Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Hansard source

Well, what a disgraceful state of affairs we find ourselves in as a country—with the cost of construction in this country going through the roof and an inability to provide key infrastructure to provide new dwellings at an affordable price to the Australian people, especially to young Australians. What a disgraceful state of affairs we find ourselves in. The CFMEU's construction division is a big part and parcel of that.

There was an article written by David Marin-Guzman in the Australian Financial Review on 10 July 2024, which makes for absolutely horrifying reading. The average cost to build a three-bedroom apartment in Queensland is now $1.5 million. That's half a million dollars per bedroom to build a three-bedroom apartment in Queensland. So it's no surprise that, in the middle of a housing supply crisis, we have very poor levels of construction proceeding in terms of apartment building in Queensland at the moment. The supply is depressed. We need more supply, but the construction costs, particularly the costs arising from the CFMEU's construction division requirements, are leading to prohibitive costs, so developers can't actually make it work. You can't make construction of a three-bedroom apartment work at a cost of $1.5 million.

An example is that, in a two-bedroom social housing project in Townsville, it ended up priced at $830,000 to build a two-bedroom dwelling. That doesn't include the price of the land; that's just to build the dwelling. They're two-bedroom dwellings priced at $830,000, which is 30 to 40 per cent more than expected. That's outrageous. This is in a situation where Queensland must build 49,000 homes a year, of which at least a third will need to be apartments, in order to contribute our fair share to the country's target of 1.2 million new homes in five years.

What else are we finding in terms of the CFMEU's requirements? A union veto on concrete pours. Why does the union need a veto on concrete pours? Well, we know why—because they use it as a means of intimidation on construction sites all across Australia. I've spoken to construction companies and executives who've had the CFMEU delegates on the site step in and prevent the concrete pour, sometimes mid-pour. They just don't give a damn for the consequence on the broader Australian public. It's all about power.

The average productivity on Queensland construction sites—we're down to, at most, three days a week. That extends project times which extends costs which means fewer apartments being built. According to Urbis apartment essentials report, new apartment projects in inner Brisbane slowed to fewer than 2,000 apartments a year between 2020 and 2023. There were 2,000 apartments a year because the developers couldn't afford to build them because of the CFMEU construction division. That's the situation we now find ourselves in. It's an absolute disgrace.

For a 25-floor apartment build, the imposition of the CFMEU construction conditions in a Queensland context adds an extra 43 weeks. It's takes nearly a year to build a 25-floor apartment building. It's absolutely unbelievable. How did we get to this situation? Every day I drive to my office in Springfield, which is in the south-west corridor of Queensland, and the traffic coming the opposite way is a traffic jam; it's a parking lot. That south-west corridor in Queensland, replete with first home buyers, does not have the transport infrastructure it needs. It doesn't have the rail. It doesn't have the roads. It doesn't have the bridges. It doesn't have the transport infrastructure to support the growth. Why? Because the cost of building anything in Queensland is 30 or 40 per cent more than it should be.

When it comes to budget time, those opposite talk about re-profiling infrastructure projects, which means delaying infrastructure projects, infrastructure projects which the people of Queensland desperately need. In all the time before the last few weeks all we heard from those opposite were excuses about the CFMEU. In fact, I can remember Senator Sheldon debating the issue, saying: 'It's just flags. The CFMEU. It's just flags. Why shouldn't they be able to fly their flags on construction sites? Why are you people getting all upset about it?' No, it's more than flags. It's bullying. It's intimidation. It's victimisation. It's corruption. It's a union which puts its own interests and the interests of the leadership of that union above the interests of the Australian public, and those sitting on the government benches have been complicit in that, not just during our term in government but during their own term in government, until, politically, they could no longer, until, politically, it wasn't sustainable for them to continue to support the construction division of the CFMEU.

I'm looking at these terms of reference and I'm wondering how anyone of good faith could actually vote against these terms of reference when you consider the infrastructure demands upon this country. How could anyone in good faith vote against these terms of reference? It includes:

(a) the adequacy of the Commonwealth regulatory framework in preventing and addressing corruption, bullying, standover and other intimidatory tactics in the building and construction industry—

Given the evidence we've heard, how could we not have this inquiry? It also include:

(b) any practices or arrangements that discriminate, or have the effect of discriminating, against certain persons, classes of employees or subcontractors—

Again, given the evidence we have heard in terms of the intimidatory tactics of the CFMEU, how can anyone reasonably argue against that term of reference? It also includes:

(c) connections between the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, declining productivity—

I've spoken about declining productivity. It costs $1.7 million to build a three-bedroom apartment in my home state of Queensland. It is outrageous—

and the escalating costs of infrastructure in Australia, including housing;

(d) the impact of misconduct on construction businesses, suppliers and skills shortages …

Who would want to work on a construction site being stood over by CFMEU delegates and their associates? No-one in their right mind. It continues:

(e) the causes and effect of cost and delivery pressures on the Australian Government's infrastructure investment program …

Again, we've heard from those opposite. In their budgets, they talk about re-profiling infrastructure projects. Infrastructure projects, which are desperately needed by the Australian people, need to be 're-profiled'. It is because we can't afford them! We can't afford them. Why can't we afford them? Because of the 30 to 40 per cent CFMEU premium on top of those projects. It continues:

(f) Commonwealth oversight of state and territory procurement and contracting arrangements for infrastructure projects with a federal contribution …

So how do we keep the states honest? In my home state of Queensland, the Miles Labor government has just been disgraceful. They've just completely sold out. They completely sold out to the CFMEU—absolutely shameless. It continues:

(g) examples of best practice infrastructure procurement processes around the world …

Isn't that what we should be doing here—considering other practices and other jurisdictions and working out how we can apply the lessons from abroad in an Australian context? It continues:

(h) improving the involvement of Indigenous businesses, small and medium business suppliers, subcontractors and independent contractors on infrastructure projects …

Again, surely, that should be something we aspire to. And:

(i) the need for anti-racketeering laws in Australia …

and that's what it has come to in Australia. We have to look at anti-racketeering laws because of the conduct of the CFMEU in Australia. That's the position we've been put in—absolutely disgraceful.

I'm not sure how anyone could, reasonably, read those terms of reference in the context of what we've heard over the last month or so, and indeed what we've heard for years in relation to the CFMEU's construction division's conduct, and construct an argument as to why that reference should not be approved. I don't think there's any bona fide reason. The only reason is politics—people don't want this to be the subject of inquiry by a Senate committee, because they don't like the fact that it highlights the chronic issues we have in the construction industry and how that impacts upon the ability of governments at all levels to deliver the infrastructure which Australians need. That's the only reason—people don't want us to talk about the issue. That's the only reason. I say to the senators in this place: that is their choice; they can vote against the terms of reference. But I have not heard one reasonable argument during the course of this debate as to why you would vote against an inquiry into these important matters, especially when the cost of infrastructure and the cost of construction in this country is debilitating. It's hurting. It's hurting those who aspire to become homeowners, and it's hurting all Australians in terms of having the benefit of the infrastructure all Australians need and all Australians deserve in our country.

So I ask those opposite to reflect upon this issue. I ask them to deeply reflect on this issue, because it's not good enough. We are a house of review. We are a house of inquiry. This is our job. I've certainly chaired inquiries which have been referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee which weren't necessarily references that I composed, but I always respected the right of senators in this place to refer matters for inquiry. I have a firm view that, if there are a substantial or material number of senators in this place who believe a matter should be referred to an inquiry, it should be referred to an inquiry. We should have that inquiry. What do you have to fear? The truth? The evidence? What do you have to fear from an inquiry? That's the other question. What do they have to fear from an inquiry?

I should also add in this respect that nearly every single infrastructure project in my home state of Queensland over the last 10 or 15 years, whether it's the Bruce Highway, the M1 Motorway down the Gold Coast, the construction of a new university building like the QUT campus at Kelvin Grove—even the construction of Ronald McDonald House; can you believe that—has been impacted by the lawlessness of the CFMEU. This has gone on for years, and now we're seeing the culmination of it. It costs an extra $287,199 to build a two-bedroom apartment, increasing the build cost from $869,687 up to $1.156 million—unbelievable! This is economic analysis of the impact of the CFMEU Queensland EBA on Queensland apartment construction prices for 2024—the latest evidence. This is impacting all those Australians who aspire to homeownership. This is a matter which the Senate should be enquiring very deeply into. I call upon those opposite to reflect on their position in relation to this important matter.