Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We need to stop the charade of attacking one particular section of society that just happens to be the political opponents of the government. Let us use this as an opportunity to tackle corruption more broadly. For many years, the Greens have pushed for a national independent commission against corruption—a national ICAC, a national corruption watchdog—because we know that is what is needed, rather than this ABCC bill that just tackles one part of society. We need a national ICAC because transparency and integrity are fundamentally important.

I urge all members of this house to support our second reading amendment, ditch this bill and get on with establishing a national anticorruption watchdog. I move our second reading amendment:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate calls on the Government to introduce legislation to establish a national independent broad based anti-corruption body that has wide ranging powers, including the power to investigate politicians, and that this bill should not come into effect until such legislation has been passed by the Senate.".

I also want to foreshadow amendments that we will be moving in the committee stage if this bill passes through its second reading.

Given that the building industry code is going to regulate, in the smallest detail, what can and cannot be in every building enterprise agreement around the country if this bill is passed, then at the very least we can try to ensure that this highly prescriptive building code at least does some good. When we know that Prime Minister Turnbull desperately wants this bill to be passed before Christmas. He went to an election on this bill and his authority is tied up with getting this bill passed. This is putting the crossbenchers in a very powerful position. Our amendments that we are moving will see whether these crossbenchers are actually willing to stand up to the government or whether they are going to roll over and have their tummies tickled.

The Greens will not be supporting this bill even if it is amended, because we reckon that it is bad legislation. However, if there are crossbenchers who want this bill passed—the One Nation team, the Nick Xenophon Team or Senator Derryn Hinch—then at the very least we think that they should use their power to ensure that this highly prescriptive building code does some good. To that end, in the committee stage, we are going to be moving two sets of amendments: one on local steel and one on local jobs.

The local steel amendments are going to be amending the bill so that the building code must include a requirement for 90 per cent local steel to be used on any project covered by the code, with exemptions for special steel that cannot be obtained here or manufactured here at a reasonable cost. This would be a big boost for steelmaking in this country, especially boosting and really improving the conditions that Arrium are operating under. Senator Xenophon talked big about supporting Arrium in the lead-up to the election. Supporting our amendments will be his chance to do something about that.

On local jobs, we will be moving amendments that will require that, where the building code applies, jobs have to be advertised locally and the employer must demonstrate that there are no suitable local applicants before guest workers can be used. We have been advocating this position for a long time. It will be a test for the crossbenchers—for the One Nation team, the Nick Xenophon Team and Senator Hinch—to put their votes where their rhetoric is and to support local jobs.

We are calling on the crossbenchers, those who profess their commitment to Australian jobs and industry, to do something about it and to support our amendments. Will the crossbenchers be rolling over, having their tummies tickled and giving a Christmas present to the government with very little to show in return? By supporting our amendments, they will be able to do something to support their local community, support local jobs and have a small positive coming out of what is overall very bad legislation.

In conclusion, the Greens would prefer this bill to be rejected in its entirety. We think it is bad legislation, it is scapegoating workers in the construction industry and it is giving them fewer rights than accused criminals. It does not tackle the real issues of corruption in our society. The Greens are calling upon this Senate to reject this bill, to move on tackling corruption across society and to legislate for a national ICAC.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise today to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. When I worked in the Army I worked for General David Morrison, the Chief of Army. One of the things he said that got a lot of publicity has stuck with me: 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept'—not just in defence, but in all industries. Certainly that is applicable in this place and it is certainly applicable to the millions of men and women who work in and around the construction industry. From four royal commissions over the last 40 years the facts are absolutely crystal clear. The construction industry has been, and remains, uniquely rife with corruption and bullying. Circumstances exist still, today, for workers that would be totally and utterly unacceptable in this day and age in any other workplace in this country. It is absolutely clear that the ABCC worked. It should never have been gotten rid of by those opposite, and it is desperately needed again.

Despite all of the tummy-tickling rhetoric from those opposite, the bill is all about protecting Australian workers. It is about stopping union thuggery, but it is also about improving productivity and reducing construction costs in our most vital of industries. Ultimately, when you reduce the costs you create more jobs and you create more wealth. The 165,000 sparkies, the 124,000 carpenters, the 87,000 plumbers, the 46,000 painters, the 43,000 civil engineers and the many thousands more concreters, plasterers, brickies, tilers and other very hardworking tradies belong to our third-largest industry and are subject to utterly appalling standards of behaviour and criminal activity in the workplace. As I said, if these workers were in any other industry, and not one protected by those opposite for so many years, it would not happen.

I will go through shortly some of the more egregious and outrageous things that workers in this industry have to put up with, because those opposite walk past it every single day. They are your mates, they are your ex-colleagues, they are your donors—but that is absolutely no excuse for walking past the appalling things that happen in thousands of worksites in the construction industry every single day. These hardworking men—and all too few women—deserve that we stop walking past them and what they have to put up with every single day.

In my home state of Western Australia workers suffer from some of the most horrific circumstances, as they do nationally. The 2015 Federal Court case Director of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate v Upton imposed fines totalling $24,000 on the CFMEU and its official Bradley Upton for racially abusing a site representative on a construction site. The court described the conduct as 'disgraceful behaviour'. Mr Upton made obscene remarks to a site representative and told another to hit the representative after he became agitated about the meeting room assigned for discussion with workers. Mr Upton made the most obscene, abusive and offensive comments—far too revolting for me to repeat here in this chamber today, but I am sure some of my colleagues here know exactly what comments I am referring to. These comments and this behaviour would never, ever be tolerated—and have not been tolerated for decades—in any other workplace. Justice Gilmour further commented on Mr Upton's comments, stating:

I regard Upton’s conduct as deplorable particularly so for someone acting in his official capacity …

Supposedly on behalf of his workers. Justice Gilmour went on:

The language used as well as being repeatedly obscene, had a particularly nasty racist overtone.

It makes me wonder where the Human Rights Commission was in relation to this matter, but I digress. In relation to the CFMEU, the court said:

The CFMEU has a significant record of noncompliance with the provision of industrial legislation … There is a history over a number of years of contraventions on industrial law by CFMEU officials, for whom the CFMEU is responsible, and which have involved those officials, variously, in using obscene and threatening language, making threats of assaults and in some cases involving scuffles and physical altercation.

In another incident, according to the royal commission the union official Michael Greenfield told female workplace inspectors—again, this is far too obscene for me to read what he actually said—that they were 'f'ing dogs'. He also said to them, 'I hope you brought your kneepads, you are going to be doing expletive expletive on those dogs all day in the workplace.' Can you imagine any other workplace in this nation where female workers would come onto a worksite or into workplace and be told, when they entered, 'Did you bring your kneepads because you are going to have to perform a sexual act on all of us in this workplace'? That is what he said, and it is completely and utterly appalling that those opposite are doing nothing to address this endemic problem.

This is not something new. Four royal commissions in 40 years have found the same thing over and over again about the CFMEU—there are endemic criminal activities within the building and construction industry, and workers are repeatedly and regularly subject to unacceptable behaviour. The impact of this is felt far further than the direct impact on workers—our whole economy suffers, because we are paying up to 30 per cent more for building and construction works in this country. Think about the implications of that. In my own home state, the taxpayers of Western Australia are paying 30 per cent more of their taxes for construction jobs simply because of the corruption and other activities that happen in the unions. We could be building 30 per cent more schools and public infrastructure—but, no, it is going into the coffers and the deals of the trade unions. It is very shameful.

Last Monday night in this chamber, the Senate passed the first tranche of legislation to deal with these issues—the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill. This will ensure that rogue union officials are subject to the same standards and accountability as corporate and charity organisation directors. But again those opposite fought the government at every turn on this basic level of accountability for union officials. That is absolutely disgraceful. Why should union officials not be accountable to their members for how they use their money? Those opposite should also be working with the government to make sure that the millions of people who work in construction and manufacturing workplaces are treated with respect and are not subject to criminal behaviour.

As I said, the construction industry is an integral part of the Australian economy not only for the approximately one million jobs it directly creates but also for establishing the infrastructure that we need for long-term economic development. It is Australia's third largest industry and actually contributes eight per cent GDP to this nation. Last year in my own wonderful state of Western Australia the $31 billion construction industry accounted for a full 11 per cent of gross state product. However, the systemic culture of abuse, corruption and bullying that riddles the construction industry in my home state, as it does elsewhere in the nation, makes Australia a less appealing place for both domestic and overseas companies to invest. Why would you invest when you do not have certainty but have corruption and bullying? You do not have certainty. You may as well put your money somewhere else. All of us in Australia suffer because of that.

Mr Shorten abolished the ABCC in 2012. After that the rate of disputes in the construction industry increased by 40 per cent while in other industries the rate of disputes declined by 33 per cent. All other industrial disputes declined nationally by 33 per cent but—surprise, surprise!—with the ABCC gone, again the rate of disputes increased by 40 per cent in the building and construction industry. Unsurprisingly and additionally, the significant cultural problem of bullying and abuse in the workplace has seen decreased participation by women in the building and construction industry. The Productivity Commission notes that, of the 19 industry divisions in our economy, construction has the lowest rate of participation by women, at just over 11 per cent of the workforce, compared to nearly 46 per cent across all other industries. With the conditions that men and women, particularly women, have to put up with in the construction industry, is it any wonder that we have so few women joining and staying in that industry?

For many years it has also been very clear that the commercial building and construction sector provides the worst examples of industrial unlawfulness. Again you do not have to look at just the last royal commission report; all three proceeding royal commission reports said the same thing over and over again. It is a corrupt industry, it is a corrupt union and it is a totally inappropriate workplace for so many men and women to work in. Thirteen years ago the Cole royal commission found:

… an industry which departs from the standards of commercial and industrial conduct exhibited in the rest of the Australian economy. They mark the industry as singular.

This means that this is a unique industry with a uniquely corrupt and inappropriate organisation in the CFMEU. Again this is nothing new but it is unique in this country. Also 13 years ago, the industry was:

… marred by unlawful and inappropriate conduct. Fear, intimidation and coercion are commonplace. Contractors, subcontractors and workers face this culture continuously. At the centre of this culture and much of the unlawful and inappropriate conduct is—

guess who?—

the CFMEU.

The Cole royal commission also said:

The CFMEU exercises a position of dominance and power often disproportionate to its on-site presence, in terms of the number of workers on-site who are members of the CFMEU.

If you took the findings of the Cole royal commission and the most recent royal commission, you would see that they are saying the same thing over and over again about this union.

I am incredibly proud that the Howard government was prepared to step in and make the tough decisions to clean up this sector for all of the men and women who work within it. That I think is great government—taking the tough but necessary decisions. The establishment of the ABCC in 2005 provided a genuinely strong watchdog for what is a uniquely corrupt and awful workplace for so many men and women to work in. It was a strong specialist regulator that enforced the rule of law to the building and construction sector.

What were the results? Yes, there were results. When the ABCC was introduced there was a decrease in lawlessness in the building and construction sites. It was clearly making a difference, which is why those opposite hated it so much and the now Leader of the Opposition abolished it. Senator Di Natale's assertion that the ABCC did not make any difference is demonstrably and factually wrong. When the ABCC existed the economic and industrial performance of the building and construction sector improved. The figures are very clear. According to the ABS, estimates of industry multifactor productivity showed that in the six years from 2004-05 to 2011-12, its final year of operation, the labour productivity index for the construction industry rose from 83 to 100—a 20 per cent increase in a few short years. This is clear evidence that the ABCC was actually working.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would have been terrible for you to realise that the ABCC was working, just as it will work again when reintroduced by this government. The most recent royal commission findings once again lift the veil on what everybody in this industry has known for over 40 years but previous governments were either unwilling or unable to tackle. The Heydon royal commission again reported that there is still 'a culture of wilful defiance of the law which appears to lie at the core of the CFMEU'. Since 2005 the CFMEU has had to pay $8 million of its members' money in fines—$8 million of the membership dues paid by the CFMEU membership have been paid for wilful breaches by the union officials of legislation. As the royal commission found, they continue to wilfully flout the law and keep using their members' money as a bit of an ATM to pay for their own fines. This systematic and volatile culture of bullying, corruption and harassment that was again identified by the most recent royal commission reinforces the need for active enforcement of workplace laws.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Reynolds, you will be in continuation. It being 2 pm, we now move to questions without notice.