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

As I was saying before this debate was moved to another part of business for the parliament, this bill, the Construction Industry (Protecting Witnesses) Bill, is to be opposed by the opposition because it is about whether the sunset provision should continue. It is the view of the opposition—implicit in the sunset clause—that it is incumbent upon the government to establish whether such a provision should continue. In other words, the onus is on the government to explain why they believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant the extension of this provision. And we would argue—given that there has been no review undertaken by the government in this matter—that the sunset provision should take effect, and that therefore the effect of the provision should lapse, because of the government's failure to review this matter.

It is also interesting to note that, of course, this provision relates to the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It relates to the efforts by this government to reinstate such a commission—which we would argue is an overreach, excessive, and in breach of international human rights conventions—and, whilst the government still has that intention, it is interesting to note that in the budget documents of yesterday, in the strategic directions under this portfolio, it is no longer a priority in the way it was outlined in last year's budget. In last year's budget, there was a priority for the establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. And yet that is no longer the case; it has been relegated down the order in the budget, which I think reflects the fact that the minister and indeed the government understand that they do not have the support of the parliament to proceed with their efforts to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

In relation to this particular bill: this is a narrower bill in its application. We would say that it is prejudicial for the government, without undertaking a review, to extend the provision of what is a sunset clause. It really does suggest that the government's immediate assumption when it comes to dealing with unions or indeed workers in workplaces is that people are acting improperly, without any sufficient independent analysis of such matters. As I was saying before we adjourned on this matter, the government seeks to remove the privilege against self-incrimination by reintroducing that legislation.

What we have here, though, is a government using this bill as a stopgap. In reality, what the Abbott government really wants to do—and this is clearly evident in their bill to reinstate the ABCC—is to impose more coercive powers, with fewer protections and safeguards on their use. It is important to note that even if this bill is not successful, the Fair Work Ombudsman and those within the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate who are appointed as Fair Work inspectors currently have the power to compel the production of records or documents to assist in investigating industrial contraventions. Of course, there is also the Australian Crime Commission. If anyone understands the history of the Australian Crime Commission, it is the successor body to the National Crime Authority. It arose out of a royal commission itself which was held during the Fraser years. The then Hawke government established a standing crime commission. If this government really is talking about tackling crime rather than playing politics and attacking unions, it has at its disposal an organisation—namely, the Australian Crime Commission—with such powers to deal with matters of a criminal nature.

So if indeed all this was ever about in this area of public policy was dealing with criminal conduct, there is already a standing commission with experts and, of course, with law enforcement officers and people with sufficient expertise and very significant powers to do exactly that. But we know that much of this is about the government attacking unions across the board, as is clear by the parameters of the royal commission currently on foot.

I believe it is obvious to all fair-minded people that the government is willing to do anything in pursuit of its ideological attacks on working people and trade unions that represent them. For the reasons I have outlined, we do not support this bill and we do not support it because we do not believe the government has provided sufficient explanation or indeed sufficient evidence by undertaking a review that should have occurred in the case of extending a provision such as a sunset clause.

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

This Construction Industry Amendment (Protecting Witnesses) Bill 2015 simply seeks to amend the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act 2012 to extend the operation of the compulsory examination of powers Labor gave to the current regulator in the building industry, Fair Work Building and Construction.

The bill is a stopgap measure to ensure that while the Senate considers the legislation to re-establish the ABCC, any current and ongoing investigations by Fair Work Building and Construction are not compromised. Without this bill, the powers that Labor gave to Fair Work Building and Construction could not be used after 1 June 2015 to investigate unlawful conduct.

In case anyone thought they misheard me, I will repeat that point, that this bill extends the compulsory powers that Labor gave the FWBC. The bill simply continues the operation of Labor's own legislation. When you hear the calls from the members of the opposition about this bill, you would be forgiven for failing to realise that Labor is railing against legislation introduced by Labor under Prime Minister Gillard. Labor unwisely abolished the ABCC in 2012 and, as a result, it was mugged by the reality that there is a culture of intimidation, thuggery and silence for fear of retribution in the construction industry. Gillard Labor accepted this fact and retained the ABCC's compulsory powers. That is right—the compulsory powers of the former ABCC were retained by Labor and given to the FWBC. These Gillard-Labor-endorsed powers are the very same powers that Shorten Labor and the unions now oppose.

Re-establishing the ABCC is an important issue for this country. It has become quite comical, seeing Labor senators tripping over themselves to show the crossbench senators how indignant they are that the coalition has dared to extend Labor's own legislation. Labor's objection to these compulsory powers shows just how disingenuous and dishonest they have been when it comes to the interests of their most generous benefactor unions in the CFMEU and the ETU.

I have seen the media release put out by the CFMEU after this bill passed the Senate. Unfortunately, the CFMEU jumped straight into linking the tragic issue of deaths in the industry with compulsory powers. The fact is that the CFMEU has once again been so ready to cry wolf over safety that it only does its members a disservice. It is unconscionable and despicable to use such a serious workplace issue as part of a partisan argument. This tactic discloses how hollow the Labor Party's policy position truly is. It confirms the reality that the CFMEU will say and do anything to further its own purely industrial agenda, while Labor stands quietly and impotently on the sidelines.

I also want to address the other half of the CFMEU's media release. It suggested that these compulsory powers are unique and that only those working in construction are subject to compulsory powers. This is incorrect. The CFMEU so conveniently forgets that those who work in the financial services area, corporate Australia, banking and in multinationals are subject to the same compulsory powers exercised by ASIC, exercised by the ACCC and exercised by APRA. What the CFMEU, the ETU and Labor fail to remember is that there are significant safeguards to the use of compulsory powers by FWBC and the proposed ABCC use of those powers. Some safeguards, mind you, only apply to those in the building industry; safeguards such as the automatic immunity that applies to the evidence a witness gives. So, even though they can be compelled to attend and answer questions, their answers cannot be used against them. Under these compulsory powers and the ABCC powers a witness can have a lawyer present. They will be given 14 days written notice of the requirement to attend and interviews are taped and video recorded. The use of the powers is subject to the Commonwealth Ombudsman's oversight, as they always have been.

So why are these powers necessary in the building and construction industry? It is because there is an endemic culture of intimidation, a culture of thuggery and a culture of silence—a culture where those who dare to stand up and speak out against the thugs in the CFMEU and others will be targeted. This is why the victims and witnesses do not want to come forward and need the protection of being able to say that they were compelled to give evidence. Even Labor's own hand-picked reviewer of the ABCC powers in 2009 concluded that it would not have been responsible to remove the compulsory powers because of the unlawfulness that existed in the industry. Since then, the problems in the industry have only become worse and worse.

Any fair-minded observer would reach the same conclusion today based on the findings of the interim report of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. Let us not forget that the interim report recommends that consideration be given to laying a number of charges, including criminal charges, against a range of CFMEU officials in relation to acts of intimidation, coercion and blackmail. The royal commission concluded:

Together they raise fundamental issues about the regulation of the building and construction industry, and the culture of wilful defiance of the law which appears to lie at the core of the CFMEU.

In this context, Labor's experiment of a weak regulator with weak laws and weaker penalties can be seen as the monumental failure that it surely is. Who can forget that only weeks after Labor abolished the ABCC, the CFMEU, supported by the ETU, shut down parts of the Melbourne CBD for days in a violent attack on Grocon and its workers.

The Abbott government has stated it is committed to re-establishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission to return the rule of law to this important industry. This is about more than just compulsory powers, as important as they are. The debate will progress in the Senate in coming weeks. The Construction Industry Amendment (Protecting Witnesses) Bill 2015 will ensure that while that debate continues there is no loss of the regulator's existing powers and its existing investigations will not be compromised.

Finally, I call on the Labor Party to condemn the misleading campaign against this bill by its donors in the CFMEU and in the ETU. I call on Labor to act in the best interests of construction workers and the construction industry and to stop blocking the legislation to re-establish the ABCC. Regrettably, I fear that Labor will continue to support this current situation. It is a situation that is not in the best interests of Australia. I commend the Construction Industry Amendment (Protecting Witnesses) Bill 2015 to the House.

Bill read a second time.