House debates

Monday, 2 December 2013

Bills

Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013, Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013; Second Reading

8:51 pm

Photo of Stephen JonesStephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker—a just ruling. The introduction of these kinds of coercive powers should send alarm bells through all right-thinking members of the community. It is akin to treating building workers as terrorists. The legislation destroys the principles of freedom of association. We have heard lots from those on that side of the chamber about the importance of freedom of association. I have heard many fine speeches in the first speeches of those opposite about the importance of liberal principles and the principles of freedom of association. I am not surprised that many of them would not repeat those principles when they spoke on this legislation.

The legislation contains maximum penalties for unlawful industrial action, unlawful picketing and coercive offences—penalties far outweighing those that exist within the Fair Work Act. The rationale for singling out one industry with special laws is flimsy at best. Australia's industrial laws should be enforced in the building and construction industry in the same way as in any other industry.

Fair Work Australia and the Fair Work Ombudsman already have capacity to deploy specialist investigators to deal with these issues in this sector. If those opposite have complaints about the way that Fair Work Australia are fulfilling their legislative requirements, perhaps they might bring a bill before this House to increase the resources available to Fair Work Australia.

In a review of the earlier incarnation of these laws conducted by Justice Wilcox in 2009, the Hon. Justice Wilcox could find no rationale to apply the tougher penalties to building workers. In his report, he said this:

There is no justification for selecting a different maximum penalty, for the same contravention, simply because the offender is in a particular industry.

Pick a bloke in a blue singlet, and he is a potential terrorist. That is what these laws are saying, because he is being treated in exactly the same way when it comes to the denial of basic civil rights.

Those opposite claim that the building industry is rife with industrial relations lawlessness. In fact, the ABS figures show that the rate of industrial disputation in the building industry is at a historic low. I would like to see those opposite intervene on that point. They want to bury those statistics because they know that they do not support their argument.

From time to time, industrial disputes do occur—some of those angry and fraught scenes we feel uneasy about. In the heat of the moment, when the stakes are high, errors of judgement can occur. Unlawfulness and criminal activities should always be condemned and dealt with under the laws that apply to everyone else and apply equally. There should be no singling out of any particular group for coercive treatment. Recently in this place, I paid tribute to the work of the local CFMEU

Debate interrupted.

Comments

No comments