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

Labor opposes the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity Bill) 2013 and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. This legislation is intended to bring back the draconian Australian Building and Construction Commission. The ABCC is based on flawed—and often ridiculed—modelling. Its proposed powers are extreme, unnecessary and undemocratic and they compromise civil liberties. The legislation ignores what is already in place, the Fair Work Building and Construction agency, which is working much more efficiently than the ABCC ever did. In addition, Labor's Fair Work Building and Construction agency already has sufficient powers to deal with any unlawful behaviour in the industry. Let us call this what it is—the determination to take Australia back to the ABCC shows a return to elements of Work Choices, which is lurking just below the surface.

Labor opposes bringing back the Australian Building and Construction Commission for a number of reasons. The Prime Minister has made a habit of referring to his workplace policies as:

… returning the industrial relations pendulum back to the sensible centre.

Demonising construction industry employees and their representative bodies by bringing back the Australian Building and Construction Commission could not be further from that so-called sensible centre. For the Prime Minister, going back to the future with the ABCC is strictly personal. It was the Prime Minister, then the minister for workplace relations, who in 2001 called for the Cole royal commission into supposed criminality, fraud and corruption within the building and construction industry. But the investigation of crime, let alone organised crime, is obviously a matter for the police, not for the ABCC. After 18 months and $66 million of taxpayers' money, the Prime Minister's expensive political stunt failed to produce one single criminal conviction.

In this 44th Parliament, the Prime Minister seeks to continue his attack on workers' rights and entitlements. The Australian Building and Construction Commission's proposed powers, as I said, are extreme, unnecessary and undemocratic and they compromise civil liberties. Those proposed powers include unfettered coercive powers, the power to conduct secretive interviews and the power to impose imprisonment on those who do not cooperate. In his second reading speech on these bills, the member for Sturt said that he believed workers deserved to go to work each day without the fear of being harassed or intimidated. I agree with that contention. Yet these bills seek to arm the ABCC with powers to deny people the right to be represented by a lawyer of their choice. The primary bill seeks to arm the ABCC with powers to interview people in secret and to deny them the right to silence. Indeed, the previous iteration of the ABCC prohibited people from disclosing that they had been interviewed by the commission—even when they had done nothing wrong. As Nicola McGarrity and Professor George Williams from the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales say:

… the ABC Commissioner's investigatory powers have the potential to severely restrict basic democratic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence.

Some might say, and I understand this assertion, that some of the provisions of these bills are more akin to legislation you would see in a police state—undemocratic powers hard enough to justify in a time of war or a state of emergency let alone in civil laws governing workplaces. That is exactly what this commission will do, if constructed—impose unfettered, excessive, undemocratic and unnecessary powers upon ordinary workers in governing civil laws in workplaces in this country. Is this the workplace free of harassment and intimidation that the member for Sturt wants for employees? Is this really the sensible centre that the Prime Minister has long referred to?

The attack on workers, however, does not stop there. After pledging to revive the Australian Building and Construction Commission, Mr Abbott has broken his promise—he has broken his promise because this legislation extends the reach of the ABCC into picketing, offshore construction and the transport and supply of goods to building sites. This is more than a revival of a former body—it is a greater encroachment upon workers than was originally the case. Australians are not getting the government they voted for. A re-established Australian Building and Construction Commission will have significantly broader powers than its 2005 incarnation. The then Prime Minister, Prime Minister Howard, came into this place and stood opposite where I stand now and made a ministerial statement introducing all of the elements of Work Choices without any mandate whatsoever from the Australian people. Part of that process included this commission. This is incidental to those provisions, so let us not pretend that we are not returning to elements of Work Choices legislation that will deny workers in this country basic rights.

The Prime Minister's Australian Building and Construction Commission is not, to use his own words, the tough cop on the beat—it is an unnecessary workplace bully. Surely before the government enacts such a body it must establish the merits of the reform. The Leader of the House in his second reading speech tried in vain to justify the need to return to the Australian Building and Construction Commission. By anyone's measure it was a soft and unconvincing performance. The Leader of the House quoted a recent report completed by consulting firm Independent Economics, or Econtech as it was formerly known. This firm has a long history of being paid to churn out report after report attacking workers and their unions while supposedly demonstrating a path to improved productivity. Having behaved in such a mercenary and partisan manner, it is utterly laughable that they can rebrand themselves as independent. Hypnotised, the Leader of the House, the member for Sturt, parroted the report. He regurgitated its findings, which were supposedly that under the ABCC consumers were better off by $7.5 billion annually, that productivity grew and that fewer working days were lost through industrial action. What the Leader of the House failed to disclose was that this consulting firm once had the rare distinction of producing modelling so inaccurate that it was described as deeply flawed and 'ought to be totally disregarded.' Who said that about the Econtech report? None other than former Federal Court judge Justice Murray Wilcox. I am sure the Leader of the House thinks he knows better than Justice Wilcox, but it is not only former Federal Court judges who find the government's foundation for the ABCC rather shaky. Journalist Bernard Keane analysed the recent report of Independent Economics. The conclusion was that construction productivity had outperformed productivity in the rest of the economy since 2002, and Bernard Keane said:

Okay, so rubbish reports like this are common as muck, true. But this is more significant because it's on the basis of stuff like this that the Coalition has committed to reinstitute a major attack on basic rights. And that attack will not be just on the rights of construction industry unionists, but all of us.

There is more to say about the critiques of this firm's reporting prowess. Econtech's 2007 report, which purported to demonstrate that the ABCC had been effective in bringing about significant reform and improvement in the building and construction industry, was picked apart in a report appropriately entitled '"Anomalies", dammed "anomalies" and statistics: Construction industry productivity in Australia.' Authored by David Peetz, Cameron Allan and Andrew Dungan, the report concluded:

The great gains for construction industry arising, it was said, from the near equalisation of costs in the commercial and domestic residential sectors that was attributed to the ABCC have disappeared, like a mirage on the horizon.

Their analysis went on to say:

This close analysis of the Econtech data raises serious questions about the nature of regulation in the building and construction industry. Alleged economic benefits, used to justify denial of basic rights to employees in the industry—rights which everybody else is, at least at present, entitled to enjoy—are based on discredited cost data. In short, there do not appear to be any significant economic benefits that warrant the loss of rights involved in recent arrangements.

This is the sad reality of the government's revival of the ABCC. It is based entirely on discredited reports that have been described as not worth the paper they are written on. But the lack of evidence to warrant the ABCC does not end there. The government clearly has the blinkers on when it comes to ignoring evidence that the current building industry regulation arrangements are working well.

Let us now consider what the ABS data indicates. While the Leader of the House may be willing to dismiss the analysis of a former Federal Court judge, I would be staggered—I should not be at all surprised, perhaps—if he disputed the data of the ABS. Does he dispute that ABS data shows industrial disputation in the building and construction industry during our period in government was on average less than one-fifth the rate seen under the previous, coalition government? Does the Leader of the House dispute that labour productivity has increased over the last 10 quarters and, on average, is almost three times higher under Fair Work than it was under Work Choices? Does he dispute that, under Fair Work more generally, the rates of industrial disputes are on average around one-third the rate we saw under the previous, coalition government? Is the Leader of the House and, indeed, the Prime Minister and this government so desperate to argue the shallow case for the Australian Building and Construction Commission that they not only dismiss the analysis of a former federal court judge but also deny the analysis of our national statistical service?

I say to the government that the data is in, and the data is crystal clear. Fair Work Building and Construction, established by Labor, has continued and will continue to outperform its predecessor, the ABCC. Furthermore, Fair Work Building and Construction already has sufficient powers to deal with unlawful behaviour in the industry. Fair Work Building and Construction has a full suite of appropriate investigative and prosecutorial powers to deal with any unlawful behaviour in the building and construction industry, whether by employers, employees, unions, contractors or others. Fair Work Building and Construction is undertaking more investigations, concluding investigations, getting matters to court faster and recovering more money for underpaid workers in the industry. Fair Work Building and Construction has secured over $2 million in unpaid wages and entitlements for more than 1,500 workers. Of course, these were the sorts of breaches that the former body, the ABCC, never focused upon.

The Abbott government is seeking to rewrite history by contradicting empirical evidence with respect to industrial disputation in the building sector. This is at a time when more Australians than ever before are covered by enterprise agreements, which shows that the vast majority of agreements are made without any industrial action at all. And on the most important measure of all—safety—we have been seeing fewer deaths on construction sites. While all members of this House would, I hope, agree that one death is one death too many and that we should strive to be better, the evidence at hand does not justify this government's response. I know it is a complex area and there are a combination of reasons we may see fatalities in workplaces, but it is important to note that in 2007, during the life of the ABCC, worker deaths on construction sites hit a 10-year high of 51. There were 51 deaths in 2007. More than a year after its abolition in 2012, that number had reduced by 60 per cent to 30. Once again, on these measures, Fair Work Building and Construction is doing a better job than the ABCC. So, again, why is there a need for the Australian Building and Construction Commission?

The Abbott government's determination to take Australia back to the ABCC shows, as I said earlier, a return to Work Choices. That is what this is about. We know this because it is entrenched in the DNA of those on the government benches. It is an insatiable appetite to pursue a politically motivated witch hunt to attack unions and diminish their capacity to represent their members, thereby slashing workers' rights and entitlements. This is something the government has to consider. When we are dealing with matters as significant as this, when we are dealing with proposed laws as excessive as the laws that are contained within the bills that are before the House, then there must be an extraordinary or an exceptional reason for the government to go down this path. This case has not been made by the government. In fact, the evidence shows, to the contrary, that, during the life of the previous body that was somewhat similar to the one proposed, productivity did not go up. In fact, during the life of the ABCC industrial disputation did not go down. If you compare the time under Work Choices with the time under Fair Work legislation, you find Fair Work is favourable in this regard.

For these and other reasons Labor therefore strongly opposes these bills, and we call on the government to rethink its position. We oppose the return to the draconian and extreme Australian Building and Construction Commission, and we will fight this government's ideological war on working Australians every step of the way.

Therefore, I move:

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give the bill and the related bills a second reading because it would be ill advised to continue having regard to:

1.   the negative impact of the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission on the rights and entitlements of Australian workers; and

2.   Government plans to equip the Australian Building and Construction Commission with powers that are extreme, unnecessary, undemocratic and compromise civil liberties."

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gorton has moved, as an amendment, that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House I will state the question in that form: that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

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

The construction industry provides many jobs for workers in small businesses and in large enterprises, and for contractors. In my electorate of Forrest, the 2011 census recorded that 8,770 people were employed in the construction industry, more than in any other industry in the region—and that number has no doubt risen since. This industry is critical to growth and development in the south-west of Western Australia, and across the entire nation. It is also the industry that has seen the worst of union behaviour across the nation. We have seen that what was often illegal behaviour was an absolute blight on this nation, and it was a blight on those very good, hard-working people that just wanted to go to work and be able to do their jobs—all they wanted was to be able to get on with the job.

It was this behaviour that resulted in the establishment of the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry in 2001. The final report of that royal commission provided compelling evidence of the need to reform the industry. It found consistent evidence that building sites and construction projects in Australia were—as we saw—hotbeds of intimidation, lawlessness, thuggery and violence. Projects were delayed, costs blew out and investment in our economy and infrastructure was being jeopardised. The report identified 392 separate instances of unlawful conduct, 25 different types of unlawfulness and 90 different types of inappropriate behaviour. There were unlawful strikes, unlawful payments, abuse of union rights of entry, fabrication of safety issues, compulsory unionism, coercion to pay wages and meet conditions demanded by unions, disregard of contracts and agreements, and disregard of court and tribunal orders. We saw reports of workplace rorts, threats, intimidation, and a range of other behaviours. Based on those findings, the commission made 212 recommendations for substantial regulatory reform, both structural and cultural. The report referred to 31 individuals who had possibly breached criminal laws. Twelve of those 31 individuals came from Western Australia, in an identified 230 separate incidents of unlawful conduct. This is a very bad example for Western Australia. It included breaches of the enterprise-bargaining, freedom-of-association, right-of-entry, and strike-pay provisions of the Workplace Relations Act; a range of departures from proper standards of occupational health and safety; and threatening and intimidatory conduct.

In fact, the Royal Commissioner indicated that, in his opinion, the rule of law had little or no currency within the Western Australian building and construction industry at that time. He found that it was an industry marred by unlawful and inappropriate conduct including the use of fear and intimidation. That was certainly something that I heard about when I was doing a lot of doorknocking in 2007. The commissioner also found that it was common for occupational health and safety issues to be used as an industrial tool. Members of this House would well know the names of Kevin Reynolds and Joe McDonald, key players in the infamy that was the building industry in Western Australia. The royal commission found that Joe McDonald had been involved in 104 incidents of unlawful conduct—57 in one year alone. That is more than one a week. The royal commission was also concerned by the funding of the Construction Skills Training Centre, a training company of which Kevin Reynolds was the chairman. The company was assisted by a capital grant of approximately $1 million provided through the Australian National Training Authority in 1998. The grant was for training levies paid to the unions as required by the union-endorsed EBA, and then by the Builders Labourers, Painters and Plasterers Union, as the income of the Construction Skills Training Centre Inc. However, it was obvious that the money was not for that purpose.

Sadly for us in Western Australia, this was for so many years what our building industry was infamous for—union corruption and thuggery. That is why the bill before the House today is so important. This bill re-establishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission, a genuinely strong watchdog that will maintain the rule of law—to protect workers and the construction sector, and to improve productivity on building sites and construction projects, whether onshore or offshore. This bill will reverse Labor's changes to the laws which underpinned the Australian Building and Construction Commission before Labor abolished it in 2012. The bill will once again prohibit 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, and a wide range of effective remedies, such as injunctions, will also be available to the ABCC and to persons affected by unlawful behaviour. The establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission in 2005 provided what was a genuinely strong and effective watchdog which dissolved the 1970s-style practices that plagued the industry. It was a strong, specialist regulator that enforced the rule of law applying to the building and construction sector. The economic and industrial performance—despite what we have just heard—of the building and construction industry significantly improved when the ABCC existed. 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, that consumers were better off by around $7.5 billion annually, and that fewer working days were lost through industrial action.

Naturally, as soon as Labor came to government in 2007 there was an immediate and sustained pressure from building and construction unions to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. In 2012, the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Bill Shorten, gave in to union demands and abolished the organisation, and replaced it with a regulator with significantly reduced funding and powers. And—with the minister probably under control—we saw a further return to some of the practices that the ABCC had denied the unions for seven years. We have seen the violence on the streets in the City of Melbourne, with militant union protestors intimidating the community and their supporters even attacking police horses. We have also seen the unprecedented action of workers—and this is a very telling point—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. That is an unprecedented action by the workers on the site. They wanted to get to work, to do the work they were employed to do. What did the then Labor government do? I suspect in an attempt to buy some time it contacted Justice Murray Wilcox to review the industry, but Justice Wilcox recognised the need for, and the benefit provided by, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, stating in his report that 'the ABCC's work is not yet done' and that 'it would be unfortunate' if the ABCC's replacement body 'led to a reversal of the progress that has been made'. But that is exactly what we saw happen. The Labor government set up a severely-curtailed version of the ABCC called the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate.

The coalition is committed to the re-establishment of the ABCC and we said so during and before the election campaign. It is one more promise that we are fulfilling, because we meant what we said. And this is more evidence of our doing so. In our policy to improve the fair work laws, the coalition government committed to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission to once again ensure the rule of law and productivity on commercial building sites and construction projects, whether on-shore or off-shore. We do not want to see further instances where workers are forced to take out advertisements like the open letter in the Herald Sun to their own union bosses asking for the blockades to stop. That is not what we want to see. We want the workers to be able to go to work. We have been committed to that and we want to see a return to the rule of law and to productivity on construction sites. We took that commitment to the 2010 and 2013 federal elections as a key policy. The Australian people knew this; we said very directly that it was what we would do, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are committed to ensuring that the rule of law is maintained and that workers in the building and construction sector can go to work free of intimidation and harassment.

We also promised that a re-established Australian Building and Construction Commission would administer a code to govern industrial relations arrangements for government-funded projects. The bill contains provisions to ensure that unlawful action, including unlawful industrial action and unlawful pickets, are dealt with appropriately. I suggest that that is what the workers who advertised in the Herald Sun were asking for, and that is what we are providing them with. The bill also includes the ability for the courts to impose significant penalties for individuals and organisations that participate in unlawful actions, again underpinning what those workers were wanting when they took out that advertisement. The Australian Building and Construction Commissioner will also be able to exercise their power to obtain information quickly—that is critical—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. Importantly, the bill encourages productivity and the pursuit of high levels of employment in the building and construction industry.

It will create jobs and investment by ensuring employers and workers—the same workers who took out the ad in the Herald Sun wanting to go to work—that they can go to work and can get on with the job without fear of intimidation. In the future under this legislation the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner will be able to compel witnesses to attend an examination or to produce documents where he or she reasonably believes that the person has information or documents relevant to an investigation into a suspected contravention of workplace relations laws. These powers are needed to ensure the Australian Building and Construction Commission is able to carry out its investigations effectively and is a key tool for breaking down what is often seen as a culture of silence. There are appropriate and effective safeguards in this bill, however, to ensure due process and transparency in the use of these powers. As the first step in the government's restoration, I support very strongly the Australian Building and Construction Commission—I see one of the members in the House who also supports this very strongly—but I certainly do not support the amendments moved by the previous speaker.

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

The bill seeks to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. That commission was initially created in 2005 to investigate breaches of, and to enforce, federal industrial law in the building and construction industry. If the Building and Construction Commission is re-established, it will have coercive powers that will compel ordinary workers to be subject to secret interviews, to be denied legal representation and to be threatened with imprisonment if the person subject to such coercive powers refuses to cooperate. In my view these powers are excessive, undemocratic and unwarranted. The bill extends the reach of the Building and Construction Commission well beyond where it is now into picketing, 'offshore construction to as far as Australia's exclusive economic zone or waters above the continental shelf', and will encompass the transport or supply of goods to building sites, including resource platforms. The new powers aimed at stopping pickets include a reverse onus requiring individuals to prove that they were not motivated by industrial objectives in order to escape the maximum $34,000 penalty. How on earth can a reverse onus of proof be justified here?

I note that the Prime Minister has made a habit of referring to his workplace policies as 'returning the industrial relations pendulum back to the sensible centre'. But demonising construction employees and their representative bodies by returning to the Building and Construction Commission is a mile away from the sensible centre. For the Prime Minister, going back to the future with the ABCC is highly personal. It is, after all, the Prime Minister who called for the 2001 Cole royal commission into criminality, fraud and corruption within the building and construction industry. This is despite the ABCC having no role in investigating crime, let alone organised crime—which is obviously a matter for the police. After 18 months and $66 million, what was an expensive political stunt failed to produce a single criminal conviction.

In this 44th Parliament, the Prime Minister has resumed his attack on workers' rights and entitlements. The ABCC's proposed powers are extreme, unnecessary and compromise civil liberties. Those proposed powers include unfettered coercive powers, secretive interviews and imprisonment for those who do not cooperate. People interviewed have no right to silence and are denied the right to be represented by a lawyer of their choice. Is this the supposed sensible centre that the Prime Minister has referred to? After promising to revive the ABCC, the Prime Minister has in fact broken his pledge—not the only promise the government has broken, by the way—because this legislation extends the reach of the ABCC into picketing, offshore construction and the transport and supply of goods to building sites. This is not a revival; the re-established Building and Construction Commission will have significantly broader powers than its 2005 incarnation. The Prime Minister's ABCC is not, in his own words, the tough cop on the beat; it is an unnecessary 'workplace bully'.

In its second reading of this bill, the government attempted to justify the need to return to the ABCC by referring to a recent report completed by consulting firm Independent Economics, or Econtech, as it was formerly known. This firm has a long history of churning out report after report which attack workers and their unions while claiming to demonstrate a path to improve productivity. The government failed to disclose that this consulting firm once had the rare distinction of producing modelling so inaccurate that former Federal Court judge Murray Wilcox slammed their work as 'deeply flawed' and recommended that it 'ought to be totally disregarded'. Indeed, former Commissioner of the ABCC, Leigh Johns, has told the Senate that even the ABCC removed the reports from its website.

If you ask why the government would be doing this if their professed reason for doing this does not stack up, you see that it is the barely disguised, thinly disguised, intention of this legislation to cripple and hamstring the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Employees Union, the CFMEU. The House needs to appreciate that this union plays a very important role in the construction industry, which includes blowing the whistle on various abuses which take place in that industry, including abuses of the migrant worker program, such as the 457 visas.

A recent example drawn to my attention was of the group of Hungarian men brought to Australia on temporary visas allegedly as highly skilled technicians but instead being used as labourers in a Western Sydney warehouse. They were promised Australian rates of pay—around $30 an hour. Instead, for the last four months they have been paid around $15 an hour to help build a warehouse in Sydney's Eastern Creek. They were working as riggers, forklift drivers and general labourers, not as the mechanical engineering technicians that the 457 visas specified, and indeed none of them have qualifications or experience as mechanical engineering technicians. The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union was representing the men in this case and putting forward their concerns and the fact that the majority of them have little or no English and that they needed to have this kind of representation and support to avoid being ripped off by what was, in this case, an unscrupulous employer. It is regrettable that the government have a blind spot in relation to this industry and this union. This blind spot is part of their ignorance of the evidence that the current building industry regulation arrangements are working well.

Fair Work Building and Construction, established by Labor, already has sufficient powers to deal with any unlawful behaviour in the industry. Fair Work Building and Construction has to date outperformed—and I dare say will continue to outperform—its predecessor, the ABCC. 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 investigations, getting matters to court faster, and recovering more money for workers in the industry. 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 that the ABCC was never focused on.

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

It is regrettable that we have a Liberal government with a determination to take Australia back to the ABCC as the beginning of an ideological agenda to deregulate our industrial relations system. This is from a party which is still enamoured of theories of neoclassical economics. It is this kind of world view that blew up the world economy back in 2008. Yet, despite everything we learned from the global financial crisis, we have a government that look the other way and ignore the lessons that this crisis revealed. They still subscribe to that myth that a rising tide lifts all boats. But, as one IMF economist has said:

When a handful of yachts become ocean liners while the rest remain lowly canoes, something is seriously amiss.

As TheGuardian journalist and columnist George Monbiot has written:

The neoliberals … insisted that unrestrained inequality in incomes and flexible wages would reduce unemployment. But throughout the rich world both inequality and unemployment have soared. The recent jump in unemployment in most developed countries—worse than in any previous recession of the past three decades—was preceded by the lowest level of wages as a share of GDP since the second world war. Bang goes the theory. It failed for the same obvious reason: low wages suppress demand, which suppresses employment.

The desire to pursue politically motivated witch-hunts like this is because it is a means of slashing workers' rights and entitlements. Not only will Labor oppose this bill; we will fight the Abbott government's ideological war on working Australians, including in the building and construction industry, every step of the way.

I point out to the House that the Australian government is subject to international human rights obligations under customary international law and as a result of the ratification of international legal instruments. Failure to abide by these obligations, which include a number of basic rights for workers, has significant implications for the protection and promotion of human rights in Australia and for our reputation internationally.

The former Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 was found by the United Nations International Labour Organization to repeatedly and unequivocally breach Australia's obligations as a member-state and as a signatory to conventions which include 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. That act was found by the ILO supervisory bodies to breach Australia's international obligations in that it exposed building industry employees to penalties for taking industrial action in a wider range of circumstances than other employees, virtually rendering all forms of industrial action in the building and construction sector unlawful; there was an imposition of penalties and sanctions upon workers and unions that engaged in 'unlawful industrial action' that were significantly higher than those imposed on workers in other sectors; there were provisions in the act that rendered project agreements unenforceable; the provisions of the code of practice contained restrictions on freedom of association and collective bargaining; and there were draconian monitoring and investigatory and enforcement powers for the ABCC, including the powers to enter premises, take possession of documents 'for as long as necessary' and compulsorily interview any person for 'compliance purposes'. These things were all found to be breaches of Australia's international obligations.

Reports were initially commissioned by the ABCC at public expense and were later regularly recommissioned by Master Builders Australia as a political tool. We have seen, however, that the Econtech report on which the government relies is seriously flawed and makes all sorts of assumptions which cannot be backed up or substantiated. When they talk about union involvement accounting for cost differentials across various sectors, they ignore factors such as the difference between construction on a high-rise as opposed to a single-storey dwelling. Economic experts from the Queensland industrial relations department and from Griffith University found no evidence of costs narrowing between the two sectors since the establishment of the ABCC—if anything, the gap slightly widened.

Labour law should be balanced, promoting both the interests of employers and employees and the value of fairness and collectivity. Labor opposes this legislation which forces a return to the draconian Australian Building and Construction Commission that is based on flawed modelling. Its proposed powers are extreme and unnecessary and compromise civil liberties. We already have sufficient powers to deal with any unlawful behaviour in the industry. This legislation is all about an ideological agenda and a nudge and a wink to employers that the good ol' days are returning where diminution of wages and conditions and compromised safety on construction sites will be the order of the day.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Labor Party's position and oppose the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and associated bill before the House, and I hope that those opposite will see sense in relation to the legislation. After I was elected in 2007, my brother Regan asked me what I saw about Canberra that was surprising to me. Having been a Labor Party member for nearly a quarter of a century before I was elected to this place, I should not have been surprised when I discovered after I was first elected just how right wing and anti-union the coalition always is when it comes to industrial relations. I heard the speeches of those opposite who were there when we brought forward the legislation to abolish Work Choices. Again and again, they—including the current Prime Minister—got up and said they supported Work Choices and that there were good things about it, implying that the people of Australia had really got it wrong.

I am standing here today speaking for the third time in this place on legislation in relation to the building and construction industry and this very topic. I spoke first on this topic on 13 August 2009 and again on 15 February 2012. At the risk of repeating myself, I say that we should have one law for all. I believe that the law should treat everyone equally, whether they live in Fremantle or Fitzroy, Dubbo or Darwin, Townsville or Tweed Heads. It does not matter what you do for a living or where you go to work; everyone is entitled to fairness in the workplace.

Before I was elected to this place I ran a multimillion-dollar business that I established with my partners. We built it up over the years. I was an employer. My financial security was on the line each and every day. I learnt, as did my business partners, that cooperation, not confrontation, in the workplace is always best. As the business grew, we needed that cooperation.

What we see in the legislation before the chamber today is not cooperation but confrontation. When I made my second speech on legislation of this type I predicted that a returned coalition government would return to the Australian Building and Construction Commission or some body like it and that it would do away with Fair Work Australia and the division that we were about to establish. If ever there was an occasion on which I wish I had been wrong, it was that occasion, but here we are today debating legislation that will bring back the ABCC. The tragedy of all of this is that this legislation should be so offensive to those opposite who call themselves liberals, because this legislation is an offence against civil liberties and it really has nothing to do with what John Stuart Mill talked about in relation to liberalism. Those opposite have the temerity to call themselves liberals when in fact this legislation is all about not freedom but taking away people's rights.

Historically, the Australian population have not trusted the coalition when it comes to a fair go in the workplace. This legislation is about making sure that workplaces are unfair. It is not about the simplicity of bringing things back to the sensible centre. This legislation shows that the people's mistrust of the coalition is not misplaced.

The Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, the Cole commission, was the brainchild of the now Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and the then Prime Minister, John Howard. It afforded extraordinary powers that favoured big business, not workers. It was designed for one purpose: to ensure that workers and their representatives, the trade unions, would be prosecuted and persecuted.

In 2009 the former federal Labor government introduced the Building and Construction Industry Improvement (Amendment) Transition to Fair Work Bill 2009 to equalise the balance in the field of construction and on building sites around the country. Our position in this regard has been consistent. We took this to the people in 2007. We took it to them again in 2010, because our legislation had been blocked in parliament in our first term; we could not get the legislation through. We wanted a fairer, more balanced framework for industrial relations. Demonising construction employees and their representatives, the trade unions, is not the way to go.

The unions have consistently opposed the ABCC. We have seen that. We have heard people like Dave Noonan, National Secretary of CFMEU Construction and General Division, speak about the parliament having the capacity to end the ABCC and restore rights to workers. It is important that we look at the history of this and see its background. This is not just political; it is personal to me, because I have had friends who have been on the receiving end of the pernicious and punishing ABCC.

It is not that long ago that the ABCC admitted that it had stepped outside its powers and illegally interrogated about 203 people. That is final proof that the ABCC is a rogue organisation, as Dave Noonan has said. The stress of arbitrary interrogation and its impact on the lives of people who worked in this industry and on their families cannot be underestimated.

Construction is important. We saw how important it is during the global financial crisis, when we invested massively in construction in schools and in community infrastructure such as roads, rail and ports. We kept workers on the job, making sure that we kept the stimulus going and that economic development in this country did not abate. Sadly, those opposite would not support the construction industry in this way.

The ABCC treated employees and representatives of the employees as if they were criminals or even terror suspects. The Prime Minister was one of the architects of that. John Howard got his good mate Commissioner Cole to investigate. The Cole commission lasted 18 months and cost $66 million of taxpayers' funds, but there was not a single criminal conviction. It was an exorbitantly expensive and calculated political stunt. There were 392 instances of alleged, so-called, criminal behaviour, but they could not get one conviction. The Cole commission was never bipartisan. It was never a genuine royal commission; it was set up for a purpose.

The Cole commission was partisan, and the ABCC that that mob opposite are going to bring back will be just as partisan. We made sure through our amendments to the Fair Work Act that workers get a fair go. We put in a lot of protection in relation to coercive powers, such as the capacity to turn them off. We made sure that people have the right to legal representation. We made sure that legal professional privilege is there. We made sure there is videotaping. We made sure that safeguards were undertaken as recommended by His Honour Murray Wilcox. We listened to his recommendations and we implemented them. It was not always easy. Some of our brethren in the trade union movement did not like it. We believe that what we did was the right thing, following what Murray Wilcox had to say on these matters.

I believe that all workers are entitled to fairness and good working conditions in the workplace and that they should be able to safely return to their loved ones at the end of the day. Construction site workers are entitled, like every other worker—a schoolteacher, a social worker, a hairdresser or anyone who works in retail—to that same benefit. But this legislation takes away rights and subjects those employees and their representatives to potential interrogation and prosecution of the worst kind—and the present Prime Minister made no bones about it. I was here last year when he said in his budget-in-reply speech that he was going to bring the ABCC back. But I, along with my Labor colleagues, campaigned on these types of issues. The public in my electorate knew exactly what my position was in relation to this. I had spoken in parliament on it a number of times. I will stand up for what I believe in. We on our side will make sure that there is cooperation in the workplace.

The legislation before the chamber creates an ABCC on steroids. This legislation creates powers that go way beyond the previous powers of the ABCC and include picketing, offshore construction and the transport and supply of goods to building sites. This new revived ABCC will become the ultimate workplace bully. Its powers are excessive and undemocratic. They are illiberal to say the least. It is really a tragedy that a party which calls itself the 'Liberal Party' should be the very one which brings such legislation before this chamber today.

Historically, the ABCC had extreme coercive powers. They could force the average worker to participate, without legal representation, in covert interviews and make the very real threat of imprisonment should they refuse to cooperate. Under the new ABCC, here is a scenario that could be the reality for anyone. You could be outside walking—you could be going shopping, going to work or walking the dog—and happen to pass a construction site. It just so happens during that split second that you see an incident on the construction site. Subsequently, someone from the ABCC turns up and says, 'We want to have you in for an interview.' Under its extraordinary power, absurd power, obscene power, you could be detained for questioning. You could be prevented from telling anyone, even your wife, your partner, your husband—I mean anyone—what you did. You do not have the right to legal representation, and you have the real possibility, the threat, of being jailed if you do not cooperate. This is authoritarian and draconian legislation at its worst. It is jackboot, Bjelke-Petersen type legislation—that is what it is. It is absurd to think that this legislation is bringing it back to the sensible centre.

The new ABCC on steroids will have the power to ban pickets and to include a reverse onus, which means that, to escape the maximum penalty of $34,000, people will have to prove that they were not participating in, or motivated by, industrial action. This all sounds great, but what if one of the brothers or sisters or the children of any one of those opposite happened to be in the scenario I gave? How would they feel if their child were walking the dog and disappeared, had no right to legal representation and could not say what they had said or where they had been? Mr Deputy Speaker, I say to those opposite: 'How would you feel if that were the case?' That is what you are proposing to vote for. That is your proposal.

Extending the power to the transport and supply of goods to construction sites, including resource platforms offshore, is totally and utterly unwarranted. This was not the policy that those opposite took to the election. If they just brought back the ABCC, there would be some consistency in their position, but this is not what they are proposing today and this is not what the coalition took to the last election. This is the ABCC on steroids. This is another example of those opposite turning out to be not the government that the public of Australia thought they were voting for.

Our position is fair. Our position is the sensible centre. We listened to Murray Wilcox and his recommendations. We got the balance right. We restored fairness in the investigative powers. We brought in videotaping, with Commonwealth Ombudsman involvement. There are safeguards all through the legislation that exists now. I urge anyone to have a look at it. We brought it back to the centre, and those opposite did not.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that industrial disputes in the building and construction industry are on average one-fifth of the rates seen under the previous coalition government—and, last I saw, the ABS was not affiliated to the Australian Labor Party—and that productivity has increased and, on average, is almost three times higher under Fair Work than under Work Choices. So I say to those opposite: don't come into this place and give us arguments about productivity, disputation and matters about the economy when the facts don't back you up.

I urge all those people who may be listening to parliament today and to the Labor contributions on this legislation to write, email or phone their coalition representative and say, 'I want fairness and justice in the workplaces of Australia', because you will not get it under this legislation.

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

Integrity and honesty are qualities that are broadly accepted in our community; they are broadly accepted in politics. But there is one field where integrity and honesty are demanded of industry but are deliberately ignored, and that is when it comes to the building and construction unions, who blatantly misuse their power for quite improper purposes. Their power was enhanced by the Rudd-Gillard governments when they caved in to union pressure to remove quite sensible constraints on corruption and improper practices. This is why I am pleased to rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013.

It is time to ensure that there is a level playing field for industry and worker alike. Prior to the election, I was a member of the committee charged with the task of investigating the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. After Labor legislated to repeal the ABCC, the coalition made an election commitment to re-establish it to ensure that it upholds the rule of law and drives productivity on commercial building sites and construction projects, whether onshore or offshore.

The Australian Building and Construction Commission working group was established by the then Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Tony Abbott, in July this year. I, along with my colleagues the members for Bradfield, Forrest and Kooyong, was tasked with examining the governance and practical problems in the construction sector, such as malfeasance and misconduct, as well as with developing a detailed plan, including drafting instructions for the prompt reestablishment of the ABCC.

The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill re-establishes the ABCC to regulate the building and construction industry and provides for its functions and powers, including those of the ABCC inspectors. The coalition has pledged to drive productivity and end union control over the construction industry. We have also pledged an additional $5 million to the reestablishment of the ABCC in 2013-14, rising to an additional $10 million per annum in subsequent years.

This is great news for the many members of my electorate who have contacted me with their pleas to stop unions dictating the terms and control of their businesses and their employees. One constituent has informed me that, because he has chosen not to sign the CFMEU's EBA, the union has prevented his business from receiving any jobs in the city. For his small business, this has meant a net financial loss exceeding $500,000. He spoke of the unnecessary interruptions, intimidations and disruptions caused by union workers on his building sites choosing to carry out inspections whenever they chose—usually to cause the maximum inconvenience.

Evidence to our committee made it clear that aggressive and militant union behaviour is commonplace in the building and construction sector. Site shutdowns, strike action and other industrial action occur regularly and not for proper reasons or to protect the interests of workers. The committee received reports that the CFMEU and other unions frequently use purported safety issues as an excuse for industrial action when no such safety issues exist—that coercion of individuals and companies is a tool frequently used by the unions and their officials.

There is troubling evidence of increasing corruption and criminality in the construction industry. Key construction unions behave as if they are above the law—for example, routinely ignoring court orders to return to work. Through these improper practices, the CFMEU and other unions now have substantial industrial power and leverage, which they use to cause uneconomic and unreasonable employment terms for head contractors and, through them, subcontractors and across the industry through pattern bargaining. In addition, the unions exercise control over what should otherwise be commercial decisions, such as which subcontractors a head contractor may use, and control over detailed operational issues, such as whether a site operates beyond core hours.

This is happening because the Rudd-Gillard government, at the behest of the unions, terminated the ABCC, which the Howard government had established, replacing it with the much weaker FWBC. Another effective tool under the Howard government was the national code and implementation guidelines. To get work from the Commonwealth, a builder had to comply with the requirements of the code. This code was substantially weakened by the Rudd-Gillard government.

Our working group's hearings disclosed that the levels of strike action, site shutdowns and other industrial action are high. In some cases this action is lawful under the Fair Work Act, but we did learn that unions make extensive use of protected industrial action as a means of increasing pressure on employers during the period when they are negotiating an enterprise agreement. We also learned that many unions have no compunction in taking industrial action even where it is not permitted under the Fair Work Act. This action is frequently carried out simply to place pressure on contractors to agree to the terms of an enterprise bargaining agreement.

The Queensland Children's Hospital dispute in 2012 was triggered by six people on the site not being paid the rates set out in the EBA. The project lost almost $100,000 a day when the union decided to picket the site for many weeks. This totalled millions of dollars, at a cost not to the builder but to us, the taxpayers. Time is critical on building sites. The contractor typically faces a hard deadline and often must pay liquidated damages or lose the benefits of early completion if it is delayed in completing the job. The unions exploit this fact in their industrial action, knowing that, each day a site is shut down, the pressure to cave in to unrelated union demands is building on the contractor.

Union officials routinely state that their reason for entering a site is for safety. This is because legislation generally allows entrance on a site without notice if the union has a safety concern. It is no coincidence therefore that safety concerns are regularly cited as the reason to shut down a site. When a safety issue is raised, the unions will generally insist on the entire site being closed down, rather than just the isolated area that they are discussing.

The working group found that it is not unusual for someone wishing to trigger a site shutdown to fabricate a safety incident. There were even reports of tampering with electrical boards. Additionally, there will often be a clause in the EBA which gives union officials a very broad right of entry to a site, along with the power to stop work. These may be exercised on multiple vague and invented grounds, such as suspected safety issues or OH&S matters.

The committee heard evidence that coercion is now a common feature of union behaviour in the construction industry. This can involve threats and intimidation, verbal abuse and distribution of material making derogatory, belittling, untrue or defamatory statements about individuals or companies. It can be expressed face to face, on the internet and on brochures distributed at building sites and elsewhere. Union intimidation tactics also involve threats of physical harm and, on occasion, physical assault.

The CFMEU's treatment of my constituent is shamefully common across the industry, where non-CFMEU members are bullied and labelled as scabs. The CFMEU's actions were constantly in open defiance of the Fair Work Act and Supreme Court orders, yet with no strong enforcement body the unions continue to wreak havoc. Workers who wanted to get on with the work were threatened with throat-cutting gestures, threatened with having their heads stomped in and told they were 'dead' by union protestors at sites such as the Little Creatures brewery site in Geelong.

We learned through the investigations carried out by the working group that there is troubling evidence of increasing corruption and criminality in the construction industry. We also learned that it is now not uncommon for union officials to openly ask contractors and subcontractors for money. There have been repeated anecdotes that subcontractors will not be retained by head contractors unless they are on a union-approved list, which is what happened to my constituent.

The previous Labor government were aware of this unforgivable conduct, and their inaction makes them complicit. They were even informed by Justice Murray Wilcox of the benefit provided by the Australian Building and Construction Commission. He acknowledged that the ABCC's work was not yet complete and that it would be unfortunate if the ABCC's replacement body led to a reversal of the good progress that had been made in the industry. Yet the Labor government still buckled to union pressure. A reversal of previous progress is exactly what we have seen. Labor replaced the ABCC with a shadow of the commission called the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate. Its powers were severely limited, its budget was substantially cut and its staffing was reduced by about 30 per cent.

This bill restores the full power of the ABCC and the funding that Labor took away. It will bring back integrity to this industry. The operation of the ABCC contributed to improved productivity in the building sector. One study found that building and construction industry productivity was boosted by 9.4 per cent. In the 10 years to 2012, the ABCC's last year of operation, multifactor productivity in the construction industry increased by 16.8 per cent. 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. Industry trends since the ABCC ceased operating suggest that productivity performance in the building and construction sector is declining. Independent Economics, in a report prepared for the Master Builders Association, estimated that the removal of industry-specific regulation would ultimately result in a loss of 75 per cent of the productivity gains achieved during the Building Industry Taskforce and Australian Building and Construction Commission era.

Poor productivity and weak competition lead to costs for construction projects being higher than they should be. Customers are being overcharged. We the taxpayers are being overcharged. When the customer is a state or federal government, it is us, the taxpayers, who are ultimately being overcharged. Industry participants inform me that, on large construction sites, it costs about 30 per cent more to do the same piece of work as on an individual home building site. This is a powerful indicator of the excess cost built into the construction sector due to union militancy driving unnecessary expense.

The initiatives associated with the ABCC era resulted in productivity gains which produced an average lower construction cost of 3.4 per cent. Consumers also benefited from a 0.5 per cent reduction in the price of all dwellings. We found that, unequivocally, the ABCC needed to be brought back to ensure the rule of law and productivity on commercial building sites and construction projects, both onshore and offshore.

The Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner and the Building and Construction Work Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme are maintained in this bill. The bill includes a number of provisions modelled on the former Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 which provide building-industry-specific provisions, such as higher penalties for breaches of industrial law and associated provisions for proceedings relating to a contravention of a civil penalty provision, and protection against discrimination, coercion and undue pressure and rules from the Fair Work Act.

This bill, importantly, 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 being delivered on time and on budget. The bill will create jobs and investment by ensuring that employers and workers in the industry can get on with the job without fear of intimidation.

There are also a number of changes in this bill from the original ABCC legislation. The definition of 'building work' in the bill includes offshore prefabrication of made-to-order components for parts of buildings, structures or works. The definition of 'building work' also includes the transporting or supply of goods to be used in building work. This is a change from the previous ABCC legislation and is included to ensure that large resource construction projects cannot be directly disrupted through coordinated go-slows on the supply of materials to those projects. Reforming the lawless culture of the building and construction industry requires strong regulation, a strong regulator and a level of penalties that will act as a deterrent to unlawful behaviour.

The bill contains appropriate and effective safeguards to ensure due process and transparency in the use of powers. The bill requires the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner to provide the Commonwealth Ombudsman with a report about the examination, along with a video recording and transcript of the examination. The bill includes measures to ensure public transparency and accountability and give the community confidence in the work of the ABCC.

Australia cannot afford to have a building and construction industry which is inefficient and unstable. I am proud to be on this side of the chamber and to be able to stand up for my constituents who are being bullied by unions, being denied jobs and workers by unions, and having the few jobs they do receive delayed and interrupted by union officials. Those in the construction industry are doing it tough. Today the coalition is standing up for the rights of workers to go to work each day without the fear of being harassed or intimidated or the subject of violence.

The former Labor government abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission and saw a return to the days of lawlessness and unproductivity. The coalition is committed to standing up for business owners, like my constituents in Ryan, who are pleading for stability and reform in the industry. The rule of law must be applied fairly to this industry, and it is simply not fair or just to require the employers of Australia and their workers to comply with reasonable laws and not expect the construction unions to do the same. This is a significant step forward for the industry and for the principle that we are all equal before the law.

I commend this bill to the House. Australia cannot afford not to increase productivity, and with this bill we are doing something about improving standards in the workplace for all our workers.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the bill before the House today, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013, and the cognate bill, the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. As many of the speakers in this debate have already said, this bill seeks to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission, or the ABCC. This will reverse Labor's changes to the laws which saw the ABCC abolished in 2012. In the government's policy to improve fair work laws, we are committed to restoring the ABCC to ensure that the rule of law is adhered to in the building and construction industry and to seeing much-needed productivity restored.

Let us just remind the House that the coalition took this commitment not only to the last election, in 2013, but also to the 2010 election. We are here today because the Labor Party, under both former Prime Minister Rudd and former Prime Minister Gillard, kowtowed to the union movement and decided to withdraw from being the tough cop on the beat in the building and construction industry. I looked at a speech I made to this House in 2012 in the second reading debate on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011, and much of what I said then is true today. I could almost reread my previous notes to the House and it would all be relevant. For example, the coalition established the Building and Construction Commission in 2005 in response to the Cole royal commission. The then industrial relations minister was our Prime Minister today, Tony Abbott. The Cole royal commission report found that unlawful and inappropriate conduct was widespread in the building and construction industry and that there were many bogus safety issues, such as the right of entry, which I will go to if I have the time.

What the ABCC achieved in that time was a 10 per cent increase in productivity. It provided an annual economic welfare gain of $5.5 billion per year. It reduced inflation by 1.2 per cent and it increased GDP by 1½ per cent. The number of working days lost annually per 1,000 employees in the construction industry fell from 224 in 2004 to just 24 in 2006. Building costs fell by 20 to 25 per cent, and long project delays were dramatically reduced. This is all from my previous speech; it is all true today. But what happened? Along came Prime Minister Gillard. As we know, all members opposite in this place have to belong to a union to be in the House of Representatives or, dare I say, in the Senate. They have to join a union.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you don ' t.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to know which union the member for Makin belongs to. He might want to tell us. Then we will know which union he is obliged to. Unions put representatives in parliament through their preselection processes. The unions control the preselection processes of the Australian Labor Party. You have all listened to the maiden speeches in this House. Most new Labor members have an industrial history through either the union movement or through some association. We see how they continually inject former union bosses particularly into the Senate. Senator Doug Cameron comes to mind. All of these people are beholden to the union movement.

I do not have a problem with the union movement. When I was a schoolteacher, I was head of the teachers union in my school. If you are doing good things for your members in a collective way, that is a good thing. But when you become a militant union like the CFMEU or the MUA then you are damaging this country. It is passing strange and interesting to this House that the now opposition leader and industrial relations spokesman, Bill Shorten, member for Maribyrnong, said in Western Australia when he visited the MUA: 'We should all take notice of how the MUA conduct themselves. I admire their militancy and I think we should do more to model ourselves on that.' You did not hear that around the rest of Australia. The opposition leader was there with Chris Cain of the MUA in Western Australia, the anarchists in the workplace setting, saying that we should be more like the MUA. That is the DNA of those opposite, and unions generally pay for most of their election funds. So of course those opposite are obliged to them.

Before the ABCC was abolished, the Labor Party tried to defund it. Any organisation which is defunded cannot do its business. That was the first step in neutering the ABCC, the tough cop on the beat. Let us look at what happened when they did that. We all saw what happened to Grocon when it was trying to do its lawful business in Victoria. The thugs got hold of the workers going to work. They spat on them and called them ' dogs ' and ' scabs ' . They knew where they lived and said they would get their families—all that sort of talk. The rule of law was broken.

The Cole royal commission maintains its relevance today. In the findings from the Cole royal commission in 2003, 10 years ago, Justice Cole said that in the building and construction industry throughout Australia there is a widespread disregard of, or breach of , the enterpris e-bargaining provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 ; widespread disregard of, or breach of , the freedom-of-association provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 ; widespread departure from proper standards of occupational health and safety; and a widespread requirement by head contractors through subcontractors to have union endorsed enterprise-bargaining agreements.

Remember on the sites in Western Australia and all around Australia, ' No ticket, no start ' ? Unless you belonged to a union you could not get a job. They have taken the signs down, but they are still trying to do it. At the moment in the Pilbara—more than 50 per cent of this nation ' s export income comes from Western Australia, much of it from the Pilbara with iron ore, gas and a range of other minerals—there is now a demarcation dispute between the CFMEU, trying to muscle in on the union territory, and the AWU. That is now causing disruption in the workplace with strikes and the like. This affects productivity. It has already been pointed out to you how much productivity is worth to the Australian economy. An article in Business Spectator on 16 October 2013 said:

Australia would benefit to the tune of $1.252 billion if the construction sector improved its productivity by just 1 per cent, according to the new PricewaterhouseCoopers report.

Remember what it did when we brought in the tough cop on the beat before? Ten per cent. We are talking about how much it would improve our bottom line productivity: by one per cent.

When I made my speech in 2012, I heard the member for McEwen say, 'Productivity is another way of ripping away conditions and awards from workers.' If somebody wants to strike a bargain and get a better deal, what is the matter with that? In my electorate of Canning, 20 per cent of the people were on AWAs, most of them in the resources industry. They struck that bargain because they could get more money, not less money. What is the matter with rewarding somebody who wants to work smarter and harder? That is called productivity. Those opposite have a problem with the word 'productivity' because somehow they link it to a reduction in terms and conditions. That is simply not true.

Unless you have someone with the legal authority and the willingness to enforce sanctions, you will have the Joe McDonalds and the Kevin Reynolds of Australia importing their thuggery and lack of rule of law into workplaces. Good honest workers just want to earn a quid to pay their mortgages and to look after their families.

This legislation is not only very important for all Australians and for our economy generally; it is about Australia getting back on the track. At the moment, Australia is one of the dearest places in the world to do business. One of the reasons is that we have artificially inflated workplace laws. Those laws are making it so dear for any resource company coming to invest in this country or to even expand in this country. But those opposite do not really care, as long as their union bosses stay in charge, so they will be able to get back into this place or garner some influence. There are good people on that side of the House who would like to see the union influence in this place reduced—

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Canning will have leave to continue his remarks when the debate is resumed.