Mr STIRLING - 1996-05-16
The Country Liberal Party administration is fighting the Australian Education Union. It is also fighting the Prison Officers Union and it is fighting the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The Country Liberal Party administration has put up taxpayers' money for a private organisation to run an appeal in the Industrial Relations Commission, relating to the right of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union to represent workers in award negotiations in the Northern Territory. What is the justification for using taxpayers' money in a case in which the commission says the government has no right to be a party and about which a senior commissioner has stated that it has 'no grounds for an appeal'?
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the industrial chaos, and the cost of that chaos, on building sites interstate is known to all members of this Chamber. The Costigan inquiry into the building industry in Sydney indicated a significant percentage increase, about 20%, in cost to the client for the type of practices that the BWIU, the BLF and now the CFMEU were involved in. The interest of the NT government is to ensure that we maintain a civilised industrial marketplace. There is a place for unions and union membership, but it must be civilised. Around building sites in Melbourne and Sydney, a 'no ticket, no start' attitude is seen. That is the core component of the lever that is used by this union to gain benefits for its members over and above what is reasonable. To gain benefits for its members, it stops concrete pours halfway through the process. Those actions do not cost merely a day's work. It costs hundreds of thousands of
Page 1365
dollars to undo those half-finished concrete pours. That is really sickening when you think about it.
We have 2 interests in this. The member for Barkly might have had a little interest, too, if she had been trying to build a new home under the regime that exists in Victoria. Firstly, we are a major client and we will not have 20% added to the cost of our projects. Secondly, and just as pertinently, our constituents and those of members opposite are the people who pay in the end. Who do members opposite think pays for the house that costs an additional $20 000 to build? Who do they think pays for a shopping centre that costs an extra $1.5m to build? The consumer pays. If their constituents are building a home or wish to own a building or rent a building, or even if they are only shopping at the local supermarket, they pay the extra cost.
We have no problem with the union itself, if it complies with some very basic rules. The first is that there must be no preference clause - that is, 'no ticket, no start' clause. I know members opposite love 'no ticket, no start' because it boosts the union coffers and therefore boosts their campaign funds. That is a short-sighted, small-minded approach to the economy of the Northern Territory. It renders members opposite unsuitable for these government benches. As long as the CFMEU adopts a civilised approach, by allowing people the freedom to join a union or not and to join the union of their choice, there will be no problems for it.
Page 1366
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the industrial chaos, and the cost of that chaos, on building sites interstate is known to all members of this Chamber. The Costigan inquiry into the building industry in Sydney indicated a significant percentage increase, about 20%, in cost to the client for the type of practices that the BWIU, the BLF and now the CFMEU were involved in. The interest of the NT government is to ensure that we maintain a civilised industrial marketplace. There is a place for unions and union membership, but it must be civilised. Around building sites in Melbourne and Sydney, a 'no ticket, no start' attitude is seen. That is the core component of the lever that is used by this union to gain benefits for its members over and above what is reasonable. To gain benefits for its members, it stops concrete pours halfway through the process. Those actions do not cost merely a day's work. It costs hundreds of thousands of
Page 1365
dollars to undo those half-finished concrete pours. That is really sickening when you think about it.
We have 2 interests in this. The member for Barkly might have had a little interest, too, if she had been trying to build a new home under the regime that exists in Victoria. Firstly, we are a major client and we will not have 20% added to the cost of our projects. Secondly, and just as pertinently, our constituents and those of members opposite are the people who pay in the end. Who do members opposite think pays for the house that costs an additional $20 000 to build? Who do they think pays for a shopping centre that costs an extra $1.5m to build? The consumer pays. If their constituents are building a home or wish to own a building or rent a building, or even if they are only shopping at the local supermarket, they pay the extra cost.
We have no problem with the union itself, if it complies with some very basic rules. The first is that there must be no preference clause - that is, 'no ticket, no start' clause. I know members opposite love 'no ticket, no start' because it boosts the union coffers and therefore boosts their campaign funds. That is a short-sighted, small-minded approach to the economy of the Northern Territory. It renders members opposite unsuitable for these government benches. As long as the CFMEU adopts a civilised approach, by allowing people the freedom to join a union or not and to join the union of their choice, there will be no problems for it.
Page 1366
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016