Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill and the Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill. With these bills, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull shows that he is no different to his predecessors Mr Tony Abbott and Mr John Howard. Despite his attempt to be an agile and innovative Prime Minister, which he said he was going to be, all he has at his disposal are the failed ideas of the past. All he can propose to improve productivity are tax cuts for big businesses and the removal of workers' rights. All he has are the failed ideological and politically-motivated attacks of years past.

These bills will take us back to the dark old days of the Work Choices era, where the Australian Building and Construction Commission, or the ABCC, will be brought back from the dead. These bills present a plan to restore a failed body that was built on flawed premises and that will demonise construction industry workers and those who represent them and do nothing—absolutely nothing—to improve productivity or safety on building sites.

Under this legislation, the ABCC will have extreme and unnecessary powers—powers that fundamentally compromise basic civil liberties. The new ABCC could compel ordinary workers to attend secret meetings. Not only that, they could be threatened with imprisonment in order to get information. They would have no access to legal representation and they would have no right to remain silent. They would have no right to protection from self-incrimination and no right to even tell their family. These are people who would not have committed a crime, but who would be treated worse than criminals. Let's be clear: there is no other worker in the federal system that will have this sort of draconian regime imposed on them. It is fundamentally undemocratic to impose this only on workers in the building and construction industry.

These bills will restrict freedom of association, expression and privacy. The bills will give inspectors the power to enter residential premises without consent or warrant. This would be reasonable in situations of emergency, serious danger to public health, or where there is a serious threat to national security. However, there is no evidence that entering the homes of building and construction workers and union officials would constitute such a reasonable situation.

While the stripping of these rights is terrible, it is nothing on the move within these bills to reverse the onus of proof. Under these bills, a legal burden of proof is placed on workers to prove that any action they are involved in is not industrial action but based on health and safety concerns. This can have huge implications for the reporting of safety issues, as it is often very difficult to prove a safety issue. As a result, workers may avoid discussing health and safety issues out of fear of slipping up when reporting their concerns and facing the full face of the law for simply raising a safety issue to try to protect their colleagues.

It is clear that this Prime Minister does not care about safety on work sites. It is clear that this Prime Minister does not care about fundamental rights—rights of freedom of association, expression and privacy; the right to a fair hearing; and the right to a fair go. This Prime Minister only cares about appeasing those in industry who do not value workers and who want to strip away basic protections and basic rights in their quest to accumulate more and more wealth while their workers are killed and injured and their projects are not built to the standards the community expects.

I note that there is already an organisation called the Fair Work Building and Construction inspectorate. The inspectorate regulates the workplace laws that govern the building and construction industry, regulations which those opposite seem to ignore in their ideological and politically-motivated attacks on construction trade unions in this country. They would have the public believe that there are currently no regulations in place to oversee the management of construction trade unions in this country. In doing so, they present a false argument that their proposal is the only way to improve governance of construction trade unions, when in actual fact their agenda is clearly to undermine and attack the ability of construction trade unions to advocate on behalf of Australian workers.

It is clear that the ABCC's building code will discourage the employment of apprentices and local workers and prevent unions from ensuring workers are safe. The code, which sits beside the legislation, not only applies to construction sites but also to all employees working in the private sector for the organisation tendering for government work and all organisations that supply prefabricated materials. The code prevents an employer and unions from including certain clauses in an enterprise bargaining agreement.

The code will limit the employment of apprentices. This will prevent many young Australians from taking up a trade. The code will not require employers look for local workers first. This will allow employers to bring in and exploit cheap overseas labour instead of employing young Australians. The code will allow for unlimited ordinary working hours. This will lead to fatigue, lead to the exploitation of workers, lead to workers missing important family events and lead to more deaths and injuries as a result of worker fatigue. The code will prohibit clauses that permit union officials from visiting a site to assist with a dispute settlement process at the request of an employer. This is despite the property owner's right to invite whomever they want onto their premises. The code will prevent site inductions by union members and delegates, despite general occupational health and safety requirements that all persons are inducted. The code will prevent limits on labour hire and casual work, which will disrupt the lives of many construction workers as they are pushed from permanent to casual work.

It is no coincidence that the Prime Minister sat this bill with the registered organisations bill as double dissolution triggers—bills that will do tremendous damage to collectivism in this country, that will make workplaces less safe, that will make organising workers to bargain together for fair a pay rise even harder, that will put at risk hard-won working conditions, and that will add a layer of stress to workers around their ability, or lack thereof, to speak up at work.

The Australian people can see the damage these bills will do to our society. They are not fools. That is why the Prime Minister and those opposite did not talk about these bills at all during the election campaign. The bills were used as a trigger for a double dissolution and quietly placed in the top drawer. The election was set up as a debate on the merits of these bills. The double dissolution was used by the Prime Minister so that he would not have to negotiate with the opposition and minor parties. Yet, the only days these bills were mentioned during the election campaign were day one and day 55. It is disgraceful! Despite the Prime Minister's assurances of their importance to the future of the nation, the bills were not mentioned by those opposite during the bulk of the eight-week election campaign.

But, all of a sudden, these so-called vital reforms were pushed aside. The Prime Minister knows the Australian people do not support these bills. That is why they were tucked away for the winter, so desperate were those opposite to have these bills passed without amendment. There is a lot of talk by those opposite of misleading campaign tactics by their opponents, yet what is more misleading than to call an election on a specific issue only to never mention that issue during the election campaign? What is more misleading than to hold a politically-motivated, ideologically-driven belief that these changes are vital for the future of this country and yet not spend the time explaining the changes to the Australian people?

The bills have been available for the Prime Minister to pass unamended through a joint sitting of the Senate and the House of Representatives for over four months—a unique event that would garner much attention across the community. So, of course, it is an event that the Prime Minister is avoiding at all costs. Here we are, months after the election, debating the bills which the Prime Minister used to trigger the double dissolution. But we are not doing it in a joint sitting. No, we are back in the Senate for the fourth time in four years. This situation of public silence but parliamentary uproar is a tremendous irony. If these bills are so important, Prime Minister, why don't you explain them to the Australian people? Why doesn't your government take the Australian people through the current regulations and how the amendments will supposedly improve governance and accountability? Because, to do so would be to recognise that there are regulations in place that are reasonable. They are already there.

There is always room for improvement, but, on the whole, the regulations are working. Why? It is clear that the regulations must be working, because the bill before us today does not incorporate any findings from the government's wasteful $80 million royal commission into trade unions. This bill includes the same set of amendments to the act that those opposite had proposed before the establishment of the royal commission. How could such an expensive exercise yield so little in a policy sense? And if the royal commission did point to necessary changes, then where are they? Why is this bill identical to that proposed in the last parliament and why is it being debated in the Senate and not in a joint sitting?

Despite this bill being the trigger used to call the early election, an election in which the Prime Minister lost a large number of members and senators, it is rarely raised by members opposite in the community. It is even rarer for a member of the community to raise their support of this bill with me. When people are angry, we hear them. We hear them when we are door knocking and when we are walking down the street. We receive phone calls, emails and petitions. Yet, the only interactions I receive on this issue are from people saying that the Prime Minister and his government are overreaching with this bill. Instead of praising this bill, people tell me that it will have drastic implications for construction workers, it will decimate their ability to raise basic issues of safety, it will destroy protections for their current working conditions and it will hang a cloud over all workers in the construction industry, as they could be treated worse than criminals if they speak up.

I can assure the Senate that Labor will do everything it can to support and protect Australian jobs and workplace entitlements. Labor will not support politically motivated witch-hunts that are designed to kill off workers' rights. While those opposite like to talk about jobs and growth, when context is added, it is clear that their latest three-word slogan is code for less secure jobs and less equal growth. In comparison, Labor has placed inclusive prosperity at the core of our agenda. It is a positive agenda, which focuses on improving job security, addressing the challenges of the changing world, taking steps to ensure growth at all levels of the income scale and ensuring adequate support for those not in the workforce.

Almost two million Australians are members of trade unions, organisations that have for over a century advocated for positive social change and organisations that are managed by members, for members. They are not for profit and not for personal gain, but to ensure that their members are safe at work, receive appropriate remuneration for their labour and return home to their families safely after each shift. Those opposite like to ridicule unions and use the actions of a few to mock the millions of Australians who are union members. The conservatives of Australian politics seek to push an agenda where collectivism is admonished. They fail to recognise many of the very best parts of the fabric of Australian society were created because of the collective spirit of Australian workers, through trade unions.

Whether they belong to a union or not, Australians know and appreciate the benefits of collectivism, beginning with a generous social compact comprised of:    decent conditions at work; occupational health and safety, and workers compensation; the weekend itself and penalty rates for working on it or at other unsociable hours; annual leave and sick pay; parental, carers and domestic violence leave; Medicare and the foregone wage increases to pay for it; a good education and support for children; and universal superannuation that provides for a good retirement. Instead of increasing the barriers to collectivism in Australia, we need governments that place a greater emphasis on how together we can solve the big challenges of today. Instead of attacking all volunteers and members of trade unions, we need governments to get on with creating an environment where unions are protected and can shine. Instead, we have the Turnbull government and this bill, which is just an attack on the members and officials of construction trade unions.

People in the community see this bill for what it is: a direct attack on working Australians and their ability to collectively organise. It is an attack that seeks to further divide this country. This attack on workers' rights will undermine opportunities for Australians to collectively bargain and be represented by a union. It will see management get richer and workers faced with lower wages, worse conditions and unsafe workplaces. It is clear that the Prime Minister and his government seek to foster an environment where work continues to become less secure and where inequality continues to increase. We hear it in the rhetoric from the Prime Minister and in his blatant disregard for the welfare of many Australian workers who, through no fault of their own, are losing their jobs in this rapidly changing world.

Instead of being that agile, innovative leader, this bill demonstrates that the Prime Minister represents nothing more than the tired ideological arguments of years past. Prime Minister, the reforms you espouse do not guarantee enduring economic success for Australian workers. Prime Minister, the trickle-down economics of tax cuts for business and reduced workplace rights that you wish to push on the Australian people will not miraculously increase our nation's wealth. But Prime Minister, you are correct in one assertion: your policies will create winners and losers in the near term.

This bill is just one in the suite of measures that form part of the Prime Minister's jobs and growth plan. It is a plan that works well as a three-word slogan. But if it is passed without amendments, we will see any increased economic growth further concentrated in the hands of the few at the top and we will see wages stagnate, working conditions continue to slide and productivity failing to improve. This government's recipe for improving the Australian economy is to undermine unions, remove workers' rights, remove workers' ability to collectively organise and provide massive tax cuts for big businesses, while cutting skills, training and research programs.

Together, these measures will only ensure one thing: that the Australia of tomorrow is not a land of opportunity for all, but a land of opportunity for those with means. It will be a land where the extra profits from lower taxes will go to higher dividends and share buybacks and the only employees set for wage rises are those in executive positions. Prime Minister, the losers from your policies will be Australian workers and their families. Asserting that the Australian people must accept being losers in your agile, innovative economy and that the Australian people must accept reduced living standards and reduced rights at work so that you can provide tax cuts and more power to big businesses demonstrates that you are no different from your predecessors, Mr Abbott and Mr Howard. Prime Minister, you continually demonstrate that you have no appreciation of the hard labour and sacrifice of Australian workers, and no inclusive plan for the future of work and life in this country. Your philosophy of letting the market rip, by the magic touch of an invisible hand, will not solve our challenges and it will not absolve your responsibility for those left behind. The poor and the marginalised cannot be set aside as collateral damage in your pursuit of economic growth. And it is not a matter of accepting your false dichotomy that we must follow your plan or face deteriorating living standings. Australians are smarter than that. They deserve better leadership, particularly from a Prime Minister who, in challenging for the role, said:

We need advocacy, not slogans. We need to respect the intelligence of the Australian people.

How quickly the mighty can fall. The bill before us today is exactly the same as that which was negatived on numerous occasions by the previous Senate. Yet, instead of taking that identical bill to a joint sitting, which was the key point for the double dissolution election, the bill before us was rammed through the House of Representatives. Senators then took advantage of our committee processes, and a short inquiry into the bills was conducted. The committee reported over six weeks ago, and since that time the government has had a number of different positions on how it would proceed—so much for the stable government the Prime Minister promised in September last year. I urge senators to vote against the bills.