Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Ryan and I agree on many things within this parliament. I respect her for the position she takes on many health issues and many other issues, but it is when you come down to an issue such as this that you can really see the difference between her beliefs and mine. It is the same with the government and the opposition. I find this legislation to be totally untenable. I think it goes to the heart of what we on this side of the parliament believe in, and it goes to the heart of why I am a member of this parliament. I am a member of this parliament to stand up for the rights of everybody in my electorate—for the rights of workers. In a past life I spent a lot of time working with those who were injured, and, surprise surprise, one of the largest groups of those who were injured were workers. Another surprise is that many of those workers were injured because of poor safety standards in the workplace, because of employers making sure that unions did not have access to the workplace. They were caused because of workers being put in dangerous situations and because employers were really bypassing every requirement that needed to be taken. The innate problem I have with this legislation is the one-sided nature of it. I do not know how we as a parliament could possibly support this legislation.

The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill was bad legislation when it was first introduced, in November 2013, and it is still bad legislation. No matter what the government does to it, is it still bad legislation. It is legislation driven by ideologues in the government who are consumed with hatred of unions and, I would have to say, workers, or have a total disregard for workers and their safety and for ensuring that they can have a decent standard of living, can be proud of their work and can have decent wages. Unfortunately, I think those on the other side are not too fussed about the kind of conditions workers have.

Much of its rhetoric and diatribe is based on its past prejudices, this flawed legislation and the flawed findings of the trade union royal commission, which looked in a jaundiced way at unions, whilst turning a blind eye to the corrupt behaviour by many employers. That was totally ignored—the exploitation was totally ignored. It was not in the terms of reference that were given to the trade union royal commission. It was looking at one thing and one thing only. I know that there were instances where unions and witnesses before the royal commission tried to raise issues of safety and bad practice by employers, but they were told it was irrelevant. The royal commission was about getting the unions. It is interesting that we had Labor leader after Labor leader hauled before the royal commission, with no adverse findings given against them. So, to me, it really smelt like witch-hunt. It was all about the government chasing its agenda and maybe setting the groundwork for a 2016 election. When we look at corrupt behaviour by employers we are really looking at situations that actually place workers lives in jeopardy.

In a past life I worked with many workers who were injured on worksites and who were asked to undertake duties that were unsafe. They were told that if they did not do it they would not have a job. There was a lack of protection. You only have to look at the safety records of the building and construction industry to see that it is the industry that has the second greatest number of fatalities. What this government is doing in this legislation is going to make the industry less safe. I really care about that.

I know Senator Madigan said earlier this week that he has not had any constituents come to see him about trade unions. I am in a similar situation. I have not had one constituent come and see me about corrupt behaviour by the CFMEU. I have, however—and this may shock members on the other side of this parliament—had numerous workers in the construction industry come and see me about the fact that there is sham contracting, that they are not getting proper wages, that their employers have not paid their superannuation and that they are in a very vulnerable position.

But this legislation is not about that. This legislation is not about providing any protections. This legislation is about those on the other side of this House delivering to their masters and trying to create a scare campaign for the next election. I understand that the Prime Minister told his party room that, if this legislation does not get through, he will call a double dissolution. Well, I say to the Prime Minister: bring it on. The workers in Australia will really learn what this government's agenda is about—bringing back the ABCC, a Howard government brainchild. But they are bringing it back with bells and whistles. It is an enhanced version of the ABCC. It is a version that will actually erode even more levels of accountability.

There can be no doubt that the trade union royal commission discovered some serious and unacceptable behaviour. Labor in no way supports those behaviours. Illegal behaviour should be dealt with by legal authorities. Those people involved in such behaviour should be charged and then the courts should decide whether or not their behaviour was illegal.

This legislation is looking at one industry, one tiny part of our economy and our society and one group of workers. It is seeking to put in place laws to deal with corruption in this industry. That is just untenable. Any laws to do with corrupt or illegal behaviour should cover everyone, not just the construction industry. I think that this government's intent to bring back the ABCC with its undemocratic powers and the impact it will have on workers' rights and safety and the way it will attack workers is totally untenable. It is something that I and those of us on this side of the House cannot support.

Nicola McGarrity and Professor George Williams from the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales 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.

What this legislation is creating is akin to something in a police state. It is creating a situation where one group of people are having their rights stripped away from them. I as a member of this House, as an Australian and as somebody who is really concerned about what happens in the community I represent and throughout Australia cannot accept that. It is not Australian and it is not the way I like to see our country heading.

In Labor we believe you put people first and that you at all times try to strengthen and protect the rights of workers. You have to make sure that workers have protections. If you have a situation where workers are protected then it will actually increase productivity in that industry. By creating a situation where that is not the case, you are going to have all sorts of cowboys out there. We should be cracking down on underpayment of workers. That is one problem that is very rampant in the industry and it is something that this government is not too concerned about. It is an area where there are a lot of employer cowboys operating. There should be a crackdown on the underpayment of workers by significantly increasing the penalty for employers who deliberately and systematically avoid paying their employees proper wages. We support moving away from a system where someone is given cash in the hand and told, 'If you turn up and say nothing then you have a job, but if you say something or ask for the correct pay and the right conditions of work then there will be no work available.'

We should be ramping up the protections for workers from sham contracting by strengthening the legal protection of workers' entitlements, increasing penalties and giving the Fair Work Ombudsman more powers to ensure employers cannot liquidate their companies in order to avoid paying the money they owe to workers. That is a problem that has existed for a long time. I am sure something members on the other side of the House experience all the time is workers visiting their offices to tell the story of how their employer has changed the name of the company—just made a slight change—and by doing that has been able to avoid paying them the moneys that they are rightfully owed. That is unacceptable. We cannot support that. We will introduce reforms to ensure that temporary overseas workers are not being exploited and underpaid, and that there is a level playing field for all workers in Australia. The construction industry has, over a number of years, exploited overseas workers. There have been instances where worksites have been visited—yes, visited by union officials—and overseas workers have been found to be living in crowded conditions in shipping containers. I do not accept that. Why should we as a nation be prepared to support a regime that allows this to happen?

The ABCC governs civil, not criminal, behaviour. What has been identified in the royal commission relates to criminal behaviour. The government is seeking to put in place a civil regulator, not a criminal regulator. The ABCC had a record of operating in an aggressive, biased and coercive manner. It did not pursue or investigate breaches such as underpayment of wages, and there was no impartiality in the commission. And this is what we are going back to. This is the unacceptable practice this government has supported.

The Cole royal commission cost $60 million. I must say the trade union royal commission out did them—it cost $80 million. No convictions came out of the Cole royal commission. The Royal Commissioner, Dyson Heydon, clearly had a conflict of interest, and there was a lot of bias in that royal commission.

Unfortunately, I am running out of time. I have a lot more to say on this topic, but I will conclude by saying that this legislation is unacceptable. It is legislation that I believe will endanger the lives of Australian workers. It is legislation that will take away the rights of workers. I think those on the other side should think seriously about supporting. I do not.

See this speech in context