Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Before the debate on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2009 was adjourned, I was about to get onto the Maritime Union of Australia case in Western Australia, which highlighted that certain unions were, yet again, on the rampage. What the unions got was a $50,000 per annum wage increase for people already earning $130,000—so they will now be taking home $180,000.

Yesterday at question time I asked about that outcome and Senator Arbib in this place said that federal Labor welcomed the outcome, even though there were no productivity offsets. We in the coalition are all in favour of wage increases, especially if there are productivity offsets, because that way everybody is a winner. But when a trade union uses raw industrial muscle to force outcomes that are just unconscionable—and Ms Gillard and Mr Rudd sit idly by—one does fear for the future industrial relations culture of our country.

How can such a wage increase be justified, and what do we know about those sorts of wage increases? They lead to wage inflation. Wage inflation leads to cost of living increases, which lead to job losses. When that was put to Senator Arbib, Labor repudiated it. They rejected my analysis. Well, it was a former Labor Treasurer, Mr Frank Crean, who said that one man’s pay rise is another man’s job. He said that in the context of discussing wage inflation such as we have just witnessed in Western Australia.

So not only do Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard barrack the MUA to get these outrageous decisions, they also pull the teeth from the industrial watchdogs to make sure that they become toothless tigers and ineffective so that the unions can go on the rampage—as the MUA has done in Western Australia. Of course, Western Australia is the hotbed of corruption and illegality, with the likes of Kevin Reynolds and Joe McDonald. They are there, and they are so happy that they are back in town courtesy of Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard.

So what is Labor going to do with this inspectorate? As I indicated previously, the independence of the inspectorate will be removed and Ms Gillard will be able to pull the strings when and as she likes. Labor will be tying up the watchdog in red tape, which goes against the independent report which they commissioned—the Wilcox report. So, in hoping to get the right answers they commissioned somebody—and I must say I was concerned and still have some concerns about the recommendations—but even on this Justice Wilcox could not agree and said that they should not be tied up with red tape. But, no, Ms Gillard knows best; she will even overturn Mr Wilcox’s considerations!

They want to impose a five-year sunset clause on the compulsion powers, without review. There are some compulsory powers that the inspectorate can use. They are needed to shift the culture, but Ms Gillard is going to remove them irrespective of whether or not there has been a sufficient change in culture—which means, of course, that the government never had any intention of keeping its promise to keep a strong cop on the construction beat.

What did Labor promise? They promised: there will always be a strong cop on the beat. Well, not if this bill gets passed—another broken election promise—because they are proposing to switch off, site by site, the coercive powers of the construction cop. So some sites will be removed from the scope of the inspectorate.

This broken promise is supported by an ALP national conference resolution that Labor ‘does not believe these powers should have a continuing role’. So Ms Gillard is confronted with a solemn promise that she made to the people of Australia and a dictate from the national conference of the ALP dominated by the trade union movement. Guess who wins. Each and every time it will be the union dominated Labor Party national conference and not the promise she and Mr Rudd made so solemnly to the Australian people.

If you are concerned about what she is doing wait for this: all the penalties will be reduced by two-thirds. The penalties are going to be like petty cash, especially for those unions like the CFMEU, which gave Mr Rudd and the Labor Party $500,000 during the 2007 federal election campaign. They will now think that these fines are just laughable. What is a $6,600 fine to a trade union official or individual when he is handing over $500,000 cheques to the Labor Party for their use in election campaigns? They will be laughing all the way, and Ms Gillard knows it.

Then, just to make sure that this so-called tough cop on the beat has absolutely nothing left to do, they have also narrowed the definition of ‘industrial action’. The bill also removes the coercion and undue pressure provisions which provide protection from such behaviour greater than under the Fair Work Act 2009. These provisions are designed to stop bullying of companies and workers. Why would you remove those sorts of provisions? Everybody knows that bullying occurs on the work sites. The stories are there for all to read in the Herald Sun and other newspapers as to what happens at the West Gate Bridge and the Royal Children’s Hospital construction site in Victoria and what happens in Western Australia. We know what goes on. We know that bullying occurs. So why would you remove provisions that deal with exactly that issue? It is so that people like Joe Macdonald and Kevin Reynolds can do as they want in exchange for the policy considerations that they obtain, no doubt, in their discussions with Mr Rudd, after Labor’s $500,000 gift from the CFMEU.

This means that a building company or their employees can be subjected to coercion or undue pressure from militant unions without that behaviour being illegal. In other words, the culture of bullying will be allowed to exist by removing this provision from the legislation. You have to ask why Labor wants to give a green light for these practices to return. Why do they say that bullying people in workplaces should be acceptable? It is because the people who do the bullying are the people who bankroll the Australian Labor Party. Sure, Mr Rudd was meek and mild. He appeared on these TV advertisements saying, ‘I’m an economic conservative.’ But what we did not see on those TV advertisements was the secret meeting that he had with the CFMEU where certain undertakings were given. Nor did we find out before the election that the CFMEU had quietly slipped $500,000 to the ALP campaign kitty. I trust that this year, an election year, Mr Rudd will have TV advertisements showing that secret meeting with the CFMEU and the handing over of the money, with him saying, ‘Yeah, I’ve changed my mind on all that.’ But of course he will not. He just hopes that these issues will go away.

We on the coalition side will stand up for individual workers and will stand up for the small contractors. It has been interesting in this debate on the ABCC that in general terms big business and big unions do not seem to mind that sort of a culture. They are big and ugly enough to look after themselves. There is an African proverb that says that when two elephants mate the grass gets trampled. When big unions and big business get together, it is the individual workers and the small business contractors who get trampled. We in the coalition stand on the side of individual workers. We stand on the side of small, independent contractors. That is why we will be opposing this bill with all the vigour that we can muster. We invite the crossbenchers, especially Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon, to join with us in the rejection of this legislation, which is a complete and utter breach of the election promise taken to the Australian people by Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard and which will see the reintroduction of even worse bullying and thuggery and the sorts of items that the MUA have been able to force out of employers. We will be opposing this legislation every step of the way.