House debates
Wednesday, 3 February 2016
Bills
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2], Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2]; Second Reading
12:57 pm
David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source
The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2] is a critical bill for the development of a stronger Australian economy. It is really vital that we pass this bill and the Australian Building and Construction Commission re-established. I will ask for a bit of indulgence to recall how it came into being and how it was sidelined some years after its very successful introduction.
This all came to pass after the Cole royal commission that started back in 2001. It dissected and displayed, for all to see, endemic corruption and lawlessness in the building and construction industry. Out of that very thorough and extensive Cole royal commission came the creation of the Australian Building and Construction Commission in 2005. It basically reintroduced strong regulation into the building and construction industry but also the rule of law. Within two years, estimates published in many publications documented savings and productivity gains of $3.1 billion to the Australian economy per year. By 2012, the Master Builders Association estimated that that was at least $6.3 billion per year in productivity gains. I have seen other estimates in the literature, while researching this speech, of $7½ billion per year by the time the ABCC was abolished. So entrenched and unlawful corporate and union actions were very successfully addressed by the creation of the ABCC.
I was very disappointed that it was watered down and the Fair Work building inspectorate came in to replace it, with a 30 per cent reduction in staffing and funds and a weakening of the regulations and outcomes. Instead of productivity gains of nine per cent per year, over the subsequent four years we have seen—as outlined recently so clinically in the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption run by Justice Dyson Heydon—a return to the bad old days. In the evidence that was presented we heard of intimidation, bribes, secret commissions, standover tactics and blockades, and I accentuate that it was evidence, because there were rules of evidence applied as in other judicial situations. There was endemic corruption in all states and in many industries. I thoroughly support the reintroduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission as a regulator of workplace relations, because it has the runs on the board.
Previous speakers have queried how we can justify doing this. The answer is that we have campaigned on this through two general elections. In 2010 and 2013 it was stated ad nauseam that a coalition government, if re-elected, would reintroduce the Australian Building and Construction Commission. What bigger mandate can you have than taking this issue to two general elections? Unfortunately, people on the other side are in denial. I fear that they are, as usual, being unduly influenced by some of the unions who have had their malfeasance, inappropriateness and lawlessness on display in the trade union royal commission. Not only have we seen its veracity and legitimacy questioned; we have seen a campaign run over 12 months where they tried to destroy the reputation of Justice Dyson Heydon. By association they tried to sully the findings. But, as I have mentioned, the most recent royal commission is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of collecting the evidence. And what do we have as a result of that? There were 93 referrals to undertake civil and criminal proceedings in the Fair Work Commission, ASIC, ACCC or the directors of public prosecutions in various states and territories around the country. That is even worse than what was on display in the Cole royal commission, which lifted the lid on the same problems.
We have the same problems coming back again, and our economy cannot afford the lack of productivity. Whether it is building skyscrapers or building houses, all these corrupt behaviours, standover tactics and forcing builders and employers to pay more and get sweetheart deals have an economic impact. In fact, Commissioner Terence Cole made statements in the press about this just the other day. The economic consequences mean much more expensive buildings, and that means much more expensive leasing rates for the builder to get a return on his money and pay for the borrowings. It means small businesses are paying higher rents because construction costs are higher, and that means they have more money to pay in that part of their business than they have for employing people. Productivity gains lead to a better standard of living, higher wages and stronger employment growth. That is why it is so critical that the construction and building industry, which is a very large sector of the Australian economy, is run under the rule of law.
Previous speakers have made a big deal about the coercive powers that the reconstituted ABCC will have. I have no problem with them, because the same coercive powers are already being used by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, APRA ASIC, the Australian Taxation Office, Centrelink and Medicare. Why should the construction industry be above the law or beyond the standard that everyone else has to comply with?
Another issue that has been brought up by speakers today is that it is a question of decreasing the safety of workers. With this legislation, there is a commitment to continue with the Federal Safety Commissioner. They are drawing a very long bow when they try to bring this in as an issue. We see in the press that they are trying to sully the argument by saying, 'We should have the equivalent of a federal ICAC.' The ABCC is a regulator, and it is strong regulation, and the rule of law in the construction workplace, in contracting and in deals has to be regulated. So no more secret commissions, bribes, standover tactics, blockades or sweetheart deals.
I spent a good part of my university life working as a cleaner, getting up at 4 am and cleaning on weekends. If I were in a cleaning union now, and if I were to see what went on with Cleanevent, how union reps negotiated deals that made their members worse off, I would be ropable. Yet this seems to have been commonplace. Deals have been negotiated that have benefited the unions rather than the union members. I cannot believe it. Criminal proceedings have been there for all to see already, with HSU and other unions. So I think this legislation is really critical. We do have to get it up and running again to get a large part of our economy working efficiently under the rule of law. No-one should be afraid of that unless they are corrupt or they are operating outside the law. I commend these bills to the House.
No comments