House of Assembly Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3) 51 3 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Grievance Debate Construction Industry CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY The Hon. S.W. KEY House of Assembly Ashford The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (15:35): Since September 2005, Australian workers in the construction industry have had to work under, in my view, an oppressive set of industrial laws. In addition to the Howard government's WorkChoices legislation, the construction industry has had special laws that make nearly every form of industrial action unlawful. The Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (or the BC2 act, as it is known—I will not say affectionately, because that would be inappropriate) created a new regulator for the industry with sweeping coercive powers. A wide range of industrial action is caught up by this legislation. Martin O'Malley, the State Secretary of the CFMEU, says that virtually any deviation from normal patterns of work has the potential to infringe this legislation—and, in fact, the legislation states, 'the performance of work in a manner different from that in which it is customarily performed'. He said that not even action over health and safety concerns and preventative measures are immune from these laws. That is really amazing, in my view, when one considers that the building and construction industry is, in fact, the most dangerous industry in Australia in which to work. On average, 50 construction workers are killed each year from work-related incidents and illnesses. In South Australia, I am advised by the CFMEU that, not only is there a general concern about occupational health and safety (and the CFMEU has maintained a very proud preventative record), but also just recently there have been two major safety issues with respect to the same builder. In one instance, a crane load crashed, and in another a steel girder weighing up to two to three tonnes just fell. Fortunately, no-one was injured in either of those cases, but quite often, as we know from the statistics and the WorkCover claims, people are injured and killed. If a CFMEU official goes on site after giving 24 hours' notice, they may or may not be able to investigate these kinds of incidents. However, with respect to the two that I just mentioned, I am told that when the organiser went on site the employee was monitored and one of the builders stood by and took notes about what the member was telling his organiser. There is also the following point to be made. Why should building and construction workers—who, as I said, work in the most dangerous industry—have different rules from the rest of Australian workers? It is very clear that the WorkChoices legislation is unacceptable, and I am most pleased that the Rudd Labor government is addressing the inappropriate legislation under which workers have had to suffer. The ABCC (Australian Building and Construction Commission) has the power to fine workers up to $22,000 for stopping work, even if it is for a safety reason. It also has the power to interrogate anyone connected to the industry and gaol them for six months for not answering questions they are asked, even if it is about a union meeting. That seems to me to be extremely harsh. Even under WorkChoices (which, as I said, is hardly model legislation, in my view), penalties usually flow after there is a breach and the commission specifies that that has happened. With this legislation, there is no early warning and there are no second chances and, if the action taken is deemed to be unlawful, industrial liability will follow. The International Labour Organisation has condemned these laws many times. I think it is a bad reflection, certainly on the previous government, that even the ILO has commented on this terrible legislation. At the very least the 900,000 or more construction workers should have the same rights as all other workers in Australia.