McKell Institute research confirms Fed’s building code will compromise safety; apprentice numb

New research by independent think tank The McKell Institute has reaffirmed union fears about the impact of the Federal Government’s proposed building code, finding it is likely to compromise workplace safety and reduce apprentice numbers, while also failing to achieve its stated objectives and potentially breaching the Legislation Act.

The Electrical Trades Union said the analysis also warned that the retrospective nature of the building code and the banning of otherwise legal clauses were likely to increase the number of industrial disputes.

“This research is a timely reminder of the economic danger posed by zealots pursuing their outdated industrial agendas,” ETU national secretary Allen Hicks said.

“The McKell Institute report has revealed the building code for exactly what it is — an ideologically motivated attempt to strip away the rights of working people and small business owners.

“The Liberal party learned in 2007 that they can’t attack working Australians head-on, so this time they are trying to disguise industrial relations bastardry as a procurement policy. It’s not going to work.”

The independent research found that the building code would result in a decrease in the number of apprentices, an increase in the number of 457 visa workers, was unduly harsh on both business owners and employees, and would favour the big end of town at the expense of small business growth.

Despite not yet being in force, the McKell Institute also found that confusion and uncertainty created by the onerous requirements of the building code was already creating significant roadblocks for employers in the construction and related sectors.

“Contractors and employees are now hamstrung when trying to negotiate decent agreements,” Mr Hicks said.

“This government is using taxpayer’s money to blackmail and coerce building industry participants to conform to their industrial relations ideology.

“The Turnbull Government is so detached from the reality of the construction business that they’re willing to trash decent companies just to score political points.

“Meanwhile, our members and their employers, who are just trying to make a living, are caught in the crossfire.”

The Building Code (2014) is part of a package of legislation whose passage is increasingly uncertain after the resignation of failed construction business owner Bob Day. Mr Day left parliament earlier this week under a cloud after it was revealed that he had lobbied for taxpayer money to be funnelled to a training organisation that he directed, and that he may have been ineligible for election due to his financial relationships with a government department.

“The passage of this redundant and damaging building code is far from assured,” Mr Hicks said.

“I urge all crossbench senators to take the time to consider the contents of this report before deciding how to vote on legislation associated with the building code.”
Tim Vollmer