Jon Sullivan (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am going to answer that question because the member deserves an answer. The CFMEU did not contribute to my campaign. The CFMEU is a union from the other side of the party that I belong to. It did not contribute to my campaign. But I tell you what: I have more respect for any unionist in any union in this country than I have for any of the people who sit over there, who will oppose the legislation before the House.

Murray Wilcox reported on the activities in the industry and made eight key recommendations, and this government is proceeding down that path. The big point of contention is the retention of the coercive powers. Talking about spin, the spin that these powers need to be retained comes from the newspapers, members opposite and companies in the building industry, who, we note, because of their financial behaviour, are not blameless. I am not so sure that this widespread unlawfulness exists, but I am prepared for the level of coercive powers to be retained under the conditions that have been set out, because they are reasonable conditions—for example, the five-year grandfather clause. I would be very surprised if we cannot wipe out any actual or alleged unlawfulness within the building industry in five years.

These powers are obnoxious. If they were not obnoxious they would exist in every enforcement regime in the country, and they do not. They are obnoxious powers and they are targeting a particular group of Australian citizens—and quite unfairly, I believe. I think that over the course of the next five years the limited number of occasions on which these powers will be used will prove me right. Each use of these powers will require approval by a presidential member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That means that, for the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate to actually use these powers, it will have to show cause to someone who has some understanding of what all of this means.

Unlike the current situation, a person summonsed to appear under these powers will be able to have the assistance of the representation of a lawyer. Good grief! The former government set up a situation where people were denied representation in quite legalistic processes. You would not do it anywhere else. Why would you deny a person appearing before any court of this country the opportunity to be legally represented? People will be provided or reimbursed reasonable expenses, which I think is fine. All examinations will be undertaken by the director of the inspectorate or somebody who has been deputised by him or her to do that. Finally, all examinations will be videotaped and reviewed by the Commonwealth Ombudsman to make sure that the powers are not being abused.

It is also important to note that a person who is interviewed under these provisions will not be prevented from telling his wife or anybody else about what is going on. The idea that you can be interviewed and not discuss it is quite ludicrous. I think it is also appropriate to make the point clearly that within this legislation the penalties and offences are exactly the same as the penalties and offences within every other industry in the country. There will be no more special penalties or special offences for the building and construction industry. The Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate has not been included in the office of the Fair Work Ombudsman as had been planned, and I actually support that exclusion. It is a departure from what Wilcox suggested, but I would be very disappointed if coercive powers were part of our mainstream industrial legislation. Whilst they exist I am happy for them to exist to the side.

The switch-off power of the coercive powers is interesting in the context that construction projects that do commence post 1 February 2010 are able to operate in an environment where these powers are not hanging over the heads of workers like the sword of Damocles. I wonder why people would think that that is not appropriate. The member for Stirling indicated that he believes that the hotbeds of unlawfulness in the construction unions are in Victoria and Western Australia. That may or may not be the case. I certainly do not see enough evidence to suggest that there are hotbeds of unlawfulness. But that leaves a number of other states—Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland, Northern Territory, the ACT and South Australia—as not hotbeds of unlawful behaviour. Quite frankly, the existence of these powers is always going to create a tension between employer and employee. If those powers can be switched off in the context of a project, I suspect that will be something to assist in creating a good working relationship between employer and employee and I would not be surprised to see applications coming from the companies undertaking projects as often as they come from the unions or third parties.

The interesting thing of course is that the unions would prefer there to actually be a switch-on power rather than a switch-off power. I think they are actually both. The need to have approval of the presidential member of the AAT before the powers can be used is, in effect, a switch-on power. It is a safeguard against ideologues such as those who operate in the ABCC currently, people who are true believers of a nature other than the true believers on my side of the chamber, who are out to do a job. Quite frankly, I think everybody in the country recognises that the job they were set to do and the job that they have relished is a union-busting job. They have been unsuccessful and the government has been elected making quite clear statements in relation to the building industry through the Forward with Fairness documents in April and August of 2007. The people knew what they were getting from this government. The election was about industrial relations. If you people opposite wish to take on this government over industrial relations, then there will be fewer of you after the next election.

See this speech in context