Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an excellent motion this is from my friend Senator Ruston. I hope that the Senate supports it, and I stand today in this place firmly on the record with my support for it. I'm actually impressed at the Australian Labor Party here: their lack of shame on this topic is genuinely unmatched. I thought that we would see the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, stripped slowly of its power, but what they're doing is they are approaching this with a full head of steam. How wrong was I to think that they might do this slowly!

The members and senators of the Albanese government were not even sworn in yet when we saw Tony Burke, the minister, and Prime Minister—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I would remind you to use the correct titles of people from the other place.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I understood as I said it. The minister and the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, and the rest of the union hacks in the government gave their masters the payoff. They're already crab walking away from their promises to the Australian public, but their promises to the union movement—to the CFMMEU, in particular—are standing firm. They are very strong on their support of that. They're not crab walking away from their commitments in relation to supporting their mates in the CFMMEU. Is anyone here really surprised?

The government have no plan, as we just heard from my colleague Senator Smith. They have no plan to deal with inflation. They have no plan, indeed, to deal with the cost-of-living pressures. We heard yesterday from Minister Watt that they have no plan in relation to the foot-and-mouth disease. They have no plan for the Australian people, but what they do have is a plan to enable the lawlessness of the CFMMEU to continue in this country. Before, we heard Senator Paul Scarr speak about gross examples of lawlessness and gross examples of abuse that have taken place on many worksites across this country. That has been found to be true even, indeed, through the court of law. The government have a fully formed plan, however, to hand the CFMMEU a free rein on building sites again, an unbelievable and yet somehow totally unsurprising set of priorities from the ALP. When it comes to the union movement, it seems that actually crime really does pay.

But don't get me wrong: I'm not saying this to be flippant. Just yesterday it was reported in the Daily Telegraph that the ABCC is seeking a six-figure fine against the CFMMEU for breaking laws in New South Wales during a highway upgrade, a nice little saving for that union if the ABCC is abolished in time. A nice little saving. Maybe that's part of the government's economic plan—make sure the unions don't have to incur these costs. As we know, as was found, as they've said, this sort of behaviour and getting penalties is just a cost of doing business—the cost of inflicting all sorts of turmoil in construction workplaces across Australia. They're prepared to pay the penalties so that they can continue with that line of work.

On the day after the announcement of the ABCC's abolition, a CFMMEU official was called out for the appalling abuse and intimidation of workers. It becomes clearer and clearer that the ALP don't actually stand up for workers. They don't stand up for workers; they stand up for unions, unions that cover less than one in 10 private sector employees. Workers don't want to be physically intimidated while they're at work. They don't want to be abused when they're at work. But the Australian Labor Party is stripping back the very watchdog that is working to prevent this abuse. Shame on them! Some of those opposite seem to put more effort into protecting white-collar workers from mean words than they do from protecting blue collar workers from actual thugs.

You know who is standing up for workers? The ABCC. While the union runs around raking up fines and disrupting workplaces, the ABCC has, since 2016, when it was re-established, recovered over $5 million in unpaid wages and entitlements for construction workers. Funny, you'd think that would be the sort of thing a union should be doing. But the ABCC has secured over $13½ million in progress claims for subcontractors, and this is only since 2019. Prime Minister Albanese and Labor talk a big game on wage theft, but they voted against our bill in the last government to criminalise wage theft and now they want to abolish the ABCC, who have recovered millions of dollars in wages and entitlements for Australian workers.

I don't actually have time today in this contribution to go over all of the egregious examples of the CFMMEU's abuse of power and abuse of people. If I focused only on the last few weeks, I wouldn't even have time! But I do want to quote the head of the ACTU, Sally McManus. Famously—or infamously, I should say—she said in 2017 that she doesn't see a problem with breaking the law if the law is unjust. She said this in 2017, at which time the CFMMEU had faced only 118 separate proceedings in courts across Australia. That number, sadly, is far higher today. But Labor are intent on making sure that the unions go unpunished for their wrongdoings.

The union movement sees legal fees and fines, as I said, as a cost of doing business, not to mention the thuggery that happens on site. In recent years, over $16 million in fines have been imposed on the CFMMEU. Judges have observed that these penalties are not enough for a union that treats them like parking tickets. Of the 1,661 contraventions of industrial law brought against the CFMMEU, 91 per cent were upheld. Clearly, this body is not being frivolous, as those opposite like to put it; they have a genuine role to play. John Setka's construction division of the CFMMEU is so toxic that even other unions are trying to distance themselves from it. Both the mining and energy division and the manufacturing division are trying to leave the union. I don't know why the Labor Party pay such attention to the CFMMEU. Frankly, they don't seem to care about construction, forestry, mining or energy very much. But, for whatever reason, they do still pay attention to that union. Perhaps it's because the CFMMEU has, over the last 20 years, provided the Labor Party with more than $16.3 million in donations.

This motion speaks of the importance of the construction industry. It's a very important industry, directly employing 1.15 million Australians and supporting hundreds of thousands more. It directly contributes nearly 10 per cent of Australia's economy and in terms of GDP it's Australia's fifth-largest industry. A recent report produced by EY and commissioned by the Master Builders Association found—are those opposite listening?—that the abolition of the ABCC would mean an increase in labour costs of 8.8 per cent, with reduced worker productivity of 9.3 per cent. On a day when we have had an economic statement from the Treasurer talking about the grey clouds and the serious impacts that are happening right now in our country on the economy, you would think the last thing you would want to do is put a further handbrake on a section of the economy that is actually very large and very important. It's important for the productivity of this nation. You wouldn't think that you would be doing anything to put a handbrake on it. But this is going to result in around $35 billion of output reduction for the industry to 2030. The total economic loss from the ABCC's abolition was estimated at $47.5 billion. These aren't our figures. EY and the Master Builders Association commissioned the work that found this. The costs overruns from the construction industry will spill over into other sectors—all their suppliers and everyone that feeds into them. The lower economic growth and market falls in productivity will result in 4,000 fewer jobs being available than otherwise would be. The report found that there is a major risk of delays and that these delays could occur immediately after the abolition of the ABCC. Working days lost went from 24,000 in 2011-12 to 89,000 in 2012-13 when Bill Shorten abolished the ABCC. That's what happened.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I'll just remind you again to use people's titles from the other place.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, indeed, I apologise—when Mr Shorten was the minister. The costs of critical infrastructure also rose astronomically, with crucial projects such as hospitals and schools costing up to 30 per cent more. We want to see a good many new schools and hospitals and these things built around the country, but if you're adding to the cost of delivery in providing that infrastructure and providing those services, then what sort of impact are you going to have? Are you going to increase the cost? Are you going to be able to do less of it? Inversely, when the ABCC existed previously under the Howard government it was found that the economic and the industrial performance of the building and construction sector improved significantly. A 2013 report found that this productivity rise was in the order of 16 per cent and represented a $7½ billion-a-year saving, while also significantly reducing working days lost through industrial action. These productivity gains flatlined again in 2012 after the Gillard government abolished the commission.

This correlation is very clear. When the building industry has a dedicated watchdog, productivity increases and the economy and the workers benefit. When that watchdog is abolished, productivity fails. It falls. Industrial action increases, and it is inevitably the workers—who the great Labor Party say that they represent and that the unions represent—well, they're not standing with them here in this term of this parliament if this is what they're going to do: abolish the ABCC. This is not to mention the taxpayers, who fund a lot of these projects—the construction projects across the country. The increase in the price and the inflationary impact of that upon the economy is drastic. So, strangely, this abolition seems to coincide with the election of Labor governments. Every time we see it: the costs go up.

The core regulatory functions of the ABCC stem from a total of four royal commissions, one parliamentary inquiry and a parliamentary report. It was found over and over again that a dedicated oversight body for the construction industry was required. And even the 2009 report instigated by the Gillard government found that issues remained in the sector. It opined that extraordinary laws were still required, given the extent of lawlessness on building sites in Victoria and Western Australia. But now, without review, without an inquiry and without consultation—except of course with the CFMMEU—Labor are going to pare back the ABCC just as far as they can.

The building and construction industry is too important to hand over wholesale to the union movement. It employs far too many people. It has too big a slice of the Australian economy: too much of our national economy depends on its productivity and depends on its efficiency, and the Labor Party are prepared to just hand it over to the lawlessness that we see in the CFMMEU. We know that if the ABCC is abolished we will see cost overruns and delays, largely brought about by easily predictable illegal industrial action that will likely go unpunished. We on this side of the house don't want to see this. We want to see a well-regulated and efficient building industry that is safe for the workers and which sees the unions operating legally. But, sadly, what we're seeing in the 10 weeks of this government so far is that they don't stand with the workers. They don't actually stand, indeed, with efficiency in the economy. Those opposite oppose this, but I want to encourage everyone here, if they have the courage, to stand and support this motion.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, you have a very short period of time.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's been an interesting week, watching the Liberals and Nationals dealing with the flogging that they got just a few weeks ago, running with the least-popular Prime Minister in Australian history and with the worst government since the government of Billy McMahon. What are they rabbiting on about this week? The ABCC; hyperpoliticising foot-and-mouth disease—not in the national interest; and lord knows what else, taking us backwards on climate and energy. Like Talleyrand said of the Bourbon regime, these guys have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. They have a long, long way to go before they'll ever grace this side of the parliament again, and I look forward to more inane contributions like the one we've just seen. (Time expired)

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the debate has expired.