Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. In spite of its title, this bill is not aimed at achieving sound reform, jobs growth or productivity improvements in an industry that is extremely important not only in my electorate of Forrest but right around the nation. The coalition are proud to support Australians who have a go, who take a risk, who invest and who employ people in small, medium and larger businesses. We believe that every Australian, whether an employer or an employee, deserves to be able go to their workplace and operate in a safe and lawful environment.

However, in direct contrast, the Labor government, as indicated by this bill, does not believe that Australian business owners should have the right to run their own businesses. I suppose that is not really surprising. One only has to examine the power structure of the Labor Party to see who pulls the strings. When the current Prime Minister arbitrarily axed the previous Prime Minister, current union leaders boasted about their role in that axing. This is a very long way, unfortunately, from the historical union representation that has a long and originally proud history in this country of raising the standards for Australian workers. But this proud history has been corrupted by the politics of union leaders and Labor Party ambition. What started as a great push for workers' rights two centuries ago has become a fight for left-wing factional power and a platform for political rather than social ambition. That is the sad inheritance of the modern Labor Party and one of the main reasons that the union membership has plummeted in recent times.

According to figures released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the proportion of employees who were trade union members in their main job decreased from 20 per cent in August 2009 to 18 per cent in August 2010. This represents a fall of 47,300. For the majority of the 20th century, however, at least 40 per cent of workers were covered by unions and some 20 years ago the figure was one in every two workers. However, instead of looking after the interests of those workers, a number of unions have been looking after an elitist left-wing level of union leaders and their political ambitions.

Of course, not all unions have gone down this path and a number remain that genuinely have the interests of their members at heart. An example is the police union in my home state of Western Australia, which has a long history of member advocacy as its primary goal. Sadly, for some unions, this is no longer the case. As we look into history, the building industry specifically deserves very careful attention. I refer to the BLF, the Builders Labourers Federation.

It took a royal commission to expose what this front-line union had become. The Winneke royal commission identified major problems with the actions of the BLF and as a result it was deregistered by the Hawke Labor government in 1986—this was a Labor government and a Labor leader deregistering the BLF. Members might think that, following the Winneke royal commission and the deregistration of the BLF in 1986, the construction sector unions would have altered their practices and the union would return to the role of looking after building workers in an open, honest and accountable manner. But how wrong those members would be.

The 2003 building industry royal commission, conducted by the Hon. THR Cole, found that despite a corrupt history no lessons had been learned and no change was in evidence. The Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, 2001-03, was established by the Australian government to inquire into and report upon alleged misconduct in the building and construction industry in Australia. The commission articulated a case that the industry was characterised by lawlessness in the conduct of industrial relations. Our Parliamentary Library report on the Cole commission stated that:

The industry was described by the Royal Commission as being characterised by widespread disregard for the rule of law. It found widespread use of inappropriate industrial pressure, disregard for enterprise bargaining and the freedom of association laws leading to unlawful strikes, as well as widespread use of 'inappropriate' payments. Thus:

The construction industry in Western Australia specifically was described by the royal commission as being 'marred by unlawful and inappropriate conduct' with 'a culture of fear, intimidation, coercion and industrial unrest'. The royal commission made 230 findings of unlawful conduct in WA, the majority of which were against CFMEU officials and organisers for intimidation and threats of violence, breaches of FOA, secondary boycott and right-of-entry provisions, trespass and interference. CFMEU officials Kevin Reynolds and Joe McDonald are cited as repeat offenders. Sadly the BLF is not the only example of union focus shifting from looking after employees to seeking political power. However, it is probably only the most obvious.

Here we are again debating industrial relations in the building industry. The bill before us is cloaked in Labor spin as one that targets the protection of workers. But we know the reality—that this bill is about union power over business owners and managers. We know that the Labor government does not believe that Australian business owners should have the right or freedom to run their own businesses. This is the real reason we are here and the real reason that Labor members are vocal in their support—not because they are looking after the interests of workers but because they are looking after, or appear to be looking after, the political interests of union leaders. After all, preselections are on the line. BLF secretary David Hanna was quoted in the Australian on 16 December 2011:

Workers will continue to take whatever action, be it legal or illegal, to get their message across.

No wonder members of the building and construction industry are concerned about the consequences of what is contained in this bill and what effect this will have on their ability to run their businesses and do the jobs they are there to do. This industry is important right across Australia. It employs one million Australians and contributes 10 per cent to our GDP. So any impacts will be felt right across our economy. What we saw in that statement may well be what is ahead, as a result of measures contained in this bill.

As I said when I started this speech, every Australian, whether they are an employer or an employee, deserves to be able to go to their workplace and operate in a safe and lawful environment. I fear that members opposite do not support this. The Labor government is repeatedly punishing the people who have a go, who invest their own money, who borrow against their homes and who employ millions of Australians and are helping others to get ahead. There is now a widespread belief that this Labor government is anti-business. I am concerned that they will sacrifice hardworking business owners through policies like the ones in this bill, for the express purpose of enhancing the power of union leaders and definitely not with the aim of achieving sound reform, jobs growth, productivity improvements and economic growth.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. I have just listened to the member for Forrest. It is very easy to paint a one-sided view of a situation, as she has just done. I am sure workers in the construction industry around Australia would willingly come into this place and tell a story different from the one we have just heard from the member for Forrest. I am well aware that, in the Cole royal commission, their view was that their voice had not been properly heard. I am not in a position to judge that one way or the other but I am in a position to make the comment on their behalf that they felt they did not get a fair hearing. From the transcripts which are available, I believe the record will show that they are probably correct.

I come back to some of the very issues related to this bill, to that commission and to the new legislation, which touch upon the very reasons this legislation is good legislation and the reasons this government believes in fairness for workers and industry across this country. I make this comment with respect to the comments by the member for Forrest and others when they talk about the influence of some of the unions, making allegations as to corruption or similar by people involved in them. It takes two parties to get involved in corrupt activity. It is not simply a one-sided affair. Yet when you look at the record, it appears that the focus is always towards one group only and that is the workers.

I believe the extraordinary attack on workers' rights by the Howard government was a key factor in the ultimate downfall of the Howard government and in Prime Minister Howard's loss of his own seat. Like Prime Minister Stanley Bruce before him, who lost his seat in 1929, Prime Minister Howard had turned his back on Australian workers. Peter Reith's waterfront debacle of the late 1990s, the Work Choices legislation and the establishment of the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commission were part of a warped ideology to turn back the clock on fair working conditions that had been hard won over decades of struggles and to destroy unions. It is as simple as that. Those attacks were un-Australian and Australians knew it. The members opposite know that as well. That is why they will not mention the term Work Choices any more. Their leader wants the term 'dead, buried and cremated', at least in name; I do not believe in substance.

Australians are pretty easygoing people, but they believe in a fair go. The ABCC legislation was everything but that. It was legislation that was not only an assault on workers' conditions but an assault on human rights—human rights which Australia has agreed to as a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Australians have fought and died for the freedoms and fairness that Work Choices, the ABCC and the waterfront events sought to take away from them. When the ABCC was established in 2005, following the Cole royal commission, it was intended to intimidate and break organised labour in Australia.

The Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 creates the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate to regulate the building and construction industry. This new agency will replace the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner. It renames the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 as the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act 2011 and either repeals or amends many of the BCII Act's provisions. The bill implements key recommendations of the Transition to Fair Work Australia for the building and construction industry report by the Hon. Murray Wilcox QC. It is interesting that the member for Forrest referred to the Cole royal commission but made no reference to the report by the Hon. Murray Wilcox, who also makes some very pertinent comments regarding the ABCC legislation. Conveniently, they were left out.

With the exception of minor non-policy changes such as the inclusion of changes resulting from amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act, the bill is the same as that introduced during the previous parliament. The bill removes existing higher penalties for building industry participants for breaches of industrial law and introduces safeguards in relation to the power to compulsorily obtain information and documents. The bill creates the office of Independent Assessor, who may, on application by stakeholders, determine that compulsory information-gathering powers will not apply to a project. The new regulator will also provide information, advice and assistance to all building industry participants regarding their rights and obligations under law, as well as seek to improve the standard of occupational health and safety in the building and construction industry. The bill includes a three-year sunset provision for the compulsory information-gathering powers. A review will occur prior to the sunset of compulsory information-gathering powers. I note that the bill does not impact on the provisions that establish the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner and the Occupational Health And Safety Accreditation Scheme.

Criticism of the former Howard government's ABCC has not just come from the labour movement in Australia and the wider Australian community. There has also been international condemnation of the coercive powers of the ABCC and its targeting of building unions. The International Labour Organisation, the United Nations body charged with looking after workers' rights, has raised its concerns on a number of occasions. The ILO's Committee of Experts is an eminent body of labour jurists. Early last year, this committee circulated the following statement:

… the manner in which the ABCC carries out its activities seems to have led to the exclusion of workers in the building and construction industry from the protection that the labour inspection system ought to secure for these workers under the applicable laws …

The ILO's concerns were very well illustrated by the Ark Tribe case in South Australia. I am reasonably familiar with that case because I followed it from day one. The Ark Tribe trial was pivotal in further raising community awareness of the ABCC's potential to encroach on the industrial and human rights of Australian workers.

In 2008, Ark Tribe attended a safety meeting at a construction site in Adelaide. At that meeting, ongoing safety concerns at the site were discussed by workers and a union investigation into conditions was carried out before workers returned to their work. The ABCC then summoned Ark Tribe to a meeting in order to determine the legality of workers' actions. When Ark Tribe refused to attend, prosecutors for the ABCC commenced legal proceedings against him. Ark Tribe was not a union official or a union delegate. A large protest was held when court proceedings took place. Several hundred people were present for the first day of the trial on 15 June 2010, including prominent international civil rights campaigners Gerry Conlon and Paddy Hill. Industrial rights are, after all, civil rights—that is, human rights.

On 24 November 2010, Ark Tribe was cleared of the charges against him—charges which should never have been laid. Ark Tribe should never have been subjected to the intimidation and injustice which he had been put through. I am pleased to see that the courts came to the same conclusion and cleared him of those charges.

In 2007, the government made a commitment that, if elected, it would replace the ABCC with a new body to provide a balanced framework for cooperative and productive workplace relations in the building and construction industry.

The construction industry contains unique challenges for both employers and employees. Nobody denies that. Too many Australians die on building and construction sites each and every year and hundreds more are injured, and that has been the case for decades and decades. Building workers have been exposed workplace dangers associated with unsafe work practices, unsafe worksites and unsafe building materials. Poor scaffolding, working from heights, the danger of structural collapse, exposure to dust, asbestos, hazardous chemicals and even extreme weather conditions have taken their toll on the lives of construction workers and on their families for decades and decades. Indeed, much of Australia has literally been built on the blood, sweat and tears of construction workers. Labor supports a strong building industry regulator to ensure lawful conduct by all parties. But it does not support laws that deny workers basic rights, like being represented by a lawyer of their choice.

The context for changes was further developed late last year when Qantas Airways grounded its fleet. In the future we may well reflect on this incident as an important moment for industrial relations in Australia. Currently, if Qantas's action is held to be illegal industrial action under the Fair Work Act, the maximum fine it would face would be one-third of the maximum fine the CFMEU could face for taking illegal industrial action on building sites. Where is the fairness in that? The widespread public criticism of Qantas's action suggests that our industrial relations body should be designed to achieve greater conciliation instead of having coercive or litigious functions.

In conclusion, I have tried to summarise the importance of this bill, and I know that there is still some concern with it in respect of the coercive powers. I also know that those powers have been limited to the extent that there have to be certain processes before they can be applied. I believe that a reasonable balance has been struck in respect to them. However, I believe that this bill corrects an injustice that currently exists in Australian industrial laws, whereby some people are treated as lesser than other people—in other words, there is currently discrimination in the laws that apply to workers in this country, and this bill seeks to rectify that. I commend the bill to the House.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011, and I take issue with the previous speaker. The bill is not about trying to outlaw organised labour in this country. It is about trying to deal with illegal activity by organised labour in this country, and in particular in the building industry.

The bill will do three things: it is going to hurt Australia's productivity; it is going to set up a new body that, sadly, will be a toothless tiger; and, it will give more power to the new workplace relations minister, which is like putting a kid in charge of the candy store, or, to put it another way, like putting a factional boss in charge of determining the Labor leadership—it will be a debacle.

Let us turn to the issue of productivity. The ABCC has been a tough cop on the beat, but it has required a tough cop on the beat to deal with the issues identified by a royal commission. The inquiry that led to the formation of the ABCC was not a normal one—it was a royal commission. Since the ABCC was set up we have seen building and construction industry productivity increase by 10 per cent; it has provided an annual economic welfare gain of $5.5 billion per year; it has reduced inflation by 1.2 per cent and increased GDP by 1.5 per cent; and the number of working days lost annually per 1,000 employees in the construction industry has fallen from 224 in 2004 to 24 in 2006. At the same time, building costs have fallen by 20 to 25 per cent and long project delays have been dramatically reduced.

At a time when the Australian economy is struggling, due to the incompetence of this Labor government, the last thing we need is another step in the direction of lessening Australia's productivity. That is what this bill will do. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry summed it up quite nicely in the letter they wrote to the secretary of the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee when this bill was being looked at. They took the opportunity to thank the committee for having the inquiry and noted:

The outcome of the Bill is a matter of particular significance, not just for the building and construction sector, but for the broader Australian economy. Approximately one million Australians work in the building and construction industry. Their output contributes around 10% of Australia's GDP.

This issue is dealing with 10 per cent of Australia's GDP. You want to harm the productivity in 10 per cent of Australia's GDP. This decision will lead to long-term consequences for the Australian community. You should think again about having kowtowed to the Greens and having agreed to go down this path.

This was emphasised by the minister in his second reading speech on 3 November 2011 when he indicated:

The building and construction industry remains a critical sector of our economy, with immediate and direct impact on jobs, growth and productivity. This was particularly so during the global economic recession, during which the government's Nation Building and Jobs Plan ensured that the Australian economy remained one of the strongest in the developed world.

The minister continued:

The government understands that the industry contains unique challenges for both employers and employees, and as a result we have always supported a strong building industry regulator to ensure lawful conduct by all parties.

The minister then went on for a few more paragraphs detailing why the industry is so important.

However, the only effective response has come from the establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This concerns dealing with the illegal activities that have existed in this industry. It has had a dramatic impact on the industry and on the sorts of behaviour and attitudes we have referred to. The impact has been quantified in a range of different ways, in particular by significant reductions in lost time in the industry and big improvements in productivity and efficiency, estimated at more than $5.5 billion per annum.

The decision taken by the Howard government to set up the ABCC was not a liked one. To have a royal commission look into an industry requires a lot of evidence that something drastic needs to occur. That is exactly what the Cole royal commission found. What has been the result of the Cole royal commission? We have seen the ABCC set up and we have seen huge productivity increases come out of the sector. But we should not now say to ourselves, 'Okay, the job is done,' because the evidence is still there that it is not. There have been productivity increases, but all the alarm bells are there. If we reduce the amount of regulation in the industry at the moment then the illegal activity will grow once again, and, sadly, we are seeing examples of that in Victoria, and we have seen it in the last few years. Just when we are getting on top of this issue, what does this Labor government want to do? It wants to step in and put at risk all the gains that we have made.

Getting to the second point, what they are replacing the ABCC with is a toothless tiger. I will turn to what the Australian Industry Group had to say about this.

A government member: Who have you got?

We have got ACCI; we have got the Australia Industry Group. What I am trying to do here is give a balanced perspective.

Government members interjecting—

All right, so we should not have business in Australia, should we?

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members on my right will cease interjecting. The member for Wannon has the call.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to listen to those interjecting from the other side that we should just have the union bosses ruling the country. They have done a great job with their factional people here in this parliament, haven't they! Look at the unholy mess they have got us in at the moment. We have got a Prime Minister who cannot be trusted, we have got the Minister for Foreign Affairs trying to seek her job and we have got a factional impasse because no-one knows who should lead the country.

Government members interjecting—

That is right. We should just let the big union bosses rule everything! What we are trying to do here is make sure that illegal activity by organised labour does not get out of control, especially in the building and construction industry. What are you going to replace the ABCC with? Sadly, a toothless tiger. The AiG says:

The compulsory examination powers are needed at the present time as much as ever. While the reforms introduced after the Royal Commission addressed the unlawful and inappropriate conduct that permeated the industry, industrial unrest and disputation has been steadily increasing in the industry and damaging and unproductive industrial relations practices have been creeping back onto building and construction sites across Australia.

They go on to quote the foreword to the annual report of the ABCC for the financial year ending 30 June 2011, in which the ABC Commissioner, Leigh Johns, identified that:

During 2010-11, unlawful industrial disputes, the traditional ‘bread-and-butter’ work of the ABCC, continued to occur at levels that underscored the need for strong enforcement of workplace laws. The pernicious effects of unlawful industrial action are unacceptable, particularly so on projects of social and national significance like the Monash Freeway, the Melbourne Markets relocation, Gold Coast University Hospital or the Wonthaggi Desalination Plant.

One only has to look at the record days lost on the desalinisation plant in Victoria to see why the ABCC needs to remain and needs to continue to do its job.

The new body that has been established within Fair Work Australia to replace the incredibly successful Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner is not an independent body. So not only will it be toothless but it is not an independent body. It is controlled by the minister. And who is our new minister? Where does he come from? How independent will he be? How objective will he be? We have got the kid back in control of the candy store. That is what this bill will do. What we will see is a complete imbalance in the way these issues are dealt with. The sad fact is that ultimately that will lead to a productivity decline in this country. That is the last thing that we need at the moment. Our manufacturing sector is about to get hit by one of the biggest hits to their productivity that you could imagine—the carbon tax. This is especially so in the state of Victoria because it is going to impact on power, which is the competitive advantage that our industries and especially our manufacturers in Victoria have over our international competitors. Combine that now with this bill.

Those opposite, and I have been listening to their speeches as they have gone on, have said that all this will do is redress an imbalance. Yet no-one has been through and systematically examined what the Cole royal commission found—the intimidation and the thuggery, and the fact that if there was not some sort of body set up with powers to deal directly with it that none of this would stop. Even though we have had the ABCC there, we have still seen examples of this occurring. So why won't the government allow it to finish its job? Why don't they make sure that it has all been stamped out? It is illegal activity that we are trying to get rid of here. It is not, as those opposite say, designed to get rid of organised labour in this country. It is designed to get rid of the illegal activity. Those on the other side should be supporting the work that the ABCC is doing, because the more we can do to stamp out this type of activity the better it will be across the nation for organised labour in general. The coalition strongly opposes the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. In many ways the title of the bill is a complete misnomer. Sadly, at a time when we should be looking to do everything we can to increase the productivity of this nation, it will do the exact opposite. It will set up a body which they have deliberately given no teeth to. Basically, it will become an irrelevant bureaucracy—another one created by the government. Not only that; it gives power not to an independent body but back to the minister and, as we know, the new minister is going to find it very difficult to be independent and objective. He will be dealing with his union mates and he will be conflicted in trying to continue to stamp out illegal activity. I would hope the starting point that we can all agree on when it comes to this bill would be that there is no place for illegal activity anywhere in the Australian economy and in particular the building and construction industry.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My contribution to this debate on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 will be brief. I have to observe that the contributions from those on the other side have been really revealing about what lies in their hearts and their obsessions when it comes to industrial relations. The bill has a long history, dating back to at least 2001, when in the lead-up to an election the then Prime Minister, John Howard, established the Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, whose singular purpose was to demonise the union movement in general and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union in particular. The government never really made any secret that this was its singular objective in commissioning the Cole royal commission. Unfortunately, the government's real objective was to ensure that the evidence would be horrifying and that it would assist it in moving through its next raft of industrial relations changes after the 2001 election. Unfortunately for the government, the evidence before the commission was at times unhelpful to that cause.

The evidence before the commission found that by world standards we have a very efficient construction industry, and in some respects we are leading by way of world's best practice.

Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—

My friend in the chamber makes the observation that there were no convictions arising out of the royal commission. It did find that there was corruption in the industry and a significant amount of corruption by certain employers within the industry. It was a tough and rough industry and from time to time some practices went on that would be condemned by all members of this House. But to say that poor practice was solely the result of union activity is a complete furphy and a misrepresentation of any of the evidence that was put before the Cole royal commission.

It also found—and this never got much attention and certainly never got any action from the Howard government—that there were systemic breaches and systemic failures in adhering to occupational health and safety standards and regulations within the building industry. If the Howard government had put as much energy into chasing that rabbit down that hole, then there would probably be a few more workers in this industry and workplaces who had not suffered the terrible injuries that occur on an all too often basis within the building and construction industry.

The debate in this chamber today shows the obsession of the Liberal Party and the coalition with harsh industrial relations laws, union bashing and their love of Work Choices. Whilst they have attempted to put them in the closet from time to time, when debates like this come before the House they cannot help themselves. We have seen that from the frantic, if not hysterical, debate from the member for Wannon. What is absolutely astounding is that the loudest voices and the most ill-informed comments, I wager, have come most often from those members of the House who have never been anywhere near a building site and who do not know what it is like to work in the building and construction industry—which, as I have said, is a tough industry.

I am pleased to be speaking in favour of the legislation before this House, but I will make one qualification to that. The legislation abolishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission and absorbs those functions into the functions of Fair Work Australia. It ensures that there will still be a tough cop on the beat. It ensures that there will still be strong regulatory arrangements in the building and construction industry, extending beyond the obsessions of those on the other side but going directly to issues of health and safety and to issues of employer breaches and scams that regularly affect subcontractors within the industry. The legislation ensures these practices are wiped out as well.

If I have a reservation, it stems from my background in the law. My concern is that the bill does not yet deal with the issue of compelled evidence. I understand that this is the result of commitments that we made in the lead-up to the 2010 election and, as a member of this place and this party, I stand squarely behind the policy commitments and the provisions of this bill. But I do raise the reservation—and it stems from hundreds of years of legal practice—that courts should be very wary indeed about accepting the probity and the availability of compelled evidence. If we have learnt anything over hundreds of years of legal practice, there are deep concerns within the legal community of accepting the probative value of compelled evidence. I am hoping that some time in the future, with the experience of the new functions being absorbed within Fair Work Australia, and improved practices within the building and construction industry, we may be able to revisit this matter in this place in the interests of all. I commend the legislation to the House.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister made a number of promises to the Australian people before the 2007 and 2010 elections. She promised that she would be economically prudent, and yet her Treasurer has delivered four deficits of more than $167 billion in total and a gross debt ceiling of $250 billion. She promised not to introduce a carbon tax only days before the election and then broke that promise. She promised that that no Australian worker would be worse off as a result of her industrial relations laws and that her reforms would not have a negative impact on productivity or our nation's economy—another broken promise. The government's changes have wound back the industrial relations clock, not just to a time before Work Choices but to a time before Hawke and Keating. The Prime Minister also promised that she would have a 'tough cop on the beat' in the building and construction industry. Today, I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 that is before this House. This bill breaks that last promise, the latest broken promise in a long list of the Prime Minister's broken promises.

When the Prime Minister brought in her Fair Work Act she said it would 'increase productivity'. We hear from the Prime Minister and Treasurer on a repeated basis that productivity is the key to this nation's prosperity and that we must increase our productivity to ensure that our nation grows. We on this side of the chamber agree with this. Productivity-enhancing reform is, as the Chairman of the Productivity Commission has so rightly stated, 'the mainstay of economic progress'. No doubt we will hear again from the other side of the chamber that this legislation is also supposedly 'productivity enhancing'. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.

In the September quarter we saw that that GDP per hour worked was lower than in the last quarter of the coalition government. This is a decline, not simply a slowing in the rate of growth. The coalition government delivered an increase of more than 25 per cent in GDP per hours worked in our 11 years. The Labor-Greens government has seen a fall in GDP per hours worked in less than four years. Annual productivity growth has gone from on average 1.2 per cent during our time in government to -0.9 per cent during the Labor-Greens government.

A tough cop on the beat is critical in the construction and building industry. The Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner is that tough cop on the beat. It was born out of the Cole royal commission which, 10 years ago, investigated the lawlessness, thuggery, intimidation and corruption that existed as part of the entrenched culture on construction sites—a culture that saw itself as above the law and, in the words of the commission 'flagrantly' breached the law without any thought of consequence. Examples brought before the commission ranged from unlawful entry of sites by union officials to violence, obstruction of building sites and payments by builders to the unions for industrial peace. One such example in WA saw a builder pay more than $1.5 million for so-called casual tickets to WA's CFMEU. When the Cole commission followed the money trail it could only trace $500,000—the rest of the money to the CFMEU simply disappeared. These examples were commonplace and have more in common with organised crime than a 21st century construction industry. This culture significantly increases the cost of building and the flow-on economic effects are enormous.

In the time that the ABCC has been operating the benefits of a strong watchdog for the construction industry are clear. According to research undertaken by KPMG Econtech, since the inception of the ABCC productivity in the sector has risen by 10 per cent, there has been an economic welfare gain of $5.5 billion per year, inflation has been reduced by 1.2 per cent, GDP has increased by 1.5 per cent and it has helped facilitate significant reductions in days lost through industrial action.

Significantly, the powers of the ABCC have led to successful court action, with more than $2.5 in penalties imposed by the courts in the last financial year. Most recently, two unions and a number of union officials have been fined more than $1.3 million by the courts for obstruction, violence and intimidation on the Westgate Bridge project. Yet this Labor-Greens government plans to unwind these economic and workplace reforms by shifting power away from the independent umpire back to the unions. The legislation before this House will make a eunuch of the ABCC and will guarantee three things: a decrease in productivity; that the unions dictate the terms on which the construction industry operates; and a return of the old school practices of delay, intimidation and union payoffs for industrial peace and increased costs.

Like everyone in this chamber I meet regularly with people from different industries. At a recent meeting I was told by several builders that they had been coerced into 'advertising' in a union magazine. They told me this was standard practice so as to avoid their sites being shut down through guerrilla tactics or equipment failing to turn up. This, they considered, was a cost of doing business.

The abolition of the ABCC in its current form will ensure that some of the more nefarious activities will return in force. I wish to highlight five key ways in which this legislation will damage the construction industry. Firstly, the bill strips power from the ABCC's replacement body, the Building Industry Inspectorate, by enshrining in law that the minister has the power to issue directions as to how, where and when it should go about performing its functions. Given the serious unanswered questions about potential government interference in the Craig Thomson saga, this is a retrograde step.

Secondly, by lifting the test for what is a 'lawful' strike we will start to see an increase in trivial strikes action, the kind of strikes that were rampant at the Wonthaggi desalination plant.

Thirdly, reducing the penalty for unlawful strikes will remove the disincentive for unlawful industrial action. We can see through the Westgate Bridge case that there is a need for tough penalties for those who do not comply with the law, with over $1.3 million of fines being ordered by the ABCC. In that case, workers needed to be moved by an ex-army troop carrier in and out of the site to ensure their safety. We should never forget employers are also entitled to their rights, including their right to conduct business without the threat of intimidation or reprisal. Employees are also entitled to their rights—the right to a safe workplace free from threats and intimidation. The unions would have us believe that the right of unions to go about their business should be paramount, but it is not. Rights are not a one-way street.

The increase in red tape for compulsory information-gathering powers and a sunset clause after five years will see these powers used rarely, if at all, and a return to retribution actions taken against anyone who speaks out about the culture on construction sites. The fact that the sunset clause will not even be reviewed before being removed indicates that the real motivations behind these changes are to silence critics of union thuggery, violence and intimidation. Reduction of building inspectorate powers to investigate by allowing such powers to be switched off means that the building inspectorate will not have the freedom and independence to investigate all complaints.

Make no mistake; this legislation is simply to allow the Prime Minister to pander to the union leaders that installed her and nothing to do with making Australia a better or more prosperous nation. The union campaign in support of the election of this Labor government in 2007 amounted to more than $36,430,588 in direct donations and political expenditure. In 2010 it amounted to $24,578,719. The Greens member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, received more than $360,000 across both elections as a direct donation from the CFMEU, ETU and AMWU. Labor and the Greens are not interested in maintaining law and order on work sites and improving the economic welfare of the nation but are instead keen, through this legislation, to pay back their union masters.

While I do not doubt that Labor will continue to receive the hard earned money of union members, such as those from the Health Services Union, the Greens pretend that they are on a higher moral plane. If the member for Melbourne and the Greens leader, Bob Brown, were true to their high-minded rhetoric and so-called high standards regarding political donations, they ought to hand this money back. But I bet they will not. The Greens simply set standards for others, never for themselves.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it cannot be parliamentary conduct in this place to allege someone has received sums of money that they have not received.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must admit I have only just arrived in the chair. I will just say to the member for Higgins that, if she is going to make an allegation about someone, she should do it by a substantive motion.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Melbourne can correct the record after question time if he feels that he has been misrepresented. I will continue. The Greens simply set standards for others, never for themselves. The leader of the Greens and the member for Melbourne talk about rights, but will not ensure the rights of workers to be free from thuggery and intimidation on building and construction sites.

The coalition has a proud record of increasing the productivity of the nation whilst maintaining world's-best-practice working conditions. I stand by our record of productivity gains on the waterfront. I stand by the productivity gains that the ABCC was making in the construction industry. The unions and their political wing, the Labor Party, will consistently cry foul that any productivity gain equates to a reduction in labour standards. But I defy anyone in this chamber to name one other country that has working and wage conditions at the standard Australia has. We truly are the lucky country.

I do not stand alone in pointing out the flaws in the government's plan to abolish the ABCC. It is not just this side of the chamber that has been sounding the warning bell on what this bill would mean for industrial disputation and increased cost in the construction industry. The government's favourite business adviser, the CEO of the Australian Industry Group, Heather Ridout, warned:

Unless a strong, well-resourced regulator and strong legislation is maintained, the risks associated with industrial lawlessness will again be priced into construction contracts, at great cost to project owners, including governments, and the Australian community,

Let me interpret that statement for the benefit of the House: the abolition of the ABCC will be a throwback to the old days of union militancy, industry disruption, kickbacks and intimidation in the construction industry.

Construction managers are also expressing concern over the fact that the abolition of the ABCC will have a particular impact on small to medium firms that cannot defend themselves from the aggressive actions of the more militant unions. Gerry Hanssen from Perth based construction firm Hanssen Pty Ltd has warned that, should the ABCC be abolished, the corruption and standover tactics will be 'back in a flash'.

As with the Treasurer's comments in relation to productivity, the government know how to talk the talk but so rarely do they walk the walk. In the time since the Prime Minister introduced the Fair Work Act, union activism and industrial disputation has increased. In the June 2011 quarter, working days lost due to disputation jumped from 19,700 in the previous quarter to 66,200. In the September quarter it increased again to a staggering 101,300 days. That is a 500 per cent increase in two quarters. This should concern all in this chamber and everyone who simply wants to contribute to building a stronger economy and a better nation. John Mullen, CEO of port operator Asciano Ltd, has cautioned that, 'In the current industrial climate, the country is going backwards.' These are all very dire predictions of where this country is heading and the abolition of the ABCC is a giant leap in that direction.

The government's response to any analysis or criticism of its Fair Work Act is to mount a scare campaign, flogging again the dead horse of Work Choices. But this is wearing thin, like so much of the government's rhetoric. It is plain that the industrial relations system in this country has gone backwards and unless the government starts to address the concerns that are raised by businesses, both big and small, and their employees, there will be ever-increasing industrial action, unrest at the workplace and decreased productivity. The best way the government can start to address this issue is by abandoning this legislation and keeping the ABCC with its full powers.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is easy to see that the member for Higgins is a strong advocate for Work Choices. If there is any reason that we should doubt the sincerity of those on the other side of this House, it is the contribution by the member for Higgins. Firstly, she made a point of saying that there will be no review, and it is in the legislation that there will be a review. That is not being completely up-front or honest with the people of Australia or with this House. She also made a statement that the member for Melbourne received a highly inflated amount of money from unions. Not true. Is it right that a person can come into this House and make statements that really are not true?

I believe this legislation is overdue. It will repeal the excesses of the Howard government's extreme industrial relations agenda. The Howard government's agenda was to crush unions and remove the right of workers, and the ABCC was the draconian body it established to do that in the construction industry. The ABCC legislation was the brainchild of Peter Reith, the industrial relations minister who used dogs and armed guards on the wharves of Australia in his government's efforts to crush the MUA.

The Labor government appreciates the role unions play in protecting the rights of workers in Australia, just as we appreciate the role employers play. Both parties are important. On this side of the House we know that unions provide protection for workers just as employer bodies protect the rights of employers. It is about balance—both sides make an enormous contribution.

I have listened to speakers on the other side of the House talk about increases in productivity: 10 per cent, the previous speaker said. Productivity increase is important. But over the same period of time there has been over a four per cent increase in the rate of death on construction sites. Is productivity to be gained at the price of lives? That is the question I have for the member for Higgins, who has now left the chamber. The Howard government did not recognise that there was a need for balance, and that is why it introduced its Work Choices law—which the member for Higgins is so supportive of—which attacked all workers' rights and was harsh and oppressive. It was the zealots in this parliament who sought to squash workers in the building industry and take away their basic rights.

The Howard government's ABCC saw workers like Ark Tribe dragged before the courts with a strong prospect of being imprisoned, simply because he refused to attend an interview in what was nothing more than an inquisition, whilst employers were given a slap over the wrist for breaching occupational health and safety laws. So it was really a double standard that was created under the ABCC. We had an increase in unsafe practices in workplaces, an increase in deaths and injuries. Everyone in this parliament knows that the construction industry is one of the four most dangerous industries, along with agriculture, forestry and mining. When you have a dangerous industry you really need to make sure that occupational health and safety laws are adhered to. Under the ABCC, safety practices were allowed to deteriorate. More workers were injured as a consequence. We on this side of the House realise that you need a balanced approach, and the changes we have before us today are about balance. However, on the other side of the chamber they only listen to the employers. They make no mention of safety; it is all about productivity. If they do mention safety they mention it not for the workers but as a way of denigrating workers in the construction industry. On this side of the House we value safety, we value workers and we value employers.

I will need to shorten my contribution to this debate to ensure that everybody has an opportunity to speak. I would like to briefly put before the House that this legislation is at the heart of the Labor Party's new workplace relations system. We understand that there are unique challenges within the construction industry and we think that this will balance those issues. The ABCC needs to be replaced. Any body that is as oppressive as the ABCC, any body that looks at only one side of the equation and any body that has led to workers ending up in court with the prospect of being jailed simply because they do not attend an interview is not a fair body. We are about fairness—we are about making sure that both employers' and workers' rights are respected.

The position that has been adopted by the government and incorporated in the legislation has been examined by independent legal expert Murray Wilcox QC, and his recommendations have been taken into account in the development of the legislation. There is a sunset clause that will come into play after three years, allowing time for the legislation to take effect. The opposition are not at all interested in a fair workplace. They are not interested in a workplace that has appropriate regulations, where all parties in the building industry have rights. They are interested in work sites in an industry in which it is a one-sided equation, where only the employers—the big companies—have a say; they are the only ones who have a right to be heard. Whilst we respect and appreciate the role that builders and employers play in the construction industry, we know that the construction industry is a very important part of our economy. We want to see it thrive. In my own electorate, it is a very important industry. But we also know that workers in that industry need protection. We know that, in any industry, laws that are so draconian that they are oppressive—in the way that those introduced by the Howard government, which established the ABCC, are—are bad laws.

You only have to come to this chamber and listen to members on the other side of the House distorting facts, not being totally truthful about what the legislation includes and not really portraying the true picture. To have a strong industry, a vibrant industry, you have to respect your workers. You have to have work sites that are safe. If you have an industry that knows it does not have to value its workers, if you have a construction industry where safety can be bypassed and if you have an industry in which workers are constantly in fear of retribution if they speak up, then you do not have things working properly. In saying that, I acknowledge that there are some very good employers who do not cut any corners.

I will leave my contribution there. I recommend and support the legislation before the parliament today and I will be very pleased to see the end of the ABCC.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a good reason the coalition established the Australian Building and Construction Commission in 2005. As with most things the Howard government did, it was based on solid evidence, a community and industry need, as well as on facts. That was the way of the Howard administration: clear, careful and considered policies thought through and implemented in the national interest.

In the past four-and-a-bit years, and certainly since the current Prime Minister took over, we have seen the complete opposite. Ill-conceived, knee-jerk decision making at the behest of minorities are anything but in the national interest. The Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 falls into this typical Labor category. The coalition strongly opposes this bill. We believe that every Australian, whether an employer or an employee, deserves to be able to go to their workplace and operate in an atmosphere where basic law and order is enforced. That goes without saying, and I take exception to the member for Shortland having a go at the coalition, saying that we do not believe in fairness or in safety. Those issues are paramount. We do not distort facts and we do not betray people.

The bill abolishes the body that ensures that law and order is enforced in the building and construction industry. We know why Labor is so keen to bring about an end to the ABCC, and that is because they are beholden to their union mates. They are beholden to the union hierarchy who use hard earned union fees to go on to work sites and into workplaces, close down productivity and put red tape and bureaucracy in front of employers.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why would they do that?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can yell all you like but this is a fact. I was speaking to a Wagga Wagga builder tonight and he said: 'We don't need the thuggery of unions on our work sites. Unions are fine but everything should be in moderation. We want to be able to get on with doing what we do best and that is building homes, constructing buildings and doing it with good productivity and the ability to hire apprentices.' But this bill will not enable that productivity and will not enable builders to continue to hire workers in the sorts of ways that they are with the construction commission in place as it is now.

The commission was introduced in 2005 in response to the Cole royal commission, which found that the building and construction industry was rife with a complete disregard for the law. It catalogued more than 100 types of unlawful and inappropriate conduct. In today's workplaces and in this day and age we cannot have that. The member opposite might want that but the building industry cannot afford it and the national interest does not need it. The commission also found that existing regulatory bodies had insufficient powers and resources to enforce the law. That is why the Howard government introduced the Australian Building and Construction Commission. But Labor would demolish all that; the Prime Minister would demolish all that.

It is so interesting that the Prime Minister wants to do that. We have heard only today how the Prime Minister, when she was the shadow minister for health, said that insurance rebates were part of the family's budget, yet today we see the private health insurance rebate thrown straight out the window. When the Prime Minister was the education minister she took away independent youth allowance. And now the Prime Minister and the Labor Party want to take away the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which is doing its job and doing a very good job.

This bill will strip away the protections that enable workers to work in a safe and lawful environment. The replacement agency will, unfortunately, be a toothless tiger which will again roll out the red carpet to lawlessness, thuggery and violence. The new body that has been established within Fair Work Australia to replace the very successful office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner will not be, and is not, an independent body. It is controlled by the minister. It is not going to be what we would call a strong cop on the beat.

We need to have measures in place that enable fairness and safety. That is why we have the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It is doing its job; it is doing a good job. There are examples upon examples of what happened prior to 2005, before the coalition took the tough decision to return the building and construction industry to law and order. In August 2001, the Howard government established the Cole royal commission to look into what was in fact happening in the building industry. Commissioner Cole reported in March 2003, and the report catalogued, as I said, more than 100 different types of unlawful conduct in that sector. The Cole royal commission examples included payments being made to the CFMEU in Western Australia of more than $1½ million for so-called casual tickets, which is basically money paid in return for industrial peace on sites where not all workers were members of the union. What a disgrace! The Cole commission found that, of the $1½ million that had been paid, only $500,000 could be traced. So $1 million of this money paid to the CFMEU had just disappeared. That would be of no surprise to those opposite because money that is in the budget for all sorts of things just disappears. This is a government with—

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You weren't too vocal on the Wheat Board.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You mention the Wheat Board. We will not start about the Wheat Board, because let me tell you that has been an absolute disaster. You can speak to any wheat grower in my electorate of Riverina and they will tell you how bad the wheat situation is going following deregulation. I would not start on that if I were you.

If you want to take a sneak peek at what is about to be unleashed, have a look at the Wonthaggi desalination plant in Victoria. I am a little bit dubious about desalination plants at the best of times, because we have more water than we need, but we tend to want to turn sea water back into fresh water so we can use it. Every time I go to Sydney it rains, but we have no policies to build new dams. Every time I go to Sydney it rains, it pours out to the ocean, and at the desalination plant put there at the behest of the Labor government they try to turn it back into useable water. Go-slows at Wonthaggi desalination plant have delayed the project by up to four months. It lost 193 days due to industrial action—this was an example that the Cole royal commission came up with. This is what happens when the cop on the beat is not doing his job or does not have the powers to be able to do his job. Imagine this replicated right across the country.

Regional Australia is doing it tough enough, and builders in regional Australia are doing it tough enough, because investment is on hold. In the city of Griffith in my electorate of Riverina, since the Murray-Darling Basin Authority brought out its infamous and ill-fated guide to the Basin Plan, a company which had sold 62 homes in the 12 months leading up to the release of that report in October 2010 has not sold or built one house since. The builders of that company have had either to shift or to move town, or they are just out of a job.

It is tough enough for the building industry, and this is replicated right across regional Australia, yet builders in those towns who are actually working on homes and buildings for businesses are once more going to be at the behest of unions. They are going to be at the behest of union bosses—these thugs who are going to come onto their worksites and tell them what to do and how to do it. There will be stop work meetings, and you can see it happening all over again. The CFMEU will be up to its old tricks, with a weakened regulator still in place. Just imagine what is going to happen on building sites when the construction police tie up the hands of employers and companies to the point where it will be, 'Hammers and screwdrivers down!' We are going to be seeing union thuggery at its worst in this country again.

This bill is a ploy by the Prime Minister to bring the unions and the Labor Left onside to save her leadership—nothing more, nothing less. Employers right across my electorate of Riverina are worried about this. They have written letters to me. Workers are going to be worried about it, too—

Mr Neumann interjecting—

You can complain all you like, but workers are worried about it, too. Workers in regional Australia just want a job. They just want a job as an apprentice, they just want a job on a working site, and they want to be paid fairly. They want fair conditions. They want safe conditions. That is imperative, and that is possible under the current commission. What they do not want is to always be told to put down tools. They do not want some union thug telling them that they cannot do this and they cannot do that.

In most places, as even the member for Shortland admitted, many employers are very good employers in very good companies. A lot of them are family owned and they treat their workers like their own. You are going to get bad workers in any environment, and bad employers too—that is just the nature of the beast—but the ABCC is doing its job. It is doing a good regulatory job and it is stopping those unions from having their way with companies, bringing down productivity and putting in place negative factors which would stop otherwise reputable companies and employers from hiring people.

That is why the coalition is dead against the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. Even the wording of the bill is a little bit like the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill this morning, with the word 'fairness' in it. Here we have the word 'improvement' and the phrase 'transition to fair work' in the name of the bill. It is almost editorialising at its worst. That bill was not about fairness in private health insurance, just like this bill is not about improvement. This is a bill which shows that the Prime Minister is beholden to the Greens. It shows that the Prime Minister is beholden to the unions, who we know pay her way and pay Labor's way to keeping their flimsy government intact.

This bill is not in the national interest. If it were in the national interest, then it would have been done many years ago. It is not in the national interest; it is only in the unions' interest. That is why the coalition opposes the bill and that is why it should not be passed.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we have seen in this debate on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill is the facade being ripped away from the coalition's cultivated attempt to give an impression that they have changed their attitude since they lost power in this country in the area of industrial relations. We have had all the leaks from the Leader of the Opposition, all of the backgrounding that he was the most doubtful person in the cabinet, he was the one who did not want to go as far as John Howard, he was always a moderate and he knew that they might lose the blue-collar support that had been garnished during the Howard period. But what we have seen in the contributions today from all those opposite is that same attitude of class war politics in this country.

The member for Higgins, while supposedly interested in the fate of the workers, said there should not have been any deficit spending, that we should have let the building industry go to the floor, that we should have not made sure that building material companies were supported and that we should have ensured that people could finish their apprenticeships, that people could have traineeships and that there could be spending on consumption by workers still in employment. We have had quotes, too, from Marius Kloppers and Toyota's management, as though they have no self-interest in this debate. We have had contributions saying that it is all right that this body, which is supposedly so perfect, has failed to gain a prosecution during the whole period it has been running—a situation where Terence Cole, not to put too fine a point on it—

Debate interrupted.