Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Building Code 2013 be disallowed.

The Building Code the government has sought to implement needs to be rejected. Firstly, the code was signed off by the minister without any consultation with industry stakeholders. I make that point again—it was without any consultation with industry stakeholders. One has to ask the question: why would a minister for workplace relations do such a thing without consultation? It is because he is acting at the behest of his union masters.

Secondly, the code was announced under cover of Ms Gillard's bizarre election date announcement. In other words, it was announced at a time when it was designed to get as little publicity as possible. Thirdly, the Building Code was designed to deliberately override state codes, such as in Victoria, and did so without consulting the states either.

Fourthly, the Building Code came into effect 48 hours after its announcement. Fifthly, the Building Code does not even have transitional arrangements, which all other previous codes actually had. So why weren't there any transitional arrangements in this code? Sixthly, there is now costly uncertainty as to the applicability of this code to existing projects. Seventhly, despite being a far-reaching regulation, no regulatory impact statement was prepared. Why not? I will come to that again later.

Eighthly, the code mandates compulsory arbitration, something that the Fair Work Act specifically does not mandate. Indeed, compulsory arbitration was specifically ruled out by Ms Gillard as the workplace relations spokesperson before the 2007 election. We will now, as a result, have some enterprise agreements approved and made under Labor's Fair Work Act by the Fair Work Commission which will not be code compliant.

Ninthly, there is uncertainty and confusion in the building sector because builders are now either Victorian state code compliant or Commonwealth code compliant; it is impossible to be compliant with both codes. Therefore, they are only able to tender either for state work or for Commonwealth work. But, as we all know, there are such things as jointly funded projects. So how does that work? Nobody knows because of the indecent haste with which this was rushed through.

Tenthly, the code allows for even wider right-of-entry provisions than the Fair Work Act does. This is on the back of a promise made by Ms Gillard before the 2007 election that there would be no change to the right-of-entry laws. We know that the Fair Work Act expanded the right-of-entry laws in direct breach of that promise made by Ms Gillard. If that were not enough, this Building Code now expands those right-of-entry provisions even further. So strong was Ms Gillard in her stance before the 2007 election that there would be no change to the right-of-entry laws that she said at the National Press Club that she was willing to write it in blood and even that they could take her mother hostage. So much for her mother and what she thinks of her! But the simple fact is that, despite all those protestations by Ms Gillard, she broke that promise to the Australian people. Of course, having broken that promise, it was so very easy then to also make the 'no carbon tax' promise and break it and so many other promises. That has now become the distinguishing feature of this government—namely, broken promises.

Eleventhly, there was no regulatory impact statement because the Office of Best Practice Regulation deemed none was necessary. That is a pretty good out for the government, you would have thought, but for one simple fact: when the Office of Best Practice Regulation was queried about why they came to this determination, they said, 'That is how we were advised by the government—that it was going to have hardly any impact at all and therefore it was not necessary.' So this wonderful Office of Best Practice Regulation simply relies on what the government says to it. For what it is worth, I have written to the Office of Best Practice Regulation setting out all the significant changes, uncertainty and confusion. For them to put their name to a document saying, 'There's not much of a change here, so there is no need for a regulatory impact statement,' unfortunately has embarrassed them by any objective standard. The government cannot hide behind the statement of the Office of Best Practice Regulation because it would be like relying on what they themselves have said. There was not a genuine independent assessment by the OBPR.

Twelfthly, to round out a dozen very good reasons as to why this regulation should be disallowed, the need for an effective code was spelt out by the Cole royal commission, which exposed illegality, thuggery, intimidation and lawlessness in the building and construction sector. It heard from many, many people—workers and contractors—about the illegality, thuggery and intimidation.

And I say to those opposite: you did not have to rely on the Cole royal commission to understand that that happens; all you had to do in recent times was take yourself to the centre of Melbourne and see the Grocon dispute at the Myer Emporium building site, where thugs were not only bashing policemen but also bashing police horses, in circumstances in which the workers—who were CFMEU members—were reduced to taking out an advertisement in the Herald Sun newspaper to plead with their union bosses to stop intimidating them, because they had no problem with their employer. They were satisfied with Grocon; they thought they were being looked after appropriately by Grocon. They had no problems with Grocon. Yet the CFMEU set up a picket and used thugs to intimidate their own members. So you do not need a Cole royal commission to inform you that there is thuggery and intimidation going on.

And, might I add, this picket, this thuggish behaviour, was occurring in circumstances in which the Supreme Court of Victoria had already placed an injunction on the CFMEU ordering them to desist from the picket. So, it was an illegal picket to boot—a breach of the law, lawlessness. Yet what does the Labor Party do in the face of all this evidence? First of all it abolishes the Australian Building and Construction Commission and replaces it with this absolutely lame and weak building inspectorate. But Ms Gillard promised that we would have a tough cop on the beat nonetheless, despite the fact that its powers were diminished and the penalties were reduced. Then last night we had a situation in which this weak and lame building inspectorate had a further $24 million ripped out of it. So Ms Gillard, who says, 'No change to right of entry,' who promises, 'We will not have compulsory arbitration,' who promises that there will be a tough cop on the beat, simply breaks promise after promise. No wonder she could say with such a straight face to the Australian people, 'Oh, I didn't lie about the no-carbon-tax promise.'

Well, the Australian people are waking up to this Prime Minister and this government. Her words and their words mean nothing. They are willing to say and do anything, and this government is only being kept in power because of the likes of the member for New England, Tony Windsor, and the likes of Mr Oakeshott, the member for Lyne, who represent electorates that would be horrified to learn that they are supporters of a government that has gutted the Australian Building and Construction Commission, that has reduced by $24 million the funding to the now weak and lame building inspectorate. But it is Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott, along with the Greens, who are keeping this government in power—this government that breaks promise after promise without any compunction whatsoever.

In the past there was a party called the Australian Democrats represented in this place. They had a motto, courtesy of their founding leader—the former Senator Don Chipp—to 'keep the bastards honest'. Well, the Greens and Mr Windsor and Mr Oakeshott are keeping them dishonest. They are allowing the Labor Party to get away with this dishonesty. So let us have no pretence that this Mr Windsor and this Mr Oakeshott come to the political debates and the policy debates in this place with clean hands. They know that, each and every day, they are voting to sustain this dishonest government, this government that is giving succour and comfort to the extreme leadership of the CFMEU, in the state of Victoria, which breaches Supreme Court injunctions, has illegal pickets and is intimidating its own membership—intimidating workers who want to get to worksites—because of its industrial agendas.

But what else would you expect from a Labor government that has as its Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations a man who cannot bring himself above and beyond the task he used to have—namely, that of being a trade union boss. I have said before and I will say it again: we all have our backgrounds that we bring into this place, but when one accepts a commission from Her Majesty to be a minister of the Crown you have to rise above it, you have to act in the national interest. There is no doubt that Mr Shorten is unable to do so. That is why we have this litany of lies that underpins this new building code. But of course this is the man who spent literally 10 hours in the air to make a 45-minute address to the Maritime Union of Australia conference in Western Australia, which was celebrating 140 years of militancy. The warm-up speaker to Mr Shorten told the assembly that you have to break the law to achieve industrial objectives. And the minister could not bring himself to say, 'I'm sorry but, as a minister of the Crown, I can't condone those words. I dissociate myself from those statements.' He was completely and utterly unable to do so. Why? Because he is still a trade union boss first, and the national interest can come second. That is the legacy of this minister. A minister who is the most partisan workplace relations minister this country has had since Eddie Ward, who was a former Labor minister in this particular area.

This is a building code that is designed to give succour and comfort to the CFMEU. This is a union that has secretly bankrolled all sorts of organisations, including GetUp!. Were union members ever consulted about that? No. This same union, and Victoria Trades Hall, has said to Mr Shorten and the Labor government, 'You bring in compulsory arbitration before the election or we'll consider not bankrolling the marginal seats campaign for the Labor Party.' It is quite clear that, in those circumstances, Mr Shorten and this government always give in to the demands of the trade union bosses rather than doing what is in the national interest.

When Labor established their inspectorate they promised that it would be strong, that it would enforce the rule of law. Well, where was it at the Grocon site, the Myer Emporium site? Where was it at the Queensland Children's Hospital dispute, where for eight weeks no work was done on a site publicly funded to look after the health needs of the children of Queensland? Mr Shorten could not bring himself to say anything about that dispute, or visit. He could take himself up to Queensland to condemn the Newman government, but he could not bring himself to visit that site and condemn what was occurring.

What about the Little Creatures dispute or the City West Water, Melbourne dispute? The list goes on. In an environment where we have an ever-increasing number of days lost due to industrial action in this sector we see the government demolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission and putting in this lame, limp inspectorate, then ripping out a code and trying to replace it with something that is basically a bill of rights for trade union officials. And then last night, this lame, limp inspectorate lost $24 million of funding to ensure that, just in case there was any life left in this toothless mouse, the building inspectorate, it would be squashed out of it. Roughly 20 per cent—18 per cent, to be exact—of its funding was cut in last night's budget.

Yet the government pretend, 'We are firm on this; we want to see the law enforced.' Are they honestly saying to the Australian people that this inspectorate—weak, lame and limp as it was—can still do all that it is required to do with $24 million less? Of course not. I begs the question: why did you waste that $24 million in the first place if they never needed the money? Here we have the government in a dilemma of their own making, because their members speak out of both sides of their mouths. They speak with forked tongues on this issue. They cannot be trusted on this occasion, as on so many other occasions.

I have outlined 12 reasons as to why this disallowance motion should be supported. And, might I add, each one of the 12 reasons that I have stated, of itself, is sufficient to disallow these regulations.