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

Can I firstly make it very clear here: we oppose the bill because there are still major flaws with it. But what we are discussing and debating in this place now are the amendments. These amendments reflect the concessions made by the Prime Minister and this government where they backflipped and conceded on so many matters that this regulator is nothing like the regulator that would have occurred if the original bill had been supported by the parliament, but it was not.

There were, of course, other amendments that were accepted by the government, including amendments that were moved by the opposition. Firstly, they have accepted the 457 amendment—something that they voted against, but I understand they have allowed it to form part of this legislation. We do support some restrictions on providing opportunities for local workers to be employed in the construction industry first. We do know that there are thousands and thousands of construction workers—many of whom are coming out of the mining sector as the construction phase ends—looking for work on construction sites in Perth, Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide and Brisbane, and regional Australia. That protection, which was enclosed within the Leader of the Opposition's private member's bill on Monday, was moved yesterday in the Senate to amend this bill. The government, of course, voted against that amendment, but I understand that they have not insisted on opposing it. It now forms part of this proposed piece of legislation.

Whilst we cannot support the bill in toto, we do accept the shift of onus so that it is no longer the case that an ordinary worker has to establish whether they have acted reasonably on a health and safety matter, and that if they cannot establish that then they can be fined in the order of $30,000. We are happy that the government has conceded on that. It was completely unreasonable to expect construction workers to be treated in an entirely different way than other workers in this country. In fact, that is not relating to union officials. I am talking about ordinary construction workers who raise health and safety matters in one of the most risky and dangerous industries in Australia. It is a difficult area of work in many cases. As we know, it has the second highest fatalities in any sector in this country.

We do know that on the last occasion when the ABCC was in place we watched the incidence of fatalities increase. We are fearful that that would happen again. Of course, we will keep an eye on that. That would be a dreadful thing to happen if it were to happen—that we would be seeing an increase in the incidence of fatalities. We have seen too many people die in the building industry. Recently, a German backpacker—a young woman 20 years old—fell to her death in Perth. Two Irish backpackers were completely crushed when a concrete slab fell on them because the workers had not been designated a lunch area. We have seen tragedy after tragedy. We saw two deaths on the Adelaide hospital site where two experienced workers were killed. Clearly, there were some unsafe practices on that site. We see too many Australians not come home because they are in dangerous workplaces. I say to the government that this is the most serious of matters: the increase in the incidence of fatalities on the last occasion that the ABCC was in place. That is a very significant issue.

I would also like to go to the question of the housing prices. The Prime Minister has made much of the fact that through this reform we are going to see a decline in housing prices because there will be some cost reductions. I have to say this again—and I have said it before: this regulator does not apply to the residential construction sector. This regulator does not apply to that, but the government has made it clear that a key performance indicator is seeing the fall in prices of houses. That has been an argument put forward by the Prime Minister and the government. Don't hold your breath if you expect that to happen. But, again, if it fails to happen, this bill is a failure and this regulator is a failure, because it is that argument and other arguments that the Prime Minister has contended would happen if we actually introduced this regulator.

So, Mr Speaker, we do not want to see an increase in the incidence of fatalities in the building industry like we did the last time the ABCC was introduced. We do not want to see house prices rise unreasonably, but the Prime Minister has assured us that there will be falls in house prices as a result of this regulator. Well, let us wait and see whether that happens. The reality is this: this bill is a fraud bill because—(Time expired)

See this speech in context