Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

As I was saying before this debate was moved to another part of business for the parliament, this bill, the Construction Industry (Protecting Witnesses) Bill, is to be opposed by the opposition because it is about whether the sunset provision should continue. It is the view of the opposition—implicit in the sunset clause—that it is incumbent upon the government to establish whether such a provision should continue. In other words, the onus is on the government to explain why they believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant the extension of this provision. And we would argue—given that there has been no review undertaken by the government in this matter—that the sunset provision should take effect, and that therefore the effect of the provision should lapse, because of the government's failure to review this matter.

It is also interesting to note that, of course, this provision relates to the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It relates to the efforts by this government to reinstate such a commission—which we would argue is an overreach, excessive, and in breach of international human rights conventions—and, whilst the government still has that intention, it is interesting to note that in the budget documents of yesterday, in the strategic directions under this portfolio, it is no longer a priority in the way it was outlined in last year's budget. In last year's budget, there was a priority for the establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. And yet that is no longer the case; it has been relegated down the order in the budget, which I think reflects the fact that the minister and indeed the government understand that they do not have the support of the parliament to proceed with their efforts to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

In relation to this particular bill: this is a narrower bill in its application. We would say that it is prejudicial for the government, without undertaking a review, to extend the provision of what is a sunset clause. It really does suggest that the government's immediate assumption when it comes to dealing with unions or indeed workers in workplaces is that people are acting improperly, without any sufficient independent analysis of such matters. As I was saying before we adjourned on this matter, the government seeks to remove the privilege against self-incrimination by reintroducing that legislation.

What we have here, though, is a government using this bill as a stopgap. In reality, what the Abbott government really wants to do—and this is clearly evident in their bill to reinstate the ABCC—is to impose more coercive powers, with fewer protections and safeguards on their use. It is important to note that even if this bill is not successful, the Fair Work Ombudsman and those within the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate who are appointed as Fair Work inspectors currently have the power to compel the production of records or documents to assist in investigating industrial contraventions. Of course, there is also the Australian Crime Commission. If anyone understands the history of the Australian Crime Commission, it is the successor body to the National Crime Authority. It arose out of a royal commission itself which was held during the Fraser years. The then Hawke government established a standing crime commission. If this government really is talking about tackling crime rather than playing politics and attacking unions, it has at its disposal an organisation—namely, the Australian Crime Commission—with such powers to deal with matters of a criminal nature.

So if indeed all this was ever about in this area of public policy was dealing with criminal conduct, there is already a standing commission with experts and, of course, with law enforcement officers and people with sufficient expertise and very significant powers to do exactly that. But we know that much of this is about the government attacking unions across the board, as is clear by the parameters of the royal commission currently on foot.

I believe it is obvious to all fair-minded people that the government is willing to do anything in pursuit of its ideological attacks on working people and trade unions that represent them. For the reasons I have outlined, we do not support this bill and we do not support it because we do not believe the government has provided sufficient explanation or indeed sufficient evidence by undertaking a review that should have occurred in the case of extending a provision such as a sunset clause.

See this speech in context