Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be able to continue to make my contribution on the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013. I will, in effect, pick up where I left off in arguing first and foremost for the foundation and for the need for the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission in part.

If this chamber wanted to consider why there was a need for a commission to oversee and regulate the behaviour of stakeholders and some of the unions associated with the building industry, one need do no more than consider what is currently happening before the royal commission into the construction union, the CFMEU. It is not very pleasant; in fact, for some, it will be a repetitious contribution from our side, as it is a matter that has been canvassed here in this chamber on any number of occasions in the term of this particular Senate and this parliament.

This industry, and the union involvement in this industry, has been a very difficult space for a very long period of time. There have in fact been no fewer than four royal commissions, excluding the current royal commission. Four royal commissions have previously examined matters relating to the construction industry. Mr Stoljar, special counsel, pointed out to this current royal commission, the Cole royal commission, that each of those four inquiries had pointed to systemic unlawfulness and corruption within the industry, and the interim report of the current commission suggested that little, if anything, had changed. Counsel also said the findings of the past royal commissions as well as the current royal commission suggest that there is still within that industry a systemic culture of lawlessness and defiance of the law which threatens productivity, established freedoms and the rule of law more generally. I will revisit that a bit later in my contribution, because I think it is important that we establish the effect of this sort of systemic unlawful behaviour on, in this instance, the construction sector.

The building and construction industry represents around eight per cent of the GDP of our country. That represents a value of $172 billion. Let me say that again in slow motion. The contribution to the GDP of this nation by the building and construction industry—which is plagued by this systemic pattern of unlawful behaviour—is $172,000 million. Without having to break that down any further, what that means—and this should be of interest to all the colleagues in this Senate—is jobs, jobs, jobs and probably more jobs. More jobs, or the existing jobs if they can be preserved—many of which are high-paying jobs—feeds more money into the national economy, into state economies, into regional economies and into small community economies. More jobs equals more money, more money equals more productivity and further investment and that leads, if the enterprises are viable—and many in the construction industry are finding it difficult to be viable because of the impact of the behaviour of the likes of the CFMEU—to more tax receipts for this country. These are very, very simple economic principles—economy 101. More tax receipts leads to allowing governments of the day to invest in more infrastructure and that in turn of course means more construction and more construction means more jobs—and around and round we go again.

I am very pleased to see that one of Labor's leading luminaries, Senator Joe Ludwig, has decided to join us on this side of the chamber tonight as we make our contributions to this debate. Welcome Joe. It has taken you a while to come and back us, but I am very pleased to see that you are able to do it this evening!

Senator Sterle interjecting—

I am sorry. It was a cheap shot. I am sorry, Joe. The bill, if passed—if it gets the support we need—will re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It will establish a genuinely strong watchdog to maintain the rule of law and protect workers and people in the construction industry—small businesses, medium businesses and large businesses. If they have certainty in their marketplace, where they can go along and, with certainty and confidence, plan their project contributions without the unknown impact on productivity caused by the behaviour of organised workforces under the control of what I would almost refer to as an illegal organisation, the CFMEU, they can go on and create profits.

Let me go back to our cycle, because it is a cycle worth talking about. More profits means more jobs. That means better investments and more investments. It means bigger tax receipts to the Commonwealth that they will definitely invest, at least in part, in things like more infrastructure—and more infrastructure brings about more jobs. It is the job circle; it starts with jobs and it ends with jobs. Because of that this ought to be a unity ticket for everybody in this parliament and certainly in this chamber. Job creation is a very important objective of a coalition government and is a particularly important objective of this coalition government, which has done so much over the period that they have been in power to do things to make sure the private sector—those small businesses, those engine rooms of the nation's economy—are productive and profitable. The reason is that more profits means more taxes, more spending on infrastructure, more jobs and more input into the economy.

Under the former Labor government the regulator that was there was put under pressure. I think there are many men and women in the Labor government and in the Labor movement generally who, if they had thought this through, may well have taken a different course of action. They, like me, share the unity view of more jobs. But Labor is not good at understanding what that means. They know about more jobs; they want more jobs; they know there is a need for money going into the economy—though they are not sure quite how that works, they know that, if it is there, there is greater investment—and I think they understand about there being more tax. They certainly know about government spending; my colleagues across the hall have learnt that practice over many years. But the bit they miss and the bit that we need to keep in the crosshairs of the objective of getting the construction industry back into a viable and profitable environment is this question of productivity.

I raised it earlier in my speech, but it is worth repeating given that this contribution is a continuation. I say this as an observation, not necessarily a criticism. Many of my friends in the Labor Party, my colleagues in this chamber, who have made it through to hold senior and influential positions within the Labor Party have made their journey through the trade union movement.