Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill, and related bill, for the second time in this parliament. This debate reminds me of an experience I had when I was about five years old. There was a television program on the ABC back then which was called Bill and Ben, the Flower Pot Men. Bill and Ben were puppets. They would come out from the bottom of the garden and have their little skit on the program when the gardener went for lunch. I can remember as a five-year-old child watching that on the ABC. Bill and Ben would pop up out of their little flowerpots. I can remember being upset because I could see the strings on the puppets as they were being moved. That is exactly what I see today: I see the strings on the members from the Labor Party who come into this chamber and try to defend their opposition. The strings are being pulled by their union masters. There can be no reason why anyone in this parliament would oppose this bill unless they were acting as a puppet for a union master. When they come into this chamber and try to oppose this bill, I can see the strings being pulled by their union masters.

We saw in the royal commission into trade unions recently the comments of the royal commissioner, Dyson Heydon. I think it is worthwhile quoting some of the comments about what he found in the building and construction industry and the union movement in particular. He said that corruption was 'widespread and deep-seated'. He said:

It is clear that in many parts of the world constituted by Australian trade union officials, there is room for louts, thugs, bullies, thieves, perjurers, those who threaten violence, errant fiduciaries and organisers of boycotts.

Those who are opposed to setting up the Building and Construction Commission are doing the work of those louts, thugs, bullies, thieves, perjurers and those who threaten violence.

This is not an attack on unions in any way. This is about the productivity of the nation. The honourable member at the bench talked about equality. I am thinking about the amount of wealth that is lost to this country—which I am sure the other member would like to distribute—because of the unlawful practices by his mates in the union movement. We were reminded of that yesterday by letter by Terence Cole, the former royal commissioner. He reminded us that, previously, the Australian Building and Construction Commission saved the economy up to $6.3 billion by reducing unlawful union action before it was axed by the Labor government in 2012. The honourable member from the Labor Party is so concerned about inequality in this country. I ask him: can he think of what could be done with that extra $6.3 billion in wealth that could be created if the commission were reconstituted?

He referred to the former commissioner. I quote from the article by Joe Kelly in The Australian:

Mr Cole said the abolition of the ABCC by the Gillard government meant that 'unlawful and inappropriate conduct was again prevalent' in the construction industry.

He said it was taxpayers who would bear the greatest cost of this. He said it was $6.3 billion a year in 2012. We cannot afford the loss of this wealth in this nation at this particular time of our history, or at any time of our history, just because a few in the Labor Party want to look after their union mates, the union bosses.

We should also consider what it does to our international reputation. No-one needs reminding of the scenes we saw last year. This was merely weeks after the Australian Building and Construction Commission was abolished—a shameful day in this parliament. We saw violence on the streets in the City of Melbourne. We saw militant union protesters intimidating the community and their supporters attacking police horses. We even had workers on the site, who were just trying to earn a living to pay their bills and provide for their families, having to resort to purchasing advertisements in the Herald Sun with an open letter to their own union bosses asking for the blockades to stop so they could merely earn a buck to feed their families. Images of these protests were seen on television screens around the world.

In this country, we are competing for capital from around the world and to attract investment that will provide growth and create jobs. What message would it send to a potential investor who is considering investing millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars in the Australian economy to create jobs and wealth when they see those scenes on TV and think that the alternative government of this country, the Australian Labor Party, actually abolished the ABCC? What message does that send? What destruction of potential wealth does that cause? Those that oppose this bill should be damned.

It is not about attacks on trade unions. Trade unions have always had an important role in our country and always will have in industries where there is a great concentration of power, where workers do need legitimate protections from firms that have substantial market power against them. It is important that we have a viable and lawful trade union sector. Trade unionists need to know that the money they pay in union fees, their hard-earned money, is being spent on lawful activity in their best interests, not in the interests of the union bosses. Sadly, we have seen what has happened over the last two decades. From August 1992 to August 2014, we saw a decline in trade union membership in this country from 40 per cent to just 15 per cent. So, members of the Labor Party, if you are really interested in strong and viable trade unions and you want to arrest the massive decline in the number of trade unionists in this country, you should be supporting this legislation. Otherwise trade union membership will continue to decline, because trade unionists—good, hardworking people who work on building sites, work long hours, start early in the morning and often do very dangerous jobs—need to know that their union membership fees are being put to good use and are not going to be used in unlawful and illegal activity. They should be the very first and foremost to hope that the representatives of the Australian Labor Party will support the reinstitution of this commission. But, shamefully, today we can see the strings.

This is also an election commitment by the coalition government. We took this policy to the 2013 election and spelt it out in crystal clear language. Our policy was to reinstate the Building and Construction Commission. For that reason alone we were given an overwhelming mandate at the 2013 election to reintroduce this commission. Yet the Labor Party, with their mates the Greens in the other place, are attempting to defy that mandate—to defy the will of the Australian people. They are acting against the interests of their own union members that support them, all because, as I said, we can see the strings. They are acting merely as puppets for their puppet masters, the union bosses.

In conclusion, the coalition government is committed to doing all that is necessary to reform the building and construction industry and to reinstitute the rule of law in this sector. The coalition government wholeheartedly believes that workers deserve to be able to go to work each day without the fear of being harassed, intimidated or subject to violence. We know that the former Labor government undermined and damaged confidence in the building and construction industry by abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission. We have seen a return to lawlessness, an increase in the number of days off work, and situations where work is simply not being done and billions of dollars of wealth is being destroyed.

As a nation we cannot afford to have a building and construction industry which is inefficient and unstable. The restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the code which supports its work is a crucial reform for the benefit of our nation. The contents of this bill reflect this commitment, and I commend it strongly to the House.

See this speech in context