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

I wish to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill, although I believe it is a misnomer to include 'improving productivity' within the title. At the outset, I want to deal with a comment made by the previous speaker and, coincidentally, by her cross-town colleague, the member for Fisher. Those comments imply that Labor's abolition of this body was in some manner related to the current Leader of the Opposition's role in that portfolio and that we showed no haste in abolishing the ABCC. As anyone who has followed Australian politics would know, there were grave difficulties in getting that matter through the Senate, and there was a lot of significant negotiations over a long period of time to get to the abolition. To imply that we were in some way tardy, that we were not determined, or that we were somehow manipulated by the unions when a new person became minister, is rather crass.

The opposition would absolutely repudiate the line of argument that some balance is being brought back into industrial relations through this measure. It is, indeed, undemocratic. It is, indeed, unnecessary. It was interesting to note that the member for Fisher quoted Justice Wilcox very fondly in regard to one aspect of this debate. He failed to mention the demolition job that Justice Wilcox did on Econtech, which is the main company that those opposite have relied on for their analysis of productivity in this field. The member for Fisher very briefly commented on Justice Wilcox because he knows his comments formed a significant part of the justification for abolishing the ABCC.

There has been significant citation of the Cole royal commission, carried out by the former Prime Minister John Howard's close law school friend. But what has not been stressed about that report is that after the Australian people spent $70 million on that inquiry, after we heard the most extreme allegations, after it went through the process for a massive 1½ years, not one charge was laid. There was $70 million dollars spent, there was much publicity in the Murdoch press and much coverage of very extreme allegations, but there were no prosecutions. It is worthwhile noting, for all the rhetoric about criminalisation in this industry—the evil deeds that are going to be assailed—this is not the body that will be prosecuting people for those kinds of offences. That lies elsewhere.

This legislation will represent a major imbalance in the industry. I have not heard too much of a contribution from those opposite on a variety of characteristics of this industry. We know that there has been a widespread occurrence—one might say there has been a fever—of phoenix companies. These are collapsing companies that are established in the names of Iraqi migrants with no assets whatsoever. Those companies are collapsed down and the workers are left without their wages and various other rights. That is a very strong characteristic of the industry. I have not seen too much concentration, when we are analysing the industry, from those opposite about the persistence of sham contracts throughout the industry. I have not heard too much lingering comment about Leightons and companies in this industry being accused of bribing others. I have not heard too many references to black lists operating in the industry, where workers who are regarded as militant—of standing up for their fellow workers' rights—are black listed and are unable to get jobs. This bill represents a major attack on workers' rights in this country. The member for Riverina says: 'Well, it's just common sense. It's all right to abolish people's rights because it's common sense.' Well, we know how wide that argument goes: we have seen now that we can't tell the Australian people what is happening in immigration because of national security reasons. And here we have a justification even lower down the order—that it is common sense to just smash human rights.

If passed, this bill will mean that there will be restrictions on freedom to gather. There will be self-incrimination. There will be a reverse onus of proof. There will be no presumption of innocence; and, importantly, there will be intervention by this government, from whom, in these first few weeks of parliament, I have heard so many speeches about red tape, about small government, about getting the government out of the way, and about getting the government out of interference with industry and its needs. We are now going to have the government coming in, and not only introducing measures of tax and human rights here but also reversing negotiated outcomes—supposedly because they are going to get a few companies coming along and complaining, 'We're intimidated,' so they want to renege on the negotiations. Those opposite are saying, 'Let's reverse that.' This is a government which is characterised by its claims to be standing up for small government, to be standing for less red tape and for less restriction of people's rights et cetera, but this is a government which is monstrously attacking a group of people because they stand up for their rights in this country.

We have in this bill the extreme measure of imprisonment for non-cooperation with this regulatory body. Yet those opposite have not actually produced any statistical measure—except from Econtech—of any merit in this approach. In bringing forward this legislation the government is driven by ideology. The legislation is, as one member said—and it is surprising, isn't it?—supported by the Master Builders Association and by the Property Council of Australia—as though that means anything but an attempt by this government to strengthen employer rights against workers in this industry.

It should be no surprise to the Australian people that those opposite would attempt again to minimise the rights of people to organise and to bargain for themselves. Despite all the rhetoric about boat people, and about how strong those opposite are on protecting the position of the workers of this country, we saw the coalition stand up here and oppose Labor attempts to toughen up the rules on 457 visas. The previous government was enshrining the required content of existing sponsorship obligations—basically doing a bit of labour market testing, and preventing the transfer charge or recovery of certain costs from sponsored visa holders, and measures relating to enforceable undertakings, et cetera. These were measures by which the previous government was trying to do something to protect Australian workers from the manipulation of 457 visas, which was undermining the conditions for workers in this country. This new justification—of supposedly attacking violence and intimidation in industry—is just another attempt by those opposite to minimise workers' rights, as they did when opposing 457 visa changes.

I know of the interesting example of the current Minister for Immigration and Border Protection—in front of a very select audience mind you; not in front of the Australian people—going to a gathering in my electorate and telling the assembled people that any attempt to restrict 457 visa fraud was racist, and that it was an attack on Indians. The people at that gathering had had a significant number of people quite rightly come through skilled migration, and the minister goes out there and says, 'This is racist.' That is what we saw from those opposite on 457 visas.

We also saw, in relation to international students, that the conditions of workers in this country were undermined by fraudulent colleges in the private sector, by inappropriate manipulations of contracts for these kinds of workers, and by people working far in excess of the allowable 20 hours. Once again, those opposite were out there trying to undermine Australian conditions.

This bill before the House today has very little to do with unsubstantiated allegations of widespread intimidation in the industry, and a lot more to do with the question of workers' rights. If we are talking about individuals, we should mention that there was a prosecution against 116 construction workers in Western Australia—a prosecution not of the unions, not of the Reynoldses of this world, not of the CFMEU leadership of Victoria, but of 116 individuals, who were up for a fine in excess of $1 million.

The ABCC was set up in 2005 and it cost the Australian people $250 million. There was no evidence at the end of that process to show the Australian people any tangible outcomes except for the harassment of individuals, the diminution of people's right to organise and assemble freely, self-incrimination and other measures. If those opposite start talking about having a mandate, quite frankly, both sides of politics know that this was not a substantial issue at the last federal election. There might have been divisions in the Labor Party over the previous period. There might have been the question of climate change and how we reacted to that, but I do not remember too many people in my electorate—including Liberal Party friends of mine—telling me that the ABCC was a central issue. The coalition have actually gone beyond the previous legislation with the coverage of this bill. Even if—it is a most remote possibility—the government could come up with some kind of claim for a mandate, the fact is that they, by going to offshore processing and to the delivery of goods and other aspects, this bill is dealing with things that are way beyond the previous legislation. I am pleased to be here with the opposition, opposing this measure. This bill represents a severe attack on the individual and a severe undermining of people's rights to bargain for themselves and to have some rights in society and in their workplace. This bill represents a one-sided analysis of industrial relations.

See this speech in context