Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in opposition to the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 and in support of the amendment moved by the member for Gorton, the shadow minister. This is unnecessary legislation that takes us back to the future without due consideration of past experience. It is ideologically motivated and it is divisive. It is unconcerned with building cooperative workplaces, much less with the rights of those thousands of Australians who work in building and construction or indeed the concerns of their families.

I mention the families because the nature of the powers intended to be given through these pieces of legislation impacts beyond those individuals actually working in the industry. The regime proposed by these bills is unbalanced, unlike that which it proposes to replace. It raises some very real questions about the democratic functioning of our society. It is disappointing that we are having this debate now, because it is a debate that has been had. It is telling that the rhetoric that members opposite rely on is unsupported by evidence.

I propose to focus in my contribution on two aspects of these pieces of legislation: the argument around productivity that is said to justify their introduction, and the coercive powers that the pieces of legislation contain. But I am also concerned that the very fact of these pieces of legislation flies in the face of this government's deregulatory principles, so I will also touch upon this. This is a government that says one thing and does another.

I have this morning reread the    Governor-General's speech, which is full of references to reducing regulation and to small government. It can only charitably be said that those aspirations are not on display here. Whatever else this legislation is, it is illiberal. As the member for Blair has reminded me and hopefully also members opposite, it is not legislation that John Stuart Mill would intuitively find appealing.

We have heard much said by members opposite in this debate around safety at work and around suggestions of the misuse of existing provisions in other legislation designed to secure workplace safety. There have been lots of tabloid allegations and lots of assertions, but very little evidence—which is, of course, this debate here in a nutshell.

It saddens me and it burdens me, rising here, that this year has seen—as all years do—a number of deaths in the construction industry in Melbourne and no doubt elsewhere in Australia. One death at work is obviously one too many. I am sure that is something we all share in this chamber. But it must also be said that there is a relationship between workplace regulation and safety outcomes. As Professor Peetz of Griffith University has pointed out, observance with occupational safety does tend to be lower where unions are weaker. Of course, these bills are designed at their very core to weaken unions. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the important and often difficult work of unions and of workplace safety representatives, in particular, in standing up for safe workplaces. I hope they will not be deterred from doing so as a result of this debate should these bills be enacted.

I am proud that Labor opposes a return to the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This is not the 'sensible centre' of which the Prime Minister is so fond of speaking. Indeed, demonising construction workers and their representative bodies by returning to the ABCC could not be further from the sensible centre of the industrial relations debate. When one thinks of the sensible centre, one thinks of a sense of moderation, of fairness, but this is an attack on workers' rights and workers' entitlements.

As previous speakers on this side of the chamber have made clear, the ABCC's proposed powers are extreme and unnecessary and most certainly compromise civil liberties. Those proposed powers include unfettered coercive powers, the prospect of secretive interviews and the prospect of imprisonment for those who do not cooperate. Persons interviewed have no right to silence and are denied the right to be represented by a lawyer of their choice. Again, I ask myself: is this the supposed sensible centre that the Prime Minister has referred to?

Mr Abbott has not, as members opposite have asserted, just revived the ABCC as was committed to. These pieces of legislation in fact substantially extend the reach of the ABCC, including in manners which would appear to make the scope of its operation somewhat uncertain. I refer here in particular to the definition of building work, the reference to ancillary sites and the extended geographical scope of this legislation. Of the many concerns that I have in this regard, the greatest is—and perhaps this is an unintended consequence of drafting—that we may see the extension of these coercive powers into a wider section of the economy, including the manufacture of goods. Complexities of this scope should be addressed in this place and not left to courts to determine. This is clearly more than just a revival.

The re-established ABCC will also have significantly broader powers than its 2005 incarnation. It is very strange, as I mentioned earlier, to hear from self-described champions of small government that they are so strongly in favour of such big, draconian emanations of state power. It makes a mockery of all the invocations of people's lives being free from government intervention that we have heard often from members opposite in recent weeks.

I reiterate the member for Gorton's statement that the ABCC's proposed powers are extreme, are unnecessary and compromise civil liberties. These powers are not used, we remember, to investigate allegations of criminality. So much for concerns of proportionality and reasonableness.

On this note, I take this opportunity to remind members of the actions of ABCC officials in 2007, who detained an innocent bystander, not even an employee in the building and construction industry, for hours and subjected him to interrogation in secret. This person's crime was that he happened to witness an alleged altercation as he walked past a construction site.

In response to this incident, Professor Andrew Stewart stated that the ABCC's then powers were 'extraordinary, analogous to those of ASIO'. He said:

Ordinarily, under our laws, you have certain rights not to answer questions … You have privileges against self-incrimination. But these rights do not exist when you are being interviewed by the ABCC. That an innocent member of the public can get caught up in these powers simply increases the concerns.

Professor Ron McCallum described the ABCC's powers as 'similar to aspects of the terrorism laws'. I am troubled by this and by many aspects of these coercive powers. I am troubled by the reverse onus provisions in clause 57 and, more fundamentally, by the curtailing of the presumption of innocence, the right to peaceful assembly, the privilege against self-incrimination and freedom of expression.

The provision in respect of retrospective application appears to me at least unnecessary and plain wrong—to suggest that people should be punished for actions that were lawful at the time. I am also troubled by the capacity given to the ABCC to effectively enable the re-litigation of matters that have been settled between parties. The bald statement of compatibility that asserts that workers' rights to freedom of assembly would be enhanced would be funny if it were not so serious in its consequences.

All these provisions raise deep concerns as to how our society should operate. They undermine key safeguards of civil liberties and fundamental aspects of our social fabric. They are of course also inconsistent with international obligations we have assumed as a nation. Unlike members opposite, I do not regard construction workers or, indeed, people walking past construction sites as terrorists. They should not be treated as such. I do not see that the case is being made in any way, shape or form for these extraordinary coercive powers.

I note that Fair Work Building and Construction, established by Labor, already has sufficient powers to deal with unlawful behaviour in the industry. Fair Work Building and Construction has outperformed and will continue to outperform its predecessor, the ABCC—and, should these bills come to pass, its successor. Fair Work Building and Construction has a full suite of appropriate investigative and prosecution powers to deal with any unlawful behaviour in the building and construction industry, whether by employers, employees, unions or contractors. Fair Work Building and Construction is undertaking more investigations, concluding more investigations, getting matters to court faster and recovering more money for workers in the industry. I remind members opposite that the work of Fair Work Building and Construction has secured over $2 million in unpaid wages and entitlements for more than 1,500 workers. These were the sorts of breaches the ABCC was never focused on and, it appears, will not be focused on.

ABS data shows that industrial disputation in the building and construction industry is on average less than one-fifth the rate seen under the previous coalition government. Labour productivity has increased over the past 10 quarters and, on average, is almost three times higher under Fair Work than it was under the Work Choices regime, and, in the building and construction industry, the rate is on average less than one-fifth the rate we saw under Work Choices. This is at a time when more Australians than ever before are covered by enterprise agreements, showing that the vast majority of agreements are being made without any industrial action at all.

The Governor-General's entire speech to the Senate chamber was littered with references to cutting red tape as a way to increase productivity, as I mentioned earlier in my contribution. Yet trying to find statistical data to support the assertion that the reintroduction of the ABCC will increase productivity in the construction industry produces very little. For example, the coalition have been unable to adduce any ABS statistics that conclusively demonstrate that the ABCC improved productivity in the construction industry or that the ABCC's abolition created a corresponding decrease in productivity.

As the member for Gorton and other speakers have shown eloquently and effectively, the best that the supporters of this legislation can come up with is a widely discredited Econtech report—the same report that simply plucked a figure out of thin air when it came to estimating the productivity gains that would be lost with the abolition of the ABCC. Coalition members cling to this report like a drowning man clings to flotsam and jetsam. On the other hand, to make our case, we only have to look at reputable sources like the ABS's basic productivity figures from 1988-89 to 2011-12. Whilst productivity depends on many factors and it is hard to attribute productivity changes to a particular cause, these figures show a gradual improvement in productivity in the period of the ABCC, but these productivity rates accelerated after Labor changed the remit of the ABCC.

So, if the coalition are in favour of improving productivity in the construction industry, they should simply adopt and support Labor's existing policy and carry on a real dialogue with workers, unions and employers around this shared challenge. Given the inability of supporters of this legislation to substantiate their assertion in respect of productivity, the only conclusion that can be arrived at is that these assertions are baseless. Indeed, in the Minister for Employment's media release of 14 October 2013, the minister mentions improving productivity—ostensibly the justification for this legislation—as if it were a mere afterthought. It is asserted twice as a given, with no further elaboration or elucidation.

Again, in the bill itself, productivity is mentioned just twice. For a bill that is supposedly concerned with the topic, it is a curious oversight, to say the least. The first mention is just the usual one-sentence assertion, whilst the second proceeds with Orwellian menace to state that the reintroduction of the ABCC involves 'providing a framework for ongoing cooperation between individual building industry participants'. And this gets to the heart of it. It gets to the true obsession of the coalition and the true nature of this legislation: to strip away the rights of people at their workplace and intimidate people from coming together and joining their union. It is not about productivity, nor even about building and construction. Let's cut to the chase. This is the thin edge of the wedge, a precursor to a return to Work Choices. I oppose that return in any shape or form, and I oppose these bills.

Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In a perfect world, we would not be debating this bill. In fact, even in a reasonable world, we would not be debating this bill. There would no need for the parliament to even be considering it, because this bill is about dealing with a procession of instances of unlawful behaviour, coercive behaviour and bullying in the workplace, and reasonable individuals do not engage in that.

We just heard the member opposite, the member for Scullin, say that this bill, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013, will hurt families. Let me just say at the outset that I see this bill as being fundamentally important to everybody involved in the construction industry, whether they be workers on the work site, subcontractors, head contractors or the families of all of those who are employed or are employing others in relation to the contracts and also the suppliers, because all of their livelihoods, all of their experiences, are tied up in what happens in and at the workplace. Unfortunately, the actions of a minority impact negatively on many people who are not even on the workforces or in the workplaces that we are talking about.

What is the real purpose of this bill? Why is it being debated in this chamber today? It only really has one purpose, and that is to deliver future infrastructure projects on time and within budget. Let me say that again: the purpose of the bill is to deliver future infrastructure, which we all on both sides of this House acknowledge is crucial to the productivity of our nation, on time and on budget. That is why the very name of this bill is the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill. Improving productivity is something we must do. It is not just nice to have; it is an absolute necessity in this country because our competitiveness is slipping away. Every time there is a delay in a construction there is a massive cost. The cost starts with the individual families, and it runs through to the subcontractors, to the contractors and then of course to the people building the projects, whether they are in the private sector or in the public sector.

Let us go back to where this started—the Cole royal commission. With all of its powers, the Cole royal commission can hardly be regarded as anything other than a judicial body which had to find evidentiary material to support its findings. It has been said before in this debate, but let us repeat it, that the commission ' s final report, delivered in 2003, found widespread disregard of laws and courts, threatening and intimidatory conduct and the underpayment of employees ' entitlements. It catalogued a large number and variety of misbehaviours by unions.

Mr Bandt interjecting —

Let me clarify that for the Deputy Leader of the Greens. How balanced was that? It did not just bash unions—it did not say anything about that. It referred to the rights of employees and to their pay and conditions not being properly upheld. It also reported widespread disregard for laws and the courts and threatening and intimidatory behaviour. I am glad the member for Melbourne is in here, because we will go to a couple of these issues, and in his address he might like to tell us his view on this particular behaviour. The Cole report noted that the short-term interests of construction companies led to their acceding to union demands which were not in the national economic interest and, quite frankly, you would not have thought in their own interests either, other than that it was expedient to pay up front to get a project finished. The Cole royal commission report concluded that 'quick fix solutions driven by commercial expediencies supplement insistence on legal rights, adherence to ethical and legal norms and the pursuit of legal remedies'. We are talking here about operating outside the law. In any other aspect of society we just would not accept that. There would not be a debate; we would all be as one. Ask yourself: why is that so? That was in 2003 under the coalition government.

So what is this intimidating practice? Here is an example, legal in itself, but its ramifications and its purpose are clear. It is quite legal for a union representative to turn up at a workplace and ask for a two-hour union meeting. They call out the workers on a large construction site. The first ones who go out for two hours, who leave the site, are perhaps the form workers who set the concrete. What does that do to the work site? It effectively stops the work. At the end of that two-hour meeting you might call out the concreters—that stops work again—or the carpenters, and on it rolls in a systematic attempt to blackmail the contractors into changing their behaviour. Here is the sad reality: it does not necessarily apply to and is not aimed at one site.

A case was put to me just today where a bunch of union officials came from interstate on one day, targeted four or five major sites and conducted this behaviour in what could only be seen as an intimidatory way. But this does more than that. They are looking for an unspoken outcome of getting a settlement somewhere else. So all the workers and their families are embroiled in something they are not even aware of, are not party to, but it impacts upon their lives. I ask the member for Melbourne whether he condones that behaviour, whether he sees that as positive or as something that he and his party should not support.

Those intimidatory practices go straight to bullying as well and not just saying the odd word here or there but really vicious behaviour in the workplace. There are examples of this being used in Victoria and in South Australia in recent times. The old term ' scabs ' is well known. The CFMEU grossly bullies nonmembers by posting and labelling them as such—it would not be tolerated by the member for Melbourne, so why should it be tolerated in these forms?—referring to people in that way in absolute defiance of the Fair Work Act and Supreme Court orders stating they must end their protest. What about intimidation in Geelong, saying that you would cut people ' s throats? Try doing that in any workplace and see how you go. For some reason, we are supposed to accept intimidatory practice as part and parcel of the cutthroat, dare I say, construction industry—or being told, ' You ' re dead! ' Shoving, kicking and punching motor vehicles: how much more intimidatory can you get? Are we accepting these practices, or are we saying they have no place in a modern society, that we will enact laws to prevent them from happening? What about the Colombian neckties which, I am told, were applied in Werribee—in other words, hanging people? Again, I ask the member for Melbourne, when you address this place today—

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

It's crime.

Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So this is a crime, and that is precisely why we are here today and why we should not be, because in a perfect world, in a reasonable world, people do not act that way. Why do they act that way?

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

That's what the police are for.

Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you are intimidated to such a degree, physically intimidated, verbally intimidated, and your family is intimidated, your workplace is intimidated and your income is intimidated, when you are then asked to stand before a hearing, that intimidation goes so far as to prevent you from acting and therefore you do not give the evidence. I should know because, in my previous role in this place as Indigenous affairs minister, I saw exactly the same behaviour with allegations of child molestation and rape in remote communities. The police would get witnesses to walk in the door to the police station where everyone could see them. As a result—guess what—the witnesses had nothing to say. This is just a mirror image, but it is happening right here in our cities. It is hurting our productivity, it is hurting workers and it is hurting families—and it can be stopped. This was shown during the period of the Howard government when we had the ABCC in place. Then his people behaving in this way had a cause to be answer, and people did react to that.

Let us turn to the Labor Party. Did they change this heinous act when they came to power in 2007? You would have thought, listening to them today go on about how abhorrent it was, that they would have changed it immediately. But no, they did not. It took them some five years and it is interesting to note that the person who finally took it upon himself to do it was today's Leader of the Opposition. He did so despite the findings of the Wilcox report, which came down in 2007. The Wilcox report concluded that the ABCC had made a significant contribution to improved conduct and harmony in the industry but that there was still more to be done. Despite those findings, the now Leader of the Opposition felt it was necessary to act on behalf of certain union connections rather than in the interests of the nation, the interests of the workers, the interests of the subcontractors or the interests of the suppliers. The evidence was there for them.

A number of speakers have said—and I will be clairvoyant and can just about guarantee you that the member for Melbourne will say the same—that these are unreasonable powers and that these powers somehow are excessive. But the ACCC, ASIC and the Australian Crime Commission all have similar powers and they have had them for much longer. We are talking here about death threats and physical threats. I do not think anyone in this place can dispute that, because there is documentary evidence of it arising out of royal commissions. On some occasions, you can even see such things with your own eyes on television.

Before the ABCC existed, more than 50 per cent of investigations into unlawful conduct failed because witnesses would not give information. That is true intimidation—in a country where we do not accept intimidation. The members on this side of the chamber say that that can and should stop. It should stop because it is not in the nation's interest, it is not in the construction industry's interest and it is not in the interests of families. Who should be fearful of this legislation? Quite frankly, if you accept what those opposite say—that there are no issues—then absolutely no-one should be fearful. If there are no issues, no-one is going to be called to give evidence and no-one is going to be held to account—because everyone behaves like angels. You have to ask yourself why people like the Property Council and the Master Builders Association have screamed long and loud to get this changed. It is in everyone's interests to make sure that there is a strong cop on the beat and that the issues we have referred to are dealt with.

If we stop acting on these sorts of matters, we give in to bullying. Bullies destroy children in schools, they destroy workers in workplaces and they can destroy businesses. When they do, there are downstream impacts. Say, for example, you are in a regional town and you own the cement mixer in the concrete plant—but you cannot turn up to do the pour. Why? Because the unions just pulled the workers out for two hours—and then for another two hours and then for yet another two hours. You have nothing to do with the dispute that is going on, but you are caught up in it. It is bastardry. That is what it is. That owner of the cement mixer has an overdraft and has employees. It impacts on them. That is how it goes down the chain.

The description of this bill talks about fairness, efficiency and productivity. It is about a bargaining framework in which people can be protected. The definition of building work does go beyond the workplace. It covers the fabrication of components for buildings and structures—the entire industry. This is so important to us as a nation. I know that it is a lost cause talking to the Labor Party, but I spoke with the Greens today about some of their concerns—whether we could ameliorate some of those concerns and deal with this matter in a constructive way.

There is one last issue I will deal with in this short address—and that is a further change that the previous member mentioned relating to sections 73 and 73A of the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act. It refers to any issue that has been dealt with. Perhaps, say, there has been unlawful behaviour but through negotiation—basically hitting the employer, the subcontractor or the contractor over the head and blackmailing them—the matters have been settled between the parties. It does not matter if you have acted illegally—as long as you get some sort of a settlement, it can no longer be dealt with. If we are going to start rewarding that behaviour, we are going to see it repeated time and again to this nation's cost. We cannot afford it any longer.

This is but one of the examples of Labor getting it wrong. Employers and employees need to work together in their own interests and in the nation's interests. If we do that we can, as the member for Fairfax said in his maiden speech, grow the economic pie here. This is an important component of growing that economic pie. It is an important piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.

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

Parliament should be a place where the rule of law and civil liberties are defended. There are a number of elements of those core principles, but two very important ones are under significant threat from the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. The first is the basic principle that people are entitled to equal treatment before the law. That principle says that it does not matter that you happen to be a person of a certain colour, a person of a certain occupation or a person of a certain residence—your right to be treated before the law as a citizen equal to other citizens will be guaranteed. That is a cornerstone of democracy.

Another fundamental principle is that, as an individual, you have rights to liberty and rights to privacy—and that those cannot be taken away by the state in the absence of some compelling urgency. Most importantly, our criminal law is founded on the principle that it is up to the prosecution to prove that you have done something wrong and that you cannot be compelled to say something that might incriminate you. There are very limited exceptions where that rule does not apply. It is often said, with some justification, that those principles of equality before the law—the fact that you cannot be treated in an arbitrary manner by government just because of the circumstance of where you happen to be born or where you happen to work or who you happen to be, and the fact that you cannot be forced to give up the right to silence—define a democracy, and that once you remove those you start slipping from a democracy into something else. We need to carefully police those principles and the parliament should be the prime defender of them.

The thing about defending the principles of the rule of law and the right to silence is that you cannot just defend them when they are being exercised by people you like. If you believe in the right to silence and if you believe in equality, they need to apply to everyone—not just those who happen to be on your side of the fence at a particular point in time. This is a government that is fond of making that case, especially when it comes to freedom of speech. It says that that should be an untrammelled right and the parliament's role is to expand the right of people to say whatever they like. You would expect, also, not only that parliament would be the place where that will be defended but also that a party that has the word 'liberal' in its name would be one of the first bodies to stand up in defence of an individual's right to the rule of law—to be treated equally and to have their liberty preserved.

That is not what we are getting with this bill. As other speakers have said, we are getting a situation where in Australia, just because of the industry you happen to work in, you can be hauled before a Star Chamber for a secret inquisition, you do not have the right to silence, and when you get out you cannot even tell your wife or your husband or your family about it, because that would be breaking the law. As the member for Fisher said, this does not apply just to people who work in that industry—it applies to someone who happens to be walking past at a particular time who might accidentally witness something. They can be hauled in and become subject to those same rules as well. This is not liberalism. What we have from those who sit on the government benches is reactionism masquerading as liberalism; extremism masquerading as liberalism. It is why in all of their speeches so far we have not heard them say one thing about an individual's right to silence or the right to equality before the law. This is absolutely a targeting of particular people in particular industries on a particular side of the fence.

It is said that there are problems in the building and construction industry. There are problems in this industry. There are problems with sham contracting that the government says nothing about. Even more recently, we opened up the newspaper to find that one of the biggest construction companies in this country is alleged to have tried to bribe Saddam Hussein's regime. When that happens in the construction industry, what do those opposite do? Nothing. There is no request to investigate what ASIC and the AFP have been doing or why this has been allowed to continue. Where is the royal commission into that? Instead, we have the targeting of a particular group of people because they happen to sit on the government side—on the wrong side of the fence.

The member for Fisher talked a lot about the Cole royal commission, saying that that was a judicial inquiry. That was a judicial inquiry in the same way that Stalin's show trials were a judicial inquiry. I observed the royal commission at very close quarters, and on an incredible number of occasions the prosecutor would get up and talk about people being locked in shipping containers. But, by the end of that case study, no evidence was led about anyone being locked in shipping containers. But the headlines were there and the damage had been done. Whatever you think about that royal commission, after all those millions of dollars had been spent on that royal commission that is supposedly the basis for this bill, how many prosecutions resulted? Zero. Zero prosecutions came out of that royal commission. Despite all of this alleged illegality in the industry that this royal commission uncovered, not one prosecution came out of it.

We hear talk about alleged crime and thuggery in this industry. I remind members sitting on the government benches that this legislation does not give the new body power to deal with criminal matters. That is what the police are for and will continue to be for. All this rhetoric about burning necklaces and so on is completely out of order because it has nothing to do with this bill. This bill is not about criminal matters. It is a hallmark of this government that it will dress it up and use inflammatory rhetoric to do something in an area the bill has nothing to do with. The bill is about targeting a particular group of people, and one aspect of it is to try to litigate those workers and their unions to death and to tie them up in red tape while their other mates are allowed to go off and do whatever they like. You can see that shining through in the proposed section that says it does not matter if the employer and the workers have resolved the dispute, this new body still has the power to come in and continue the litigation. What other areas of industrial disputation does that apply to, where we do not encourage people to resolve things at a workplace level but instead allow the government to come in and continue litigating one side to death if they want to?

In the same way that we did not hear any commentary from the government benches about the right to silence or an individual's liberty, those opposite have shown their rank hypocrisy through this legislation when it comes to the free market. They are saying, 'We are quite happy for people to go and negotiate amongst themselves, as long as it turns out in our favour.' People who work in the construction industry or who perhaps do dangerous and demanding work offshore might be able to negotiate themselves better wages and conditions but, no, they cannot do that because the free market was not meant to operate in that way; we need a massively resourced government body to come in over the top and tell people how to live their lives and if they do not accede they will face the threat of going to jail.

This is not a government of liberals. This is a government of corporate shills who are willing to stand up and say whatever their mates on one side of the fence want them to. But, when it comes to tackling sham contracting or addressing substantial underpayments of people on building sites right across this country, this government is completely silent. So I will not take up the previous speaker's suggestion to join the coalition in this assault on the rule of law. This is something that, quite rightly, deserves the condemnation not only of people who work in the industry and who know what this will mean for them on a day-to-day basis, but of civil libertarians and anyone who believes in the principle of the rule of law. I am very proud to stand with them in opposing this bill.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The building and construction industry is of vital importance to economic growth, the employment of subcontractors and the advancement of regional development. I will just repeat that: the building and construction industry is of vital importance to the advancement of regional development. Sometimes I think some speakers in this place—not 'speakers' as in the chair you are occupying, Deputy Speaker Scott, but members speaking, and certainly the Deputy Leader of the Greens, who has just preceded me—may forget about regional development and the importance thereof. In order to ensure builders, subcontractors and homeowners are able to work together—and work well together—it is critical, essential and vital that the balance is restored between builders and unions. That is why the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 is so important. It is a bill for an act to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner and for related purposes. It is important, and it needs absolutely to be agreed to by this parliament, by this House of Representatives.

Many building companies in my electorate of the Riverina are small businesses. We heard the member for Fisher, just a little earlier, talking about family businesses, and, indeed, many of those in country areas are just that. They are family businesses and they want to build quality homes and other fit-outs for local, regional, community people. Their work will employ many subcontractors, labourers and other workers during the construction of homes and other projects. It is vital that this industry is supported by government so it can help our nation be the best it can be—to help our nation be a productive, competitive and prosperous economy.

We have heard the Prime Minister saying that we are open for business, but to have a construction industry which is so bogged down by union thuggery—and that is what happens even in, I am sad to say, regional areas—is not good for business. It certainly does not allow the construction industry to be open for business. The coalition government recognises the importance of the building industry and its marvellous contribution to the growth and strength of the Australian economy, particularly in regional and rural areas.

During the lead-up to the 7 September election, the coalition promised the Australian people we would be a government which would grow and strengthen the economy, and we will be. We want to be an infrastructure government, where businesses, families and individuals are encouraged to build and to create jobs. We want to be a government with a diversified economy, where we can restore the balance between those who run our nation's businesses and those who work in them. Unlike the previous government, building companies also know the benefit of being able to balance the books. We want to be a government which pays back the debt. We want to be a government which is open for business, and this piece of legislation will do just that. The building and construction industry is critical to the coalition's plan for economic growth, and prosperity is just what we need in this country right now.

This bill will re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which is much needed. It will recreate a strong and independent watchdog for the building and construction industry and assist in the coalition's plan to restore the balance between the industry and the unions. I will be up-front: my wife, Catherine, works in the industry. She is on the Housing Industry Association's Wagga Wagga committee to further enhance and further advance the construction industry in my home city of Wagga Wagga, which has a population of 63,000 and is, thankfully, growing. It is growing thanks to a vibrant industry—an industry which needs a watchdog just like this to be able to grow even further.

This bill also reverses the decision by the Labor Party, when it was in government, to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which it did in 2012. I certainly spoke very vehemently against that at the time. In fact, when the ABCC was abolished by the former government in February 2012, I told this parliament that the decision was an ill-conceived, knee-jerk decision made at the behest of minorities and that it was in anything but the national interest. I stand by that comment today. We have just heard the member for Melbourne, in his usual sanctimonious way, going on about the fact that this was an assault on the rule of law. It is not an assault on the rule of law; it is common sense. He talked about the Liberal Party being reactionary and about extremism masquerading as liberalism. What a crock of rubbish! I am sure the member for Mayo sitting beside me would absolutely agree with me on that score.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear! Hear! Coming from a Green!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Coming from a Green, indeed!—have you ever heard such a thing? When the commission was abolished it led to a huge outcry, particularly in the Riverina and in a lot of other country communities. The Howard government created the commission in typical Howard government style. It was methodical, it was well considered, and it was implemented on the basis of evidence and the need for such a watchdog. Eight years later, the need for an organisation such as this commission remains. The building industry is a good one, and it is a productive one, and that is what we want. We heard the member for Fisher talk about the fact that this bill is all about fairness and all about productivity. I absolutely concur with the member for Fisher.

The building industry is a good one, and it needs to be helped and enhanced. We need to do whatever we can to assist it along the way. This bill will do just that. The overwhelming majority of builders, subcontractors and labourers work in the industry to build dream homes. It used to be every Australian's dream to own their own home—and that is just what the building industry provides. It needs to be given every assistance to do just that. Builders do their very best to ensure that clients are happy with their finished product, but builders need to be able to do that in an environment which assists them, not an environment which is clogging them down with union thuggery. In order to ensure balance and the best outcome for all involved, the commission is necessary to oversee building and construction independently—and I will use that word again, independently—with a genuine strength to act when things do not go according to plan.

Peter and Debbie Hurst, constituents of mine from Wagga Wagga and fine people too, run a house-and-land package building company in my home city. It is a family business, owned and successfully run by Peter and Debbie, husband and wife, with the best interests of their community and their customers in mind. They are typical of many family-run businesses in regional areas. They have been in business since 1990, and their construction work in Wagga Wagga and surrounds employs up to 100 subcontractors at any point in time—

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that right?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, 100. It is a very good company. They are in opposition to my wife's company, but that is another story! Mr and Mrs Hurst's company builds around 20 homes in Wagga Wagga every year. It might not sound a lot to the Australian parliament, but 20 homes in Wagga Wagga—that is a big company; that is a big concern. When I was talking to Peter about the re-establishment of the commission, he was delighted to hear that the government will honour its promise and ensure that the commission is back in operation—back in vogue. He was absolutely delighted. Peter is a straight shooter. He said that the ABCC is 'an overarching governing body which will restore common sense and productivity to a much needed building industry'—and there is that term again, 'common sense'; we need more of it.

I think that point really sums up the intent of this bill. The re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission is all about common sense and it is all about productivity. That is why we all need to get behind this bill. It makes sense to ensure that the building and construction industry has a genuinely strong watchdog to oversee its activity. The intent of this bill is to make it easier for the majority of builders, subcontractors and labourers to get on with what they do best, and that is building—not looking over their shoulders, wondering when the next union official is going to stop a work site. Mr Hurst also told me this bill will 'restore equity in the corporate market between builders and unions'. And, if you'll pardon the pun, Mr Hurst has hit the nail on the head there.

The former government abolished the ABCC after pressure from the building and construction unions, who were lobbying for its removal along with the abolition of the building code which supported its work. And that is typical of unions. The Labor Party ummed and ahed about this decision for five long years until in February last year, Minister Shorten, now the Leader of the Opposition, gave in to the demands of his union mates and replaced the ABCC with a new regulator with significantly reduced powers. And there we have another example of Labor caving into the unions; caving in to those who run their show. When the now opposition leader made this decision last year, I spoke with a Wagga Wagga builder who feared that the decision would cause a return to the bad old days of union control on building and work sites. He told me then: 'We don't need the thuggery of unions on our work sites. Unions are fine but everything should be in moderation.' And the builder was right—unions are fine. I was a member of a union for 21 years.

In the time since the former government abolished the ABCC, we have seen violence on the streets of Melbourne; workers purchasing advertising space in the Herald Sun asking that their own union bosses stop blockades; and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, the CFMEU, attacking builders whose employers were not members of the union. That is shameful.

This is not about attacking unions. This bill is not a union bash-up. As the builder told me last year, unions are fine. They have their place and they do some good work. I have told this House before that I was a member of a union for 21 years: in the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and, before that, in the Australian Journalists Association. But actions such as those I just named are not in union members' interests, nor are they in the interests of the building and construction industry. The re-establishment of the ABCC is an action by the coalition in government to restore the balance on Australian building and construction work sites. It is about ensuring this industry has a genuine and independent watchdog to ensure that people looking to build new homes or to have new fit-outs, extensions and the like, are protected from unnecessary interference from unions. The basic point is this: this bill is about the coalition government allowing builders, labourers and subcontractors to be able to do their best, to do what they are engaged to do and what they are skilful and traded-up to do.

We committed to this at the 2013 federal election. We felt that the building industry was in such dire need of this reform that we pledged to restore the ABCC within 100 days of the sitting of the 44th Parliament, and we will do just that. Here we are, keeping that promise to the building and construction industry, and doing just that, on the first sitting day of the second fortnight of this new parliament. As we have said, the primary objective of this bill is to provide an improved and balanced workplace for the building and construction industry and to ensure that work is carried out fairly, productively and effectively in harmonious places of employment. Through doing this, the coalition government will allow builders, including Peter and Debbie Hurst, and the many home-building companies in Wagga Wagga and throughout the wider Riverina, to do what they do best. But don't just take it from me—I have had a look at the Housing Industry Association's annual report for the year ending 2012. Under 'Industrial relations', the HIA has this to say:

HIA also strongly opposed the government's decision—

that was the Labor government's decision—

to abolish the industry watchdog, the Australian Building and Construction Commission. By mid-year, the industry had already witnessed a return to union militancy, with blockades notably shutting down construction sites in the Melbourne CBD. HIA has called on the Commonwealth Government to restore the ABCC with appropriate penalties against offenders.

And sure, appropriate offenders do need to be penalised. They need to have police action taken against them. But this bill will ensure that union thuggery is not allowed to go unfettered. Union thuggery is not acceptable anywhere. We heard the member for Melbourne talk about the fact that it is a crime, and he is right. This bill will enable the construction industry to get on with doing their job—and not have this overarching concern about union thuggery on their work sites.

The HIA is a key player in all of this. The HIA in New South Wales was a key stakeholder in a number of important reviews of the industry, including the rewrite of the Planning Act, the Home Building Act, the Inquiry into Construction Industry Insolvency, IPART Review of Local Government Compliance and Enforcement, and the Infrastructure Charges Taskforce. So, when the HIA makes a comment as sternly and as strongly as it did in its 2012 report, it needs to be listened to and it needs to be followed. This is an industry which is too large and too important not to listen to. This is an important issue which is too vital for the future progress of our nation not to be followed when there are concerns such as those raised in HIA's 2012 report about a return to union militancy. As a local builder in my electorate said, it is a return to the bad old days. No-one wants to see work sites being shut down for no good reason when building contractors just want to get on and build people's homes and do the jobs they are being paid to do.

Builders do a wonderful job for our nation—we all know that. Builders work in regional areas, but it is sometimes a bit tougher in regional areas than in city areas. Builders need to be able to work in an environment which is conducive to common sense without unions flexing their muscles. Australia cannot afford to have a building and construction industry which is inefficient and unstable. Restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the code which supports its work is a critical reform for Australia. The contents of this bill reflect this commitment, and that is why I urge the House to pass it.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today not only to speak as the member for Lalor, but also to speak as a mother, a former teacher and a concerned citizen—to add my voice to those on this side of the House who are critically concerned about this bill and its implementation. I do this because the legislation currently before the House is of great concern to anyone who cares about justice and fairness. It is a great concern to those of us who have family working in the building industry. It is of great concern to those who care about our young apprentices and trades assistants and their safety at work. And it is of great concern to those who value our democracy and the civil liberties that come from living in this great nation.

While the government is attempting to frame the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission as a so called 'sensible centre', it is anything but. This bill is not just a threat to workers or to unions, it is a threat to every Australian. In its previous incarnation, back in 2005, the Liberal Party then led by John Howard, attempted to frame the introduction of the ABCC in the same way—as a sensible solution. They argued that it was about curbing illegal activity and that it was, somehow, paradoxically, a win for workers. They argued it would reduce industrial disputes and increase labour productivity growth. Of course, Deputy Speaker, we know what it was really about. It was, and is, an attempt to demonise the union movement, as we have just heard, and impinge upon the rights of workers: rights fought for and enshrined in our industrial relations history; rights recognised by the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Act proudly passed by the previous Labor government in 2011 to abolish the ABCC and establish the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate—the real, sensible centre of industrial relations.

I am particularly troubled about what the proposed legislation could mean for those who work within the building and construction industry. I am the mother of a concreter, and I am concerned about his safety and the safety of those he works with. As a former teacher, I am concerned about our young apprentices and trades assistants; those who do not know that they can, and should, raise safety concerns; those who, like my own three sons, who are too willing to please; and those who are willing put themselves at risk to get the job done. Those opposite would not be proposing legislation that puts our young people's safety at risk if they too had sat in the principal's chair in a school in Lalor. You may groan, but I am a teacher and therefore a storyteller. They would not be taking action to hamstring a union defending work safety if they had seen what I have seen.

Let me share with you, Deputy Speaker, a particularly awful example of a student, a 15-year-old boy, who left our school to take up an apprenticeship in the building industry, building houses in Lalor. I watched him excitedly get his T-shirt signed by his classmates on his last day of school. This was supposed to be the next phase of his life, his next big adventure. In spite of this, I gave him the normal spiel and reassured him that, should it not work out, he would always be welcomed back. It was only three months until he returned—not because he had decided it was not for him and not because he had reconsidered that maybe school was not so bad after all, but, devastatingly, because he was in a non-unionised workplace and had been intimidated, bullied and physically assaulted by his employer. Unfortunately, I have many more stories like that I could share. That is not to say that all employers are doing the wrong thing. Most are responsible and genuinely care about the their workers. They believe in occupational health and safety, as we all do. They understand its importance and they are willing to do what it takes to make their workplaces safe.

But the building and construction industry is a dangerous one. To date, this year there have been 18 construction workers who have lost their lives at work, and that is 18 too many. Every worker has the right to come home safely. Under this proposed re-introduction of the ABCC, I fear the Liberal government would make it harder for construction workers and union officials to stand up for safety on site. Not only is this an attack upon unions and workers, but it also a draconian attack on the most basic of civil liberties. And let's just be clear about what the passing of this legislation could mean. Under the Howard government's ABCC, the commission had the power to secretly interrogate a witness and then prevent them from telling anyone that they have even been interviewed. We have heard this several times today from this side of the House. Obviously it is ringing bells on this side of the House, as, I believe, it will with the Australian people. Under the former ABCC, there was no right to silence, there was no right to legal representation and—because of the risk of being called to stand before the commission—there was a very real threat to freedom of association. These draconian measures did not just apply to those from the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union nor just to employees, employers or contractors in the building and construction industry, but to anyone and everyone.

In fact, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 December 2007, and as said again here today, a bystander—an academic from a Melbourne university—was called before the commission. His crime? He had simply walked past a building site at the wrong time. His punishment? He was to be called before the commission and interrogated for hours. It sounds like something that would happen under a dictatorship, not here in our enlightened democracy. But that was what did happen under the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the very same ABCC that the United Nations International Labour Organization found to have contravened conventions that Australia was signatory to—the right of workers to organise, the right to petition and the right to freedom of association. The commission's powers were so extreme that even the conservative stronghold of the Institute of Public Affairs said it went too far. And yet, for all its unprecedented power, plus $66 million in funding, the ABCC led to not even one criminal conviction—not one.

How then are the government justifying this return of the Australian Building and Construction Commission? The same way they justified its introduction. The government throw around terms like 'productivity' and 'growth', without connecting them to anything real or tangible. They talk in figures that mean little and prove even less. They ignore that under the current Fair Work system, labour productivity has continued to increase over the last 10 quarters. They ignore that on average this growth is close to three times higher than under Work Choices. And they ignore that the rate of industrial disputes in the building and construction industry is on average less than one-fifth of the rate seen under the previous Liberal government. They do this because the facts are not on their side.

In fact the report that the government, and many of its speakers here today, are using as some sort of legitimisation was dismissed by a Federal Court judge as deeply flawed. He even recommended the figures from the self-purported Independent Economics group be disregarded due to their lack of rigour or integrity. So how then did this group arrive at the figure that the Australian Building and Construction Commission provided over $7 billion annually in benefits to the economy, and how did they reach the subsequent figure that its abolition has cost consumers around 75 per cent? They guessed. They plucked a number from thin air. It is, after all, very easy to get the figures you want if you are willing to just make them up.

So if this is clearly not to do with improving the industry and not to do with tackling crime, one must ask: what is this really all about? This is yet another attack by Tony Abbott and the Liberal government on industrial relations and our unions. And it really is a poorly made Trojan horse—a Trojan horse to disguise the beginning of the return to Work Choices and an attack upon fair industrial relations in this country. Because, while they may not take their promises seriously, they do take their ideology seriously. They say that they hate red tape and that they hate the nanny state. But what they really hate is the CFMEU. They can dress it up in any way they like—that is what this is really all about. Even more concerning for every worker is that the bill extends the commission beyond the building industry into the maritime industry and the transport and supply sector. It also extends the ABCC's jurisdiction offshore. If this legislation is passed, this is just the beginning.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lalor. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. I also welcome the member for Eden-Monaro to our parliament.

Peter Hendy (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Today I rise in support of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and the accompanying bill and to oppose the opposition's amendment. This bill represents a critical piece of economic reform. It will, in a single piece of legislation, significantly boost productivity in this country.

The building and construction industry is a vital industry for Australia. It is a critical industry in terms of its inputs to basically every other industry in Australia. If the building and construction industry is not operating efficiently and in a productive way then that adversely impacts on the manufacturing industry, the mining industry, the agricultural industry and the services industry. It is a vital link in the chain.

Unhappily, over the years the trade unions in that industry have been very well aware of the importance of this link in the chain and they have exercised their industrial muscle to the detriment of the industry and the Australian economy. It has been irresponsible. It has been economically destructive. It has been selfish. The national interest has been trampled by an unrepentant union movement. With this bill we will stop this in its tracks. We will restore the rule of law. This bill re-establishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It was and will again become a strong watchdog that will maintain the rule of law to protect workers and constructors and to improve productivity on building sites and construction projects, whether onshore or offshore. The last Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government bowed to the requests of their union masters. They had said they would keep a tough cop on the beat and they caved in to union pressure. It was one of the bad policies extracted as a price for union money and resources to prop up the ALP.

This bill will reverse Labor's changes to the laws which underpinned the Australian Building and Construction Commission before it was abolished in 2012. The bill prohibits unlawful industrial action, unlawful picketing, and coercion and discrimination. Penalties that are high enough to provide an effective deterrent will apply to breaches of these provisions. A wide range of effective remedies such as injunctions will also be available to the ABCC and persons affected by unlawful behaviour.

As the Minister for Education and Leader of the House stated when introducing this bill, for many years, the building and construction sector provided the worst examples of industrial relations lawlessness. He noted that it was the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in the Howard government, the member for Warringah and now Prime Minister, who was prepared to tackle this longstanding bad behaviour and in 2001 established a royal commission into the building and construction industry. That was the Cole royal commission. History shows that the final report of that royal commission provided compelling evidence of the need for reform in this industry. Amongst other things it found consistent evidence that building sites and construction projects in Australia were hotbeds of intimidation, lawlessness, thuggery and violence. Projects were delayed, costs blew out and investment in our economy and in infrastructure was being jeopardised.

So we are not making this up. This is not some ideological obsession, as members of the opposition want Australians to believe. We held a royal commission. It found multiple cases of lawlessness and recommended strong measures to solve the problem. Let me say it again: central to the royal commission's findings was industry lawlessness. As the minister noted in his second reading speech, witnesses reported criminal conduct, unlawful and inappropriate conduct, including breaches of relevant workplace relations and work health and safety legislation, and a disregard for Commonwealth and state revenue statutes. In response, the Howard government established the Australian Building and Construction Commission in 2005. I want to recognise the great contribution to economic reform made then by the member for Menzies, now the Minister for Social Services, through the creation of the original ABCC.

As a former chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, I know both the damage that rogue unions were causing in the pre-ABCC era and the fine results that the ABCC produced in its years of existence. For example, a 2013 Independent Economics report on the state of the sector during this period found that building and construction industry productivity grew by more than nine per cent, consumers were better off by around $7.5 billion annually and fewer working days were lost through industrial action.

Who on the Labor side actually abolished this key element of economic reform? It was none other than the Leader of the Opposition as the Minister for Workplace Relations in the former government. As many people have observed, he was less a minister for workplace relations and more a minister for unions. The now Leader of the Opposition gave in to union demands and abolished the ABCC in 2012 and replaced it with a regulator with significantly reduced funding and powers. As we know, this saw the bad old days return—wildcat stoppages, militant protests, demands from unions that their mates be employed on projects ahead of non-unionists and an increase in construction industry disputes to a seven-year high.

As the minister noted, one of the worst examples of this occurred late last year, merely weeks after the ABCC was abolished. There was violence on the streets of Melbourne, with militant union protestors intimidating the community. Their supporters attacked police horses. Images of these protests were seen on television screens around the world. This was a dreadful message to send around the world. Potential international investors recoiled in horror. Behind it all was one of the usual suspects. It was the CFMEU, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. With the ABCC gone, its bullyboy tactics emerged straightaway—thank you very much, Leader of the Opposition. There were also violent disputes at the Little Creatures brewery site in Geelong and at City West Water in Werribee, and just two months ago we saw CFMEU officials threaten to stop work on a Lend Lease project in Adelaide if a union flag was not moved to a more prominent position.

As a fig leaf, the Gillard Labor government set up a severely curtailed version of the ABCC called the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate. As well as having its powers substantially curtailed, it faced significant reductions in funding and staffing of around 30 per cent. Again, this was all thanks to the now Leader of the Opposition.

Prior to the election, we committed to re-establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission within 100 days of parliament first sitting. Our government was given a clear mandate by the Australian people to make this change. We also promised that a re-established Australian Building and Construction Commission would administer a code that will govern industrial relations arrangements for government funded projects. This step will ensure that taxpayers' dollars are used efficiently. We also promised we would work with the state governments to ensure consistency with guidelines introduced by those governments who saw the urgent need to set up their own schemes in response to the Gillard government's abolition of the ABCC. A new statutory code is being developed that is intended to commence at the same time as the re-established Australian Building and Construction Commission on 1 January 2014.

The position of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner will be supported by deputy commissioners. The agency will be properly funded to ensure it can do its work. The funding taken away by the Labor government, led by the current Leader of the Opposition, will be restored. In addition, higher penalties will be imposed for unlawful behaviour. They are justified in an industry that is so critical to Australia's economic performance. As the minister noted, building and construction organisations are well resourced, and some show a blatant disregard for court orders and shrug off fines as simply part of the cost of doing business. The legislation also reinstates civil remedy provisions in relation to coercion and discrimination and makes it clear that project agreements are unenforceable where the intention is to secure standard employment conditions relating to a particular site or sites covering employees from different enterprises. These types of project agreements inhibit genuine enterprise bargaining.

In conclusion, I note again that this is a major piece of economic reform. I strongly support this legislation and commend the Prime Minister and ministers for making it one of the earliest pieces of legislation on the agenda of the new government.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak against the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and associated bill. This legislation will see the return of the draconian Australian Building and Construction Commission. The ABCC, as it is also commonly referred to, is based on flawed modelling which proposes powers that are extreme and unnecessary and which compromise civil liberties. The main point I wish to make today is a simple one—that the construction industry should be regulated by the same general laws that apply to everybody else in the federal system. A worker is a worker and should be treated the same regardless of where they work.

Let me expand. This bill seeks to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It was created, as we have been told, in 2005 to investigate breaches of and to enforce federal industrial law. But all we hear from the government is that it is to investigate criminal activity. This is not the purpose of the industrial relations act.

If re-established, these coercive powers would be used to compel ordinary workers to attend secret meetings, deny them legal representation and threaten them with imprisonment just to get them to answer questions about industrial matters. These are people who have not committed a crime. They are simply being made to go to a meeting, possibly against their will. These powers are excessive, undemocratic and wrong. The coercive powers in this legislation are something that is not applied to any other workers in the federal system. There is no good reason why workers in the construction industry should be treated differently from those in other industries. As a fundamental principle—a fundamental matter of fairness—the starting point for us as law-makers is to make sure that every Australian employee and employer is subject to the same national industrial laws. Whether they are cleaners, work in construction or work here at Parliament House, all workers deserve a fair work system.

These coercive powers are used typically not in matters of industrial relations but in matters of national security, of fraud, of serious corruption or of public safety or in criminal matters, not in industrial matters. Why are we trying to apply to the industrial arena laws that are usually kept for the most grievous of situations in our community—for example, national security? It should also be kept in mind that these powers would be used to interrogate a person not under suspicion of a crime but who may simply be able to assist in an investigation: 'We are going to make you come and talk about what is going on in your workplace.' That is not how any country, let alone a democratic country, should treat its people and its workers. Coercive powers in the industrial arena contradict this value and are therefore undemocratic.

These powers should be kept out of the industrial arena to ensure that the exercise of industrial rights such as the right to associate, the right to organise and the right to take collective action is not tainted with the quasi-criminal overtones that are generally talked about when it comes to these matters. If these bills are approved, these forms of powers will continue to exist. For those who refuse to comply with them there will be a penalty of up to six months for refusing to go and talk about what is happening in your workplace. This directly contradicts another part of our democracy, the right to organise and the right to freedom of association. In this chamber we are creating a contradiction within our democratic society. If you are allowed to democratically organise and get together then you should not be compelled to attend the meetings that the proposed legislation sets out.

Another myth is that these new laws would tackle criminal behaviour. The government is arguing that there is a need to introduce these laws because of allegations of widespread violence and threats, criminal damage to property and so on and so forth. The original ABCC did not deal and has never dealt with criminal conduct. It was concerned purely and simply with industrial behaviour. Why? Because criminal conduct is not its responsibility. Industrial law deals with your rights at work; it talks about workplace organisation. Criminal law is a separate matter and is something that is quite often dealt with in our state jurisdictions. The labour movement—the Labor side of this chamber as well as the labour movement in the community—has always accepted that criminal matters must be dealt with under criminal law. Regardless of whether it is in a workplace, a home or the community, if we suspect that a crime has occurred it should be dealt with under crimes legislation. References to criminality in this debate serve only to distract and to suggest that a group of hardworking Australians need to be treated differently. The construction industry should be subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

The ABCC previously led to a rise in deaths and injuries in the workplace, yet those opposite do not wish to talk about that. During the period of the most aggressive activities by the ABCC, in the last years of the Howard government, workplace fatalities in the construction industry peaked at 48 deaths in 2006 and 51 deaths in 2007, making them the worst two years for construction deaths in a decade. Is that the purpose of reintroducing this bill? What happens when you start to attack unions and workers' rights to organise? What happens when you turn the focus away from workplace safety to being about whether you are at a union meeting? Safety slips. We cannot afford for that to happen. Those are the facts. There was a peak in deaths during the period of the ABCC, so it has been shown not to deliver safe workplaces. By contrast, following the abolition of the ABCC in 2012, 30 deaths were reported, the lowest number in the past 10 years. Why was that? Because workers felt that they could organise again. They could speak up about safety issues.

Being able to organise in the workplace is a democratic right. It is a principle of freedom of association. I understand that the government has a problem with the concept of freedom of association, but we are a country that was founded on the right to organise. I mentioned in my maiden speech the Chewton monster meeting of 1851, in which 15,000 workers gathered in the small town of Chewton protesting over the mining licence. They came together, saying, 'We join here together in union.' This country was founded on that basic principle that we can stand together and organise and talk freely and openly without threat of being pulled into a secret meeting.

The ABCC breaches international human rights obligations. The Australian government, as much as it tries to pretend otherwise, is subject to international obligations which state that it must allow and encourage the freedom of association and the right to organise: the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention of 1947, the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention of 1949 and the Labour Inspection Convention of 1947.

We have longstanding traditions in this country. The reintroduction of the ABCC takes away those rights. We are simply saying that by reintroducing the ABCC, if this act is passed by parliament, workers in the construction industry will be treated differently. They will not have the same rights as the rest of us. That is the problem with these proposed laws. They fly in the face of the UN and its accepted principles around the world. They go against the grain of what this country was founded on, which is the right to organise, the right of freedom of association and the right to democracy.

This bill singles out workers and states that they will be treated differently from those in other industries. This bill is undemocratic; it strikes at the heart of our democracy. The existence of the ABCC during the Howard years was a shameful stain on Australia's proud reputation as a country that respects the rights of its unions and workers. The building and construction industry employs over a million hardworking men and women in Australia. They make a massive contribution to our economy, and they deserve to be treated in exactly the same way as the rest of us.

I will finish my contribution today by making a few comments about what this legislation means to Bendigo. The construction industry does not need extra red tape. The construction industry wants to be able to get on with the job. If there is a safety breach at a workplace, the workers there should be able to gather without the threat of the powers in this legislation being called on. How we save people's lives is by making sure that we have workers who are willing to stand up and speak on their safety issues. In Bendigo, this legislation is more red tape being introduced by a government that is ideologically driven. It is more red tape designed to stop workers from being able to gather—and for what purpose? As I stated earlier, these proposed laws seek to reintroduce coercive powers, and these powers seek to treat workers in this industry differently.

We have also heard from the government that this legislation is necessary because of criminal behaviour in the construction industry. Again, if there is criminal behaviour it should be investigated under the Crimes Act, not under the industrial relations act. They are two separate things. Talking about criminality serves one purpose, and that is to demonise an entire workforce. We have always agreed that if it is a criminal matter, whether it be in the workplace, whether it be in the home or whether it be in the community, it should be investigated under the appropriate section of the act. By creating the ABCC, we are confusing that issue. One part of the ABCC which talks about industrial law contradicts another law, and that is the right and the opportunity to organise collectively.

So, please, when considering this bill, remember the precedent that we are reintroducing. We are reintroducing an undemocratic system. We are reintroducing a situation that says to a group of workers, 'You are different.' This is not the kind of country, it is not the kind of Australia, that we were founded on. It is not the kind of country or the kinds of workplaces that we want to have in the future.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. This is an important step to address the growing culture of disrespect for the rule of law on building sites around Australia and, in turn, to improve productivity in the vital construction sector. This bill will achieve that objective by doing several important things: firstly, by re-establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission to enforce the rule of law applying in this sector; secondly, by prohibiting unlawful industrial action, unlawful picketing, coercion and discrimination and by delivering significant penalties for breaches of the law; and, thirdly, by providing a wide range of remedies, including injunctions, to the Australian Building and Construction Commission and persons affected by unlawful behaviour.

In the time available to me this evening, I want to make three points: firstly, that productivity in the building and construction industry has been very poor, largely thanks to the conduct of unions in the sector and particularly the CFMEU; secondly, that the Australian Building and Construction Commission addressed in a very successful and effective way the problem of poor productivity in the building and construction sector during the Howard government years; and, thirdly, that with this legislation, should it pass into law, we will again see an improvement in productivity in this vital sector of our economy.

Let me turn first to the proposition that we have seen a reduction in productivity, a reduction in performance in the construction sector, thanks to a wide-ranging disregard for the rule of law by building sector unions over the years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments and particularly following Labor's Fair Work (Building Industry) Act 2012, which led to a sharp decline in standards of behaviour in this vital sector. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that we have seen a return to the bad old days of lawlessness in this sector. We have again seen aggressive and militant union behaviour becoming commonplace. We have seen site shutdowns, we have seen strike action and we have seen other industrial action occurring regularly.

Indeed, we saw a strikingly large number of high-profile, large-scale industry disputes under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments—for example, at the sites at which Lend Lease, the big building company, was operating in the ACT, New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria in July 2012. We saw the notorious disputes at Grocon sites, mainly in Victoria, in August and September of 2012. We saw the episode at the Queensland Children's Hospital between August and October 2012. In Victoria, in October and November 2012, we saw industrial disputation at the Little Creatures brewery. In February of this year at the Werribee water treatment plant, again we saw egregious examples of union conduct, particularly by the CFMEU, showing a flagrant disregard for the rule of law.

I was pleased earlier this year to be appointed to chair a coalition working group on re-establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Together with parliamentary colleagues, in the month of August, I met with many participants in the building industry, and we learnt about the violence and the intimidation which, I am sorry to say, has accompanied industrial action by the CFMEU at many construction sites—for example, at the Myer Emporium site in Melbourne, where CFMEU officials engaged in extensive intimidation directed at Grocon workers who wanted to go to work on the site.

We heard instances of the unions insisting on construction companies paying for union delegates to work on the site and spend their time entirely on union business, not on the business of getting the building built. We heard shocking examples of union militancy, including one example where the unions commenced a shutdown halfway through a concrete pour, which meant that the concrete subsequently had to be jackhammered out at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars and many days of lost time.

Indeed, this consultation process was a thoroughly eye-opening experience in learning that during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years the construction sector unions had been engaged in 1970s style militancy and disruption. We also heard alarming evidence of increasing degrees of corruption and criminality. We heard that it is not uncommon for union officials to openly ask contractors and subcontractors for money. That will be justified or described in many different ways, but that appears to be a pattern.

We heard anecdotes that subcontractors will not be retained by head contractors unless they are on a CFMEU approved list. In other words, if you are a subcontractor wanting to go about business in the building and construction sector—the way things have been operating under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government—and you are black-listed by the union, no head contractor will be prepared to engage you to work on a site.

We heard troubling stories, troubling anecdotes and troubling reports of criminality, drug dealing and other things on building sites. We also heard numerous reports, and this is a matter of historical record, of the CFMEU routinely disregarding court orders and routinely failing or delaying in the payment of fines which had been imposed on it by the courts.

It is troubling indeed that, in the building and construction sector, unions exercise considerable control over matters which would typically be the exclusive responsibility of the management of a business. For example, they routinely dictate to contractors who they must employ as occupational health and safety representatives on a site. We heard numerous examples of uneconomic and unreasonable terms being included in enterprise-bargaining agreements at the insistence of the CFMEU or other unions.

Such lawlessness has profound economic and social consequences. It results in lost productivity and in construction costs being higher than they ought to be. Indeed, an independent report prepared for the Master Builders Association estimated that, if things did not change, 75 per cent of the productivity gains that had been achieved during the Howard years thanks to the Australian Building and Construction Commission were at risk of being lost.

That leads me to the second point I want to make, which is that the record of improvement in productivity, of improvement in performance, in the building sector during the Howard government years under the Australian Building and Construction Commission is an impressive record. The evidence speaks for itself. During the period that the Australian Building and Construction Commission was in existence, before it was white-anted by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, there was substantial evidence of improved productivity. According to one study, building and construction industry productivity was boosted by 9.4 per cent. In the 10 years leading up to 2012, which was the last year that the ABCC in its old form existed, multifactor productivity in the construction industry increased by 16.8 per cent. Indeed, the construction industry was one of only three industries that experienced increased labour and multifactor productivity growth in the 2000s when compared to the 1990s.

Another very telling piece of evidence is that in the ABCC years the number of days lost due to industrial disputation fell very sharply. Between 1995-96 and 2000-01, that is to say before the ABCC, the days lost to industrial action in the building and construction industry averaged 159,000 per year. Once the ABCC arrived, that rate dropped sharply. By 2007-08, it was down to a mere 8,000 days a year. So it was 159,000 days pre ABCC and a mere 8,000 working days lost due to industrial disputation in 2007-08, post ABCC. That reflects, amongst other things, the clear and demonstrated preparedness on the part of the ABCC to pursue unlawful conduct and to do it without fear or favour. It pursued unlawful conduct on the part of unions and on the part of building companies equally—and indeed on the part of any other industry participant.

The ABCC built a reputation as a tough, strong, determined regulator. Let me give you one instance which was repeatedly pointed out to me and my colleagues during our consultation process. When the ABCC was notified of a dispute, its inspectors would frequently or typically arrive on the building site within an hour of being notified. This was a proactive and effective regulator. But once it finally ceased operation in 2012, after the sustained period of white-anting under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government reached its peak, you saw a very rapid turnaround. Between 2011-12 and 2012-13, just in that one year, working days lost rose from 24,000 to an estimated 89,000, an astonishing jump in just one year. Over half of the gains achieved by the ABCC in working days lost turned to dust and ashes once the ABCC was gutted by Labor.

The final point I want to make is that the legislation before the House this evening, if passed into law, will once again improve productivity in the vital building and construction sector. We have been in the dark ages under the Labor government, but with this bill we will come into the light, into a new era of productivity and efficiency.

This coalition government is committed to ensuring that the rule of law is maintained in the building and construction sector and that workers are able to go to work free of the kind of base intimidation and harassment which has regrettably been a feature of the modus operandi of the CFMEU over the past few years—a modus operandi which it has been allowed to proceed with without interference, unrestrained by government or its agents. It is no wonder that confidence in the building and construction sector dropped very sharply. But this bill, if it passes into law, will restore order, will restore confidence and will ensure that the rule of law is enforced, and its building-industry-specific provisions, including much tougher penalties for breaches of industrial law, will maintain order. And, in turn, this legislation will again encourage productivity and again encourage the pursuit of high levels of employment in the sector.

The bill makes it clear that there are significant penalties for taking unlawful industrial action or for engaging in or organising an unlawful picket, and this is an important and necessary step in view of the kind of conduct we have regrettably seen on building sites all around the country over the past few years.

The bill also gives the Australian Building and Construction Commission the power to be effective in investigating and in enforcing the law. The bill will give the ABCC the power to compel witnesses to provide evidence in relation to suspected contraventions of workplace relations law. Now, we have seen some ill-informed criticisms of this measure from the other side of the House, but I make the point that these powers are quite consistent with those granted to other regulators such as the ACCC, ASIC, the Australian Taxation Office and Medicare, and these powers are necessary given the culture of silence, based on fear and intimidation, which has prevailed on building sites. Employees on building sites have been simply too frightened to speak. They have been subjected to a culture which very strongly discourages them from saying to the regulator what has actually happened. That is why this particular power is necessary and that is why it is included in this bill.

I conclude by saying that the measures in the bill before the House this evening are of the first importance. Should this bill pass into law, these provisions will encourage productivity and employment growth in the building and construction sector. This is something that the coalition can do. It is something that the previous Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor government could not do because it owed the CFMEU far too much. But we are ready to do so and we are prepared to do so, and we are acting in the national interest.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not surprisingly, I rise to oppose the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. I should make the disclosure at this point that, when I was about 21, I think, I was first engaged to work for a trade union and, for the next 25 years, I worked to represent the interests of working men and women. I started off looking after people who worked for the water board—salaried officers. I then moved to the Australian Workers Union and looked after shearers and miners, and, as most people who are more aware of my immediate past know, I looked after police officers. So I say to those on the other side: don't give me a lecture about law and order and tell me that that is what this legislation is about.

These bills, quite frankly, masquerade as an attempt to improve productivity, but we know why they are before us. In the lead-up to the last election, those on the other side pledged not to reintroduce Work Choices, not because they did not believe in it but because they knew the political reality—that the last time they tinkered with Work Choices it caused them to lose government, in 2007. That is what this is about, trying to reinstitute and bring back those things by picking on one area of industry, thinking that this would just meet with the view, 'Well, it's only one union, the CFMEU; it's okay to look at them,' because they are big, tough fellows out there working in the construction industry. They think, 'We'll give you a pile of statistics to say why the area is less efficient.' But I have not heard one single element about some of the employers that operate in that industry, and I might talk a little bit about that as I go on.

I would have thought that some of the people who actually donated to the Liberal Party, people from Leighton, would be involved in some aspect of this debate. I would have thought that, in terms of doing damage to the national psyche and doing damage to industrial relations, people going out to bribe contractors, with a view to winning contracts, would require the attention of this parliament. Apparently not. They are going to talk about the workers on industrial sites, the riggers, the electricians, the carpenters and people like my sons. Both of them are construction workers. We are getting lectures about how these people operate on their sites, but as far as I know I have instilled values in my sons of fairness and decency, and I take umbrage at the fact that, simply because they are construction workers, those opposite are giving them less of a standard of decency than anybody else.

As for coming along and making the argument, 'We want a strong cop on the beat,' well, if you were going in that direction, I would actually support that. If we are talking about criminality, why aren't the police involved? Why are we going to give such powers to this construction industry body? The only powers you can equate with these would be those exercised by the Australian Crime Commission—coercive powers, where they can force witnesses to answer, and if you do not answer the questions you are then incarcerated. That is what we are talking about. By the way—and I cannot speak for my colleagues—I was one of those that supported those coercive powers for the Australian Crime Commission, because it was fighting serious and organised crime. That is not what you use for a construction site. But that is what those opposite want to do.

This is a diversion. This is how they are going to suck up to those people who contribute to Liberal Party fundraising, to show how they are tough against unions without using Work Choices. That is what this is about—nothing more, nothing less.

As I said, I have two boys who work in this industry. People can talk about the construction industry, but I have been through one of my sons working on a construction site in Western Australia when the fellow he was working side by side with died. He was crushed to death. It is okay to point out that accidents happen, but it would have been nice to know that there were a few other people on that site, even a union safety inspector—someone else out there also having a look. This is designed to put a line through all that. I do not mind having a union official who is tough when it comes to safety. I do not mind somebody stopping a job to protect someone's welfare—in this case, it would have been someone's life—because I know how much this impacted on my boy.

This is going to put fines for unlawful actions of $34,000 on individuals and $170,000 on organisations, and the ability to take criminal action. It sounds really tough, except that when you look at the previous incarnation of the Building Industry Construction Commission and where it came from—which was the Cole royal commission, conducted to the tune of $70 million—you realise that not one criminal charge emanated from it. It was okay to have the 'wheat for weapons' scandal going on, everything else going on, but the Cole royal commission looked at the construction industry for $70 million. I do not accept the argument that there has been an improvement in productivity. I do accept that wages have been suppressed. I do accept that safety has been jeopardised. I do accept that union officials have been kept off site. If that is what the productivity argument is, I will have to accept that it achieved what it was designed to do.

I would have thought that we support fairness in this country, that we support decency, regardless of what side of the House we stand on. The other thing I think we should all stand for in this place is supporting the rule of law, where everyone is treated equally before the law. That is not the case when it comes to the building and construction industry, apparently. As I said at the outset, I am more than happy to have a strong cop on the beat. I know after talking to the Police Federation of Australia and to each of the state branches of the police association that they would be happy to be called upon to investigate areas of illegality occurring on building sites. They have not been. They will do their jobs, they will investigate criminal activity, they will arrest people and prosecute people, but they are not being called upon to do anything here because no-one is making the allegation of criminality. Why is it that they have not called the police to engage in that? And do not give us the line of the code of silence, that no-one talks. That is ridiculous. The police are out there doing things day in and day out, fighting a battle with outlawed motorcycle gangs, the legacy of silence they put over that, but we are going to treat this differently. There has to be another motive in it. This is more political than not.

It was not that long ago that I was standing in this place when former Prime Minister John Howard brought in Work Choices. I remember it because one of the disputes I raised was called the Artesio dispute. A little company in Minto had a young illiterate bloke called Warren Small working for them—he still is, as far as I know. Warren came to me because they wanted him to sign an individual contract and he said, 'I don't know what's in it.' This led to a 36-day strike. I really felt for these people because they were very low income workers on minimum rates of pay, and they stood up. I drove past that community for 36 days. I took them meat pies in the morning. I supported their stoppage. When I got a chance to talk to one of their directors, a quite prominent person who was involved in other boards, not just this company, I asked him, 'Why the hell are you guys doing this?' I still remember to this day that the view was: 'We don't make the laws. If you fellas in parliament decide that we can put people on wages lower than the award, why shouldn't we?' So they abrogated their responsibility by simply saying, 'The law allows us to do this and we don't feel any regret by doing it.' These workers were on minimum rates of pay, being squashed like that, with no negotiating ability and no industrial clout, and that is what they got.

We are talking about the building and construction industry, but don't for a minute think that we are only talking about the high-rise sites. Do not for a minute think that it is only fully organised sites, where organisers get out and knock on employers' doors wanting to negotiate. We are also talking about those many other areas of the industry where workers have little bargaining power. Most workers in this industry are price takers, whether they be apprentices or semiskilled workers. They have been offered a job and they take it at a particular price. They do not have the ability to negotiate individually with an employer.

If we are going to simply have laws that make it difficult for unions to do what they do, to represent workers honestly and decently, we need to have a good close look at ourselves because in this parliament we are not much different from union officials—except that we are not representing someone in the CFMEU or someone in the Police Federation or something like that; we are representing the community. If we are going to say that anyone who is of a particular class—in this case, a building worker—is going to get treated differently, how can we stand here and say that we genuinely, without fear or favour, represent members of our own communities?

I think a lot of this has to be put into perspective. These bills have only been pushed forward and are only being debated tonight to ensure that this government looks tough when it comes to industrial relations—because they cannot do what they really want to do. They really want to re-introduce Work Choices and to make it possible, once more, to frustrate normal industrial relations processes and to give the whip hand to employers. If they are saying there might be corrupt union officials out there, they should not come in here and assert that there are no corrupt employers. Not long ago, we looked at construction companies running freely around out there with their chequebooks. If those companies are prepared to buy contracts and influence contractual negotiations with a chequebook, what might they be doing with union officials? If there are union officials on the take, I imagine that it is those companies that are paying them. So those opposite should not come in here and tell us that this is a one-sided thing and that this is what we have to do to stop these officials from the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union.

I know only a few people in the CFMEU, but I certainly know Brian and Brad Parker from New South Wales. They are good friends of mine, as is their mother. I would not say for a minute that they are not tough people, but they do put in huge efforts to look after workers in their industry. If that is what we expect of union officials—to look after workers in their industry—and if what we expect of members of this parliament is to look after people in their communities, then let us not start treating people differently. Let us not say, 'Just because you happen to work in building construction, you are going to be treated differently.' If we say, 'We are going to treat you no differently than a serious and organised criminal,' I think that will put us in jeopardy of transgressing a number of international human rights conventions we are signatories to. There has to be some balance in this argument and there has to be some transparency from those putting forward this argument.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013, which will deliver enormous benefits to the 3,066 construction businesses based in my electorate of Brisbane. The main object of the bill is to provide an improved workplace relations framework for building and construction work to ensure that it is carried out fairly, efficiently and productively for the benefit of building industry participants and for the benefit of the Australian economy as a whole. The bill aims to improve the bargaining framework so as to further encourage genuine bargaining at the workplace level. Enterprise bargaining negotiations must be harmonious, sensible and productive and should be tailored to the particular workplace.

The bill upholds and promotes respect for the rule of law and ensures respect for the rights of all building industry participants. To that end, the bill contains provisions to ensure that unlawful actions, including unlawful industrial action and unlawful pickets, are dealt with appropriately. The bill also gives the courts the power to impose significant penalties on individuals and organisations that participate in unlawful actions.

The bill provides effective means for investigating and enforcing the law. The Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC, will be able to exercise their power to obtain information quickly and effectively without being hindered by unnecessary bureaucratic red tape around the issue of examination notices. However, to ensure accountability and transparency, the use of these powers will continue to be reviewed and reported on by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Most importantly, the bill encourages productivity and the pursuit of high levels of employment in the building and construction industry. It will ensure that the government's policy to deliver the infrastructure of the 21st century is delivered on time and on budget. The bill will create jobs and investment by ensuring employers and employees in the industry can get on with the job without fear of intimidation.

The construction industry provides many jobs for workers in small businesses, large enterprises and contracting firms. In my state of Queensland, approximately 240,800 individuals are employed in the construction industry. It is critical to the productivity, prosperity and international competitiveness of Australia. The coalition government recognises the importance of an industry that is vital to job creation and essential to Australia's economic and social wellbeing. This is something that is understood by many people—not, sadly, by the Labor Party—in the construction and business sector, including bodies such as the Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland, the CCIQ, in my electorate of Brisbane. The CCIQ strongly supports the re-establishment of the ABCC and its full suite of powers. They were one of the many voices in industry who were opposed to its abolition by the former government.

More specifically, in relation to the government's bill, the CCIQ said:

We believe that it is primarily a productivity enhancing measure that will provide certainty to businesses that their livelihood will not depend on the arbitrary actions of rogue union officials. The re-establishment of the ABCC is a reflection of the realities of the building and construction industry, and the capacity of projects to be held to ransom by union groups seeking that their unreasonable demands be met. The building and construction industry represents around eight per cent of GDP, and re-establishing the ABCC to watch over the industry is an important step in increasing productivity and boosting long term confidence and investment in infrastructure projects.

Small and medium businesses are particularly vulnerable to the effects of industrial action and industrial activity in the workplace—they often do not have the time or the resources that large companies have to devote to expenditure on the legal battles that these situations often necessitate.

While much of the industrial action that occurs on building sites is unlawful, by the time it is brought to a halt, businesses have sustained significant economic harm because the workplace has come to a standstill

The Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate did not provide businesses with certainty that unlawful industrial action would be dealt with firmly and decisively, because it inherently lacked the powers to do so.

That was a very deliberate aspect of its establishment. The CCIQ goes on:

The fact that it was established within the architecture of the Fair Work system, rather than as an independent regulator, is highly problematic, given the perception among many employers that the system is designed to assist employees, rather than employers

By contrast, the ABCC will be an independent industrial regulator which has already demonstrated its capacity to be the 'tough cop on the beat' for the building and construction industry.

This voice of business and industry has provided an overwhelming endorsement of the government's actions in introducing this bill into the House.

In the government's Policy to Improve the Fair Work Laws, the coalition has committed to re-establish the ABCC to once again ensure the rule of law and improve productivity on commercial building sites and construction projects, whether onshore or offshore. We took this commitment to the Australian people in the 2010 and 2013 federal elections as a key policy. So important did we see this commitment that we also committed to re-establish the ABCC within 100 days of the parliament first sitting. This government was given a clear mandate by the Australian people to make this change. The introduction of this bill into the parliament is proof of the coalition's commitment to delivering upon that promise and provides yet another example of what can be done when you have a government that is run by adults and is focused on governing as opposed to celebrity campaigning.

Australian workplaces can no longer be lawless regimes dominated by standover merchants and thuggery. For many years, the building and construction sector provided the worst examples of industrial relations lawlessness The workplace relations minister in the Howard government, the Hon Tony Abbott, was prepared to tackle this longstanding bad behaviour and in 2001 established the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry. It says a lot that it required all the power of a royal commission to break through the wall of silence and intimidation that had so dominated the building and construction industry for so many decades.

The final report of the royal commission provided compelling evidence of the need for reform in this industry. It found consistent evidence that building sites and construction projects in Australia were hotbeds of intimidation, lawlessness, thuggery and violence. Projects were delayed, costs blew out and investment in our economy and infrastructure was being jeopardised. Central to the royal commission's findings was industry lawlessness, and it appears from all of the opposition to this bill coming from the other side of the chamber that the Labor Party is suffering from collective amnesia on these findings. Just to correct any memory lapses those opposite may be having, let me remind them that the royal commission concluded that the standards of commercial and industrial conduct exhibited in the building and construction industry represented a significant departure from that in the rest of the Australian economy. Witnesses reported criminal, unlawful and inappropriate conduct, including breaches of the relevant workplace relations and work health and safety legislation, and a disregard for Commonwealth and state revenue statutes. Inappropriate conduct was defined by the royal commission as 'behaviour that infringes the Workplace Relations Act 1996, a person's right of choice or other conduct which departs from recognised norms of civility and behaviour.'

The royal commission's findings publicly established what everyone in the industry had known for many years but previous governments had been unwilling or too intimidated to tackle. The Howard coalition government was prepared to step in and make the tough decisions required to clean up this sector. The establishment of the ABCC in 2005 provided a genuinely strong watchdog, dissolving the 1970s-style practices that had long dominated this industry. It was a strong, specialist regulator that enforced the rule of law applying to the building and construction sector.

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 during this period found that building and construction industry productivity grew by more than nine per cent, consumers were better off by around $7.5 billion annually and    fewer working days were lost through industrial disputation. In the manner of all Labor governments who take their orders from the unions, the former Labor government came under sustained pressure from building and construction unions to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the building code that supported its work. Even then, you have to wonder whether the Labor Party's heart was really in it. This issue was such a burning bridge for them that the previous Labor government procrastinated for five years. Before then, the workplace relations minister, Bill Shorten, gave in to union demands and abolished the organisation in 2012, replacing it with a regulator with significantly reduced funding and powers. This saw the bad old days return, and they returned with vigour. There were wildcat stoppages, militant protests, demands from unions that their mates be employed on projects ahead of non-unionists, and an increase in construction industry disputes to a seven-year high.

What I find even more disturbing is the apparent continuation of the Labor Party's collective amnesia in relation to the scenes we saw last year, merely weeks after the ABCC was abolished. There was violence in the streets of the city of Melbourne on the Grocon site, with militant union protesters intimidating the community, and their supporters attacking police horses. We had workers on the site purchasing an advertisement in the Herald Sun with an open letter to their own union bosses asking for the blockades to stop. Images of these protests were seen on television screens around the world. What message did it send to national and international companies that were thinking about investing in our building and construction projects in Melbourne or in Australia generally? Notably, not a single member from those opposite has been able to answer that question.

The Abbott government is committed to ensuring that the rule of law is maintained and that workers in the building and construction sector can go to work free from intimidation and harassment. As the Cole royal commission concluded a decade ago, the behaviour that we too regularly see in this industry marks it as singular. It is an industry in which conventional standards of commercial and industrial behaviour do not apply—like in the textiles, clothing and footwear sector, special circumstances require special laws.

We also promised that a re-established ABCC will administer a code that will govern industrial relations arrangements for government funded projects. This step will ensure that taxpayer dollars are used effectively. We promised we would work with state governments to ensure consistency with guidelines introduced by those governments who saw the urgent need to set up their own schemes in response to the Gillard government's abolition of the ABCC. A new statutory code is being developed that is intended to commence at the same time as the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission on 1 January 2014.

We have also had the CFMEU grossly bullying non-members by creating posters labelling them, amongst various other things, as scabs and advocating that they be run out of the industry, in open defiance of the Fair Work Act and Supreme Court orders to end the protests. We saw violent disputes at the Little Creatures brewery site in Geelong, where union picketers were accused in court documents of making throat-cutting gestures, threatening to stomp heads in, telling workers who wanted to get on with the work that they were dead, and shoving, kicking and punching motor vehicles.

The coalition government believes that workers deserve to be able to go to work every day without fear of being harassed, intimidated or the subject of violence. Unlike the Labor Party and the unions, we do not believe that the employment relationship is one that must be based upon an ideological commitment to conflict. Rather, the coalition believes that the employment relationship should be defined be cooperation and mutual commitment to the achievement of prosperity and productivity. The former Labor government undermined confidence in the building and construction industry. Abolishing the ABCC has seen a return to lawlessness and an increase in the number of days where work is simply not being done in the industry. Australia cannot afford to have a building and construction industry which is inefficient and unstable, and the restoration of the ABCC and this code that supports the work is critical reform for Australia. The content of this bill reflects this commitment, and I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)

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

I wish to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill, although I believe it is a misnomer to include 'improving productivity' within the title. At the outset, I want to deal with a comment made by the previous speaker and, coincidentally, by her cross-town colleague, the member for Fisher. Those comments imply that Labor's abolition of this body was in some manner related to the current Leader of the Opposition's role in that portfolio and that we showed no haste in abolishing the ABCC. As anyone who has followed Australian politics would know, there were grave difficulties in getting that matter through the Senate, and there was a lot of significant negotiations over a long period of time to get to the abolition. To imply that we were in some way tardy, that we were not determined, or that we were somehow manipulated by the unions when a new person became minister, is rather crass.

The opposition would absolutely repudiate the line of argument that some balance is being brought back into industrial relations through this measure. It is, indeed, undemocratic. It is, indeed, unnecessary. It was interesting to note that the member for Fisher quoted Justice Wilcox very fondly in regard to one aspect of this debate. He failed to mention the demolition job that Justice Wilcox did on Econtech, which is the main company that those opposite have relied on for their analysis of productivity in this field. The member for Fisher very briefly commented on Justice Wilcox because he knows his comments formed a significant part of the justification for abolishing the ABCC.

There has been significant citation of the Cole royal commission, carried out by the former Prime Minister John Howard's close law school friend. But what has not been stressed about that report is that after the Australian people spent $70 million on that inquiry, after we heard the most extreme allegations, after it went through the process for a massive 1½ years, not one charge was laid. There was $70 million dollars spent, there was much publicity in the Murdoch press and much coverage of very extreme allegations, but there were no prosecutions. It is worthwhile noting, for all the rhetoric about criminalisation in this industry—the evil deeds that are going to be assailed—this is not the body that will be prosecuting people for those kinds of offences. That lies elsewhere.

This legislation will represent a major imbalance in the industry. I have not heard too much of a contribution from those opposite on a variety of characteristics of this industry. We know that there has been a widespread occurrence—one might say there has been a fever—of phoenix companies. These are collapsing companies that are established in the names of Iraqi migrants with no assets whatsoever. Those companies are collapsed down and the workers are left without their wages and various other rights. That is a very strong characteristic of the industry. I have not seen too much concentration, when we are analysing the industry, from those opposite about the persistence of sham contracts throughout the industry. I have not heard too much lingering comment about Leightons and companies in this industry being accused of bribing others. I have not heard too many references to black lists operating in the industry, where workers who are regarded as militant—of standing up for their fellow workers' rights—are black listed and are unable to get jobs. This bill represents a major attack on workers' rights in this country. The member for Riverina says: 'Well, it's just common sense. It's all right to abolish people's rights because it's common sense.' Well, we know how wide that argument goes: we have seen now that we can't tell the Australian people what is happening in immigration because of national security reasons. And here we have a justification even lower down the order—that it is common sense to just smash human rights.

If passed, this bill will mean that there will be restrictions on freedom to gather. There will be self-incrimination. There will be a reverse onus of proof. There will be no presumption of innocence; and, importantly, there will be intervention by this government, from whom, in these first few weeks of parliament, I have heard so many speeches about red tape, about small government, about getting the government out of the way, and about getting the government out of interference with industry and its needs. We are now going to have the government coming in, and not only introducing measures of tax and human rights here but also reversing negotiated outcomes—supposedly because they are going to get a few companies coming along and complaining, 'We're intimidated,' so they want to renege on the negotiations. Those opposite are saying, 'Let's reverse that.' This is a government which is characterised by its claims to be standing up for small government, to be standing for less red tape and for less restriction of people's rights et cetera, but this is a government which is monstrously attacking a group of people because they stand up for their rights in this country.

We have in this bill the extreme measure of imprisonment for non-cooperation with this regulatory body. Yet those opposite have not actually produced any statistical measure—except from Econtech—of any merit in this approach. In bringing forward this legislation the government is driven by ideology. The legislation is, as one member said—and it is surprising, isn't it?—supported by the Master Builders Association and by the Property Council of Australia—as though that means anything but an attempt by this government to strengthen employer rights against workers in this industry.

It should be no surprise to the Australian people that those opposite would attempt again to minimise the rights of people to organise and to bargain for themselves. Despite all the rhetoric about boat people, and about how strong those opposite are on protecting the position of the workers of this country, we saw the coalition stand up here and oppose Labor attempts to toughen up the rules on 457 visas. The previous government was enshrining the required content of existing sponsorship obligations—basically doing a bit of labour market testing, and preventing the transfer charge or recovery of certain costs from sponsored visa holders, and measures relating to enforceable undertakings, et cetera. These were measures by which the previous government was trying to do something to protect Australian workers from the manipulation of 457 visas, which was undermining the conditions for workers in this country. This new justification—of supposedly attacking violence and intimidation in industry—is just another attempt by those opposite to minimise workers' rights, as they did when opposing 457 visa changes.

I know of the interesting example of the current Minister for Immigration and Border Protection—in front of a very select audience mind you; not in front of the Australian people—going to a gathering in my electorate and telling the assembled people that any attempt to restrict 457 visa fraud was racist, and that it was an attack on Indians. The people at that gathering had had a significant number of people quite rightly come through skilled migration, and the minister goes out there and says, 'This is racist.' That is what we saw from those opposite on 457 visas.

We also saw, in relation to international students, that the conditions of workers in this country were undermined by fraudulent colleges in the private sector, by inappropriate manipulations of contracts for these kinds of workers, and by people working far in excess of the allowable 20 hours. Once again, those opposite were out there trying to undermine Australian conditions.

This bill before the House today has very little to do with unsubstantiated allegations of widespread intimidation in the industry, and a lot more to do with the question of workers' rights. If we are talking about individuals, we should mention that there was a prosecution against 116 construction workers in Western Australia—a prosecution not of the unions, not of the Reynoldses of this world, not of the CFMEU leadership of Victoria, but of 116 individuals, who were up for a fine in excess of $1 million.

The ABCC was set up in 2005 and it cost the Australian people $250 million. There was no evidence at the end of that process to show the Australian people any tangible outcomes except for the harassment of individuals, the diminution of people's right to organise and assemble freely, self-incrimination and other measures. If those opposite start talking about having a mandate, quite frankly, both sides of politics know that this was not a substantial issue at the last federal election. There might have been divisions in the Labor Party over the previous period. There might have been the question of climate change and how we reacted to that, but I do not remember too many people in my electorate—including Liberal Party friends of mine—telling me that the ABCC was a central issue. The coalition have actually gone beyond the previous legislation with the coverage of this bill. Even if—it is a most remote possibility—the government could come up with some kind of claim for a mandate, the fact is that they, by going to offshore processing and to the delivery of goods and other aspects, this bill is dealing with things that are way beyond the previous legislation. I am pleased to be here with the opposition, opposing this measure. This bill represents a severe attack on the individual and a severe undermining of people's rights to bargain for themselves and to have some rights in society and in their workplace. This bill represents a one-sided analysis of industrial relations.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and the related bill. Before I commence my contribution, I would like to reflect on the words of the previous member. He talked about sham contracting and phoenixing, and so on and so forth. Those activities are currently illegal, and the Fair Work Ombudsman can investigate them and prosecute—so the member's argument falls flat. Also, members opposite seem transfixed by the idea that this legislation is absolutely and solely focused on the activities of unions. This legislation is more than that; it is about achieving proper conduct on building sites, whether that conduct is by unions or by employers—both sides of this contract, if you like, are covered by this legislation. This legislation will impact on improper conduct by employers. I would also like to say that the member opposite was casting reflections on the independence of Econtech. I would like to remind the member that the mining tax was modelled using Econtech; you should bear that in mind before casting aspersions on that particular company.

This bill is further evidence that the coalition government is getting on with the job of building a stronger economy so everyone can get ahead. We made a commitment to Australia that a coalition government would boost national productivity and competitiveness. To achieve this, the coalition will continue to work methodically and diligently to create an environment which will deliver strong economic growth and strong employment growth. It is strong employment growth that provides both social and economic benefits and that is why we are working to remove impediments to genuine employment growth. Productivity is the underlying driver of economic growth and higher standards of living. It is what underpins wealth creation and a better quality of life for all Australians. The past six years of deficit and decline have clearly highlighted that those opposite have little understanding of productivity. The coalition understands productivity. We know that it is fundamentally driven by the ingenuity of businesses and individuals operating in an efficient and competitive market environment. We understand that a core responsibility of government is to facilitate economic opportunities for the people it represents. We understand that governments can impede productivity growth by imposing inefficient and unnecessary taxes, burdensome regulation and ill-targeted spending programs.

Over the last six years, Labor was the roadblock to a more productive Australia. It shut the doors to business and investment, so much so that in August 2012 The Economist's Intelligence Unit ranked Australia 50th out of 51 countries for productivity growth, and No 51 on the list was, in fact, Botswana. Even though Labor spent the last six years talking about productivity and competition, they actually delivered 200,000 extra unemployed Australians—the highest level in almost 15 years. Those opposite spent the last six years talking about productivity and the House should note that in some areas they were productive. They were productive at reducing the real net wealth per person in this country; productive at delivering the five biggest deficits in our history; and productive at creating chaos, waste and mismanagement. They were very productive, indeed, but not the sort of productivity we should aspire to. Let us not forget that federal Labor introduced or amended more than 21,000 regulations during their time in office.

Unlike the previous Labor government, the coalition government has a genuine, achievable plan to improve Australia's productivity. The bill before the House is proof of the coalition's plan to boost productivity. The bill is part of that plan to make Australia more competitive in the global economy and lift our standard of living. As the Prime Minister declared on election night, Australia is back open for business. The construction industry provides many jobs for workers in small business, large enterprises and contractors. The industry is key to a productive, prosperous and internationally competitive Australia.

This bill re-establishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The commission is needed to maintain the rule of law, improve productivity on building sites and construction projects and provide workers with a fair, productive and effective workplace. ABCC will re-establish workplaces free from intimidation, where workers can turn up to work without fear of being harassed or subjected to violence. The ABCC was established by the Howard government in response to the recommendations of the Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry. Some figures in the union movement have tried to portray the Cole Royal Commission as some sort of witch hunt, but a royal commission is as serious as it gets. The Cole Royal Commission was a detailed and methodical examination of the issues affecting the construction industry in Australia. The Cole Royal Commission found that there was an 'urgent need for structural and cultural reform' within the Australian construction industry. The commission recommended four key structural reforms, including the introduction of mechanisms

to ensure that where disputes occur within the industry, such disputes are resolved in accordance with legislated or agreed dispute resolution mechanisms rather than by the application of industrial and commercial pressure.

The commission also recommended the establishment of a tough cop on the beat. Specifically, the commission recommended:

…an independent body, free of the pressures on the participants in the industry, which will ensure that participants comply with industrial, civil and criminal laws applicable to all Australians, and thus operating on building and construction sites, as well as industry specific laws applicable to this industry only.

The ABCC was that tough cop on the beat, and it worked. When the ABCC was patrolling the construction sector, industry productivity was up by 9.4 per cent; Australian consumers were better off by about $7.5 billion per year; and fewer days were lost to industrial action.

When the ABCC legislation was repealed by Labor in 2012, within weeks we saw violence in the streets of Melbourne with militant union protestors intimidating the community. This bill makes it clear that this sort of unlawful action will not be tolerated, which is in keeping with community expectations. The Australian community does not want a repeat of Melbourne, where we witnessed police horses being punched by lawless demonstrators. To make the Melbourne situation worse, the protestors were demonstrating in circumstances where the actual workers on site were happy with the employer and their conditions. So much so that they purchased an advertisement in the Herald Sun with an open letter to their own union bosses, asking for the blockades to stop. We had a situation where the workers were asking the union bosses to stop this unlawful activity—a clear demonstration of how out of step the union bosses were with their own members. The union bosses brought back the bad old days of union thuggery where intimidation and militant protests were the norm. I wish I could say that this was an isolated incident, but it is not. We have also seen the violent dispute in Geelong at the Little Creatures Brewery site. This type of violent event that we have seen is exactly the reason the commission needs to be re-established. And I think those opposite knew that when the unions were without that cop on the beat they would return to their bad old ways. I say this because, when those opposite were in government, for five years they put off the demands from unions to abolish the commission. When they finally made that decision it did not take long for wildcat stoppages, militant protests and bullying of non-union members to take place.

The Cole royal commission made a very reasonable statement about the Australian construction industry when it said, 'The rule of law must replace industrial might.' The foundation of our society is the rule of law. But since the ABCC was scrapped, the rule of law has been eroded within the construction industry. The former government replaced the ABCC with a toothless tiger. The current arrangements undermine the rule of law in the construction industry by removing the ability of the new Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate to instigate proceedings in relation to a matter that had been settled by the parties. In effect, Labor has said to the unions that they can get away with anything, as long as the matter has been settled before the watchdog arrives on the scene. This approach is clearly at odds with the spirit and the detail of the recommendations of the Cole royal commission. This bill will establish the rule of law in the Australian construction industry, and the result will be improved productivity.

The new ABCC will have strong powers. It will have the power to compel witnesses to attend interviews and to produce documents. These powers are robust, but they not unique to the ABCC. Other government agencies have similar powers, including the ACCC, APRA, ASIC and the Australian Taxation Office. The bill does contain appropriate and effective safeguards to ensure that due process and transparency in relation to the exercise of these powers are observed. These safeguards include ensuring the commissioner is able to separate the unlawful and organised picketing aimed at disrupting building and construction work from legitimate protests. Additionally the bill provides for compulsory interview processes to be monitored by the Commonwealth Ombudsman, requiring the commissioner to provide a report to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman must review the exercise of powers in relation to examinations and report to the parliament about the examinations, including the results of the reviews conducted by the Ombudsman. This oversight is an important element to ensure the Australian public can have faith in the commission. It will ensure accountability and transparency. The government is committed to ensuring that workers in the building and construction sector can go to work free of intimidation and harassment.

The government will set the example. That is why the bill is retaining the role of the Federal Safety Commissioner and the Australian Government Building and Construction Industry WHS Accreditation Scheme. The Australian government is a significant funder of large building and construction projects nationally and we will lead the way on improving work, health and safety standards, and culture throughout the Australian building and construction industry.

We are a government focused on creating jobs. The changes in this bill encourage productivity and the pursuit of high levels of employment in the building and construction industry, an industry which is a major employer in Australia and thus essential to Australia's economic and social wellbeing. I ask those opposite to support our nation's economic and social wellbeing and to support a worker's right to go to work without fear of being harassed. Moreover, I ask those opposite to no longer be the roadblock to building a more productive Australian construction industry. Get out of the way and allow higher living standards and greater productivity for all Australians to prevail. I commend the bill to the House.

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

I rise to oppose the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and to support the amendment that has been circulated. In doing so, I have to say that it does not surprise me that, in the third week of this parliament, this is one of the first pieces of legislation that the ideologues on the other side of this parliament have introduced. They have total disrespect and disregard for workers in the building industry, and it is payback for the donors to the campaign that they ran prior to September.

The Liberal government's reintroduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission is a return to failed antiworker laws of the Howard government. It is the ideologues out to get the workers. It is not about having a good, strong economy and a sound industry; it is about attacking those people that they think may disagree with them.

This legislation will result in a return to the coercive powers used to intimidate workers and attack unions at the cost of workers' safety and legal entitlements. I see this as a piece of legislation that will impact on work safety. The construction industry is one of the least safe industries in Australia, with one of the highest casualty rates, one of the highest death rates, of all industries. Through the intimidation of workers, which this bill will allow to happen, the safety of workers in the industry will be jeopardised. These coercive powers allow the ABCC secret police to hold secret meetings and to jail those who do not cooperate. Workers will have no right to silence or to be represented by a lawyer of their choice. I do not think that is good enough.

The previous legislation resulted in construction worker Ark Tribe being drawn into a two-year investigation and trial because he refused to attend the ABCC secret interviews regarding a workers safety meeting he attended on site. Once again those on the other side of the parliament do not support worker safety. He and his family went through hell for nearly two years not knowing if he was going to jail. The ABCC and the conservative government failed in their attempts to make an example of him.

The Cole commission, ordered by the Howard government, spent millions in taxpayers' money to stamp out criminal behaviour of construction unions, but no convictions were ever recorded. It was a total waste of taxpayers' money. It was something that made the Howard government feel good. The government is misleading the Australian community by suggesting that the ABCC will stamp out criminal behaviours in the construction industry. It is flawed on two levels. Firstly, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment both know that the ABCC have no jurisdiction over criminal matters. The ABCC only has powers to intervene on industrial issues. Secondly, no convictions have ever been recorded.

The ABCC is an ideological stance by the government to put the power in the boss's hands so no worker feels able to refuse to work, even if they think the work site is unsafe, let alone to stand up for their legal entitlements on wages and allowances. Once again, it is jeopardising worker safety, something that we as a parliament should be ensuring is protected.

The ABCC is a body that attacks construction workers. Construction workers are not asking for much. They are asking for the basic principle of one law for all workers. Construction workers build our community and they work in a hard industry where their safety is at high risk. These workers deserve the right to have strong industrial representation through their union, something that those on the other side of this parliament do not support.

The legislation will result in discrimination against blue-collar workers in the construction industry, and the Australian community should not tolerate it. We on this side of the House do not support it. This legislation is yet another attempt by this government to divide and isolate groups within our society. The old players are all back and ready for the next battle to weaken workers' voices and industrial rights.

John Lloyd, the previous ABC Commissioner, has been appointed as chairman of the inspectorate advisory board. Nigel Hadgkiss was the previous ABCC deputy commissioner and is now the head of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate. Mr Hadgkiss has a history of bias against construction workers and their union, something that those on the other side of this House have little regard for. As long as they get the result that they want, it is not about fairness, it is not about protecting workers' rights and it is not about ensuring workers' safety. The writing is on the wall, and the class battle between capital and labour continues, with the cards tipped towards the employers through this legislation. The ideologues on the other side have won again.

How many construction workers have to lose their lives or be seriously injured because of poor work safety and the limitations placed on them to refuse work through this legislation? These laws have been condemned repeatedly by the International Labour Organization—on, I believe, eight occasions—because they aim to attack workers and weaken the power of unions to represent workers on site, taking away the voice of workers.

My question to the government is: what are you going to do for workers? You are taking away their rights; what are you giving them in return? We have heard a lot of rhetoric from those on the other side of the House, but as yet all I am hearing is that those working in the construction industry are going to be working in a less safe environment with fewer rights and less protection. How are you going to protect construction workers from criminal employers who withhold their wages and put their lives in danger through unsafe workplaces? Is that okay? Is it all right not to pay workers? Is it all right to ask construction workers to go into unsafe workplaces? We on this side of the House do not believe that is the case. But I would have to say that those opposite are demonstrating through this legislation that they believe that should be the norm.

The government does not care about construction workers. It is more focused on repaying those who contributed to its election fund and pursuing workers on behalf of big business, the same people who gave generously to it during the election campaign. The price of the debt is the destruction of the union movement by attacking the right of workers to be represented.

We on this side of the parliament do not believe that is good enough. We believe that workers have the right to be represented. We believe that employers have the right to be represented. We believe that a healthy work environment is one where both the worker and the employer are respected. This government is showing that it has total disregard for workers in the construction industry. Gina Rinehart, the Minister for Agriculture's No. 1 supporter, has made clear her disdain for the industrial laws in Australia that ensure workers receive decent entitlements and require employers to provide a safe workplace, something that we on this side of the House are totally committed to.

The silver lining is that the workers united will never be defeated. Workers over centuries have fought for their rights at work. You only have to think of the huge worker uprising against Work Choices in 2007. I might add that it was not only workers who were concerned by the unfair Work Choices legislation but all the parents and grandparents of people in the workforce. I do not know how many times I had grandparents coming up to me when I had one of my mobile offices, expressing their concern about the impact Work Choices would have on their grandchildren's lives. This is the first step in the move back to that Work Choices legislation that we had in the past, which shows the focus of this government and its ideological hatred of workers and the union movement.

The union movement has been around a lot longer than Tony Abbott, Minister Abetz, Gina Rinehart and their other conservative conspirators who do not believe in workers' rights. This legislation is a return to discriminatory laws that attack the blue-collar workers who built this country. We would not be where we are today without workers in the construction industry. This is chapter 1 in the government's aim to turn back the clock to a Work Choices style industrial system.

The Prime Minister has misled the Australian people by saying that the government has learnt from the Howard government's industrial relations mistakes and the community's uprising against them. It is just more weasel words—saying things in such a way that you think people will not understand what you are doing and where you are coming from. It is not good enough, because the Australian people are fairly smart and they know this attack on workers in the construction industry is an attack on the union movement that this government has started already. It is something that in the long run the Australian voters will not stand for, because they believe in fairness. They believe in equity. They believe that workers have the right to a safe workplace. This legislation will lead to anything but a safe workplace and a good working environment.

The Prime Minister and his government are unable to ignore their strong anti-union and antiworker beliefs, which drive them and are their purpose in life. Workers deserve to be treated equally, and they have a right to refuse work if they believe it is unsafe or if they are not receiving their legal entitlements. It is a return to the days of the sham contract. Those on the other side of the parliament support that approach rather than workers. This legislation stops workers and their unions from standing up for workers' rights. However, this legislation will only cause a blister for workers and the unions in the long battle to protect their workers' entitlements. I say to the Prime Minister and those opposite: shame! You should be supporting workers. You should be encouraging strong workforces in strong workplaces rather than attacking one sector of the workforce.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in strong support of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013, which restores the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The ABCC was a highly effective, independent watchdog, and its re-establishment will protect workers and constructors and improve productivity on building sites and construction projects. The ABCC was established by the Howard government in 2005 on the recommendations of the Cole royal commission into the building industry and was very foolishly abolished by the Gillard government last year. This legislation fulfils our election commitment to re-establish the ABCC. Specifically, this bill re-establishes the ABCC and prohibits unlawful industrial action, unlawful picketing and coercion and discrimination. It ensures that penalties are high enough to provide an effective deterrent to unlawful behaviour. It is well known that building and construction organisations are well resourced. They have in the past demonstrated a disregard for court orders and are dismissive of fines as simply being part of the cost of doing business.

As someone who worked as an industrial advocate before entering parliament, I know how very important it is that our workplaces are safe and that our industrial relations laws are enforced. Sadly, that has not always been the case when it comes to the building and construction industry. The fact is that there was no good reason for abolishing the ABCC, which had been working so effectively to address the obvious problems identified by the Cole royal commission.

There is not enough time tonight to go into the litany of problems identified by the royal commission: fraud, corruption, collusion and anticompetitive behaviour, unlawful work practices, violence and inappropriate industrial practice. To say that this culture of lawlessness was a major burden on the building industry is an understatement. The ABCC was effective in removing the worst instances of lawlessness that were rampant in the industry. For example, in the 2010-11 financial year there were over 400 investigations conducted by the ABCC. Over 900 contraventions of Commonwealth workplace relations law were discovered, with $2.5 million worth of penalties being imposed by the courts and Fair Work Australia.

From its inception until the end of May 2011 the Australian Building and Construction Commission successfully prosecuted 74 cases and was unsuccessful in only eight cases. The number of investigations conducted over the last three years of the ABCC's operations had been increasing. Clearly, its work was not done. There was a strong argument for the ABCC to continue its work. The reality is that the ABCC was actually delivering some results.

Many of my colleagues tonight have already referred to the findings of the 2013 Independent Economics report on the state of the building and construction industry during the operation of the ABCC, which found that productivity grew by more than nine per cent, consumers were better off by around $7.5 billion annually and fewer working days were lost through industrial action. This is clear evidence that the ABCC was having a positive impact on the building and construction sector. What is Labor's instinctive reaction when something is working effectively? Better do something about it. In shutting down the ABCC it put at risk a significant part of the Australian economy.

Let us consider the consequences of Labor's abolition of the ABCC. Just weeks after the abolition we saw violence on the streets of Melbourne, with militant union protesters intimidating the community and their supporters attacking police horses. We had the incredible situation where workers on a site purchased an advertisement in the Herald Sun to plead with their own union bosses for the blockades to stop. We saw the CFMEU bullying nonmembers, labelling them scabs and calling for them to be run out of the industry. This action was in open defiance of the Fair Work Act and Supreme Court orders to end the protests. There was also terrible violence at the Little Creatures brewery in Geelong, where union picketers made throat-cutting gestures and threats to stomp heads in, and workers who wanted to get on with their work were told they were dead. There was physical violence—shoving, kicking and punching motor vehicles. At City West Water in Werribee the dispute was so terrible that workers had to be flown in by helicopter. In a shocking attempt at intimidation, workers were threatened with Colombian neckties. The term comes from the Colombian civil war in 1948 and apparently involves slashing a victim's throat horizontally and pulling their tongue out through the open wound. Seriously, this is the worst form of intimidatory action. It is just sheer thuggery. Most Australians would be absolutely appalled by such behaviour, but apparently the unions think it is their right to behave in this way. As soon as the ABCC was abolished, they thought they were back in business. Just this month, we saw CFMEU officials threaten to stop work on a Lend Lease project in Adelaide if a union flag was not moved to a more prominent position.

Of course, Labor were warned in advance that their changes would cause chaos. Those warnings came not just from the coalition but from many others. The former ABC Commissioner, John Lloyd, said on the day that Labor's legislation was passed:

This move will prove harmful for the building and construction industry, and the Australian economy.

The rule of law is now compromised beyond repair. Construction industry sources complain that the building unions are boasting that they are 'back in control.' They show no fear of, nor regard for, the new Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate.

The Housing Industry of Australia warned:

The abolition of the ABCC will promote building industry chaos.

The government states that it supports a strong cop on the beat, but these laws promote anything but that.

Australian Industry Group Chief Executive Innes Willox said at the time:

The abolition of the ABCC will increase the risk of unlawful industrial action and coercion on building sites. Those who comply with the law have nothing to fear from the ABCC and the existing legislation.

He went on to say:

The workplace relations reforms introduced as a result of the Cole Royal Commission have been very successful. The ABCC and the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act were central planks of the reforms. Today, the industry is a much better place to work and invest than prior to the reforms and this has provided huge benefits to employers, employees and the community.

Mr Willox concluded:

However, damaging and unproductive industrial relations practices have been creeping back into the construction industry and a strong regulator needs to be maintained to ensure that industrial practices are lawful and appropriate.

Master Builders Australia said of Labor's legislation:

This means the unions will be able to pressure employers to settle matters, including issues of coercion, reinforcing the very behaviour the law is designed to combat. All of the evidence points to the continuing need for a strong cop on the beat. This Bill just does not deliver on that promise.

And not only did Labor ignore industry concerns; they actually sought to muzzle dissent.

The Senate committee inquiring into the abolition of the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner decided to deny former ABC Commissioner John Lloyd an opportunity to even give evidence. They obviously knew that expert advice would not help their cause for restoring union power. Of course, as well as abolishing the ABCC, Labor changed the IR laws governing the building and construction sector. They reduced penalties for breaching the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act from $22,000 to just $6,600 for individuals and from $110,000 to $33,000 for corporations. They narrowed the circumstances under which industrial action by building industry participants would be considered 'unprotected'. And they stopped the Fair Work Building Commission from prosecuting parties for breaches of the legislation where the other parties had settled or discontinued a matter. In short, they gave the unions what they wanted.

Much has been said in this place about the very close relationship between Labor and the unions. I will not go into those murky depths today, but suffice it to say that it is a dependency that does not necessarily deliver a good outcome for our country. It is worth noting that the CFMEU donated $1.7 million to the Australian Labor Party in 2010-11 alone. Of course, the overwhelming majority of members opposite hail from the ranks of the union movement. There is nothing wrong with that in itself; it is just not very representative of the Australian community and it does not result in good policy, as evidenced by Labor's decision to abolish the ABCC.

Australia cannot afford to have a building and construction industry that is inefficient and unstable. This bill encourages productivity and the pursuit of high levels of employment in the building and construction industry. It will ensure that the government's policy to deliver the infrastructure of the 21st century is delivered on time and on budget. It will create jobs and investment by ensuring that employers and workers in the industry can get on with the job without fear of intimidation. The restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the code that supports its work is a critical reform for Australia.

The building and construction sector has a long history of disputation, and I have spoken in this place on a number of occasions about the history of some of that disputation. I went through it in quite a lot of detail in a speech that I gave on 20 June 2011, where I talked about reviews in the late 1980s, over 20 years ago, when the full bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission conducted a review into the building and construction industry. It was not the first review that had been undertaken of that industry. So we have a very long history of reviews and inquiries into this sector, trying to make sure that this sector, which is so critical to the Australian economy, works, is productive and does what it needs to do for our economy. It is one of our most important sectors.

As we begin to kick-start this economy, we will be looking at the building and construction industry to kick in, to make sure that it provides more jobs and that momentum gathers through the total economy. We certainly need to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, and we need to do it as a priority. I strongly support this bill and commend it to the House.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a union member. I am also a father. I have been a lawyer, a community worker, a bar attendant, a building worker and a teacher. I have done many, many jobs in my life before coming to this parliament, and I apologise for absolutely none of them.

The bill before the House, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013, is everything about the union-bashing agenda of the Abbott government and those who follow in its train. Those opposite are absolutely obsessed with demonising unions, their leaders and the important work that they do on a daily basis in protecting ordinary working women and men.

I am an unapologetic defender of the special role that unions play in our society. There is no other organisation that has the reach, the resources, the capacity and the inclination to challenge tyranny in the way that Australian unions can and do—irrespective of who is in government. Unions are not without fault, but we are a more civilised country in Australia today because they exist.

If you want to talk about tyranny, with this legislation before the House today we can see that tyranny is being turned on its head. It is the tyranny of the government against the organisation of ordinary working Australian men and women that we should be fearful of. This legislation is despicable because it is entirely politically motivated. It is legislation based on ideology with no public policy credentials. Sadly, I fear that it will not be the last of this sort that we see before this House.

Can I address the spurious productivity arguments that have been dressed up and brought before the House today. Once again, legislation brought before the House is based on a fiction; it is based on misrepresentation and a distortion of the facts. Those opposite claim that this bill is about productivity, when there is simply absolutely no basis for this claim whatsoever.

During the federal election campaign, for example, the Prime Minister claimed that the existence of the ABCC had led to $6 billion a year of productivity savings and cost reductions. That is absolute bunkum. The claim was investigated by a reputed independent fact checker during the campaign. It is, I add, a fact checker that did not give a tick to everything that Labor said during that campaign. This is what it had to say about this ridiculous proposition by the Prime Minister: it found the claims to be 'mostly false'.

In his second reading speech, Minister Pyne relied heavily on a report by Independent Economics, formerly known as Econtech, a report commissioned by the Master Builders Association, to justify his spurious productivity claims. I have had a look at the report. It is interesting. You should have a look at it, Deputy Speaker. It says the following:

… it is considered that separate attribution of labour productivity improvements to the ABCC and industrial relations reforms is not possible, because they both need to operate together to be effective.

If you want an independent analysis, go no further than the very well regarded Justice Wilcox, who studied and reported on these laws for the government. He said, not surprisingly, that he found the Econtech study to be deeply flawed.

I will talk about the coercive powers, because the government would like to slide this stuff under the cushion and have not very much said about it at all. The bill authorises the ABCC to exert coercive powers. It will enable the ABCC to require any person to provide information or documents in relation to an investigation of a suspected contravention of the bill. The legislation will also enable the ABCC to compulsorily interrogate any person who may have such information or documents, or they risk six months imprisonment.

You could be forgiven for thinking that you had woken up in Soviet Russia when you look at this legislation before the House. This is a democracy. It is not the sort of country where we want to see innocent people or potentially innocent people subjected to a denial of the legal rights that we provide to criminals or suspected criminals in this country. The introduction of these kinds of coercive powers should send alarm bells throughout the community. It is akin to treating building workers as terrorists.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, would the member for Throsby take an intervention?

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does it—

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, we have had many interventions throughout the course of this debate, and those opposite have had plenty of time to put their case. I would like to enjoy the few minutes that I have left before the adjournment to put my case as to why this legislation should be rejected.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Throsby has the call.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker—a just ruling. The introduction of these kinds of coercive powers should send alarm bells through all right-thinking members of the community. It is akin to treating building workers as terrorists. The legislation destroys the principles of freedom of association. We have heard lots from those on that side of the chamber about the importance of freedom of association. I have heard many fine speeches in the first speeches of those opposite about the importance of liberal principles and the principles of freedom of association. I am not surprised that many of them would not repeat those principles when they spoke on this legislation.

The legislation contains maximum penalties for unlawful industrial action, unlawful picketing and coercive offences—penalties far outweighing those that exist within the Fair Work Act. The rationale for singling out one industry with special laws is flimsy at best. Australia's industrial laws should be enforced in the building and construction industry in the same way as in any other industry.

Fair Work Australia and the Fair Work Ombudsman already have capacity to deploy specialist investigators to deal with these issues in this sector. If those opposite have complaints about the way that Fair Work Australia are fulfilling their legislative requirements, perhaps they might bring a bill before this House to increase the resources available to Fair Work Australia.

In a review of the earlier incarnation of these laws conducted by Justice Wilcox in 2009, the Hon. Justice Wilcox could find no rationale to apply the tougher penalties to building workers. In his report, he said this:

There is no justification for selecting a different maximum penalty, for the same contravention, simply because the offender is in a particular industry.

Pick a bloke in a blue singlet, and he is a potential terrorist. That is what these laws are saying, because he is being treated in exactly the same way when it comes to the denial of basic civil rights.

Those opposite claim that the building industry is rife with industrial relations lawlessness. In fact, the ABS figures show that the rate of industrial disputation in the building industry is at a historic low. I would like to see those opposite intervene on that point. They want to bury those statistics because they know that they do not support their argument.

From time to time, industrial disputes do occur—some of those angry and fraught scenes we feel uneasy about. In the heat of the moment, when the stakes are high, errors of judgement can occur. Unlawfulness and criminal activities should always be condemned and dealt with under the laws that apply to everyone else and apply equally. There should be no singling out of any particular group for coercive treatment. Recently in this place, I paid tribute to the work of the local CFMEU—

Debate interrupted.