Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Hansard source

Being sledged by the member for McEwen is an interesting experience.

Mr Mitchell interjecting—

This sort of gutter behaviour of the member for McEwen and the language he uses in this place reflect exactly where they are. We saw that on Australia Day and we see it with the member for McEwen and his behaviour today. I think the voters will see it very soon, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The reregulation, the changes that the Labor Party have made to Australian workplace law, driven by people like the member for McEwen, are impacting enormously on the disputation in our nation. They are impacting enormously on the employment capacity of thousands of small businesses, and now we are seeing it with our biggest employers. The people these people pretend they stand for are being affected by the laws that they put in place. We will see it no worse than what we see with this bill, which is again a broken promise—from a government you cannot trust and a Prime Minister who said 'There would be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' This is exactly the same broken promise—the same as the broken promise that the member for Denison has gone through in the last few weeks with the pokies change, which we always said they would never go ahead with.

Mr Laurie Ferguson interjecting—

We always said they would not go ahead with it, Laurie. You know that, mate. We always said that. All was promised to ensure that one job in this country. The chair the minister currently at the table is sitting in is all the Labor Party is interested in. This bill is a backdown on a promise because of a demand of the Greens and a demand of the Left of the Labor Party. Reflecting back on the building industry royal commission, I will remind the House of some of the key findings it handed down in 2003. It found:

… structural changes are necessary to ensure that bargaining at the enterprise level occurs. At present, it does not. Pattern bargaining in this industry should be prohibited by statute.

It was prohibited by those changes. It will be undone by these changes. It also said:

… mechanisms should be in place to ensure that any participant in the industry causing loss to other participants as a result of unlawful industrial action is held responsible for that loss.

They were by the Building Commission reforms. They will not be by these changes. It further said:

… mechanisms must be in place to ensure that where disputes occur within the industry, such disputes are resolved in accordance with legislated or agreed dispute resolution mechanisms rather than by the application of industrial and commercial pressure. The 'rule of law' must replace industrial might.

That is exactly what the building industry reforms in 2005 were about. It is what they have achieved since 2005 in this industry. They brought back into the normal practice of rule of law the normal behaviour expected by ordinary Australians and by other industries across this nation. These changes will reintroduce the behaviour where contractors were stood over and contracts demanded union participation on sites. These are the sorts of provisions we will see again when this is all removed. The cost will be borne by Australians. It will not be borne by the Australian Labor Party; it will be borne by Australians.

The royal commission recommendations went on to say:

… there needs to be an independent body, free of the pressures on the participants in the industry, which will ensure that participants comply with industrial, civil and criminal laws applicable to all Australians, and thus operating on building and construction sites, as well as industry specific laws applicable to this industry only.

These are very specific provisions. What the royal commission found was so shocking that these eminent people decided that there had to be specific provisions to deal with this industry because it was in such a bad state. It was costing Australians so much more because of the behaviour of participants in the industry.

The findings highlight exactly what it was trying to achieve and exactly what the Howard government's bills did in 2005, which was to bring back the rule of law and bring in an independent body with a specific group of people looking at the law to ensure that this industry once again was brought back to productiveness and was governed by acceptable community standards of behaviour in industrial relations in this country. It was a cultural issue as well as a legal issue and it needed and continues to need specific attention.

Removing the watchdog, the cop on the beat, in this industry, as we see in this bill, will do untold damage to the productive capacity of this industry at a time when we should be looking at how we can become more productive. We should be looking at how we can free up our economy. This measure will again encourage the worst of the behaviours, as we are now seeing on worksites around this country, whether it be BHP, Toyota or the thousands of small businesses that every day face increased activity by the union movement. That puts untold pressure on thousands of businesses and jobs and on our economy when we need to be finding ways to be more competitive.

The reforms at the broader workplace relations level were always going to be a disaster from the very moment they were put in place. We know that because we see it every day now on the front page of the Financial Reviewand the Australian and as we move around our country. There is immense fear in the eyes of Australians over their job security, because of the changes this government is putting in place. It is a real and genuine concern for the future of our country. These laws are continually being made more union-friendly and friendly to specific interests rather than being for the broader economic goals of all Australians. This is exactly what we are seeing with this bill. It is more about the Labor Party and its internal machinations and about rewarding its mates. It is about rewarding those who have donated millions of dollars over time to ensure that they get to write policies for the Australian Labor Party.

What it is not about is finding ways to ensure that this industry can continue to be competitive in a modern economy and in a flat world. Instead what these people are trying to do is create a circumstance—

See this speech in context