Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This bill seeks to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission—an institution that was dismantled under the previous government for no other reason than to appease their mates in the union movement, and to shore up the power base of the former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, despite the obvious and valuable contribution that the ABCC was making to the construction industry and to the economy.

It is important to understand how and why the ABCC first came to be. I will go through its history. In 2001 the then Minister for Workplace Relations, the current Prime Minister, commissioned the Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry to better understand the facts. What was revealed was really quite shocking. The royal commission report found that construction projects in Australia were hotbeds of intimidation, lawlessness, thuggery and violence. The commission concluded that inappropriate behaviour was 'behaviour that infringes the Workplace Relations Act 1996, a person's right of choice or other conduct which departs from recognised norms of civility and behaviour'.

As a result of this in-depth and detailed report, the Australian Building and Construction Commission was established to stamp out this kind of behaviour. The results spoke for themselves. The ABCC had an immediate and positive impact. That is not simply the anecdotal evidence; it was evidenced by the 2013 Independent Economics report, which found that building and construction industry productivity grew by more than nine per cent, consumers were better off by around $7.5 billion annually, and that fewer working days were lost through industrial action.

Despite these positive results the previous government kowtowed to the unions and implemented their agenda to get rid of the ABCC. As was the case with the rest of its economic agenda, the previous government simply implemented the demands of the militant unions, which allowed them to dictate to management exactly what they should be doing on sites—to allow unions control of worksites. It is important to point out at this stage that unions do play a valuable role in our economy—but they are not the entire economy, which is something that those on the other side of the House seem to forget at times. The removal of the ABCC joins a long list of economically reckless, antibusiness policies introduced by the previous government, including policies like the carbon tax, the mining tax and other changes to regulatory policy.

Restoring the ABCC will achieve a couple of things. First, the ABCC will create a strong cop on the beat that will increase penalties for unlawful behaviour. These increased penalties are important in ensuring that any future fines are not simply seen as 'part of the job'. In order for fines to be successful in their deterrence they must hurt.

The coalition government understands and appreciates the importance of the construction industry. It is, after all, the construction industry that helps build our nation. We would not have some of the world's most picturesque and famous landmarks without the hard-working men and women of the construction industry—those who turn up to work day-in and day-out who simply want to do their job, and do it well. Let me make it crystal clear that this bill does not target those people. In fact, this bill will assist those people who want to do the right thing, by protecting them from industrial bullying and other corrupt behaviour. This bill does, however, target those who try to use intimidation, extortion and coercion—and the government makes no apology for that. It is very simple. Do not break the law and do not participate in illegal activity, and the ABCC will be of no relevance to you.

This bill will also reinstate civil remedies in the case of coercion and discrimination—for example, the CFMEU's printing of posters labelling non-members as scabs, and calling on them to be 'run out of the industry' simply for not joining the union. Freedom of association needs to work both ways. These actions were in open defiance of the Fair Work Act and the Supreme Court orders. Similarly, in Werribee at the City West plant we saw more deplorable behaviour. Death threats and physical intimidation occurred there on a daily basis.

The bill will bring the ABCC into line with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, the Australian Taxation Office, Centrelink and Medicare in providing coercive powers of interrogation when it is deemed reasonable to do so. This is an important point, as in the past there have been people who have been hesitant to provide evidence, fearful that they would pay a very high price—fearful of retribution. This new power for the ABCC will mean that that will no longer be the case.

There are a number of people who are quite prepared to behave in an illegal manner in order to try to achieve their aims. I found it astonishing, a couple of weeks ago, when I was speaking on a TV program with Tony Sheldon, the head of the Transport Workers Union, that he admitted that he 'did the right thing' in reference to actions against Qantas that the Federal Court deemed to be illegal. This reminds me of a quote by Theodore Roosevelt when he said:

No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it.

Yet, for some reason in this country there is a subsection of the community that feels that they are above the law. There are a few bad eggs in the union movement that act in a militant fashion, conduct illegal industrial disputes, break the law and make no apology for it. This sort of attitude is also prevalent in the construction industry. It was most visible during the Myer Emporium debacle, where CFMEU members illegally closed down part of the city, blocking people who simply wanted to go to work.

Finally, the bill will, for the first time, take into account the importance of the supply chain in the construction industry to ensure that threats of refusal of supply will not befoul the industry. It reminds me of a story told to me by a constituent. This builder told me that he received a phone call from a union representative, who made it clear that if he did not advertise in the union's magazine his concrete would not be turning up the next day. It is this kind of extortion that the ABCC will stamp out of the industry. The only people who will lose from this legislation are those who will no longer be able to use force and thuggery to achieve their objectives.

Those opposite have used some pretty savage language in this debate—words like 'archaic', 'extreme', 'severe'. Let me say this: the only things that I find archaic, extreme and severe are the actions of militant unions that use threats of violence in the workplace. Not one member from the opposition side has condemned the actions I have outlined in my speech or any of the other many examples cited in this debate. I think that that says a lot about the standards that they accept. It shows a culture of acceptance, a culture of cover up, when it comes to crimes within the union movement.

Over the past few years we have witnessed many allegations of corruption within the union movement and we have heard about scandal after scandal. Yet the default response from those opposite is to sweep it under the carpet to avoid any potential political fall-out. Whether it is former Labor Minister Eddie Obeid, former President of the Labor Party Michael Williamson or former Labor MP Craig Thomson, union corruption, like corporate corruption, should be exposed, dealt with and punished accordingly—how else can we restore confidence. That is why this bill is so important; it will expose criminals in the industry and it will bring them to justice.

In conclusion I would like to say that the ABCC is required—to protect those in the building and construction industry, to protect workers from unlawful protest and intimidation, and to protect the industry as a whole so that we can build our future together.

See this speech in context