House of Assembly Fifty-Fifth Parliament, First Session (55-1) 55 1 Parliament of South Australia House of Assembly published Bills Bills Construction Industry Commissioner Bill Construction Industry Commissioner Bill Construction Industry Commissioner Bill Second Reading Second Reading Adjourned debate on second reading. (Continued from 8 March 2023.) The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER House of Assembly Morialta Deputy Leader of the Opposition The Hon. J.A.W. GARDNER (Morialta—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (10:31): I rise to support the Construction Industry Commissioner Bill. I think this is a tremendously important piece of legislation for the South Australian business sector, particularly within the construction industry. I think the timing—today would be a very good day for this piece of legislation to pass. If the government were to support this legislation—which I believe they will not, but I hope they will—it would be an opportunity for them to send a message to the business sector, which I think they have betrayed over the last 12 months, that they do in fact have the business sector's interests in mind and the broader South Australian community interest in mind, as opposed to what I believe their interests are, which is in supporting the union movement in South Australia. I do not have a problem with the idea of the Labor Party supporting the union movement. The Labor Party exists as the political arm of the union movement. Certainly, I think in the 19^th century, as the union movement was forming, its role in developing modern Australia was critically important, and its role in addressing some of the terrible behaviours that were underway in the 19^th and parts of the 20^th century were tremendously important. But the role of the modern union movement in Australian life is quite different now from what it was then. The union movement won many of the fights that needed to be won, and, indeed, there are laws in place and protections in place for workers—the rights of labour—and indeed to protect individuals and families in a way that there were not previously when the union movement was formed. I think that the very low membership, people voluntarily choosing to join unions, in most sectors in South Australia, certainly most sectors within private industry, highlights the different approach that most Australians take to that of the union movement. I do not think that the Labor Party, in focusing on the needs of the union movement, is focusing on the needs of the South Australian people. When fewer than one in five, and far fewer than one in five people in private sector employment in South Australia choose of their own volition to join a union, I think that sends a message that many people in negotiations with their employer, or, indeed, in their professional lives as individuals, do not feel that the union movement is either needed or does in fact represent them. And yet, since the election of the Malinauskas Labor government, I would submit that the union movement has seen one of their own in charge and has acted accordingly. Bad behaviours by union leaders are not necessarily new, but I think that the choices that the union movement have made in recent times highlight that they feel liberated to accentuate those bad behaviours. The CFMEU is obviously critically important to this bill, but there were other unions as well that saw themselves playing a key role in the last election and now, having secured the leadership of this state by their man in the Leader of the Government, the Premier, they are acting accordingly. At the same time as this, we have in Canberra a federal Labor Party in government that is removing the tough cop on the beat in the construction sector and, indeed, putting this critical industry for infrastructure development in our state, and the capacity for our nation and our state to build, and to build in ways that are affordable for government and for individuals, at significant risk. It is not just a cost argument, though, the way that the construction industry unions behave and add to costs; it is actual personal safety behaviour for many people. Issues related to coercion, issues related to bullying, issues related to thuggery are writ large through the actions of people involved in the construction industry union. In South Australia, with the tough cop on the beat being removed at a federal level, and the election of the Malinauskas Labor government, if it is coincidental it is at the very least a very unfortunate coincidence that this coincides with the takeover of the CFMEU in South Australia by the Victorian CFMEU—by John Setka and his mates, a group of people who seem to be on charges every year for bad behaviour on worksites and elsewhere. This is a union that donated $125,000 to the ALP at the last state election. When urged by the opposition extensively to donate that money to a domestic violence charity, a worthy cause that might reflect some of the damage that people within the CFMEU have done within our community, the ALP and the Premier did eventually form the view that they did not want to be tainted with that money anymore, so what did they do? They gave it back to the CFMEU who could then use it for whatever purposes they wanted. One thing that the CFMEU did with their funds last year was to put massive posters on the sides of our public transport facilities, such as trams going down North Terrace, trams going down King William Street emblazoned with the larger-than-life photo of John Setka. There were extraordinary behaviours by the union movement, standing in Victoria Square chanting 'union power' or similar slogans in scenes that I do not think that most of the South Australian people would have thought even possible. They were very unseemly, very unusual and extraordinary scenes. Groups of people in the CFMEU headquarters were chanting 'union power, union power, union power' at a time—coincidently, I am sure—when vehicles and property of the Master Builders Association down the street were damaged. This is not an okay state of affairs. The Premier's endeavours to distance himself from the behaviours of people in the CFMEU, or apparent behaviours by people apparently in the CFMEU, would be given a lot more credence if the Labor Party would support this bill being put forward in good faith by the opposition. The small businesses, the sole traders, the tradies, members of groups like the MBA and the MTA that members of the government have been eager to highlight their good relationships with in recent times would take a lot of comfort, a lot of reassurance that, if they have had trust in this government, that trust was not misplaced if the government were to support a bill of this nature—a bill that would provide for a construction industry commissioner who will promote the rights of building and construction industry participants, respect for the rule of law and work health and safety. We are proposing a commissioner who: would facilitate and encourage the fair treatment of building and construction industry participants in their commercial dealings with each other or in relation to any other matters generally relating to their workplaces; would act as a one-stop shop for the building and construction industry to register concerns relating to safety, industrial actions, allegations of coercion and threatening behaviour or any relevant matters; would facilitate the resolution of complaints through measures such as mediation and making representations on behalf of notifiers and complainants in accordance with relevant legislation, such as the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act and the Work Health and Safety Act; would monitor and advise the relevant minister about practices that may adversely affect building and construction industry participants; would provide an annual report that would have the power to compel individuals to provide information that the commissioner requires to undertake functions under the act; would have the power to direct matters to state authorities, such as SAPOL, and the Commissioner for Consumer Affairs following receipt of a complaint or inquiry from a building and construction industry participant if it is the opinion of the commissioner the matter should be referred; and would have the power to direct matters to federal authorities, such as the Commonwealth Ombudsman or the Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman, following receipt of a complaint or inquiry if it is the commissioner's opinion the matter should be referred. They would be able to suspend work, health and safety entry permits if satisfied that the work, health and safety permit holder has contravened the Work Health and Safety Act. However, before suspending such a permit, they would need to give notice to that permit holder of the proposed suspension with a 21-day period for that person to show why the permit should not be suspended. There are many examples where the federal commission of this nature has been able to act in worksites to prevent people from behaving in bullying, thuggish behaviours that have put people's personal safety at risk, businesses at risk of their economic future and projects at risk of their delivery. The removal of the federal commission, I think, is a clear sign from the Labor Party that their interest is solely on supporting the interests of the union movement and the people in the union movement who are leading these behaviours, rather than the interests of the South Australian community and workers who choose not to become a member of that union or, indeed, businesses or the broader community in South Australia and Australia. In this bill, we have an opportunity to set the balance right, at least here in South Australia, and I urge the government to support the bill. I urge them to do so today. A year after they have won an election, they could finally repay some of the faith that some members of the business community put in them. I suspect that they will not and they will stand condemned if they vote against it. I commend the bill to the house. Mr ODENWALDER House of Assembly Elizabeth Mr ODENWALDER (Elizabeth) (10:41): I move: That the debate be adjourned. The house divided on the motion: 22 15 6 Ayes	22 Noes	15 Majority	7 AYES Andrews, S.E. Bettison, Z.L. Bignell, L.W.K. Boyer, B.I. Brown, M.E. Champion, N.D. Clancy, N.P. Close, S.E. Cook, N.F. Hildyard, K.A. Hood, L.P. Hughes, E.J. Koutsantonis, A. Michaels, A. Odenwalder, L.K. (teller) Pearce, R.K. Piccolo, A. Picton, C.J. Savvas, O.M. Stinson, J.M. Szakacs, J.K. Wortley, D.J. NOES Basham, D.K.B. Batty, J.A. Bell, T.S. Cowdrey, M.J. (teller) Ellis, F.J. Gardner, J.A.W. Marshall, S.S. McBride, P.N. Patterson, S.J.R. Pederick, A.S. Pisoni, D.G. Tarzia, V.A. Teague, J.B. Telfer, S.J. Whetstone, T.J. PAIRS Malinauskas, P.B. Pratt, P.K. Fulbrook, J.P. Speirs, D.J. Hutchesson, C.L. Hurn, A.M. Motion thus carried; debate adjourned.