Senator CAMERON (New South Wales) (15:17): I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Cash) to questions without notice asked by Senators Wong and Cameron today relating to the resignation of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner. Well, wasn't Senator Cash— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, please resume your seat. Senator Wong: A point of order: Senator Macdonald should withdraw. He shouted the word 'grub' across the chamber earlier. Some might say, 'Look in the mirror,' but I'd ask him to withdraw. Senator Ian Macdonald: I said, 'Apologise, you grub,' and he should. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, we've just heard a lengthy statement from the President about the need to be respectful and the need to treat each other with respect. You were out of order in calling out. I would ask you, without repeating the offence, to withdraw that comment. Senator Ian Macdonald: Well, I have repeated it. I will withdraw it. But, how about— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Macdonald. Senator Ian Macdonald: A point of order, Deputy President! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Please resume your seat. Senator Ian Macdonald: A point of order! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I've asked you to resume your seat. I want some separation between you withdrawing those remarks and then seeking a point of order. Senator Macdonald? Senator Ian Macdonald: A point of order: Senator Wong, in taking the point of order, said, 'He should look in the mirror,' which means she is using this—can you sit down at least until I've finished, Senator Wong! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Macdonald. Senator Ian Macdonald: Can you sit down! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, resume your seat! I really should not have to repeat my statement that you be respectful. I should not have had to repeat that, and yet I did. I will now hear from Senator Wong. Senator Wong: I withdraw. Senator Ian Macdonald: Deputy President, will you allow me to finish my point of order? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I've heard enough on the point of order. Please resume your seat. Senator Ian Macdonald: Oh, I see. You just hear as much as you want to. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Please resume your seat. I believe that Senator Wong has the call if she wishes to continue. Otherwise, I will go to Senator Cameron. Senator CAMERON: Senator Macdonald reflected on the Chair. He should withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I remind all senators of the statements made, not 10 minutes ago, by the President. I appreciate there is a lot of tension in the Senate, and I would ask all senators to be respectful of one another and to be respectful of the chair. Senator CAMERON: I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Cash to questions asked by myself and Senator Wong. Well, wasn't it an uncharacteristically subdued performance from Senator Cash today, when she had to answer questions without prepared bile being flung against the trade union movement? Minister Cash knew about allegations against Mr Hadgkiss, allegations that were sufficiently robust to be vented in the Federal Court and sufficiently robust to be proved correct. They were sufficiently robust that Mr Hadgkiss had to concede that what was put before the court was correct. Minister Cash either colluded with Mr Hadgkiss to cover up his illegal activity or was completely incompetent. Minister Cash had a responsibility to inquire as to whether there was any validity to the allegations that were being made against a very senior Commonwealth officer. Minister Cash failed to do this. She failed to do it because any cursory examination of the allegations that were being made would have resulted in the conclusion that the allegations were correct. Minister Cash failed to ensure that the law that applied in this country, that was under her portfolio, was applied correctly. Minister Cash just failed in the basics of what her responsibility was to ensure that the law was applied. Did Minister Cash advise the Prime Minister or the cabinet of the allegations that were being made against Mr Hadgkiss? Because if even a cursory examination of those allegations had been made, it would be clear that the person being put forward for a very senior public service position was, in fact, a law-breaker. That is what would have been seen, yet this minister failed to do any examination of the allegations that were before the Federal Court. She continued to work with Mr Hadgkiss and promoted Mr Hadgkiss to a position that he should not have been entitled to take up, given his unlawful behaviour. I wonder if the minister did disclose the cloud that was over Mr Hadgkiss to the cabinet? If she did, what was this cabinet doing appointing Mr Hadgkiss to a position in which he was supposed to uphold the law but in fact was breaking the law? He was the regulator who was supposed to uphold the law. When did Minister Cash advise the Prime Minister of the illegal behaviour of Mr Hadgkiss? Why didn't Minister Cash sack Nigel Hadgkiss, instead of allowing a two-week extension and providing him with $16,000 of public money while he had admitted to breaching the law? He was a self-confessed person who had undertaken illegal activity, yet he was rewarded by this minister with $16,000. He is a self-confessed law-breaker, given an extra $16,000 of public money by Minister Cash. If that had been some poor worker in a low-paid job trying to get access to the Fair Work Commission for unfair dismissal proceedings, Senator Cash would have waved that away and said, 'No, we don't want people to have access to unfair dismissal proceedings.' But this is a minister who knew that this person had acted illegally, who did not take steps to do anything proper about it, who should not be a minister in this place and who should resign. (Time expired)