Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Abetz. Can the minister update the Senate on the effect of the government's proposed Fair and Lawful Building Sites Code and how it will save taxpayers' money on vital infrastructure projects?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Kroger for her question. The new building code will promote best-practice workplace relations in the construction industry. Too often, contractors and large building companies have entered into lazy, unproductive agreements that create increased costs. These costs are not met by the building company but are passed on to those ultimately paying for the work—namely, the Australian taxpayer. If a contractor wants to undertake taxpayer funded work, the government requires that it be able to do that work efficiently and productively. The priority of the code is squarely on ensuring that taxpayers receive value for money.

The building and construction industry has been subject to either a legislative building code or administrative guidelines since 1998. Unfortunately, the strong code under the Howard government was emasculated by the previous government when the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. The Productivity Commission's recently released draft report on public infrastructure recommended:

All Australian governments should adopt the Victorian building code guidelines—

those of the state from which Senator Kroger comes—

(or ones with an essentially similar framework) for their own major infrastructure purchases. The Australian Government should require compliance with these guidelines …

The Fair and Lawful Building Sites Code is based on those 2006 federal guidelines. The new building code will put taxpayers' interests first, unlike Mr Shorten's building code, which put union bosses first.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I thank the minister for that considered answer, and I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware of any arrangements that may be in breach of the Fair and Lawful Building Sites Code and, if so, what are the potential consequences of breaching the code?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many media outlets today reported that various proposed pattern agreements in New South Wales and Victoria have been assessed as being noncompliant with the code. Agreements which limit the ability of an employer and its employees to determine when work can be performed will not meet the requirements of the code.

It is, unfortunately, common in the industry that where an employee wants to reschedule a rostered day off the union must also agree even where the employer and employee agree to work on a so-called lockdown weekend or to substitute a rostered day off. Other common arrangements that are not acceptable under the code include requiring contractors to employ a non-working shop steward or job delegate. And so the list goes on.

Construction companies that do not comply with the code will not help us get value for money and, as a result, will not be allowed to tender. (Time expired)

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Is the minister aware of any impediments to the implementation of a fair and lawful building sites code in my home state of Victoria?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am, Mr President. A major impediment is the misinformation of the CFMEU, which has recently been spread about the code. A recent flyer distributed by the Victorian branch of the CFMEU on Victorian building sites falsely claims the code would abolish penalty rates, ban rostered days off and ban union stickers. All these assertions are simply false. I note that the flyer is authorised by John Setka, the favourite union boss of the Victorian leader of the ALP, Daniel Andrews. Mr Setka's union has donated $1 million to the Victorian division, which happens to also be Mr Shorten's state division, of the ALP since 2007—more than any other union.

When it comes to government-funded building work, we want to ensure value for money, whereas members opposite and Daniel Andrews are only interested in giving Mr Setka value for money. (Time expired)

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.