Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome this bill, which will extend the activities of the federal government in ensuring good occupational health and safety practice in the building and construction industry. By its very nature, the industry always has been and always will be a relatively dangerous place to work. But Australia’s record in this field has not been good.

If we go back to 2003, when the royal commission into the industry reported, there were 37 compensated fatalities and more than 12,500 compensated injuries—or 34 injuries per day—in the industry. That is clearly a heavy human toll on the families of the bereaved and on the individuals injured. We clearly owe it to those who undertake this kind of work on our behalf to ensure that the conditions under which they operate are made as safe as is possible. Whatever pressure may be exerted to get the job done on time, safety should never be sacrificed. Cutting corners to save time and therefore costs is unlikely to pay dividends if the result is injury or death.

Indeed, the broader economic consequences of poor safety on construction sites are also worth bearing in mind. Without wishing to underestimate the individual human consequences of such accidents, there is also a price to pay in terms of health care and rehabilitation costs, various benefits and costs such as higher insurance premiums. In individual, human and economic terms it makes sense to have a comprehensive, workable safety regime with effective inspections. We have to recognise that safety is not solely the responsibility of the employer or the employee. Both need to recognise that they have responsibilities. No safety regime will be able to protect workers if either party wilfully ignores its requirements.

As a major provider of funds for construction projects, the federal government has both an obligation and an opportunity to ensure that work done on its behalf is carried out in a safe manner. No visitor to Coffs Harbour in my electorate would fail to miss two large projects currently underway, both part-funded by the federal government. The Hobgin Drive extension will take traffic out of the city centre and provide new economic opportunity for the eastern part of the city and the Bonville deviation to the Pacific Highway, which is a long awaited scheme by the New South Wales government, will take traffic out of a narrow, winding section of road which has been the scene of many fatalities and will greatly extend the dual carriageway in and around Coffs Harbour.

Projects like these, with their own engineering and safety challenges, as contractors cope with the natural environment will, from the passage of this bill, be brought under the federal umbrella. The original Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act established an occupational health and safety accreditation scheme which applied to Commonwealth government contracts. The act regulated the appointment and powers of federal safety officers. Those entering into contracts with the federal government had to be accredited by Commonwealth authorities. The effect of the current bill is to bring projects, such as those mentioned earlier, in which the federal government is an indirect but significant source of funds, into the scheme.

It seems right that the requirements of the government regarding health and safety should flow from the acceptance of funds, not just from the name on the contract. The bill provides an opportunity to further promote the kind of cultural change necessary to reduce death and injury on our construction sites. The bill will also ensure that those engaged in work on site are accredited for the whole of the contract rather than continuing on site after their accreditation has lapsed.

Currently, the process for appointing federal safety commissioners is unwieldy and inefficient as a candidate has to, firstly, be engaged as a consultant by the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations before being appointed as a safety officer by the Federal Safety Commissioner. Following the passage of this bill, the commissioner will be able to make appointments directly, which will mean officers can be engaged and audits undertaken more quickly.

There will be those who will see this as an attempt by the federal government to take over the responsibility for occupational health and safety from the states and territories. Clearly that must be a temptation as there are, as with much else administered by the states, significant difficulties. For instance, take the Bonville deviation, that major road project I mentioned earlier—a project that the New South Wales state government originally promised to fully fund and complete by 2003 and which they were shamed into commencing just late last year, with 50 per cent of the funds coming from the federal government. As with so many areas where the states have failed to deliver much needed infrastructure projects and services, the question could be asked: should the federal government take over where the state has failed?

Narranga Primary School, the largest primary school in my electorate, has been refused a school hall by the state government. Circumstances such as these prompt many to ask: should the federal government take over schools? Our trains fail to run on time in New South Wales. Should the federal government run passenger services as well as being involved in freight through the ARTC? These are questions that are being asked in the community. The community is saying that state governments cannot run hospitals effectively. Certainly, the states and territories have not distinguished themselves in the field of occupational health and safety, but perhaps the idea of a single national OH&S system is worthy of debate on another day. There is much to commend the idea of harmonising our occupational health and safety legislation, just as in the context of workplace relations it makes little sense for a nation of 20 million people to have six separate industrial relations systems, with extra burdens being placed on companies which work across state borders. It would make much more sense to have one national set of regulations for occupational health and safety. Personally, I look forward to that day but, as I say, perhaps that is a debate for a later time. In the meantime we must work with what we have, and with this bill we will drive change where we can.

This bill does not override any state or territory legislation, nor does it affect the right of entry to sites by union officials, provided they have a right of entry permit and have complied with relevant legislation—more is the pity, some might say. I am sure that in an ideal world the unions have a productive role to play in matters of health and safety on building sites, but I might have a hard job convincing Mr Ken Winton in my electorate of that. He advised me that fairly recently his site was visited by two officials from the good old CFMEU under the cover of a health and safety complaint. Mr Winton said, ‘I comply with the local WorkCover inspectors, but these fellows have a different set of rules, which are aimed at disrupting the job.’ As a result of the visit, a WorkCover inspector spent some hours on the site bringing work to a halt. However, Mr Winton advised me that there were no problems uncovered. The union visit therefore appears to have had little effect other than that of reducing productivity.

I will move on to the Australian of Tuesday, 19 June for further evidence of the constructive role that the CFMEU plays in health and safety! It is good to know that this shining example of responsible behaviour comes right from the top of the union—in fact, from the federal secretary, Mr Dave Noonan. The paper reported that Mr Noonan, his assistant state secretary Joe McDonald and three other officials tried to gain admission to a site managed by Broad Construction in Perth. The admission was refused on the grounds that the gang of five did not hold their right of entry cards, which led to seven minutes of abuse and threatening language.

However, I am pleased to say that there are some constructive players in this area. The Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner was set up almost two years ago to ensure that workplace relations laws are enforced in the industry, and I quote from the ABCC website:

The ABCC also promotes proper conduct through educating industry participants on their rights and obligations.

Presumably those rights are the rights of union officials to enter a site to investigate OH&S breaches, and obligations of union officials to carry right of entry cards when doing so. Clearly asking for proper conduct was a terrible imposition on the likes of the CFMEU’s Mr Noonan, who, as we know from the Perth incident, sees no need to carry his card. His good old mates in the Labor Party voted at their recent conference to scrap the ABCC without delay to save him any further embarrassment.

Whether this outcome had anything to do with the fact that the CFMEU donated more than $6.3 million to Labor since 1995-96 who can really say? But if so, Mr Noonan might now be thinking that his money has not been well spent. Why? Because the opposition frontbench has somehow changed its mind. It has gone against the conference decision because it was shamed into retaining the ABCC, but only until 2010. Why 2010? Why not 2009? Why not 2011? Why not leave it there altogether? I guess it is an attempt by the Leader of the Opposition to avoid blame for the so-called Rudd premium—the premium that some construction companies are prepared to include in contracts to compensate for the wave of union disruption that our building operators expect should Labor come to power. It is designed to get them through the campaign period without having to answer the consequences of being in the pocket of the union.

Will all union thugs be miraculously banished by the year 2010? Will the world suddenly be a brighter place where unionists comply with the law? I think not. I think that, if Labor were to come to power and the ABCC was to be eliminated in 2010, 2011 could be a very rocky year for the construction industry. It could be ‘GST’ time or get square time.

Steve Gibbons (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It could be a boom time too.

Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will not be a boom time if Labor is removing the Building and Construction Commission. We will have the shop stewards controlling the jobs again. Labor has made much this week about the plight of homeowners and aspiring homeowners. The consequences of being in the pockets of the unions and winding up the ABCC would be lower productivity in the building industry and, as a result, higher prices. How do higher prices, due to reduced productivity, improve the lot of first home buyers? It is easy to talk the talk on concern for first home buyers, but you have to walk the walk. Certainly the opposition does not do that. How is that going to help aspiring homeowners?

If you want to see the kind of behaviour on the part of the unions that the abolition of the ABCC will unleash, you need look no further than the ABCC website and some of the recent press releases. I will quote some from this year alone. The press release of 23 February, under the headline ‘CFMEU prosecuted over alleged coercion at Hamilton mine site’, states:

The Office of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner ... has instituted proceedings against the CFMEU and three of its delegates over allegations of coercion at ... Roche Mining ... near Hamilton in Victoria.

The 26 March press release entitled ‘CFMEU ordered to pay $9,000 in penalties for misleading workers’ states:

The Federal Court ... in Brisbane ordered the CFMEU and the CFMEU Queensland to pay penalties of $6,000 and $3,000 respectively for making false and misleading statements to three employees at a Gold Coast spray paint shop about their obligation to join the union.

Again on 26 March—clearly a bad day for the union—the press release entitled ‘CFMEU ordered to take out newspaper ad as part of court penalty’ states:

On top of $23,250 in penalties, the CFMEU was today ordered to take out full page advertisements in the Illawarra Mercury newspaper to correct misleading statements it made to workers about their obligation to join a union.

…     …         …

Federal Court Justice Graham also instructed the union to destroy the CFMEU Code of Conduct for Union Delegates. The Code instructs delegates to ensure that all workers on site are financial members of the relevant union.

Oh dear—$32,250 plus the cost of newspaper ads on one day alone could have gone into the coffers of the Labor Party, for instance, to finance their campaign against the government. It is just another day for the CFMEU.

I have a different union this time. On 10 May the press release entitled ‘CEPU admits coercion at Bass Link site’—they are great corporate citizens—states:

The Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) and one of its organisers have been ordered to pay penalties of $15,400 for unlawful conduct involving the exclusion from a building site of four apprentices.

Back to the CFMEU again. The press release of 4 July entitled ‘Court imposes penalty on CFMEU for attempting to force painters to join the union’ states:

The Federal Court in Sydney today ordered the CFMEU and a delegate to pay penalties of $10,000 and $2,000 respectively for attempting to force a painting contractor to make its painters join the union.

My final example is 13 July, the most recent example: ‘CFMEU engaged in secondary boycott—Federal Court.’

Today, in the Federal Court at Sydney, Justice Gyles found the CFMEU and three officials guilty of secondary boycott offences.

We will wait for a further instalment on that. It went on to say:

As part of his decision, Justice Gyles said: ‘There could not be a clearer case than this of interference with contractual relations ...’

Yet Labor believes that somehow by 2010 none of this is going to occur; that all of a sudden the unions are going to see the warmth and light of some form of cooperation with community expectations and that this sort of behaviour will end. It will not. It will be to the detriment of the Australian community. It will be to the detriment of people who use the services of the building industry. It will be to the detriment in particular of first homebuyers struggling to get into the home market. I commend this bill to the House. It further extends the government’s efforts in relation to ensuring that we have an effective system within this country. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill.

Daryl Melham (Banks, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the outset I should declare that I am a director of the Committee to Defend Trade Union Rights trust and that has been recorded on the register of members’ interests. I find myself on my feet in this chamber once again to participate in debate on the building and construction industry. One could be forgiven for thinking that this government is obsessed.

The bill before the House today is to extend the application of the Australian Government Building and Construction Industry Occupational Health and Safety Accreditation Scheme to cover situations where building work is indirectly funded by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth entity. An existing subsection in the legislation prohibits the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority from entering into a contract for building work with an unaccredited person. It does not extend to building work indirectly funded by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency. It also does not require an accredited person to carry out the actual building work. The proposed paragraphs 35(4)(b) and 35(4)(c) remedy this situation. The bill also ensures that appropriate accreditation has occurred and it will streamline the process of appointing federal safety officers.

Labor intends to support this bill because it relates to occupational health and safety matters and we should support the bill. It is designed to allow the government to use its influence as a client and as the provider of capital to improve the construction industry’s occupational health and safety. There cannot be—and nor should there be—any objection to that objective.

The building and construction industry is hazardous by its very nature and good management practices will assist in minimising deaths of, and injuries to, workers in the industry. Only last year the CFMEU opened a wall of remembrance in memory of all workers killed and injured at work. Each year many building and construction workers are injured at work and sadly some die. This parliament has previously dealt with the results of lack of occupational health and safety when it passed the James Hardie (Investigations and Proceedings) Bill 2004, which flowed from the need to ensure that companies took responsibility for workers’ occupational health and safety. In this case, legislation was required to ensure a proper investigation of the causes, if any, between illness and the workplace. That was the right thing to do and subsequently we have seen the results of that legislation.

I have here a list of the workers whose names appear on the CFMEU wall of remembrance. These are the building and construction workers who have been killed since 1988 in New South Wales and sadly the number comes to 121. The list of those injured was too long to be included on any one memorial. I seek leave of the Main Committee to incorporate in Hansard the list of all the victims. I have shown a copy to a member of the government.

Alex Somlyay (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted on condition that the document complies with the Speaker’s guidelines for incorporation.

The document read as follows—

CFMEU WALL OF REMEMBRANCE

12 Railway Street Lidcombe

You are welcome to visit any time Monday to Friday 7.00am - 5.00pm

WORKPLACE ACCIDENT VICTIMS HONOURED

(listed in surname alphabetical order)