Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

It's a starting point for the debate. They only deal with civil offences; they don't deal with criminal behaviour. Criminal behaviour should be dealt with by the police, and when criminal behaviour occurs the police are the ones who should provide enforcement. But to claim that abolishing the ABCC will somehow have an impact on that is absurd. Even under their own legislation it is not allowed to deal with criminality. It has no power to conduct a criminal prosecution. That is dealt with, as it should be dealt, with by the police.

But I love their argument that this is going to drive up inflation. I never knew that the Eureka flag was inflationary. Who knew? Who knew that a safety sign, if it's got a union logo in the bottom corner, is in fact inflationary? Who knew that if an enterprise agreement contains the same job, same pay clause then somehow that's inflationary? Who knew that if you have guaranteed apprenticeships on a worksite then somehow that's inflationary? No, no, no—they're just things that people should be able to fight for. And, in all of these cases they're referring to, what those opposite also forget is that they're largely examples where the employer had agreed.

They've asked who has met with the union at different times. Of course I've met with the national secretary—I don't know why you need to ask me—because I wanted to find out about the Eureka flag case. This is a classic, the Eureka flag case—and we have the member for Ballarat here. There's nothing particularly wrong with the Eureka flag. When the Leader of the Opposition went through all the breaches of freedom of association, he counted the Eureka flag and sticker disputes. Their argument is that, if you see a Eureka flag, you're suddenly going to feel compelled to join a trade union. It's going to happen. Don't let them see a Russian flag! We don't know what will happen if flags have that sort of power! When the Eureka flag was being flown at Lendlease, Lendlease were okay with it. There was a safety sign that was telling people that when there's wet weather you shouldn't keep working outdoors; you should come inside. It had a union logo on it. Those two issues resulted in a freedom of association case.

Our view here is simple: the workers were happy with it; the employer was happy with it; what business is it of yours? Similarly, if you have an enterprise agreement and the employer is okay with having a clause that there can be a minimum number of apprenticeships for the worksite: the workers want it; the employer agrees; why have red-tape legislation standing in the way of that? Why? They don't want to refer to that. They're now looking down at their phones: tap, tap, tap, 'Quick, Advisor, is there a response to this one?' When people can agree, we think that's good. When there's an agreement between workers and an employer, we think that's good. When workers and employers can get along and reach agreements, the Liberal and National parties of this country think we should get in the way simply, we think, because it irritates them. That's what the ABCC does.

The other examples of the ABCC that they refer to are in fact breaches of the Fair Work Act that are otherwise covered by the Fair Work Ombudsman anyway. The ones that can only occur through the ABCC are largely using the procurement powers of government, and effectively you have this ridiculously complex formula where something is right or wrong—not based on an industrial law principle but based on a formula of how much Commonwealth investment there is versus the total value of the project. That's not an industrial law principle, that's not a freedom of association principle, that's not a productivity principle; that's just the red tape of an ideological former government wanting to get in the way of agreements.

Many times as part of their inflationary argument, you've heard people from that side talking about the need to do something about productivity. So I thought, 'Oh, let's have a look at the productivity figures and how they changed once the ABCC was introduced.' It came back in 2016. There are only three years of published figures since then. In 2017-18, labour productivity did move by 2.4 per cent. Do you reckon it went up or down? It went down. But, wait, there are two more years coming. We've got the second year. In 2018-19, labour productivity moved by 2.6 per cent. Do you reckon it went up or down? Down again.

A government member interjecting—

A gameshow noise—perfect! The 2019-20 figures for labour productivity were for the third year of the ABCC. If it was going to make an impact, you'd think that by the third year maybe it was doing something. In the third year there was a 2.6 per cent change in labour productivity, once again down.

The record on labour productivity is nothing to be proud of. And it's no surprise: if you create more red tape, you get in the way of agreements, and you simply transfer some prosecutions from the Fair Work Ombudsman to then be done by a more ideological body, you don't in fact solve any problems. Agreements solve problems. Bringing people together to the table is a way of solving problems. But here you've got a system on right of entry where if an employer is completely happy with a union official coming on site to meet workers without waiting for the full 48 hours—if they say, '24 hours; we're happy to have you on'—the employer gets punished for reaching an agreement with their workforce.

Those opposite have wanted to characterise the ABCC as something that it is not. The 'come in, spinner' moment of the day was the question that related to what the Federal Court has had to say. I've got to say, the quotes are extraordinary. The Federal Court blasted the ABCC for wasting time and taxpayers' money for prosecuting two CFMMEU officials for 'having a cup of tea with a mate'. It was described by the court as 'a minuscule, insignificant affair.' Described by the court: 'This is all external forces that are beating up what's just a really ordinary situation that amounts to virtually nothing.' Described by the court: 'For goodness' sake. I don't know what this inspectorate is doing.' Described by the court: 'A battleship in full steam which had difficulty turning.' Described by the court: 'The court was entitled to expect that proceedings would not be conducted as a blood sport.'

This has not been a good regulator. This is a regulator that has simply increased conflict and that has got in the way where agreements exist and where agreements are possible. If criminal matters happen, the criminal processes should deal with them, and the Fair Work Ombudsman is the more effective body to deal with civil matters.

See this speech in context