Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Pursuant to order, I present the report of the Education and Employment References Committee on the Australian Building and Construction Commission, including the provisions of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 and any related bills, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

These ABCC bills have quite a history. As the Senate is aware, it is the second introduction by the government of such draconian laws to an industry and it has absolutely failed on both occasions to show due cause why we need such draconian legislation. Last year in December the legislative committee recommended that the bills re-establishing the ABCC be passed. However, the legislative committee did not have the benefit of a significant body of material that this committee, the references committee, has received in evidence through its three hearings, evidence that clearly undermines the case for the re-establishment of the ABCC.

In December last year the government and the supporters of these bills wanted the Senate to simply abandon its role to scrutinise, and simply pass the bills. The legislation committee was given a very short time in which to consider the bills, just 18 days to hear from submitters and produce a report. Indeed, submitters were rushed too, having a mere eight days to prepare submissions and gather evidence, and they were expected in that time to cover a wide range of complex matters. Then, there was only one public hearing, with just 3½ hours available to the committee to hear evidence from a very wide range of submitters who had very different points of view.

Since the tabling of the legislative committee report on 2 December 2013, the second report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has been tabled and, shortly after the tabling of the legislative committee report, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills report was also tabled. Both of these reports have raised very, very serious concerns which go to the limitation, curtailment and, indeed, extinguishment of a wide range of the civil, human and political rights of people working in the building and construction industry, and both of those committees have written to the Minister for Education and Employment seeking detailed evidence to support the government's assertions that the interference with human rights contained in the bills is necessary, reasonable and proportional. However, the government has yet to provide responses to the concerns of either of these committees and the minister's submissions to this inquiry of the references committee did not provide sufficient details or quality to satisfy the high standard—and there should be a high standard—of proof required to establish that human rights should be interfered with in the manner in which it is intended in the ABCC bills.

Throughout the references committee inquiry we heard evidence from the department and the minister, the Master Builders Association and the Australian Industry Group. We had an academic paper from Professor Peetz. We heard from a range of unions, but in particular the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union gave evidence, as did the Maritime Union of Australia, and then we heard the evidence of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the ACTU. That evidence, as the Senate can imagine, was quite different, quite polarising. But what I want to say here today is that the evidence of the minister and the department, the MBA and the AiG was really quite inflated and did not go to facts or evidence to support the reintroduction of such draconian legislation, legislation which goes to the very heart of people's human rights. Certainly the CFMEU, the MUA and the ACTU said time after time that their approach as trade unions and, indeed, the peak body of trade unions, had a zero tolerance towards any form of corruption and, whilst that was put on the record, the MBA, the AiG and the minister completely disregarded the views of the unions and the ACTU about their attitudes towards corruption or alleged corruption in the building and construction industry.

It seemed that the MBA, the AiG and the department relied on one single report, a report by a company known formerly as Econtech, and now known as Independent Economics, which is flawed factually. That has been acknowledged by a range of bodies but in particular it has been completely discredited by Professor Peetz in both the submission to the references committee but also in an academic peer-reviewed paper that Professor Peetz reviewed. It goes to the heart of two key areas. One of the issues that the government and the MBA on behalf of the government kept putting was the notion of productivity gain, claiming just a little over nine per cent productivity gain during the life of the ABCC. Despite the fact that Professor Peetz in a methodical academic way completely discredited the nine per cent claim, the facts did not alter the views of the minister.

The productivity gain starts off by comparing the domestic building industry with the multistorey CBD industry and it looks at a variety of building work that is done. One of the areas it looks at is the putting up of a wall. We know in our domestic building sector, particularly with housing, the architectural design of those houses does not change very much, that every second or third or fourth house is simply rearranged on the block or changed slightly—almost building by numbers. Yet, Econtech, or Independent Economics, took the building of a wall in the domestic situation and compared that to the building of a wall in a multistoreyed, uniquely architecturally designed building and came up with a cost. The cost was designed by simply phoning building companies, calling building companies who operate in a competitive environment, and asking them how much that cost. On the basis of that, they came up with this absolutely flawed and discredited number on productivity, and nobody who regards themselves as a rigorous academic agrees with that number for productivity.

The other area that we heard a lot about from the MBA and the government was this issue of lawlessness. In fact, they tried at one point to hold up a graph that supported and reported the number of lost days in the sector. In evidence, the CFMEU told us that in most of their enterprise bargaining a large majority of it is conducted without any authorised industrial stoppages, which are absolutely authorised under the current Fair Work Act. And what the government tried to do was take that lost days statistic, although it was not able to say which were authorised days and which were not, and say somehow there was lawlessness in the building industry.

So the government has completely failed on every single test to give any credible factual evidence to support the reintroduction of harsh laws that go to the very heart of people's human rights. Indeed, the minister is on the record as saying it is going to combat this alleged lawlessness in the building industry, and yet it only ever goes to civil penalties despite it using coercive powers—coercive powers which community and human rights organisations have said are completely over the top in terms of what they seek to do. I am pleased to say that the majority report of the committee has rejected these bills out of hand, and the government should now simply remove them from the Senate.