Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the dissembling, inept answer given by the Minister for Employment Participation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery (Senator Arbib) to the excellent question without notice asked by Senator Fisher today, relating to the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

Let us be absolutely clear on this: when the minister was asked, he had the audacity to say, publicly broadcasting, that this is an implementation of Labor’s policy honouring their election promise. In case the honourable minister has not read Labor’s Forward with Fairness policy announced in August 2007, on page 24 his leader and deputy leader said this to the Australian people:

The current Australian Building and Construction Commission arrangements will remain in place until the 31st of January 2010. Specifically the ABCC will retain all its current powers and its full resources for this period, as outlined in the forward budget estimates.

How can he come into this chamber and then say, by neutering this organisation a full six months earlier in breach of his election promise, that that is somehow honouring the Labor Party’s election promise to the Australian people?

This is another gross example of the Australian Labor Party’s spin. You promise one thing before the election and you then do something completely different afterwards. Remember the words of the member for Kingsford Smith, Mr Peter Garrett? Exactly what he said would happen is now happening yet again. Indeed, this election promise was made when ‘Hi, I’m Kevin from Queensland’ was an economic conservative. Today, ‘Hi, I’m Kevin from Queensland’ is no longer the economic conservative. He is no longer the person that said to the Australian people: ‘We need a cop on the beat. We need to keep the construction industry clean.’ That was the big, solemn promise made to the Australian people and it is now completely gutted. In the other place the minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, has now tabled a document which is her letter to the Hon. John Lloyd, which I would seek leave to table in relation to this debate.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate. It is quite clear that this has been a breach. So the Minister for Employment Participation had to come into this place and say why he has broken this election promise six months early. Were there industry demands for this change? No, there were not. Is there an economic imperative for this change? No, there is not. Is there a jobs imperative for this? No, there is not. But is there a union imperative? You betcha. And that is the only reason that it is being done. And another: is it an ideological imperative? You betcha. You’ve got it again. So, despite a solemn promise to the Australian people, that is out the door in favour of increased trade union power and in favour of their extreme ideology in relation to the Australian building unions.

It is very interesting, isn’t it, that this gentleman from Queensland said: ‘Hi, I’m Kevin from Queensland. I’m an economic conservative.’ But today in 2009 he says: ‘Hi, I’m Kevin from the unions. Those bonza blokes gave a fair shake of the sauce bottle to our funds for the election campaign and we now owe them and we owe them big-time, and that is why we will break our promise in exchange for the funding that we got from them.’ It is funny, isn’t it? Who will benefit from Mr Kevin Rudd’s change in relation to this? Another Kevin, Kevin Reynolds from Western Australia, and another Kevin from our home state of Tasmania, Kevin Harkins. These three Kevins are peas in a trade union pod assisting trade union extremism. The minister has shown that Labor have broken an election promise and they stand condemned for it.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not going to speak this afternoon, Mr Deputy President, but when I heard the deputy leader’s contribution I thought it was only right that I do. As we have seen in the last week, one cannot rely on Eric to read the details.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Hutchins.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz. We cannot rely on ‘Email Eric’ to read the details.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hutchins.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said Senator Abetz.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and you should continue to refer to him as Senator Abetz.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, known in some circles as Email Eric. As I said, if we had to rely on Email Eric, as he is referred to in some circles, we would be in a lot more trouble than we are. I find it interesting that we get this sanctimoniousness from the opposition. These are the same people that were behind the Australian Wheat Board scandal, and Senator Fisher knows about it and so does Senator Cash. These are the same people behind the scandal in ‘children overboard’, and of course Senator Fisher worked for Minister Reith when they absolutely stuffed up the situation on the waterfront. The same people who are responsible for this are trying to work themselves up into a frenzy about the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and its referral to the industrial inspectorate. What is wrong with that? As former Justice Wilcox found—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludwig interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Ludwig, there are certain standing orders that should be observed.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Former Justice Wilcox found in his inquiry into the building industry that substantially there were men and women in the industry who worked in accordance with their awards and their agreements and who acted honourably and obviously vigorously in conducting their campaigns to improve their wages and conditions. But there were elements who did not. In fact, Mr Wilcox made recommendations in relation to those elements who did not. What is wrong with that? That is what the minister outlined this afternoon. In the legislation that the Deputy Prime Minister has put forward in the House of Representatives, the elements who do not act conscientiously, consistently and honourably will have to go before this inspectorate and be dealt with that way. I do not see that there is anything particularly wrong with that. Whether in Victoria or Western Australia, if these men and women act in a reprehensible way and bring shame and dishonour on the trade union movement, they should have to go under different guidelines to any other man or woman in the building and construction industry, the transport industry, the liquor industry or any other industry. If these men and women act in a reprehensible way then they should be dealt with in a different way. That is what our legislation says. I do not see how Senator Fisher or any of the other speakers who are going to follow me can fault that, because, as Mr Wilcox said in his inquiry, there are men and women who do act in an honourable way and why should they be subject to the same sort of scrutiny as those who do not? I would be interested in their contributions to tell me why that should be the case.

We in the Australian Labor Party have always believed that men and women have an entitlement to collectively bargain. That is something they do not accept on the other side, but we do. Some employers prefer to have a collective bargain rather than individual ones. That is an entitlement that they were able to exploit individually under the previous government.

All I would say to the coalition is this: it is about time they understood that they are in opposition and that it is a long, hard road to get back into government rather than acting like they are a government in absentia. That is exactly what we have seen in the last few weeks and months from the coalition. Be constructive. The Australian people will respond to you if you are constructive. But if you continue to be negative and try to look for little points that do not mean anything except to selected groups of people then you will find yourselves in the wilderness for longer than you think.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answers given in question time today by Senator Arbib in respect of the Australian building and construction industry and, in particular, Senator Arbib’s repeated attempts to reassure the Australian electorate and this parliament that the Rudd Labor government is keeping its election commitment to the Australian building and construction industry for a ‘tough cop’ on the building and construction industry beat and to retain the current powers of the Australian Building and Construction Commission until 31 January 2010.

Minister Arbib repeated his reassurance and promise, as if saying it once, twice, if not three times, made it true. Every time he said it just demonstrated how untrue it is. How can the Rudd Labor government be keeping a ‘tough cop’ on the construction industry beat when the Deputy Prime Minister indicated in every second sentence in her speech introducing the bill in the other place that it will be a cutback cop with cutback powers? In fact, the only ‘tough cop’ on the building and construction industry beat will be the CFMEU, because that is the election commitment and promise that the Rudd Labor government is keeping.

The Deputy Prime Minister says that the new so-called ‘tough cop’ on the construction industry beat come January 2010 will be able to switch off and switch on. She said in her second reading speech:

In the event that a project where the coercive powers have been switched off experiences industrial unlawfulness the Independent Assessor may rescind or revoke the original decision, thereby switching the powers back on.

Hang on. If the guys have been good then the reason they have been good will get switched off. But when the guys—and I mean that in a gender neutral sense—are bad again, as they will be, the powers will get switched back on. How is that keeping a ‘tough cop’ on the construction industry beat?

The Prime Minister explicitly said pre election, ‘The current ABCC powers will stay in place to January 2010.’ How is the Deputy Prime Minister’s ministerial direction issued today to the Australian Building and Construction Commission to take effect from 3 August—in some five weeks time—to curtail the coercive powers of the Australian Building and Construction Commission ensuring that ‘the current ABCC powers stay in place until January 2010’? How is that keeping that part of the election promise? No, no, no—the only election promise being kept is the one to the union movement to make the so-called tough cop on the construction industry beat the CFMEU. The CFMEU will be the construction industry cop.

This confected fight, this fake fight, between the Rudd Labor government and the union movement enables the Prime Minister to say: ‘We must have got this bill right, because we have got a fight with the unions and we have got a fight with the employer movement as well. So we must have got the balance right.’ Australians are tired of that refrain. The government tried to use it with the Fair Work legislation. It is a tired, untrue refrain. It is a fake fight with the union movement, and do you know what demonstrates that, Mr Acting Deputy President? What demonstrates that is the visit to this parliament today by the CFMEU. If the CFMEU were so outraged by this Rudd Labor government’s reforms for the building and construction sector, don’t you think they would have been the CFMEU cop going up and down the parliamentary corridors, expressing their dissatisfaction? But no—their silent presence today demonstrates that they are pretty happy. They are pretty happy with the Rudd Labor government’s delivery of its election promise—the one made to the CFMEU that they, the CFMEU, will become the cop on the construction industry beat come January 2010.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would also like to take note of the answers given by Senator Arbib today to the questions from Senator Fisher with regard to the Building and Construction Commission and its proposed replacement by the Rudd Labor government. I was intrigued to hear Senator Fisher talking about election promises and election commitments. Could we please remind the people of Australia that the coalition did not introduce Work Choices until they had the numbers in the Senate. It was not an election commitment to the people of Australia by the coalition to introduce Work Choices. In fact, they said nothing about it at all until they found themselves in the situation of having the numbers in the Senate, and they foisted it on the people of Australia—who did not want it.

I have known Senator Fisher for quite a long time. We do know that she has worked for Mr Peter Reith. Back in those days, Senator Fisher worked for Peter Reith and she was fully supportive of the actions of the previous government in trying to destroy working people on Australia’s wharves by attempting to take their jobs away from them—and doing it by using balaclava-wearing thugs accompanied by dogs. If anybody wants to remember the attitude of the opposition to Australia’s working people, they only have to think about those visions of people being attacked by thugs and dogs on wharves. It is just hypocritical for Senator Fisher to get up here today and pretend that she is anything other than a tireless and lifelong campaigner to destroy the rights of working people in Australia.

Senator Arbib is an excellent new minister, and I am very pleased that he has got responsibility for this particular portfolio, as Minister for Employment Participation, because he also has long experience in industrial relations. He knows what it is to have a fair workplace. Senator Fisher does tend to live in the past a bit, as we know. If she wants to continue to do that, we will be more than happy to run another election campaign on industrial relations. We will be more than happy to run another campaign on industrial relations, because do you know what? The people of Australia rejected your ridiculous industrial relations policies last time and they would do it again, because the people of Australia want their workplaces to be fair. They want to have a voice in the workplace, they want workplaces to be fair for employers, they want workplaces to be fair for workers, and they will not cop the kind of industrial relations laissez-faire legislation that you would like to introduce. In fact, Senator Fisher, you would prefer to have no legislation in the workplace at all. You would like for there to be absolute free range for unscrupulous employers to dud workers. That is your agenda. That has been your agenda ever since I have known you, and here you are again—despite having lost the last election on industrial relations issues—trying to re-establish the kind of workplace system that the Howard government brought in. Bring it on, Senator Fisher. I cannot wait to run another election on the opposition’s industrial relations policies, because you will lose.

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator McEwen, address the chair, please.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry. My apologies, Mr Deputy President.

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fisher interjecting—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my left! You have been heard in silence on my left. Senator McEwen has a right to be heard.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy President. We were talking about election commitments. The Rudd Labor government has, with its new legislation, honoured its election commitments to the people of Australia. Its commitment to the people of Australia was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC, and to replace it with the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are introducing another inspectorate that will operate within the building and construction industry—

Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No change until January 2010!

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Fisher, it is disorderly to shout across the chamber. You were heard in silence. I ask that you give Senator McEwen the same opportunity.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy President. I would also add that, in introducing this new inspectorate, the government is paying heed to the very reasonable recommendations made by the Hon. Murray Wilcox QC in his report into this matter. The government has taken instruction from Mr Wilcox on this matter. As we should, we got an independent authority in to investigate the situation in Australia’s building and construction industry. A very welcome report was prepared and the government, as a responsible government, took those recommendations on board. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of Senator Abetz’s motion to take note of an answer by Senator Arbib regarding the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The senators opposite might like to focus more on what Senator Abetz is doing, rather than just making accusations. When Senator Abetz sought and was granted leave to table the ministerial letter, I understand that subjected the letter and the ministerial direction to debate and disallowance by this chamber. So maybe you should listen just a little bit more carefully.

The case about this being a Labor broken promise is clear cut, but I suppose that in light of the events of the last 12 months we should be getting used to this sort of thing. It is the same as their promise about keeping budget surpluses, about keeping low government debt and about keeping low taxes. It will make people feel the same, I imagine, as many of our regional students felt when Labor did not flag any of the changes that are disenfranchising so many of them from study and plans they had made after they left high school. But this is a truly craven manoeuvre by the government, and that is because of its motivation. This is motivated by payback to mates and to bankers.

The truth is that the construction sector is not like any other sector of the economy. I come from Victoria, and the stories from Victoria are truly extraordinary and they have been that way for many years. When I was working at Safeway I did not have Mick Gatto or Tom Domican as an industrial relations consultant coming in to help out. This is a sector that has been rife with unlawfulness and rife with wildcat actions that have made the rest of the community pay.

Senator McEwen has referred to the rights of workers, but I note that in her speech just prior to my own there was very little discussion of the ABCC; there were merely accusations made about the previous government and about one of my colleagues, Senator Fisher. But the truth is that the first right of a worker is to have a job. There is absolutely no point in having pages and pages of legislation and claiming there are volumes of workers’ protections when there is no-one in a job. The truth is that the construction sector is a very different sector, particularly in my home state of Victoria and particularly in Western Australia. The ABCC addressed very real issues. For those who doubt it, I urge them to read the report of the royal commission, because it makes absolutely shocking reading. It outlines in its public volumes organised and systemic misbehaviour—to be just a little bit polite about it.

Labor has always opposed actions to restrain rogue union activity. It has never understood that policies like this are a way to protect the true national interest, to protect the four out of five workers who choose not to join a union and, at the same time, to make sure that those fewer than one in five workers who do join a union get a fair go and that the rest of the community does not have to pay for that through increased costs, through illegality and through wildcat actions. Some of those opposite actually talk about how scared a worker might be when they are being questioned about alleged activity. I urge them to go back through the many media reports—some of which I will not mention because they are the subject of proceedings—where workers and officials have been threatened with physical intimidation and violence. The threat of physical violence goes way beyond anything that should happen in a workplace and it goes way beyond the idea that you can be compelled to answer a question, because sometimes those questions are actually about physical intimidation. That is how we protect people in our society.

We know who the Labor Party represent in this place. As I mentioned earlier, 80 per cent of Australian workers are not in trade unions, but the ALP is the political wing of the labour movement in this country. It is not something it chooses to hide. What it is doing with this particular ministerial direction, with this broken promise and with the change in their legislation is letting loose the most rogue elements in the Australian trade union movement. This is not the shoppies—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You would not know. You would not know anything about the construction industry, mate.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, this is not the shoppies. For those who have any questions, I urge them to go and visit the West Gate Bridge in Melbourne, where union disruption has been preventing necessary safety work being undertaken and people’s lives have been put at risk because of it.

The truth about this is that Labor never wanted to do this. I note that in May 2007 their national conference promised to going to rid of the ABCC and then Dean Mighell made certain comments and put the now Prime Minister under a bit of political pressure—and, to use the example Senator Abetz gave, he was Kevin from Queensland, the economic conservative, and all of a sudden Labor were going to become the tough cop on the beat. That same month they announced this policy, which today they have gone back on. They have gone back on this policy which said that the arrangements, resources and funding for the ABCC would stay in place. They stand condemned for it, and the workers and the community of Australia will pay for it.

Question agreed to.