All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change Division
representatives vote 2012-02-16#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:19:28

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-16.11.16 motion] to read the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4684 bill] a second time.
  • This means that the majority of MPs agree with the main idea in the bill, which was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission (‘ABCC’) and create the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate.
  • The bill was subsequently agreed to without further division.([http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-16.25.1 Third reading] agreed to without division. ) This means that the bill passed the House and will now be sent to the Senate for their consideration.
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The ABCC was originally established by the Coalition Government in 2005 in response to the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, which found that there was “widespread disregard of the rule of law” within the industry.([http://www.royalcombci.gov.au/docs/finalreport/V01Summary_PressFinal.pdf Summary of Findings and Recommendations] (1.9MB). For a more general introduction on the ABCC, see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Australian_Building_and_Construction_Commissioner#Royal_Commission_into_the_Building_and_Construction_Industry Wikipedia page]. )
  • The Labor Government promised to abolish the ABCC when they were elected in 2007 and this bill reflects that promise.([http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3426275.htm Supporters condemn dismantling of ABCC – Lateline report])
  • References
  • The majority voted in favour of a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-16.11.16) to read the [bill](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4684) a second time.
  • This means that the majority of MPs agree with the main idea in the bill, which was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission (‘ABCC’) and create the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate.
  • The bill was subsequently agreed to without further division.( [Third reading](http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-16.25.1) agreed to without division. ) This means that the bill passed the House and will now be sent to the Senate for their consideration.
  • _Background to the bill_
  • The ABCC was originally established by the Coalition Government in 2005 in response to the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, which found that there was “widespread disregard of the rule of law” within the industry.( [Summary of Findings and Recommendations](http://www.royalcombci.gov.au/docs/finalreport/V01Summary_PressFinal.pdf) (1.9MB). For a more general introduction on the ABCC, see the [Wikipedia page](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Australian_Building_and_Construction_Commissioner#Royal_Commission_into_the_Building_and_Construction_Industry). )
  • The Labor Government promised to abolish the ABCC when they were elected in 2007 and this bill reflects that promise.( [Supporters condemn dismantling of ABCC – Lateline report](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3426275.htm))
  • References
representatives vote 2012-02-16#1

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:22

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-16.11.16 motion] to read the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4684 bill] a second time.
  • This means that the majority of MPs agree with the main idea in the bill, which was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission (‘ABCC’) and create the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate.
  • The bill was subsequently agreed to without further division.[1] This means that the bill passed the House and will now be sent to the Senate for their consideration.
  • The bill was subsequently agreed to without further division.([http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-16.25.1 Third reading] agreed to without division. ) This means that the bill passed the House and will now be sent to the Senate for their consideration.
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The ABCC was originally established by the Coalition Government in 2005 in response to the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, which found that there was “widespread disregard of the rule of law” within the industry.[2]
  • The ABCC was originally established by the Coalition Government in 2005 in response to the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, which found that there was “widespread disregard of the rule of law” within the industry.([http://www.royalcombci.gov.au/docs/finalreport/V01Summary_PressFinal.pdf Summary of Findings and Recommendations] (1.9MB). For a more general introduction on the ABCC, see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Australian_Building_and_Construction_Commissioner#Royal_Commission_into_the_Building_and_Construction_Industry Wikipedia page]. )
  • The Labor Government promised to abolish the ABCC when they were elected in 2007 and this bill reflects that promise.[3]
  • The Labor Government promised to abolish the ABCC when they were elected in 2007 and this bill reflects that promise.([http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3426275.htm Supporters condemn dismantling of ABCC – Lateline report])
  • References
  • * [1] [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-16.25.1 Third reading] agreed to without division.
  • * [2] [http://www.royalcombci.gov.au/docs/finalreport/V01Summary_PressFinal.pdf Summary of Findings and Recommendations] (1.9MB). For a more general introduction on the ABCC, see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Australian_Building_and_Construction_Commissioner#Royal_Commission_into_the_Building_and_Construction_Industry Wikipedia page].
  • * [3] [http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3426275.htm Supporters condemn dismantling of ABCC – Lateline report]
representatives vote 2012-02-16#1

Edited by mackay

on 2014-02-17 09:06:08

Title

  • Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Abolish the ABCC
  • Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Read a second time

Description

  • The majority voted to agree to the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4684 bill]. This means that the majority of MPs agree with the main idea in the bill, which was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission (‘ABCC’) and create the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate.
  • The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2012-02-16.11.16 motion] to read the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4684 bill] a second time.
  • This means that the majority of MPs agree with the main idea in the bill, which was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission (‘ABCC’) and create the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate.
  • The bill was subsequently agreed to without further division.[1] This means that the bill passed the House and will now be sent to the Senate for their consideration.
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The ABCC was originally established by the Coalition Government in 2005 in response to the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, which found that there was “widespread disregard of the rule of law” within the industry.[2]
  • The Labor Government promised to abolish the ABCC when they were elected in 2007 and this bill reflects that promise.[3]
  • References
  • * [1] [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-16.25.1 Third reading]
  • * [1] [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-16.25.1 Third reading] agreed to without division.
  • * [2] [http://www.royalcombci.gov.au/docs/finalreport/V01Summary_PressFinal.pdf Summary of Findings and Recommendations] (1.9MB). For a more general introduction on the ABCC, see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Australian_Building_and_Construction_Commissioner#Royal_Commission_into_the_Building_and_Construction_Industry Wikipedia page].
  • * [3] [http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3426275.htm Supporters condemn dismantling of ABCC – Lateline report]
representatives vote 2012-02-16#1

Edited by mackay

on 2014-01-03 12:12:13

Title

Description

  • The majority voted to agree to the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4684 bill]. This means that the majority of MPs agree with the main idea in the bill, which was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission (‘ABCC’) and create the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate.
  • The bill was subsequently agreed to without further division.[1] This means that the bill passed the House and will now be sent to the Senate for their consideration.
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The ABCC was originally established by the Coalition Government in 2005 in response to the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, which found that there was “widespread disregard of the rule of law” within the industry.[1]
  • The ABCC was originally established by the Coalition Government in 2005 in response to the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, which found that there was “widespread disregard of the rule of law” within the industry.[2]
  • The Labor Government promised to abolish the ABCC when they were elected in 2007 and this bill reflects that promise.[2]
  • The Labor Government promised to abolish the ABCC when they were elected in 2007 and this bill reflects that promise.[3]
  • References
  • * [1] [http://www.royalcombci.gov.au/docs/finalreport/V01Summary_PressFinal.pdf Summary of Findings and Recommendations] (1.9MB). For a more general introduction on the ABCC, see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Australian_Building_and_Construction_Commissioner#Royal_Commission_into_the_Building_and_Construction_Industry Wikipedia page].
  • * [2] [http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3426275.htm Supporters condemn dismantling of ABCC – Lateline report]
  • * [1] [http://www.openaustralia.org/debates/?id=2012-02-16.25.1 Third reading]
  • * [2] [http://www.royalcombci.gov.au/docs/finalreport/V01Summary_PressFinal.pdf Summary of Findings and Recommendations] (1.9MB). For a more general introduction on the ABCC, see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Australian_Building_and_Construction_Commissioner#Royal_Commission_into_the_Building_and_Construction_Industry Wikipedia page].
  • * [3] [http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3426275.htm Supporters condemn dismantling of ABCC – Lateline report]
representatives vote 2012-02-16#1

Edited by mackay

on 2014-01-03 12:03:22

Title

  • Bills — Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011; Second Reading
  • Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2012 - Second Reading - Abolish the ABCC

Description

  • <p class="speaker">Laurie Ferguson</p>
  • <p>Last evening I was turning to the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry. Not to put too fine a line on it, a person who was a student confrere and a close associate of the former Prime Minister was enlisted to carry out this investigation. Millions of dollars of taxpayers' money were expended on an inquiry which resulted&#8212;despite all the gruesome detail with which we were daily regaled in the media, particularly by the Sydney <i>Daily </i><i>Telegraph</i> and co.&#8212;in no convictions whatsoever. No convictions emanated from this investigation.</p>
  • <p>It has been very interesting to watch those opposite. They have made no reference to the subsequent inquiry by Justice Wilcox, which, in contrast to the Cole royal commission, was a balanced analysis of what had happened. It called for the continuation of government and judicial intervention in the industry to ensure that there were protections but it came down with a far more neutral, far more balanced approach. Not one opposition speaker has referred to that more recent analysis of what has gone on in the industry.</p>
  • The majority voted to agree to the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4684 bill]. This means that the majority of MPs agree with the main idea in the bill, which was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission (‘ABCC’) and create the Office of the Fair Work Building Industry Inspectorate.
  • ''Background to the bill''
  • The ABCC was originally established by the Coalition Government in 2005 in response to the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry, which found that there was “widespread disregard of the rule of law” within the industry.[1]
  • The Labor Government promised to abolish the ABCC when they were elected in 2007 and this bill reflects that promise.[2]
  • References
  • * [1] [http://www.royalcombci.gov.au/docs/finalreport/V01Summary_PressFinal.pdf Summary of Findings and Recommendations] (1.9MB). For a more general introduction on the ABCC, see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Australian_Building_and_Construction_Commissioner#Royal_Commission_into_the_Building_and_Construction_Industry Wikipedia page].
  • * [2] [http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3426275.htm Supporters condemn dismantling of ABCC – Lateline report]
  • <p>It is interesting to note the rhetoric opposite, particularly that of the member for Mayo, who was an architect of the attempt to diminish people's working conditions in this country, about union thugs, bosses and officials going onto building sites&#8212;the theory that, if you give access by unions to their membership so that they have what are internationally recognised rights, in some way the workers are intimidated and forced against their own interest to take industrial action that they themselves would not have undertaken. That is preposterous. And&#8212;to show the way that the opposition are totally dedicated to the commercial interest of large corporations&#8212;they are doing this in the same week that we have seen them come before this parliament and defend the interests of the private health companies, trying to force, cajole or give incentives to people to buy a product that they just do not want. These people talk about the market et cetera. We have seen them this week come in here and say that people earning millions of dollars should be assisted, subsidised, by the Australian taxpayer to buy a product that they just do not want or might not want. So it is quite hypocritical for them to talk about class warfare as being the motivation of the government in the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011.</p>
  • <p>In the course of the existence of this body that they are so vigorously defending, which they say has been a perfect ideal, we have seen no effective prosecutions. We have seen it bring people before courts. We have seen it try to intimidate individuals and bring them to investigate what happened in regard to meetings about safety and we have seen a fairly unimpressive list of legal defeats for those people who have operated this agency over the period. That is the total outcome.</p>
  • <p>We have heard what the opposition thinks about this&#8212;and, as I say, it is a group driven by commercial self-interest, whether it is the tobacco industry or the private health industry. In contrast, we have had views from other bodies. The ILO, a tripartite organisation that represents governments, employers and unions, with far more credibility than those opposite, says that Australia has gone down a road in industrial relations which is perhaps paralleled in Guatemala and Honduras and a few other jurisdictions but in the Western advanced nations is quite extreme. It has talked about the withdrawal of rights for unionists and workers and the fact that there are very strong coercive powers that are very unusual in the Western advanced world, and it has not been backward in criticising the way Australia has gone.</p>
  • <p>We have heard much in the last few months about whether governments have mandates and whether people have backed off on commitments. This legislation has its genesis as far back as 2007, when Labor said that it would not have separate regulations and rules for one industry in particular. Legislation was introduced as far back as June 2009 and, when a direction was disallowed in June of that year, debate was adjourned in February 2010. This legislation has been part of a very long process. It has been discussed. It has been the subject of an inquiry by Justice Wilcox.</p>
  • <p>The background of this is that this existing body has had a strong partisan industrial flavour. It has failed abysmally to do anything about the very serious safety issues in this country. Internationally, a worker dies every second in the world. On ILO figures, 6,300 workers a day die. The annual cost to the international economy is $1.25 trillion. In contrast to US President Obama, who last year was very active around the World Day for Safety and Health at Work, those opposite have no interest whatsoever in occupational safety. If we talk about those international figures, we appreciate that one of the worst areas is in the building industry. Part of what those opposite want to do is erode the rights of union officials to go on to worksites, to have effective working committees and to make sure that safety is a very important aspect of the industry. We could have all the rhetoric in the world from those opposite&#8212;that they are neutral in this debate, that they are concerned about safety&#8212;but what we have seen manifest in this organisation's operation until now is a studied disinterest in occupational safety and a studied disinterest in sham contracting, which is a major problem in this industry. Just down the road in Canberra we see the other problem evident in this industry: on one building site alone, 30 illegal workers were found to be employed by a single employer who did not know that any of them were illegal.</p>
  • <p>I recommend this legislation. It will bring balance back to the industry, it will give workers back their rights to safety protection and it will ensure that the previous government's attempt to reduce their conditions will be terminated.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Robert Oakeshott</p>
  • <p>I rise briefly to indicate that I will not be supporting the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2011 at this time. I think timing is important, and anyone who follows economic indicators would know that the construction industry is one of the industries under the most pressure at the moment in a changing economy. That needs to be considered for all legislation that passes through this place. I note government is showing a lot of care and concern for the other industry most under threat at the moment&#8212;that is, the manufacturing industry. Government is holding jobs forums and providing subsidies to the car industry and to other manufacturing industries. I would hope there is the same consideration, care and concern for the construction industry, which is flatlining at the moment for a number of reasons. Therefore, the timing of these changes is particularly sensitive. I am not buying into the rights and wrongs of the ideology around whether it is fair that one industry or one union is targeted or whether coercive powers are good or bad, but I do think the timing of this legislation is of concern. We therefore need to be sensitive to some of the arguments around how we help the construction industry to improve and grow, rather than burdening it at a challenging time.</p>
  • <p>I note some of the comments made by people such as Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group, the Master Builders Australia and the Australian Constructors Association about some of the concerns that have been raised about the particulars of this bill. All of those comments need genuine consideration, particularly in the context of timing. If construction was flying and booming and the Australian economy had gone through change, then issues of fairness around how we deal with particular aspects of the work site might be considered in a different context; but the context of the moment is that the productivity agenda is the agenda for Australia in 2012. There are a couple of industries in particular that are struggling at the moment and that need the special attention of this place as to how we can do all we can to help them through some challenging times. Construction is definitely one of those industries of concern. I do not see this bill helping growth in the construction industry in 2012 in an environment where productivity is important. I see this as a further burden. Therefore, I will not be supporting it this year.</p>
  • <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>