Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is all on the public record. I do not think that there is any problem with having a connection with workers. I have always seen the Labor Party as being the political wing of the trade union movement. I am not afraid of workers. Unions have a great history of contributing to the good of this nation. That is my belief.

It is interesting to compare. A judicial inquiry was announced into these work related deaths—the insulation deaths. But, since the last fatality of the home insulation scheme, 31 Queenslanders have died in construction related accidents on the job. That is, to put it in context: 31 Queenslanders have died and five of those were electrocuted. There is a comparison. Since the judicial inquiry was announced, there have been 31 deaths. That it is to put it in context. Construction work can be very dangerous work. Construction work is challenging, especially in high-rise buildings, where there can be all sorts of complications.

This bill before the House includes provisions on prohibiting unlawful picket lines and allows anyone to get an injunction to prevent such a picket line happening. This government is clearly pushing to almost outlaw unionism in the construction industry. It is seen to be a bad thing for a union to make a contribution to a political party. That was the suggestion that came from the member opposite. The reality is, Australian workers need unions to fight for their rights and to look after their health and safety. We all know that when an employer tries to make money they will cut back on health and safety, and that makes it dangerous for workers. It is disgraceful to have union officials and members dragged off to the courts, fined and threatened with jail for taking part in union activities that have been a part of the fabric of this nation since the 1890s—since the shearers' strike that we had in Barcaldine in the 1890s that saw the formation of the Labor Party. Why would those opposite be scared of people banding together and speaking up for their rights?

The merits of the ABCC are based on flawed and ridiculous modelling. Its proposed powers are scary, particularly the unfettered coercive powers, the secretive interviews and imprisonment for those who do not cooperate. This is a star chamber that Oliver Cromwell would blanche at. These proposed powers are extreme, unnecessary and undemocratic and they compromise civil liberties.

Let us have a look at the record under Labor. Under the Fair Work Act, after the ABCC went, productivity went up in the building industry. Let us look at the Liberal legislation. After the ABCC was introduced in 2005, building industry fatalities jumped 95 per cent between 2006 and 2008. They had a budget of $35 million, including up to $500,000 a year for the salary of the commissioner. They brought cases against the CFMEU and other unions resulting in over $5 million in fines and millions more in court costs. That was good for lawyers, obviously. As a lawyer, I have no problem with lawyers getting paid, but the reality is that someone will always pay for it when lawyers are involved. The ABCC legislation was condemned eight times by the International Labour Organization for bias and for breaching conventions that Australia has signed. We saw when the judgment in the Ark Tribe case was handed down that they were completely embarrassed due to them not exercising their coercive powers correctly. They were found to have unlawfully interviewed 203 people.

That is why the Gillard and Rudd governments removed the majority of the ABCC's powers. We had the Fair Work Australia model, which is a much fairer system in the workplace. And what did we see? We saw industrial disputes go down. We even saw fatalities go down. I know that we should not refer to fatalities only, but that is a fact. And productivity rose.

Under the Howard government's ABCC, there was no right to silence and the commission possessed national security style powers to prevent a witness from revealing even to his wife or her husband that he or she had been interrogated by the commission. That is crazy stuff from George Orwell's 1984, not modern, progressive Australia. Now the coalition want to reinstate these secretive state police powers. They have not put a logical, coherent, empirical argument as to how this will boost productivity. This government, as we saw from the legislation that we just voted on, cannot be trusted when it comes to looking after workers and workers' rights.

What the construction industry needs is investment. It needs apprenticeships and jobs for Australian residents and citizens. They need to be schooled in health and safety. We do not need another government body determined to undermine industry standards, safety and working conditions such that the rogue and the cowboy will lower the standards and make it harder for those good employers—those good builders who do the right thing—to pay their workers and look after their health and safety. No-one wins the race to the bottom, and the biggest losers will always be the workers.

The government has not put a case that this will improve productivity. There is little evidence that this bill will work. Rather, it is about amplifying false statements about productivity. I ask those opposite to come out to a building site. I can arrange for them to come on site and talk to my family and see what really goes on in the construction industry. (Time expired)

See this speech in context