Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Tony Abbott is so prevalent in this debate that it is hard not to use his name so casually when referring to the drafting of this legislation. Mr Abbott's whole persona is in this legislation. It is Mr Abbott's legislation that is now being prosecuted desperately by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.

However, let me return to how undemocratic this legislation is. It undermines the basic rights of construction workers to be treated equally under the law. It does things like take away their right to silence. Heavens above, why is that needed? We have the common law in this country that everybody has to abide by. If somebody is not abiding by it then you tell the police and they will go in, investigate, charge, arrest and prosecute. Why are we making a particular group in the Australian community suffer more than other ordinary everyday Australians? It is beyond me. The government has not provided the evidence or a clear case at all of why this is needed.

One thing the Greens will do throughout this debate has been spoken about several times by my colleagues already, but I want to reiterate. We oppose this legislation—we always have and we always will—however, if it gets through to the committee stage, we will move some amendments to try to make things at least a little bit better. One of those things is really important for my home state of South Australia. That of course is the code to mandate the use of Australian steel. We know the steelworks in Whyalla are under immense pressure. We have construction projects right across the country, many of which are commissioned by state and federal governments and relevant agencies. If we are going to go so far as to implement particular building codes then let us ensure that it is mandated that 90 per cent of construction uses Australian steel. That would keep our steelworks in business and ensure that we do not see further deterioration of our steel industry. It is something that would be very important for South Australia—in particular, for Whyalla—but it would also have positive knock-on effects across the country. We know there are also steelworks under pressure in New South Wales, and it would go some way towards dealing with those issues as well.

The reality is that this legislation is one of the cruddiest, nastiest and most pathetic pieces of legislation that this parliament has had to deal with in a long time. We have debated it before. This issue has been hanging around since Tony Abbott was desperate to bring it back when he was Prime Minister, but it did not pass this parliament previously; it was rejected strongly by this chamber previously. Now, because there is some change in the make-up of the membership and the various voices being represented here, Malcolm Turnbull wishes to bring it back. The bill itself has not changed. It has not got any better—in fact, you would almost argue it has worsened, because the government's arguments and position for why we need this little piece of legislation have gotten weaker and weaker as the days, weeks and months have gone on.

I am not just concerned about the elements of this legislation that treat construction workers as second-class citizens and second-class workers in this country; I am very concerned for the safety and livelihoods of young workers on these construction sites. I was in Adelaide only a few months ago when there was another death on the construction site of the new Adelaide Hospital. It is not okay that we see workers, young or old, with families, sons and daughters of everyday Australians, going off to work in the morning and not coming back at night because an accident on the worksite which could have been avoided has cost them their life. What are we going to do when young people on these sites are too intimidated to speak up and confront their boss when their boss says: 'Nah, don't worry about it, mate, it'll be fine. She'll be right'? What are you going to say to the mother or the father of a young worker who dies on a construction site because the safety checks and balances are just not there?

It is about building a culture that promotes advocacy and safety. It is about trying to ensure that our young people, who we desperately need in this sector and in this industry, know that they are going to be looked after when they get there, that they are not going to be abused and treated appallingly, and that there are people who will listen to them when they say: 'No, I don't want to get up that high. I don't think that scaffolding is safe.' Who is going to stand up for these overtired and delirious young workers, pushed to work extraordinary hours in order to finish the job, with the pressures of deadlines, if the government has stripped away their ability so speak for themselves? If their unions are beaten up and kept off site, who will they turn to then? We are setting up a recipe for disaster for young construction workers right across this country, the moment this piece of legislation enters the parliament.

While Senator Leyonhjelm might want to trade off his vote for the ABCC, thinking it is a bill on the ABC—his chance to get stuck into the national broadcaster—and Mr Abbott is rubbing his hands together in glee because he cannot believe his luck that his two favourite things are going to happen at once, the young workers on our construction sites are the ones who are going to suffer. It is their parents and their loved ones—perhaps their young children—who will wake up the next day and realise that the deaths on our building sites could have been avoided if the culture had been different and if people could have spoken up and refused to work in dangerous circumstances, and if there had been independent inspection and analysis about how safe things really were on those sites.

The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 is about union-bashing for the government, but for the rest of us it is about protecting the rights of workers, particularly those young people who we desperately need to give an opportunity to get back into the workforce, and about the protection of proper safety regulation and implementation so that they can do their job properly. I do not want to see this setting a precedent, where every time a government cannot argue their case, they start to trade away basic elements in other areas, whether it is our national broadcaster; the importation of guns, for heaven's sake; or, indeed, dropping legal challenges outside of the parliament in order to secure people's vote. This is inducement at its most sickening level, and if we had a national ICAC—which we should—this type of carry-on and deal-making would not cut it.