Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

Far be it from me to raise the issue that Senator Rhiannon has raised but, as I understand it, Senator Rhiannon was talking about not the commercial building industry but the residential building industry, because that is where the Prime Minister and you, Senator Cash, were saying it would cost more to build a house unless this bill goes through. That is an absolute nonsense. The residential building industry is very, very likely unionised, and it is certainly not unions that determine the rates of pay and conditions in the residential building industry.

I want to go to two other matters while I am on my feet. Given that Senator Macdonald has set the standard by speaking for 10 minutes before asking a question—especially when he said he was going to ask the question and not make a speech—I think the rules have now been set by the other side. There are two issues I want to raise. The first issue is: what is the driver of much of the problem in this industry? What is the impediment to productivity? What is the issue that individual contractors, small businesses and employees face? The issue is that they are not getting paid for work that they do. They are not getting paid. I was very pleased to seek the establishment of an inquiry into insolvency in the building and construction industry. There are lots of things that go to productivity that are much wider than whether there is some rough-haired, stupid union official going onto your site and getting into a brawl with a boss. Come on! That is not the issue. The issue is companies not paying their bills and phoenixing. They are coming back without paying their bills and establishing themselves again as a company.

I saw an analysis of this by a company called Sutton Douglass Lawyers. If you are talking about getting some reasonable industrial relations in the industry then you have to deal with the $3 billion of unpaid bills in the industry that see workers going without any money, companies going bust because they are not getting paid and families breaking up because the chief earner in the household has got no money coming in—and you know all the drama that that can cause in a household.

This firm, Sutton Douglass Lawyers, says that there are a range of issues that go to insolvency, that there are a number of issues that come through. One of those, basically, is that if you do not get paid when you are running a small company then workers are underpaid or paid irregularly. It is not the Labor Party and it is not the unions who are saying this; this is a big-end-of-town litigation company that deals with these issues. They say workers are underpaid or paid irregularly. They say suppliers are not paid. They say superannuation payments are not paid. We know this mob opposite do not care about superannuation. They have never supported a superannuation increase for workers ever since they have been in parliament—and ever since superannuation has been around. Sutton Douglass Lawyers also say workers have their employment status changed from permanent to casual. How often have you seen that happening? Again, this is big-end-of-town lawyers saying, 'Here are the implications for the industry of not paying your debts.' The implication is that warranties or guarantees provided for workmanship by the old entity have become unenforceable and worthless. So, if you actually get a block of flats built and there is a warranty on that flat, the company simply goes bust and phoenixes up again—they might be building the block of flats next door. There is no warranty and there is no comeback on that company. Sutton Douglass Lawyers also say that workers are pressured to take leave while the businesses transfer from the old entity to the new and the interest of company owners and directors takes priority at the cost of creditors, who do not get paid.

There is a detrimental effect on the community, there is an erosion of the revenue base and there are increased enforcement costs that stem from the avoidance of regulatory obligations. We had much evidence from the Australian Taxation Office and ASIC about the problems that they have dealing with this issue of phoenixing. Sutton Douglass Lawyers go on to say that, by not paying their taxes and employee entitlements, companies have an unfair competitive advantage. So you have companies that are out there battling to do the right thing—paying the wages of workers week in and week out, paying the proper tax and fixing the warranty issues up—and then you have these phoenix companies that are just going bust and getting an unfair advantage.

This is the type of behaviour that this government is supporting with this bill. Make no mistake about it: this is the type of behaviour that this government is supporting. I will come back to this down the line, because there was a report that had 30-odd recommendations. This government has not responded to a single one of them.