Bills Digest no. 63, 2016–17
PDF version [617KB]
Jaan Murphy
Law and Bills Digest Section
15
February 2017
Contents
Purpose of the Bill
Background
The Code
Outline of the Code
Committee consideration
Senate Education and Employment
Legislation Committee
Senate Standing Committee for the
Scrutiny of Bills
Policy position of non-government
parties/independents
The Opposition
The Australian Greens
Other non-government parties and
independents
Position of major interest groups
Australian Chamber of Commerce and
Industry
Australian Council of Trade Unions
Construction, Forestry, Mining and
Energy Union
Electrical Trades Union
Housing Industry Association
Master Builders Australia
Master Electricians Australia
Table 1: Groups of employers
impacted by the Bill and suggested concessions
Financial implications
Statement of Compatibility with Human
Rights
Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights
Key issues and provisions
New transition period and
arrangements proposed by the Bill
Application of amended transition
period and arrangements
Table 2: application of proposed
amendments
Date introduced: 8
February 2017
House: House of
Representatives
Portfolio: Employment
Commencement: The
day after Royal Assent.
Links: The links to the Bill,
its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the
Bill’s home page, or through the Australian
Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent,
they become Acts, which can be found at the Federal Register of Legislation
website.
All hyperlinks in this Bills Digest are correct as
at February 2017.
Purpose of
the Bill
The purpose of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving
Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017 (the Bill) is to amend the Building and
Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 (the Act) to adjust
provisions that transitionally exempt building industry participants from the
requirement to comply with the ‘enterprise agreement content rules’ in a Code
issued under section 34 of the Act as a condition of eligibility to submit
expressions of interest, tender for, be awarded, or perform Commonwealth-funded
building work.
Background
A detailed examination of the background to the Act is
provided at pages 4-8 of Bills
Digest No. 3, 2016–17.[1]
Briefly, however, the Act was passed with the support of a number of the
cross-bench Senators, following a number of amendments.[2]
One of the Senators who supported the Act in its amended form, Senator Derryn
Hinch, reconsidered his position regarding the length of the transition period for
the Code issued under section 34 of the Act and noted:
Over the summer break, I spoke to a lot of people,
subcontractors and middle-sized construction companies ... they told me the
legislation was killing them. My view is that I listen to people, and that’s
what I did. I contacted Malcolm Turnbull and told him we needed to look at this
again.[3]
The Bill will introduce a shorter transition period, as
originally intended as well as reducing the scope of the transitional exemption
from the enterprise agreement content rules in the Code.
The Code
Section 34 of the Act enables the Minister to, via
legislative instrument, issue one or more documents that, together, constitute
a ‘Code of practice’ (Code) that is to be complied with by persons in respect
of building work. Without limiting the content of the Code, subsection 34(2)
provides that the Code may deal with procurement matters relating to building
work, as well as work health and safety matters relating to building work.
Subsection 34(2E) of the Act then provides that, if the
Code includes requirements in relation to the content of enterprise agreements,
a building industry participant with a non-Code compliant enterprise agreement
made before the Code was issued, may, before 29 November 2018:
- submit expressions of interest, tender for and
- be awarded Commonwealth-funded building work.
However, an enterprise agreement made after the
Code was issued must comply with the requirements if the building industry
participant is to tender for (and, by extension, be awarded and perform)
building work.
The practical effect of subsection 34(2E) is that
enterprise agreements made before 2 December 2016 are exempt from the
enterprise agreement content rules of the Code until 29 November 2018.
Outline of
the Code
On 2 December 2016, the Minister for Employment issued the
Code for the
Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016 (Code) under section 34 of
the Act.
The Code is an opt-in scheme: it only applies to building
industry participants that want to seek and be awarded Commonwealth-funded
building work. The Code sets out the Government’s standards for all building
industry participants involved in Commonwealth-funded building work. It
contains requirements related to the content of enterprise agreements, and
therefore affects the eligibility of building industry participants to submit
expressions of interest, tender for, or be awarded Commonwealth-funded building
work. Briefly the Code:
- prohibits the use of unregistered written agreements and other
agreements (that is, agreements not registered under the Fair Work Act 2009)
that deal with matters prohibited by section 11 of the Code; provide for terms,
conditions or benefits of employment of employees of the employer or the
employer’s subcontractors; or that restricts or limits the form or type of
engagement that may be used to engage subcontractors[4]
and
- provides that, to be compliant with the Code, a building industry
participant’s enterprise agreement must not contain clauses that, broadly
speaking, would impose limits on the right of the entity to manage its business
or to improve productivity.[5]
Committee
consideration
Senate
Education and Employment Legislation Committee
The Bill was referred to the Senate Education and Employment
Legislation Committee for inquiry and the Committee reported on 15 February
2017. Details of the inquiry, its terms of reference and report can be found on
the inquiry homepage.[6]
The Committee recommended that the Bill be passed.[7]
The Opposition and Australian Greens, in separate dissenting reports, recommend
that the Bill not be passed.[8]
Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
At the time of writing the Bill had not been considered by
the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.[9]
Policy
position of non-government parties/independents
The
Opposition
The Opposition opposes the Bill, stating:
The new amendments will reverse a position settled only
months ago, leaving building companies and unions less than three months to try
and renegotiate previously agreed lawfully binding enterprise agreements... The
ABCC legislation is bad legislation. When the ABCC was last in place, worker
fatalities went up and productivity went down. The draconian Building Code will
result in less apprentices and more temporary work visa holders on building and
construction sites.[10]
The
Australian Greens
The Australian Greens oppose the Bill, stating:
The original ABCC legislation caused chaos in the building
and construction industry and the latest move by Derryn Hinch and Nick Xenophon
is a recipe for this chaos to return. By removing the grace period before some
of the worst parts of this legislation came into effect, agreements that had
already been struck between companies and workers will now be up in the air ... The
Greens will not be party to any grubby deal that the crossbench Senators have
negotiated.[11]
Other
non-government parties and independents
Media reports suggest that Senator Derryn Hinch, Liberal
Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm, the Nick Xenophon Team and One Nation
Senators will support the Bill.[12]
The position of other non-government Members and Senators is not clear at this
time.
Position of major interest groups
At the time of writing, seven submissions from industry
stakeholders to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee’s
inquiry into the Bill had been received.
Australian
Chamber of Commerce and Industry
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) supports
the Bill.[13]
The ACCI noted:
... building industry participants with a non-code-compliant
enterprise agreement (made before 2 December 2016) will still, pursuant to
proposed subsection 34(2E), be able to submit expressions of interest or tender
for relevant building work until the end of 31 August 2017, but would need to
ensure that they have a code-compliant enterprise agreement before they could
be awarded a contract to perform the relevant building work. This amendment
is fairer to construction businesses that did the right thing in negotiating
their enterprise agreements and who are compliant with the 2016 Code.[14]
(emphasis added).
Australian
Council of Trade Unions
The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU)
opposes the Bill.[15]
The ACTU argues that the Code prohibits ‘clauses that are often negotiated by
unions on their members’ behalf and with their endorsement, because they are in
their members’ interests’, such as clauses related to maximum daily working
hours and parity of pay for subcontractors.[16]
Therefore the ACTU argued:
What the Bill (in conjunction with a new or amended Code)
therefore seeks to achieve to is to disqualify unionised companies from
Commonwealth funded work, by narrowing the field of eligible tenderers to
companies that have agreements that lack the features typical of union
agreements. In doing so, it gives a competitive edge to those companies that
were loyal to the government’s legacy of proposed but undelivered policy
announcements and places other law abiding companies at a competitive
disadvantage. Moreover, it rewards companies who are unwilling to even agree on
some most basic conditions with their workforce that are important for their
safety, learning and well being in the workplace and which contribute to
building and maintaining industry skills.[17]
The ACTU argues that by narrowing of the field of
potential government contractors and reducing the scope of competition ‘the
bald statement in the Explanatory Memorandum that the expected financial impact
of the intended change is “nil” is highly contestable’.[18]
Construction,
Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU)
opposes the Bill.[19]
The CFMEU argues that ‘virtually any clause’ in an enterprise agreement ‘which
favours the interests of workers can be ruled as ‘non-compliant’ with the Code
by the new ABCC’.[20]
The CFMEU argues that the measure proposed by the Bill would
‘significantly reduce the pool of available contractors for Commonwealth
taxpayer-funded construction work’ leading to Australian taxpayers being
‘deprived of the benefits of the ordinary competitive commercial tender process
that is essential to the delivery of quality and value-for-money construction
work’.[21]
The CFMEU argued:
Existing agreements bargained for by unions are more likely
to contain beneficial clauses for workers that will offend the new Code. Many
of these clauses promote broader social objectives which are in the public
interest. These include clauses that promote the engagement and training of
young people and apprentices, clauses that restrict anti-social working hours
and clauses that require workers' health and wellbeing initiatives (such as
health checks, suicide prevention, screening for dust diseases, drug and
alcohol awareness). By immediately excluding contractors with these clauses in
their agreements the amendment will legitimize discrimination against
contractors and workers on political and ideological grounds, rather than on
their commercial capacity to deliver a project on time and on budget.[22]
The CFMEU also argued that the Bill would:
... give a competitive advantage to those who do not have
agreements and are therefore exposed to lawful protected industrial action as
attempts are made to secure agreements. This means Government projects will be
more exposed to delays caused by protected industrial action than they would be
if the change were not made.[23]
Electrical
Trades Union
The Electrical Trades Union (ETU) opposes the Bill.[24]
The ETU noted:
- an
estimated minimum of 1,500 enterprise agreements ‘that have been struck but are
thought not to comply with the 2016 Code must be renegotiated and by August’
and
- whilst
the Bill allows building industry participants with non-Code compliant
enterprise agreements to submit expressions of interest or tenders they ‘would
need a code-compliant enterprise agreement before they can be awarded a
contract’ and this ‘will significantly reduce the pool of available contractors
for Commonwealth taxpayer-funded construction work’.[25]
The ETU also argued that ‘the consequences will flow out
beyond the construction sector’ and stated:
We are already aware of an instance where a large essential
service provider, who holds Commonwealth contacts, is seeking a compliant
agreement. Apart from the clearly erroneous application of the Code in applying
to an essential service provider, the amendments will mean that the provider
will be at risk of its ability to be awarded Commonwealth funds unless it can
negotiate a new agreement by 1 September 2017.[26]
Housing
Industry Association
The Housing Industry Association (HIA) supports the Bill on
the basis that:
The earlier that the Building Code has universal application
to all industry participants, the sooner the construction industry and broader
community will experience the cultural and productivity improvements the
Building Code and restoration of the Australian Building and Construction
Commission (ABCC) are designed to address.[27]
The HIA noted that, in relation to building industry
participants who have entered into non-Code compliant enterprise agreements:
HIA does not criticise those building contractors that made
commercial decisions to enter into such agreements with the unions. At the same
time however, many builders and contractors in the industry refused to sign
non-compliant enterprise agreements.[28]
The HIA concluded that, as the ‘Code and the operation of
the ABCC more broadly, are intended to establish a fair and level playing field
for all builders and contractors seeking to undertake construction projects for
the Commonwealth government’, the proposed nine-month transition period ‘is a
sensible and pragmatic compromise’ that will enable building industry
participants ‘that desire to work on future Government projects’ to enter into
Code-compliant enterprise arrangements ‘whilst recognising that many building
contractors are already compliant’.[29]
Master
Builders Australia
Masters Builders Australia (MBA) supports the Bill.[30]
Whilst noting that it would ‘have preferred that no transition exist in the
first instance’ and that the Code was ‘implemented as per statements of Government
and advice to industry’, MBA nonetheless noted that the reduced transition
period provided by the Bill ‘will reduce the extent of problems arising from
it.’[31]
The MBA noted that, in relation to building industry
participants who have entered into non-Code compliant enterprise agreements,:
... building unions encouraged the adoption of enterprise
agreements that were not consistent with the requirements of the 2014 Code ...
While some building industry employers signed agreements that were not
compliant, the majority either made agreements that were compliant (or
purported to be) or have held out for a compliant agreement. Those who did
sign non-compliant agreements did so with awareness they would not be able to
tender for or undertake Commonwealth funded building work in the event the ABCC
was re-established.[32]
(emphasis added)
In relation to the proposed nine-month transition period,
the MBA argued that it would address ‘many of the problems created by the two
year transition period’ currently provided by the Act and would ‘restore a
level playing field amongst industry participants’ in the following ways:
- as
all participants will need to be Code compliant if they are to be awarded
Commonwealth funded building work ‘this will assist in delivering cultural
change immediately on Commonwealth funded construction work and deliver better
value for money to taxpayers’
- as
the period by which all participants will need to achieve Code compliance will
be greatly reduced ‘this will bring forward the period in which overall
industry cultural change will be realised’
- the
shorter transition period ‘will create a time pressure on building unions to
secure and enhance the prospect of stable, productive and ongoing work for
their members’ and thus ensure that ‘industry employers are eligible to
undertake Commonwealth funded building work’ and
- the
shorter transition period ‘will remove the disparity between building industry
participants arising as a consequence of the two-year transition period and
reduce disparity insofar as tender eligibility’.[33]
The MBA concluded that the nine-month period within which
compliance must be achieved ‘is an appropriate and reasonable compromise that
accommodates the overwhelming majority of circumstances faced by building
industry participants’.[34]
Master
Electricians Australia
Master Electricians Australia (MEA) supports the Bill.[35]
The MEA argued that the current two-year transition period
provided by subsection 34(2E) of the Act was incompatible with and did not
achieve the Act’s main objective, which is:
... to provide an improved workplace relations framework for
building work to ensure that building work is carried out fairly, efficiently
and productively, without distinction between interests of building industry
participants, and for the benefit of all building industry participants and for
the benefit of the Australian economy as a whole.[36]
The MEA argued that:
... the current legislative timeline of 2018 will result in a
slow and drawn out implementation whereby participants, employers and employees
will be in a state of flux waiting for the change to be in place. This could
cause tension and unrest within the industry and would, in fact, be
counterproductive to the main objective outlined in section 3(1) of the
Act.[37]
Whilst supporting the Bill, the MEA noted that there were
three groups of employers who would be impacted in different ways by the Bill,
and recommended a number of concessions for certain groups as set out in the
table below.
Table 1: groups of employers
impacted by the Bill and suggested concessions
Group
|
Characteristics of the group and impact of Bill
|
Recommended concessions
|
(1) Employers
using modern award arrangements or Code-compliant enterprise agreements
|
This group is currently, and will continue to, operate
under the Code. The advantage being that the desired behaviours and culture
change will start to be demonstrated by these employers and employees. We see
little impact on these employers of changing this date. In terms of Award
participation, this represents a large number of employers.
|
Nil.
|
(2) Employers
with enterprise agreements created since April 2014 that have not passed the
agreement’s nominal expiry date
|
This Group is subject to the proposed legislation as
presented with a date of 31 August 2017. This Group of employers have entered
into agreements knowing that the Federal Government's policy was to establish
the Code. The Code has had some changes since the 2014 draft, however the behaviour
targeted by the Code was well known to employers and unions. The parties made
a conscious decision to agree to what would, in all likelihood, be against
the Code. As such, we see no reason why the proposed date amendment to the 31
August 2017 should not apply to those parties.
|
Nil.
|
(3) Employers
with enterprise agreements that have passed their nominal expiry date
|
This group of employers have, in many cases, been waiting
and adhering to the Government's position and have committed to active
engagement in changing the culture of the industry.
However, we believe the amendment disadvantages these
employers for behaving responsibly. Employers who, in many cases, bore the
brunt of industrial pressure from the construction unions. Further, this
proposed amendment would result in an employer being removed from site after
this date by virtue of a breach of the Code. The removal from site and
subsequent retendering of the remaining work would have a drastic impact on
the productivity of the project
|
(1) The
date for group three employers to have 2016 Code compliant agreements be
delayed to 30 November 2017.
This group are in all likelihood currently negotiating an
agreement or are waiting for the Union to settle on a position and strategy
before being approached. This will allow these employers to review what the
Unions and parties' positions are. We expect that those with non-Code
compliant Group 2 agreements will be prioritised by the parties due to the
urgency of the 31 August date. We also foresee that the large number of
agreements in some states that will need to be changed will cause unions to
be unavailable in some circumstances.
(2) That
group three employers who have already signed contracts and commenced work on
projects prior to the 2 December 2016 be able to complete and remain working
on those sites until such time as:
a. A
new agreement is negotiated, or
b. The
parties agree to terminate the offending Enterprise Bargaining Agreement in
the Fair Work Commission or
c. the
project is completed, whichever occurs first.
However, ‘no future works could be awarded to an employer
who has not complied with the content requirements of the Code’.
|
Source: MEA, Submission,
op. cit., pp. 2–3.
The MEA concluded that, if passed, the Bill would ‘bring
about the productivity gains sought by the introduction of the agreement
content requirements’ contained in the Code ‘without excessively drawing out
the transitional period for parties to amend their agreement content’.[38]
Financial
implications
The Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill states there will
be no financial implications arising from the Bill.[39]
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights
(Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the
Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared
in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act. The
Government considers that the Bill is compatible.[40]
Parliamentary
Joint Committee on Human Rights
At the time of writing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on
Human Rights had not considered the Bill.
Key issues
and provisions
New
transition period and arrangements proposed by the Bill
As noted above, currently subsection 34(2E) of the Act
provides that building industry participants with non-Code compliant enterprise
agreements may (before 29 November 2018) submit expressions of interest, tender
for, be awarded, and perform building Commonwealth-funded building work.
Items 1 and 2 of the Bill would amend
subsection 34(2E) to bring forward the expiry of the exemption from the
enterprise content rules of the Code for building industry participants with
non-Code compliant enterprise agreements entered into before the commencement
of the Code to 1 September 2017.
However, by removing the words ‘and be awarded’ from
subsection 34(2E) of the Act, item 1 also limits the scope of the
exemption to the submission of expressions of interest or tenders. The
practical effect of removing the exemption from the enterprise content rules of
the Code for building industry participants with non-Code compliant enterprise
agreements entered into before the commencement of the Code being awarded
Commonwealth-funded building work is:
- building
industry participants with non-Code compliant enterprise agreements made before
the Code commenced can submit expressions of interest or tender for relevant
building work but
- before
they can be awarded (and therefore perform) a contract for such
Commonwealth-funded building work they must have a Code-compliant enterprise
agreement in place.
Item 2 (proposed Note 2) states that the
exemptions provided in subsection 34(2E) as amended will not apply in relation
to enterprise agreements made after the commencement of the Code.
Application
of amended transition period and arrangements
As amended by the Bill, subsection 34(2E) of the Act would
apply in relation to Commonwealth-funded building work in the manner outlined
in the table below.
Table 2: application of
proposed amendments
Scenario
|
Outcome
|
- building
work was awarded before the commencement of the Bill and
- the
building industry participant’s enterprise agreement was made before
the commencement of the Code and is not Code-compliant
|
The building industry participant is entitled to perform
or continue to perform, the Commonwealth-funded building work after the
proposed amendments commence.
|
- an
expression of interest was submitted by a building industry participant between
the commencement of the Code and the commencement of the Bill
- the
building industry participant’s enterprise agreement was made before
the commencement of the Code and is not Code-compliant
|
The building industry participant is eligible to be awarded
building work until the end of 28 November 2018, and can perform that work.
|
- between
the commencement of the Bill and 31 August 2017 and
- the
building industry participant’s enterprise agreement was made before
the commencement of the Code and is not Code-compliant
|
The building industry participant is eligible to submit
the expression of interest or tender, but could not be awarded or
perform the relevant building work until the enterprise agreement is Code-compliant
(or terminated and the relevant modern award applies).
|
- from
1 September 2017 and
- the
building industry participant’s enterprise agreement was made before
the commencement of the Code and is not Code-compliant
|
The building industry participant would not be eligible to
submit an expression of interest, tender for, be awarded or perform Commonwealth-funded
building work until a Code-compliant enterprise agreement is in place (or the
non-Code compliant enterprise agreement is terminated and the relevant modern
award applies).
|
- from
1 September 2017 and
- the
building industry participant’s enterprise agreement was made after the
commencement of the Code and is not Code-compliant
|
The building industry participant would not be eligible to
submit an expression of interest, tender for, be awarded or perform Commonwealth-funded
building work until a Code-compliant enterprise agreement is in place (or the
non-Code compliant enterprise agreement is terminated and the relevant modern
award applies).
|
Source: Parliamentary Library analysis; Department of Employment, Submission
to Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the Building and
Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017, p.
4.
Item 3 provides that the amendments made to
subsection 34(2E) of Act will only apply in relation to expressions of
interest, or tenders, for building work submitted after the Bill commences.
That means that current subsection 34(2E) will continue to apply in relation to
expressions of interest, or tenders, for building work submitted before the Bill
commences.[41]
This means that the Bill would not change current
arrangements in relation to tenders submitted before the Code commenced, and as
such if a building industry participant submitted an expression of interest or
tendered for building work between the commencement of the Code and the
commencement of the Bill, it would be eligible to be awarded that building work
until 28 November 2018 even it is covered by a non-Code compliant enterprise
agreement. Item 3 also ensures that where a building industry
participant was awarded Commonwealth-funded building work before the
commencement of the Bill, it is entitled to perform or continue to perform that
work after the Bill commences.[42]
[1]. J
Murphy, Building
and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Bill 2013 [and] Building and
Construction Industry (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013,
Bills digest, 3, 2016–17, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 6 September 2016.
[2]. The
amendments proposed to the Building and Construction Industry (Improving
Productivity) Bill 2013 and the schedule of amendments made by the Senate can
be found at the Bill
homepage for the Building and Construction Industry (Improving
Productivity) Bill 2013.
[3]. P
Kelly, ‘ABCC
win after Hinch flip’, The Australian, 8 February 2017, pp. 1 and 4.
[4]. Code
for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016, section 10.
[5]. Specific
examples include clauses that: discriminate, or have the effect of
discriminating against certain persons, classes of employees, or
subcontractors; prescribe the number of employees or subcontractors
that may be employed or engaged on a particular site, in a particular work
area, or at a particular time; restrict the employment or engagement of persons
by reference to the type of contractual arrangement that is, or may be, offered
by the employer; require, or result in, discrimination between classes of
employees because of the basis on which they are lawfully entitled to work in
Australia (for example, the type of visa a migrant worker may hold); require
the entity to consult with, or seek the approval of, a building association or
an officer, delegate or other representative of the building association in
relation to the source or number of employees to be engaged, or type of
employment offered to employees or the engagement of subcontractors; prescribe
the terms and conditions on which subcontractors are engaged (including the
terms and conditions of employees of a subcontractor); prescribe the scope of
work or tasks that may be performed by employees or subcontractors; limit or
have the effect of limiting the right of an employer to make decisions about
redundancy, demobilisation or redeployment of employees based on operational
requirements or prohibit the payment of a loaded rate of pay (whether or not
expressed as an annual amount): Code for the Tendering and Performance of
Building Work 2016, section 11.
[6]. Senate
Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment
Bill 2017.
[7]. Senate
Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry
into the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment
Bill 2017 [provisions], The Senate, Canberra, 15 February 2017, p. 17.
[8]. ALP
Senators, Dissenting Report, Senate Education and Employment Legislation
Committee, Building
and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017
[Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, 15 February 2017, p. 24; Australian
Greens Senators, Dissenting Report, Senate Education and Employment Legislation
Committee, Building
and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017
[Provisions], The Senate, Canberra, 15 February 2017, p. 27.
[9]. Senate
Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Index
of Bills considered by the Committee, 2017, The Senate, 8 February 2017.
[10]. B
O’Connor (Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations), Chaotic
government secret deal will cause mayhem in construction industry,
media release, 8 February 2017, p. 1.
[11]. A
Bandt (Greens Industrial Relations spokesperson), ‘Human
Headline’ becomes ‘Human Backflip’ by reneging on ABCC deal: Bandt,
media release, 8 February 2017, p. 1.
[12]. P
Kelly, ‘ABCC
win after Hinch flip’, The Australian, 8 February 2017, p. 4.
[13]. Australian
Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), Submission
to Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017,
10 February 2017, p. 1.
[14]. Ibid.,
p. 2.
[15]. Australian
Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Submission
to Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017,
10 February 2017, p. 2.
[16]. Ibid.
[17]. Ibid.
[18]. Ibid.
[19]. Construction,
Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), Submission
to Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017,
10 February 2017, p. 3.
[20]. Ibid.,
p. 2.
[21]. Ibid.,
pp. 2–3.
[22]. Ibid.,
p. 4.
[23]. Ibid.,
p. 4.
[24]. Electrical
Trades Union (ETU), Submission
to Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017,
10 February 2017, p. 3.
[25]. Ibid.,
p. 3.
[26]. Ibid.,
p. 3.
[27]. Housing
Industry Association (HIA), Submission
to Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017,
10 February 2017, p. 2.
[28]. Ibid.,
p. 5.
[29]. Ibid.,
p. 5.
[30]. Masters
Builders Australia (MBA), Submission
to Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017,
10 February 2017, p. 2.
[31]. Ibid.,
pp. 1–2.
[32]. Ibid.,
p. 5.
[33]. Ibid.,
pp. 5–6.
[34]. Ibid.,
p. 6.
[35]. Master
Electricians Australia (MEA), Submission
to Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Inquiry into the
Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill 2017,
p. 2.
[36]. Building and
Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016, subsection
3(1).
[37]. MEA,
Submission,
op. cit., p. 2.
[38]. Ibid.,
p. 3.
[39]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity)
Amendment Bill 2017, p. ii.
[40]. The
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at pages 4–5 of the
Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill.
[41]. Explanatory
Memorandum, Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity)
Amendment Bill 2017, p. 3.
[42]. Ibid.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
Any concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff. To access this service, clients may contact the author or the Library‘s Central Enquiry Point for referral.