House debates

Wednesday, 3 February 2016

Bills

Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2], Building and Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2]; Second Reading

9:52 am

Photo of Tanya PlibersekTanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2]. In my electorate, there is a stretch of road known as 'the hungry mile'. It was 'the hungry mile' because the waterfront workers would trudge along it from wharf to wharf from the late 1800s right up to the 1940s. They depended on the whim of the foreman to be selected to work that day and get a day's work that would put food on the table for them and for their families. They had no certainty, they had no security and they had no dignity. It was the union movement that fought for and won decent pay and conditions for those men. Balmain—which was in my electorate, at least until the most recent redistribution—was the birthplace of the Labor Party in New South Wales. Working men and women were determined to use the powers of government to help people just like them get security, decent living conditions and a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. Of course, I am very sorry to lose Balmain as part of my seat because I have always been very proud to represent the birthplace of the Labor movement in New South Wales.

I mention these places not just because they are part of my electorate—or were part of my electorate, in the case of Balmain—but because they are part of our history. They are part of the history of the Labor movement in Australia, the movement which, on this side, we are proud to be part of. We are here. We are members of the Labor Party. We stand for government as Labor members because we believe in fair pay and fair conditions. We know that unions have played a vital role in representing working people and in making sure that they get decent pay and decent conditions. Unions in Australia have fought for and won annual leave, awards setting out the minimum entitlements for workers in every industry, penalty rates, maternity leave, superannuation, equal pay for women, health and safety, workers compensation, the banning of the use of asbestos, sick leave, long service leave, redundancy pay and even lunch breaks. Throughout it all, unions have fought for decent pay.

An OECD study in 2011 of the causes of increasing inequality found that a decline in union density and union bargaining power was linked to increases in wage inequality. In fact, we saw that very thing in Australia under Work Choices. Annualised wage increases under union-certified agreements averaged about 4.03 per cent in the two quarters after Work Choices took effect, which was above the inflation rate at the time. Non-union employee certified agreements averaged 3.6 per cent, below the inflation rate at the time. Working people without a union's support and protection saw their pay fall in real terms under Work Choices.

Of course, that is bad for the individual workers. Inequality is obviously not good for the people who are missing out, but it is also bad for us as a society and for our economy as a whole. Everyone, from the IMF to the World Bank and the G20, has been finding that economic inequality is bad for economic growth. This government's ideologically-driven attack on unions is obviously an attack on individual workers and their pay and conditions, but it is also likely to undermine our nation's economic health. Wages growth in recent years has been stagnant, while productivity continues to grow. This continues to increase inequality and it is hurting working people as they struggle to make ends meet.

Of course we are, as a labour movement and as the Labor Party, absolutely and unequivocally opposed to the sort of behaviour that the member for Bass was describing. Any threat of violence is completely unacceptable in any workplace at any time—there is no question about it. I would go even further. We have seen the reports of union leaders who have been spending member's money on day spas, holidays or shopping sprees. Those people are amongst the worst people I can imagine, because they are not just betraying their individual members, they are betraying a labour movement that has struggled hard for decent pay and conditions for ordinary Australians.

When these individuals, who are supposed to represent working people, use their positions for personal advantage, it is the worst kind of betrayal. When people do the wrong thing, they should face every criminal penalty possible. If they have done the wrong thing, they should be charged. If they are found guilty and there is a jail sentence applicable, that is great. I have no problem with people facing the full consequences of their behaviour. That is why, when we were in government, we oversaw the greatest transparency and accountability reforms of registered organisations, including: tripling penalties for breaches of the Fair Work Act; requiring officials of registered organisations to undertake training to better understand their governance and accounting obligations; and requiring the disclosure of officials' remuneration and pecuniary and financial interests.

That is why we have gone further and said that we also support making the Australian Securities and Investments Commission the regulator of the most serious contraventions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act. We have said we will give the general manager of the Fair Work Commission an additional $4.5 million for increased monitoring of registered organisations. We have said we will extend current electoral funding laws to donations and expenditure relating to all elections managed by the Australian Electoral Commission such as those for union elections. We will also, incidentally, always support and continue to support the reduction of the disclosure threshold for political donations from $13,000 to $1,000 as part of our longstanding commitment to transparency. It would be terrific if the government backed us in that measure, which would increase transparency with political donations. We have also said that we will extend whistleblower protections to the private sector, registered organisations and the not-for-profit sector and that we will double the maximum penalties for all criminal offences under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act and introduce heavier penalties.

All of these measures are designed to ensure that, where there is bad behaviour, the people who are responsible are found, where it is appropriate, prosecuted and, when prosecuted, if found guilty, face all of the consequences of their actions. But we do not support reintroducing the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The ABCC has powers that are excessive and undemocratic. If re-established, the ABCC will have coercive powers to compel workers to secret interviews. They can be denied legal representation and threatened with imprisonment if they do not cooperate.

We support tough action, but we support one law for all. Any crime that happens in workplaces by an employer, by an employee or by a union delegate should be investigated by our crime-fighting agencies—the police or the Australian Crime Commission—and anyone who does the wrong thing in the workplace should pay the price. That is why, on Monday, Labor announced our plan to crack down on the types of workplace exploitation we have seen exposed recently by Myer, 7-Eleven, Pizza Hut and others.

Labor will bring in significantly increased penalties for employers who deliberately and systemically avoid paying their employees properly. We will increase protections against sham contracting and give the Fair Work Ombudsman more power to pursue employers who liquidate their companies in order to avoid paying the money they owe their workers, and we will make sure that temporary overseas workers are not being exploited and underpaid and that there is a level playing field for Australia workers. No-one—no union leader, no employer, no employee—should be able to get away with breaking the law, and we have got a plan to ensure that that happens.

Comments

No comments