Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for External Territories) Share this | Hansard source

Can I firstly acknowledge the contribution of members who have preceded me in speaking on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and cognate bill, and I am looking forward to listening to those who follow. I want to thank my colleagues from the Labor side of the House for their eloquence and their commitment to the rights and interests of Australian workers and their unions, as represented by their contributions today.

Before the member for Wright leaves the chamber, I want to say to him that I did not take great offence to much of what he said. It was a little confused and at one point I was not quite sure whether, as the minister opposite said, he might be seeking membership of the Labor Party, given his supposed support for unions. But then he made a statement about the shadow minister and his relationship to the CFMEU that was way out of order. I think he owes the shadow minister an apology, because if he knew the shadow minister at all he would understand that he is a man of great integrity, and to slight him in the way you have done is, I think, wrong.

I also want to pull you up for a moment, if I may, on the issue of productivity. I hope you have read the Bills Digest for this legislation. If not, I hope you will. The original Bills Digest went to some length in discussing the issue of productivity. It said:

The title of this Bill includes the words 'improving productivity' and the Government has several times asserted that the operation of the ABCC led to an improvement in productivity.

It then goes on to have a discussion about the Econtech modelling and the conclusions reached by Econtech, and admissions by Econtech, with the Bills Digest quoting this statement from Econtech:

For the original 2007 Econtech Report, some data was inadvertently juxtaposed in extracting it from … hard copy publications.

The Bills Digest then states:

This made a big difference to the findings, virtually obviating the change that had been found.

Justice Wilcox said that the Econtech report was 'deeply flawed and should be disregarded'. There is no conclusive evidence of an increase in productivity as a result of having the ABCC previously—none. So I suggest that, whilst it is okay to stand up here and make assertions, they need to be based on some evidence and some facts. The evidence and the facts do not support the arguments that those opposite have made.

Sadly, the contributions made by government members largely demonstrate their ideological fixation with attacking Australian workers and their unions. They have a blinkered vision when it comes to acknowledging the value of unions, their historical significance and, indeed, their current importance. Their determination to divide, vilify, victimise, attack and undermine Australian workers is very clear.

I spoke on the previous legislation in 2013 and said at the time that the bill was about attacking the rights of Australian workers and their organisations. I said that the ABCC's proposed powers were extreme, unnecessary, undemocratic and would compromise civil liberties. My view has not changed.

This current legislation would increase the coercive powers of a new proposed ABBA. For example, the legislation has removed the oversight of the AAT in relation to the specified actions of the ABC Commissioner. The coercive and discriminatory nature of the legislation can only be condemned.

I am reminded of the words of Nicola McGarrity and Professor George Williams from the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales in commenting on the legislation. They said:

… the ABC Commissioner's investigatory powers have the potential to severely restrict basic democratic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of association, the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence.

The conclusion of the Bills Digest from the 2013 legislation is instructive. I will take the liberty of quoting from it. It says:

The Bill not only repeals the FWBI Act and re-establishes the ABCC, it enlarges both its jurisdictional and industry sector application. It also provides new coercive powers (with retrospective operation), re-introduces a number of criminal and civil penalty offences previously contained in the BCII Act, and introduces a new civil penalty offence of unlawful picketing. It provides for penalties for building industry participants which are considerably higher than those available under the Fair Work Act.

In effect, the Bill creates (in relation to industrial action and picketing) a new and different set of industrial relations rules that apply only to persons associated with the building and construction industry.

There we have it. It is deliberately targeting, in a discriminatory way, workers in one sector of the economy. Not only should they not be attacking those workers in any event but, as we know, this is built on evidence from the most recent royal commission. We argue—I think, validly—that it was a political stunt, that the commissioner was biased and that the findings, although we accept them, were in large part very questionable. I certainly accept that where people act in a way which is inappropriate, either by threatening violence or using violence, they are matters which should be taken to the criminal courts. I absolutely do. Everyone on this side of the parliament accepts that violent or threatening behaviour is totally unacceptable.

It is worthwhile pointing out what the coercive powers in this bill are. This bill provides that the commissioner can require a person to: give information or produce documents to the ABC Commissioner; attend an examination before the ABC Commissioner; and answer questions or provide information under oath or affirmation. In addition, where amongst other reasons an inspector reasonably believes that the act, a designated building law or the building code is being breached, they can: enter a premises without force; require a person to provide their name and address; inspect any work, process or object; interview any person; require a person to provide a record or document; inspect and make copies of records or documents; or take samples of any goods or substances.

The bill contains a number of criminal offences similar to those contained in section 52 of the FW(BI) Act which are punishable by six months imprisonment if you do not comply with an examination notice to provide information, produce a document, attend an examination to answer questions, take an oath or affirmation, or answer questions during that examination.

This is simply unprecedented. We are a modern, democratic nation. We have a Prime Minister who likes to regard himself as being fleet-footed and progressive. But here we are seeing him picking up on this Abbott inspired legislation. It is retrogressive and punitive legislation, targeting one section of the Australian community. How can the Prime Minister of this country, in all good conscience and given his progressive values—those that he pronounces on an almost daily basis—on the one hand say what a good bloke he is and yet, in the very next breath, support this pernicious, unjustifiable interfering legislation which criminalises people who should not be criminalised?

The Cole royal commission, which was the basis for the original legislation—with $60 million of expenditure and 23 volumes—referred 31 individuals for prosecution and there was not one single criminal prosecution, let alone any finding of guilt; not one. So what sort of house of cards is this stuff built on? It is tawdry. It is a very tawdry act by a government who is going to extremes when there is no need to. There are ways, using the Australian Crime Commission, the criminal law and the various jurisdictions across this country, to address the sorts of behaviours that the government say are widespread—which, by evidence, are not. The fact is that the vast majority of Australian workers, when they go to their worksite on a building site around this country, act appropriately, do a hard day's work and expect a fair day's pay and expect their working conditions are such that their health and safety are being protected.

But what we know is that the ABCC is not impartial. As I said the last time I spoke on this in the House, Professor David Peetz said of the ABCC:

The culture of the ABCC is not and has never been impartial. It has concerned itself almost exclusively with transgressions by unions, or by employers who have facilitated or acquiesced to transgressions by unions.

He went on to say:

If it is going to haul before the courts a union member who refuses to tell them about what happened at a meeting to discuss safety breaches by the employer, it must also haul before the courts the employers who breached the safety laws in the first place.

The member for Lalor talked about fatalities in the building industry. It is again instructive to note Professor Peetz, when he talks about fatalities in the building and construction industry during the time the ABCC was in existence. He said:

There were 36 fatalities in the construction industry in 2007-08, twice as many as in 2004-05, immediately before the ABCC commenced operations in late 2005. Under the ABCC, construction became the industry with the highest number of deaths. As observance with occupational safety tends to be lower where unions are weaker, this trend is not surprising.

And that is the guts of this. This legislation is designed to attack the strength of unions on building sites around this country and prevent them from looking after and protecting the rights of the workers, their members—opening workers up to the abuse that was evidenced by the increase in fatalities the last time the ABCC was in existence.

There is no excuse for this, and the government should be condemned for even contemplating putting this legislation back in the parliament. They say they are willing to go to a double dissolution about this stuff. Well, so am I. I would happily argue this up hill and down dale on every corner of Australia, because I know what Australian people think about fairness and equity and about the right to live in a safe working environment in a democratic country and not be abused by the way in which the government proposes to abuse them.

It cannot be said that Labor is not wanting reform. As the Leader of the Opposition and the minister responsible have pointed out most recently, we have an obligation in this place to look after the interests of all Australians, regardless of where they are and regardless of where they work. This particular piece of legislation is targeting a particular group of people, one sector of the economy, with the sole objective of undermining their rights in the workplace. It is not reasonable. It is not fair. And it is not acceptable.

See this speech in context