Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I provide a contribution to this debate I want to address a contribution made by a member opposite, the member for Newcastle. Earlier this evening the member for Corangamite took issue with the member for Newcastle, and I must also. I expect that the member for Newcastle is in her suite or attending to other business at the moment, and I think she is ashamed of a particular contribution she made. She asserted that members on this side of the House, me included, have scant regard for those who lose their lives on building sites. I would ask the member for Newcastle to return to this place and make an apology for that remark to each and every member on this side of the House—in particular, me. I suffered the tragedy of having my brother sustain fatal injuries through a work accident. I think the member would do well to return and apologise for suggesting that I, having experienced that loss and having watched my parents deal with that loss, have no regard for that. And perhaps she should think better about making broad-ranging generalisations.

While I do know something about loss, I do not know a lot about building in any practical sense. In fact, you would be quite mad to ask me to build something. I do not know a lot about the commercial building and construction industry. But someone who does know a lot about the commercial building and construction industry is Mike Kane, the chief executive officer of Boral. On 9 July 2014 he said:

On construction sites in Melbourne the law does not apply, the law is determined by the CFMEU.

This is someone who knows plenty about commercial building sites, particularly in Melbourne, and he is someone we should listen to. It is exactly that that these bills address, and that is why I speak in support of them.

We live in a country that has enjoyed a strong tradition of adherence to the rule of law. The stability our society has delivered and our quality of life are envied across the globe by nations less fortunate than ours, and in many ways our quality of life is tied to the strength of our economy. Through strong economic performance, we have delivered greater opportunity and improved living standards. There are many industries that contribute to the wealth of this nation, and the construction industry is a critical part of that. It delivers many jobs in both small and large enterprises and is critical to a productive, prosperous and internationally competitive Australia.

The coalition government recognises the importance of a thriving building and construction industry for renewed job creation and economic growth. Whilst it is a sector with great potential, it is also a sector which, particularly on commercial sites, has fallen into a culture of lawlessness through rampant breaches of the law by militant union action. The actions of the previous Labor government significantly weakened the regulatory body formerly known as the Australian Building and Construction Commission and have created a void in the regulation of the building and construction industry today.

The legislation I stand to support seeks to reinstate the ABCC and, in so doing, establish the regulatory framework the industry is so badly in need of. There is undeniably a culture of lawlessness gripping the construction industry in this nation. Its cancerous growth was expedited by the Labor government's decision in 2012 to abolish the ABCC. This culture of lawlessness has filled the void left by the previous government and is undermining not only our economy, our communities and our growth but also our nation as a whole.

Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon—one of our nation's most respected jurists and a man who was subjected to a shameful, dishonest campaign in an effort to deride the good work of the commission—has brought to light the extent to which the culture of lawlessness has gripped our building and construction industry. We should talk in more detail about an objectionable character who leads the CFMEU—or did. In 2013 John Setka, a union chief of the CFMEU, said:

Our union has given us a mandate, They want us to remain a militant union.

He was, of course, reflecting on a court decision from the same year—and it is neither the first nor the last time a union has been found guilty of contempt. This is the kind of attitude and unrepentant contempt for the law and judicial process that pervades the leadership of the CFMEU—leadership that has seized on the free-for-all delivered to them by the former Labor government in abolishing the ABCC.

Further, if you harbour any doubts as to the seriousness of this culture of lawlessness, you need look no further than the endorsement given to Mr Setka by notorious underworld crime figure Mick Gatto, who described Mr Setka as 'a close mate' and has previously stated that he would make a good prime minister. My goodness. The CFMEU has members of outlawed bikie gangs who march with them in rallies and, effectively, operate as their 'thump merchants'.

At the royal commission, a principal contractor testified that a Labor powerbroker, Ken Hardy, secretary of the ALP's Melton branch, suggested the contractor pay $50,000 to Mr Gatto to fix his problem with the CFMEU—extortion by any other name. And who could forget the remarkable evidence taken at the commission about seven tonnes of documents that were destroyed. These were documents that were subpoenaed, to be delivered to the commission.

In an exchange that was heard by the commission because it was recorded, you can see the depth of this lawless behaviour. This is at a point where there have been court orders for production of these documents. Mr Hanna was involved with the CFMEU. The exchange is:

Mr Hanna: No you can't. But um got all that done, there was f***ing mountains and mountains of ... (indistinct) ... seven tonnes' worth.

Mr Skourdoumbis: Really?

Mr Hanna: Yep, it was weighed, the truck was weighed when it got dumped that's how much f***ing paper, paper is heavy. Paper is heavy. It all got taken down to my f****ing joint where he stores his f****ing car trailer and he stores his caravan.

If you need any further evidence of this culture of lawlessness, there it is.

On 19 June the Federal Court fined the CFMEU and five of its officials some $545,000 for unlawful conduct, saying that their conduct was a 'deliberate stratagem'. What an absolute waste of hard-earned members' money. The court noted that the officials displayed no contrition and no remorse—unsurprising, given the sorts of characters associated with this militant union. It is a story that has played out time and time again, in the courts, as union officials show little regard for the rule of law. The list goes on and on, at every level the CFMEU, and epitomises the culture of lawlessness that is gripping our nation's construction industry.

Our government refuses to accept such behaviour and is taking action to eliminate such a damaging culture. This bill re-establishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission, a genuinely strong watchdog that will maintain the rule of law to protect workers and improve productivity in the process on building sites and construction projects, both on-shore and off-shore. There is an economic imperative to reinstate the ABCC. Workplaces across each and every territory of this nation are seeing honest, hardworking people being intimidated and extorted by militant union officials. Such a culture dislocates enterprise and innovation and directly affects the economic performance of our country.

While the ABCC existed, the economic and industrial performance of the building and construction industry significantly improved. For example, a 2013 Independent Economics report on the state of the sector found that since the implementation of the ABCC: building and construction industry productivity grew by nine per cent; consumers were better off to the tune of some $7.5 billion, annually, and that is the cost of taking the ABCC away; and fewer working days were lost through industrial action.

If those opposite seriously believed in better economic outcomes for this nation they would be wise to support this legislation. This legislation is a test for those opposite in the ALP and their coalition partners, the Australian Greens, to see if are willing to make the right decision—notwithstanding pressure from their union masters. If those opposite are serious about providing an alternative government they will, surely, put the national interest before their union paymasters. It is evident they lack the capacity and intestinal fortitude to stand up to the union movement. That is to the detriment of thousands of small- to medium-sized businesses suffering the effects of this intimidation—not to mention workers who are at the frontline of this union brutality and intimidation.

Not only do those opposite do the national economy a disservice but also they are supporting the toxic and xenophobic culture that exists within the CFMEU. I reference the xenophobic campaign waged across this nation—including in my electorate of Barker—to undermine the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. That behaviour was gobsmackingly xenophobic. There was no objection to the free trade agreement with Japan or Korea, but there was a campaign run to end this one. Farmers in my electorate were grateful and breathed a sigh of relief when that bilateral agreement was executed in December last year.

The union movement and the CFMEU, in particular, has some form when it comes to racist behaviour. It pervades the culture of that militant union. You need only see the actions of Mr Setka, someone I have mentioned previously. He allegedly referred to a subcontractor who was performing painting work as an 'effing dog Turkish effing painting piece of shit'. If the leaders of this union display such racist behaviour what hope can we hold for the rest of the organisation who—

See this speech in context