill be now read a third time.
Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims Amendment Bill 2015
To put it bluntly, there is no point in artificially propping up our coastal shipping industry if it is unable to compete—it will have an impact on our broader economy.
That this bill be now read a third time.
Tribunals Amalgamation Bill 2014
… greater fragmentation in the child support appellate jurisdiction, and a squandering of the considerable expertise already developed in the Appeal Division of the Family Court …
Given the inherently complex nature of social security law, access to legal representation for the preparation and conduct of hearings before the Tribunal is a proportionate response to addressing the structural inequality associated with the social security review processes.
… access to a fair and effective tribunal for our vulnerable clients requires more than legislative rights of appeal. It is critical that tribunals are adequately resourced, that members are equipped with the necessary skills and expertise, that welfare rights services are well resourced and that there are appropriate case management procedures in place. Efficiency driven changes within the SSAT over recent years have, in our opinion, undermined the accessibility, efficacy and fairness of the SSAT.
(1) Page 6 (after line 5), after clause 3, insert:
4 Review of operation of amendments
(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of the amendments made by this Act to be undertaken as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 3 years after the commencement of Schedule 1.
(2) The review must consider:
(a) the effect of the amendments made by this Act; and
(b) any other related matter that the Minister specifies.
(3) The person who undertakes the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months after the end of the 3‑year period.
(4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it.
(2) Schedule 1, item 19, page 11 (lines 21 and 22), to be opposed.
(7) Schedule 1, items 64 and 65, page 36 (lines 12 to 17), to be opposed.
(1) Schedule 1, item 26, page 14 (lines 2 to 6), omit subsection 13(1), substitute:
(1) The Governor‑General may terminate the appointment of a member if an address praying for the termination, on one of the following grounds, is presented to the Governor‑General by each House of the Parliament in the same session:
(a) proved misbehaviour;
(b) the member is unable to perform the duties of his or her office because of physical or mental incapacity.
(3) Schedule 1, item 27, page 16 (before line 7), before paragraph 17A(a), insert:
(aa) Freedom of Information Division;
(4) Schedule 1, item 27, page 17 (after line 13), after section 17C, insert:
17CA Assignment to Freedom of Information Division
The Minister must not assign a member to the Freedom of Information Division unless the Minister is satisfied that the member:
(a) has training, knowledge or experience relating to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 ; or
(b) has other relevant knowledge or experience that will assist the member in considering matters relating to the operation of that Act.
(5) Schedule 1, item 27, page 19 (line 3), omit "subsection 17E(2) or section 17F", substitute "section 17CA, subsection 17E(2) or section 17F".
(6) Schedule 1, item 27, page 19 (line 32), omit "subsection 17E(2) or section 17F", substitute "section 17CA, subsection 17E(2) or section 17F".
(7) Schedule 1, item 30, page 27 (lines 10 and 11), to be opposed.
(9) Schedule 1, item 125, page 52 (line 13), after "(see section 44AAA)", insert "or to the Family Court (see section 44AAB)".
(10) Schedule 1, item 129, page 53 (after line 7), at the end of subsection 44AAA(1), add:
Note: A party to the proceeding may also apply to the Family Court of Australia, see section 44AAB.
(11) Schedule 1, item 129, page 53 (after line 21), after section 44AAA, insert:
44AAB Appeals to Family Court from decisions of the Tribunal in relation to child support first reviews
(1) If the Tribunal as constituted for the purposes of a proceeding that is a child support first review does not consist of or include a presidential member, a party to the proceeding may appeal to the Family Court of Australia, on a question of law, from any decision of the Tribunal in that proceeding.
Note: A party to the proceeding may also apply to the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, see section 44AAA.
(2) The following provisions of this Part apply in relation to any such appeal as if the appeal were an appeal under subsection 44(1) and a reference in those provisions to the Federal Court of Australia were a reference to the Family Court of Australia:
(a) subsections 44(2A) to (10) (other than paragraphs 44(3)(a) to (c));
(b) section 44A (other than subsection (2A));
(c) paragraphs 46(1)(a) and (b).
(3) Paragraph 44(2A)(b) applies in relation to any such appeal as if the reference in that paragraph to rules of court made under the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 were a reference to rules of court made under the Family Law Act 1975.
(4) Subsection (1) does not affect the operation of subsection 44(1) in relation to a proceeding that is a child support first review.
(13) Schedule 4, item 68, page 142 (line 6), omit "paragraph 44AAA(2)(b)", substitute "paragraphs 44AAA(2)(b) and 44AAB(2)(b)".
That this bill be now read a third time.
That the sitting of the Senate be suspended until 2 pm.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the 2015-16 Budget.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Abetz) and the Assistant Minister for Social Services (Senator Fifield) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Di Natale) and Senator Hanson-Young today relating to the 2015‑16 Budget.
That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of government business order of the day no. 6 (Biosecurity Bill 2014 and related bills—second reading speeches only).
Biosecurity Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—General) Amendment Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Customs) Amendment Bill 2014
Quarantine Charges (Imposition—Excise) Amendment Bill 2014
… effectively make the Biosecurity Policy Determinations legislative instruments and provide that any import or removal permit issued otherwise than in accordance with such a disallowable Biosecurity Policy Determination are themselves disallowable by the Parliament.