I rise in opposition to the legislation before the House, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and related legislation. I think the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Barker, really sums up the debate, such as it is. There is only one element of his contribution with which I agree, and that is when he highlights the contrast between the positions of the major parties on this. He is right to do so, and that is the only respect in which his contribution has any correctness to it. He talks about the national interest. Well, that is something that Labor is concerned with. When it comes to workplace relations, it is the Labor Party that is concerned with the interests of Australians, particularly those Australians—the majority of Australians—who work for a living. Labor's agenda when it comes to the workplace is about putting people first, looking at the issues that governments should be concerned about in the workplace, particularly the growing and disturbing evidence of exploitation arising from insecure workplace arrangements and exploitative employment arrangements.
So, Labor has put forward a plan to strengthen and protect workers' rights at work through cracking down on illegal underpayment, with increased penalties for employers who systematically avoid paying their employees properly, and dealing with the issue of sham contracts—an issue that was identified way back in the Cole commission, which this government seems unconcerned about—and giving more power to the appropriate authorities to investigate these issues of underpayment while ensuring that temporary overseas workers are protected, not exploited. That is one agenda to deal with a real problem facing working Australians today.
On the other hand, all we have from government members in support of this stale legislation is rhetoric—rhetoric based in ideology. But it is more offensive than that, because, as we saw at the start of the contribution by the member for Barker, he took grave exception to the contribution by my colleague and friend the member for Newcastle—grave exception. Now, I was not there for that contribution, but I find it extraordinary that someone who could take that point at the beginning of his contribution to this debate could then base his argument for the introduction of this extraordinary suite of coercive powers—this extraordinary attack on fundamental rights and liberties—on such outrageous allegations, including those that really stretched the boundary of appropriate use of this parliament. They were just extraordinary allegations that were levelled, in place of evidence.
And I guess that is the nub of this debate. This piece of legislation is a triumph of ideology over evidence. So, today we see the reality of our new Prime Minister's new politics. It is writ very small, because it comes back to the ideology, the antiworker and anti-union ideology, that is writ into the DNA of members opposite. So we have the legislation before us—the reintroduction of flawed legislation, those flaws in fact being exacerbated with the passage of time. This legislation speaks volumes as to the paucity of vision that this government has for the future of our workplaces and indeed the future of Australia: we see it again, and it has been demonstrated already since I have been in this chamber, the government's reflexive preference for ideology over evidence. This does not equal an exciting time to be Australian. In particular, it does not equal an exciting time to be an Australian worker. We have before us a set of laws which, if enacted, would be undemocratic, discriminatory and deeply dishonest—an assault on fundamental rights for workers by reason of one thing: the industry in which they work.
And it is very disappointing to go through this debate again, but even more disappointing to see how little this debate has advanced across the chamber, on the government side of the chamber, over the past two years. Since I last had the opportunity to participate in a debate about a very similar series of laws, in December 2013, we have learnt quite a lot about inequality and its consequences for our economy as well as for individuals and their families. We have also learnt that good workplace laws, fair workplace laws and, in particular, the role of unionism and collective bargaining are a critical bulwark to resisting inequality that can be a significant barrier to growth. We have also seen further evidence that the labour share of gross domestic product is trending down, while labour productivity is trending up.
What is the problem that this legislation is intended to solve? What problem have we been presented that this legislation is trying to solve? That is a question in respect of which this government has no answer. Some of the points made in 2013 by Labor members bear repeating, and perhaps government members might listen on this occasion. I think there are some principles here that we can clearly state which I would like to hear government members respond to, and they are: we should have one set of laws for workplaces for all workers, regardless of the industries in which they work. We should have—and this is something that the new Prime Minister has spoken much about but done very little about—evidence based, evidence-led policy across his responsibilities, including when it comes to the world of work. We should have, further to this, a real debate about productivity and how our workplace in the future can function more effectively—a real debate, not one built on ideology, assertion and the sort of intemperate allegations that characterise the contribution of the member for Barker. We should think very, very hard—and I say this to members of the Liberal Party—about attacking fundamental civil liberties through legislation that erodes them. This should ever only take place on the basis of a compelling body of evidence, and none such has been put before the parliament in this regard.
I would like to touch on a couple of the elements of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [No. 2] in particular. The bill's title speaks of 'improving productivity' but it does not take us much further than that, if at all. It is just a fig leaf and an unconvincing fig leaf at that. As I said two years ago, the legislation mentions productivity in its body just twice, neither with particular import nor any likely effect. This is just window-dressing at best. The arguments that were advanced back then and, indeed, today place enormous reliance on a 2007 report by the modelling firm Econtech, and this purported to tell a powerful story of productivity growth driven by the introduction of the then ABCC. But it has turned out that this was based on incorrect data—something which has been subsequently admitted by Econtech but not conceded by government members or, indeed, the minister. What data there is available tells a different story—one that is entirely consistent with government claims, although of course Labor members recognise that productivity growth depends on many, many factors.
It is extraordinary to read in today's Australian editorial the following:
Evidence suggests that its absence—
that is, the absence of the ABCC—
has increased costs.
It goes on:
"Without the ABCC acting as the strong cop on the beat," says MBA's Wilhelm Harnisch, "the building unions will continue to cheat the community out of more schools, hospitals and child care centres by driving up the cost of construction …
This allegation is entirely unsupported by evidence. I would simply say: he would say this, wouldn't he? What is clear when we look at productivity across workplaces generally but also when it comes to the building and construction industry is that Labor's approach is the best way: cooperation and fairness in place of suspicion and unnecessary conflict with this approach of treating workers as criminals. I note also in TheAustralian this week a contribution by His Honour Justice Cole, who was the commissioner of the last royal commission into the building and construction industry in Australia. He said something which again should challenge members of this government who profess an attachment to a small government view of the world. He said—and perhaps this comes to the nub of the debate and the onus government members have failed to even seek to discharge:
Surely it is incumbent upon those who oppose the reintroduction of the ABCC to explain how it is to the advantage of the Australian economy, and to the Australian people who bear the great costs of unlawful action, to have an increased level of unlawfulness in the building and construction industry which the ABCC has demonstrated it can suppress, but which existing arrangements do not.
The trouble with this quote is all of it. No evidence has been presented, I submit, because none exists. The allegations that follow are simply bare assertions, unsupported by evidence, supported only by reflexive ideology from a government that is obsessed with undermining and attacking unions, a government that has recently—it is interesting to see—focused on the fact that our wage growth is at a record low and the new Treasurer talks about his concern for the budget based on this. What a journey government members are coming on from the point at which the former employment minister, Senator Abetz, talked about the wages explosion that the Productivity Commission inquiry into our workplace laws was supposed to address. Again, across this journey, it shows one thing: whatever the evidence, government members will be motivated only by ideology and anti-worker, anti-collectivist ideology. We see this in the trade union royal commission—an inquiry into nothing more than an $880 million political witch-hunt. That commission and this bill show what the government is missing in respect of the real debate, which is that we should be engaged in the future of work. This is a critical failing. The Prime Minister has demonstrated this, because he is happy to editorialise on and give gratuitous advice to the trade union movement and the Labor Party, but he has nothing to say when it comes to the recommendations of the Productivity Commission—those recommendations about penalty rates, in particular—because I think he understands that Australians reject his vision for workplaces. Australians seek fairness but they also seek leadership. They seek more than sophistry and rhetoric from their political leaders. This is just simply not good enough from the government that he leads at a time when, as Labor has recognised, we are seeing too many workers being exploited at work, with too little recourse whether by way of the legislative framework or by way of those enforcement bodies that are available to support any legislative framework that exists. We see the rise in insecure work and, with it, insecure lives, damaging Australians.
Then we come to what is perhaps the central failing of this bill, which is its recourse to an extraordinary suite of coercive powers. This legislation, if adopted, would provide for a new set of laws for and, indeed, only for those associated with the building and construction industry. These do go beyond the previous powers afforded to the Australian Building and Construction Commission in terms of their scope, in terms of the scope of the industry that is applicable to, in terms of them being retrospective, making unlawful today what was previously lawful. These are simply extreme, unnecessary, unjustified and indeed unjustifiable powers.
We see before us a wide-ranging attack on workers' right in breach of human rights and of our international obligations, demonising a class of Australians for one reason and one reason only—the industry in which they work. I ask members opposite to think about the harm done and the message sent by a regime of secret interviews with the threat of imprisonment hanging over them. I ask members opposite to think about the views expressed by Professor Andrew Stewart at the time the previous legislation was introduced. Professor Stewart is one of Australia's leading experts on industrial law. He said that the powers proposed to be increased under this bill were 'extraordinary, analogous to those of ASIO'. He went on to say:
Ordinarily, under our laws, you have certain rights not to answer questions … You have privileges against self-incrimination. But these rights do not exist when you are being interviewed by the ABCC. That an innocent member of the public can get caught up in these powers simply increases the concerns.
Other academics compared the similarities to terrorism laws. I was troubled two years ago, and I continue to be deeply troubled by this and many other aspects of this suite of coercive powers: the reverse onus provisions and the curtailing of the presumption of innocence the right to peaceful assembly, the right to freedom of speech and the privilege against self-incrimination and freedom of expression—an attack on the right of people to organise collectively.
In looking at these powers, I urge members opposite to think about this intrusion on civil liberties and to think about the 'first principles' question that is before us. What is the problem we are trying to solve? It is clear it is not about productivity and it is not about getting the balance of power right in our workplaces. Let's be clear: the legislation before us is an attack on workers in the building and construction industry, an attack on unionism and an attack on our social fabric. These are bad laws that should be rejected by this parliament again.