Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General and the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the Attorney outline to the House the Morrison government's stable and certain approach to ensuring the integrity of registered organisations and the importance of providing cost-effective infrastructure? Is the Attorney aware of any alternative approaches?

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. Of course, as all the members on this side of the House understand, construction is a critical part of the Australian economy, and it is a massive part of the spend that this government is investing in the Australian economy—$100 billion in transport infrastructure construction, and that's $40 billion over the forward estimates.

To understand exactly how important construction is to the Australian economy, it needs to be realised that it's the third-largest employer in Australia. It employs one in 10 Australian workers. Ninety-nine per cent of the 383,000 businesses are small businesses in construction—that's the tradies and the businesses with under 20 people—and having strong laws to maintain the rule of law on construction sites is absolutely critical to the Australian economy. And it will interest, no doubt, every member on this side of the House to know that the total working days lost to industrial disputes in the construction industry was six times higher by the time Labor last left office to the time when they took office.

Prior to the introduction of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which, of course, members opposite opposed in 2005, there were five times the average number of industrial disputes in the construction sector compared to every other industry sector. In fact, since the ABCC was re-established by this government, the total days lost in the construction industry has been cut in half. Sadly, the rate of industrial disputation, though, is still three times the average of all other industries. Why is that the case? That is the case because the CFMMEU business model is to bully, lie, coerce, trespass and obstruct. And what does that look like? That looks like a 30 per cent increase in the cost of vital infrastructure, like schools, roads and hospitals.

As the BCA and Infrastructure Australia have said, infrastructure projects are 40 per cent more expensive here than they are in the United States. How does that happen? What is the business model? Well, that's the CFMMEU unlawfully shutting down a crane company, who loses over six weeks of work. That's the CFMMEU in Victoria illegally using vehicles to blockade a worksite, stopping concrete pours. That's the CFMMEU in Queensland lying and intimidating a landscaper who's a contractor to force him to be a member of the union. In fact, it was said yesterday by the State Secretary of the New South Wales AMWU, 'We need strong, democratic and militant unions'—not just strong unions or democratic unions, 'We need militant unions.' He went on to say, 'Well done Tony Burke for standing up proudly to defend our movement.' Well done for standing up for union militancy, because that's what you stand up for. We stand up for the rule of law on construction sites.