Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

When you are intimidated to such a degree, physically intimidated, verbally intimidated, and your family is intimidated, your workplace is intimidated and your income is intimidated, when you are then asked to stand before a hearing, that intimidation goes so far as to prevent you from acting and therefore you do not give the evidence. I should know because, in my previous role in this place as Indigenous affairs minister, I saw exactly the same behaviour with allegations of child molestation and rape in remote communities. The police would get witnesses to walk in the door to the police station where everyone could see them. As a result—guess what—the witnesses had nothing to say. This is just a mirror image, but it is happening right here in our cities. It is hurting our productivity, it is hurting workers and it is hurting families—and it can be stopped. This was shown during the period of the Howard government when we had the ABCC in place. Then his people behaving in this way had a cause to be answer, and people did react to that.

Let us turn to the Labor Party. Did they change this heinous act when they came to power in 2007? You would have thought, listening to them today go on about how abhorrent it was, that they would have changed it immediately. But no, they did not. It took them some five years and it is interesting to note that the person who finally took it upon himself to do it was today's Leader of the Opposition. He did so despite the findings of the Wilcox report, which came down in 2007. The Wilcox report concluded that the ABCC had made a significant contribution to improved conduct and harmony in the industry but that there was still more to be done. Despite those findings, the now Leader of the Opposition felt it was necessary to act on behalf of certain union connections rather than in the interests of the nation, the interests of the workers, the interests of the subcontractors or the interests of the suppliers. The evidence was there for them.

A number of speakers have said—and I will be clairvoyant and can just about guarantee you that the member for Melbourne will say the same—that these are unreasonable powers and that these powers somehow are excessive. But the ACCC, ASIC and the Australian Crime Commission all have similar powers and they have had them for much longer. We are talking here about death threats and physical threats. I do not think anyone in this place can dispute that, because there is documentary evidence of it arising out of royal commissions. On some occasions, you can even see such things with your own eyes on television.

Before the ABCC existed, more than 50 per cent of investigations into unlawful conduct failed because witnesses would not give information. That is true intimidation—in a country where we do not accept intimidation. The members on this side of the chamber say that that can and should stop. It should stop because it is not in the nation's interest, it is not in the construction industry's interest and it is not in the interests of families. Who should be fearful of this legislation? Quite frankly, if you accept what those opposite say—that there are no issues—then absolutely no-one should be fearful. If there are no issues, no-one is going to be called to give evidence and no-one is going to be held to account—because everyone behaves like angels. You have to ask yourself why people like the Property Council and the Master Builders Association have screamed long and loud to get this changed. It is in everyone's interests to make sure that there is a strong cop on the beat and that the issues we have referred to are dealt with.

If we stop acting on these sorts of matters, we give in to bullying. Bullies destroy children in schools, they destroy workers in workplaces and they can destroy businesses. When they do, there are downstream impacts. Say, for example, you are in a regional town and you own the cement mixer in the concrete plant—but you cannot turn up to do the pour. Why? Because the unions just pulled the workers out for two hours—and then for another two hours and then for yet another two hours. You have nothing to do with the dispute that is going on, but you are caught up in it. It is bastardry. That is what it is. That owner of the cement mixer has an overdraft and has employees. It impacts on them. That is how it goes down the chain.

The description of this bill talks about fairness, efficiency and productivity. It is about a bargaining framework in which people can be protected. The definition of building work does go beyond the workplace. It covers the fabrication of components for buildings and structures—the entire industry. This is so important to us as a nation. I know that it is a lost cause talking to the Labor Party, but I spoke with the Greens today about some of their concerns—whether we could ameliorate some of those concerns and deal with this matter in a constructive way.

There is one last issue I will deal with in this short address—and that is a further change that the previous member mentioned relating to sections 73 and 73A of the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act. It refers to any issue that has been dealt with. Perhaps, say, there has been unlawful behaviour but through negotiation—basically hitting the employer, the subcontractor or the contractor over the head and blackmailing them—the matters have been settled between the parties. It does not matter if you have acted illegally—as long as you get some sort of a settlement, it can no longer be dealt with. If we are going to start rewarding that behaviour, we are going to see it repeated time and again to this nation's cost. We cannot afford it any longer.

This is but one of the examples of Labor getting it wrong. Employers and employees need to work together in their own interests and in the nation's interests. If we do that we can, as the member for Fairfax said in his maiden speech, grow the economic pie here. This is an important component of growing that economic pie. It is an important piece of legislation and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context