Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

When the shadow minister was talking about the High Court and women and the CFMMEU was she referring to this action? 'High Court dismisses bid to fine CFMMEU over toilet request'. A five-year legal battle, that started with a union request for a women's toilet at a building site, ended on Friday when the High Court dismissed the case by the building regulator to fine the CFMMEU for wanting a women's toilet on site. Who in this case was standing up for the women on that construction site? Well, it was the CFMMEU. It was the men and women, particularly the women's officer, of that union standing up.

This is what this regulator did consistently after it was introduced by the former government. It pursued matters when workers were standing up for safety. I am shocked that the opposition would just dismiss and ignore what has happened in workplace safety under their watch and under the ABCC. Many of the breaches of right of entry that they talk about were when CFMMEU officials went on site under occupational health and safety. There had been an accident on site. A worker had lost their life. They'd died. The company had no problem with the CFMMEU official coming on site. Workers were grieving. An incident had to be set up. Yet what the ABCC did was prosecute those officials for not giving 48-hours notification that they were entering on site. It didn't just happen once or twice; it happened multiple times. When they dare to round their facts and figures and say over 300 breaches of right of entry, what right of entry are they referring to? When a fellow construction worker who happened to be an official of the CFMMEU walked on site because a mate of theirs was dying was that the right of entry that you were referring to?

It happened in my electorate. In the building of the Ulumbarrra Theatre a worker fell into the orchestra pit and was severely injured. The CFMMEU organiser raced to the site. He was mates with the worker. He went on site to assist. The ABCC came after him and prosecuted him for lack of right-of-entry notification. That is what the ABCC's priorities were. One hundred and fifty-four workers lost their lives on construction sites during the ABCC's existence. It's a tragedy if any worker does not come home at the end of the day. It is an absolute tragedy. Yet the ABCC's priorities were not about improving safety or protecting the women on those workplaces; they were about prosecuting the union officials that went on site and those officials' failure to give 24 hours notice.

It was a laughable presentation—and you can only call it a presentation by the opposition leader—to suggest that the CFMMEU will fix construction costs. Everyone in business will be falling over laughing at that suggestion, because anybody involved in business knows that the increases in building costs are due to supply chain pressures. Linked to another area, the opposition, when they were in government, boasted about planting trees to help with the timber shortage that we are now in. If they'd just planted the trees, we might have some timber to help build the homes that they're now referring to! It's got nothing to do with the wages of the workers. It's got nothing to do with the CFMMEU. The CFMMEU are not interested in fixing the prices of building products. They actually represent building product workers and want to see more of them available to go into the construction industry.

The opposition are suggesting that abolishing the ABCC will lead to inflation. Housing costs are already going up, and the ABCC exists. It's a desperate attempt by the opposition to protect a legacy that they should be embarrassed about. As the Prime Minister said today in question time, as the minister has said in his speech before, as I have demonstrated and as the other speakers on this side will demonstrate, this regulator is a waste of taxpayers' money. The former government and now opposition should be embarrassed about what it has done, not come in here trying to defend it.

See this speech in context