Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I hope to bring some common sense to this debate and to oppose the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2012. Madam Acting Deputy President, my colleagues in the Senate and the public, I draw to your attention the wonderful publication Odgers, which is the bible by which we operate. If I may, I will read who it is dedicated to. It reads:

TO

THE ELECTORS OF AUSTRALIA

who by their votes established and have sustained constitutional government in the Commonwealth of Australia

and one group of their chosen agents and trustees

THE SENATORS

who hold a large portion of that trust

To bring this into perspective, I want to quote for a moment some of the functions of the Senate and the roles of those of us charged with that responsibility. They include:

To review legislative and other proposals initiated in the House of Representatives, and to ensure proper consideration of all legislation.

It is a shame that Senator Feeney, acting in the minister's chair, is bored and is yawning. Perhaps he should also read and take note. It continues:

To ensure that legislative measures are exposed to the considered views of the community and to provide opportunity for contentious legislation to be subject to electoral scrutiny. The Senate's committee system has established a formal channel of communication between the Senate and interested organisations and individuals, especially through developing procedures for references of bills to committees.

To provide protection against a government, with a disciplined majority in the House of Representatives, introducing extreme measures for which it does not have broad community support.

And, lastly:

To probe and check the administration of the laws, to keep itself and the public informed, and to insist on ministerial accountability for the government's administration.

These are not my words; these are out of the bible of the conduct of the Senate of Australia. It is high time people on the other side of this chamber took that responsibility and that role seriously.

One could reflect for some moments as to why it was necessary for the Cole royal commission to come into existence. As my colleague and Western Australian co-senator, Senator Cash, has alerted, it was the two states of Victoria and Western Australia where most of the problems were occurring in the building industry. These were unattended by the Labor government under Hawke and Keating and therefore had in some way to be brought under some degree of control. The terms under which the Cole royal commission was undertaken—and it is unfortunate that Senator Cameron has chosen to leave after challenging me for most of his speech, in which he had little to contribute—did not unfairly target unions, employers or employees. I will quote some of those terms of reference:

(a) the nature, extent and effect of any unlawful or otherwise inappropriate industrial or workplace practice or conduct, including, but not limited to:

(i) any practice or conduct relating to the Workplace Relations Act 1996, occupational health and safety laws, or other laws relating to workplace relations …

In answer to Senator Cameron's diatribe, I have not yet seen any reference specifically to unions or to anybody else.

Senator Cameron should not have come into this place and slurred construction workers. He should not have suggested that construction workers' rights were diminished and he should not have suggested that it was anything other than wrong for anybody in the industry to act contrary to the law. Nor, of course, should employers act contrary to the law—they should be treated equally, and have been. As a person who has been an employer and an employee for probably 40 years, I object strongly to the insinuation and the nonsense perpetrated by this man in this Senate. He ought to go back and read the obligations in Odgers for those of us acting in the Senate.

The terms and conditions of the Cole royal commission went on to address issues associated with:

… fraud, corruption, collusion or anti-competitive behaviour …

Have we yet seen any discrimination in favour of or against any particular party? No, we have not. It continued:

… coercion, violence, or inappropriate payments, receipts or benefits …

The terms of reference went on:

… dictating, limiting or interfering with decisions whether or not to employ or engage persons, or relating to the terms on which they be employed or engaged—

and—

… failure to disclose or properly account for financial transactions undertaken by—

you wouldn't believe it, Senator Cameron—

employee or employer organisations or their representatives or associates …

Here is the next one—under (b)(ii) it lists 'inappropriate management'. I think that normally refers, Senator Ronaldson, to employers, doesn't it?