Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

Having listened to some of this discussion over the course of the last several hours, I've been tempted to point a few things out. I might take the time to point a few things out without unnecessarily prolonging this obvious filibuster attempt. I can tell you that my history in the labour movement and my engagement with the construction industry says that there is a very important place for strong and effective trade union representation, whether you lot like it or not, in the construction industry. There is a history in the construction industry of mindful militancy, a focus on safety, a focus on the interests of members and a focus on good jobs in the construction industry. I used that phrase earlier because it's a phrase that I associate with the tradition in the organisation that I once worked in. While those on the other side might not have liked some of the things that we did and while, in fact, some on the other side worked hard to change industrial relations regulation to disadvantage workers in industrial relations, I was very proud indeed of that tradition.

Some of the behaviour that has been set out by some quite eloquently in the allegations that have been made, if proven, is utterly unacceptable. The answer to that, of course, is not the continued operation of the ABCC. It is a failed hyperpartisan regulator. It does not have the confidence of participants in the building industry, and that is not limited to just the trade unions in the industry, although their voice in this is important. There is a broad view in the community that this regulator cannot be trusted to act in any other way but a hyperpartisan and unfair way and that it has failed. If its objective is, indeed, to prevent bad behaviour in the construction industry, it has utterly failed.

The problem with the argument being made over there in the attempt to establish that there is some vested interest here is that there is no vested interest. There is just a clear and unambiguous view. It has not been hidden. It's not new. It was in the lead-up not just to the last election but the election before. This failed, hyperpartisan regulator is not fit for purpose in the construction industry. There are bad behaviours by industry participants in the construction industry. There are some workplaces in the construction industry that have a bad culture, and I would have thought that people would have paid attention to the Jobs and Skills Summit last week and seen that the answer to these problems is not a hyperpartisan, failed regulator—a police force that goes around telling people what stickers they can have on their helmets or what flags they can fly or whether or not they can meet. That's what this failed hyperpartisan regulator has done. Those over on that side don't have the faintest interest in productivity in the construction industry. It is just a continuation of the hyper-ideological obsessions of that group.

What's really going on here this evening? This isn't a genuine debate about how to create good jobs in the construction industry. Nobody on that side has ever had the remotest interest in good jobs and productivity in the construction industry. This is a full-scale filibuster from an opposition who can't help but delay and divide and distract when it comes to climate policy. That's what all this is really about. Not only did the coalition's climate wars in government see total policy paralysis and political division for more than a decade but now they're clinging on to this sentiment and this strategy from opposition. Keep it coming, because people see it for what it is.

The Liberal Party and the National Party in this place have spent hours of Senate time railing on the disallowance of the building work amendment code. So far we've heard from at least 10 coalition senators on this disallowance, all speaking for 15 minutes each. That's one opposition senator for every year of the wasted decade when it comes to climate in terms of failed climate policy and failed energy policy in this country. Why are they doing that? Perhaps it's because they don't want this Senate to debate a bill on climate emissions that would see Labor's 43 per cent emissions reduction target enshrined in law. The best that they've got is delay, and it's inherently partisan and self-interested and political. That's what this behaviour is really about. It's not in the public interest. It's to engage in an ideological obsession which still holds the majority in the Liberal Party, led by the fanatics on the backbench who are determined to drive what remains of Mr Dutton's leadership into the ground. The National Party and Mr Pitt are clearly still in control of the Leader of the Opposition's policy unit.

This lot over here will never change. They don't listen to the Australian community. They didn't get the memo in the last election that people want to see action on climate change and to see Australians work together to resolve the issues that confront them, whether it's in the construction industry or anywhere else. They simply won't learn.

I think we should have a vote on this matter. That's my view. We should get on with the business that this chamber needs to deal with over the course of this week, and in the interest of doing that, at the halfway mark, I'll sit down.