House debates

Thursday, 12 December 2013

Bills

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

10:28 am

Photo of Graham PerrettGraham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak strongly against the government's desperate and misguided actions to return to the former Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC, set up by the former Howard Liberal government in 2005, via the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013.

I should declare up-front that, whilst I do not work in the building industry I have three brothers who all work in the building industry. One brother actually worked on the construction of Parliament House, when the big flag fell over 25 years ago. People may remember; I am sure the Clerk would remember. I know he is only a fresh young face here in Parliament House but he might remember when the flagpole fell over. My brother's company works in cranes. They were actually working down at the Canberra casino at that time, so he came to fix the flagpole that fell over. Another one of my brothers, my younger brother—all three of my brothers work in the construction industry—had a crane collapse right beside him while he was working at Twin Towns. The kibble on the crane injured his back significantly when the crane collapsed. But the most traumatic part of that accident was that two of his friends who were standing right beside him were killed. He was literally only inches away from being killed. So I have seen the building industry via the prism of my siblings and what they have and are experiencing, because all three of them still work in the industry.

Much of the bill before the chamber today largely replicates the former ABCC legislation, which was then amended by the Rudd-Gillard government through the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act. I am particularly outraged by this piece of legislation. It is tough enough when we have legislation that we just voted on, before this current piece of legislation, that took away a pay rise for people in the aged-care industry. We have seen a pay rise snatched away from the childcare workers and now we have an extra imposition on the building industry.

This legislation is wrong for so many reasons. It certainly introduced an element of retrospectivity into this area of law. Retrospectivity is never a good idea, especially from a government where so many of the promises from the now Prime Minister were that there would be no surprises and no excuses. To suddenly reach back into the past with this legislation is very disappointing. Retrospectivity should never be embraced in legislation.

The coalition government's claim is that their bill is strengthening the powers of the ABCC, but in fact it is restricting business certainty. It is creating a lot of uncertainty for small businesses that work in the building industry. It is actually imposing extra red tape from a government that said they were going to abolish red tape. They are not only bringing in future red tape but imposing red tape on past decisions, which is the very worst sort of legislation. They are proposing some sort of watchdog, but it is really just an attack dog on unions, not dissimilar to those attack dogs we saw down on the waterfront under the MUA dispute years ago. The reason it is particularly offensive is that, even when the people involved in employment in the building area have reached agreement and signed on to an agreement, now the government of today proposes to reach back. This is the very enemy of contract law, as all lawyers would know. And these changes are actually a waste of taxpayers' money, because of this extra red tape.

The changes will result in the ABCC using public funds to engage lawyers to continue litigation where the parties have already reached certainty and have an agreement. This is just a simple regurgitation of failed Howard government policies. This is yet another example of the Abbott government living in the past.

Looking at the brochure sent to my home by my opponent during the election—his 'Real Solutions' booklet—included in the visuals the words 'this is an experienced team'. I remember the photograph. I think I even saw it on a few billboards—'this is an experienced team'. They even were generous enough to put the member for Wentworth in the photograph so that there was a token Liberal in this hard-nosed team that was supposed to be experienced. As it turned out, what we have seen in the last 100 days, sadly, is the stumblings of amateurs.

Australia as a nation must look to the future. We need to be concerned about the future of jobs, the future of economic growth, especially in an environment where the dollar is high and puts pressure on our export industries and manufacturing, particularly, as we have seen with the disaster announced yesterday of Holden committing to leave the country. It was obviously not helped by the $500 million slashed from the automotive industry, as proposed by one of those members of the 'Real Solutions' team, the former member for Indi.

I have heard a bit of comment about mandates. I would have thought that, if your shadow automotive minister is the person who represents your policy in the automotive industry and they are the only Liberal shadow who is not elected, surely that suggests you have no authority to implement that policy. That would have been my suggestion.

The government understand political tactics but I do not think they understand the needs of Australian people, and they certainly do not know how to consult with building workers and how to consult with the people who actually turn up at the workplace every day.

Sadly, the coalition has a history of removing the rights from workers in this country, particularly in the building industry. I remember Ark Tribe—I think the member for Makin, being a South Australian, would be more familiar with the situation—

Comments

No comments