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

I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024. This bill has been brought forward only in response to public and political pressure concerning the disgraceful conduct of the CFMEU and John Setka. This bill is a complete reversal of the government's position and an abject admission of failure.

This bill would not have been necessary at all, had the Albanese Labor government not created the need for it by earlier in its term repealing provisions legislated by the previous coalition government under which constituent parts of a union can choose to demerge from that union. But, of course, one of the first things the Albanese Labor government did upon coming to government was to dance to the tune of the CFMEU and John Setka by legislating to repeal those provisions, which the coalition had wisely and presciently legislated when we were in government. We did that in the interests of Australian workers; we did that in the interests of, in particular, female workers; and we did that in the interests of law-abiding unions and union officials. By contrast, since coming to government the Albanese Labor government has failed Australian workers, it's failed female workers and it's failed law-abiding unions and union officials, and that is because this government does not govern in the interests of all Australians; this government is controlled by its union puppetmasters, and the biggest puppetmaster of all is John Setka.

This bill—which is being brought forward, we are told, in an urgent fashion—achieves precisely the same purpose as a similar bill that the Albanese Labor government voted against in just February of this year. The Albanese Labor government voted against that bill because they were dancing to the tune of the CFMEU and John Setka, as they have done consistently since coming to government. Let's just review this government's roll of shame when it comes to the way in which it has implemented the agenda required of it by the CFMEU and John Setka.

Firstly, we saw the Albanese Labor government abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, leaving the construction industry and more than 400,000 small businesses at the mercy of the militant CFMEU. What we've seen just in recent weeks is the way that the CFMEU chooses to deal with anybody who stands up to the lawlessness of that union. We've seen that in the disgraceful threats and menacing behaviour demonstrated against Stephen McBurney and the AFL. Mr McBurney has umpired over 400 AFL games as well as four grand finals, and the AFL has rightly stood by him and denounced the thuggish behaviour of John Setka and the CFMEU.

Now, what is the egregious act that led to Mr McBurney being targeted by the CFMEU? As Australian Building and Construction Commission commissioner, Mr McBurney presented evidence of CFMEU bullying, intimidation and thuggery to the courts. Was this some kind of politicised stunt, as the CFMEU would have you believe? The test of that is the seriousness with which the courts treated the evidence that was put before them, because, in 91 per cent of these cases, judges—independently appointed judges—saw fit to fine the CFMEU. These findings weren't made at the discretion of Mr McBurney; they were findings made by the independent courts after being presented with all the evidence. But the CFMEU did not like at all the fact that Mr McBurney did his job and exposed their illegal activities, and they did not like it at all when the union was fined millions of dollars for egregious breaches of the law.

Let's remind ourselves of what Mr Setka had to say in giving his reasons for the threats he issued to the AFL, demanding that they sack Mr McBurney. In quoting Mr Setka, I'm going to replace with the word 'flip' the word that he's very fond of using, but any intelligent observer, particularly anybody who's had the pleasure of listening to Mr Setka, will know exactly which word I'm referring to. Here's what Mr Setka said, in my slightly modified version: 'They just don't walk away from a role like that, cost the union millions of dollars and just think they can walk away into the flipping sunset. It doesn't work that way. This is the real world, we go after our enemies and he was our No. 1 enemy and we will pursue him until the ends of the earth.'

We saw just last year the previous mining division of the CFMMEU split off and form their own union because they were sick and tired of being blamed for the indefensible actions of the construction division—John Setka's construction division. Another division, the manufacturing division, has long sought to leave the CFMEU over the behaviour of senior CFMEU figures such as John Setka. But, on the orders of Mr Setka, the Albanese Labor government passed legislation earlier in its term to repeal provisions in the Fair Work Act that would have allowed the manufacturing division to leave the CFMEU.

The textile, clothing and footwear sector, which is mostly made up of women employees, has faced significant issues with the CFMEU. The toxic, male-dominated culture, with jokes about domestic violence and specific and repeated instances of violence and harassment by John Setka, has made the CFMEU office an unsafe place for these women. I want to acknowledge Senator Lambie in the other place, who has sought to address this issue. She introduced a private senator's bill which aimed to address these issues by allowing the manufacturing division to demerge from the CFMEU and, in turn, allow women union officials and women workers in the textile, clothing and footwear sector to no longer be put in a position where they were forced to be located in a workplace that was deeply unsafe. What response did we get from government ministers to the bill moved by Senator Lambie—ministers in a government which talks repeatedly about its firm commitment to women's safety? The response was as follows: 'We will not be supporting this bill.'

In February of this year, this government was against permitting a demerger by the manufacturing division of the union, but now, just a few short months later, suddenly the government is in favour of it. What has been the cause of this complete and abject reversal of position? Mr Setka and his militant CFMEU, in the last few weeks, have reminded Australians in a fashion so blindingly obvious that even this Prime Minister cannot pretend not to see it. That is why the coalition was right to legislate union demerger laws, as we did when in government, and why Labor was wrong to repeal them.

The response from this government to the continued bullying and thuggery by the CFMEU has been consistently underwhelming and impotent, and there can be no doubt in the mind of any objective observer that there are $4.3 million reasons for that impotence. $4.3 million is the amount that the CFMEU donated to the Australian Labor Party in the lead-up to the last election. It is remarkable how you can forget your stated principles for $4.3 million. It is remarkable how you can look away and not see things for $4.3 million. It is remarkable how you can pretend that something that you know is happening—something that is vile and objectionable—has not happened for $4.3 million. What we've seen from this Labor government, from this Labor Party, is that time and time again Labor will value union money over the rights of union members.

What is particularly shameful is that it is overwhelmingly women members in a division of the CFMEU, who were demonstrably frightened by the intimidation, the thuggery and the violence that characterised the operation of the construction division of the CFMEU, who are desperately seeking assistance, and this government, which says they are committed to women's safety, ignored their calls, closed their ears, closed their eyes, stood by and did nothing. It is amazing what $4.3 million will get in terms of behaviour—craven behaviour, weak behaviour from this Prime Minister and this government.

Now, what has the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the member for Watson, had to say about this. He has admitted that he's only acting now because of the attack on the AFL. It's not because of the suffering of the women in the textiles division. He said, 'That attack on the AFL really made the decision clear and made the timing immediate.'

Of course, he was completely silent as to why Labor reversed the coalition's legislation earlier in its term, creating this appalling situation. According to the member for Watson it would seem that, when the plight and suffering of women in the textiles division was brought to his attention as a consequence of the bill moved by Senator Lambie in the other place in February, it wasn't enough to 'make the decision clear'. It was apparently only once the AFL and government infrastructure money was at threat that suddenly the decision to allow the manufacturing division to demerge became quite clear to the member for Watson. He went on to say:

We're not going to have a situation where we have members in the manufacturing division compelled to be part of an organisation that they don't want to be part of.

Apparently, we're not going to have that situation in June, but we were perfectly happy to have that situation in February. We were perfectly happy to have that situation earlier in the term of this government, when the member for Watson brought in legislation which overturned the provisions legislated by the coalition when we were in government guaranteeing divisions of unions the right to pursue a demerger process should they wish to do so.

The member for Watson seems to think the Australian people and the women of the manufacturing division are fools. The only reason the manufacturing division has been prevented from demerging by the militant CFMEU is because he would not let them. Now we've got the member for Watson exposed, on the one hand saying to the CFMEU, 'Don't worry; we won't let the manufacturing division leave,' and then turning around to the manufacturing division and saying that it's terrible and unacceptable that they're not allowed to leave. In his public comments, the member for Watson has effectively admitted that the government did not even care before the AFL came under attack. He said:

It's time to no longer say, let's just wait and see if they sort it out themselves.

Was that seriously this government's solution when the women of the manufacturing division, who work in the textiles, clothing and footwear sector of the economy, were faced with physical fear, physical danger and physical intimidation at the hands of the thugs and brutes of the CFMEU. The government's solution was that they should 'sort it out themselves'. This is a disgrace from a Labor government who talk a big game when it comes to women's safety but have demonstrated that, for $4.3 million, they'll conveniently forget their principles. They'll conveniently turn their backs on—in this case—a group of workers who were women concerned about their physical safety.

Some may think I am exaggerating. Some may think I am making claims which are not substantiated by the facts. Let's just remind ourselves of the long track record of criminality, thuggery and indeed the abuse of women which has been shown consistently by the CFMEU. should explain to the House that, again, I'll follow my convention of using the word 'flip' in place of a word widely and commonly used by Mr Setka and other CFMEU officials. And I'll use the word 'cart' in substitution for another word which is regularly and frequently used by Mr Setka and CFMEU officials. In June 2019, it was reported that police analysis of Mr John Setka's phone activity revealed that, on one single evening in October 2019, he called a formal judicial officer who happened to be a woman—Anne Gooley. Twenty-five times—he sent her 45 text messages—he called her a 'weak flipping piece of shit', a 'treacherous Aussie flipping cart' and a 'flipping dog'. What about Darren and Michael Greenfield, two officials of the CFMEU charged in 2021 for allegedly accepting payments from the owner of a Chinese construction company in return for preferential treatment on building sites? Mr Setka told the Financial Review:

… 100 per cent supports both Darren and Michael Greenfield, as they are the latest victims of the ongoing politically orchestrated attacks against union leaders …

What else have we seen apart from this absolutely transparent support of somebody who is taking bribes? According to testimony given by the fair work building commission to a Senate committee, there was a pattern of harassment, threats, abuse and even assault on inspectors from the commission who were visiting building sites to ensure that industrial relations laws were being enforced. For example, a female inspector—and I point out to the House, again, a clear pattern of aggression, violence and bullying directed against women from the CFMEU—visiting the Barangaroo casino hotel construction site in Sydney was surrounded by 40 CFMEU members and called a 'flipping slut' on a loud hailer. Another inspector was cornered by a CFMEU member who told him, 'You're just about to have a heart attack'—and I'm going to use another code word—'You're shooting yellow, you piece of shoot'. So it's unsurprising that the commissioner of the building commission expressed serious concern for the safety of his officials at the hands of the thugs and bullies of the CFMEU.

Let's remind ourselves, members of the House, of the 2011 Melbourne markets case, in which the court imposed $250,000 in fines and awarded $190,000 in costs against the CFMEU after finding that the union had deliberately and illegally prevented work from going ahead on the new Melbourne market site in Epping, Victoria. Let's remember the long-running Grocon dispute which went to the Federal Court in March 2015. The judge described an incident in which John Setka and three thugs—three other thugs, I should say—shoved security firm manager Mr Smith into a Melbourne alleyway and proceeded to assault him both physically and verbally. The court's decision describes Mr Setka's acts of violence: 'pinned him to the wall', 'hurled abuse at him', 'knocked his helmet from his head' and, 'took turns to ram him into the wall'. Mr Smith protested that he was being held against his will, and Mr Setka threatened that he would 'shut him up permanently'.

There was another incident in which Mr Setka abused a worker at Grocon. He punched the windscreen of the van that worker was driving. He told that worker to remember his face, because he would come after him and told him that he hoped he would die from cancer. The worker was suffering from cancer at that time. Workers who wanted to get to that site had to be bussed in, given a special path in with the protection of police fencing and given special duties to hide from the verbal assaults hurled at them by CFMEU protesters who called them scabs, dogs, rats and worse, and hurled threats including, 'You will die', 'You're going to cop it' and 'I'm going to kill your family.' When police attempted to escort workers onto the site, union crowds blocked and punched their horses, egged on by John Setka, Shaun Reardon and Craig Johnston—officials of the CFMEU. And may I remind the House that the CFMEU is an organisation from which Prime Minister Albanese and the Australian Labor Party accepted $4.3 million in donations before the last election.

Then, of course, there was the case in the Federal Court in 2015 in which Justice Jessop fined the CFMEU $245,000 for intimidating a scaffolding company into hiring a shop steward. Justice Jessop had this to say about the CFMEU in his judgement:

The case is devoid of any mitigating circumstances. The Union has shown no contrition, and has not cooperated with the regulator … there is no circumstance to which counsel could point as tending to exert a moderating influence upon the level of the penalty which the court would otherwise impose.

Let me remind the House that the Australian Labor Party has accepted $4.3 million in donations from this organisation. For those who may be listening and are unable to see what's going on in the House, there's a small number of Labor members here, and their heads are down because they're ashamed. And they should be ashamed; they should be ashamed of accepting $4.3 million from this disgraceful criminal organisation. They should be ashamed of standing by and doing nothing while the CFMEU harassed, bullied and intimidated women around Australia.

It's worth reminding ourselves of some other conduct that we have seen from the CFMEU. In August 2016, CFMEU official Luke Collier was convicted of intimidating Commonwealth officials after he used a megaphone to blast out the song 'Who Let The Dogs Out' on a building site and implied that he had the personal information of those union officials. This was Luke Collier, an official of the CFMEU, from whom the Labor Party accepted $4.3 million in donations before the last election.

Alex Tadic, a CFMEU official, was found by the full Federal Court to have abused a WorkSafe inspector. They found he had called the WorkSafe inspector a 'flipping idiot' and 'pathetic' during a walk-through of a building site. Alex Tadic is an official of the CFMEU, an organisation from which the Australian Labor Party accepted $4.3 million in donations—and how those Labor Party members around this place have their heads down, because they know they have been complicit in the violence, the thuggery, the bullying of this disgraceful organisation.

The Federal Court found the CFMEU liable on another occasion for the conduct of Alex Tadic, who attended a construction site and repeatedly swore at the project manager, including saying, 'I am not dealing with a flipping pen pusher.' In December 2017 the Federal Court penalised the CFMEU $200,000 for the unlawful actions of its officials, which included a CFMEU official Joe Myles situating himself between a concrete truck and a concrete pump, preventing the pouring of the site. In handing down the penalty, Justice Tracey said the conduct was 'arrogant and dismissive of warnings given to them that they were acting unlawfully'. 'This was a case,' he said, 'that falls into a pattern of repeated disregard for the law'—repeated disregard for the law by an organisation notorious for its thuggishness, its bullying and its intimidation, its disgraceful violence and other conduct towards women, an organisation from which the Labor Party accepted $4.3 million in donations.

I say to the member for Hunter, I say to the member for Ballarat, I say to the member for Higgins: Why are you looking down? Why are you not engaging in this debate? Why aren't you standing up to defend this indefensible conduct from this organisation that you accepted $4.3 million in donations from? I say to the member for Greenway: Why is your head down? Why are you not standing up to defend this disgraceful crowd of thugs and bullies from whom you accepted $4.3 million in donations?

In October 2017 the CFMEU was fined $90,000 for unlawful conduct at the construction site to expand the Werribee shopping centre. Two non-union employees were told by Andrew Harris, the CFMEU delegate, 'You can't get on-site. If you're not financial, you are not getting on-site.' After one of the employees objected, he went on to say, 'So what, flip the union? Alright, that's good to know. Well, you are not getting inside. You can sit in the car.' This is the disgraceful bullying conduct of the CFMEU, this organisation from which the Australian Labor Party accepted $4.3 million in donations before the last election, this organisation whose tune the ALP has repeatedly danced to, including earlier in this term of government, legislating to repeal the provisions that the coalition had legislated which would allow constituent divisions of the CFMEU to demerge from the CFMEU because they were tired of being associated with the bullying, the thuggery, the intimidation and the disgraceful and repeated criminal conduct of the CFMEU.

And now—now—we see this craven backflip, not in response to complaints about personal safety of women workers in the manufacturing division but because Mr Setka has inconveniently made his thuggery so public by his attack on the AFL that even the member for Watson, one of the most assiduous implementers of the union agenda, has found it politically necessary to cravenly reverse the appalling and unjustified legislation that he passed earlier.

But it is no surprise that the member for Watson has also used his position as the Leader of the House to move the rest of this debate to the Federation Chamber, because he wants as little visibility, as little awareness, as little publicity as possible. He doesn't want to have to defend the disgraceful, thuggish, bullying, violent conduct of the CFMEU, as none of the Labor members in this place want to defend it—and, my goodness, aren't they looking down, aren't they looking away, pretending not to be here, because they know it's indefensible this $4.3 million accepted from this organisation of thugs and bullies and criminals.

They have been called out repeatedly by a series of judges. Independently appointed judges in the Federal Court have repeatedly said the CFMEU is breaching the law on a repeated basis and regards fines and other penalties as simply a cost of doing business. And this weak Prime Minister dances cravenly to the tune of the union movement, happy to accept $4.3 million in donations from this collection of violent bullies and thugs. What did this weak Prime Minister, when he was asked by journalists about John Setka's thuggery, say? He said, 'Don't question me on it because it will encourage him.' That does not give the Australian people a sense of hope and optimism that we have a strong leader who is prepared to stand up to bullies and thugs.

That's in contrast to Bob Hawke, who was prepared to take on earlier unions that showed such a disgraceful lack of respect for the law, earlier unions that were run by thugs and bullies. The contrast could not be starker between the leadership shown by Bob Hawke, when similar issues presented themselves under his prime ministership, and this craven Prime Minister dancing to the tune of the union movement.

The acceptance of $4.3 million in donations from an organisation which has repeatedly conducted itself egregiously is totally in opposition to the stated values and principles which Labor members in this place claim to uphold. Labor members in this place claim to be strong supporters, as they should be, as every parliamentarian should be, of the safety of women, but they have not put that principle into practice when it comes to dealing with the CFMEU. They've scuttled away; they've turned away. They've covered their ears; they've covered their eyes; they've pretended not to notice. It is amazing what you can pretend not to notice for $4.3 million.

The coalition, by contrast, will always stand up for freedom of association. We believe that workers should have the right to join a union; we believe that workers should have the right to leave a union as they see fit. In 2020, we legislated to ensure that workers who felt their union was not representing their interests could leave. We did this because we believe in the fundamental principle of freedom of association. We believe that unions should serve the interests of their members, not the other way round. But in response to the demands of the CFMEU, this Labor government reversed that legislation, and now they are having to cravenly backflip because Mr Setka's very public threatening of the AFL has made it impossible for them to look the other way.

Don't be fooled. There is nothing here that represents a fundamental change in the views and attitudes of the Australian Labor Party. They believe in serving the interests of union bosses like John Setka, not the interests of ordinary workers and certainly not the interests of the women of the textiles industry. I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the Government abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) upon being elected to Government;

(b) the abolition of the ABCC has given the CFMEU effective control of the construction sector in Australia;

(c) the Fair Work Ombudsman has not brought a single action against the CFMEU since the ABCC was abolished;

(d) the threats made by Mr John Setka against the Australian Football League (AFL) are completely unacceptable; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) reinstate the ABCC and to apologise to the Australian people for abolishing this body to appease the CFMEU in the hope of receiving further donations to the Australian Labor Party; and

(b) amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act to ensure that anyone convicted of more than 10 criminal offences cannot be appointed as an officer of a registered organisation".

The coalition will continue to hold this government accountable for their failures and for letting down workers when they most needed support and protection.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Debate adjourned.