Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

The bills that the Senate is currently debating are the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2]. These bills, if passed, will re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission known as the ABCC.

The parliament has been recalled by the Governor-General expressly for the purpose of allowing the Senate to consider and deal with important pieces of legislation, one of which is the re-establishment of the ABCC. Prior to the 2013 federal election the government committed to re-establishing the ABCC, to restore the rule of law to this vital sector of the Australian economy that has been beset by a culture of industrial unlawfulness and thuggery. Through a previous committee reference, the Senate delayed consideration of these bills by engaging in an excessive use of parliamentary procedures designed to stall the consideration of the bills. Any further delay in considering this important consideration would be unreasonable and would be a clear indication of the Senate's proper law-making function.

It is time for senators to declare their positions and vote on the bills. The need to re-establish the ABCC is clear and evident. The building and construction industry has shown by its widely reported infamous and scandalous reputation and conduct that it stands apart from others, in terms of a culture of disregard for the rule of law and a preparedness to break industrial laws. The catalogue of court decisions illustrates the reality of the construction industry that—for some of the key players—breaking industrial laws has not only become the norm but also is a preferred and favoured business model.

The government is determined to make it clear that no-one should be above the law. In the context of the rampant industrial unlawfulness we see in this sector the parliament has two options in considering these bills. The first is that the Senate can bury its head in the sand and deny there is a problem. It can try and distract the Australian people from the damage the lawlessness in this sector is doing to jobs, workers, the economy and our international reputation. The second is to finally do the responsible thing, act in the national interest and pass these bills. Unfortunately, it is all too clear that the Australian Labor Party and the Greens will continue to blindly walk the path that they have been told to walk by their owners and controllers, the CFMEU, irrespective of the harm done to the rights of individuals and the Australian economy.

The need for the ABCC and the case supporting its establishment is stronger today, in 2016, than it was when the bills were introduced in 2013. We read in countless pages of court decisions and royal commission findings of the tactics of intimidation, aggression and standover thuggery that are regularly deployed in this industry. We have read in countless pages of Hansard in this place how the Labor Party and the Greens will defend even the worst examples of this deplorable behaviour. The Heydon royal commission also reconfirmed and reinforced the findings of the Cole royal commission, which reported in 2003. Both royal commissions identified systemic unlawful conduct in the building and construction industry, in particular in the construction division of the CFMEU, including physical and verbal violence, threats, intimidation, abuse of right-of-entry permits, secondary boycotts, breaches of fiduciary duty and contempt for the law.

This is the conduct that senators opposite are condoning and supporting in refusing to address this issue. Unsurprisingly, given their well-documented contempt for the rule of law, there are currently 109 CFMEU representatives either before the courts, the Fair Work Commission or both. Since 2003 the courts have imposed fines of almost $7 million on the CFMEU and its officials for proven breaches of the law. Many of the officials before the courts have been found guilty of breaches of workplace laws on multiple occasions.

It is clear from these statistics that despite being brought before the courts again and again and significant penalties—almost $7 million—being imposed, the current laws do not deter the CFMEU from breaking the law. They treat the imposition of penalties as merely the cost of doing business.

You may well ask how this unlawful business model has been allowed to develop. Unfortunately, one crucial factor is that the CFMEU, last year alone, donated $720,000 to the Labor Party. Since 2007 it has filled the coffers of the Labor Party to the tune of $7.1 million. It is no coincidence, then, that at the behest of the CFMEU the Labor Party and those opposite remain wilfully indifferent to the victims of CFMEU thuggery, intimidation and violence in the building industry.

They are also indifferent to the benefits that a lawful industry will provide to the Australian people and the Australian economy. It is no coincidence that in response to demands from the CFMEU Labor recklessly abolished the ABCC in 2012. What occurred only weeks later? It triggered unprecedented industrial action. Almost immediately we saw the CFMEU, assisted by the maritime and electrical unions, shut down parts of the Melbourne CBD in a violent and criminal display of contempt for the law. We here—everybody here in the gallery today—have to comply with the laws that apply in our workplaces. If we do not, there are consequences. Why is it that in one sector in particular in Australia the laws are not complied with and the penalties that are then put in place clearly do not deter that bad behaviour?

When Mr Shorten and Labor abolished the ABCC and slashed the applicable fines by two thirds, what did they honestly believe was going to happen? What we have now seen is a worsening of the industrial lawlessness, intimidation, thuggery and culture of fear, thanks to Labor's subservience to the CFMEU. Almost every state in Australia has graphic examples of thuggery and bullying by key CFMEU officials. These are not allegations: they are proven facts, as found by the Federal Court. During the last sitting period I outlined in this place example after appalling example of blatant industrial unlawfulness, aggression and thuggery by senior CFMEU officials, repeated breaches of workplace entry laws, unlawful coercion, wildcat strikes and threatening individual workers and small subcontractors with financial ruin if they do not do what the CFMEU tells them to do.

This kind of unlawful behaviour underpins the culture of fear and intimidation which is the mainstay of the business model practised by some union leaders in the construction industry and which the Labor Party, by its failure to condemn, effectively endorses. The excuses proffered by Labor on behalf of their union masters have only encouraged and motivated the CFMEU to continue to break workplace laws. It is little wonder that one Federal Court judge recently posed the following question about the CFMEU: 'Has there ever been a worse recidivist in the history of the common law?' When the level of repeat offending by such a key player in the building industry gets so bad that a Federal Court judge had to ask that question, it is incumbent on government—in fact it is incumbent on all policymakers—to take steps to address the appalling state of affairs in the construction sector.

The building and construction sector is in dire need of a stand-alone civil regulator with appropriate powers enforcing effective laws to bring the rule of law to the sector. Prior to the abolition of the ABCC by Labor, the economic and industrial performance of the building and construction sector improved. The facts, as demonstrated by ABS data, show that in the years before the ABCC was established in 2005 the industrial dispute rate in the construction sector was five times the all industries average. During the operation of the ABCC from 2005 to 2012, the rate of disputes in the construction industry dropped to twice the all industries average—five times down to twice. After the abolition of the ABCC by the former Labor government, the rate of disputes in the construction industry rose to approximately four times the all industries average. So before the ABCC it was five times; during the ABCC it was two times; and once the ABCC was abolished it jumped back to four times. The ABS data also shows that during the operation of the ABCC the labour productivity index for the construction industry increased by 20 per cent in contrast to the 16 market sector industries index, which only increased by 11 per cent. The evidence shows that when the ABCC existed from 2005 to 2012, the economic and industrial performance of the building and construction sector improved. That had flow-on benefits to all Australian.

There are some detractors, of course, and I am sure we will hear from them today, who would have us believe that having a strong, independent workplace regulator to enforce industrial laws in the building and construction sector has no impact on productivity in the industry. However, as Commissioner Heyden found, the logic of events indicates that the conduct of unions in imposing blockades and work stoppages has a profoundly negative influence on productivity. A lawful construction industry is critical to a productive, prosperous and internationally competitive Australia. Unfortunately, from the ABS data we see that two-thirds of all industrial disputes were in the construction sector in the last reporting period. The reality is that the level of industrial unlawfulness in this sector adds to the cost of every project. So Australians are paying more for every hospital, every school, every job-creating research project and every piece of public infrastructure because of the state of unlawfulness of the building and construction sector within Australia. Australians pay more. It is a fact that when projects can be delivered on time and on budget this encourages more investment, which results in more projects, more jobs, more public infrastructure and greater economic activity. Everybody benefits from lawfulness in the building and construction sector. Workers, businesses, consumers and the public all reap the benefits when you restore law and order to the building and construction industry.

Since ABCC was made into the Fair Work Building & Construction inspectorate, we on this side of the chamber have been committed to its restoration. We are committed to a productive, safe, successful and lawful construction industry. This is the nation's third largest employer. It employs more than one million people. One in 10 Australians rely on their job through the building and construction industry. What we will do is reverse Labor's reckless weakening of the laws in 2012. Once again, we will have a genuinely strong watchdog on the beat to maintain the rule of law. And what does maintaining the rule of law in this sector do? It protects workers, it protects subcontractors and, of course, it improves productivity on building sites and construction projects. Re-establishing the ABCC is important to halting the ongoing slide into the lawlessness that has been shown to be the hallmark of some elements of the building and construction industry.

These bills and the measures in them have been considered and reconsidered on numerous occasions now. Despite this, there still remains many untruths that vested interests continue to peddle, including by those opposite. The first is in relation to safety. I want to make one point on safety very clear: the bill does not contain any provision that would prevent legitimate safety issues in the building industry from being raised and addressed by employees, unions or state and territory work and health and safety regulators. It has not been, currently is not and will not be industrial action for a worker to stop work because of a reasonable concern over an imminent safety risk. The standard used in the ABCC bill is the standard that currently applies under Labor's Fair Work Act. Suggestions that the ABCC was responsible for workplace deaths or that members of the government would be happy to see workers die are not only completely false but without any foundation and, quite frankly, offensive to those who have lost loved ones. They show, of course, that Labor and the CFMEU will stoop to abominable and dishonest levels to ensure that this watchdog is not re-established.

There has also been a great deal of misinformation—and, again, I referred to it in my address in reply—in the CFMEU's latest campaign highlighting a drug dealer. The misinformation being peddled by the unions and the Labor Party is in respect to the proposed compulsory powers of the ABCC. The fact is that the ABCC compulsory powers are not new or unique. They are provisions that Labor included in legislation when it provided such powers to the current regulator, the Fair Work Building & Construction commission. So let us be very clear on that: the information that could be obtained under the proposed ABCC laws is the same information that can currently be obtained under Labor's laws. What is more, these evidence- and information-gathering powers are the same types of powers already held by other civil regulators including ASIC, APRA and the ACCC.

Why are these powers necessary in the building and construction industry? Simply put, it is because there is a culture of fear, intimidation and silence for fear of reprisal and retribution in this sector. The reality is that witnesses, and very often victims themselves, do not speak out, and refuse to deal with the regulator for fear of retribution and being targeted for cooperating with authorities. In the building industry, potential witnesses and whistleblowers are routinely threatened against reporting unlawful conduct. As one CFMEU official, Gerard Benstead, said to a Melbourne builder who he was standing over: 'Don't go talking to the ABCC. If Johnny Setka ever hears about that, then that will be the end of it. If they'—the CFMEU—'hear about the fact that you are talking to them and running to them every time—if you go running to the ABCC—forget about it. That will be the worst move you ever make.' The compulsory powers—the same powers that Labor currently has—are necessary to see that justice is done, and to shield witnesses and victims; to give them protection when they stand up and do the right thing and speak out against unlawful and coercive conduct.

The coalition government is committed to doing all that is necessary to reform the building and construction industry and to reinstitute the rule of law in this sector. There is a clear choice: it is a choice between thuggery and fairness, it is a choice between the rule of law and lawlessness, and it is a choice between the public interest versus the interest of some of the most corrupt union officials in Australia. I commend the bills to the Senate.