Not all building and construction companies will benefit from the "level playing field" the federal government promised to create with the introduction of its Australian Building and Construction law, a Senate inquiry has heard.
A Senate inquiry on amendments to the Australian Building and Construction Commission law passed in December has heard that companies that signed new enterprise agreements before 2014 will be disadvantaged in tendering for lucrative government-funded building projects.
The Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Amendment Bill will shorten the transition period that delayed the starting date of the new law from two years to nine months.
Only companies that comply with the new code by not having an enterprise agreement that limits productivity will be awarded a government contract from September 1 this year.
The law aims to help companies deliver projects on time and on budget and prevents unions having a say on the number or type of employees engaged on a building project.
The federal government was forced to introduce a two-year transition period by Senator Derryn Hinch who then reversed his position late last year, changing it to seven months.
Shaun Schmitke, national director for industrial relations for Master Builders of Australia, said the shorter transition period would put "everyone on equal footing".
However, when Senator Nick Xenophon challenged the assertion, Mr Schmitke conceded some businesses could be at a disadvantage if they had made industrial agreements before 2014. A "small cohort" would therefore be affected.
Fairfax Media recently reported complaints from a company director who accused the Master Builders Association of supporting the federal government position on the ABCC over the interests of its members.
Lou Raunik, a director of national building company Icon Co, said the MBA had urged members against entering new agreements with the CFMEU after April 2014 and was critical of those who exercised their legal right to enter into new agreements.
"Rather than working with and representing their members who chose to enter into new agreements and providing services they have in the past, they decided not to be involved and to not provide the full suite of services provided in the past to those members who chose to enter into new agreements," Mr Raunik said.
Labor senator Doug Cameron questioned the Housing Industry Association about the potential for independent contractors to undercut rates paid under a collective agreement.
Jason O'Dwyer, of the Master Electricians Association, said it was unlikely that wages and conditions for electricity workers would be cut. He said some were paid double award rates and would not turn up for work if they were reduced.
Wilhelm Harnisch, chief executive of the Master Builders Association, denied claims the new legislation would boost the profits of his members.
Mr Harnisch said his support for the new laws was based on the "value for money" they would provide the community in the form of taxpayer-funded infrastructure costs. He said his organisation had not tried to reduce conditions for workers.
"It was never about profits," he said.
However, Dave Noonan, the national secretary for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, said the new legislation would create second-class citizens or companies in the construction industry, increase the casualisation of employment and reduce safety standards.
Mr Noonan said it would be impossible to phase in the new code within seven months. He said 3300 enterprise agreements between the CFMEU and the construction industry would be affected.
"If the intent is to have a nine-month instead of two-year phase-in period, then Senator Hinch has been sold a pup," he said.
David Mier, of the Electrical Trades Union, said his members would live a "very insecure life" under the new code.
0 comments
New User? Sign up