House debates

Wednesday, 3 February 2016

Bills

Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2], Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2]; Second Reading

4:17 pm

Photo of Jane PrenticeJane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

As I was saying, aggressive and militant union behaviour is commonplace. Site shutdowns, strike action and other industrial action occur regularly. Unlawful industrial action over safety issues is increasingly a Trojan Horse for union delegates' other purposes. We heard that it is not unusual for someone wishing to trigger a site shutdown to fabricate a safety incident, even tampering with electrical boards. Coercion and bullying are stock-in-trade for many union officials. Like the Federal Court, we know construction union representatives behave as if they are above the law, routinely ignoring court orders, and, through these improper practices, the CFMEU and other unions leverage even greater power to bring into effect an unlawful no-ticket no-start union recruitment policy and practice for head contractors and, through them, on to subcontractors and across the industry through pattern bargaining.

Some union delegates exercise control over what should otherwise be commercial decisions and even exert control over detailed operational issues, including whether a site operates beyond core hours, and procurement and tendering. There is ample evidence of subcontractors who are not retained by head contractors because they were not on a union-approved list. Indeed, this is what happened to many of my constituents. Some union bosses even extend the 'put it on the credit card' approach to proceeding with industrial action even if they know it is not permitted under the Fair Work Act.

Like all Australians who have watched the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption unfold, we learned that coercion is a common feature of union behaviour in the construction industry. It can involve threats and intimidation, verbal abuse, and distribution of material making derogatory, belittling, untrue or defamatory statements about individuals and companies. We know union intimidation tactics involve threats of physical harm and, on occasion, physical assault.

The CFMEU's treatment of some of my constituents is shamefully common across the building and construction industry in Australia. Non-CFMEU members are bullied and labelled 'scabs'. A retired couple who used their life savings to set up a shop in a local centre in my electorate tried to save money by doing their own fit-out. Their shop was picketed, and they were spat on, called 'scabs' and worse, and prevented from entering their own property.

Those opposite know what has been going on for far too long. The silence and inaction by those who sit opposite also makes them complicit. The CFMEU's actions are often in open defiance of the Fair Work Act and Supreme Court orders, but, with no strong enforcement body, the unions continue to wreak havoc. Indeed, something I hope the new ABCC will look into is how court-ordered fines are paid, because I know of cases where the union had to write a cheque to a successful litigant, but the litigant did not bank it because of the threat of further reprisals if they did. This speaks volumes about the licentious attitude towards the law and absolute contempt for the courts, as well as the lawless culture, in some unions, especially the CFMEU.

The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2] restores the full power of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the funding that Labor took away. This bill brings back integrity to this industry. This bill upholds and promotes respect for the rule of law and ensures respect for the rights of all building industry participants. It contains provisions to ensure that unlawful action, including unlawful industrial action and unlawful pickets, are dealt with appropriately. The bill includes the ability for the courts to impose significant penalties for individuals and organisations that participate in unlawful action. Importantly, the bill provides an effective means for investigating and enforcing the law.

The Australian Building and Construction Commissioner will be able to exercise their power to obtain information quickly and effectively without being hindered by unnecessary bureaucratic red-tape around the issue of examination notices. However, to ensure accountability and transparency, the use of these powers will continue to be reviewed and reported on by the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

The operation of the Australian Building and Construction Commission contributed to improved productivity in the construction and building sector. This bill encourages productivity and the pursuit of high levels of employment in the building and construction industry. It will ensure that the government's policy to deliver the infrastructure of the 21st century is delivered on time and on budget. This bill will create jobs and investment by ensuring employers and workers in the industry can get on with the job without fear of intimidation. The Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner and the Building and Construction Work Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme are maintained.

In this bill there are also a number of changes from the original legislation that reflect the changing scope and practice in the building and construction industry. The definition of 'building work' in the bill includes off-site prefabrication of made-to-order components for parts of buildings, structures or works. The definition of 'building work' also includes the transporting or supplying 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 indirectly disrupted through coordinated go-slows on the supply of materials to those projects. The bill also extends the geographic limits to the exclusive economic zone, and land above the continental shelf, which will bring the legislation into line with the Fair Work Act.

Australia is poorly served by those who would simply outsource Australia's industrial relations policy and practice to serial offenders who have an attitude of indifference to compliance with the requirements of our laws. Australia cannot afford to have a building and construction industry that is inefficient and unstable. We must protect and maintain the rule of law, and, wherever possible, drive productivity and economic growth. I commend the bill to the House.

4:24 pm

Photo of Jill HallJill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for Ryan and I agree on many things within this parliament. I respect her for the position she takes on many health issues and many other issues, but it is when you come down to an issue such as this that you can really see the difference between her beliefs and mine. It is the same with the government and the opposition. I find this legislation to be totally untenable. I think it goes to the heart of what we on this side of the parliament believe in, and it goes to the heart of why I am a member of this parliament. I am a member of this parliament to stand up for the rights of everybody in my electorate—for the rights of workers. In a past life I spent a lot of time working with those who were injured, and, surprise surprise, one of the largest groups of those who were injured were workers. Another surprise is that many of those workers were injured because of poor safety standards in the workplace, because of employers making sure that unions did not have access to the workplace. They were caused because of workers being put in dangerous situations and because employers were really bypassing every requirement that needed to be taken. The innate problem I have with this legislation is the one-sided nature of it. I do not know how we as a parliament could possibly support this legislation.

The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill was bad legislation when it was first introduced, in November 2013, and it is still bad legislation. No matter what the government does to it, is it still bad legislation. It is legislation driven by ideologues in the government who are consumed with hatred of unions and, I would have to say, workers, or have a total disregard for workers and their safety and for ensuring that they can have a decent standard of living, can be proud of their work and can have decent wages. Unfortunately, I think those on the other side are not too fussed about the kind of conditions workers have.

Much of its rhetoric and diatribe is based on its past prejudices, this flawed legislation and the flawed findings of the trade union royal commission, which looked in a jaundiced way at unions, whilst turning a blind eye to the corrupt behaviour by many employers. That was totally ignored—the exploitation was totally ignored. It was not in the terms of reference that were given to the trade union royal commission. It was looking at one thing and one thing only. I know that there were instances where unions and witnesses before the royal commission tried to raise issues of safety and bad practice by employers, but they were told it was irrelevant. The royal commission was about getting the unions. It is interesting that we had Labor leader after Labor leader hauled before the royal commission, with no adverse findings given against them. So, to me, it really smelt like witch-hunt. It was all about the government chasing its agenda and maybe setting the groundwork for a 2016 election. When we look at corrupt behaviour by employers we are really looking at situations that actually place workers lives in jeopardy.

In a past life I worked with many workers who were injured on worksites and who were asked to undertake duties that were unsafe. They were told that if they did not do it they would not have a job. There was a lack of protection. You only have to look at the safety records of the building and construction industry to see that it is the industry that has the second greatest number of fatalities. What this government is doing in this legislation is going to make the industry less safe. I really care about that.

I know Senator Madigan said earlier this week that he has not had any constituents come to see him about trade unions. I am in a similar situation. I have not had one constituent come and see me about corrupt behaviour by the CFMEU. I have, however—and this may shock members on the other side of this parliament—had numerous workers in the construction industry come and see me about the fact that there is sham contracting, that they are not getting proper wages, that their employers have not paid their superannuation and that they are in a very vulnerable position.

But this legislation is not about that. This legislation is not about providing any protections. This legislation is about those on the other side of this House delivering to their masters and trying to create a scare campaign for the next election. I understand that the Prime Minister told his party room that, if this legislation does not get through, he will call a double dissolution. Well, I say to the Prime Minister: bring it on. The workers in Australia will really learn what this government's agenda is about—bringing back the ABCC, a Howard government brainchild. But they are bringing it back with bells and whistles. It is an enhanced version of the ABCC. It is a version that will actually erode even more levels of accountability.

There can be no doubt that the trade union royal commission discovered some serious and unacceptable behaviour. Labor in no way supports those behaviours. Illegal behaviour should be dealt with by legal authorities. Those people involved in such behaviour should be charged and then the courts should decide whether or not their behaviour was illegal.

This legislation is looking at one industry, one tiny part of our economy and our society and one group of workers. It is seeking to put in place laws to deal with corruption in this industry. That is just untenable. Any laws to do with corrupt or illegal behaviour should cover everyone, not just the construction industry. I think that this government's intent to bring back the ABCC with its undemocratic powers and the impact it will have on workers' rights and safety and the way it will attack workers is totally untenable. It is something that I and those of us on this side of the House cannot support.

Nicola McGarrity and Professor George Williams from the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales said:

… 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.

What this legislation is creating is akin to something in a police state. It is creating a situation where one group of people are having their rights stripped away from them. I as a member of this House, as an Australian and as somebody who is really concerned about what happens in the community I represent and throughout Australia cannot accept that. It is not Australian and it is not the way I like to see our country heading.

In Labor we believe you put people first and that you at all times try to strengthen and protect the rights of workers. You have to make sure that workers have protections. If you have a situation where workers are protected then it will actually increase productivity in that industry. By creating a situation where that is not the case, you are going to have all sorts of cowboys out there. We should be cracking down on underpayment of workers. That is one problem that is very rampant in the industry and it is something that this government is not too concerned about. It is an area where there are a lot of employer cowboys operating. There should be a crackdown on the underpayment of workers by significantly increasing the penalty for employers who deliberately and systematically avoid paying their employees proper wages. We support moving away from a system where someone is given cash in the hand and told, 'If you turn up and say nothing then you have a job, but if you say something or ask for the correct pay and the right conditions of work then there will be no work available.'

We should be ramping up the protections for workers from sham contracting by strengthening the legal protection of workers' entitlements, increasing penalties and giving the Fair Work Ombudsman more powers to ensure employers cannot liquidate their companies in order to avoid paying the money they owe to workers. That is a problem that has existed for a long time. I am sure something members on the other side of the House experience all the time is workers visiting their offices to tell the story of how their employer has changed the name of the company—just made a slight change—and by doing that has been able to avoid paying them the moneys that they are rightfully owed. That is unacceptable. We cannot support that. We will introduce reforms to ensure that temporary overseas workers are not being exploited and underpaid, and that there is a level playing field for all workers in Australia. The construction industry has, over a number of years, exploited overseas workers. There have been instances where worksites have been visited—yes, visited by union officials—and overseas workers have been found to be living in crowded conditions in shipping containers. I do not accept that. Why should we as a nation be prepared to support a regime that allows this to happen?

The ABCC governs civil, not criminal, behaviour. What has been identified in the royal commission relates to criminal behaviour. The government is seeking to put in place a civil regulator, not a criminal regulator. The ABCC had a record of operating in an aggressive, biased and coercive manner. It did not pursue or investigate breaches such as underpayment of wages, and there was no impartiality in the commission. And this is what we are going back to. This is the unacceptable practice this government has supported.

The Cole royal commission cost $60 million. I must say the trade union royal commission out did them—it cost $80 million. No convictions came out of the Cole royal commission. The Royal Commissioner, Dyson Heydon, clearly had a conflict of interest, and there was a lot of bias in that royal commission.

Unfortunately, I am running out of time. I have a lot more to say on this topic, but I will conclude by saying that this legislation is unacceptable. It is legislation that I believe will endanger the lives of Australian workers. It is legislation that will take away the rights of workers. I think those on the other side should think seriously about supporting. I do not.

4:39 pm

Photo of Natasha GriggsNatasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

During the course of this debate on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2] it is important not to forget the symbiotic relationship the Australian union movement has with the Australian Labor Party and the depths to which the ALP will stoop to keep their union masters happy. Since the release of the commission's findings, we have seen a campaign by the Labor Party to attack the report's credibility—we just heard an example of that from the previous speaker—and to attack the integrity of one of Australia's best regarded legal minds, in Commissioner Dyson Heydon. Labor's behaviour has been atrocious, and its defence of the union thuggery, outlined in the royal commission, shines a light on the ALP's rotten core. The Labor Party does not want to see the building unions or any other union reformed, because that would undermine its powerbase and the rivers of cash that flow from the union movement to the Labor Party year after year.

In the Northern Territory the ties between the unions and Labor were spectacularly exposed last year with the release of a commission of inquiry report into the extremely dodgy handover of a former seafarer's shelter, known as the Stella Maris, that overlooks Darwin Harbour, only minutes from the CBD. The previous Territory Labor government, instead of going through a properly managed community consultation process, gifted, on the eve of the 2012 election, this wonderful site to Unions NT—their union mates. Unsurprisingly, when this was discovered by the incoming Country Liberal government an inquiry into exactly what took place was convened. It was presided over by John Lawler, who had a 35-year history in law enforcement in this country, including four years as CEO of the Australian Crime Commission.

The findings were unambiguously bad for the Territory Labor Party and for Unions NT, but their default position on the negative findings was to attack Commissioner Lawler and the work of the Australian Crime Commission to take it out on him. However, repercussions from the inquiry eventually forced the resignation of the Labor Party's opposition leader, Delia Lawrie, and her deputy leader during this time, Gerry McCarthy, who was up to his neck in it, remains tarnished by the event today. The commission showed that the Labor Party was prepared to compromise hardworking Territory public servants, the Territory public service as a whole, and ignore the interests of the broader community just so it could pander to and do favours for its union mates. I think that behaviour is absolutely disgraceful.

I would like to take this opportunity to put on record in this House some of the findings of the Stella Maris commission of inquiry. The findings stated:

On 10 July 2012, a Cabinet Submission, number 4033: 'The future of the Stella Maris site—Lot 5260 Town of Darwin (1 McMinn Street)', went to the Northern Territory Cabinet for consideration. The submission was considered by only four of the eight Cabinet ministers … A decision was made to offer a Crown lease term over the site to Unions NT without an expression of interest process. This decision was against the strong and considered advice of the broader public sector not to grant the site to any community group without following an expression of interest process. Despite the fact he was sponsoring the submission, the Minister for Lands and Planning, Gerald McCarthy, was absent from the meeting.

Following the meeting, the department was advised of the Cabinet decision and began drafting the lease conditions and letter of offer for Minister G McCarthy to sign and send to Unions NT to meet his ministerial responsibilities under the Crown Lands Act. It is clear that, prior to and immediately following the Cabinet meeting, the department had little to no information about what Unions NT intended to do with the site.

The department believed there was an expectation to make the lease offer before the pre-election government caretaker period commenced on 6 August 2012 and, given the official Cabinet direction, acted with undue haste in processing Unions NT’s flawed community land grant application. This led to the department breaching its own processes for dealing with community land grants. The grant application the department processed was inaccurate, three years out of date and did not document Unions NT’s true intentions for the site. The department should have made the minister aware of exactly what parts of the community land grant process had not been followed.

The lease conditions and letter of offer were prepared and stamped with Minister G McCarthy’s signature on 3 August 2012, the last working day before the caretaker period.

No public information was provided during the process, causing a public information ‘blackout’.

Commissioner Lawler then scrutinised the role of individuals and groups involved in this dodgy deal, starting with the Labor cabinet. He said of the cabinet:

It is difficult to understand how the Cabinet ministers could have reasonably rejected the advice in the Cabinet Submission to have an open and transparent expression of interest process, and proceed to approve the proposal to grant a Crown lease exclusively to Unions NT based on one paragraph in the submission which included a warning about potential criticism in pursuing that option.

…      …   …

… the starting point should have been a process that called for more transparency, not less, and complete adherence to the long-standing community land grant process. Unfortunately, the opposite occurred.

He said of Minister McCarthy:

Minister G McCarthy’s decision was arguably unreasonable and, if challenged in a court, would be susceptible to being overturned. It was unreasonable because he did not have the necessary information to justify selectively choosing Unions NT over any other group.

He said further of Minister McCarthy that he:

did not act with accountability, responsibility or with proper consideration of those likely to be affected by his decision, namely the numerous community groups that had expressed interest in the site over a long period of time.

He went on to say:

There was no public advertisement, no media release and no way for the public to know of his decision until a notice was published in the Government Gazette on 26 September 2012. This public information ‘blackout’ deprived members of the public of their entitlement to know that Minister G McCarthy had made a decision and the reasons why that decision was made.

He went on to say:

Having considered all the factors in relation to the decision to propose the grant of the lease to Unions NT for the site, Minister G McCarthy’s conduct was not accountable, responsible, or in the public interest.

He said of Minister Lawrie:

Minister Lawrie acted with bias over many years, forming a view in 2009 that Unions NT should be exclusively granted a lease over the site without an expression of interest process.

He went on to say:

Minister Lawrie should have made it clear to the department that it was her intention to grant the site to Unions NT without an expression of interest process. Minister Lawrie may have genuinely believed that granting the site exclusively to Unions NT was in the public interest, the way she involved herself in the process was not proper and was unfair to the public and other community groups.

He said of Unions NT:

The application submitted to both Minister Lawrie and Minister G McCarthy on behalf of Unions NT did not have a proper factual basis, was misleading and exaggerated the history between Unions NT and the site.

The Unions NT Executive failed in its responsibility to ensure the application submitted on its behalf to the ministers was of a high standard and reflected its true intentions for the site.

There is plenty more but with limited time I have, I have placed on record some of the important details that I think need to be put on the record that outline the deal between the Unions and the NT Labor.

I now return to the bill. As many of my colleagues have rightly pointed out, the construction industry provides many jobs for workers in small business, large enterprises and contractors. My dad spent many years in the construction industry and by all accounts was a highly skilled tradesman, as was his father.

This industry is critical to a productive, prosperous and internationally competitive Australia, and we on this side recognise the importance of an industry that is vital to job creation and essential to Australia's economic and social wellbeing. The bill we are debating today re-establishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission, a genuinely strong watchdog that will maintain the rule of law to protect workers and constructors and improve productivity on building sites and construction projects, whether onshore or offshore. If passed, the bill will reverse Labor's changes to the laws which underpinned the Australian Building and Construction Commission before it was abolished in 2012. Importantly, if passed, the bill prohibits unlawful industrial action, unlawful picketing and coercion and discrimination. Penalties that are high enough to provide an effective deterrent will apply to breaches of these provisions. A wide range of effective remedies such as injunctions will also be available to the ABCC and persons affected by unlawful behaviour.

The case to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission is clear. For many years, the building and construction sector provided the worst examples of industrial relations lawlessness. Going back to 2001 when the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry found compelling evidence of the need for reform in this industry, there were many examples of how building sites and construction projects in Australia were hotbeds of intimidation, lawlessness, thuggery and violence. Projects were delayed, costs blew out and investment in our economy and infrastructure was being jeopardised.

Central to the royal commission's findings was industry lawlessness. It concluded that the standards of commercial and industrial conduct exhibited in the building and construction industry represented a significant departure from those in the rest of the Australian economy. Witnesses reported criminal conduct, unlawful and inappropriate conduct including breaches of the relevant workplace relations and work health and safety legislation and a disregard for Commonwealth and state revenue statutes. Inappropriate conduct was defined by the royal commission as 'behaviour that infringes the Workplace Relations Act 1996, a person's right of choice or other conduct which departs from recognised norms of civility and behaviour'. While the ABCC existed, the economic and industrial performance of the building and construction industry significantly improved. For example, a 2013 Independent Economics report on the state of the sector during this period found that building and construction industry productivity grew by more than nine per cent, consumers were better off by around $7.5 billion annually and, very importantly, fewer working days were lost through industrial action.

We know what happened: the former Labor government came under sustained pressure from building and construction unions to abolish the ABCC and the building code that supported its work. The Labor government procrastinated for five years, but the Workplace Relations Minister, who was Bill Shorten at the time, gave in to union demands and abolished the organisation in 2012 and replaced it with a regulator with significantly reduced funding and powers. This saw the bad old days return—wildcat stoppages, militant protests, demands from unions that their mates be employed on projects ahead of non-union members and an increase in construction industry disputes to a seven-year high.

I think the case is pretty clear as to why we should restore the commission. The main objective of the bill is to provide an improved workplace relations framework for building and construction work to ensure that this 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 bill intends to improve the bargaining framework so as to further encourage genuine bargaining at the workplace level. Enterprise bargaining and negotiations must be harmonious, sensible and productive and should be tailored to the particular workplace.

The coalition government is committed to doing all that is necessary to reform the building and construction industry and to re-instate the rule of law in this sector. We on this side wholeheartedly believe that workers deserve to be able to go to work each day without the fear of being harassed, intimidated or subjected to violence. The former Labor government undermined confidence in the building and construction industry. Abolishing the ABCC has seen a return to lawlessness and an increase in the number of days where work is simply not being done in the industry. Australia cannot afford to have a building and construction industry which is inefficient and unstable. The restoration of the ABCC and the code which supports its work is critical for the reform of Australia. The contents of this bill reflect this commitment. With that, I commend the bill to the House.

4:54 pm

Photo of Sharon ClaydonSharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise with my colleagues on this side of the House to oppose the Building Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. It is indeed extraordinary to listen to some of the contributions of members opposite on this bill. It alerts me to the misinformation and the profound anxieties of conservative governments around the matter of organised labour movements. Clearly, organised labour is public enemy no.1, and they will do anything in order to ensure that is rendered as weak as possible.

This bill, of course, was rejected by the Senate in August last year, having first been introduced on 14 November 2013. And it was rejected for good reason. Labor has had a consistent position on this bill. We have opposed the proposed legislation, which forces a return to the draconian Australian Building and Construction Commission or ABCC. The ABCC is based on flawed and often ridiculed modelling and its proposed powers are extreme and unnecessary. They are undemocratic and they compromise civil liberties. Labor opposed the introduction of the ABCC in 2005 when it was first introduced. It is in our platform, and that should come as no shock to members opposite. As I stand here today, our view has not changed. The government has failed to make the case for the re-introduction of these draconian measures.

The foundation of this bill, as the Member for Gorton made clear, is rotten to the core. There is nothing that this anti-worker Liberal government or its $80 million political witch-hunt into the union movement has done to convince us otherwise. To be sure, the royal commission has uncovered some serious and unacceptable examples of poor behaviour. Shameful stealing from workers or obtaining unfair benefits is clearly unacceptable behaviour, and Labor has zero tolerance for such betrayals. We are in step with the government on this matter: no level of corruption is acceptable, and those found to be breaking the law should be punished accordingly. Labor has always said that we will consider sensible reforms for unions and workers, but we will not support legislation which aims to destroy strong representatives of working Australians.

It remains the case that, whatever laws are introduced to deal with corruption, we believe they must be universal. That is a simple but fundamental principle of ensuring equality before the law and it is a principle that Labor upholds. Laws should not be unfairly targeting one set of workers. With a return to the ABCC, however, that is exactly what the Liberal government is proposing—unfairly targeting those workers in the building and construction sector.

As I was listening to the contribution from the member for Solomon and her concerns around alleged unlawful behaviour, I was thinking of my annual attendance at a memorial service, hosted by workers from the construction industry, for their members who have died on Australian building sites. Indeed, 71 people have died on building sites in Australia in the last three years. Where is the outrage about worker safety on those sites? Where are the members opposite to say, 'We should be working with unions to ensure there is worker safety on those sites'? We all should agree that the deaths of 71 people who went to work one morning and not returning to their families are utterly unacceptable in Australia. I do not see members opposite when I attend those memorial services—

Photo of Sarah HendersonSarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

That is a disgraceful thing to say.

Photo of Sharon ClaydonSharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Well, I have never seen the member for Corangamite at any of those services—correct me if I am wrong. But there is indeed an effort to be made. If you were serious about workers' safety, you would join us in bringing these concerns to the attention of the House. But, whether it is Work Choices on building sites or Work Choices on water, this government has form. It seems it is determined again to strip away the rights of workers. We stand here today because that is unacceptable, in our view. Here we are, participating in a Turnbull government accelerated debate, breaking all the usual parliamentary conventions, to go after the union movement one more time. It is the same old story from members opposite. The contrast between the two major parties is laid bare today. The Liberals have spent all their energy playing politics with their $80 million Australian taxpayer funded royal commission and they have done absolutely nothing about the horrific examples of workers being blatantly exploited at work today.

This week Labor announced that a Shorten Labor government will put in place a suite of reforms to protect rights at work by cracking down on unscrupulous employers who are willing to exploit workers. We will stand up for working families, for students who are working part-time and for those who are cutting back their hours as they approach retirement. Unlike this Liberal government, Labor will put people first, strengthening and protecting workers' rights at work. We will do that by cracking down on the underpayment of workers, with significantly increased penalties for employers who deliberately and systematically avoid paying their employees properly. We will be ramping up protections from sham contracting by strengthening legal protections for workers' entitlements and by increasing penalties. We will be giving the Fair Work Ombudsman more power to pursue employers who liquidate their companies in order to avoid paying the money they owe their workers. We will be introducing reforms to ensure that temporary overseas workers are not being exploited and underpaid and to ensure that there is a level playing field for workers in Australia.

Yet, here we are, debating legislation that will have precisely the opposite effect. If this bill is enacted, it will attack the rights of working people. It is not just Labor saying this; there are other experts who agree. Nicola McGarrity and Professor George Williams from the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales have said:

… 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.

And I thought the Liberal Party were all about free speech!

There is a central tenet here, and that is that we believe workers in the building and construction industry should be subject to the same laws that apply to all other workers. This is of course consistent with the principle I mentioned before around equality of all persons before the law. Why is it that Malcolm Turnbull thinks there should be different laws for construction workers than for the director of the Victorian Liberal Party?

It is also absolutely misleading for the government to keep referring to alleged criminal conduct to justify this bill and the introduction of the ABCC. Remember the ABCC governs civil, not criminal, behaviour. It does not matter how many times the government refers to criminal conduct in the same sentence and the necessity to revive the construction watchdog; it does not change the fact that it is a civil regulator. The creation of the ABCC in 2005 was the first time in Australian history that an industrial-specific inspectorate had been legislated. It operated in an aggressive, biased and coercive manner and did not pursue or investigate breaches such as underpayment of wages, automatically ensuring that there was no impartiality about the commission.

The creation of the former Australian Building and Construction Commission was based on the recommendations of yet another conservative royal commission, this time established under the Howard Liberal government: the Cole royal commission. That commission alleged that the building and construction industry was characterised by lawlessness—the same arguments we have heard again from members opposite in this debate. The minister, in his second reading speech on this bill, said the report of the royal commission:

… found consistent evidence that building sites and construction projects in Australia were hotbeds of intimidation, lawlessness, thuggery and violence.

Those are the exact words used by the member who spoke just prior to me in this debate. While the minister is happy to repeat the royal commission's wide-sweeping statements, what the minister fails to mention is that the $60 million Cole royal commission—which consisted of some 23 volumes and which referred some 31 individuals for prosecution—in fact resulted in not a single criminal prosecution, let alone any finding of guilt. So, out of this supposed hotbed of lawlessness which was said to have been rife, there was not a single prosecution, not a single finding of guilt. How is it that the commissioner and the government can rely on an assertion that there was 'consistent evidence', yet that supposed evidence resulted in not one criminal prosecution against a union official? It would be laughable if it were not so serious.

Royal commissions are not courtrooms. The same evidentiary standards do not apply, and hearsay evidence, which is not cross-examinable, has been stated as fact. Likewise, the most recent trade union royal commission referred a number of matters for further examination by authorities—somewhere in the region of 93. If the Liberal government want to say that fewer than 150 persons being referred for further investigation arising from two royal commissions is widespread lawlessness, then we would ask: what exactly is your definition of the more than 11,000 workers who are having to have $22.3 million recovered in back pay by the Fair Work Ombudsman because dodgy employers ripped them off just in the last year alone?

Is that widespread lawless conduct? Is the government seeking to introduce legislation that would increase penalties for those employers ripping off workers? No, it is not. It is only Labor that has a plan to protect the rights of Australia's working and middle-class families. Again, this just goes to show that a return to the ABCC is an ideological obsession for the Liberals. It has nothing to do with the protection of the interests of union members.

Another disgraceful display has been the government suggesting that it is merely reinstating the former ABCC as it was when disbanded by Labor. That is completely untrue. This legislation extends the reach of the ABCC into picketing, offshore construction and the transport and supply of goods to building sites. The minister said it himself in the second reading speech:

The definition of building work also includes the transporting or supplying of goods to be used in building work.

This is more than a revival; this is a greater encroachment upon workers than was originally the case.

A re-established ABCC will have significantly broader powers than its 2005 incarnation. If you drive a truck or sail a ship that has building products in or on it, if the Liberal government has its way, you had better get ready, because you could be swept off the street and forced to answer questions before the ABCC too—and you will not be able to tell your families or your boss that it happened. If the government were serious about wanting better union governance, stamping out corruption and better protecting union members, as they claim, they would be supporting the sensible proposals that Labor have put forward.

As was duly noted by the shadow minister for workplace relations in his contribution to this debate both in 2013 and earlier today, this bill is not about productivity, protecting workers or reducing corruption. It is about the Liberal government's determination to strip the rights of workers and reintroduce Work Choices. This is what it is all about. Work Choices is entrenched in the DNA of those opposite. They have an insatiable appetite to attack unions and diminish their capacity to represent their members, thereby slashing workers' rights and entitlements—all at taxpayers' expense. Labor has strongly opposed this bill in the past and does so again today.

5:10 pm

Photo of Sarah HendersonSarah Henderson (Corangamite, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and to commend the government's determination to bring back the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Regrettably, corruption, lawlessness, standover tactics, bullying and intimidation are commonplace in the Australian construction industry. But, before I speak about this bill and why it is so important, I want to address some comments made by the previous member, the member for Newcastle, and convey in no uncertain terms my disgust at the comments she made in relation to the deaths of workers on Australian construction sites.

It is appalling that the member for Newcastle has invoked the terrible deaths of men and women who have died on Australian construction sites in her argument. In no way would anyone in this House—and I could see the faces of other members opposite, who I do not think were particularly impressed with her comments—ever suggest that full compliance with occupational health and safety and the highest standards of safety and full compliance with the law on Australian construction sites are not absolutely vital. For the member for Newcastle to use a shabby, pathetic argument discredits not only her but also her party. If she cared about bringing some integrity to this parliament, she would withdraw those comments.

In an industry which employs more than one million Australians directly, the conduct on Australian building and construction sites has had a very deep impact on the Australian economy, the cost of doing business, the cost of construction, particularly in my home state of Victoria, and on jobs across this nation. This is not about attacking unions and about attacking workers. That is what Labor wants Australians to believe. This is about ensuring that we have a lawful and efficient workplace in the construction sector. Frankly, if employers or businesses are engaging in any inappropriate conduct, they should be held to account, because an efficient, lawful workplace is vital for workers. Workers want to work in a place where there is peace and harmony. They do not want to be subjected to standover tactics. I can tell you: the victims in most cases are the workers. We want to see a lawful environment in which the Australian construction and building industry can prosper.

When the ABCC was in place it resulted in fewer days lost due to industrial action. It ensured a greater degree of confidence in our very important building and construction sector. It resulted in nine per cent productivity growth in the construction industry and $7.5 billion in consumer savings. The ABCC was prepared to prosecute and punish company officials—anyone, in fact, including some union bosses—to address these issues of misconduct and unlawful behaviour.

The construction industry provides many jobs for workers and contractors in small businesses and large enterprises. It is critical to a productive, prosperous and internationally competitive Australia. The coalition government recognises the importance of an industry that is vital to job creation and essential to Australia's economic and social wellbeing. The bill re-establishes the ABCC—a genuinely strong watchdog that will maintain the rule of law. This protects workers as much as anyone else. It improves productivity, whether onshore or offshore, and it addresses many of the terrible stories that we heard in the royal commission and read in the royal commission's final report. The bill prohibits unlawful industrial action by anyone, unlawful picketing, coercion and discrimination. The penalties are high enough to provide an effective deterrent and of course to return a particular worksite to one that respects the rule of law. A wide range of effective remedies such as injunctions will also be available to the ABCC to address unlawful behaviour.

In my region there have been a couple of compelling examples of this systemic behaviour on Australian construction sites, and it is clear that members opposite just want to put their head in the sand. There is a wonderful brewery in Geelong called Little Creatures—now a thriving business. The Little Creatures brewery went to hell and back to try to construct their operation. There was a violent dispute at the Little Creatures brewery, where union picketers were accused in court documents of making throat-cutting gestures and threats to stomp heads in, and workers who wanted to get on with their work were being told that they were dead. There was much shoving and kicking and punching of motor vehicles in what turned out to be an illegal picket.

The best example of a terrible time that workers went through in my region, as well as a particular company, was Boral. Boral was of course working with Grocon, and they were put in the worst possible position by the CFMEU. They were effectively and illegally black-banned by the CFMEU. The CFMEU ran a devastating campaign which according to Boral cost it more than $20 million in damages. They were working on one of the biggest projects in our region, the Regional Rail Link—such a critical project for jobs and for productivity. At the moment under the state Labor government public transport is in a fair bit of crisis, but this was and remains a very important project. According to Boral's CEO, Mike Kane, company trucks were stopped, its workers were intimidated, drivers were harassed and every possible technique was used to shut Boral down because it had contracted with Grocon.

On 9 July 2014, during the hearings of the Heydon royal commission, Boral CEO Mike Kane said that the CFMEU were using cartel tactics—blackmail, intimidation—to try and wrest control of Melbourne's multibillion dollar construction industry. He said the union and the builders were conspiring to allow anticompetitive behaviour to flourish. Mr Kane said during the hearing that CFMEU Victorian state secretary John Setka had told his staff the union was at war with Grocon, warning that Boral had to toe the line and cut its ties with Grocon or face the consequences. Mr Kane gave evidence that Boral had lost some $8 million in the preceding 19 months as long-term customers cancelled orders in order to avoid falling victim to the union's wrath. He said:

I was roadkill. We were simply a bystander who happened to be in the way. When we didn't agree we had to be punished as a lesson to other suppliers … This type of behaviour is the essence of the criminal conspiracy we are talking about.

Mr Kane also pointed out that he was disappointed by the lack of action taken by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission after he complained to them about the black ban being imposed on his company. It took more than two years for the dispute to be resolved. In September 2015 the CFMEU finally settled with Boral. The CFMEU agreed to pay Boral $4 million, as well as legal costs which are expected to total some $9 million, and it agreed to submit to a range of controls to ensure it would not interfere with the company's business over the next three years. This was an unbelievably terrible time for an important company doing great work in Victoria, providing hundreds and hundreds of jobs and working on one of the biggest infrastructure projects of the time. The law was not there to help Boral. Mike Kane went through hell and back.

I spoke about this case when the legislation came before the parliament last time. The Labor Party were completely silent. They were not prepared to stand up and say enough is enough, that they would not tolerate that behaviour and would not allow that unlawful behaviour to continue on Victorian building sites. It was hurting workers and hurting jobs; it was hurting productivity and impacting on major infrastructure projects. There was deafening silence from the Labor Party, including from the Leader of the Opposition. Boral has welcomed the recommendations of the final report of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. Mike Kane has said:

Together, these reports are a comprehensive catalogue of rampant union abuses of the Australian legal system by serial recidivists.

I have to commend Mr Kane. He has been very brave in the way in which he has spoken out. Many other businesses and employers have been too fearful to speak out, in fear of incurring the sort of wrath that Boral incurred. He said:

It is abundantly clear that the rule of law has been trampled on by an organisation that prides itself in taking the law into its own hands.

He said that he was pleased with the way the CFMEU's conduct had been dealt with, and he acknowledged the comment that there had been 'a longstanding malignancy or disease within the CFMEU'. This is something which has been acknowledged by former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, who has called for the CFMEU to be deregistered. This is not about any particular union; this is not about workers. This is about conduct. If the CFMEU were prepared to comply with the law, if they were prepared to run their union in a lawful way, we would not be having this sort of discussion and these sorts of terrible findings of the royal commission would not, of course, have come to light. The government are concerned about the conduct. That is what we are concerned about.

I visited the Epworth hospital, a very large project under construction in Geelong. I visited it a number of months ago and again last week. It is a great example of a project where there is wonderful industrial harmony. There are many members of the CFMEU working on that project, and many members to whom I have spoken are also less than impressed with the conduct of CFMEU union bosses. That is the very point—they do not like it; they do not like being caught up in this. I spoke to one, and he said, 'You're not very impressed with our union.' I said, 'No. We're all about jobs. We want to protect those jobs, but we want to make sure that you can work in a lawful workplace.' That is the key issue here.

The bill upholds and promotes respect for the rule of law. It ensures respect for the rights of all building industry participants. It contains provisions to ensure that unlawful action, including unlawful industrial action and unlawful pickets, is dealt with appropriately. It provides effective means for investigating and enforcing the law. It certainly does much to change the lawless culture of the building and construction industry, and provides a range of higher penalties which we believe are justified to try to get the construction industry back on its feet. At the moment in Victoria, the cost of construction is running at about 30 per cent higher than in other states. We are seeing a crisis in infrastructure developments in Victoria. There is a huge loss of confidence because of the risks of doing business and embarking on these large projects in Victoria.

I commend this bill to the House. I was once a member of a union. Unions do great work. There are many wonderful members of unions right around this country, but we will not, as a government, tolerate this sort of behaviour at any work site. That is why the passing of this bill is so vitally important.

5:24 pm

Photo of Laurie FergusonLaurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Whether it was the 2005 introduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, whether it was the ignominious defeat of the attempt to resuscitate that, suffered in August 2015, or whether it is this particular effort to once again bring in particular measures within one industry alone in this country, there have been certain common factors. There has been the attempt to utilise purportedly legal inquiries into the building industry. Of course, there was the original one with Terence Cole, where Australian taxpayers were compelled to fork out $60 million for months of investigation. That eventually led to 31 individuals being referred for alleged misconduct but not one prosecution. This time, Dyson Heydon has sought investigation by referral of 90 individuals. In both cases, there was an attempt to imply to the Australian electorate that these particular measures are about corruption in the trade union movement.

Obviously, there has been exposition of very disturbing corruption, most particularly in the HSU national and New South Wales branches, the New South Wales branch of the NUW and pockets within other organisations. But this is not about those kinds of activities. This measure is about trying to accomplish the same wage repression in the building industry that the government has accomplished in other parts of the economy—whether it is the mere 2.5 per cent increase in Australian wages up to January of last year, or whether it is the figure to June last year of 2.3 per cent. In both cases, they were the lowest wage movements in this country since 1997. That is the fundamental attempt by this government to act against the building industry, where there are variety of factors, such as the Sydney construction market and the major projects of infrastructure throughout the country. The previous speaker to the debate eventually mentioned the cost of projects in Victoria. So this is about trying to ensure that wages are repressed in the building industry.

It is not as though Labor can be accused of not acting on the question of trade union corruption. Recently, a number of measures were announced as Labor policy, including: making the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, with its coercive powers, the regulator of the most serious contraventions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act; extending the current electoral funding laws to trade union elections; the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission continuing in the role of regulator, with its current powers to conduct investigations and inquiries and resolve minor compliance issues, and receiving an additional $4.5 million for increased monitoring; and protection for whistleblowers. It is not as though Labor believes that corruption in the trade union movement, which undermines the rights of the members of those organisations, often leading to the diminution of those people's legitimate industrial conditions, should not be tackled. What is corruption in the union movement about? It is very often about a deal between employers and union leaders to, basically, sell out the workers. So we are very proactive on the question of trying to do something about trade union corruption.

Despite half of the member for Solomon's speech concentrating—and I take her as being honest on these matters—on what looked to be a very tawdry activity in the Northern Territory, that has nothing to do with these measures. Whether the Stella Maris site in Darwin was improperly given to the trade union movement in the Northern Territory, it has nothing to do with introducing very draconian measures against rights of individual workers within trade unions which would not be tolerated by those opposite in any other sector of the Australian economy. These are the kinds of measures that, if they were occurring in Tajikistan or the Democratic Republic of the Congo—whatever sector it was occurring in—they would join other human rights campaigners, one would hope, to deplore.

I do not want to remind people in too lengthy a fashion, but let us remember that when they tried these measures originally the very established, respected ILO—for those who are not aware, a tripartite organisation of unions, governments and employers—was less than laudatory of this government's intervention in the building industry. In the committee on freedom of association back then, they spoke of the need to ensure that any reference to unlawful industrial action in the building and construction industry was in conformity with freedom of association principles. They said that because they were disturbed by this government's measures. The ILO further spoke of the need to ensure that the determination of the bargaining level was left to the discretion of the parties and was not imposed by law. They further commented that there was a need to introduce sufficient safeguards into the BCII Act to ensure that the functioning of the ABC commissioner and inspector did not lead to interference in the internal affairs of trade unions.

This is a government which has a track record that is condemned by the main authority in industrial relations around the world. It is the kind of authority that tries to do something about Bangladeshi garment workers' rights as buildings crash down on their heads and they are murdered, the kind of organisation with employer involvement that seeks to make sure that, in Guatemala and Honduras, trade union officials are not gunned down.

We talk about violence in this industry and we talk about intimidation et cetera, and I heard a number of examples from the government, but I would just like to cite some of the other realities in this industry. Regarding the Lidcombe state office of the CFMEU—those dreadful people in the construction union leadership in New South Wales!—I do not see any concern that that office was firebombed at a cost of $1 million, with a petrol laden vehicle being sent in, obviously by employers who were disturbed by industrial conflict and who then fled the country. I do not see any reference to that kind of activity.

We are asked to have some faith in this organisation to police the industry in a sensible fashion. The activities of Mr Hadgkiss over the last two years lead one to be deeply disturbed. I noticed particularly his appearance on 22 October in estimates, and I really advise people to see this just for the theatrics. The reference in his report to 1,000 crimes in the building industry sounds very disturbing. That would be deeply disturbing to anybody. He took quite a long time to understand and admit that investigation of alleged conduct is not investigation of crimes, and he further noted that they had moved towards 36 to 40 prosecutions. This is a man who has very much become part of the political campaign this involves. He has, at one point, addressed 50 stakeholder organisations in a period of eight months. When asked to indicate where those briefings had occurred, a bit like the Attorney-General of this country, he said it would be too much of a diversion of resources to provide that information. He has led an organisation which is supposedly to talk about productivity and to ensure that the building industry gets over its productivity issues. He has led an organisation which has seen a doubling of its sick leave and unscheduled absences, a culture of bullying and harassment within his own organisation and a question of pursuit of whistleblowers. He has been accused, quite correctly, of distortion of statistics by omitting references to the 2013 and 2014 figures on deaths in the building industry, which grew, in actual fact, from 17 to 28.

Whilst we are dealing with statistics, we should perhaps turn to the intervention in the last week of our friend Terence Cole. He has come up with the ludicrous figure—and I do not think many people in the government would really believe the figure—that these changes resulted in improvements of $6 billion in productivity in the industry. I want to deal with that because that came, essentially, from some figures that Econtech—Independent Economics—provided some years ago. Amongst the attacks upon those statistics, in August 2013 the Fairfax federal politics fact checker found the claim to be 'mostly false'. That is no mean description. The reports have been decried by economists for assuming union density accounts for all cost differentials across two sectors—domestic and commercial—and for ignoring other factors such as greater site complexities and higher capital intensities. Econtech has admitted to mathematical errors in their first report. Economic experts from the Queensland industrial relations department and from Griffith University have re-examined the data used in the first Econtech report and found that there was 'no evidence of cost narrowing between the two sectors'. In a perhaps more convincing analysis of the figures on which this government, through Terence Cole, relies, the Wilcox report, which inquired into the industry and also looked at Mr Cole's efforts, said of Econtech that it was deeply flawed and was to be totally disregarded.

This man who had control of the inquiry which justified the first instance of this organisation—at tens of millions of dollars of cost—rushed into the debate again this week to basically try to defend this attempt to have an industry specific suppression of workers' rights. As I said earlier, Labor has acted on the question of trade union corruption in a very real fashion, not using it as a guide to try to come in and extend suppression of individual workers in the workplace. But it is also a broader question of protecting workers' rights in this country.

Labor has also announced a policy of cracking down on the underpayment of workers, with significantly increased penalties for employers who deliberately and systematically avoid paying new employees properly, and ramping up protections for workers from sham contracting. We have had no reference in any of these inquiries to what really bedevils the industry—sham contractors establishing companies with front people who often know nothing about the company they purportedly control, and collapsing those companies. If any problem befuddles this industry, it is this sham contracting operation. It is not only the workers who are deprived of their conditions when these companies collapse; it is also suppliers and a whole lot of building companies.

Under the guise of being concerned with trade union corruption, we have had very politicised inquiries. Coincidentally, we have seen two leaders of the main opposition party in the country called before them, with attempts being made to discredit them and use this as a political exercise. It attempts to construe the concern with corruption as a guise to clamp down on people's rights. Not only that, but they are extending this into new areas such as picketing, the transport of supplies to building sites and offshore operations. This is a government that has attempted, on a broader scale, to undermine people's conditions. They now have a situation where one million people are in this country as temporary workers. This is just another part of that pattern to try and repress wages reduce people's conditions and ensure that the kind of wage repression I cited earlier occurs. I join my opposition colleagues in opposing this legislation.

5:39 pm

Photo of Tony PasinTony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Before I provide a contribution to this debate I want to address a contribution made by a member opposite, the member for Newcastle. Earlier this evening the member for Corangamite took issue with the member for Newcastle, and I must also. I expect that the member for Newcastle is in her suite or attending to other business at the moment, and I think she is ashamed of a particular contribution she made. She asserted that members on this side of the House, me included, have scant regard for those who lose their lives on building sites. I would ask the member for Newcastle to return to this place and make an apology for that remark to each and every member on this side of the House—in particular, me. I suffered the tragedy of having my brother sustain fatal injuries through a work accident. I think the member would do well to return and apologise for suggesting that I, having experienced that loss and having watched my parents deal with that loss, have no regard for that. And perhaps she should think better about making broad-ranging generalisations.

While I do know something about loss, I do not know a lot about building in any practical sense. In fact, you would be quite mad to ask me to build something. I do not know a lot about the commercial building and construction industry. But someone who does know a lot about the commercial building and construction industry is Mike Kane, the chief executive officer of Boral. On 9 July 2014 he said:

On construction sites in Melbourne the law does not apply, the law is determined by the CFMEU.

This is someone who knows plenty about commercial building sites, particularly in Melbourne, and he is someone we should listen to. It is exactly that that these bills address, and that is why I speak in support of them.

We live in a country that has enjoyed a strong tradition of adherence to the rule of law. The stability our society has delivered and our quality of life are envied across the globe by nations less fortunate than ours, and in many ways our quality of life is tied to the strength of our economy. Through strong economic performance, we have delivered greater opportunity and improved living standards. There are many industries that contribute to the wealth of this nation, and the construction industry is a critical part of that. It delivers many jobs in both small and large enterprises and is critical to a productive, prosperous and internationally competitive Australia.

The coalition government recognises the importance of a thriving building and construction industry for renewed job creation and economic growth. Whilst it is a sector with great potential, it is also a sector which, particularly on commercial sites, has fallen into a culture of lawlessness through rampant breaches of the law by militant union action. The actions of the previous Labor government significantly weakened the regulatory body formerly known as the Australian Building and Construction Commission and have created a void in the regulation of the building and construction industry today.

The legislation I stand to support seeks to reinstate the ABCC and, in so doing, establish the regulatory framework the industry is so badly in need of. There is undeniably a culture of lawlessness gripping the construction industry in this nation. Its cancerous growth was expedited by the Labor government's decision in 2012 to abolish the ABCC. This culture of lawlessness has filled the void left by the previous government and is undermining not only our economy, our communities and our growth but also our nation as a whole.

Royal Commissioner Dyson Heydon—one of our nation's most respected jurists and a man who was subjected to a shameful, dishonest campaign in an effort to deride the good work of the commission—has brought to light the extent to which the culture of lawlessness has gripped our building and construction industry. We should talk in more detail about an objectionable character who leads the CFMEU—or did. In 2013 John Setka, a union chief of the CFMEU, said:

Our union has given us a mandate, They want us to remain a militant union.

He was, of course, reflecting on a court decision from the same year—and it is neither the first nor the last time a union has been found guilty of contempt. This is the kind of attitude and unrepentant contempt for the law and judicial process that pervades the leadership of the CFMEU—leadership that has seized on the free-for-all delivered to them by the former Labor government in abolishing the ABCC.

Further, if you harbour any doubts as to the seriousness of this culture of lawlessness, you need look no further than the endorsement given to Mr Setka by notorious underworld crime figure Mick Gatto, who described Mr Setka as 'a close mate' and has previously stated that he would make a good prime minister. My goodness. The CFMEU has members of outlawed bikie gangs who march with them in rallies and, effectively, operate as their 'thump merchants'.

At the royal commission, a principal contractor testified that a Labor powerbroker, Ken Hardy, secretary of the ALP's Melton branch, suggested the contractor pay $50,000 to Mr Gatto to fix his problem with the CFMEU—extortion by any other name. And who could forget the remarkable evidence taken at the commission about seven tonnes of documents that were destroyed. These were documents that were subpoenaed, to be delivered to the commission.

In an exchange that was heard by the commission because it was recorded, you can see the depth of this lawless behaviour. This is at a point where there have been court orders for production of these documents. Mr Hanna was involved with the CFMEU. The exchange is:

Mr Hanna: No you can't. But um got all that done, there was f***ing mountains and mountains of ... (indistinct) ... seven tonnes' worth.

Mr Skourdoumbis: Really?

Mr Hanna: Yep, it was weighed, the truck was weighed when it got dumped that's how much f***ing paper, paper is heavy. Paper is heavy. It all got taken down to my f****ing joint where he stores his f****ing car trailer and he stores his caravan.

If you need any further evidence of this culture of lawlessness, there it is.

On 19 June the Federal Court fined the CFMEU and five of its officials some $545,000 for unlawful conduct, saying that their conduct was a 'deliberate stratagem'. What an absolute waste of hard-earned members' money. The court noted that the officials displayed no contrition and no remorse—unsurprising, given the sorts of characters associated with this militant union. It is a story that has played out time and time again, in the courts, as union officials show little regard for the rule of law. The list goes on and on, at every level the CFMEU, and epitomises the culture of lawlessness that is gripping our nation's construction industry.

Our government refuses to accept such behaviour and is taking action to eliminate such a damaging culture. 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 improve productivity in the process on building sites and construction projects, both on-shore and off-shore. There is an economic imperative to reinstate the ABCC. Workplaces across each and every territory of this nation are seeing honest, hardworking people being intimidated and extorted by militant union officials. Such a culture dislocates enterprise and innovation and directly affects the economic performance of our country.

While the ABCC existed, the economic and industrial performance of the building and construction industry significantly improved. For example, a 2013 Independent Economics report on the state of the sector found that since the implementation of the ABCC: building and construction industry productivity grew by nine per cent; consumers were better off to the tune of some $7.5 billion, annually, and that is the cost of taking the ABCC away; and fewer working days were lost through industrial action.

If those opposite seriously believed in better economic outcomes for this nation they would be wise to support this legislation. This legislation is a test for those opposite in the ALP and their coalition partners, the Australian Greens, to see if are willing to make the right decision—notwithstanding pressure from their union masters. If those opposite are serious about providing an alternative government they will, surely, put the national interest before their union paymasters. It is evident they lack the capacity and intestinal fortitude to stand up to the union movement. That is to the detriment of thousands of small- to medium-sized businesses suffering the effects of this intimidation—not to mention workers who are at the frontline of this union brutality and intimidation.

Not only do those opposite do the national economy a disservice but also they are supporting the toxic and xenophobic culture that exists within the CFMEU. I reference the xenophobic campaign waged across this nation—including in my electorate of Barker—to undermine the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. That behaviour was gobsmackingly xenophobic. There was no objection to the free trade agreement with Japan or Korea, but there was a campaign run to end this one. Farmers in my electorate were grateful and breathed a sigh of relief when that bilateral agreement was executed in December last year.

The union movement and the CFMEU, in particular, has some form when it comes to racist behaviour. It pervades the culture of that militant union. You need only see the actions of Mr Setka, someone I have mentioned previously. He allegedly referred to a subcontractor who was performing painting work as an 'effing dog Turkish effing painting piece of shit'. If the leaders of this union display such racist behaviour what hope can we hold for the rest of the organisation who—

Photo of Russell BroadbentRussell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Member for Barker, I know you are trying to make—

Photo of Tony PasinTony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Photo of Russell BroadbentRussell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Thank you.

Photo of Tony PasinTony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I was, of course, quoting Mr Setka.

Photo of Russell BroadbentRussell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I want to keep this House—

Photo of Tony PasinTony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Sure. If the leaders of the union display racist behaviour, what hope do we hold for the rest of the organisation, who we know have to adhere to the closed shop mentality, which is the basis of union ideology? Such a culture of xenophobia has been facilitated by the lack of regulation in the construction space and its impact is another example of the culture of lawlessness that has pervaded our building and construction industry. Not only is this culture of lawlessness damaging to our economy and our social harmony but also it directly undermines our egalitarian Australian values—things that all in this place should strive to protect.

This bill delivers adequate protections for employers and employees alike. It delivers stronger penalties to employers who operate unlawfully. And so it should. The reality is that only the coalition has the capacity to deliver the rule of law back into building sites. We have established it before and we will achieve it again. When it comes to delivering rule of law to the industry, there could not be a more stark difference between the coalition and the Labor Party. You only have to look to the track record of the Labor Party's association with the militant CFMEU. Why do they stand by the CFMEU despite everything I have said and others have contributed, and the findings and evidence taken by Dyson Heydon? Well, it will not surprise you to learn that since 2007 the ALP has accepted over $7 billion in donations from the CFMEU, $750,000 over the year ending 30 June 2015.

There it is; there's the rub: they want to run away from the CFMEU at a million miles an hour. Indeed, Labor luminaries, former members of this place, have suggested that they should do that very thing. But of course they cannot, because they are tied financially. And it is a significant connection, one that they ought to sever, in their own interests and in the interests of this nation, but one that they cannot—or at least they fail to.

I am proud to oppose that culture of lawlessness I have spoken about. The status quo is not sufficient. We have the solution for this problem. It is a solution that is before this House. I encourage those in the other place to support it, particularly the crossbench. It is said that, for evil to thrive, all that must occur is for good people to do nothing. This government will not abide such a culture, and we are taking steps in this bill to eradicate it. I commend the bill to the House.

5:54 pm

Photo of Andrew GilesAndrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise in opposition to the legislation before the House, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and related legislation. I think the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Barker, really sums up the debate, such as it is. There is only one element of his contribution with which I agree, and that is when he highlights the contrast between the positions of the major parties on this. He is right to do so, and that is the only respect in which his contribution has any correctness to it. He talks about the national interest. Well, that is something that Labor is concerned with. When it comes to workplace relations, it is the Labor Party that is concerned with the interests of Australians, particularly those Australians—the majority of Australians—who work for a living. Labor's agenda when it comes to the workplace is about putting people first, looking at the issues that governments should be concerned about in the workplace, particularly the growing and disturbing evidence of exploitation arising from insecure workplace arrangements and exploitative employment arrangements.

So, Labor has put forward a plan to strengthen and protect workers' rights at work through cracking down on illegal underpayment, with increased penalties for employers who systematically avoid paying their employees properly, and dealing with the issue of sham contracts—an issue that was identified way back in the Cole commission, which this government seems unconcerned about—and giving more power to the appropriate authorities to investigate these issues of underpayment while ensuring that temporary overseas workers are protected, not exploited. That is one agenda to deal with a real problem facing working Australians today.

On the other hand, all we have from government members in support of this stale legislation is rhetoric—rhetoric based in ideology. But it is more offensive than that, because, as we saw at the start of the contribution by the member for Barker, he took grave exception to the contribution by my colleague and friend the member for Newcastle—grave exception. Now, I was not there for that contribution, but I find it extraordinary that someone who could take that point at the beginning of his contribution to this debate could then base his argument for the introduction of this extraordinary suite of coercive powers—this extraordinary attack on fundamental rights and liberties—on such outrageous allegations, including those that really stretched the boundary of appropriate use of this parliament. They were just extraordinary allegations that were levelled, in place of evidence.

And I guess that is the nub of this debate. This piece of legislation is a triumph of ideology over evidence. So, today we see the reality of our new Prime Minister's new politics. It is writ very small, because it comes back to the ideology, the antiworker and anti-union ideology, that is writ into the DNA of members opposite. So we have the legislation before us—the reintroduction of flawed legislation, those flaws in fact being exacerbated with the passage of time. This legislation speaks volumes as to the paucity—

Photo of Paul FletcherPaul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects) Share this | | Hansard source

Tell us about the role of the CFMEU in your preselection.

Photo of Andrew GilesAndrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Absolutely none, Minister, absolutely none. But it just shows your obsession with a world of politics, a world of ideology that is so far removed from the reality of work. You are not interested in having a debate about the world of work. It is very interesting, Minister, that your Prime Minister has had nothing to say about the Productivity Commission's recommendations, nothing to say about the world of work at large, and everything to say about outrageous allegations against individuals, attacks—

Photo of Paul FletcherPaul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects) Share this | | Hansard source

Close a blind eye and pretend it's not happening.

Photo of Russell BroadbentRussell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! I think the member has a right to peace while he presents his arguments. Banter across the table is unacceptable, and the minister knows that.

Photo of Andrew GilesAndrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The paucity of vision that this government has for the future of our workplaces and indeed the future of Australia: we see it again, and it has been demonstrated already since I have been in this chamber, the government's reflexive preference for ideology over evidence. This does not equal an exciting time to be Australian. In particular, it does not equal an exciting time to be an Australian worker. We have before us a set of laws which, if enacted, would be undemocratic, discriminatory and deeply dishonest—an assault on fundamental rights for workers by reason of one thing: the industry in which they work.

And it is very disappointing to go through this debate again, but even more disappointing to see how little this debate has advanced across the chamber, on the government side of the chamber, over the past two years. Since I last had the opportunity to participate in a debate about a very similar series of laws, in December 2013, we have learnt quite a lot about inequality and its consequences for our economy as well as for individuals and their families. We have also learnt that good workplace laws, fair workplace laws and, in particular, the role of unionism and collective bargaining are a critical bulwark to resisting inequality that can be a significant barrier to growth. We have also seen further evidence that the labour share of gross domestic product is trending down, while labour productivity is trending up.

What is the problem that this legislation is intended to solve? What problem have we been presented that this legislation is trying to solve? That is a question in respect of which this government has no answer. Some of the points made in 2013 by Labor members bear repeating, and perhaps government members might listen on this occasion. I think there are some principles here that we can clearly state which I would like to hear government members respond to, and they are: we should have one set of laws for workplaces for all workers, regardless of the industries in which they work. We should have—and this is something that the new Prime Minister has spoken much about but done very little about—evidence based, evidence-led policy across his responsibilities, including when it comes to the world of work. We should have, further to this, a real debate about productivity and how our workplace in the future can function more effectively—a real debate, not one built on ideology, assertion and the sort of intemperate allegations that characterise the contribution of the member for Barker. We should think very, very hard—and I say this to members of the Liberal Party—about attacking fundamental civil liberties through legislation that erodes them. This should ever only take place on the basis of a compelling body of evidence, and none such has been put before the parliament in this regard.

I would like to touch on a couple of the elements of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2] in particular. The bill's title speaks of 'improving productivity' but it does not take us much further than that, if at all. It is just a fig leaf and an unconvincing fig leaf at that. As I said two years ago, the legislation mentions productivity in its body just twice, neither with particular import nor any likely effect. This is just window-dressing at best. The arguments that were advanced back then and, indeed, today place enormous reliance on a 2007 report by the modelling firm Econtech, and this purported to tell a powerful story of productivity growth driven by the introduction of the then ABCC. But it has turned out that this was based on incorrect data—something which has been subsequently admitted by Econtech but not conceded by government members or, indeed, the minister. What data there is available tells a different story—one that is entirely consistent with government claims, although of course Labor members recognise that productivity growth depends on many, many factors.

It is extraordinary to read in today's Australian editorial the following:

Evidence suggests that its absence—

that is, the absence of the ABCC—

has increased costs.

It goes on:

"Without the ABCC acting as the strong cop on the beat," says MBA's Wilhelm Harnisch, "the building unions will continue to cheat the community out of more schools, hospitals and child care centres by driving up the cost of construction …

This allegation is entirely unsupported by evidence. I would simply say: he would say this, wouldn't he? What is clear when we look at productivity across workplaces generally but also when it comes to the building and construction industry is that Labor's approach is the best way: cooperation and fairness in place of suspicion and unnecessary conflict with this approach of treating workers as criminals. I note also in TheAustralian this week a contribution by His Honour Justice Cole, who was the commissioner of the last royal commission into the building and construction industry in Australia. He said something which again should challenge members of this government who profess an attachment to a small government view of the world. He said—and perhaps this comes to the nub of the debate and the onus government members have failed to even seek to discharge:

Surely it is incumbent upon those who oppose the reintroduction of the ABCC to explain how it is to the advantage of the Australian economy, and to the Australian people who bear the great costs of unlawful action, to have an increased level of unlawfulness in the building and construction industry which the ABCC has demonstrated it can suppress, but which existing arrangements do not.

The trouble with this quote is all of it. No evidence has been presented, I submit, because none exists. The allegations that follow are simply bare assertions, unsupported by evidence, supported only by reflexive ideology from a government that is obsessed with undermining and attacking unions, a government that has recently—it is interesting to see—focused on the fact that our wage growth is at a record low and the new Treasurer talks about his concern for the budget based on this. What a journey government members are coming on from the point at which the former employment minister, Senator Abetz, talked about the wages explosion that the Productivity Commission inquiry into our workplace laws was supposed to address. Again, across this journey, it shows one thing: whatever the evidence, government members will be motivated only by ideology and anti-worker, anti-collectivist ideology. We see this in the trade union royal commission—an inquiry into nothing more than an $880 million political witch-hunt. That commission and this bill show what the government is missing in respect of the real debate, which is that we should be engaged in the future of work. This is a critical failing. The Prime Minister has demonstrated this, because he is happy to editorialise on and give gratuitous advice to the trade union movement and the Labor Party, but he has nothing to say when it comes to the recommendations of the Productivity Commission—those recommendations about penalty rates, in particular—because I think he understands that Australians reject his vision for workplaces. Australians seek fairness but they also seek leadership. They seek more than sophistry and rhetoric from their political leaders. This is just simply not good enough from the government that he leads at a time when, as Labor has recognised, we are seeing too many workers being exploited at work, with too little recourse whether by way of the legislative framework or by way of those enforcement bodies that are available to support any legislative framework that exists. We see the rise in insecure work and, with it, insecure lives, damaging Australians.

Then we come to what is perhaps the central failing of this bill, which is its recourse to an extraordinary suite of coercive powers. This legislation, if adopted, would provide for a new set of laws for and, indeed, only for those associated with the building and construction industry. These do go beyond the previous powers afforded to the Australian Building and Construction Commission in terms of their scope, in terms of the scope of the industry that is applicable to, in terms of them being retrospective, making unlawful today what was previously lawful. These are simply extreme, unnecessary, unjustified and indeed unjustifiable powers.

We see before us a wide-ranging attack on workers' right in breach of human rights and of our international obligations, demonising a class of Australians for one reason and one reason only—the industry in which they work. I ask members opposite to think about the harm done and the message sent by a regime of secret interviews with the threat of imprisonment hanging over them. I ask members opposite to think about the views expressed by Professor Andrew Stewart at the time the previous legislation was introduced. Professor Stewart is one of Australia's leading experts on industrial law. He said that the powers proposed to be increased under this bill were 'extraordinary, analogous to those of ASIO'. He went on to say:

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

Other academics compared the similarities to terrorism laws. I was troubled two years ago, and I continue to be deeply troubled by this and many other aspects of this suite of coercive powers: the reverse onus provisions and the curtailing of the presumption of innocence the right to peaceful assembly, the right to freedom of speech and the privilege against self-incrimination and freedom of expression—an attack on the right of people to organise collectively.

In looking at these powers, I urge members opposite to think about this intrusion on civil liberties and to think about the 'first principles' question that is before us. What is the problem we are trying to solve? It is clear it is not about productivity and it is not about getting the balance of power right in our workplaces. Let's be clear: the legislation before us is an attack on workers in the building and construction industry, an attack on unionism and an attack on our social fabric. These are bad laws that should be rejected by this parliament again.

6:09 pm

Photo of Nola MarinoNola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The construction industry provides many jobs throughout Australia for workers in small and large business, especially contractors. In the 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. It is critical to the growth and development of the electorate of Forrest, as it is to the entire nation. In fierce competition with the maritime industry, it is also one of the industries that has seen the worst of union behaviour across the nation, especially historically in Western Australia. The bad and often illegal behaviour has been an enormous cost to the nation and an embarrassment to the good and honest workers who were betrayed by the political manoeuvrings, power plays and greed of the union leadership.

It is this kind of behaviour that resulted in the establishment of the Cole royal commission into the building and construction industry in 2001. And it is worth recalling why the ABCC was set up in the first place. The final report of the Cole commission provided more than enough compelling evidence of the need for reform in the building industry at the time, and there is more than ample evidence today that, when you relax the rules to pander to union bosses, things will quickly revert to the same dire state. In 2001 the commission found consistent evidence that building sites and construction projects in Australia were places of intimidation, lawlessness, thuggery and violence that caused delays to projects and major cost blow-outs. There were then, as remains under the regime brought in by Labor, significant threats to investment in our economy.

The report of the Cole royal commission identified 392 separate instances of unlawful conduct, 25 different types of unlawfulness and 90 different types of inappropriate behaviour. That is why the ABCC was set up in the first place. This included 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; disregard of court and tribunal orders; workplace rorts; threats and intimidation; inadequate attention to health and safety; and interference in commercial tendering for industrial purposes. Unfortunately, it all sounds too familiar. Based on those findings, the Cole royal commission made 212 recommendations for substantial regulatory reform, both structural and cultural—and 12 of the 31 individuals who had breached criminal laws actually came from Western Australia.

The commission also mentioned a union training levy, which was a payment made by union members under the enterprise bargaining agreement. The commission was also concerned by the funding of the 'Construction Skills Training Centre Inc', the training company of which Kevin Reynolds was the chairman. That union, which has since become the Construction, Mining, Forestry and Energy Union, or CMFEU, lent millions of dollars to the company that was in fact the 'union leadership trust fund'.

These are the very reasons why the original ABCC was established, and it is why the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2], before the House again 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 constructors and improve productivity on building sites and construction projects whether they be onshore or offshore.

This bill will reverse Labor's changes to the laws which underpinned the Australian Building and Construction Commission before it was abolished by the Labor government in 2012. It will attempt to shut the gate to building union corruption, which was opened wide by the Labor government under pressure from union bosses when they abolished the ABCC. The evidence and findings of the recent royal commission into trade union governance and corruption clearly define why this legislation is necessary once again. The bill will once again prohibit unlawful industrial action, unlawful picketing and coercion and discrimination, providing penalties that are high enough to provide an effective deterrent to breaches of these provisions and a wide range of effective remedies, such as injunctions, which will also be available to the ABCC and persons affected by unlawful behaviour.

The establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission in 2005 provided what was a genuinely strong watchdog, and it did deal with those issues that we saw at the time. It was a strong, specialist regulator enforcing the rule of law applying to the building and construction sector. The economic and industrial performance of the building and construction industry improved when the ABCC existed. A 2013 Independent Economics report on the state of the sector during this period found that building and construction industry productivity grew by more than nine per cent, consumers were better off by around $7.5 billion annually and fewer working days were lost through industrial action.

Unfortunately, and probably naturally, as soon as Labor came to government in 2007 there was immediate and sustained pressure from building and construction unions to abolish the ABCC. In 2012, the then workplace relations minister, Bill Shorten, gave in to those demands and abolished the organisation and replaced it with a regulator with significantly reduced funding and powers. This unfortunately emboldened him and, with Minister Shorten firmly under control, construction union heavyweights got back to the murky business of thuggery that the ABCC had denied them for seven years. This included violence on the streets in the City of Melbourne, with militant union protestors intimidating the community and their supporters attacking police horses. We also saw the unprecedented action of workers on the site purchasing an advertisement in the Herald Sun with an open letter to their own union bosses asking for the blockades to stop.

The then Rudd Labor government was well aware of this type of behaviour in the building and construction industry and was understandably quite reluctant to abolish the ABCC despite strong union pressure. It contracted Justice Murray Wilcox to review the industry to buy time. Justice Wilcox recognised the need for and the benefit provided by the ABCC, stating in his report that 'the ABCC's work is not yet done' and '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 committed to the re-establishment of the ABCC during and before the election campaign. It is one more promise that we are fulfilling.

The government is committed to ensuring that the rule of law is maintained and that workers in the building and construction sector can go to work free of intimidation and harassment. The ABCC legislation deals with unlawful acts of both unions and business. The new Building Code in this legislation will ensure taxpayer funded projects are run efficiently and lawfully. Should an employer be found guilty of underpaying workers, guilty of safety breaches or misusing migration laws or visa violations, that employer will not be allowed to do Commonwealth funded work. The coalition also promised that a re-established Australian Building and Construction Commission will administer a code that will govern industrial relations arrangements for government funded projects.

The bill aims to improve the bargaining framework so as to further encourage genuine bargaining at the workplace level. It contains provisions to ensure that unlawful action, including unlawful industrial action and unlawful pickets, are dealt with appropriately. It includes the ability for the courts to impose significant penalties for individuals and organisations that participate in unlawful action. The Australian Building and Construction Commissioner will be able to exercise power to obtain information quickly and effectively without being hindered by unnecessary bureaucratic red tape around the issue of examination notices. However, to ensure accountability and transparency, the use of these powers will continue to be reviewed and reported on by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Importantly, this bill encourages productivity and the pursuit of high levels of employment in the building and construction industry. It will help to create jobs and investment by ensuring that employers and workers in the industry can get on with the jobs that they go to work to do. That is mostly what they want to do: just get on with the job that they are employed to do and get on with the job that they have been paid to do 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 ABCC is able to carry out its investigations effectively and is a key tool for breaking down the historical and unacceptable culture of silence in the sector. There are appropriate and effective safeguards in this bill to ensure due process and transparency in the use of these powers. I commend the bill to the House.

6:20 pm

Photo of Gai BrodtmannGai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and cognate bill. Like many of my colleagues, I do so for the second time. In 2013, I spoke against this bill and I proudly do so again tonight.

Those opposite have claimed that this legislation is about eliminating union corruption. I want to make it clear from the very outset that Labor has zero tolerance for corruption. We have made that clear time and time and time again. Labor has always said that we will consider sensible reforms for unions and workers, but we will not support legislation that aims to destroy strong representation of working Australians. But this legislation really has nothing to do with corruption. This is about the reintroduction of the draconian ABCC, with its extreme, unnecessary, undemocratic powers that compromise civil liberties. This is about furthering the government's antiworker and antiunion agenda.

In my first speech in this place, I said:

History shows us that if work is to be dignified workers need advocates, because workers rights did not fall from the sky. History shows that, without unions, workers were broken in what William Blake called dark satanic mills. He understood that change would not come without a fight, and the best weapon in the fight for workers rights is the trade union. This is why I am proud that the Labor Party was born in the fires of the union movement and fashioned on its anvils. It is something we should never seek to hide and something we should be proud of.

Since I left high school, unions have protected me at work. They have been part of my life. They have also protected friends of mine who have been exploited. They are crucial particularly when you are young, in your late teens and early 20s, and you are trying to work your way through the world and the workforce. I have had a number of friends who have been sacked from jobs without any reason and at very short notice. Then they have gone to speak to their union and they have been compensated appropriately for being sacked without any reason or notice. So I have had friends who have benefited from the hard work of unions, unions fighting for their rights at work, and they have protected me on many occasions.

Having been a union member since I left high school, I was also a union official, a workplace representative for the MEAA, which used to be the AJA. I have been a member of the MEAA since I started my career here in Canberra in 1990. I am a proud member of the MEAA and I was proud to be a workplace delegate. I was involved in the negotiation of the very first enterprise bargaining agreement of any government agency in the Public Service. That was way back in 1997, from memory, just after the Howard government got in. I was proud to work with my union to get the best result for the members of that union and the MEAA members at my workplace. At that stage, when we were defining the 'no disadvantage' rule, we were particularly at pains to ensure that no-one was going to be disadvantaged as a result of the changes that would come about through the EBA. As I said, since I left high school unions have protected me and friends of mine at work. They have protected friends of mine who were sacked for no reason at very short notice, and they have also been part of my life as a proud workplace delegate for the MEAA.

In my first speech I also made a promise: I said that I would never forget what the unions have done for this country and that, as long as I am here as the member for Canberra, I would staunchly defend their right to defend their members.

Many Australians will have enjoyed some well-deserved annual leave over December and January. Perhaps they had Christmas with their family, celebrated the new year with friends or took some much needed R&R in January. Let me tell you: that leave was not afforded to us by the good graces of our employers. No—it was fought for and won by unions, by thousands and thousands of workers over the years fighting for workers' rights. Annual leave did not fall from the sky. It was not gifted very gently one year by a very generous employer. It was a hard-fought-for right that all Australians enjoy every year, thanks to unions.

It is not just annual leave that is the result of hard work by thousands of workers since the union movement was established here in the late 1800s; it is other workplace entitlements that many of us take for granted today. One of those is the eight-hour day. Many people do not actually work an eight-hour day—it has been reduced in some places—but, essentially, the whole principle of the eight-hour day was the result of a hard-won fight by unions. One of my favourite statues is the beautiful orb over the road from Trades Hall in Melbourne, that grim old Victorian bluestone building, sitting there as solid as a rock, next to the jail and just behind the oldest workers' college in the world, my former alma mater. I was union president of RMIT—it is the oldest workers' college in the world. There is that beautiful orb, sitting there very quietly near what used to be the Emily McPherson building and diagonally opposite Trades Hall. No-one really notices it anymore—the orb of the eight-hour day, celebrating that victory that took so long to achieve. It took unions and workers years and years to achieve it: eight hours work, eight hours sleep and eight hours rest. It was an amazing achievement, and it did not fall from the sky. It was not generously gifted by an employer. It was something that came about thanks to unions and thousands of workers who fought hard for it over the years.

As I said, so many of us take these entitlements and conditions—safe workplaces and so much else—for granted. But these conditions are the creation of unions, and I thank unions for that. However, we have to be forever vigilant, because these rights can be taken away from us very quickly. That is why those who would take any opportunity to wind back these hard-fought-for entitlements will be fought from this side of the chamber.

In the construction industry there is no entitlement more important than a worker's safety and the right of a worker to express concerns about their safety without fear of recrimination. We know that there are still too many deaths, injuries and near misses in the construction industry. Here in Canberra we have been reminded of that fact all too often in recent years, with the deaths of Wayne Vickery, Michael Booth and Ben Catanzariti. We need unions to ensure the safety of workers in the construction industry, but this proposed legislation seeks to limit the ability of unions to do just that.

In speaking about this legislation, my colleague the member for Wakefield told the story of Ark Tribe, who in 2008 was summoned by the former ABCC to determine the legality of his actions. What had he done?

What was the supposedly unauthorised action that the ABCC wanted to investigate? It was attending a work safety meeting. He had merely attended a work safety meeting. I have heard several speakers on the opposite side say that this legislation has nothing to do with safety in the construction industry, but Art's case proves them wrong. If a construction worker can be summoned for attending a meeting to express concerns about the safety of a work site and if they can be threatened with six months' imprisonment for not complying with this summons, then safety is going to be affected—there is no doubt about it. People will be simply too scared to attend such meetings to raise their safety concerns. And the price will be paid. The price will be paid in lives and in livelihoods lost.

This legislation will re-establish the ABCC and provide it with coercive powers that will compel ordinary workers to be subject to secret interviews, denied legal representation and threatened with imprisonment if the person subject to such coercive powers refuses to cooperate. For workers in one industry only, this legislation removes the right to silence, the right to legal representation, the right against self-incrimination and the right to tell someone you have been interrogated against your will.

These powers are excessive, they are undemocratic and they are unwarranted. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, they are Orwellian, and they are not what Australians expect of our government in a democratic, 21st-century Australia. But don't just take my word for it. 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.'

The bill we are debating today actually seeks to go one step further than the previous incarnation of the ABCC. This bill extends the reach of the ABCC into picketing, offshore construction and the transport and supply of goods to building sites. The bill will extend the ABCC's jurisdiction offshore to as far as Australia's exclusive economic zone or waters above the continental shelf. It will encompass the transport or supply of goods to building sites, including resource platforms.

On this issue, the contrasts between the two major parties could not be more clear. They are stark. While those opposite are seeking to strip the basic rights of workers, this week Labor announced that a Shorten Labor government will put in place a suite of reforms to protect rights at work by cracking down on unscrupulous employers who are willing to exploit workers, because we will stand up for middle- and working-class families. We have a proud tradition of standing up for working- and middle-class families, and we will continue to fight for their rights. Labor will put people first. We will strengthen and protect workers' rights at work, by: cracking down on the underpayment of workers, with significantly increased penalties for employers who deliberately and systematically avoid paying their employees properly; ramping up protections for workers from sham contracting; giving the Fair Work Ombudsman more power to pursue employers who liquidate their companies in order to avoid paying the money they owe their workers, which is just a completely appalling act; and introducing reforms to ensure that temporary overseas workers are not being exploited and underpaid and that there is a level playing field for all workers in Australia.

Labor also has a plan for better unions, and if the government were actually serious about wanting better union governance, stamping out corruption and protecting union members then they would support our sensible proposals. Labor's package of reforms will help ensure that criminal conduct is detected at the earliest opportunity and dealt with by the full force of the law. Central to our plan is making ASIC, with its coercive powers, the regulator of the most serious contraventions of the registered organisations act. The general manager of the Fair Work Commission will continue its role as a regulator, with its current powers to conduct investigations and inquiries and resolve minor compliance issues, and it will receive an additional $4.5 million for increased monitoring of registered organisations. We will also extend current electoral funding laws to donations and expenditure relating to all elections managed by the AEC, such as those for union elections. In line with our longstanding commitment to greater transparency, we will also reduce the disclosure threshold for political donations from $13,000 to $1,000. We will also protect and encourage whistleblowers by extending protections. We will double the maximum penalties for all criminal offences under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act, and also a court will be able to disqualify an official for serious contraventions. These are just some of the measures that we have announced over the last week or so to improve unions and to provide greater transparency.

The government's justification for singling out one industry, as it is doing with this proposed legislation, is flimsy at best. I am pleased to oppose this bill for the second time. This bill is not about eliminating corruption. It is not about improving productivity. It is not about creating safer workplaces. It is not about preventing illegal industrial action. It is about the coalition's anti-union agenda. It is about demonising the construction industry, demonising unions and demonising their members.

6:36 pm

Photo of Steve IronsSteve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2]. I am not surprised by the speech I have just heard. I expect everyone on that side to be against increasing the law and the rule of the law in the workplace, particularly in the construction industry. I am probably one of the few members on this side of the parliament who have been in a union. I was forced to be in a union—no choice.

Photo of Paul FletcherPaul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Territories, Local Government and Major Projects) Share this | | Hansard source

No ticket, no start?

Photo of Steve IronsSteve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Yes, that was it. And I have a history of family in the hierarchy of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union: my uncle was the secretary of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, and he went through a similar type of situation with the Costigan royal commission. Again, what we must remember about these royal commissions is: they are actually printing facts; they are not printing ideology; they are not printing what they want to achieve. They are actually printing evidence taken—

Photo of Nick ChampionNick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

What did they find in the Costigan royal commission? Tax scams.

Photo of Steve IronsSteve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Hey, I knew how the boys in the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers worked, mate. They were very similar to the CFMEU—standover merchants, criminals all of them. You had to have been in Pentridge to get into the Victorian Federated Ship Painters and Dockers. It was the only entry ticket you needed.

I note this bill has been passed by the House before, in identical form, but returned by the Senate. I further note that if this bill is passed by the House and returned by the Senate again it will become a double-dissolution trigger that the government could decide to use.

People in this country are fed up with the lawlessness of the unions and the bullying standover tactics that plague the construction sites across Australia. They are fed up with the intimidation, thuggery and violence that are commonplace on these sites. This is not a case of a few bad apples. It is commonplace behaviour for the construction unions across the country. Again, having worked in the construction industry, starting as an apprentice years ago, I can understand it. I have seen evidence of it and I know how it works. Those on the other side of the chamber know how it works, as well, and they are protecting it.

We have had this behaviour documented in countless reports by royal commissions, including the most recent royal commission into trade union governance. At least 26 people have been referred to public prosecutors, and another 86 as a result of the most recent royal commission. These are the figures from August, so that reality could be even worse. There can be no denying what is going on.

As I have said in parliament before on this topic, I would like to declare my life experiences with the unions. I guess I can go back to a particular time where, as an employee working for a national company that manufactured, designed and built equipment in Australia, we had a situation with a product that had been produced. United Technologies was in the process of trying to take one of the products over to Thailand to have their subsidiary, Carrier air conditioning, look at it and copy it. At that particular time I rang my uncle, who was on the docks in Melbourne, and asked, 'Listen, mate, is there any chance you can get this piece of equipment dropped off the wharf?' He said, 'Well, I'll do better than that. I'll get one of my Labor politician mates to ring you and see if we can sort something out.' Fifteen minutes later Kim Beazley Jr was on the phone to my office—and this is well before I had anything to do with politics. Kim said, 'I will put you in touch with someone who will be able to help you out.' Fifteen minutes later John Halfpenny rang me. In that process John was quite supportive of Australian industry. I think he had a great idea about Australian industry and unions working together, but at the same time he related that the union he was with had no concern for negotiation. He said, 'We just want to be confronting. We just want to attack, attack, and we will worry about negotiation at the end of the day.' But John did the job: he coerced United Technologies in the US, under the threat of having the Australian government cancel the Sikorsky helicopter contract, into saying that they would not copy the Australian product.

Another experience for me with unions was as an apprentice onsite in Bayswater, Victoria. You will not believe it, but a redheaded Scottish shop steward came up to me on the site and demanded to see my ticket. I said that I did not have one, and after a five-minute discussion he decided he was going to shut the site down. I gave him 20 metres to walk away and then explained to him that I was an apprentice. At that particular time apprentices were not required to be members of unions. He was very disappointed that he had missed an opportunity shut the site down and harm the employer's business and the work being carried out on this construction site. Working on construction sites, I have seen for years and years how this works. Again, I say that those on the other side of the House condone it, and they are still protecting it with the arguments they are presenting today.

The Costigan royal commission's investigation soon revealed that many members of the union were involved in a wide range of criminal activities:

The Union has attracted to its ranks in large numbers men who have been convicted of, and who continue to commit, serious crimes. … Violence is the means by which they control the members of their group. They do not hesitate to kill.

Included in the crimes of union members were:

… taxation fraud, social security fraud, ghosting, compensation fraud, theft on a grand scale, extortion, the handling of massive importations of drugs, the shipments of armaments, all manner of violence and murder.

Despite the union's members being 'careless of their reputation, glorying in its infamy' that very reputation attracted 'employment by wealthy people outside their ranks who stoop to use their criminal prowess to achieve their own questionable ends'. It sounds very similar to how they CFMEU operates today.

The unions continue to operate as lawless thugs on construction sites, because they are allowed to by this parliament. There is no strong regulator of workplace laws for the building industry that holds the unions to account any more. This was abolished by the Gillard government. Ever since then the coalition has attempted to bring back the regulator, the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It was in 2012 that the Gillard government folded to union pressure and abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission. We know that Labor had been under sustained pressure from building and construction unions for at least five years, and it was then that the workplace relations minister, Bill Shorten, gave into union demands and abolished the ABCC, which had been established by the Howard government. Australians are familiar with the disastrous and tragic consequences of many of the decisions of the Rudd/Gillard governments, including over 1,000 deaths at sea from loosening border controls, which comes to mind as one of the most dreadful and regrettable decisions.

What have been the consequences of Labor's decision to abolish the ABCC? What has happened since then? We know a lot has happened. The bad old days of industrial militancy have returned, with wildcat stoppages, militant protests, demands from unions that their mates be employed on projects, ahead of non-unionists, and an increase in construction industry disputes to a seven-year high. Weeks after the Australian Building and Construction Commission was abolished we saw violent scenes on the streets of the city of Melbourne, with militant union protestors intimidating the community and their supporters attacking police horses. Why would they attack police horses? It is just beyond me. We had workers on the site purchasing an advertisement in the Herald Sun, with an open letter to their own union bosses that asked for the blockades to stop. Images of these protests were seen on television screens around the world. What message did this send to national and international companies about investing in building and construction projects in Melbourne or in Australia?

Another incident saw the CFMEU grossly bullying non-members by creating posters labelling them—amongst various other things—as 'scabs' and advocating that they be run out of the industry, in open defiance of the Fair Work Act and Supreme Court orders to end the protests. There was a violent dispute at the Little Creatures brewery site in Geelong where union picketers were accused in court documents of making throat-cutting gestures and threats to stomp heads in; workers who wanted to get on with their work were being told they were dead; and there was shoving, kicking and punching of motor vehicles. Disturbingly, we saw union protestors threatening people with 'Colombian neckties' at City West Water in Werribee, where the dispute was so heated that workers had to be flown in by helicopter. The term 'Colombian neckties' came from the Colombian Civil War of 1948 and involves slashing a victim's throat horizontally and pulling their tongue out through the open wound. It sounds sick, but we have people in Australia making those sorts of threats to other Australians—very unAustralian as far as I am concerned.

In a bizarre incident, CFMEU officials threatened to stop work on a Lendlease project in Adelaide if a union flag was not moved to a more prominent position. I cannot understand how a union flag is going to improve safety on a building site. It is clear that union thugs have been running rampant on building sites and engaging in thuggish behaviour since workplace relations minister Shorten's decision to fold the ABCC. I am going to give a few more examples of what has been going on, Mr Deputy Speaker, and please understand that I have cleaned up the language from these quotes and removed many terms that would be considered grossly unparliamentary. But listeners can use their imagination. Many of these examples involve the militant CFMEU. In the interim report of the recent royal commission, it was found—and this is not ideology; this is evidence—that Fair Work building inspectors were subjected to violent and intimidating behaviour by a number of CFMEU officials on multiple occasions at two significant constructions sites, the Ibis Hotel in Adelaide and Barangaroo in Sydney. One CFMEU official made offensive comments to an inspector including mouthing the word 'dog' through an office window; and saying 'You're a grub, why are you here, go away. You're lower than a paedophile you grub'. The royal commission referred these matters to the Commonwealth and South Australian Directors of Public Prosecution. In the Grocon incident in Brisbane a CFMEU official said to a Grocon-employed foreman: 'Hey scabby, gay boy, gay boy, gay boy, scabby'; 'It's amazing what people become, once a union delegate hey', 'He used to run with us?'; 'Lowest sort of dog ever'; 'Think you would know better than to go against the unions'; 'You know when all this is over, it's just beginning for you then isn't it, the union covers the whole of Australia.'

One of my associates in Perth jumped in a lift on a site and as he got in two CFMEU officials got in with him; by the time he got out on the third floor he was shaking in fear for his family because they had threatened to attack and imjure his family while he was on a worksite—they knew where he lived and they would go around and do it. Why would anyone in Australia want to protect that sort of behaviour? In a case in Sydney, a CFMEU official who had been asked for entry permits said: 'No we're not leaving. You're a pack of murderers, we're gonna get you.' In Western Australia, on 10 March 2014, Justice North restrained CFMEU Construction and General Division WA Branch Assistant Secretary Joe McDonald from entering the premises of four named Brookfield Multiplex companies, in addition to related entities, in the Federal Court of Australia. The consent orders declared that the union, Mr McDonald and the branch's other assistant secretaryhad breached section 348 of the Fair Work Act when they coerced Brookfield Multiplex, the head contractor on the Fiona Stanley Hospital project.

The examples just go on and on and they extend into financial malpractice as well. This is happening right now on our building and construction sites, and yet the Labor and Green parties—which by the way take plenty of donations from the unions—block the tried and tested solution to clean this up. It tells you everything you need to know about those two parties. We all know about the relationships between Labor spokemen and union leaders in this place, including the disgraced CFMEU. It does not matter what the CFMEU does—Labor will continue to do their bidding in parliament because Labor are controlled by the unions.

Beyond the personal cost of all this lawlessness—the crime and antisocial cost—is the economic cost. We have a fair idea what this cost is because we have the evidence of data from when the ABCC existed. During this time the economic and industrial performance of the building and construction industry significantly improved. A 2013 Independent Economics report on the state of the sector during this period found that building and construction industry productivity grew by more than nine per cent,    consumers were better off by around $7.5 billion annually and fewer working days were lost through industrial action. The lost productivity from union lawlessness is a real concern in my home state of Western Australia. There is construction going on all over Perth at the moment—especially in my electorate of Swan. The industry provides many jobs for workers in small business, large enterprises and contractors. My son works in the construction industry as an apprentice bricklayer in the building industry, and hopefully he can have a rewarding life working in the construction industry.

Photo of Nick ChampionNick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

He might even join the union.

Photo of Steve IronsSteve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

He has advice not to. The coalition has taken this policy to two elections and has a mandate to bring it before this House. In the government's 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. I am sure we will hear from many other speakers on the other side of the chamber who will look after the unions and the practices I have just described. So I support the bill and hope that it is passed by the parliament.

6:51 pm

Photo of Melissa ParkeMelissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | | Hansard source

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak against the Building Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill. It seeks to reintroduce measures that are offensive to Australian values and that infringe basic human rights; it is a bill with a false premise—namely, that there are special dangers in the building and construction industry that require unacceptably draconian measures in response. The truth is there are real dangers in the building and construction industry, as there are at sea and on the wharves—and they are principally dangers to the safety and wellbeing of the workers who build Australia and who connect our island nation through maritime freight and transport to the rest of the world.

The government has returned this bill to parliament entirely on the basis of cynicism, and entirely to suit their own narrow political purposes. It is disappointing to begin our parliamentary work in an election year with a piece of ideological propaganda masquerading as legislation. It is disappointing that our work here, which should be focused on the big social and economic challenges like climate change and affordable housing and mental health, is instead occupied with partisan manoeuvring. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that Australians want to talk about the important issues that will shape our future, yet we begin this year as we ended the last—with an attempt to misrepresent the labour movement, to demonise workers and the unions that represent them.

But this bill goes further than that because it offends against a number of critical human rights principles—and no-one should be sanguine about that, least of all those who profess to understand the importance of individual rights and liberties. Others have quoted Nicola McGarrity and Professor George Williams from the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales, but I want to repeat their analysis for the benefit of my constituents. They have said, quite plainly, in relation to the powers that this bill would seek to re-establish:

… 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.

Those rights and freedoms are fundamental to our way of life.

There is no tolerance for criminality in Australian life. Where that occurs—at a work site or in a boardroom—it should be dealt with by the responsible law enforcement authorities. If there are instances of fraud or misconduct within any industry, be it the construction industry or the financial advisory sector, those cases should be investigated and pursued in the courts, as has always been the case. But let's remember that the Cole royal commission—all $60 million and 23 volumes worth—resulted in not one criminal prosecution.

I am always concerned that people should approach these issues with some reference to the real world, and so I encourage members to revisit the recent ABC 7.30 report on the tragic deaths of two young men that occurred on a Jaxon construction site in Perth in 2015. Mick Buchan of the WA branch of the CFMEU has quite rightly pointed out that the under-funding of workplace safety mechanisms and oversight resources has meant that the danger to life and limb in the construction industry has grown. That is something that people must recognise whenever they hear the term 'militant union', because the fact that unions like the CFMEU and the MUA are strong in their response to unsafe working conditions flows directly from the fact that too many workers in those industries do not come home or come home with serious injuries.

To put things in perspective on the question of the need for regulatory reform, let's also remember that, while two royal commissions, costing the Australian taxpayer $140 million, have resulted in 150 recommendations for further investigation—but, as yet, no criminal prosecutions—11,000 workers in the last year alone needed to have $22.3 million recovered in back pay by the Fair Work Ombudsman. That is why Labor, on behalf of working Australians, is proposing more effective regulation to protect workers from underpayment, sham contracting and other forms of exploitation.

Australia has so many important and urgent challenges that it really seems bizarre that we should have to deal with this reheated folly the government has brought before us. It is an approach the Australian community thoroughly rejected when it removed the Howard government. It is an approach that was thoroughly rejected in the form of the Orwellian Work Choices.

Let me conclude by saying that the shadow minister cut to the heart of the issue when he said that workers in the building and construction industry should be subject to the same laws as other workers. It is a matter of basic fairness, and it is a case that has been made with great clarity, detail and force by my colleagues.

6:56 pm

Photo of Michael McCormackMichael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

The construction industry is one of great importance to the Australian economy. Construction projects across the country provide thousands of Australians with jobs, with homes and with businesses, and with hope. These are an important contributor to national gross domestic product and economic growth.

With more Australians choosing to build their own homes and with business construction increasing with the coalition government's proud record of $50 billion—a record—infrastructure investment and the private investment sector right across this wide brown land, the need for a reliable and professional construction industry has never been stronger. The coalition understands fully the importance of a strong construction industry. It is vital that we have the homes, businesses, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools and other projects which communities need. But it is just as vital that those people who build the projects do so in a professional, reliable and, most importantly, a safe manner and safe environment.

This is not the first time that I have spoken in parliament about these facts. It is not the first time I have praised family owned building companies and the importance of a strong construction industry, particularly as we think about building better and more resilient regional communities and economies—and I am most interested in those regional communities. Nor is this the first time that I have called on the Senate and colleagues here in this House to accept that the Australian Building and Construction Commission actually worked. It is as simple as that. Yet, here we are, more than two years later, and there are findings of a new royal commission which demonstrate the extent to which union lawlessness has eroded productivity gains and the advancement of regional development right across the country.

We are a government, of course, who respect the rights of workers to the rule of law, to a safe and secure workplace and to choose to join or to not join the unions based on their own preferences. We are a government who know that high-rises over cities and witches hats on rural roads mean jobs for people and multiplier effects for local communities, including those in my electorate of the Riverina. This bill, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2], is about ensuring exactly that—the building industry doing what it does best. Ours is not a plan to unfairly target a scrupulous industry, nor to place in jeopardy the construction projects the economy needs. It is simply a plan to reinstate the ABCC—a successful agency of the Howard government—to ensure that our construction industry can do what it does best. Australia is a country with an international reputation of building things, of getting on with the job, of getting stuck in and of having a go—a fair go.

Certainly, this government is very serious about building the roads, bridges, inland rail and other infrastructure programs that our country so desperately needs. The Deputy Prime Minister—the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, Warren Truss—is getting on with that job. This is a vision replicated throughout the private sector as well. All this bill does is complement that intent. It is the reintroduction of a genuine, independent and strong watchdog to uphold the rule of law and to protect workers and constructors. In doing that, this bill will improve productivity on building sites right across the nation, whether the project is onshore or, indeed, offshore. In a nutshell, increased productivity and less red tape will mean more jobs for Australians in the construction industry.

The rule of law, however simple, is the solid foundation for everything for which we stand in this parliament and this country. It is hardly a controversial idea. All this bill is suggesting is the reintroduction of a strong watchdog which favours the rule of law. But there are operators within some unions who are determined to stymie this development and have workers used simply as political pawns rather than as a part of a construction project. It is important to reflect on the fact that the ABCC was introduced by the Howard government in response to the Cole royal commission into the incidence of union thuggery and the compelling evidence of the need for reform within the industry—and that was in 2001.

The ABCC came into effect in 2005, and the industrial performance of the building and construction industry improved significantly. The statistics back this up. Productivity in the building and construction industry grew by more than nine per cent. Consumers were better off by around an annual figure of $7½ billion. Importantly, fewer working days were lost to industrial action. This was the finding of an independent economics report on the sector during the time the ABCC was in effect that was published in 2013. Those statistics are staggering. More than anything, those statistics demonstrate that things were working effectively under the ABCC. Consumers were able to get the construction jobs they had commissioned finished within a reliable period. The country's GDP benefited from strong growth within the community, meaning there would be more jobs and opportunities for workers, and those workers spent more days in paid employment and lost fewer in industrial action.

The ABCC was established because there was a problem, and this was a watchdog with the imprimatur to fix it. However, the Gillard Labor government came under sustained pressure from their mates in the union movement to undo all the good of the strong and effective watchdog—and what a shame that is. Labor, knowing it owes its dues in many senses to those mates in the unions, procrastinated for years. The former government ordered a review into the watchdog's effectiveness and the building code. The then minister responsible—now opposition leader—the member for Maribyrnong, caved in to union demands and watered down a previously effective watchdog, more's the pity. The opposition leader cut the watchdog's funding and replaced it with a powerless observer to the scenes of militant unionism we saw on display in this nation thereafter.

We all remember the scenes in Melbourne merely weeks after the ABCC's abolition of violence on the streets of the Victorian capital. There was violence, union protesters intimidating many people within the community on the picket lines and attacks on police horses. It was the bad old days of the militant unions at their very worst. We all heard the stories of those workers within the construction sector who were berated for not joining the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, such that posters were even made to advocate running those non-union members out of the industry. Shame! We all know these are disturbing stories. It not only makes a mockery of the Fair Work Act and Supreme Court orders to end the process or to respect the right of people to not join the union should they so choose, it also had an impact in an immeasurable way on the investment in and the confidence of the industry itself.

The member for Hinkler said in his contribution this is not a union witch-hunt. He is right. On this side of the House we do understand that there is a role for unions to operate—constructively—within the Australian economy. I was a union member for 21 years, but I also support and understand the right of people to not join a union if they do not wish to do so. People should have that right in Australia, and it should be respected. This was not something afforded to those workers who were labelled 'scabs' and worse, those who simply wanted to turn up to work on a major construction job somewhere and get the job done.

The member for Hinkler was also correct when he spoke about the other side of the resources boom within rural and regional areas, particularly in the parts of Queensland he represents, where there was a construction boom. This was a great injection into many communities, and it simply worked better when there was a strong regulator in place. In cities such as Gladstone—in the member for Flynn's electorate—Townsville and other parts of central Queensland, there were massive projects which provided many jobs and opportunities to local people, and the multiplier effect of that is critical. In regions such as those, it is important local workforces are also engaged to ensure our regions can get the most out of the local multiplier effect and to build stronger and more resilient communities.

The member for Lyne made an important point in his speech in this debate about the justification this government has for the reintroduction of the ABCC. We have campaigned on it, and the member knows that. He is someone who was a candidate for Lyne at both the 2010 and 2013 elections and he knows well that the Liberal and National parties have been serious about this change for some time. We have taken it to the people twice. We have introduced it to this House before and we are serious about ensuring Australia's construction industry has a strong and independent watchdog.

In my own electorate there is strong support for these measures too. The Riverina's construction industry is not heavily unionised. However, local contractors and sub-contractors should and do apply to work on major projects around the region. Ryan Knight, the owner and operator of Viewco Glass, a very successful company in Wagga Wagga, praised this legislation and the importance of a strong and independent regulator. He told me, 'As Viewco Glass is an employer of 30 local people, we support an independent watchdog for disputes that arise in any future dealings with small and large construction projects.' Mr Knight served as president of the Housing Industry Association throughout my electorate for three years and only recently retired because he was at his term limit. Mr Knight understands, as do many in the Riverina's construction industry, that we should have a strong watchdog in place to ensure, alongside good employers and a constructive union, that workers' rights are respected and upheld, that the rule of law is upheld and that the consumer can get what they want out of the construction industry.

This is an important bill. It is an important debate. It is far from a union witch-hunt, and it is something that our colleagues in the other place must consider properly. Simply, the ABCC worked effectively and well when it was in place under the Howard government. Unfortunately, it was abolished because the Labor Party owed its dues to its Labor mates in the unions who do not share our view of a strong and reliable construction industry and would rather use the rights of their workers as some sort of, it is sad to say, political pawn.

We have to put a strong regulator in place. We have to respect the rule of law. The workers' rights should be respected, including the right to not join the union if they so choose. The statistics demonstrate that this is an undeniable fact: the ABCC worked. This bill is simply cleaning up the mess of its watered-down replacement. I certainly commend it to the House.

Terence Cole's royal commission under the Howard government led the way for the establishment of the ABCC. I want to read what he said in a letter to the editor of The Australian that appeared yesterday, and it is very pertinent to this debate. His letter, headed 'Opponents of the ABCC should explain why they back unlawful conduct', read:

The main recommendation of the 2001 royal commission into the building and construction industry was the introduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Its purpose was to reintroduce the rule of law in the industry. That was necessary because of widespread unlawful conduct. The commission established that such conduct was detrimental to the economy, and thus to the Australian people, as the increased costs of such conduct were passed on to the community.

In 2007, after the introduction of the ABCC, savings due to the reduction in unlawful action were assessed at $3.1 billion per annum. In 2012, savings due to reduction in unlawful action was assessed by the Master Builders Association at $6.3 billion per annum. On any view, benefits to the economy due to the effectiveness of the ABCC in diminishing unlawful conduct, were very great.

In 2012, the then government, whilst recognising the need for strong measures to maintain the reduced level of unlawfulness in the industry, altered the arrangements and abolished the ABCC.

In 2015, the Heydon royal commission report established that unlawful conduct was again prevalent in the industry. Such conduct carries deleterious costs to Australians.

Surely it is incumbent upon those who oppose the reintroduction of the ABCC to explain how it is to the advantage of the economy, and to the Australian people who bear the great costs of unlawful action, to have an increased level of unlawfulness in the building and construction industry which the ABCC has demonstrated it can supress, but which existing arrangements do not.

I could not have put it better myself. There we have it from Terence Cole, whose royal commission led to the foundation of the ABCC. He has put it so well, and it is so pertinent to this debate.

There are so many examples of unlawful conduct in the building and construction industry. On 19 June 2015 the Federal Court fined the CFMEU and five of its officials more than half a million dollars for unlawful conduct at the $40 million Australian government funded Common Ground housing project for long-term homeless people. In its penalty judgement the Federal Court said the conduct 'was a deliberate stratagem on the part of the CFMEU'. The court went on to say that:

An industrial organisation, be it an employer organisation or an employee organisation, which persistently abuses the privilege by engaging in unlawful conduct cannot expect to remain registered.

There are many, many more examples. In Grocon & Ors v the CFMEU & Ors in 2013, the Victorian Supreme Court found the CFMEU guilty on all five charges of contempt of court orders following the proceedings initiated by Grocon. In 2014 the CFMEU was penalised $1.25 million for its contempt and was ordered to pay costs, and Justice Cavanough said:

The court must visit the defiance of the CFMEU with a penalty which will not only adequately respond to the scale of the defiance but also act as a general and specific deterrent. No fines of the level previously imposed could do that.

It is right through it. The ABCC needs to be reintroduced. This bill does just that, and I commend it to the House.

7:11 pm

Photo of Bob KatterBob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | | Hansard source

The previous speaker, the minister, said—and this bill says—that coercion cannot be used in getting people to join a union and cannot be used in action on safety and those issues. It would do the minister a lot of good to read some good history books such as An Incredible Race of People, of which I had the privilege of being the author.

Photo of Michael McCormackMichael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Assistant Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister) Share this | | Hansard source

I've got it on my shelves, Bob, you will be pleased to know!

Photo of Bob KatterBob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | | Hansard source

In there you will find, unless it was cut out by the editors, the story of the founder of the Country Party. A lot of people claim to be the founder of the Country Party, but I think most would agree that the real leader, and the person who really founded the party, was Jack McEwen. At 28 years of age, Jack was a really big dairy farmer. He owned three reasonable sized dairy farms at that stage. He called a meeting of the dairy farmers throughout Victoria and there was a huge roll-up. He said: 'From now on, all of the milk gets sold through a cooperative. You can only buy milk through the cooperative and we're putting a decent price on our product, because I am sick of living in a galvanised iron shed on a dirt floor eating rabbits.' What we are talking about here is collective action; it is a trade union type action taken by farmers.

Three of the wealthier, more established families in the industry cast disparaging remarks upon Jack McEwen and his idea and said flatly that they would not conform. So Jack dragged them out the back and belted the hell out of them physically and then dragged them back in, much the worse for wear. And he said: 'They've seen reason now. Let's get on with the meeting.' And from that day forth he was called Black Jack McEwen. For those of you who are not as old as I am, Black Jack was a sock filled with sand; you belted people with it and it left no marks. I am serious!

There is another person called Black Jack, though it is not used quite so familiarly. This is a bloke called Anthony, who did exactly the same thing in the banana industry. He was a very famous leader of the Country Party. His son was Doug Anthony, who was Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and one of the greatest ministers who ever served in this place. It was exactly the same story. He got all the banana growers together and said: 'Hey fellas, from now on all the bananas get sold through a cooperative.' This was collective action. We achieved it in Australia.

It is all right for people to criticise trade unions, but you want to know a little bit about the history of your country before you come in here and shoot your mouth off. One hundred years ago—probably 110 years ago now—one in 30 of us who went down the mines never came back up again or died the horrific death of miner's phthisis of the lungs. Deputy Speaker Kelly, if you doubt my words, walk through that door. There is a magnificent portrait of the first member for Kennedy. He left this parliament dying of miner's phthisis of the lungs. Andrew Fisher, the third Prime Minister of Australia, left parliament dying of miner's phthisis of the lungs. His dad had already died of miner's phthisis of the lungs. The first Labor Premier in the world was Anderson Dawson. He left parliament dying of dust on the lungs. Do not doubt it for a moment. In a magnificent work on the social history of Australia: 'Of the men that worked for over two years digging the sewerage ditches in Sydney—over 2,000 of them—every single one of them who worked for more than two years died of miner's phthisis of the lungs.' You can sit and spit upon trade unions as much as you like. But we could be still out there and dying. Don't think it would not be happening.

I attended a rally by the CFMEU, in Brisbane, over safety conditions in the building of a tunnel in Brisbane. The ETU was involved as well. They said, 'They are ramming things through. It is getting more and more dangerous and we are having more and more accidents.' I attended another rally, over the same issue, three weeks later, because a man was in hospital dying from an accident that had occurred two days before. You can say, 'We won't allow any people to look at safety issues.' And we the workers can die. Here is a case of it. That worker happened to be a bloke called Sam Beveridge, as it turned out, from my own home town. In fact, his brother was mayor of my home town, Charters Towers.

A lady came to see me, today, lobbying on this issue. She had lost her husband. He had spoken to the union that morning and had said, 'I'm really worried.' The union bloke said, 'I can see you are desperately worried.' The man said, 'It's a really dangerous job you're asking me to do, but I'm not going to ask any young blokes to do it. I'm going to do it myself.' He died as well. I do not know how many people have died as the result of a lack of safety in this building.

I am not going to sit here and be hypocritical enough to say that the builders' workers union were angels. There were a lot of very bad things taking place. They come under the CFMEU, and I have known the CFMEU, the coalmining union, all of my life. Whilst I have had a lot of punch-ups with them through the years they have never broken faith with the people they represent. When they took over the building workers' union there were a lot of people in there who had broken faith, with the people they represented, for their own gain.

It has not been easy for them to weed these people out. But over the recent leadership—the honourable shadow minister, here, is Michael O'Connor's brother—they proceeded. There has been a lot of blood everywhere—figuratively speaking—in ridding the union of a lot of bad people. A lot of those people who had been got rid of have made allegations to try to get themselves off the hook. That has brought us to where we are at the moment.

I will say not on behalf of the Liberal Party but on behalf of what is left of the National Party, which does not exist in Queensland as it is an affiliate of the Liberal Party, that their founder was responsible—we could have continued living on dirt floors and galvanised iron, working for nothing and eating rabbits! But if there was going to be change there had to be an amount of coercive pressure. I do not resile from using that statement.

In the history of Australia there is a man who was the wealthiest man in Queensland—he died with the highest probate ever paid in Queensland. When you go to my home town of Charters Towers his name, Richard Arida, is up there. It was 1882. He broke faith with all the rich people in society and gave, in today's money, $1 million to the strike fund, because this man could not live with his conscious knowing that people in his town were dying on a continuous basis. If anyone in this chamber has doubts about this, at the mine my son worked the roof collapsed. It was in the early part of last century. It killed 27 people. At the other end of the electorate, at Mount Mulligan, in one explosion, in one hour, 72 people—every male in the town of Mount Mulligan—died in that explosion. If you think we can go on and not have representatives of the workers to be able to defend us in these situations, you have another thing coming.

The minister spoke about the rule of law. That is rather interesting. There are three great pillars of the rule of law, and one of them is your right to silence. We all watch the movies. We all watch the television. 'You have the right to remain silent' is the first thing they say when they arrest you. Well, you do not have it in the building industry! You get put in jail if you remain silent. So do not come in here and preach about the rule of law, because you are spitting upon the rule of law in this legislation. If you want to fix up bad things, you make the effort of going in there and weed out the grafters who have pulled stunts when the concrete is being poured, and getting paid, personally—in their own pockets, not in the pockets of the union—and you track them down and put them in jail. Do not take away, from a whole branch of industry in Australia the right to work safely. I go no further than the brother of the mayor of Charters Towers. I go no further than the first member for Kennedy, when I walk through the door, there. I go no further than that.

So, your right to remain silent is a very important law. This legislation takes away your right to remain silent. And not only does it take away your right to remain silent; it also says that you have to give evidence. If you are asked to give evidence, you are compelled to give that evidence. Now, there would be very few places on earth where the law says that. We know that in some countries, China being one of them, there are still cases going on today where this sort of thing happens, but it is not in their legislation. This might be happening in countries in Africa, but it is not in legislation; it is just discretionary power. This is going to be put into legislation. In our state, the union is affiliated with the ALP, so my party gets nothing out of it; we did not get a cent from this trade union in the last election; there is no benefit for us. But why we have remained such strident, staunch supporters of this union is over the issue of section 457s. They were not introduced by the Liberal Party; they were introduced by the Labor Party. To their extraordinary shame in the history of Australia, they introduced them. In fact, they were bringing in 160,000 workers a year. But why I love this union, even though it is affiliated with the ALP in my state, is that their president stood up and said to Julia Gillard, the Prime Minister, 'You must understand, Prime Minister, that we will not tolerate the jobs being taken off Australians and given to section 457 workers, undermining our pay and conditions and taking our jobs off us.'

As I have said in this House a number of times, the last government, the ALP government, and this government, the LNP government, in their wisdom, are bringing 650,000 people a year into an economy that is generating only 200,000 jobs. And I ask the question: where are you going to get the welfare money to pay for 450,000 people each year who are going on the dole? Of course, I did not get an intelligent response, but an intelligent response would have said, well, most of them are here for only four years. But I tell you what: no-one was game to give that response, because everybody knows that they are not going home; it is ridiculous to even talk about them going home—the student visas and the section 457s. And Tony Abbott, two weeks after, when I asked the question in parliament—I do not want to flatter myself that he took any notice of me, but, all the same, it was two weeks after I asked the question—attempted to clamp down on the over a million people who are overstays on section 457s or student visas. He tried to clamp down. I mean, it was not like we were going around with a whip, flogging people. We asked them for their identification; that is all.

Well, the way the Australian media fell upon Abbott, you would have thought he was General Custer at Little Bighorn! And within four weeks he was gone from the prime ministership—a very salutary lesson to anyone in this place who tries to enforce the overstays. When they are here, they are here. Have a look at the American election campaign. Watch any of the debates and see how much of that debate is about the Latinos who are in America illegally—whether they should be sent home or not. But I have not noticed anyone in America sending them home. That is not the real world. That does not happen. So, the very distinguished minister for welfare got up two weeks later and said that half of the federal budget will go to welfare within 10 years. It is a quarter now; it will go to half. And you whistle and I will point where that half is going—$650,000 being brought into an economy that is producing only 200,000 jobs and has over 200,000 school leavers. You do not have to be Albert Einstein to add it up here and figure out where this is going.

But they are taking our jobs out from under us, and the only institution that I know of in this country that has fought courageously at great expense to themselves has been the CFMEU, and today I pay them a very fine tribute. (Time expired)

7:26 pm

Photo of Russell MathesonRussell Matheson (Macarthur, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

As a little bit of background on myself, before I came into this place I was always a member of a union. I was with the PKIU and also in the Police Association of New South Wales all my working life. For 35 years in the workforce, I was a member of a union and proud of the fact that I always got paid a good day's pay for a good day's work. So, I am really appreciative of unions myself. But there are also times when something goes wrong within unions, and sometimes it might be a union official.

But I rise today to support the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2], which re-establishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission. I represent an electorate where the future of this industry is vital for workers, bosses, business owners and the local residents. In Macarthur there are many new housing developments and new suburbs being built. These include new homes in Oran Park, Harrington Grove, Gregory Hills, Spring Farm, Elderslie and Macarthur Heights. These new developments will accommodate an extra 200,000 new residents in my electorate over the next 25 years. That is a population increase of more than 300 per cent, a huge number of new residents who will rely on the stability and efficiency of this industry.

The building and construction work taking place in my electorate employs thousands of workers from Macarthur and south-west Sydney. They make up a major part of the industry that is stimulating our local economy and keeping locals employed. There is no doubt that the industry is vital to job creation in my electorate. It is also an essential sector of the Australian economy. In fact, it is the third largest employer in the country. That is why it is imperative that the Australian Building and Construction Commission is re-established. It is a strong watchdog that will maintain the rule of law to protect workers and their employers in this industry and improve productivity on building sites and construction projects.

When Labor abolished the ABCC in 2012 the commission was replaced with a weaker regulator. At the same time, Labor also removed certain provisions that addressed problems of industrial unlawfulness in the construction industry. Under the current legislation, the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act, standards of behaviour in the industry have declined; there is no doubt about that. The industry has returned to its previous practices, where disputes are violent and thuggery and disregard for the rule of law thrive, and that is very unfortunate. This bill we speak on today will reverse Labor's changes to the laws that underpinned the Australian Building and Construction Commission before it was abolished in 2012. The ABCC will replace the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate and will put in place stronger and more effective laws that existed under the former Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005.

The main objective of this bill is to provide an improved workplace relations framework for building and construction work. This will ensure that it 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. It prohibits unlawful industrial action, unlawful picketing, coercion and discrimination. In Macarthur and across the nation the construction industry provides many jobs for workers in small business and large enterprises and for contractors. If we combine this with primary and secondary businesses that directly supply to the construction industry, we are looking at very strong figures in terms of employment and output.

Debate interrupted.