Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz's purported 12 reasons are not at all convincing. But why would we let the facts get in the way of a good story? Some senators here, I am sure, will recall someone who was, without doubt, the most partisan workplace relations minister in Australia's parliamentary history: Peter Reith. Senator Abetz refers to lies and forked tongues. I would refer senators to the waterfront disputes and the dogs on wharves. I would also refer senators to the 'children overboard' affair and Minister Reith's role there, when in a different portfolio to workplace relations. He certainly had a pattern of bad behaviour and is, without doubt, the most partisan workplace relations minister we have ever seen.

But the opposition have suggested that there is a militancy problem. They have also suggested that there is a flexibility problem and a productivity problem, to justify taking the Australian people back to the Dark Ages on workplace relations, although most recently Mr Abbott has sought to conceal that that is the real agenda of the opposition.

We know that the first rule of Liberal politics is not to let the facts get in the way of a good story, and that is exactly the case here. So let's run through the facts of what has happened in this area under this government, to get some clearer context. Over 960,000 jobs have been created since Labor came to office—that is, 490 jobs a day for Australian workers. And we do not apologise for prioritising jobs for Australian workers whilst keeping the economy strong and growing.

Productivity growth is superior to what it was under Work Choices. Labour productivity grew by 2.9 per cent in the year 2011-12, significantly above the 2.2 historical average since 1994-95. Productivity growth under the Fair Work Act is around triple—I stress: triple—the rate experienced under the former coalition government's disastrous Work Choices legislation. Work Choices was an example of the kind of slash-and-burn, irresponsible approach that we would return to if the opposition were elected.

Let's look at another area where myths are perpetrated by this opposition: industrial disputation. ABS data shows industrial disputation is down under this government. The opportunistic, short-term comparisons, the cherry-picking, of the opposition has missed the big picture—that industrial disputes have been trending down strongly over time. Despite quarterly fluctuations in data, industrial disputation rates continue to trend downwards from the highs seen during the Howard years. They are now around one-third the rate on average we saw under the Howard government. Importantly, in the building and construction industry—the industry pertinent to this disallowance debate—the rate is on average less than one-fifth of the rate we saw under the Howard government.

Just as those opposite may be uncomfortable with the facts I have just referred to, they are likely to be uncomfortable with the facts about the building code. There is nothing at all new around Commonwealth funds attracting Commonwealth guidelines. Those opposite know that there is nothing new about the Commonwealth setting these rules. Those opposite know there is nothing wrong with the Commonwealth setting the rules about how its money is spent. Ever since the National Code of Practice for the Construction Industry and the implementation guidelines were issued back in 2005, the Commonwealth has set rules applying to Commonwealth funded building work. So what a crock for Senator Abetz to suggest that inconsistency with the Victorian code is something that we should be responsible for—what an absolute crock!

Let's look at the code itself. The code is simple. It sets out the Australian government's expected standards for all building contractors or building industry participants who have been or wish to be involved in construction projects that are directly or indirectly funded by the Australian government, subject to certain financial thresholds. The building code commenced on 1 February this year. It is based on the most recent versions of the Commonwealth's implementation guidelines, which were released in May 2012. This was not rushed. May 2012—that is quite a long time ago.

The introduction of the code presents for the first time a single set of arrangements for contractors and building industry participants that wish to undertake Commonwealth funded work. The capacity to make a legislative instrument like the building code has been included in building industry legislation since the Howard government's 2005 legislation. But, strangely, it had never been used—despite all the rhetoric and ideology you hear from the other side, despite a legislative code being recommended by Justice Murray Wilcox when he reviewed the Commonwealth's building industry regulatory framework and despite employer and employee groups agreeing in their submissions to the Wilcox inquiry that a statutory code was a good thing.

Our building code requires compliance with the law. The code promotes the rule of law in the construction industry, and the minister is supporting the rule of law, despite some of the glib references made in Senator Abetz's contribution. The government is crystal clear on this fact—everyone should comply with the law. The code requires businesses who have tendered for work to which the code applies to comply with all relevant laws, including, for example, laws concerning right of entry, good-faith bargaining and freedom of association. In addition, the code requires contractors and building industry participants to comply with any decisions, directions or orders made by a court or tribunal which applies to them.

This builds on the work of our building industry regulator, Fair Work Building & Construction, an agency which, despite Senator Abetz's comments, is more effective than its highly politicised predecessor. Let me give you one example. The Liberals like to refer to the Grocon dispute—Senator Abetz certainly does. But Fair Work Building & Construction commenced civil proceedings under the government's fair work building laws within six weeks, and that was after thoroughly investigating that event. In comparison, it took the ABCC over six months to file a statement of claim in the Westgate dispute—a very stark comparison.

The government is committed to ensuring Fair Work Building & Construction is resourced to operate effectively, ensuring strong and appropriate regulation of this important industry. Our building code means simpler compliance for contractors. There will be less red tape for those contractors. Previously compliance with different iterations of the implementation guidelines was required. This meant that a contractor working on different projects commencing at different times would have been required to comply with different versions of the implementation guidelines that applied at the time of each project. Under the Building Code 2013, in relation to existing projects a contractor or participant who is compliant with an applicable past guideline will be treated as being compliant with the code. They do not have to take any further action in respect of their current arrangements. The code also cuts red tape by allowing building contractors and industry participants to more easily demonstrate compliance with a range of requirements, including the Fair Work Act and other legislation.

Building industry codes of practice instituted by Liberal state governments on ideological grounds following the Howard government example do not make life simpler for contractors in the building and construction industry. Instead they create confusion, complexity and legal uncertainty for industry participants. For example, the Victorian code implementation guidelines contain provisions that relate to matters already regulated by the code, by the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act and by the Fair Work Act. Whether the application of the Victorian government's guidelines and their implementation constitutes a breach of the Fair Work Act is currently the subject of two separate proceedings before the Federal Court. Those proceedings relate to important community projects such as the Bendigo Hospital redevelopment in Victoria. This does not provide simplicity or certainty for employers or contractors. It does not assist in progressing very important projects, nor does it ensure a strong building sector if key players are excluded for no other reason than this ideological vendetta that the Liberal Party continues, in the past at the federal level but now at the state level.

This motion and this debate show that the opposition will do anything and say anything on workplace relations matters. This is why I was interested to take it right back to the pattern of behaviour demonstrated by Peter Reith when he was the minister. As I said at the outset, they will never let the facts get in the way of a good story—never have, never will. They never let a good policy gets in the way of their ideology either. We saw it with Work Choices and we see it here and now. For these reasons, the government opposes this motion.