Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

That was a very interesting recitation of historical events, but I think the reality is better summarised by George Williams in an article on 6 July 2010 in the Sydney Morning Herald. He noted that this legislation:

… can be applied to anyone. Workers can be brought in, not because they are suspected of wrongdoing, but to report on the activities of their co-workers. Family members, including young children, can be told to reveal information about a parent in the building industry.

… One person who just happened to be passing a building site was reported in this paper—

that is, the Sydney Morning Herald; it is not the construction union making this report—

to have been ''hauled in for several hours of secret questioning'' after seeing a confrontation between a union official and a building manager.

That is a recitation of the truth, the coercive powers in this legislation, coercive powers that the police forces of this country lack in many cases in regard to real criminality. As other speakers have indicated, there is a total imbalance in the way this organisation has operated. That is because it has a very close association with the infamous Cole royal commission into the industry. As the member for Mayo well knows, it was a politically driven royal commission and totally discredited.

There is a total imbalance in the way this organisation has operated in the industry. That is derived from the way it was created and the reasons that the Howard government created it. There is a situation here where the industry in Sydney is characterised by the heavy use of imported labour. In Sydney people are locked on sites and are not allowed to leave the place where they are working. They are living on rations. On many building sites in Sydney you not only have the worker; you have his spouse working on the building site for no payment providing food. In some cases we have got a situation where, as the mover of this motion indicated, the amounts of money owed to these workers are horrendous. There has been very little activity by this organisation in regard to—

Mr Briggs interjecting—

Name them? You would be advised to read a few newspapers and do a bit of research for the first time in your life. The situation here, as I say, is that there is a total imbalance in the way the organisation has operated. The member for Mayo will be able, of course, because he is such a knowledgeable person in this field, to recite case after case where this organisation has pursued employers in regard to sham contracting, in regard to pyramid company operations, in regard to underpayment. I challenge him to come forward with those, because previous speakers on this side have indicated the large degree to which union officials and individual workers have been prosecuted. That is a challenge to you, my friend.

We have seen $30 million of taxpayers' money expended on a series of unsuccessful prosecutions, nationally covered, in relation to Ark Tribe and others that were exonerated. It is also worth noting a poll by Essential Media in November 2010 which indicated public opinion on these matters. They said that 63 per cent of Australians were opposed to the fines this organisation could impose and 55 per cent of Australians were opposed to the way in which evidence was produced. With regard to seeking documents it was 58 per cent, and another 60 per cent were opposed to the use of these industrial laws in general. So Australian public opinion is very much concerned about the extreme powers this body has.

It is also worth noting an article by Bernard Keane in Crikey. I know the member will comment on this as well. It certainly demolishes some of the research by Econtech in regard to the way in which this has been justified. A figure of 9.4 per cent for productivity improvements was put forward by that research. Once again that supposed gain for the industry was demolished by the Wilcox royal commission. The situation here is that severe problems in the industry are being ignored. This organisation is one whose agenda is essentially driven by a biased position. We do not see any concern about donors in Western Australia on the wharves who have said they are prepared to bring guns onto building sites to solve industrial problems. There is no activity or prosecution by this organisation.

In summary, this is not $30 million worth of taxpayers' money well spent. It is an organisation which has been discredited by the failure of its activities. Its prosecutions have been essentially unsuccessful, it has been regarded by the Australian people as having too extensive powers, powers that go beyond any other body in this country, and it is selective in who it has concentrated on. (Time expired)

See this speech in context