Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to support the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (OHS) Bill 2007 as it provides a very strong statement from the Australian government that we want contractors, people involved in the building industry, to practise safe work practices, and we want those people to put their workers’ safety at a premium in their conduct, not regard it as an optional extra.

It is, from our reading of the Cole Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, a key aspect of the commission to ensure that we can establish the powers and functions of the Federal Safety Commissioner. The bill provides for the establishment of the Australian Government Building and Construction Industry Occupational Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme. The act also regulates the appointment and powers of Federal Safety Officers. It allows the Federal Safety Commissioner and persons working in the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner to disclose information on the scheme to the minister. It amends the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 to streamline the processes of appointing Federal Safety Officers and clarifies that subsection 35(4) of the Building Construction Industry Improvement Act only overrides Commonwealth provisions to the extent of any inconsistency.

Indeed, the main purpose of this bill is to amend the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act to: extend the application of the scheme administered by the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner to cover situations where building work is indirectly funded by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority, ensure that persons are accredited under the scheme at the time of entering into a contract for building work funded by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority, ensure that the Commonwealth or Commonwealth authority takes appropriate steps to see that such persons are also accredited while the building work is being carried out, and extend that accreditation requirement to funding arrangements beyond those currently contemplated by the legislation. Essentially, we are keeping faith with the building workers of Australia by ensuring that the Commonwealth can provide a ready role model for others involved in this sector.

I listened with a deal of interest to the member for Gorton about a half an hour ago—he is a good fellow. If you read his words and listened to his presentation in the House, you would be left with the conclusion that what he was saying seemed fair and reasonable. The trouble, though, is that every time those opposite speak about workplace fairness, they are coming with so many strings attached that the ‘good ship Labor’ sinks into the ocean. It leaves the moorings of the wharf with so many strings attached that there is no way it can sail.

The Labor Party try to suggest that this is all about the Australian government having some pathological dislike for the union movement. Nothing could be further from the truth. This government is enormously in favour of an effective union movement that truly represents the workers of Australia and truly meets their interests and ambitions. But the trouble with those opposite is that so many of the Labor Party arguments about the matters contained within this legislation, and all matters to do with industrial relations, are ready proof that too many—in fact, I would say all—union leaders in this country are living off the efforts of the past. The reputation of the union movement in effecting a safer working environment is without doubt. There is no doubt in my mind that unions have been at the heart of so much of the argument to create a safer working environment. But they are living on the efforts of those in the past, because those in the union movement today are no longer the keepers of a working environment that is safe. Employers themselves understand that the costs to them, both personally and emotionally, as well as the potential for fines and other imposts if they do not make a safe work environment, are very real—as they should be.

I get disappointed as a person who was once a member of a union—the Australian Journalists Association. When it affiliated with the ACTU, I resigned because it went from being a professional body to being just another union. I do not understand how any journalist in Australia can suppress their partiality when they are a member of the media and arts alliance. I remain gravely concerned, but I never hear those opposite speak about work safety actually being hinged around things like the inquiry into the Queensland construction industry, which found that over 50 per cent of people on construction sites could not read English to an adequate level. Fifty per cent of people on Queensland construction sites had an illiteracy that could in itself cause a deal of danger. Sure, they could understand the word ‘Danger’ and the word ‘Warning’ and those sorts of words, but a full interpretation of written instructions or a full interpretation of the way in which to act safely in the workplace is not possible for 50 per cent of those people, according to work which was done by the Department of Education, Science and Training a couple of years ago. I think that is a point of enormous concern.

Nor do we hear from those opposite that one of the strings attached to their argument about the unions being completely involved in all arbitration when it comes to work safety is just how over the top and ridiculous some of these occupational health and safety requirements have actually become. The Beattie government in Queensland has so overlegislated now that a chap rang me a year or so ago and told me about a fridge mechanic who entered his house. The fridge mechanic said, ‘I am required by occupational health and safety law to prescribe a safety instruction to you if you are going to stay in your kitchen while I repair your fridge.’ The seals had broken. There was safety tape marked out two metres around the fridge, and he told this home owner that, unless they had steel-capped safety boots, safety goggles—and possibly a face mask but certainly at least goggles—and other safety equipment such as gloves they would not be allowed to be anywhere near the repair of the fridge. You just cannot help but wonder how silly and over the top a lot of these things have become.

So here we have the Australian government instead, through this legislation, saying to our building contractors in Australia who want to work with the Australian government, ‘Have a work safety principle operating, have a set of requirements that you impose upon your workers, deliver on that and you can deal with us.’ We are not, as the Labor Party are suggesting, affecting any rights of entry of union officials under the Workplace Relations Act. Nor, as the Labor Party try to suggest, are we overriding any state or territory OH&S legislation.

Under the Workplace Relations Act, a union official is entitled to access a site to investigate potential breaches of OH&S, but they need to have, of course, a right of entry permit and they need to make sure that they comply with all the requirements of the relevant state or territory OH&S legislation. We are not, though, going to allow, as has been done by the CFMEU in Western Australia, a proliferation of occupational health problems in the form of the ‘blue flu’. Therefore, we are not going to see an end, as the Labor Party have again committed to tonight, to the Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, which was established in 2005. That is what Kevin Reynolds, the head honcho of the CFMEU in Western Australia, wanted to see—as we heard reported today by the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Kevin Reynolds is longing for a return to his power and a Greg Combet style of having the unions back in charge of Australia. We are not going to allow a situation where union officials enter a work site and in fact stop work from progressing, building from being performed and progress from being achieved on some premise of unsafe practices when, in fact, all they are about is trying to spread blue flu, which saw so many days lost to industrial action—71 per 1,000 workers in the December quarter of 2004. Now, since the creation of the ABCC, we have seen that number reduced to just nine in the same quarter last year. It went from 71 in the last quarter of 2004 to just nine in the last quarter of last year. For the 12 months ending in December last year, there had been 45.2 days lost per 1,000 workers compared to—wait for it!—725 days lost in 2005.

This so-called concern for occupational health and safety by trade union officials has cost jobs in the building and construction sector. This government is about providing a positive example and through legislation is enacting a process by which people in the building industry will be able to work for the Commonwealth, and it is amending the Building And Construction Industry Improvement Act to allow the scheme to apply more broadly. It has always been intended that the scheme would eventually be applied to construction projects funded both directly and indirectly by the Australian government. The amendments contained in this bill will allow the scheme to progress to stage 2. Stage 2 will apply to head builders on construction projects indirectly funded by the Australian government, subject to certain thresholds, and it will lower the contract threshold for directly funded construction projects from $6 million to $3 million. An example often put forward is that of indirectly funded construction projects such as a project funded under AusLink. And I know of examples that have been put forward in discussions with state governments about education funding, particularly vocational education funding, where the state governments, so bereft of the morals expected of a reasonable authority, have danced to the tune of union officials and actually held up in past years vocational education funding bonus payments simply because they did not want to see these particular measures contained within this bill applying to projects that might be constructed. For instance, TAFE college buildings were not built or their construction was delayed because the work of the union was more important than the facilities to be funded by the Australian government. These sorts of—

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Brendan O’Connor interjecting

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know exactly what I am debating, member for Gorton. I am giving plenty of examples as to why this bill is a good bill. This bill provides direction, instruction and inspiration to others in the building industry to conduct themselves appropriately. As far as we are concerned, transitional arrangements are not necessary. Stage 2 will apply only to new contracts and funding agreements entered into after the date of the commencement of these amendments, which is 1 October next. By implementing this particular scheme in two stages, smaller builders have been given time to better understand the operation of this scheme and get used to the principles in this scheme. They have been given adequate time to set up and prepare their management systems so they can become accredited under this scheme and gain access to Commonwealth work. Stage 2, which starts on 1 October next, was announced on 23 October last. So the government has given plenty of time to those businesses interested in that sort of work to get themselves involved and ready. In addition, the Federal Safety Commissioner has undertaken significant consultation on these various stage 2 recommendations with a view to bringing people with us as we create a cooperative and positive environment.

This scheme is certainly not part of any federal takeover of occupational health and safety. Through the Council of Australian Governments process, we are trying to bring about the harmonisation of OH&S legislation by working with state and territory requirements. I remember a few years ago working on the Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services and talking to people in the railway industry, by way of example, about the ridiculous range of safety requirements in that particular industry. The same is true in the building industry, where the various types of credentials, occupational equipment and rules and regulations differ from state to state. If you are credentialed in one state, you run the risk of not being able to work across the border. In places like south-east Queensland, this silliness has to be overcome by the harmonisation of this legislative requirement. In that part of Australia, building contractors and building people generally move from one state to the other and they need all of their credentials organised and able to be readily recognised by both state authorities. This scheme therefore is a way to achieve that, and is just one of the tools the government are using to address some of the unacceptable OH&S performance records we have seen in various parts of Australia.

I acknowledge the member for Gorton’s observations about those who are hurt in our workplaces. I acknowledge that anybody hurt in a workplace on any given day is bad news for all of those in that profession and industry. It is bad news for those who hire them and employ them, as the purchaser of those services. It costs the building and construction sector enormously. Anything that can in fact drive down the cost to industry generally has got to be a good thing. Anything that can improve the working conditions of people on the tools in this industry has my complete support, but not the puffery of saying, ‘If it’s not the union training them, it can’t be any good.’ From our point of view there has to be a sense of trust in the workplace. Under the government’s Workplace Relations Act that is exactly what you have in Australia today. There is an opportunity for individual workers with quality credentials and experience to trade those credentials and experience, and gain a larger pay packet. As we will find in legislation introduced today, and which is up for debate in the next parliamentary sitting, people will be able to go forward instead of backwards. They will be guaranteed that their circumstances can only be improved upon—a further example of the sort of prestige that we attach to people with trade skills in this country.

Changes under this bill are designed to streamline administrative processes for engaging and appointing federal safety officers. The current process, as originally prescribed, is inefficient. We want to see an end to the system whereby a person first has to be engaged as a consultant by the secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations before the Federal Safety Commissioner can actually appoint them as a federal safety officer. The amendments in this bill will allow the Federal Safety Commissioner to engage consultants for the purposes of appointment as FSOs and determine the terms and conditions of their engagement. So, again, this will allow them to be proactive in every possible way.

The engaging of consultants will still be subject to standard Australian government procurement processes. One of the things we will not require is that they have to be a member of a union to be an FSO. If the Australian Labor Party forms government later in the year, it will be: no ticket, no start. You will not see an FSO in a workplace anywhere around Australia unless they are a member of a union—that would be the way the Labor Party would run it—because, unless they are involved with a union, they cannot be trusted. We will see that impact right around Australia in every small business. Union officials will be standing by the till deciding who is hired and who is fired, who is working safely and who is not working safely. These sorts of matters are of grave concern to the people of Australia today.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order going to relevance. The member for Moreton has referred to the bill only twice in 17 minutes. It is about time he went back to the bill.

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure the honourable member for Moreton knows the requirement of being relevant.

Gary Hardgrave (Moreton, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, it is not surprising that those opposite would take a point of order the second I start talking about their ‘no ticket, no start’ ambitions. I have constantly been working my way through the various stages of the bill. I am surprised the member for Gorton has not realised that I have, in fact, constantly been dealing with the way in which the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner and the Federal Safety Commissioner will be operating and the way in which the administrative arrangements will ensure a better deal for the construction industry and the workers within it. I am just surprised that the member for Gorton should take that point of order. It can only be because he is so concerned about the point I make—that the Australian Labor Party’s clear ambition is very simple: no ticket, no start. Unless you are a member of a union, you will not get a start in a building and construction workplace anywhere around Australia.

A painting contractor that I was talking to the other day said that when he walks into a building workplace in Brisbane he will find the union official standing at the gate saying: ‘You’re a painting contractor. You can’t come in here unless you’ve got the union ticket.’ The painting contractor says: ‘Buzz off, mate. I know exactly what my rights are and I’m coming to do a job.’ This is a bloke who has a business which he and his brother started 10 years ago, and he now has 10 people working for him—10 extra mortgages being paid in Australia—and we have a union official standing at the gate saying, ‘No ticket, no start,’ regardless of how safely this man may operate in the workplace and no matter how professional and capable he is. He is being judged only through the prism of his union membership and his union membership alone.

The Australian Labor Party should stand condemned for the fact that they put occupational safety second to union membership; they put occupational safety second to whether or not the unions are actually running it. The occupational safety of workers is down the list if there is not a union person involved in this. If the Labor Party have their way, for Kevin Reynolds and people like him—people who have gone to 10 Western Australian construction companies and demanded they hand over $397,935.48 to the CFMEU for casual union tickets—it would not just be ‘no ticket, no start’; even if you do not want a ticket, you would have to pay to keep the unions away. That is the sort of vision that the Australian Labor Party have for Australia. They should stand condemned. I think you will find that big and small businesses and their employees around Australia are genuinely concerned about the way the Labor Party want to run Australia. (Time expired)

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The more this government attempts to move legislation the more we see amendments before this place. Quite frankly, the government has become a serial offender in that we have regularly seen tax bills before this place, but it seems that this legislative sloppiness, if you like, has come down to industrial relations. We saw the mother of all amendments come into this place today which is likely to be debated sometime during the course of this week.

When you think about it, this takes away a lot of the need for the government to actually come up with ideas. The government is bereft of ideas when it comes to change. It is certainly bereft of ideas when it comes to having a decent legislative program. Quite frankly, the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (OHS) Bill 2007 is just another example of that. Quite frankly, amendments to their own legislation must be a welcome sight when they come to the cabinet table, because it means that ministers do not have to come up with new ideas; it means that ministers do not have to try and take money away from their taxpayer-funded re-election campaigns to invest in things such as infrastructure, health or the provision of further education and training. I digress.

In terms of the contribution we just heard from the member for Moreton, it would be remiss of me if I did not make some comment. I have to say that I and, I suppose, every other working Australian would take umbrage at the way they are demeaning the health and safety issues of workers on sites. I and every other worker in this country place a lot of truck on having safe workplaces. It has been simply trivialised. The member for Moreton is not the first to do that and will not be the last. I have to say, putting health and safety as low as that in this debate is a fair indication of the standing of a lot of members opposite.

This bill is not opposed by the Labor Party, but I would like to make certain comments in terms of commending Labor’s second reading amendment to the House. The bill before us amends a bill that was passed by the House in August 2005. Fewer than two years have passed since we debated amendments to the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005. I might add that this is not the first time that this bill has been amended. Prior to the original bill being put before this House, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations introduced about 30 pages of amendments to the original bill. He did not get it right then and it seems that he has not got it right now, as we are here debating further amendments today.

The purpose of this bill is to amend the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005, extending the application of the Australian government’s building and construction industry occupational health and safety accreditation scheme, administered by the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner, to cover the situation where building work is indirectly funded by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority and to ensure that persons are accredited under the scheme at the time of entering into a contract for the building work funded by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority, and that the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth—

Debate interrupted.