Stewart McArthur (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak in favour of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (OHS) Bill 2007. This bill represents the Howard government’s commitment to take positive action to return the rule of law to construction sites and bring about improved safety in the workplace for the protection of all employees working in the building and construction industry. Occupational health and safety on our building sites is a major issue and the Commonwealth has a responsibility to play its part in driving change to make the industry safer.

The minister’s second reading speech refers to the findings of the Cole royal commission into the building and construction industry with regard to accidents and injuries. Commissioner Cole found this industry to be one of the most dangerous, with more than 12,500 compensated injuries in the year 2002-03, or 34 injuries per day. Almost one in five compensated workplace fatalities that year were in the construction and building industry, representing a total of 37 workplace deaths. Victorian WorkCover statistics show that during last year, 2006, there were 29 workplace deaths in Victoria of which five were in the construction industry. This was the equal highest number of industry fatalities.

I come from the farming industry. We have a bad history as well. I think we have about 12 deaths per year caused by tractors and other things—so the very sad fatality statistics of other industries do compare with that of the building industry. There is also a long way to go to make Australia’s workplaces safer. That is why the government has introduced a bill to make amendments to the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005.

I note the opposition will be supporting the bill despite having opposed the initial introduction of the original act. With one breath the Labor Party say they support these amendments but with the next they complain about the original act—and they have a policy to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC, which has been a major force for improving conditions on Australian building sites, improving construction industry productivity, raising national living standards and keeping interest rates low.

A report has been produced by independent economic analysts Econtech on the ABCC. Econtech is a firm which is respected by the Labor Party and has been employed to do work for state Labor governments. The Econtech report has found that, as a result of the ABCC’s activities since 2005, housing costs are three per cent less expensive than would have been the case without the ABCC. National growth is 1.5 per cent higher as a result of the ABCC performing its function than would otherwise have been the case. This is because the ABCC has implemented the law with the result that productivity in the construction industry has increased. With higher growth, living standards have also increased. The other important finding is that inflation is 1.2 per cent lower than it would otherwise have been due to the existence of the ABCC—and that means that interest rates are also lower.

The Labor Party want to abolish the ABCC and introduce other backwards-looking industrial relations reforms that would put Australia’s current low inflation and low interest rate economic environment at risk. I challenge the Labor Party as to what their long-term position is. I note the member for Batman is here. He might be able to enlighten us as to what the Labor Party’s long-term position on the ABCC is. Leighton Group chief executive Wal King, representing the Australian Constructors Association, said that we are experiencing a ‘golden period’ of record low disputation under the ABCC. He said:

You can’t dispute the fact that the construction industry today is more stable, more peaceful, more productive and more effective than five years ago.

He said that in the Australian Financial Review of 2 August 2007. Upon the release of the Econtech report, Wilhelm Harnisch, the CEO of Master Builders Australia, had this to say:

... the ABCC has had a positive impact in boosting Australia’s economic growth, has reduced the cost of living and has led to a significant fall in construction costs both for commercial and residential building.

That is in a media release of 25 July 2007. The ABCC has been overwhelmingly positive for the whole of Australia. The Labor Party pays lip-service to economic management and to health and safety in the workplace but will do the bidding of its union masters by promising to abolish the commission that is helping to restore law and order to our construction sites. Again I ask the member for Batman what he is going to do. Is his party going to leave the ABCC for another five or 10 years? Is it going to abolish it? It will be interesting when the member for Batman makes his contribution.

This bill improves the safety of construction and building worksites across Australia by making all sites involved in Commonwealth projects comply with Australian laws. This is a quite commendable objective. These measures will achieve this by using the considerable financial influence of the Commonwealth government to ensure construction projects that the government is funding comply with the Australian Government Building and Construction Occupational Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme. Importantly, the scheme requirements are extended to building work ‘indirectly funded’ by the Commonwealth. The bill requires head contractors who are contracted to undertake building work for the Commonwealth, or for Commonwealth funded projects, to be accredited persons who maintain effective occupational health and safety management policies and systems. The bill is quite specific. Clause 35(4) of the bill prohibits the Commonwealth, including Commonwealth authorities, from funding construction work unless contracts are with builders who are accredited. I think the member for Batman and I well recall the argument over the construction of the Melbourne Cricket Ground.

The bill also makes sure that the intention of the government’s reforms is observed over the life of the construction project by requiring accredited builders to remain accredited for the duration of the Commonwealth funded project. Therefore, builders cannot become accredited to obtain a government contract or accreditation will lapse.

These reforms are important because they are about ensuring the Commonwealth drives a cultural change in the building and construction industry to embrace safe work practices. I emphasise that it is a cultural change. The government wants builders to understand that if they want to work with the Commonwealth, they will need to adopt safer occupational health and safety practices.

Australia’s builders, head contactors and their employees should not view these reforms as an imposition. It should be automatically accepted as part of the work environment that building workers, employees, contractors, apprentices, engineers, architects, plumbers, electricians and everyone else with a role on the building site expect a safe working environment within the practicalities of the industry and also expect safe working practices. There is no room for bullying or unsafe practices on a construction site and the high-fatality statistics in the industry are chilling proof of this.

The Labor Party should be enthusiastically supportive not only of this amendment but also of the original act. The unions should also be supportive, but instead we have seen nothing but constant attacks on these measures and threats to do away with the Australian Building and Construction Commission. I look forward to the member for Batman advising us exactly what the Labor Party’s attitude is because, at the moment, their attitude is unclear. The hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this issue is astounding. I note with interest the member for Gorton’s second reading contribution when he said:

Labor has opposed the Howard government’s approach to the regulation of industrial relations and health and safety in the building and construction sector because it provides a separate set of laws for the industry and has created in excess of 200 pages of new legislation.

The Labor Party oppose additional regulation of the building and construction industry which is designed to help save lives and protect workers from injury, but, in contrast, they support a more heavily regulated system for determining wages and conditions. So Labor’s policy, as expounded by the member for Gorton, is more regulation of wages and conditions and less effort on OH&S.

The Australian people will remember that the Howard government established the Cole commission of inquiry to investigate the building and construction industry and, as I noted earlier, found the sector to be one of the most dangerous with a high rate of fatalities and injuries. For these reasons, it might be argued that a separate set of rules might need to apply to ensure a more safety conscious culture is allowed to develop. The Cole commission report identified some specific incidences where senior building industry officials failed to consider appropriate OH&S conditions on building sites in Victoria and in other states. If I can take just a few moments to mention a few cases from my home state of Victoria. On 18 April 2002, a CFMEU shop steward breached Victorian OH&S legislation by:

... placing himself between the concrete truck and the pump, thereby creating a dangerous situation in which he might have been injured and preventing work continuing normally whilst negotiations were undertaken to resolve the dispute ...

The dispute was between the union and Grocon. That is from the Cole commission report—volume 12, page 153. There we have an interesting use of the OH&S conditions to negotiate industrial mayhem. Further, a CMFEU organiser engaged in unlawful conduct on 15 August 2002, coordinating CFMEU members from another site to trespass on Grocon’s Queen Victoria Hospital worksite, putting safety at risk during a concrete pour. Victoria Police, who attended the incident, were not asked to remove the men out of fear of provoking a violent incident. Again, that is from the Cole commission report. Also, the commission found that Mr Chris Kessaris threatened to assault and later threatened to kill Mr Derek Fries in September and October of 1998. Again, that is from the Cole commission report.

Another case will illustrate the disregard displayed at times by the unions for the health and safety of others. On 16 February 2000, the CFMEU construction branch secretary, Martin Kingham, and assistant secretary, William Oliver, were involved in a raid on the offices of the Master Builders Association of Victoria. The Cole commission reported that Kingham, Oliver and others ‘forcibly attempted to break through locked, one-inch-thick security glass doors at the MBAV offices. The unionists violently pushed against the doors, forcing them to bow inwards’. That quote is, again, from the Cole commission. MBAV staff negotiated to allow five union representatives to enter out of fear that the doors would be broken down, but when the door was unlocked an estimated 200 workers stormed into the premises. MBAV staff members were ‘pushed aside’ and were ‘verbally abused and threatened’. Some of the intruders were heard to say to these MBAV staff, ‘We’ll fix you up one day.’ That is a clear indication of the difficulties on building sites that have been endemic in Victoria over the last 30 to 40 years. Commissioner Cole concluded that this case study demonstrated:

(a)

the willingness of union officials and members in Victoria to engage in violent demonstrations in order to pursue industrial objectives;

(b)

the tendency of union officials in Victoria to encourage unlawful industrial action by misleading the members ... and

(c)

the willingness of union officials and members to disregard the rights of others.

So in this case the union leadership were responsible for violent activity, damage to private property, physical violence against MBAV staff who were completely unrelated to worksite activities, threats and a complete disregard for the personal safety of employees working for another organisation. This clearly demonstrates the need to change the culture within the building industry to better respect OH&S, and that is why the government have introduced the ABCC and why we have brought forward this measure to extend the Commonwealth’s influence to all building projects in which we are involved. In this regard the Howard government are recommitting to the safety of workers in the construction industry and we are committing to implementing the recommendations of the Cole commission. Commissioner Cole said that all participants in the sector must contribute to furthering an attitudinal change in the industry to safety and to create an attitude where:

... projects are completed safely, on time and within budget rather than just on time and within budget.

So the key element emphasised is the safety component of these projects, particularly in Victoria. The Howard government accept responsibility in this regard. Government have a responsibility, contractors have a responsibility and employees have a responsibility when it comes to safety, and so too do the unions. It is disappointing that the opposition opposed the original act and that Labor are threatening to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the industry policeman, if they are elected to office. Again I raise that with the member for Batman: what is the true position of the opposition? Are they going to abolish the ABCC, or give it an extended life?

Safety and law and order on our construction sites are big issues within my electorate of Corangamite, and in Geelong and the surf coast. There are a number of construction projects planned for the region, reflecting the economic growth and prosperity which have been fostered due to the strong economic management of the government. Unfortunately, Geelong is a widely renowned black spot when it comes to union activity, particularly in the construction industry. Unions are very active in the Geelong region and are very active in opposing the member for Corangamite.

Last year the ABCC hosted a series of free information seminars across Australia in order to educate contractors and workers about the national code of practice for the construction industry. These meetings were held at 11 locations across Australia, including in industrial towns like Geelong and Newcastle. The Geelong forum had to be abandoned because approximately 100 CFMEU protesters barged into the forum and disrupted it, yelled abuse and intimidated those in attendance. They destroyed information kits and plastered union stickers on the wall of the hotel venue. Out of all the places the ABCC visited, Geelong was the only site where the unions refused to allow contractors and workers to learn about the new code of practice and where they forced the forum to be abandoned—and those who wanted to attend had to travel to a session in Melbourne.

The CFMEU and ACTU through their actions and deeds are opposed to cultural change in the construction industry. The union leaders want to go back to the days of lawlessness and risk that existed prior to the Cole commission, the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act and the establishment of the ABCC. The Labor Party have capitulated to their union masters by promising to abolish the ABCC. Never has there been an opposition party or an opposition leader as indebted to the sectoral interests of the union movement as the current Labor Party and Kevin Rudd. The unions have been promised everything they wanted from the ALP. AWAs will be abolished lock, stock and barrel. The building industry policeman, the ABCC, will be abolished. Total control will be handed back to the unions to interfere in workplaces in a way we have not seen since before Keating.

The unions are looking forward to Labor’s election, and they are doing all in their power to ensure that Labor gets elected. The ACTU has placed field officers in marginal seats to doorknock residents, mislead people about workplace laws and infiltrate the churches, Meals on Wheels and other community groups in order to get Labor candidates elected. The ACTU has spent tens of millions of dollars on misleading TV ads on industrial relations laws.

See this speech in context