Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It us 2024, the year of the summer Olympics in Paris, and I must say the Albanese Labor government are doing a great job of honouring the Olympics this week. It has been the week of backflips. They would be looking good on the floor at the gymnastics. We've seen the backflip on vaping—they changed their position on that yesterday, and we've now seen the backflip on union demerger rules. We see these backflips because this is a government that was on the wrong path from the start of their term and have now lost their way.

This is a very significant backflip by this government and it leaves a lot of questions that need to be answered. It's also a confusing backflip because it directly contradicts the wish and the will of the CFMEU. Zac Smith, the National Secretary of the CFMEU said:

The bill restores now-repealed Coalition-era powers to undermine unions and singles out the CFMEU to allow a ballot after the manufacturing division's multiple failed legal attempts to do so.

He then said the bill sets 'a dangerous precedent'.

Why have they changed? Is it politics? Is it optics? Have they suddenly found a moral backbone after years of lawlessness from the CFMEU to stand up to them? I don't think that's the case. I think we have a situation of politics at play here and it's a very interesting test for those opposite. Their union, the CFMEU, is directly against this decision. So there's now a question for those opposite. Do they cross the floor and vote against this bill? Do they cross the floor and support one of their unions or do they follow the leadership of the Prime Minister and the minister?

We learnt yesterday that the rules of the ALP no longer apply. Those opposite now have the ability to cross the floor and defy the Prime Minister, with no consequence. We know that; we saw it. No longer can those opposite hide behind collectiveness, hide behind the party rules of the ALP. They have to make a decision, particularly those that are members of the CFMEU. Are they going to support their union or are they going to support their leadership? That is the question that we will see from those opposite, as they can now defy their Prime Minister without consequence.

I'm a cynic when it comes to these things, because in 2020 the coalition brought this legislation forward. They introduced legislation to give unions the opportunity to demerge if it was no longer serving the best interests of the members to be part of that union. In 2021, during the Special Platform Conference, the Australian Labor Party outlined as part of their further industrial relations policies: 'Union demerger reform—reversing the Morrison government's legislative changes that make it easier for unions to demerge.' In 2020, the coalition brought the legislation in. In 2021, there was the ALP policy to reverse the change. ALP came to government in 2022, and the law was changed.

In February of this year, Senator Lambie put a bill to the Senate to reinstate the demerger laws, and she spoke about the challenges, in particular, for the textile workers and the clothing and footwear sector in being part of the CFMEU. I'll get to some of those challenges in a moment. But those opposite voted against that. They wouldn't allow that legislation to change. That's despite John Setka, one of the leading figures in the CFMEU, having a well-documented history of domestic violence and abuse towards women. They were happy in February this year to support John Setka and the CFMEU. They were happy at the last election to take $4.3 million in donations from John Setka and the CFMEU, despite his well-known history of domestic violence and abuse towards women. They were happy to do that then.

But suddenly now, in June 2024, they're going to defy John Setka and defy Zach Smith, the National Secretary of the CFMEU, and they're going to backflip. Why? It's because of the thuggish behaviour of John Setka to target Stephen McBurney because he had the audacity to take a job. He had the audacity to fulfil a role, and the unions want to harass him and punish his new employer, the AFL. Suddenly the unions aren't worried about due or fair process. They're now happy for someone to lose their job at an organisation because of something they did at another job. That is the hypocrisy of the union movement and the CFMEU.

The reason I'm cynical is: how can you support a person that has a track record of domestic violence but suddenly backflip? Is it the politics of it? I'm a Melburnian, and we love our AFL. It's part of who we are and what we do. There was front page after front page about the thuggish behaviour of John Setka. In all of those articles also was a refusal by the Prime Minister; the Premier of Victoria, Jacinta Allan; and any minister opposite to condemn John Setka and his attack on the AFL and an innocent person. They wouldn't condemn him; they didn't have the courage to condemn him. This week the Prime Minister did not have the courage to stand up to John Setka.

But the headlines continued, and the pressure continued. Two weeks later, we see this bill in this House to show that they are doing something, and this is where the cynic comes in. The real question is: What's going to happen in the future? Are they going to quietly, in six months time, change the legislation and drag out the process for the textile workers so nothing can change? Will they wait until the heat dies down, bring it back in, ram it through with their numbers and do a sweetheart deal with a few on the crossbench to get it through? Well, let's see.

As I said, they are a government that weren't prepared to stand up to John Setka, despite his record of domestic violence and abuse towards women. But, apparently, they will now stand up to him because of a few headlines in the Herald Sun. That's why I have no faith that this bill, when passed, will actually last any significant amount of time. The fact that those members opposite who are also members of the CFMEU are prepared to defy their national secretary and not cross the floor, despite having no consequences, tells you that the fix is in. We will continue to watch with interest.

Let's understand why the coalition in 2020 brought this change in, why Senator Lambie introduced her private senator's bill in February this year. We know those opposite repealed the change because of $4.3 million from the CFMEU. The textile, clothing and footwear sector is part of the CFMEU, and it has the greatest number of women in it. After the merger, the textile, clothing and footwear sector moved into the CFMEU's offices. One of the union secretaries from the textile, clothing and footwear sector told the Age newspaper about the first meeting with the CFMEU:

"It was a male-dominated space," she recalls. "He just went on this big rant and there was fear if anyone tried to say anything it would have just got a lot worse."

One of the union reps stated, in regard to the workplace culture of the CFMEU:

Within the building there were jokes about domestic violence. It was very uncomfortable to the point where our division had to leave the building.

These quotes were on the record in February of this year. Senator Lambie spoke, in relation to her private senator's bill, about what had been happening. Her second reading speech detailed Mr Setka's reprehensible behaviour towards women, including these quotes, yet those opposite then would not support Senator Lambie's bill. That is the hypocrisy of the ALP and those opposite. They will support John Setka. They will leave the textile union workers hanging out to dry, having to leave their offices because of jokes about domestic violence. But, when the political heat gets too much, then they're prepared to change. That's something those opposite will have to look in the mirror and make a decision about. Apparently $4.3 million from the CFMEU and the support of the union are more important than standing up against someone who has a record of domestic violence and who intimidated female union members, on the record. That was on the record in February when they voted against the bill. That's why you can't trust those opposite. You can't trust that this bill is actually going to last. As I said, what happens when the political storm dies down? That's why they've brought this in—to die it down. Let's watch, as I said.

As I referenced previously, Stephen McBurney is being targeted for his employment at the AFL, but he is being targeted for the lawful job he did as part of the ABCC. Mr McBurney has umpired over 400 AFL games as well as four grand finals. He is well qualified for the job. He earnt that role at the AFL on merit. Trust me, as a Victorian and a Collingwood supporter, I know it's a tough job being an umpire in the AFL. But that doesn't mean he deserves to be targeted by John Setka. He took cases from the ABCC to courts, and in 91 per cent of those cases it was found that there was a breach of the Fair Work Act. He was doing his job. But what did Mr Setka say about Mr McBurney in his new role? I apologise in advance about some of the language I'm going to use, but I'm going to directly quote Mr Setka because we need to understand the man that those opposite support. This is a quote from Mr Setka: 'We have an obligation to pursue antiunion, antiworker fuckers like him and we will until the end of the earth. This is going to cost the AFL a lot of fucking money. I hope it's worth it. Projects without our full co-operation are going to be a fucking misery for them. They will regret the day they ever employed him.'

See this speech in context