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

Before the debate on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2009 was adjourned, I was about to get onto the Maritime Union of Australia case in Western Australia, which highlighted that certain unions were, yet again, on the rampage. What the unions got was a $50,000 per annum wage increase for people already earning $130,000—so they will now be taking home $180,000.

Yesterday at question time I asked about that outcome and Senator Arbib in this place said that federal Labor welcomed the outcome, even though there were no productivity offsets. We in the coalition are all in favour of wage increases, especially if there are productivity offsets, because that way everybody is a winner. But when a trade union uses raw industrial muscle to force outcomes that are just unconscionable—and Ms Gillard and Mr Rudd sit idly by—one does fear for the future industrial relations culture of our country.

How can such a wage increase be justified, and what do we know about those sorts of wage increases? They lead to wage inflation. Wage inflation leads to cost of living increases, which lead to job losses. When that was put to Senator Arbib, Labor repudiated it. They rejected my analysis. Well, it was a former Labor Treasurer, Mr Frank Crean, who said that one man’s pay rise is another man’s job. He said that in the context of discussing wage inflation such as we have just witnessed in Western Australia.

So not only do Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard barrack the MUA to get these outrageous decisions, they also pull the teeth from the industrial watchdogs to make sure that they become toothless tigers and ineffective so that the unions can go on the rampage—as the MUA has done in Western Australia. Of course, Western Australia is the hotbed of corruption and illegality, with the likes of Kevin Reynolds and Joe McDonald. They are there, and they are so happy that they are back in town courtesy of Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard.

So what is Labor going to do with this inspectorate? As I indicated previously, the independence of the inspectorate will be removed and Ms Gillard will be able to pull the strings when and as she likes. Labor will be tying up the watchdog in red tape, which goes against the independent report which they commissioned—the Wilcox report. So, in hoping to get the right answers they commissioned somebody—and I must say I was concerned and still have some concerns about the recommendations—but even on this Justice Wilcox could not agree and said that they should not be tied up with red tape. But, no, Ms Gillard knows best; she will even overturn Mr Wilcox’s considerations!

They want to impose a five-year sunset clause on the compulsion powers, without review. There are some compulsory powers that the inspectorate can use. They are needed to shift the culture, but Ms Gillard is going to remove them irrespective of whether or not there has been a sufficient change in culture—which means, of course, that the government never had any intention of keeping its promise to keep a strong cop on the construction beat.

What did Labor promise? They promised: there will always be a strong cop on the beat. Well, not if this bill gets passed—another broken election promise—because they are proposing to switch off, site by site, the coercive powers of the construction cop. So some sites will be removed from the scope of the inspectorate.

This broken promise is supported by an ALP national conference resolution that Labor ‘does not believe these powers should have a continuing role’. So Ms Gillard is confronted with a solemn promise that she made to the people of Australia and a dictate from the national conference of the ALP dominated by the trade union movement. Guess who wins. Each and every time it will be the union dominated Labor Party national conference and not the promise she and Mr Rudd made so solemnly to the Australian people.

If you are concerned about what she is doing wait for this: all the penalties will be reduced by two-thirds. The penalties are going to be like petty cash, especially for those unions like the CFMEU, which gave Mr Rudd and the Labor Party $500,000 during the 2007 federal election campaign. They will now think that these fines are just laughable. What is a $6,600 fine to a trade union official or individual when he is handing over $500,000 cheques to the Labor Party for their use in election campaigns? They will be laughing all the way, and Ms Gillard knows it.

Then, just to make sure that this so-called tough cop on the beat has absolutely nothing left to do, they have also narrowed the definition of ‘industrial action’. The bill also removes the coercion and undue pressure provisions which provide protection from such behaviour greater than under the Fair Work Act 2009. These provisions are designed to stop bullying of companies and workers. Why would you remove those sorts of provisions? Everybody knows that bullying occurs on the work sites. The stories are there for all to read in the Herald Sun and other newspapers as to what happens at the West Gate Bridge and the Royal Children’s Hospital construction site in Victoria and what happens in Western Australia. We know what goes on. We know that bullying occurs. So why would you remove provisions that deal with exactly that issue? It is so that people like Joe Macdonald and Kevin Reynolds can do as they want in exchange for the policy considerations that they obtain, no doubt, in their discussions with Mr Rudd, after Labor’s $500,000 gift from the CFMEU.

This means that a building company or their employees can be subjected to coercion or undue pressure from militant unions without that behaviour being illegal. In other words, the culture of bullying will be allowed to exist by removing this provision from the legislation. You have to ask why Labor wants to give a green light for these practices to return. Why do they say that bullying people in workplaces should be acceptable? It is because the people who do the bullying are the people who bankroll the Australian Labor Party. Sure, Mr Rudd was meek and mild. He appeared on these TV advertisements saying, ‘I’m an economic conservative.’ But what we did not see on those TV advertisements was the secret meeting that he had with the CFMEU where certain undertakings were given. Nor did we find out before the election that the CFMEU had quietly slipped $500,000 to the ALP campaign kitty. I trust that this year, an election year, Mr Rudd will have TV advertisements showing that secret meeting with the CFMEU and the handing over of the money, with him saying, ‘Yeah, I’ve changed my mind on all that.’ But of course he will not. He just hopes that these issues will go away.

We on the coalition side will stand up for individual workers and will stand up for the small contractors. It has been interesting in this debate on the ABCC that in general terms big business and big unions do not seem to mind that sort of a culture. They are big and ugly enough to look after themselves. There is an African proverb that says that when two elephants mate the grass gets trampled. When big unions and big business get together, it is the individual workers and the small business contractors who get trampled. We in the coalition stand on the side of individual workers. We stand on the side of small, independent contractors. That is why we will be opposing this bill with all the vigour that we can muster. We invite the crossbenchers, especially Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon, to join with us in the rejection of this legislation, which is a complete and utter breach of the election promise taken to the Australian people by Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard and which will see the reintroduction of even worse bullying and thuggery and the sorts of items that the MUA have been able to force out of employers. We will be opposing this legislation every step of the way.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens have been consistent in our opposition to the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act and the operations of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. We do not accept that it is necessary to have workplace relations laws that take away the right to silence, deny people their choice of lawyer, provide powers to compel evidence with the penalty of jail for non-compliance and impose strict restrictions on the rights of workers to organise and bargain collectively. We have been utterly consistent in that stance. We remain committed to these principles and to the principles that there should be one workplace relations law and that building and construction workers should not be singled out for more punitive treatment. People who work in the building industry are not so different from workers in other industries that they should be singled out by laws based on the presumption of criminality and the need for a tough cop on the beat.

Building workers have a strong sense of acting collectively. They have needed to. They work in one of our most dangerous industries, with a high rate of fatalities and serious injuries. Building workers rely on each other and have fought hard for and won rights to safer work places. The BCII Act, including the act as amended by the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2009, is a direct attack on the rights of building workers to act together for their collective interests.

At the core of this act and this bill lies an assumption that individual workers in the building industry are inherently bad, cannot be trusted, have no integrity and en masse deserve to be considered criminals for sticking up for their mates. This is a belief that the ALP government and the opposition apparently share. This is the belief that justifies in their minds the use of coercive powers in relation to civil workplace relation matters. It is not a belief shared by the Australian Greens. Our position always had been and continues to be that the ABCC should be abolished immediately and that coercive powers of the nature contained in the BCII Act and in this bill have no place in our workplace laws. In line with our position, I introduced a private senator’s bill to repeal the BCII Act last year.

We do not accept that the government’s continued rhetoric about a tough cop on the beat for the building industry justifies the continuation of coercive powers. Universal industrial, civil and criminal laws should be complied with and enforced on building sites as in any other workplace. Unlawful industrial action should be dealt with under our workplace relation laws with an emphasis on resolving disputes, not criminalising workers for their collective actions. As the commissioner reminded us in the committee hearings on this bill late last year, the coercive powers at the heart of this bill are not directed at wrongdoers but at people who are not suspected of doing anything unlawful. This is an important point. The BCII Act and this bill provide for persons to be imprisoned for not complying with directions to attend interviews or produce documents in relation to suspected breaches of industrial laws committed by someone else.

We note the comments of Dave Noonan of the CFMEU that these laws are not directed at the types of behaviour that are used to justify their application. He said:

The argument that is made in favour of these laws constantly reverts back to often unsubstantiated and hysterical allegations about criminality, violence, corruption and so on ... yet these laws have absolutely nothing to do with any of those matters and are incapable of being used to prosecute any of those matters, and my view is that those who are the proponents of these laws continue to refer to those matters because they are unable to articulate an argument as to why industrial laws should require the removal of the right to silence and the imprisonment of working people for six months for attending a union meeting. If people could justify that, they would not be continually returning to matters which are unconnected, unrelated and incapable of being prosecuted under this law.

These laws are about bullying, harassing and intimidating building workers and damaging and eventually destroying the building unions. Such an aim has no place in a democratic nation that recognises the fundamental right of freedom of association.

But more than that, the act and the ABCC targets the unions through their members—ordinary Australian workers. Back in November 2005 I moved a motion to disallow the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Regulations. In the course of that debate I outlined some of the ways in the ABCC was using its powers to intimidate workers and their families, for example, inspectors who appear to have waited until a worker has set off to work to serve his wife or partner with a notice, putting out in a heavy-handed manner that they are liable to a large fine or a jail term if they do not fully cooperate. I have heard stories of apprentices of migrant workers for whom English is a second language, being picked on, intimidated and tricked into answering questions without being informed of their legal rights. I have heard about workers being invited to have an informal conversation by an ABCC inspector only to learn that the discussion has been recorded without their knowledge or consent.

Such behaviour in this country is unacceptable. Workers have been and are being denied the basic democratic rights to procedural fairness and natural justice that all of us take for granted. These workers, who have not been charged with anything and may only be suspected of knowing about a criminal offence by somebody else, are being treated with fewer rights than someone who has committed a very serious criminal offence. While we appreciate the safeguards that the government is seeking to introduce to this bill in an attempt to ensure greater probity in the use of the coercive powers—such as the need for a presidential member of the AAT to approve the use of coercive powers, the oversight of the Ombudsman, the specific provisions allowing people a lawyer of their choice, and the addition of legal professional privilege and public interest immunity—and while we understand the intention behind the ‘switching off’ mechanism and the role of the independent assessor, all these measures do not solve our fundamental objection that these coercive powers have no place in the regulation of industrial relations matters. As Professor Williams and Ms McGarrity concluded in their article on the investigatory powers of the ABCC:

It is wrong as a matter of legal policy to confer a draconian, overbroad and inadequately checked investigatory power on a body whose principal function is to investigate civil breaches of federal industrial law in a single industry ....Given such fundamental concerns, our view is that the ABCC should be abolished. We further believe that it is inappropriate to create  any other body to deal only with the building and construction industry. Contraventions of industrial law by participants in that sector should be investigated by a single body with a brief to apply its powers in a non-discriminatory manner to all employers and employees across all industries.

We consider that the potential for a penalty of imprisonment for a worker not complying with a request under the coercive powers remains objectionable. We agree with the ACTU, which said:

Our view is that, before imprisonment could become a penalty, you would have to be found to be in contempt of either a court or an institution. The problem with the regime, even with the safeguards that are proposed, is that the person is not heard until they are prosecuted for failure to appear, with a penalty of imprisonment hanging over their head. In industrial law, for all other workers in the country, there is no prospect of imprisonment unless you are in contempt of court. We think that the same regime should apply to construction workers and construction employers and that imprisonment should only be an available, as it is to all other citizens, if they are in contempt.

The problem with this regime is that you move to imprisonment without having an opportunity to be heard or having an opportunity to explain why you do not wish to comply with the orders.

We believe that if these powers are to remain, the penalty of imprisonment must be removed, and we will move an amendment to that effect.

The Australian Greens do not accept the argument that the BCII Act, and the retention of the coercive powers by the bill, is justified on the ground of perceived economic benefit. Professor David Peetz comprehensively demolished the argument that the operations of the ABCC contribute to productivity gains in his submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill. He concluded:

... if there are to be any economic effects from the operation of the ABCC, they are more likely to be increasing profits than increasing productivity.

Profits above people is not something the Greens can support. We do not believe that economic gains can justify the assault on fundamental human rights that the BCII Act perpetrates.

A key concern for me in the operation of the ABCC has been its impact on occupational, health and safety in the building and construction industry. This is an industry that suffers around 50 deaths a year—and many more serious injuries. The intimidating tactics of the ABCC have a detrimental effect on safety. Workers are less likely to report unsafe situations and they are less likely hold meetings to discuss safety issues or stop work in dangerous circumstances for fear of a heavy-handed visit from the ABCC. It is unacceptable in an industry as dangerous as the building and construction industry for legislation to act counter to achieving the highest possible standards of health and safety practice. The provisions of the bill before us do not satisfy my concerns about occupational health and safety. It is the presence of the coercive powers that cause this concern.

Having outlined our continued opposition to the very existence of the coercive powers, I do want to briefly mention why we will be supporting the bill at the second reading stage. The bill does introduce important safeguards on the use of the coercive powers, which we hope will go some way to ensuring the new inspectorate does not behave in a similar way to the ABCC. We welcome the explicit acknowledgement for the rights of people to be represented by a lawyer of their choice. We labelled the ABCC as a ‘star chamber’ from the beginning; the restoration of the basic rights of legal representation is long overdue.

Importantly, the bill removes chapters 5 and 6 of the BCII Act. These chapters provide specific and harsher prohibitions on industrial action and increased penalties for unlawful industrial action and coercive behaviour in the building industry. The removal of these provisions means that building and constructions workers are covered by the same prohibitions as all other workers and, importantly, the same penalties as other workers.

Building and construction workers will still face unnecessary restrictions on collective bargaining and freedom of association through the application of the Fair Work Act. The Australian Greens believe strongly that freedom of association is a fundamental right and that an integral part of that right is the right to take industrial action. With the Fair Work Act now containing the substantive rights and obligations for all workers, the logical step is for all breaches of those laws to be dealt with by the Fair Work Ombudsman, without a separate compliance agency for one section of the workforce. This would also go a long way to changing the culture of enforcement in the building industry.

It has become clear that the ABCC has not been impartial in exercising its responsibilities and in fact has been turning a ‘blind eye’ to unlawful employer actions. The Federal Court has found in a particular case that the ABCC turned a blind eye to dishonest employer behaviour and failed to act in an even-handed way in its pursuit of the plumbers union. In fact, 66 per cent of its investigations have been targeted at unions while only 25 per cent have been targeted at employer actions—and many employers have been contacted by the ABCC because of their relationships with unions. An impartial enforcement culture is critical to the success of the new inspectorate, particularly if it is to carry out its functions with regard to ensuring compliance by employers with their obligations.

I also take this opportunity to note that the bill will still be in breach of Australia’s international obligations. There is little doubt that the retention of the coercive powers will breach the labour inspection and the freedom of association and right to organise conventions. Australia is a signatory to these conventions which signals that we as a nation accept the principles found in those documents. The ILO conventions are important as representing the framework for fair and balanced industrial relations. If we are in breach of these conventions we are falling outside what is acceptable international practice.

The Australian Greens believe that the government should endeavour to ensure we live up to the international standards that we have signed on to, not ignore them. The Greens will not shrink from defending the basic human rights of workers in the building and construction industry. The bill before us today is an inadequate compromise. We will continue to advocate to ensure that the building industry is regulated just like any other industry—in a fair and just manner that balances the needs of productivity and the economy with the health, safety and democratic rights of workers.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate on the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2009 and to state what is obvious to everyone, with the possible exception of this Labor government. If ever there was legislation which should be defeated, it is this legislation; and if ever there was a time when the ABCC should remain firmly in place on the Australian industrial scene, it is now. Only this week have we seen the Treasurer, Mr Swan, make the astounding statement that Australians need to increase our productivity in the workplace, as if he suddenly discovered this fact. Already, Labor’s new so-called fair work legislation is failing miserably to deliver on this demand of the Treasurer, and any attempt to water down the ABCC will only serve further to decrease productivity.

Why was it necessary in the first place, contrary to what we have just heard from my learned colleague Senator Siewert, for the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act to come into existence? As we all know, it had its origins under the last government, the Howard coalition government, as a result of thuggery, poor productivity, corruption and everything that went with it in the building industry. It was this that led to the Cole commission of inquiry in 2003, and it was from that inquiry that the BCII Act came into existence. What led to that inquiry was the widespread sabotage of industry productivity through strikes, intimidation, illegal payments, violence threats, failure to honour binding agreements, contempt for the commission and court rulings, regrettably in my state of Western Australia, where it was made into an art form, and also principally in Victoria.

Clearly what was needed then, and is needed now even further, was structural and cultural change. That has been delivered to the benefit of everybody: workers, employers, investors in the building and construction industry, and the wider community. In Western Australia, following new Labor legislation, it is already evident from a series of industrial events that that culture returned in spades late last year and in the last few days.

The Howard government inherited a problem and it devised a solution which has stood us in good stead. We all know that the outcome of that solution was a spectacular success for all concerned including, of course, for the workforce, but with the exception of the militant unions and the potential union donations to this Labor government. By contrast, we have seen the Rudd government inherit that solution and now set about dismantling it. We are heading inevitably back to the problem—and at what speed, as we have seen only in the last few days.

Let us examine the indicators of industrial action over time, and remember that the ABCC came into existence in 2005. In 2004 there were 550,000 working days lost in that industry. In 2005 it halved, to 243,000. By 2006, it was 188,000. By 2007, it was down to 88,000. Then we saw this government come into existence in 2007. By 2008 it had increased to 165,000. In Victoria, one building company alone in 2003 saw 20,000 hours lost in productivity from strikes in that company. In the next year, 2004, 26,500 hours were lost. In 2007, zero hours were lost. For the first two months of 2008, the figure was 1,840. The writing is on the wall. The figures are there for everyone to see.

Failure to retain a tough regulator with strong investigative powers sees a return to the non-productive and undesirable behaviour which was the necessary beginnings of the royal commission in the first place. What would be the effect on the Australian economy if the ABCC is neutered and the amendments to the legislation go through? Let me give you an indication of history, because the best predictor of future behaviour, as we all know, is past behaviour.

What did we see as a result of that legislation coming into place in 2004 and being implemented in 2005? A 7.3 per cent productivity gain in commercial building compared to residential building since 2004—there is that word ‘productivity’, Treasurer, Mr Swan—a 10 per cent addition to labour productivity in the construction industry as a direct result, 10.5 per cent increased performance in the construction industry labour productivity compared to predictions that were made in 2002 and, most importantly, an increase in average weekly earnings per worker in that sector between 2004 and 2007 of 25.5 per cent compared to 15 per cent in all industries. The workforce enjoyed a 10 per cent increase in income over all industries.

In the 2008 report the ABCC’s role in improved productivity was estimated to yield: a 1.5 per cent increase in Australia’s GDP, a 1.2 per cent reduction in the CPI, the price of dwellings driven down by 2.5 per cent, and a gain of $5.1 billion for the economy. Why would anybody be contemplating a change in that circumstance? Costly strikes on industrial action had all but disappeared. Projects were being completed on time and on budget. Once again we were enjoying our international reputation, to which I will return. Importantly again, aggregate earnings by workers increased during that period by $18 million per annum. Of course, we ended up with a far more harmonious industrial relations environment, and we have the Treasurer calling for increased productivity.

Why would the government want to dismantle or to neutralise the ABCC? There are three reasons: first of all, payback for the unions—GST or ‘get square time’, as we were told by Kevin Reynolds and Joe McDonald in 2007-08—secondly, to weaken the highly effective penalty process; and, thirdly, to emasculate the investigative service, to which I will respond.

The amendment bill proposes a switching-off clause under the new investigative powers of the commission. That means that, if an individual union does not misbehave for a certain time, it will no longer be subject to investigation by the investigators. What is the point of having that sort of legislation in place? If it is to prevent unlawful industrial action, why is there the capacity to switch it off? There is no precedent in Westminster law for the switching off of that provision. Is the government contemplating it for the ATO, for ASIC or for the ACCC? Of course, it is not. Why would it be creating a precedent by introducing a switching-off clause in this legislation?

As we can all see, all of these changes, as pointed out earlier by my colleague Senator Abetz, are simply the Rudd Labor government paying the piper. We know, therefore, who has been calling the tune. Regrettably, this government is inextricably linked to the trade union movement and it has a vested interest in seeing once again an increase in union membership. The union movement provided some 25 per cent of the funds of the ALP in the financial year 2007-08, and they will be looking once again for a return on that investment.

What have we seen in Western Australia in the last couple of months? People tend to forget that this state is the economic powerhouse of the nation. We have seen this month a return to union thuggery in the maritime industry. Companies have been forced to pay increased incomes of up to $50,000 per year with no increase—I stress ‘no increase’, Mr Swan—in productivity. On the Woodside Pluto project we saw before we rose at the end of last year workers going on strike, and they have resumed that strike—this time with the intervention of the CFMEU. People on salaries far higher than we in the Senate enjoy are demanding that their accommodation be left vacant when they are not working. Imagine the scenario where any one of us here in Canberra say to the hotel management as we leave to go back to our own state, ‘Don’t rent out my room because I need it on my return.’

I want to refer to and quote former Labor finance minister and Western Australian senator Peter Walsh. Mr Walsh believes that the $50,000 pay rise without productivity trade-offs won by offshore oil and gas workers could lead to a repeat of the 1974 wages outbreak. Mr Walsh, a finance minister in the Hawke government, said that the agreement could lead to a wages outbreak similar to that experienced in the last years of the Whitlam government. He stated:

I think it’s potentially very dangerous, leading to a more general wages breakout like 1974-75.

If they get away with a wage increase of that size with no offsets, it is potentially dangerous.

You do not need our side of the chamber to be telling people what will inevitably happen in this scenario. We in the west watched with concern last week as we saw the MUA and others undertake this bullying activity. We looked to see what the minister, who has this fresh new legislation in place, would do. I heard her to say that she believed it was the legislation working at its best. If the minister thinks that workers getting a $50,000 a year increase, staggered in over a three-year period, is legislation working at its best, one can only despair about what will happen in the industrial scene in our state and across the nation. If ever there were a time that the ABCC should continue in its present form it is now.

I would like to draw attention to some of the comments made by the previous speaker, Senator Siewert. I refer now to the occupational health and safety fears of the union movement when the ABCC came into place. There was an assertion naturally that we would see an increase in occupational injuries et cetera. It is a well-stated fact that no unlawful act has ever led to increased safety on a workplace. There are many mechanisms which employers and employees can use. I can assure you as an employer of some 30 years experience that a harmonious workplace—where there are good relations between employers and employees—is the way to increase occupational safety and wellbeing, and it is to the benefit obviously of all parties.

Let me quote some of the statistics and put them on the record. These are stats from Safe Work Australia, from only August of last year. They show that not only has there been no increase in injuries in the building and construction industry since the ABCC’s inception; they have in fact gone down. Per 1,000 workers, in 2003-04 there were 27.7 incidents of injury to construction workers. That went down in 2004-05 to 26. It went down further in 2005-06 to 24. It reduced again in 2006-07 to 22. In 2007-08, the last year for which I have statistics, it was 21. That debunks the theory that the introduction of the ABCC would increase unsafe practices in workplaces. It has not. Neither should it and neither would it.

I will speak, if I may, on the concept of industrial harmony. I made the observation earlier that, as an employer of some 30 years experience, in two states of Australia, I know that we must have a harmonious workplace to get productivity gains and to reduce any sort of industrial accident. I have always taken the view that any accident in a workplace is preventable. It should always be the case that employers and employees, management and workers, sit down together to ensure that practices are such that accidents will be minimised.

It was only in November of last year that Westpac produced very, very interesting figures relating to the preceding 12 months, when there was obviously a downturn in employment. Their figures indicated that in the Australian workplace, and in industry in particular, there had been a decrease of only 0.1 per cent in employment whilst there had been a decline of some 2.3 per cent in hours worked. What this indicates is that employers were doing their best to keep employees in the workplace, and because of good bargaining, good relations and industrial harmony they were able to negotiate for people to work fewer hours. That is exactly what we should be looking for in Australia. Nobody wants to put competent workers off, particularly at a time when—as in our state and, I hope, the rest of the nation—we are starting to see an increase in demand.

Speaking again of industrial harmony, I note that surveys undertaken by the Australian Constructors Association four years after the introduction of the building and construction industry improvement legislation indicate that three-quarters, 75 per cent, of employees had a positive reaction to the changes in that industry, 15 per cent indicated no change and only 10 per cent—one in 10—indicated that the changes had been negative. I cannot see why we need to modify or water down this legislation. It has never been my experience that industrial ill will in a workplace has done anything for employers, workers or the bottom line. I can point to innumerable instances in industries with which I have been associated where the reverse is true and where good negotiation, liaison and confidence in a workforce have led to immeasurable gains for everybody.

I conclude with the concept of encouraging overseas investment in Australian industry. The industry in which I was engaged prior to coming into the Senate was the oil and gas industry. It is of enormous importance to our productivity and our long-term commercial wellbeing that we are judged internationally to be responsible in our industrial relations. One need only look at when there was industrial turmoil in the Pilbara. Our overseas trading partners had enormous concerns. I refer also to the lamentable situation in the construction industry in Melbourne when the Japanese company Saizeriya walked away from its intention to invest in that industry. That resulted in the loss of tens of millions of dollars and up to 3,000 jobs.

I know from my own contacts in the oil and gas industry offshore that at this very moment they are watching with increasing concern what is happening in the Maritime Union situation in Western Australia and of course the situation in the Pilbara. These are the people who are shipowners. These are the people who may or may not allow the use of their vessels in our waters. I hope the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship is listening, because they are also the people who may or may not bid on contracts involving our oil and gas industry in our waters. I can tell you from personal experience of the last few days that they are increasingly saying, ‘We are not interested,’—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Marshall interjecting—

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to my colleague Senator Marshall that they are not interested in placing their vessels or their personnel in Australian waters if indeed we see the industrial action that is likely to happen. I request that Senator Sterle take his colleague to Western Australia, where he can see the powerhouse of the nation and where he can see all of this falling apart.

I conclude with the comment that these amendments must be defeated, the BCII legislation must remain in place unchanged and the commission must be allowed to continue its excellent oversight of the construction industry and related industries. It is regrettable that my Western Australian colleague Senator Siewert did not see what happened in the building and construction industry to cause the Cole commission to come into existence in the first place.