Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to comments he just made that the construction watchdog is a waste of taxpayer money. The watchdog is currently pursuing CFMMEU official Gerald McCrudden for allegedly pushing, shoving and verbally abusing a female health and safety manager. Does the Prime Minister seriously believe that pursuing this vile behaviour is a waste of taxpayers' money? Why is Labor making a bad situation worse?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks very much for the question. I believe that if someone commits assault they should be charged with assault and dealt with. That's what I believe. I'm surprised that you don't. This seems to be a controversial issue. But I make this point.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat.

I haven't given you the call. Are you making a point of order?

Wait. Just wait. I call the Manager of Opposition Business. What is the point of order?

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is an imputation against every member on this side. The Prime Minister just said 'if you don't believe assault is a serious matter'. Of course we believe assault is a serious matter. He should withdraw that.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, resume your seat. Manager, that is not a point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The irony! The question suggested that. That was the point. The point of the question was that I wouldn't so regard that behaviour. That is precisely what I was asked, and my answer was: where someone commits a crime, they should be charged with the crime of assault if they commit assault. That's what my view was. But I'll tell you what the ABCC have spent their money on: $500,000 of taxpayers' money on an unsuccessful case brought against a union who requested that a women's toilet be available on a worksite.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I call the Leader of the Opposition. Is it a point of order? If so, what is the point of order?

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a point of order. It's on relevance, and it goes to the serious nature of the question that was put to the Prime Minister. He's not answering that, and he's choosing to belittle the question that was put. Instead of playing games and getting frustrated, he should answer the question about the harassment—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat. The point of order is not relevant. The Prime Minister is answering the question and has answered the question. I ask him to continue.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The ABCC also spent over $500,000 of taxpayers' money to enforce a blanket ban on putting up stickers and posters with union logos on worksites. A whole lot of people die on worksites in the construction sector. There is massive—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about Gerald McCrudden? Why not answer that question?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The Prime Minister will continue and will be heard in silence.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've made it very clear that, where someone commits a crime, they should be charged with it. I've never heard of this bloke. I've got no connection with him. The idea, somehow, that we're going to come in here—it says a lot about why they're sitting opposite. They could have come in here today and asked questions about inflation, the cost of living, the health pandemic or foot-and-mouth disease. They could have asked questions about a whole range of issues. And what do we get? It's back to the same old bucket that saw them have a royal commission into trade unions—into, at the time, current and former Labor leaders, effectively—and spend millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on what was a political pursuit.

The Federal Court said this about the ABCC for its prosecutions: it labelled them 'unnecessarily inflammatory and conducted as a blood sport'. Politics should be better than that, but I'm not surprised that the opposition isn't.