Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, indeed, I apologise—when Mr Shorten was the minister. The costs of critical infrastructure also rose astronomically, with crucial projects such as hospitals and schools costing up to 30 per cent more. We want to see a good many new schools and hospitals and these things built around the country, but if you're adding to the cost of delivery in providing that infrastructure and providing those services, then what sort of impact are you going to have? Are you going to increase the cost? Are you going to be able to do less of it? Inversely, when the ABCC existed previously under the Howard government it was found that the economic and the industrial performance of the building and construction sector improved significantly. A 2013 report found that this productivity rise was in the order of 16 per cent and represented a $7½ billion-a-year saving, while also significantly reducing working days lost through industrial action. These productivity gains flatlined again in 2012 after the Gillard government abolished the commission.

This correlation is very clear. When the building industry has a dedicated watchdog, productivity increases and the economy and the workers benefit. When that watchdog is abolished, productivity fails. It falls. Industrial action increases, and it is inevitably the workers—who the great Labor Party say that they represent and that the unions represent—well, they're not standing with them here in this term of this parliament if this is what they're going to do: abolish the ABCC. This is not to mention the taxpayers, who fund a lot of these projects—the construction projects across the country. The increase in the price and the inflationary impact of that upon the economy is drastic. So, strangely, this abolition seems to coincide with the election of Labor governments. Every time we see it: the costs go up.

The core regulatory functions of the ABCC stem from a total of four royal commissions, one parliamentary inquiry and a parliamentary report. It was found over and over again that a dedicated oversight body for the construction industry was required. And even the 2009 report instigated by the Gillard government found that issues remained in the sector. It opined that extraordinary laws were still required, given the extent of lawlessness on building sites in Victoria and Western Australia. But now, without review, without an inquiry and without consultation—except of course with the CFMMEU—Labor are going to pare back the ABCC just as far as they can.

The building and construction industry is too important to hand over wholesale to the union movement. It employs far too many people. It has too big a slice of the Australian economy: too much of our national economy depends on its productivity and depends on its efficiency, and the Labor Party are prepared to just hand it over to the lawlessness that we see in the CFMMEU. We know that if the ABCC is abolished we will see cost overruns and delays, largely brought about by easily predictable illegal industrial action that will likely go unpunished. We on this side of the house don't want to see this. We want to see a well-regulated and efficient building industry that is safe for the workers and which sees the unions operating legally. But, sadly, what we're seeing in the 10 weeks of this government so far is that they don't stand with the workers. They don't actually stand, indeed, with efficiency in the economy. Those opposite oppose this, but I want to encourage everyone here, if they have the courage, to stand and support this motion.