Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak strongly against the government's desperate and misguided actions to return to the former Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC, set up by the former Howard Liberal government in 2005, via the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013.

I should declare up-front that, whilst I do not work in the building industry I have three brothers who all work in the building industry. One brother actually worked on the construction of Parliament House, when the big flag fell over 25 years ago. People may remember; I am sure the Clerk would remember. I know he is only a fresh young face here in Parliament House but he might remember when the flagpole fell over. My brother's company works in cranes. They were actually working down at the Canberra casino at that time, so he came to fix the flagpole that fell over. Another one of my brothers, my younger brother—all three of my brothers work in the construction industry—had a crane collapse right beside him while he was working at Twin Towns. The kibble on the crane injured his back significantly when the crane collapsed. But the most traumatic part of that accident was that two of his friends who were standing right beside him were killed. He was literally only inches away from being killed. So I have seen the building industry via the prism of my siblings and what they have and are experiencing, because all three of them still work in the industry.

Much of the bill before the chamber today largely replicates the former ABCC legislation, which was then amended by the Rudd-Gillard government through the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act. I am particularly outraged by this piece of legislation. It is tough enough when we have legislation that we just voted on, before this current piece of legislation, that took away a pay rise for people in the aged-care industry. We have seen a pay rise snatched away from the childcare workers and now we have an extra imposition on the building industry.

This legislation is wrong for so many reasons. It certainly introduced an element of retrospectivity into this area of law. Retrospectivity is never a good idea, especially from a government where so many of the promises from the now Prime Minister were that there would be no surprises and no excuses. To suddenly reach back into the past with this legislation is very disappointing. Retrospectivity should never be embraced in legislation.

The coalition government's claim is that their bill is strengthening the powers of the ABCC, but in fact it is restricting business certainty. It is creating a lot of uncertainty for small businesses that work in the building industry. It is actually imposing extra red tape from a government that said they were going to abolish red tape. They are not only bringing in future red tape but imposing red tape on past decisions, which is the very worst sort of legislation. They are proposing some sort of watchdog, but it is really just an attack dog on unions, not dissimilar to those attack dogs we saw down on the waterfront under the MUA dispute years ago. The reason it is particularly offensive is that, even when the people involved in employment in the building area have reached agreement and signed on to an agreement, now the government of today proposes to reach back. This is the very enemy of contract law, as all lawyers would know. And these changes are actually a waste of taxpayers' money, because of this extra red tape.

The changes will result in the ABCC using public funds to engage lawyers to continue litigation where the parties have already reached certainty and have an agreement. This is just a simple regurgitation of failed Howard government policies. This is yet another example of the Abbott government living in the past.

Looking at the brochure sent to my home by my opponent during the election—his 'Real Solutions' booklet—included in the visuals the words 'this is an experienced team'. I remember the photograph. I think I even saw it on a few billboards—'this is an experienced team'. They even were generous enough to put the member for Wentworth in the photograph so that there was a token Liberal in this hard-nosed team that was supposed to be experienced. As it turned out, what we have seen in the last 100 days, sadly, is the stumblings of amateurs.

Australia as a nation must look to the future. We need to be concerned about the future of jobs, the future of economic growth, especially in an environment where the dollar is high and puts pressure on our export industries and manufacturing, particularly, as we have seen with the disaster announced yesterday of Holden committing to leave the country. It was obviously not helped by the $500 million slashed from the automotive industry, as proposed by one of those members of the 'Real Solutions' team, the former member for Indi.

I have heard a bit of comment about mandates. I would have thought that, if your shadow automotive minister is the person who represents your policy in the automotive industry and they are the only Liberal shadow who is not elected, surely that suggests you have no authority to implement that policy. That would have been my suggestion.

The government understand political tactics but I do not think they understand the needs of Australian people, and they certainly do not know how to consult with building workers and how to consult with the people who actually turn up at the workplace every day.

Sadly, the coalition has a history of removing the rights from workers in this country, particularly in the building industry. I remember Ark Tribe—I think the member for Makin, being a South Australian, would be more familiar with the situation—

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

In 2008.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was 2008. I remember reading information about it. The reversal of the onus of proof is something that any government should always be very wary of. The Magna Carta has been around for a while. We have this long history of looking after rights, so to reverse the onus of proof in such an area should be done very carefully. There is an argument that coercive powers, such as Ark Tribe experienced, have no place in a free society. This government is now extending the ABCC's ability to interrogate workers, causing stress and unnecessary worries for innocent people.

Throughout the federal election campaign, the coalition government, I think, unnecessarily tried to make political mileage out of fatalities. I remember hearing comments, even in parliament, about the deaths that occurred when the insulation program was rolled out around Australia. A total of 1.2 million homes were insulated, but sadly there were some dodgy employers with bad work practices. Look at the mileage that has been made out of those fatalities, despite the 1.2 million homes that were insulated and all of the benefits to those households, both environmentally and for their wallets.

But let us have a look at the building industry. I was speaking to a friend of mine, Andrew Ramsay, from the CFMEU in Queensland. He said—

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is he a good friend?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is a good friend. He worked on my campaign in 2007.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I bet he did. How much money did he give you?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No money.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the CFMEU?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The CFMEU has made contributions to my election campaigns, and I think that they did in 2007.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How much?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is all on the public record. I do not think that there is any problem with having a connection with workers. I have always seen the Labor Party as being the political wing of the trade union movement. I am not afraid of workers. Unions have a great history of contributing to the good of this nation. That is my belief.

It is interesting to compare. A judicial inquiry was announced into these work related deaths—the insulation deaths. But, since the last fatality of the home insulation scheme, 31 Queenslanders have died in construction related accidents on the job. That is, to put it in context: 31 Queenslanders have died and five of those were electrocuted. There is a comparison. Since the judicial inquiry was announced, there have been 31 deaths. That it is to put it in context. Construction work can be very dangerous work. Construction work is challenging, especially in high-rise buildings, where there can be all sorts of complications.

This bill before the House includes provisions on prohibiting unlawful picket lines and allows anyone to get an injunction to prevent such a picket line happening. This government is clearly pushing to almost outlaw unionism in the construction industry. It is seen to be a bad thing for a union to make a contribution to a political party. That was the suggestion that came from the member opposite. The reality is, Australian workers need unions to fight for their rights and to look after their health and safety. We all know that when an employer tries to make money they will cut back on health and safety, and that makes it dangerous for workers. It is disgraceful to have union officials and members dragged off to the courts, fined and threatened with jail for taking part in union activities that have been a part of the fabric of this nation since the 1890s—since the shearers' strike that we had in Barcaldine in the 1890s that saw the formation of the Labor Party. Why would those opposite be scared of people banding together and speaking up for their rights?

The merits of the ABCC are based on flawed and ridiculous modelling. Its proposed powers are scary, particularly the unfettered coercive powers, the secretive interviews and imprisonment for those who do not cooperate. This is a star chamber that Oliver Cromwell would blanche at. These proposed powers are extreme, unnecessary and undemocratic and they compromise civil liberties.

Let us have a look at the record under Labor. Under the Fair Work Act, after the ABCC went, productivity went up in the building industry. Let us look at the Liberal legislation. After the ABCC was introduced in 2005, building industry fatalities jumped 95 per cent between 2006 and 2008. They had a budget of $35 million, including up to $500,000 a year for the salary of the commissioner. They brought cases against the CFMEU and other unions resulting in over $5 million in fines and millions more in court costs. That was good for lawyers, obviously. As a lawyer, I have no problem with lawyers getting paid, but the reality is that someone will always pay for it when lawyers are involved. The ABCC legislation was condemned eight times by the International Labour Organization for bias and for breaching conventions that Australia has signed. We saw when the judgment in the Ark Tribe case was handed down that they were completely embarrassed due to them not exercising their coercive powers correctly. They were found to have unlawfully interviewed 203 people.

That is why the Gillard and Rudd governments removed the majority of the ABCC's powers. We had the Fair Work Australia model, which is a much fairer system in the workplace. And what did we see? We saw industrial disputes go down. We even saw fatalities go down. I know that we should not refer to fatalities only, but that is a fact. And productivity rose.

Under the Howard government's ABCC, there was no right to silence and the commission possessed national security style powers to prevent a witness from revealing even to his wife or her husband that he or she had been interrogated by the commission. That is crazy stuff from George Orwell's 1984, not modern, progressive Australia. Now the coalition want to reinstate these secretive state police powers. They have not put a logical, coherent, empirical argument as to how this will boost productivity. This government, as we saw from the legislation that we just voted on, cannot be trusted when it comes to looking after workers and workers' rights.

What the construction industry needs is investment. It needs apprenticeships and jobs for Australian residents and citizens. They need to be schooled in health and safety. We do not need another government body determined to undermine industry standards, safety and working conditions such that the rogue and the cowboy will lower the standards and make it harder for those good employers—those good builders who do the right thing—to pay their workers and look after their health and safety. No-one wins the race to the bottom, and the biggest losers will always be the workers.

The government has not put a case that this will improve productivity. There is little evidence that this bill will work. Rather, it is about amplifying false statements about productivity. I ask those opposite to come out to a building site. I can arrange for them to come on site and talk to my family and see what really goes on in the construction industry. (Time expired)

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly, this bill has caused concern in the union movement and for the union movement's political arm, the Labor Party. That is not surprising, because it promises to bring back to the building and construction industry two concepts that unions like the CFMEU do not like one bit, and they are productivity and accountability. They hate such terms because they are effectively the opposite of the objectives of the unions in the construction industry. On 7 September, the Australian people went to the polling booths in full knowledge that the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission was part of the policies of a coalition government. It was not being hidden; it was right out there. And now it is happening. This is of course not about Work Choices; this is about productivity and accountability on the building sites of Australia.

There is no greater example of the need for this bill and the reintroduction of the ABCC than the CFMEU's illegal action against construction company Grocon in Melbourne in 2012. If anyone were to say the ABCC and these powers were not now required I would direct them to recent history. Having had the chance to do the right thing, and comply with the law, the CFMEU chose to be militant and contemptuous of the law. In their dispute in Victoria the CFMEU now face the potential of multimillion-dollar fines and legal costs for contempt of court. Grocon has asked the court to impose a $1.5 million fine plus another $400,000 in legal costs after the CFMEU did plead guilty to a third round of contempt charges. Collectively the penalties could amount to more than $7 million because the court has been asked to impose fines of $5 million for other contempt charges resulting from the reckless and illegal blockades that brought Melbourne to a standstill. That recklessness was not only reckless and arrogant in its disregard for the law and court orders but also because the penalties of $7 million will come not out of the pockets of the union's leaders, who somehow thought themselves above the law, but from the members' dues—it is their money.

This is where this country has found itself. A militant union operating beyond the law, determined to destroy productivity, demonstrates exactly why the ABCC needs to be restored. The Labor Party cannot control the CFMEU but that union, drunk with its own sense of importance and power, stood defiantly against the rule of law. Yes, it is true the CFMEU could not be controlled by their political wing, but it is in fact the other way around: from the speakers list, clearly the CFMEU control the Labor Party, no doubt offering the stick and carrot to those opposite—threatening preselections and campaign contributions if the union's servants do not do as the union says.

The CFMEU is of course a repeat offender—and, when judgment is passed upon them, the costs will probably reflect their history of disregard for the law and the national interest of productivity. In Perth the same sort of disregard for getting on with the job was well known. For many years the CFMEU was led by Kevin Reynolds. Apart from getting his wife installed in state parliament as a Labor MLC, there were many deals done across building sites in Perth. A most interesting deal was where Reynolds acquired a luxury apartment in the Raffles Tower in expensive Applecross. The apartment overlooks the Canning River, and I think that the full cost of such an apartment would exceed the means of all but the most highly paid—or perhaps the well-connected, in this case.

In 2007 the Weekend Australian reported that the CFMEU in WA was greatly looking forward to a Rudd victory. The Weekend Australian found that figures showed an extraordinary halt to the union's rogue strikes—including 'blue flu', where hundreds of workers called in sick at once—after the ABCC used its powers to hit unionists with individual writs that could result in fines of up to $28,600 each.

It was a testament to the success of the ABCC that in Western Australia days lost to industrial action in the construction industry fell from 71 days per 1,000 workers in the December quarter of 2004 to just nine in the same quarter of late 2006. In fact, across 2006 there had been 45.2 days lost per 1,000 workers compared with 725 days in 2005.

In 2003 the Cole royal commission found lawlessness widespread in the construction industry. The commission heard that 10 Western Australian construction companies had handed over a combined total of $397,935.48 to the CFMEU in Western Australia for 'casual' union tickets for non-union workers. The commission also found widespread disregard for right-of-entry rules on building sites.

Perhaps in the case of WA and Victoria, the siphoning off of funds generated through 'peace accords'—some may call it blackmailing—of some builders has allowed massive war chests to be accumulated. These funds serve to inoculate the CFMEU against compliance with the law. In the case of Victoria's CFMEU it has been suggested that some $50-plus million has been accumulated in union coffers.

The question now becomes: what does this bill mean for Australians? The ABCC is to be re-established, armed with the powers it previously held to compel the attendance and production of documents. It is also good to see that new limits are imposed on unlawful industrial action and unlawful picketing, backed up by tougher penalties. There is no doubt that the need to restore these arrangements comes because of the absolute need to address what happened with a number of high-profile disputes in the construction industry, most prominently the Grocon event. It is little wonder that the ABCC needs to be brought back given the contempt the CFMEU showed for the courts in that issue.

The bill includes expansions of prohibitions on coercion and discrimination, with reverse-onus provisions to make it easier to prove breaches. A new Building Code will be issued, imposing further obligations on building industry contractors and other participants in the industry as conditions of obtaining work on Commonwealth funded projects.

Being from Western Australia I am also keen on new provisions, not present under the previous ABCC legislation, such as the expanded definition of 'building work' to include the transportation or supply of goods to building sites, including offshore resources platforms. This change will ensure that large resource construction projects, onshore and offshore, cannot be indirectly disrupted through coordinated go-slows on the supply of materials to those projects.

Of course, we are not talking about low pay or conditions at all. The CFMEU WA pattern-bargaining sees tradesmen getting about $140,000 per year, a labourer about $120,000 per year; four weeks leave a year and an additional 10 days of personal leave as well. Furthermore, there are 26 paid rostered days off per year. The working week is a 36-hour week but when overtime kicks in it is paid at double-time, because the usual site hours are around 50 hours a week. There is also very generous income protection that sees employers paying well in excess of $100,000 per year in policy premiums. Beyond their eight weeks paid leave a year, a great imposition on employers is the union training levy of $27 per week per EBA employee. From all reports there is very little training but significant collection of money, with one subcontractor having paid $70,000 in the last 12 months.

I understand that the construction sector has been willing to pay premium wages and conditions in the past, so long as productivity was delivered, but the CFMEU has failed to deliver for many years. Those commercial builders who sign the union EBA suffer a major cost disadvantage compared with those who do not. I emphasise that base wage rates are similar between the union and non-union sectors, but the excessive union allowances, 26 RDOs and insurances are a major difference between the two sectors. Productivity is also higher in the non-union sector.

The industry works on the general rule of thumb that labour costs represent around 50 per cent of total construction for a commercial project, so high labour costs are a major consideration for clients, including the public sector and the private sector. Rents therefore will reflect the costs of construction, and uncompetitive and unproductive union sites will result in higher costs for consumers. Extra costs in WA also include the union-imposed requirement for non-working job stewards on about $150,000 per year, for subcontractors to have safety officers that are paid in excess of $100,000 per year, and for the engagement of union EBA subcontractors only. It therefore revolves around making builders pay for the nepotism and jobs for the mates—or, more accurately, paid positions for the mates of union bosses. All these extra costs, these uncompetitive and unproductive practices, are being supported and applauded by those opposite. This is not the old mantra of a fair day's pay for a fair day's work; rather, this is about fleecing builders and therefore consumers without regard.

The bill provides for the establishment of the ABCC, headed by the commissioner. The commissioner's functions include monitoring and promoting appropriate standards of conduct by participants; investigating suspected contraventions of relevant building laws; instituting or intervening in legal processes; and providing assistance, advice and representation to building industry participants where appropriate. The commission will also have inspectors who can enter premises where they believe breaches of building laws are occurring or likely to occur, or where there are records or documents relevant to compliance purposes on the premises. While on the premises, the inspectors can inspect work, conduct interviews and require the production of records. The bill also restores the 'coercive powers' formerly held by the ABCC. These powers are designed to be 'a key tool for breaking down the historical and unacceptable culture of silence' in the construction sector. The ABCC's exercise of these coercive powers will be overseen by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

Chapter 5 of the bill contains prohibitions on organising or engaging in 'unlawful industrial action' and 'unlawful picketing'. To be covered by the bill, these prohibited forms of action must be taken by, or in a way that affects, a 'constitutionally covered entity'—that is, a corporation, the Commonwealth, a Commonwealth authority, a body incorporated in the ACT or the Northern Territory, or a federally registered union or employer organisation. An unlawful picket is action that has the purpose of preventing or restricting a person from accessing or leaving a building site or ancillary site; that directly prevents or restricts a person from accessing or leaving a building site or an ancillary site; or that would reasonably be expected to intimidate a person accessing or leaving a building site or an ancillary site.

The penalties for unlawful industrial action are increased under the bill to $34,000 for individuals and $170,000 for corporate entities. The same penalties apply for unlawful picketing. The government states that these increased penalties are needed to 'act as a deterrent to unlawful behaviour' and 'blatant disregard for court orders'. With the exception of protected industrial action, it is also unlawful to take action to coerce another person to agree or not agree to make, vary or terminate a building enterprise agreement.

In conclusion, I would like to further reinforce the need for this bill to pass. I have talked about the high-profile incidents that make this bill and the re-establishment of the ABCC critical for a return to productivity and competitiveness that the CFMEU is the enemy of. However, to further make this point, I would like to also speak about something of an icon for shoppers in Perth. I speak of the direct factory outlet and discount centre known as Harbour Town. In the construction of Harbour Town some 10 years ago, it was well known in the industry that anyone bringing equipment or furnishings on to the site had to pay to get in. There were particular costs for each item. Apparently, to be allowed by the CFMEU to bring carpet on site was worth a carton of full-strength beer, to be handed in at the gate. And this was not the 1970s; it was not long ago.

To quote a 2009 Federal Court decision against the CFMEU, Justice Gilmour said:

It is of particular concern that the CFMEU, Mr McDonald and Mr Buchan have, as I have found on a prima facie basis, hidden behind spurious concerns as to the health and safety of employees to advance, as I infer, their own unspecified industrial aims. It is the very behaviour which the Commonwealth Parliament has made clear should be eradicated from the building industry in this country. It is conduct that directly undermines the main object of the BCII Act (s 3(1)) which is to provide an improved workplace relations framework for building work to ensure that building work is carried out fairly, efficiently and productively for the benefit of all building industry participants and for the benefit of the Australian economy as a whole.

The point is that unions such as the CFMEU have been and are responsible for massively increased costs, inefficiencies and the reduction of productivity. Like so many organisations, they have a reckless disregard for the need for businesses to be competitive and efficient. They see any project as a chance to fill the coffers for the union leadership and they just do not get that they are driving businesses overseas through excessive costs.

The ABCC needs to be returned with all these powers to help return accountability, efficiency and productivity to the industry. The CFMEU and construction unions had the chance to be part of the Australian team under their political arm but instead they chose to fleece builders and undermine the economy. Rather than let them carry on, the time to act is now. It is time to restore the ABCC and get the construction industry back to a lawful and effective industry in this country. Whether it is the CFMEU or their Labor Party, those on the other side of politics find that eventually you run out of other people's money to spend. The well is not bottomless, and Australians expect this reckless waste and self-interest to stop. I therefore commend this bill to the House.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. And I oppose it because not a single extra building worker will get home safely because of this bill; not a single extra building worker will avoid losing their entitlements from collapsing companies because of this bill. What will happen is that the 5,000 building workers in my seat of Charlton and nearly one million Australia-wide will lose their fundamental rights. Sadly, this bill is not aimed at productivity, it is not aimed at strengthening the economy; it is aimed at destroying the basic rights of Australian workers, and it is built on a tower of sand. Every single economic fact that I will present in my speech demonstrated that the industry is in good shape, productivity is strong, industrial disputation is down and safety is increasing.

We do not need this bill. This bill is aimed purely at attacking workers and destroying trade unions. It is typical of the Orwellian approach of the new government to title it the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill. Let's look at the industry first. The construction industry is a viable sector of the economy. It has grown strongly over recent years and, with average growth of around 2.9 per cent, it has outgrown other sectors of the economy. It contributes over $100 billion dollars to annual GDP and employs around 900,000 people, which constitutes 7½ per cent of the total workforce. The percentage is even higher in my electorate of Charlton where 8.3 per cent of workers are employed in the construction industry. This represents almost 5,000 workers in my electorate who will be adversely affected by this legislation.

While the government allege that the introduction of this bill will improve productivity, there is no credible evidence to substantiate this claim. It is based on flawed and discredited analysis. Yet again, dodgy research is driving their approach. They have attempted to justify the return of the ABCC by referring to a recent report by consulting firm Independent Economics, a firm formerly known as Econtech. What they will not tell you is that this firm has a long history of churning out report after report which attacks workers and their unions whilst supposedly demonstrating a path to improved productivity. The member for Sturt failed to disclose when he introduced this bill that this consulting firm once had the rare distinction of producing modelling so inaccurate that the former Federal Court judge Murray Wilcox slammed the work as deeply flawed and recommended that it ought to be totally disregarded. This is the factual base that the government rest their justification for this bill on.

But attacking workers does nothing to improve productivity. Productivity improves where workers are guaranteed safe and fair working conditions. This bill, which will reintroduce the ABCC, was never about productivity, nor was it about taming an industry that is out of control. This is a robust industry. There are bad actors on both sides of the industrial landscape in this industry, that is without doubt. But there is no evidence to suggest that disputation in this industry has materially increased in the period since the ABCC was abolished or that the disputation in the construction industry is at historically high levels. Under Labor's Fair Work model, industrial disputation remains comparatively low. So why is it then necessary to make these changes? The truth is that it is not necessary. It is ideologically driven, just like Work Choices was. It was only ever about attacking unions and workers' rights.

Let's look at its origins of this bill. In the second reading speech, the Minister for Workplace Relations, who introduced the original ABCC in 2005, directly referred to unions no fewer than nine times and stated that they were specifically targeted to address union activity. The previous speaker, who is one of the Western Australian members, was very obvious in saying that this bill is designed to attack the CFMEU in particular. To be honest, at least they are not hiding their true colours in their speeches. This bill is now, as it was then, an attack on unions. It is a deliberate and orchestrated attempt to destroy the unions that represent the construction industry. But they have not stopped there. They have extended the definition of 'building work' to include offshore construction and the transport and supply of goods to building sites. This means that these new measures will apply to workers in the maritime industry and the transport industry and could extend to the manufacturing industry. This is another case of this government attacking workers' rights, not just in the construction industry but in every other industry they can get their hands on. This is truly a 'back to the future' time.

The construction workers that I have met in my electorate are hardworking Australians, just like every other worker. They have families and mortgages, and they expect—as they should—a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Most importantly, they expect to return home safely from work. Every worker is entitled to a safe workplace free of injury. I have met families who have been affected by workplace safety incidents and by workplace deaths. It is a tragedy. Even one worker dying at a workplace is one too many. This bill, sadly, does not improve safety—it undermines safety. As I have said before, every worker is entitled to a safe workplace. Unfortunately, this was not happening in the industry when the ABCC operated. From the time the ABCC was introduced, the rate of workplace fatalities increased every year until Labor was elected. Their model organisation for industrial harmony and for improving the construction industry occurred at the same time as fatalities in the industry increased year on year. I am proud to say that, under Labor's Fair Work model, fatalities in the building and construction industry have declined. According to the ABS, last year the construction industry saw a fatality rate of 1.93 deaths per 100,000 workers. This is the lowest fatality rate in history. This is very much lower than under the former coalition government, where it peaked at 2.95 deaths per 100,000 workers. The fatalities in the construction industry were fully a third higher under the last coalition government than they were last year. Under Labor, workplace injuries also declined.

Let's consider productivity for a second, because the government have included 'improving productivity' in the title of bill. Labour productivity in the construction industry under the Labor government was double that of the last three years of the Howard government. I know speakers on the other side will be tempted to compare the labour productivity in the unionised sector with that of the non-unionised parts of the construction sector. Any comparisons are facile because the unionised sector covers high-rise commercial construction, and they are trying to compare it to low-rise commercial construction in the outer suburbs, which is a completely different form of construction. The productivity story is very similar in the economy as a whole. I am proud that economy-wide labour productivity rose over one per cent last year and 3.9 per cent over the past two years. This is the highest in a decade, and our average productivity growth in the last five years has been twice that of the OECD average. On any available measure, labour productivity under Labor's Fair Work model in the construction industry and in the broader economy is much stronger than when the coalition is in government. On industrial disputation, the rate of industrial disputes in the construction industry is, on average, one fifth of the rate we saw under the previous government.

So we have higher productivity and we have fewer fatalities, and we have numbers of industrial disputes running at 20 per cent of those we saw under the coalition government. Yet their solution to this supposed problem is to crack down on workers' rights. I would submit that this is incredibly unfair and shows what the coalition is really about. The government remains wilfully ignorant of all the evidence that the current building industry regulation arrangements are working well. Labor has always supported a strong building industry regulator and a strong set of compliance arrangements for the building industry. Labor will not tolerate corruption, extortion or criminal behaviour in any industry, not just the construction industry.

There is no evidence to suggest that the monitoring of compliance in relation to building laws has failed or is not occurring under the current provisions. The current Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate has considerable powers to obtain information and documentation and have questions answered without compromising procedural and substantive fairness. The inspectorate is undertaking more investigations, concluding more investigations, getting matters to court faster and recovering more money for workers in the industry than the ABCC ever did. The inspectorate has secured over $2 million in unpaid wages and entitlements for more than 1,500 workers. Those are the sorts of breaches that the ABCC was never focused on. Those opposite do not care about nonpayment of employee entitlements, nonpayment of employee superannuation and nonpayment of workers compensation premiums. Most importantly, in an industry where there is, on average, one fatality per week, they do not care about compliance with occupational health and safety standards.

It is the government's responsibility to create a sound and workable industrial landscape in this country. To achieve this you have to have employers, workers and their representatives working together in a spirit of cooperation. Labor got this right with the Fair Work Act. In this country workers have safeguards to protect their rights, employers have safeguards to protect their interests and representatives are acknowledged as having a legitimate role in Australia's industrial relations system.

I want to go to the extreme nature of the proposed powers for the ABCC. The proposed powers are extreme and unnecessary and they compromise civil liberties. They 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. This bill abrogates the privilege against self-incrimination—something that has, until now, been enshrined in the common law.

In terms of the level of judicial oversight into investigatory powers, ASIO's investigatory powers into terrorist activities are subject to more checks and balances than the ABCC ever was. If this legislation passes, alleged terrorists will be entitled to a higher level of judicial protection than unionists are entitled to. Let me pause on that for just a sec. If this bill goes through parliament, terrorists and alleged terrorists will have more rights under our laws than unionists will. That is disgraceful, and it demonstrates yet again that this bill is not about promoting productivity, improving competitiveness, reducing disputation and increasing safety; it is about taking rights away from workers and saying to workers, 'You should have fewer rights than people alleged to be terrorists.'

Prime Minister Abbott refers to his workplace policies as returning 'the industrial relations pendulum back to the sensible centre'. Interestingly, there is very little emphasis in this bill on tackling what I believe are some of the most serious issues in the industry, including nonpayment of employee entitlements, nonpayment of employee superannuation, nonpayment of workers compensation premiums, the use of phoenix companies to avoid these obligations or avoid paying tax, and compliance with occupational health and safety standards—in an industry with, on average, one fatality per week. These are the real issues confronting the construction industry. I have seen workers affected by companies shutting up shop one day and refusing to pay entitlements, and then starting again the next day with a slightly different name. It is even affecting members of my family, where all they have done is gone to work and worked hard, and at the end of the day they have lost their entitlements because of shonky contractors. This bill does nothing to protect those workers. All it does is attack them.

There are other areas of concern with this bill—for example, in relation to taking protected industrial action over issues of safety. An employee, when taking industrial action over safety issues, is required to prove their concerns about workplace health and safety only in relation to their personal safety. It is unclear whether or not this means that workers can only take action when their own personal safety is jeopardised and they are restricted from taking action over the safety of their colleagues. Let's pause on that for a second. Under this bill, it is unclear whether or not, if I am working next-door to another construction worker and I see his safety imperilled, I can take action to protect that worker. I would submit that that is a most unfair set of conditions.

Reversing the onus of proof is also part of this bill—a part that the previous speaker was proud of. It is a disgraceful state of affairs that the complainant bears the burden of proof. This undermines the tradition of 'innocent until proven guilty', which is the bedrock of Western legal traditions. That, combined with the loss of the right of silence, means that this bill is taking us very far away from those traditions. I would submit that this is nowhere near the 'sensible centre' the member for Warringah long promised us. The truth is that the ABCC is not a watchdog; it is an attack dog. It is an attack dog aimed at attacking workers' rights. It has been condemned by the International Labour Organization.

It is crucial that we oppose this bill because it attacks workers' rights, it attacks the rights of workers to organise, it will not improve safety and it will not improve productivity. It will not mean that a single worker in this country will have a better chance of being safe. The fact is that productivity in the construction industry is much higher now than it was with the ABCC under the previous Liberal government. Industrial disputation is one-fifth of where it was under the previous Liberal government. The industry is growing. It is strong. It was safe in Labor's hands. It has been jeopardised by the coalition because all they care about is attacking workers' rights.

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

This bill seeks to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission—an institution that was dismantled under the previous government for no other reason than to appease their mates in the union movement, and to shore up the power base of the former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, despite the obvious and valuable contribution that the ABCC was making to the construction industry and to the economy.

It is important to understand how and why the ABCC first came to be. I will go through its history. In 2001 the then Minister for Workplace Relations, the current Prime Minister, commissioned the Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry to better understand the facts. What was revealed was really quite shocking. The royal commission report found that construction projects in Australia were hotbeds of intimidation, lawlessness, thuggery and violence. The commission concluded that inappropriate behaviour was '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'.

As a result of this in-depth and detailed report, the Australian Building and Construction Commission was established to stamp out this kind of behaviour. The results spoke for themselves. The ABCC had an immediate and positive impact. That is not simply the anecdotal evidence; it was evidenced by the 2013 Independent Economics report, which 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 that fewer working days were lost through industrial action.

Despite these positive results the previous government kowtowed to the unions and implemented their agenda to get rid of the ABCC. As was the case with the rest of its economic agenda, the previous government simply implemented the demands of the militant unions, which allowed them to dictate to management exactly what they should be doing on sites—to allow unions control of worksites. It is important to point out at this stage that unions do play a valuable role in our economy—but they are not the entire economy, which is something that those on the other side of the House seem to forget at times. The removal of the ABCC joins a long list of economically reckless, antibusiness policies introduced by the previous government, including policies like the carbon tax, the mining tax and other changes to regulatory policy.

Restoring the ABCC will achieve a couple of things. First, the ABCC will create a strong cop on the beat that will increase penalties for unlawful behaviour. These increased penalties are important in ensuring that any future fines are not simply seen as 'part of the job'. In order for fines to be successful in their deterrence they must hurt.

The coalition government understands and appreciates the importance of the construction industry. It is, after all, the construction industry that helps build our nation. We would not have some of the world's most picturesque and famous landmarks without the hard-working men and women of the construction industry—those who turn up to work day-in and day-out who simply want to do their job, and do it well. Let me make it crystal clear that this bill does not target those people. In fact, this bill will assist those people who want to do the right thing, by protecting them from industrial bullying and other corrupt behaviour. This bill does, however, target those who try to use intimidation, extortion and coercion—and the government makes no apology for that. It is very simple. Do not break the law and do not participate in illegal activity, and the ABCC will be of no relevance to you.

This bill will also reinstate civil remedies in the case of coercion and discrimination—for example, the CFMEU's printing of posters labelling non-members as scabs, and calling on them to be 'run out of the industry' simply for not joining the union. Freedom of association needs to work both ways. These actions were in open defiance of the Fair Work Act and the Supreme Court orders. Similarly, in Werribee at the City West plant we saw more deplorable behaviour. Death threats and physical intimidation occurred there on a daily basis.

The bill will bring the ABCC into line with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, the Australian Taxation Office, Centrelink and Medicare in providing coercive powers of interrogation when it is deemed reasonable to do so. This is an important point, as in the past there have been people who have been hesitant to provide evidence, fearful that they would pay a very high price—fearful of retribution. This new power for the ABCC will mean that that will no longer be the case.

There are a number of people who are quite prepared to behave in an illegal manner in order to try to achieve their aims. I found it astonishing, a couple of weeks ago, when I was speaking on a TV program with Tony Sheldon, the head of the Transport Workers Union, that he admitted that he 'did the right thing' in reference to actions against Qantas that the Federal Court deemed to be illegal. This reminds me of a quote by Theodore Roosevelt when he said:

No man is above the law and no man is below it: nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it.

Yet, for some reason in this country there is a subsection of the community that feels that they are above the law. There are a few bad eggs in the union movement that act in a militant fashion, conduct illegal industrial disputes, break the law and make no apology for it. This sort of attitude is also prevalent in the construction industry. It was most visible during the Myer Emporium debacle, where CFMEU members illegally closed down part of the city, blocking people who simply wanted to go to work.

Finally, the bill will, for the first time, take into account the importance of the supply chain in the construction industry to ensure that threats of refusal of supply will not befoul the industry. It reminds me of a story told to me by a constituent. This builder told me that he received a phone call from a union representative, who made it clear that if he did not advertise in the union's magazine his concrete would not be turning up the next day. It is this kind of extortion that the ABCC will stamp out of the industry. The only people who will lose from this legislation are those who will no longer be able to use force and thuggery to achieve their objectives.

Those opposite have used some pretty savage language in this debate—words like 'archaic', 'extreme', 'severe'. Let me say this: the only things that I find archaic, extreme and severe are the actions of militant unions that use threats of violence in the workplace. Not one member from the opposition side has condemned the actions I have outlined in my speech or any of the other many examples cited in this debate. I think that that says a lot about the standards that they accept. It shows a culture of acceptance, a culture of cover up, when it comes to crimes within the union movement.

Over the past few years we have witnessed many allegations of corruption within the union movement and we have heard about scandal after scandal. Yet the default response from those opposite is to sweep it under the carpet to avoid any potential political fall-out. Whether it is former Labor Minister Eddie Obeid, former President of the Labor Party Michael Williamson or former Labor MP Craig Thomson, union corruption, like corporate corruption, should be exposed, dealt with and punished accordingly—how else can we restore confidence. That is why this bill is so important; it will expose criminals in the industry and it will bring them to justice.

In conclusion I would like to say that the ABCC is required—to protect those in the building and construction industry, to protect workers from unlawful protest and intimidation, and to protect the industry as a whole so that we can build our future together.

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

The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 is nothing more than a continuation of a decade-long obsession by the coalition to attack and destroy workers and worker organisations in this country. It is an attack that started in 2001, when the Cole royal commission was commissioned by none other than the current Prime Minister. That in turn led to the establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, under the premise that the industry needed to be cleaned up. What we got was an organisation whose focus was almost exclusively on the workers within the Australian building and construction industry. It had scant regard for the builders and construction companies themselves—their illegal practices were entirely ignored by those opposite and the commission they established.

When Labor came to office it changed the rules in a way that brought balance and fairness to the management of improper behaviour and practices right across the board. We did that through the introduction of Fair Work legislation and the Fair Work Building and Construction Agency. We did that because we understood and accepted that some action needed to be taken. But we were not prepared to go to the extreme measures that the previous government had used. The Fair Work Building and Construction Agency, established by Labor, has sufficient powers to look into, prosecute if necessary and carry out whatever investigations are required in order to ensure that the industry operates in accordance with the standards that we would all expect. But it does so without denying anyone their natural rights—unlike this legislation.

This legislation not only seeks to re-establish the ABCC but also includes and re-includes coercive powers that will compel ordinary Australians to be subjected to secret interviews, be denied legal representation of their choice, and be threatened with imprisonment it they refuse to cooperate. The bill also extends the reach of the ABCC into picketing, offshore construction and the transport and supply of goods to building sites. It not only reinstates the Howard government's earlier legislation but goes much further. The legislation also extends the ABCC's jurisdiction to offshore places—to as far as Australia's exclusive economic zone or waters above the continental shelf—and, more significantly, it will encompass the transport and supply of goods to building sites, including to resource platforms.

Whilst the government's rhetoric is about fairness and the middle ground, the details of this legislation prove otherwise. Earlier this morning, in the first item on the agenda of business of this House—the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013—we saw another attempt to attack workers and their organisations in this country. I think it is fair to say that Australians believe in a fair go, in treating people fairly, and in treating people in the way they themselves would like to be treated. In fact, Australia has a proud record of being one of the founding nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On Tuesday we celebrated International Human Rights Day, and I heard members opposite speaking of the importance of protecting those rights and the decency that comes from them.

This legislation contravenes not only the conventions contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but everything we have ever stood for and fought for in this country for over a century. I ask members opposite: would you agree to being subjected to the laws enshrined in this bill? I very much doubt that. Of course, the truth is that members opposite do not work in the building and construction industry—they probably never have and probably never will. I will also be interested to see whether this legislation is referred to the Joint Standing Committee on Human Rights and, if so, how that committee responds. I would also be very interested to know whether the government sought advice as to whether this legislation complies with Australia's human rights obligations contained under any international convention to which Australia is a signatory. If so, will the minister table any legal response that it received.

The truth is that the Fair Work Building and Construction Agency already has sufficient powers to deal with any unlawful activities within the industry. I noted the comments of the member for Cowan earlier on, when he was referring to the current Grocon dispute in Victoria. He alluded to the penalties that are likely to be imposed on the parties to that dispute. If the laws are already there and being applied, why would you need to change them? I thought he actually argued the case for leaving things the way they are right now. In fact, there are a range of industrial and criminal laws already available to authorities to control any unlawful activities, and those laws are available to the authorities if any alleged unlawful activities occur. By its very description, if an activity is illegal or unlawful, it means that we have laws which are being breached. So the obvious question is not why we should be introducing new laws but why are we not enforcing the current laws? It is because the agencies in question need to be better resourced.

The government knows that this proposal is extreme, and that is why it only applies to one sector of society. If it were to apply to every sector of society, the government knows that the Australian people would not cop it, and that there would be outrage over it. By vilifying and targeting one sector, and one sector alone, and turning the rest of the community against that sector, the government believes that, by stealth, it can get away with it. It is interesting, in fact unique, that these laws are limited to a specific industry and that they propose coercive powers.

It is a flawed comparison when the minister and other members of this place stand up and say that the ATO, ASIC and the ACCC have similar powers. Firstly, whether it is ASIC, the ATO, the ACCC, or others in respect of their powers they are not confined to one single sector of society. They apply to all Australians in a non-discriminatory way. Secondly, those powers do not prevent the attendance of legal counsel of choice at any of the interviews that those authorities conduct. Thirdly, in his second reading speech the minister referred to the information gathering powers of the ABCC being similar to those of other government agencies. He does not, however, refer to the coercive powers of the ABCC inspectors which are entirely separate to the information gathering powers he refers to.

In a genuine attempt to bring some real balance to this issue the previous Labor government commissioned the Wilcox inquiry which, in turn, led to the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011. The Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate was then created to regulate the building and construction industry. That bill brought some balance and some fairness to the process, as I have previously stated. The point I want to make is that that legislation was passed in April 2012, just around 18 months ago. The agency came into effect about one year ago. We have not even had a year of it in operation to properly assess and evaluate its performance, and now the government comes in and says that it wants to change it again. Clearly, this government is driven by ideology and nothing else because, if the government were legitimate and serious about wanting to improve the situation, at the very least it would wait a reasonable amount of time, assess what has happened in the last 12 months, maybe even longer, and then make a judgement call as to whether further amendments would be required.

The fact is that the Fair Work Building and Construction Division is undertaking more investigations, concluding investigations, getting matters to court faster and recovering more money for workers in industry than the ABCC, which existed between 2005 and 2012. Over $2 million in unpaid wages and entitlements for more than 1,500 workers has been secured by Fair Work Building and Construction. These were the sorts of breaches that the ABCC was never, ever focused on. Importantly, labour productivity has increased over the last 10 quarters and, on average, is almost three times higher under Fair Work than under Work Choices.

Building workers have been and continue to be critical in the building of our country. They do work that many others would never, ever do. They work in extreme weather conditions such as outdoors on freezing cold mornings and on building sites in the hot sun in the middle of summer. They often face risks that, again, no other person in this country faces. As was previously pointed out, the member for Moreton, when he spoke on this matter, highlighted the number of serious accidents and even deaths that occur within the industry.

Building workers are entitled to stand up for their rights and for fair and safe working conditions without being persecuted, as was Ark Tribe in Adelaide, in 2008, for attending a stop work meeting called in relation to safety concerns at a building site. Ark Tribe was not a union leader, he was just a worker on the site who understood that there were some serious safety concerns and wanted to bring them to the attention of the authorities and the building company. For that he was dragged before the ABCC and taken to court. Ultimately the court found in his favour.

If the government seriously believes that there is a problem with the construction sector, why does it simply not extend the powers of Fair Work Building and Construction? Why does it need to go to the extreme steps that it is taking and reintroduce the ABCC with the kinds of powers that no other agency in this country has and no-one who generally believes in fairness would ever agree to? The government wants to reintroduce this legislation because, as I said from the very outset, this is a government that is intent on attacking workers in this country, wherever they may be, and intent on destroying the unions that support those workers. We are seeing it through this legislation, and we are seeing it through other legislation which indirectly does exactly the same thing. This legislation is, in my view, not only unnecessary and uncalled for but is also un-Australian.

The member for Gorton, as the opposition spokesman on industrial matters, has introduced some amendments to this legislation. The amendments are, I believe, more than appropriate and ought to be supported by this House. I support the amendments moved by the member for Gorton, and I believe that this House should seriously ask the question: is this the kind of legislation we want for this country, and is it legislation that members opposite would be prepared to live under if it applied to them?

(Quorum formed)

Debate adjourned.