Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Hansard source

It is a sorry state of affairs when the time in the parliament is taken up with stunts like this. There were five propositions advanced by the member for Farrer who do I acknowledge heroically took 18 minutes to put her case. There were five arguments put by the opposition on this disallowance resolution. The first one is that there has been insufficient consultation. All we have done is make as a regulation something that has been in the guidelines of the Commonwealth since May of last year. So every man and their dog has had the opportunity to see these propositions for some 12 months.

The second objection which was put forward is that somehow this is an intrusion on state rights. This straw clutching by the opposition fails to recognise that the Federal Court has examined the Victorian building code and thrown it out on its ear. This patched together, cobbled document by a bunch of ideologues out of Spring Street in Melbourne had their code found wanting. It was found, in fact, to lead to breaches of the Fair Work Act and the Federal Court said it was not good enough. There is this argument that we should defend state rights, to defend shonky codes which could not withstand the scrutiny of the court system. You can only wonder why the opposition here are trying to adhere to codes which breach the Fair Work Act. It beggars belief.

The more substantial debate though comes down to the proposition where the opposition say there is a militancy, flexibility and productivity problem in Australian workplaces. They use these allegations, these vagrant prejudices unsubstantiated by the facts, to justify an attack on the rights of employees and employers to arrive at collective agreements in a civilised fashion, thus creating productivity, flexibility and fair outcomes all round.

We should not be surprised at this disallowance resolution. We know the first rule of conservative politics is to never let the facts get in the way of a good story. That is certainly the case here with the remaining trifecta of arguments presented by the member for Farrer. Those conservatives would say there is a productivity problem but let us look at the facts, not the conservative sloganeering. Productivity growth under the Fair Work Act is around triple the rate of that experienced under the former coalition government's disastrous Work Choices. This includes at a time when their Australian Building and Construction Commissioner was in effect.

The second leg of their trifecta was that there is an alleged militancy problem. Let us look again at the facts. Industrial disputation is down. That is right, members of parliament. It is not up, it is down. The ABS shows industrial disputation is down under a Labor government. In fact, it is around one-third of the average that we saw under the Howard government. Very importantly, in the building and construction industry the rate is on average less than one-fifth of the rate of industrial action that we saw under the Howard government in Australia's building and construction sites.

The third leg of the trifecta which still has not come in is their allegation there is a flexibility problem. It is clear here that the only thing that the conservatives are proposing when they support resolutions such as the disallowance motion and their so-called policy on industrial relations is that they wish to re-introduce individual contracts that would allow penalty rates to be traded away for pizza. They would allow people working in video rentals to be paid in videos. This is not a way to drive productivity or support working Australians. There has never been a case that you lift flexibility, or you lift productivity and you decrease disputation in the workplace by cutting away people's conditions. The way for Australia in the future and for all of our industries, including building and construction, is high-skilled, high-performing, well-remunerated work sites with cooperative workplace relations and with a central role in many cases for collective bargaining.

There we have it: the five objections used by the member for Farrer to support the disallowance motion. Look at what the Victorian government has done. That is in the legal bin. Have a look at the consultation issue. This code has been in guidelines form since May of last year, unchanged, so that argument goes into the dustbin of history. Then, of course , we have the bigger myths around flexibility, militancy and productivity. Productivity is up under Labor. Labour productivity is up under Labor. Industrial disputation is down. Flexibility under the Liberals always means cutting conditions.

In conclusion, just as those opposite may be uncomfortable with the facts that I have just referred to, they will be uncomfortable at the facts with regard to the building code. The building code commenced on 1 February this year. It is based on the most recent version of the government's implementation guidelines which were released in May 2012. Our building code is simple. Out building code requires compliance with the law. Our building code means simpler compliance for contractors. In fact, Justice Wilcox's review of the Commonwealth building regulatory system recommended disallowable instruments. Indeed, the Master Builders Association believed that the guidelines should be a disallowable instrument.

The motion proposed by the member for Farrer and the debate today show that the conservatives will say and do anything on workplace relations matters so long as it involves undermining the conditions of employees. They certainly are never guilty of letting good policy and a centrist approach on workplace relations get in the way of their far right ideology. We saw it with Work Choices, we see it now. The government opposes this motion.

See this speech in context