Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Gorton’s private Members’ business notice relating to the disallowance of sections 11(3)(a) and (c) of the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016, made under section 34 of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016, and presented to the House on 7 February 2017, being called on immediately.

I have moved this motion because yet again the Labor side are dancing to the tune of the CFMEU when it comes to building and construction here in Australia. I do not intend to delay the House for long on this matter, as I understand that the opposition will agree to the suspension of standing orders, and the member for Fisher will speak on behalf of the government on this disallowance motion, but the reality is that this week the member for Gorton came into the House and put on the Notice Paper a motion to disallow the Building Code under the Australian Building and Construction Commission, a Building Code that will help restore the rule of law on Australian construction sites. Yesterday, coincidentally, the CFMEU began a robocall campaign around Australia—particularly in the member for Indi's electorate—urging people to vote for the member for Gorton's disallowance motion. What a coincidence!

So, yet again, as if we needed any more evidence, the Labor Party is dancing to the tune of the CFMEU. You would think that they would be sick of it by now. We have given them every opportunity to decouple themselves from the union movement: we have introduced the Registered Organisations Commission and we have introduced the Australian Building and Construction Commission—we are restoring the rule of law on building and construction sites around Australia. You would think the Labor Party would be sick of the CFMEU pulling their chain and making them jump to the tune that they are playing, but they are not—they never tire of attaching themselves to one of the most corrupt and evil unions in Australia's history. We know why—it is because the CFMEU, just in the last 12 months, gave the Labor Party $1.3 million to campaign against the Turnbull government. That is on top of the $10 million the CFMEU has given the Labor Party over the last 10 or 15 years.

We have even more evidence from Dean Mighell. Dean Mighell was the former long-term secretary of the ETU in Victoria—quite a famous unionist in Victoria. He said in an email that was provided to the royal commission:

Given that the Federal ALP is desperate for funds, surely we can say that we will help them if and only if, they abolish the ABCC.

I can tell you for a fact that unions are donating to federal Labor for outcomes, not promises. Yet again, this week we are seeing those outcomes being delivered by the Labor Party to the CFMEU. Thank goodness that they are not in government, because last time they were in government they abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission; they turned back the clock; they brought the CFMEU into the cabinet room and sat them down at the table to help them make decisions; and, when asked about what unions were engaging in this process of donating to the ALP—for outcomes, not promises—Dean Mighell told the royal commission, 'I believe that the CFMEU and some of the other building industry unions were again seeking the abolition of the ABCC as a policy outcome.'

I feel sorry for the member for Gorton. He is basically a decent man. He is not a bad billiard player, but I pity him because he is the poor unfortunate on the Labor Party front bench who is given the job of coming in here and meekly trying to abolish the Building Code, meekly doing the bidding of the CFMEU. He knows how bad that union is. We could give you chapter and verse on how bad the CFMEU is as a union. In the Heydon royal commission—do not take my word for it—the royal commissioner, Justice Heydon, said:

The conduct that has emerged discloses systemic corruption and unlawful conduct, including corrupt payments, physical and verbal violence, threats, intimidation, abuse of right of entry permits, secondary boycotts, breaches of fiduciary duty and contempt of court.

That is what Justice Heydon said about the CFMEU. Yet again we have the Labor Party in here today dancing to the tune of the CFMEU and trying to abolish the Building Code under the ABCC. We will not let them do so. We will call on that debate this morning from the suspension of standing orders. We will defeat that disallowance motion, and the Building Code and the ABCC can get on with their excellent work of restoring the rule of law, increasing productivity in the construction industry, saving consumers money, saving young house buyers money that they would otherwise have to pay because of the inflated prices, one of the reasons for which, of course, is the way industrial relations have been run in this country because of the CFMEU over far too long. We will stand in the way of the CFMEU and we will stand in the way of the Labor Party in their attempts to support the CFMEU. We will stand up for the workers. We will stand up for house buyers and consumers and for productivity in this country.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank heaven the Leader of the House used the time there as a limit rather than a target and did not try to go for any longer than he did. What we have in front of us is not the motion for the purposes that the Leader of the House said, as though he is bravely bringing on a disallowance motion. If he does not move to bring it on, it takes effect anyway. That is how standing orders work. If he had not come in here to bravely bring it on and force the debate, it would have been carried. That is what would have happened. So for all the nonsense that we just heard from the Leader of the House, what we have in front of us is a very routine procedure that needs to occur every time someone moves a disallowance motion. The motivation for the Leader of the House there, as though this is some brave act by the Liberal Party and the government—it is not. It is procedurally required unless they want the disallowance motion from the member for Gorton to take effect automatically.

In terms of the quotations we heard: if they want to come up with a union official to get stuck into the Labor Party, as though there is some revelation in this person's words, do not pick someone we expelled from the Labor Party. The words from Dean Mighell are not exactly going to be given on behalf of the party that he was expelled from. It is just extraordinary.

If the government is serious that they want to bravely bring on for debate issues where the Labor Party and the union movement are closely aligned, then once we have dealt with the disallowance I would urge the Leader of the House to bring on the Leader of the Opposition's penalty rates bill. If they actually have a view that they are willing to take on any debate that is happening in the community, then straight after this one bring the penalty rates bill on for debate, because that is one that does not take effect automatically if it is not brought on. If there is any of the courage of the convictions that the Leader of the House just claimed to have, then immediately after this debate there is a piece of legislation on the books that should be brought on for debate and vote. But he wants to shield his backbench from having to formally vote in favour of the pay cut for 700,000 workers across Australia. If the Leader of the House believes any of the words he articulated a moment ago, that will be the next item of business.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that it?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We agree with the motion! There is a limit to how angry we can be on a motion that we are supportive of.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to support the Leader of the House on this motion, because this is another demonstration of the way in which the modern Labor Party has been completely captured by the union movement. There is no worse union in this country than the CFMEU. The Australian public understand this. I was reminded of that in a book that I read recently—a couple of years ago now. The book was called I heard you paint houses. Essentially, it was a detailed how-to guide, which the CFMEU is now referring to as some sort of reference document. It detailed the activities of the Teamsters in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s.

Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—

We can come to Jimmy Hoffa. There are many people within the CFMEU that fit that Jimmy Hoffa bill. This is the reality. Somehow the modern Labor Party, under this Leader of the Opposition, have allowed themselves to be compromised to the point where they are allowing the modern-day Teamsters to pull the strings on a daily basis. This is unacceptable.

I feel for the member for Indi, because in her electorate yesterday there was a robocall scare campaign which the CFMEU masters during the last election—during periods in government and opposition the CFMEU has mastered the intimidation and scare campaign. It shows, as the Leader of the House points out, that the two organisations, the Australian Labor Party and the CFMEU, have once again acted in close concert, in this case to intimidate, or to attempt to intimidate, the member for Indi. I know the member for Indi, and I know that she is not going to be intimidated by this process. The same tactics have been demonstrated in South Australia, where the union movement has attempted to vilify Senator Xenophon. Senator Xenophon has not fallen for these tactics either, and the message to the Australian public is that they should not fall for the Labor Party's and union's tactics, because, as we know, the CFMEU fully owns and operates this Labor Party and in particular this Leader of the Opposition.

The Leader of the Opposition, as he demonstrated, during his time as a union leader presided over deal after deal after deal. In some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars was paid by the employer or the employer group to the union, to the AWU. Lo and behold, the union agreement—the EBA—is struck shortly thereafter, which takes penalty rates away from those workers, and the workers do not even know about the special payment that was made during the period of negotiation from the employer to the AWU. Now, this was not just a one-off occasion. This was a course of conduct presided over by the Leader of the Opposition in his capacity as secretary of the AWU.

If you want to have a look at the activities that are going on within the union movement otherwise, we know that within the CFMEU, across the union movement otherwise, as was detailed in the royal commission presided over by Justice Heydon, dozens and dozens of union leaders across the country have been charged with criminal offences. They are defended on a daily basis by the Labor Party, and it is outrageous. But you have to again ask yourself the question: why would this be so? Why would this Leader of the Opposition allow himself to be held to ransom by these union leaders? Well, when you look around, it is impossible—and this is why there should be a suspension of standing orders—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will resume his seat. The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Surely not on relevance?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, given that we are dealing with a—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to know what the point of order is, actually.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is on being relevant to the motion before the chair. The moment I rose, the first words that were relevant to the motion were said. And I would simply encourage the House: we are about to have a debate, and everybody agrees that we should have the debate. Everybody is in support of the motion before the chair right now, and the minister will be able to deliver that exact speech in a few moments time. He can start from the beginning again if he feels he needs to. But in terms of relevance to what is in front of us right now, none of the speech, other than the final four words when I stood up, have been relevant.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business. Just before I call the minister: the Manager of Opposition Business makes a very fair technical point, but if he would like me to adopt his suggestion to the conduct of all suspension motions—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just ones on notice.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just make the point that, whether it is on notice or not, members speaking are supposed to confine themselves to the reason that standing orders should be suspended. And there are lots of examples where these are moved where both speakers do go a bit broader, and that has been the practice, and it has certainly been the practice over the last couple of years. But I will say to the minister to confine himself, in the final minutes of his contribution, to why standing orders should be suspended.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think, if I might say so myself, it has been a compelling case for suspension of standing orders, and it is obvious I think to all within the chamber that we must deal with this matter. We must deal with this matter because it is an issue of urgency—the fact that the Labor Party has been captured wholly and solely by the union movement. I mean, we must deal with this in this chamber, and we must support the motion of the Leader of the House. We must.

The reality is that the Labor Party do not like this exposure. That is their problem. The problem is that they do not like a spotlight being shone on the way this relationship has developed to an unhealthy position. And the reality is that the CFMEU—all of these union engagements are not in the best interests of this nation. They are not, on any test, in the best interests of this nation. The Labor Party wants to talk about penalty rates. Let's talk about penalty rates. Let's talk about these issues—where the Leader of the Opposition was involved in ripping off hundreds of thousands of workers. That is the reality. That is his history. That is something he needs to stand up and defend. The reality is that hundreds of thousands of dollars were paid to the union movement, who have been involved in criminal activities.

When you look at these people around here sitting on these benches within the Australian Labor Party at the moment, there are no teachers, there are no butchers, there are no people from backgrounds—

Opposition members interjecting—

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's a teacher over here!

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are all union leaders. You cannot become a member of parliament in the modern Labor Party unless you have been a secretary or you have occupied a high office within the union movement. They will all protest; of course they will, because they do not want this racket exposed.

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on my left!

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But the fact is that they are dealing with the modern-day Teamsters. This is why there should be a suspension of standing orders. This is why we need to deal with this issue—because it needs to be dealt with. And we need to expose this hypocrisy to the Australian public, and we will, because this Leader of the Opposition has done or has sanctioned deals that have been done by unions—for example, with fast food outlets. Those young workers, working on a Sunday, have been paid less under the union agreement than what the 18-year-old at the mum-and-dad fish and chip shop in the adjoining tenancy is being paid. That is the reality. That is the hypocrisy of the Australian Labor Party. They do not want people to hear this story, but the reality is that that is exactly what is happening.

Why would they do that? In the case of the brother and sister who are going off to the local shopping centre to work, with the brother going into McDonald's for a much lesser rate on a Sunday than his sister going into the fish and chip shop owned by the mum and dad, why would Labor have sanctioned a deal where the McDonald's worker is paid less than the fish and chip shop worker?

Government members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just ask the minister to resume his seat for a second. Members on both sides can cease interjecting. Whilst I allowed the Manager of Opposition Business to be very broad—he brought up the subject of penalty rates, but he did so in the context of whether a motion should be brought on or not—I do say to the minister that, as much as I do give latitude, he is moving now way beyond why standing orders should be suspended for the purpose that the Leader of the House has put.

Mr Pyne interjecting—

The Leader of the House does not need to speak to me; he might want to speak to the minister. But in the last few seconds, I just ask the minister to confine himself.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This protection racket that is run by the union movement and the Labor Party does need to be dealt with in this House. It will be dealt with, and we intend to expose the hypocrisy of this Leader of the Opposition who is wholly owned by the union movement of this country.

Question agreed to.