Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present the revised explanatory memorandum to this bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Since July 2024, serious allegations have come to light about the conduct of some members and associates of the Construction and General Division of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU).

The Australian government takes these allegations seriously. There is no place for criminality or corruption in the construction industry, and bullying, thuggery, and intimidation are unacceptable in any workplace.

On 2 August 2024, the General Manager of the Fair Work Commission applied to the Federal Court of Australia to have an independent administrator appointed to the Construction and General Division and the Victoria-Tasmania, New South Wales, Queensland-Northern Territory, and South Australian divisional branches.

The minister has intervened to support the application on behalf of the government.

The government made it clear that if the matter was not resolved before parliament returned, we would introduce legislation to facilitate administration.

This is the strongest action available in these circumstances.

The bill amends the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Actto provide a clear pathway for the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU to be placed under administration.

The bill will allow the minister to determine a scheme of administration for the division if satisfied it is in the public interest to do so.

The bill contains a list of the matters that must be included in the scheme, such as the suspension or removal of officers, taking disciplinary action, and making changes to the Construction and General Division's rules.

A scheme of administration would not apply to any division or union other than the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU and would be time limited.

The bill includes strong powers for the administrator and would allow them to take action necessary to restore the effective management and operation of the Construction and General Division.

This would enable the administrator to take all necessary action to manage the affairs of the division in the interests of members.

Current and former officers and employees would be required to assist the administrator, such as by producing requested documents. Penalties would apply for noncompliance with this requirement.

The administrator would also be required to cooperate with inquiries undertaken by a law enforcement or regulatory agency.

The bill includes strong anti-avoidance provisions to prevent people from undermining an administration determined by the minister. Contravening these provisions would attract civil penalties and, where avoidance behaviour is deliberate, criminal penalties.

Anti-avoidance civil penalties would apply retrospectively. Criminal sanctions apply from the commencement of the bill.

Amendments made by the Senate modify the operation of the bill in the following ways:

The allegations about the behaviour of some Construction and General Division members and associates are serious, and unlawful behaviour in any workplace is unacceptable. This bill provides a strong and effective mechanism to place the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU into administration to address these allegations.

Working in construction is hard, dangerous work, and those workers need a strong, clean union to represent them.

I acknowledge the constructive contribution of the Senate crossbench in proposing sensible and practical amendments to strengthen the bill. I also acknowledge that amendments have been put forward by the member for Wentworth and the member for Warringah. The government supports the intent of both and are confident they have been adequately addressed through the Senate amendments to the bill.

I commend the bill to the House.

Leave granted for second reading debate to continue immediately.

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

Let me start by saying that, for students of irony, for students of the political backflip and for students of those who have spent years in the political equivalent of receiving stolen goods and now have been found with their hand of the cookie jar, looking shocked, this is quite a moment. It's no surprise that the member for Watson has scuttled out of the chamber immediately after mumbling his way through that complete reversal of everything he's done for his more than 20 years in this place. For the member for Watson and the Labor Party to be involved in putting the CFMEU into administration is an extraordinary moment in Australian political history.

The member for Watson is the man who, in his previous portfolio as the minister for workplace relations, gave control of the construction sector in Australia to his mates at the CFMEU, who cheerfully and rapidly abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission, in cahoots with his mates in the Australian Greens, and who danced to the tune of the CFMEU, as he has done consistently throughout his career and as has been done consistently throughout the political careers of just about every Labor MP in this place. It's no exaggeration to say that it was the lifelong political dream of the member for Watson to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and to give the thugs, bikies and criminals of the CFMEU free rein on Australia's building sites.

What have been the results of the actions taken by the member for Watson in those heady first few months after Labor came to power? The results have been chaos, criminality, disorder and an explosion in the cost of construction to the detriment of every Australian, be it people who are building a new home in which to live or anybody who works in a new building, who is affected by what happens in the construction sector. That is every Australian. We have seen nothing short of chaos, bullying, violence, intimidation, harassment, thuggery, bribery, corruption and criminality. All of that has followed from the actions enthusiastically taken by the member for Watson with the full support of the Prime Minister and the entire caucus since Labor came to power.

They abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission. They introduced tranche after tranche of legislation to remake the framework which applies to industrial relations in this country, to grant unions, including the thugs, criminals, bikies and misogynists of the CFMEU, unprecedented rights to enter workplaces around the country. The damage they have done has been legion, and it will last, sadly, for a long time. How did the Prime Minister respond to this set of actions and outcomes orchestrated and delivered by the member for Watson? The Prime Minister promoted him. He promoted the member for Watson following his disastrous performance as Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.

The legislation that is before the House today—the legislation that a shamefaced member for Watson has very briefly spoken about this morning before deciding he had urgent business elsewhere—is necessary and is occurring as a direct result of the incompetence of the Albanese Labor government, the incompetence of the Prime Minister, the incompetence of the member for Watson and a series of disastrous choices they have made to look after their mates in the CFMEU, regardless of their proven, incontrovertible track record of corruption, criminality, thuggery and bullying over 10, 15, 20 or more years. They ignored all of that and made a series of dreadful, dismal, disastrous decisions. Now the consequence is that there have been very detrimental impacts on the Australian economy, on the people of Australia and on regulation and the rule of law in the construction sector.

This Prime Minister and the member for Watson were very happy to change workplace laws in Australia to directly benefit the CFMEU. Why? It's because their path into government has been smoothed—facilitated—by the millions of dollars in donations paid by the CFMEU to the Australian Labor Party. In exchange, for well over $6 million received by the Labor Party since the current Prime Minister became the Leader of the Opposition, we have seen his government happy to tear down much of the fabric of Australian industrial relations legislation, very much to the detriment of just about everybody in Australia who is not a union boss.

Of course, the actions of the Albanese Labor government and the member for Watson were warmly welcomed, perhaps unsurprisingly, by the thugs, crooks and criminals of the CFMEU. Let me turn to the Western Australian branch of the CFMEU and their Construction Worker magazine from the summer of 2023, which had a picture of a tombstone with the words 'ABCC dead and buried: The ABCC has been laid to rest under 10 tons of concrete happily poured by CFMEU members'. That is an occasion when they do happily pour concrete. On other occasions, they have been perfectly happy to interrupt a concrete pour at a cost of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars—one of their preferred modes of industrial thuggery.

The CFMEU and the Labor Party knew full well that, by abolishing the ABCC and through the other actions that the member for Watson and this Albanese Labor government took, they were handing effective control of the construction sector in Australia to this militant, corrupt, criminal union and the rich array of convicted criminals, bullies, thugs, drug dealers, bikies and other undesirables who are key officials of this union across the country.

The opposition has sought to raise these issues in the public interest at every turn. The member for Watson has been very happy to shut down that debate repeatedly—for example, during the second reading debate for the fair work legislation amendment bill in November 2022 and the fair work legislation amendment bill in 2023. In both cases, every possible procedure of this House was used by the member for Watson to gag debate, to reduce the time allowed for consideration in detail and to reduce the time allowed for scrutiny of the cosy arrangements entered into by this government on repeated occasions to make life easier for the crooks and thugs and criminals and bikies of the CFMEU, at the expense of the welfare and the interest of the great majority of Australians. The repeated behaviour of this government—of the member for Watson and of the Prime Minister—is nothing short of a disgrace.

Let me take a moment to remind the House of aspects of the track record of the CFMEU. I want to start by speaking about a former judicial officer Anne Gooley. According to media reports and telecommunications records, Mr John Setka, a well-known former CFMEU official, convicted criminal and thoroughly undesirable person, on a single evening in October 2019 called the former judicial officer Anne Gooley on 25 occasions and sent her 45 text messages. I'm going to resort to my usual principle of using code words in place of the actual words used by John Setka. He called her a 'weak flipping piece of shoe', a 'treacherous Aussie flipping cart' and a 'flipping dog'. It would not take much imagination at all to work out the actual words used by Mr Setka.

Of course, there is another well-known episode. None of this is a secret and none of this was unknown to the Prime Minister and the member for Watson as they engaged on their long legislative program of delivering favours to the CFMEU in exchange for over $6 million of donations. We know from court records in relation to the 2011 Melbourne markets case that a court found 'deliberate flouting of the law by the CFMEU to obtain industrial advantage'. 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 speak about Mr Shaun Reardon, another deeply undesirable individual. He was named in the findings of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. A witness told that royal commission: 'Shaun Reardon, who was an organiser, would regularly attend the Pentridge Village Site'—a particular construction site—'and taunt by shaking the fence and yelling, "We're going to get you and your family!" to a subcontractor and other staff on site.'

Let's look at one of the many other moments when the CFMEU has come to the attention of Australia's court system and judicial officers. In December 2015, Justice Jessup of the Federal Court fined the CFMEU $245,000 for intimidating a scaffolding company into hiring a shop steward. Let me read what Justice Jessup said about the union in his judgement. He said:

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's turn to the member for Maribyrnong, who has a long history with the CFMEU. It depends which personality we're getting from the member for Maribyrnong because he, in his political actions, has a case of multiple political personality disorder. In August 2012, he issued a media release denouncing the actions of CFMEU officials in the Grocon dispute and said: 'I would expect the CFMEU to respect and comply with orders of the Victorian supreme court.' By 2017, the member for Maribyrnong was opposition leader, and it seemed his position in relation to the CFMEU had evolved. In December that year, well-known journalist Sharri Markson reported that the member for Maribyrnong had been 'cooking up a secret deal between the CFMEU and the so-called industrial left'. Who was the point person in the CFMEU dealing with Mr Shorten at that time? It was none other than the highly savoury Shaun Reardon, who I mentioned earlier, the same individual who showed up at worksites and threatened workers' families.

Justice Burnett of the Federal Circuit Court said:

The CFMEU … has an extensive history of contraventions dating back to at least 1999. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the organisation either does not understand or does not care for the legal restrictions on industrial activity imposed by the legislature and the courts.

Another judge, Justice Flick, said that the CFMEU:

… has long demonstrated by its conduct that it pays but little regard to compliance with the law and indeed has repeatedly sought to place itself above the law.

Judge Jarrett of the Federal Circuit Court said:

The CFMEU has an egregious record of repeated and wilful contraventions of all manner of industrial laws.

Justice Jessup of the Federal Court said:

The CFMEU's record of non-compliance with legislation of this kind has now become notorious. That record ought to be an embarrassment to the trade union movement.

Can I remind the House that this organisation, with its longstanding record of flouting the law and its longstanding notorious record of criminality, corruption, thugishness and the involvement of bikies and other undesirable people, is the one that the Prime Minister and the member for Watson have been running a protection racket for for over two years, introducing bill after bill and passing act after act to advance and protect the interests of these thugs, crooks and criminals.

Then, just a couple of months ago, there were extensive media investigations, and I want to commend the journalists involved. It takes some personal courage to stand up to people who have a track record of threatening the families of those they disagree with, of threatening and, indeed, executing all kinds of physical violence upon people with whom they disagree and of threatening their pets and all kinds of unsavoury things. So it takes courage, and I want to congratulate the journalists involved. Just in July this year, there was extensive media coverage by 60 Minutes and the Nine Entertainment newspapers outlining corruption, intimidation, bullying, thuggery, bribery and criminal behaviour on building sites run by illegal motorcycle gangs, and the member for Watson was shocked, the Prime Minister was shocked and the entire Labor Party was shocked. They apparently had no idea that this had been going on. It came as a dreadful surprise. You almost have to feel sorry for them.

They engaged extensively with all of these highly unsavoury individuals, who I might remind the House were critical in the preselection of many members in this place and were critical in providing the dollars used by the Labor Party to campaign—over $6 million of donations. But apparently, in doing all of that, in receiving the rivers of money as they flowed into the ALP and in engaging with all of these heavily tattooed individuals who suddenly had an interest in Labor Party preselections and promised to deliver a whole lot of people to vote for Labor candidates, the trusting, naive, credulous members of the Labor Party never even noticed that they were thugs and criminals. Apparently they didn't notice what was written on their T-shirts and they didn't notice that they were heavily tattooed. All of that went over their heads. So, in July, when all this appeared in the media, it was such an enormous shock that they had to call for the vapours; they needed to be revived. One almost has to feel sorry for them, these trusting, credulous people who believed the best of everybody, including the thugs and criminals of the CFMEU. All of a sudden their idealism was facing a considerable challenge. It was as if the blindfolds were lifted from their eyes.

Many of us have enjoyed that moment in the classic movie Casablanca, when it's alleged that gambling is occurring in the casino and the police captain—I think it was Captain Renault—says that he's shocked. But his performance was nothing compared to the performance that we've seen from the member for Watson and the Prime Minister. The simple fact is that this would be funny if the stakes were not so high. This would be funny if it were not for the fact that we know that the Labor Party, for over two years, has engaged in abetting and aiding the crooks and criminals and thugs and a whole range of people who have been found guilty by judges of the court. This is not a political point; these are findings made by independently appointed judges. This whole collection of individuals has a rich array of criminal convictions and has consistently and repeatedly, for more than 20 years, engaged in the kind of conduct that most Australians and most decent people would regard as utterly reprehensible.

As the Leader of the Opposition said in this chamber yesterday, one of the consequences is that taxpayers are paying the CFMEU tax on major big build projects across the country. Up to 30 per cent more has to be paid on major projects because of the thuggish tactics of the CFMEU. On this side of the House, we have consistently warned against this. The very first question that the Leader of the Opposition asked in this place after the 2022 election was about the CFMEU. And it turns out—what a surprise!—that everything we warned of was entirely accurate. Thanks, in significant measure, to good work by some brave journalists, even the member for Watson and the Prime Minister have been forced to at least pretend that this is an issue of concern to them. As a result of that, we have before this House a bill. Now, let's be clear, the first draft of this bill could have been co-authored by John Setka. Indeed I suspect it was co-authored by John Setka. It was weak. It was so weak you could drive a truck through it. It was the kind of thing you produce when you want to look like you care but in reality you don't care.

But, thanks to the extraordinary and assiduous work of Senator Cash, shadow minister for employment and workplace relations, this bill has been significantly strengthened. We made it clear that we would only support it if there were amendments made in a whole range of ways. We have, for example, secured an amendment, which is now contained in the version of the bill that's before this House, that the administration period must last for a minimum of three years. This is essential if there is to be a serious attempt to tackle the appalling culture of the CFMEU. When you have this entrenched degree of criminal activity, bullying, thuggery and intimidation, that is not going to be something that can be solved overnight. It will take assiduous and determined work.

With the way that the bill was drafted initially, the minister, Senator Watt, could have chosen to stop the administration one day after it started. 'Why?' you might ask. 'Why would anybody of good will contemplate doing that?' Well, you need merely look at the track record of this government, of which Senator Watt is a significant part, in looking the other way for over two years and in ignoring all of the damning evidence on the public record over close to 20 years of the thuggery, criminality and corruption of the CFMEU. If this Labor Party is prepared to overlook that in exchange for more than $6 million, I tell you what: if the act did not require that the administration last for at least three years, they would have been looking to shut it down within weeks. You would have to be naive not to expect that that was the inevitable outcome with the drafting as it was originally presented to us. We said, 'Quite frankly, that's a joke, and we're not going to agree to it.' And, thankfully, that point has been acknowledged.

There is also enhanced transparency, with the government agreeing that the administrator must report to parliament every six months so that there can be oversight from all parties and not just from the political lapdogs of the CFMEU who make up the current government. The administrator will be required to provide the detailed financial information of the CFMEU in these reports. That is very important, and on this side of the House we will be scrutinising those reports carefully. It is important that the administrator be given the tools to do his job properly, and it is essential that progress be made.

A very important point is that, while the CFMEU is in administration, it would be entirely inappropriate and improper for the CFMEU to continue to shovel millions of dollars towards the Labor Party in political donations. I'm pleased to say that, thanks to the assiduous work of Senator Cash, the administrator has now set out in writing the guiding principles and goals he determined before accepting the role. One of those is as follows: 'The union will not engage in party politics during the administration: donations, positions at political party conferences, and promotions of particular candidates.' So, by the way, a tip for Australia's tattooists: don't go and set up temporary parlours near ALP conferences coming up, because one of your major sources of business won't be there. He also said, 'Further, I can advise you that I intend, should I be appointed as administrator, to vary the rules of the construction and general division of the CFMEU to prohibit the making of party political donations or the funding of party political campaigns.'

Other amendments have been secured thanks to the assiduous negotiation of Senator Cash and the determined work of the coalition, informed by the bitter experience of the victims of CFMEU criminality, corruption and thuggery around this country, who have been in constant dialogue with any parliamentarian of good will who is willing to listen to them. On this issue, that excludes more than half of this House. There have been so many victims of the CFMEU's thuggery. We have listened carefully and we have studied the grim history of the consequences of the CFMEU's behaviour and criminality over some 20 years.

Amendments secured by the opposition, the coalition, and contained now in the form of the bill that's before this House include that the administrator will have the ability to ban rogue CFMEU officials for life. The government had a maximum five-year ban in the original legislation. There's an extension of the administration to a maximum of five years, up from the three years proposed by the government. There is a list of matters in the bill that the administration scheme needs to address. The wording has been changed so that they 'must' address these matters, whereas previously the word was 'may'.

Here is a very important change we've made. It turned out that the draft bill set out a date before which the retrospective application of civil penalties could not occur. By a remarkable coincidence, an extraordinary coincidence, that date was after John Setka had resigned from the union. Imagine that? What a coincidence! Extraordinary! Deidre Chambers, what a coincidence! Thankfully, that particular outrageously transparent attempt to protect their mate has been removed and replaced with a date that will allow retrospective civil penalties to apply to a date before Mr Setka resigned from the union.

Other amendments secured include confirming investigations into the past conduct of the CFMEU. All of the amendments secured by the opposition now contained in the form of the bill before the House are ones that are critical to the operation of the administrator and will mean that we have a tough scheme in place to address lawlessness in the construction sector.

But this is not where it should stop. I want to make this point. This legislation is important, but it is not sufficient to address the problems in the CFMEU. We on this side of the House have made clear what needs to happen to restore law and order in the construction sector, but—surprise, surprise!—the Albanese government is too weak to take those next steps. If the Prime Minister wants to clean up the construction sector, he needs to bring back the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It is critical that we have a body which can combat lawless activity in the construction sector.

The Albanese government also needs to pass the measures from the ensuring integrity bill, which the government rejected in 2019. The opposition leader has just this week introduced two private member's bills which would achieve these aims. All the government need do is program these bills for debate and we can get these bills through the House.

The legislation we have before us today, critically including the amendments secured by the coalition, is an important first step towards cleaning up the construction sector. It will be a long journey to change the truly atrocious culture entrenched by the CFMEU. We on this side of the House made it clear that we're not going to give the government a blank cheque so that they can pretend they are cleaning up their CFMEU public policy disaster only to have the crooks, thugs and criminals of the CFMEU run riot again a couple of years down the track. We will not support a weak response. It is vital the administrator has the teeth to clean up the disaster in the CFMEU and to regularly report to the Australian parliament about what it is doing. The amendments we have secured go a long way towards achieving this aim. This legislation, though, is not enough and must be complemented by bringing back the ABCC and removing criminals from the construction sector once and for all. I encourage all members to support this legislation and also to support the other bills the coalition has introduced designed to address these issues.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the news broke about the extent of allegations against the CFMEU and that all became clear, I called one of my friends who works in construction to get his take. He said to me, 'Look, Allegra, I'll talk to you about what is going on, but under no circumstances can you ever mention my name and that we have spoken, because they could ruin me.' This is the level of intimidation and corruption that is in the construction industry. It matters to those people in the industry, but it matters to all of us. This is why this Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 is so important.

It matters to all of us because there are individuals in the construction industry who have had terrible personal experiences because of the behaviour of the CFMEU, because of the criminality, because of the thuggery, because of some of the issues that were outlined by the previous speaker talking about the physical intimidation, harm and hurt that have been caused by people within the CFMEU. That personal piece is incredibly important. But it also matters because it has a broader impact on our society. If there are businesses in this country who cannot operate as good, decent businesses can, because of corruption, because of threats or because of thuggery, this is a concern to all of us and is a potential contagion to other sectors of the community. This sort of corruption and behaviour has no place in any Australian industry.

Finally, it matters because construction is critical to this country, and it's critical right now, probably more than ever. This is a time when Australia has an acute housing shortage. We know the future of this country and the future of generations behind us having a fair go, owning a home or bringing up their kids with stable housing depends on our ability to build the houses that we need. We know that this government and governments around the country are spending tens of billions of dollars on public infrastructure—public money. The construction industry is critical to this country right now, and with that CFMEU and the impact that it has had on that industry in terms of cost, lost productivity and setting a culture for that industry is profound and has an impact on every single Australian out here who cares about the future for their kids, about housing and about good public infrastructure. It matters to all of us.

So why do we have to have this bill? Frankly, it's because the CFMEU has forfeited the right to clean itself up. The insidious behaviour of union officials and the iron grip that they have wielded over the construction industry for decades appals me. I'm also going to be moving in a moment to provide an extra layer of security on any appointments made by the independent administrator. I supported the adoption of an independent administrator because I could see no other way for us to really have a root-and-branch reform of the CFMEU. It has to start here. It's critical that we start here.

I also acknowledge and highlight my support for the opposition's amendments that they negotiated in the Senate. They are a really important range of amendments and they're ones that I thoroughly support. I support this bill. It is critical and it is important. I have put forward an amendment, the spirit of which I think the government has mainly picked up but could still, I believe, go further. The question for me is: is this enough? Is this bill enough? This is where I absolutely say no and this is where I will be holding the government and the whole parliament to account to truly deal with the issues that face the construction industry. It is the time now that we got rid of the problems facing the industry once and for all.

I want to raise two areas of why I believe this is not enough. Firstly, because we have had, I think, four royal commissions into the building industry since 1982, with a combination of 11,500 pages worth of findings and recommendations in terms of how to improve the construction industry and, particularly, the unions within it. We've had all this work done and still we are here, more than 40 years on from the original royal commission. I was four years old in those days—that's how long this has been going on. We have a systemic issue in the construction industry that no government has managed to solve. We've reformed the unions, we've done all sorts of things—I do not believe, and insiders in the industry do not believe, that we are going to get far enough by just appointing an administrator.

The second reason I do not believe this is enough is because of the insidious relationship between the CFMEU and the Labor Party. This is one that does need to be broken. I note that the Labor Party received $4.3 million worth of donations at the last election from the CFMEU. This is one of the biggest donations that the Labor Party got. I note that the history of corruption and intimidation in the CFMEU is extremely well known—has been known for decades. Frankly, as one of my colleagues did earlier today, if you type in 'CFMEU corruption and misconduct' into an internet search bar, the date range of media articles goes back more than a decade. This is what's been going on, but the Labor Party consistently—including in this term of parliament—has turned a blind eye to these issues because of the influence that the CFMEU has had on the Labor Party through its money and through other areas as well.

It's frankly appalling that the Labor Party has stood by this union and the behaviour of this union for so many years and accepted the money knowing full well what has been going on. I do not buy the Premier of Victoria's claims that she basically didn't respond to concerns related to the CFMEU over a year. I do not buy the faux outrage that we have seen from the Labor Party on this issue, saying: 'Oh no; what a terrible situation. We had no idea. Wow; we really need to clean this up.' This has been something that has been hiding in plain sight, and the Labor Party has not wanted to deal with it. In fact, what the Labor Party has done in this parliament is abolish the ABCC, which was at least a watchdog to focus on the construction union. Now, I'm not claiming that the ABCC was perfect; there were many issues with it, not least, I understand, that many of the allegations against the CFMEU right now happened while the ABCC was in place, so obviously it wasn't strong enough. But the Labor Party in this government abolished the ABCC, said everything was going to be fine and did not set up any alternative body, and here we are again.

I heard the minister on the radio the other day saying: 'The system is working. We didn't need the ABCC, because, when there's a problem, now we're rushing through two pieces of legislation to deal with it. This is the system working.' The only reason we're in this House dealing with this issue is the work of the journalists who have exposed this issue. This is not the Labor Party's doing. This is not the Fair Work Ombudsman who's exposed these issues. This is the work of excellent journalists, and I pay tribute to them. They have uncovered, at significant personal risk to themselves, what has been going on, to a point that the Labor Party could no longer deny it. And so, to be honest, I do not trust the Labor Party to be able to clean up this union or its administrator point of view.

We have years of evidence of issues in the industry and we have a government that has sat by and, frankly, made it easier for the CFMEU to do what it wanted to do without proper accountability, and that is a stain on the government. For me, this is the time that we need to go further. This is about short-term changes that we need to have in place and about long-term changes. On the short-term changes, I wrote with my crossbench colleagues to the Prime Minister a few weeks ago and said: these are a number of the changes that we want in the short-term. One is the appointment of a robust administrator, and I am glad to be speaking to this in the House. Two is for the Labor Party to suspend all donations from the CFMEU indefinitely. Now we have a time scale on this, and that is a positive thing. Three and four are that we need the resourcing to support police at different levels of government to conduct thorough investigations involving the misuse of public money, abuses of power in the union and fraud by actors in the sector. We need to make sure that the police are there as part of these investigations. Finally, there should be a commitment by the federal government to withhold infrastructure funding from projects—the stuff that we are funding—until states can show evidence that they are dealing with potentially criminal activity on their building sites. Those are what we need to do in the short term.

I'd like to finally come to the long term. The truths is that, as I said, we've been concerned about issues within the construction industry for 40 years. We probably were before then, but that's just the royal commissions. I think the opportunity now is: can we in this House come up with a way to fix this for the long term so that workers are protected? I want to acknowledge that construction is hard work and it is dangerous work and workers do need protection. I think that is important. Workers need protection. But they also need representation by people who are not trying to intimidate and are not, I think, thugs. They need proper representation.

We also need a sector that has high productivity. Because, frankly, we all rely on construction in this country, we need to get it right. We do need to come together. There are cowboy builders out there. There are people who don't pay their bills. There's dodgy stuff that goes on in the construction industry, and I don't want to see any of it. There is an opportunity—and I think it is a once-in-a-generation opportunity—to try and clean up this industry for all.

This is where I part ways somewhat with the opposition. The opposition wants to reinstate the ABCC. I support that. I voted against its abolition. But the truth is that, if we play politics again, we will not get a solution. I acknowledge that while the ABCC is better than what we have at the moment, which is nothing, it also didn't fix things. The current opposition was in power for almost 10 years, and we still had these problems in the industry. It's the political football on this issue between the major parties that has created, over a long period of time, this situation where we have pendulum politics. Someone comes in; they abolish it. Somebody else comes in; they bring it back. It's all great for the major parties, but it's actually not making a fundamental difference in the construction sector for the long term in a way that protects workers, protects businesses and allows that industry really to flourish.

That is what I'm seeking. I'm seeking for once—it could well be too much of an ask—for everyone to put the politics aside on this and to say, 'What would it take to come together—for the good union officials who are there to bring what they think is important, for the good businesses that are there to come forward and make their contribution, and for every group in this House to come together and work out what is the right regulatory framework, what is the right legislative framework, what are the right protections for our workers, what are the right safety conditions and what are the right productivity frameworks to make this industry work over the long term?' I'm seeking this because it matters. It matters to every Australian whether we can build the houses and infrastructure that we need; it matters because a corrupt industry in any part of our country sets a terrible precedent and has terrible tentacles throughout the rest of the country; and it matters because there are individuals out there whose lives have been ruined because of what goes on in the construction industry, and it is up to all of us to fix that.

So that is the call that I'm making across all the parties. This is the time to grow up, to take responsibility for what has failed over the last 40 years and to say that politics as usual is not going to deal with it. This is an opportunity for people to come together in this House and show that we mean it when we say that we're here to represent the best interests of the Australian people.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure how many people in this place have actually read the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. I note there are not that many people from the government speaking in support of it. But this bill does contain some unprecedented provisions, and, when civil liberties groups make the point that this threatens some of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and the way that processes are usually followed in this country, we should listen to them.

It, of course, goes without saying that criminality and corruption are serious matters. That's why we as the Greens were pushing for an independent anticorruption commission before anybody else in this place. We introduced legislation to bring it about. We pushed to strengthen it. There is zero tolerance, I suspect, from anyone in this place for violence, including on workplaces and in organisations, whether it happens in a corporation, in a union or anywhere else. We have also fought very, very strongly, and we'll always fight, against sexism wherever it occurs in society, because it is a society-wide problem.

But what usually happens in our society when there are serious allegations of criminality is that the law enforcement authorities investigate; if there's evidence, they bring a matter before a court; the court decides whether or not a crime has been committed; and then it issues a sentence on the basis of that. And also outside the criminal sphere, if there are allegations of other kinds of wrongdoing, there are processes for dealing with that as well. Indeed, in the Fair Work Act there are processes for dealing with putting unions into administration. In this instance a process was in fact underway and was working its way through the courts, including about the very allegations that have been referred to here by the government and by the opposition.

Given all of that, the approach we the Greens take is to say, 'Well, if there are strong laws in place already and strong law enforcement agencies in place already, then investigate every claim, and if someone has done something wrong then the appropriate punishment should follow.' We've seen something very different here from the government, though. The government has brought in legislation that, in its own words, is unprecedented and is the toughest action ever taken against a union or a corporation. They were I think the words of the minister. So, they brought in unprecedented legislation to override all the existing processes that are set up and that are part of what we would call the rule of law here in this country. You would think that bringing this legislation in such a rushed way, doing something that has never been done before, would be worthy of very serious scrutiny, to justify why it needs to be done and why it needs to be done in this way, and then to make sure that, if you're going to do it, there are no unintended consequences.

But, coming back to my point suggesting that no-one has actually read the legislation: under this legislation, if there's a change of government then Michaelia Cash will be able to appoint Tony Abbott as the administrator of the construction union. That is what is being pushed through here with this unprecedented, rushed and flawed legislation. They're basically handing over the keys to an incoming coalition government should there be a change of government at the next election.

There are also provisions in this legislation, as has been pointed out, that make offences retrospective. Now, sometimes, in very rare instances, legislation is released that says, 'This operates from date X; here are the provisions'—even if it might not have been legislated—'and if you breach them from now on, that is what is going to apply.' This legislation says it is a civil offence to breach rules of a scheme that have not even been made public yet. In other words, under this legislation, going back several months, you can be prosecuted for or found guilty of breaching rules that haven't even been enforced yet, that aren't even public yet.

Again I make the point about whether anyone has actually read this legislation. In the Federal Court they said, 'Well, here are a number of branches of the CFMEU against which a number of serious allegations have been made, and we're seeking administration against those.' This bill applies to the whole union, even those branches where no suggestion has been raised that they've done anything wrong. All those officials, all those employees, are now caught by this, even though there's not even a newspaper article that suggests something wrong has been done.

This legislation also provides for the administrator to put individuals on a blacklist that means not only that they can't work in the industry again but also that they can't work in many other areas again. Crucially, though, there's nothing in the legislation that requires the administrator to do any kind of investigation or satisfy themselves in any way before they do that. In other words, there's no test. So a basic principle of procedural fairness—which is that you at least ought to have some grounds against you and be entitled to know what they are—doesn't apply here.

This is why it's so important that legislation like this is not rushed. If you give people power to do something like that, what if they make a mistake and someone who's entirely innocent gets kicked out of their position and put on a blacklist and has no guaranteed way of getting back in? There are no safeguards in this legislation for people who've done nothing wrong, they're caught up in it.

Why is this happening? This is happening because the government has decided to introduce rushed legislation that is draconian and that offends against the rule of law and takes away people's basic rights, and they've decided to go and work with the anti-union, anti-worker Liberals to get it passed.

We pointed out these matters to the government. We said that they needed to be fixed and we said that there needed to be a different approach taken because otherwise you are fundamentally threatening the rule of law. Instead, the government has decided to work with the Liberals to—in their words—'make the bill tougher'.

In this situation, the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties has said this, and it's important to listen to what they said because they made some very, very serious points.

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties has serious concerns with the Federal Government's Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 and the Government's accompanying amendments. While any allegation of criminality is serious and must be addressed, the powers set out in this bill are far-reaching and establish a dangerous precedent for the trade union movement, membership-based organisations, and the rights of individuals to natural justice and procedural fairness.

The rushed nature of this legislation which is designed to override a process begun by the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court threatens the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. We note that the proposed legislation would set a precedent where membership-based organisations can have democratic control externally removed on the basis of untested allegations. This is of concern to all Unions, registered Clubs, and Australian membership-based organisations.

The Bill violates Australia's obligations under the International Labour Organisation, namely Articles 3 and 4 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948.

The NSWCCL has long held that everyone has the right to natural justice and procedural fairness, regardless of the allegations they face. If this legislation is passed next week, it threatens this fundamental right. The right to freedom of association and the nature of membership-based organisations across Australia must be protected.

They are absolutely right in saying that.

We now have a situation with the passage of this bill where Labor is potentially handing over the keys to one of the country's biggest unions to Michaelia Cash if there's a change of government at the next election, without having put in place any basic protections for the entirely innocent individuals who will get caught up in this legislation. All the while, they're removing the basic principle that if you've got an allegation against you, it should be tested. That's something that, up until this legislation, if you asked most people in this country, 'Do you think that if there's an allegation against you it should be tested? most people would say yes. Labor and the Liberals say no and that they're prepared to take away your rights and potentially put Michaelia Cash in charge of a union. That is being done in order to rush legislation through this parliament.

I'll repeat the point that we made these points to the government repeatedly and suggested ways of dealing with it. But that's clearly not what the government wanted to do. As a result, there will be a lot of people around this country who will be concerned. After the passage of this legislation, they will be wondering who's next. As the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties has said: if this is the test that now gets applied, what will it mean for my rights and for my organisation's rights? That will be on the Labor Party's and the Liberal Party's heads. They clearly want this legislation to pass, even with all its flaws, and that is something that should be very concerning to people in this country and to anyone who believes in the basic principles of freedom of association, of the rule of law and of respect for individuals' rights.

We're witnessing today, in the boastful words of the minister, the passage of some of the most serious and powerful legislation ever brought against a union. They seem to be cheering it through. I would urge people who think this is so good to consider why no-one from the government is here speaking in favour of it. Labor and Liberals, when you read the legislation and you realise what you're actually doing, you ought to understand why so many people across this country will now look at this and be worried, thinking: am I next?

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reality is that Labor and the Liberals are going to team up to pass some of the most draconian antiworker laws this country has seen. No matter what you think of the CFMEU, this should worry you, because Labor has set a precedent where parliament can seize control of a civil society group that the government doesn't like and suspend its basic rights.

As the member for Melbourne said, the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties has summed it up perfectly. It's worth quoting here because I don't think every member of this place is taking their responsibility as lawmakers nearly seriously enough, given the enormous overriding of natural justice and of the basic separation of powers that this country is meant to run on. They are almost flagrantly disregarding our responsibility to uphold the rule of law and natural justice. If those two principles are to be worth anything, then they should be applied universally. Obviously we have seen some serious allegations made in the media, and those allegations should be tested in a court under the usual processes. Indeed, precisely because of the seriousness of those allegations, we should go through the courts and legal system, which this parliament should trust, to get to the truth.

But instead, as the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties has said:

While any allegation of criminality is serious and must be addressed, the powers set out in this bill are far-reaching and establish a dangerous precedent for the trade union movement, membership-based organisations, and the rights of individuals to natural justice and procedural fairness.

The rushed nature of this legislation which is designed to override a process begun by the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court threatens the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. We note that the proposed legislation would set a precedent where membership-based organisations can have democratic control externally removed on the basis of untested allegations. This is of concern to all Unions, registered Clubs, and Australian membership-based organisations.

The Bill violates Australia's obligations under the International Labour Organisation, namely Articles 3 and 4 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948.

The NSWCCL has long held that everyone has the right to natural justice and procedural fairness, regardless of the allegations they face. If this legislation is passed next week, it threatens this fundamental right. The right to freedom of association and the nature of membership-based organisations across Australia must be protected.

As the member for Melbourne said, they are entirely correct, but the problem is that none of this been tested or aired in parliament or inquiries. There has been no coming to terms with the fact that this is an historically unprecedented piece of legislation that sets an extraordinary precedent. Is the government suggesting that it no longer trusts the courts, the Fair Work Commission or the Federal Court to get to the bottom of this? Is that the suggestion here? That would surely necessitate a full-scale review of our legal system, not overriding basic natural justice and the rule of law.

Let's step out some of the things that this legislation allows the government to do: entirely seize control of the CFMEU through an administrator for a minimum of three years; permanently ban officials/workers from ever working for a union again without any proof of wrongdoing; fire any elected officials or staff they wish to without any proof of wrongdoing and effectively deny those staff or officials natural justice or even standard employee rights; take control of all union assets; decide when and if elections are called; and completely override the union's own constitution.

Now, again, even if you do not like the CFMEU—and clearly neither Labor nor the Liberals do—a lot of the people in this place seem to just simply want to crush this union without any recourse to natural justice or procedural fairness. Remove the CFMEU, for instance, and insert another membership based organisation and imagine if the government was doing that to them. That is the precedent that this sets. The precedent this sets for a future government when they decide they do not like a membership based organisation or a civil society group that happens to offend the government in some way is that the government then, rather than taking that organisation through the courts for any legitimate allegations of wrongdoing reason, can pass a piece of legislation that effectively annihilates that organisation. There is a reason that we have a separation of powers, and we are meant to respect natural justice and the rule of law in this country.

Corruption, sexism and intimidation should be strongly opposed. Precisely because they are serious and should be opposed, they should be prosecuted through the court and a system that we have established to determine the truth of allegations and test them properly. Effectively what parliament has done is override that separation of powers and declare that it is going to pass judgement on those allegations without any formal legal process. No wonder there are no members from the government who are willing to speak on this bill apart from the minister.

At the end of the day, I think a lot of organisations and civil society groups will be wondering: What happens when we offend a future government? What happens when a future government decide that they want to crush a membership based organisation? What happens when that organisation in some way falls foul of the government or the media? Well, now we're seeing what the government can do. The deeply irresponsible nature by which this law is being rushed through parliament without any consideration of those basic elements of what is meant to constitute how this country is governed is genuinely remarkable. It displays a genuine irresponsibility. We hear all the time accusations in this parliament about the Greens being irresponsible and 'How dare the Greens do this?' or 'How dare the Greens do that?' But you would think that every member of this place would respect the separation of powers, natural justice and the rule of law. This bill makes a mockery of all those things. Again, principles are only worth the paper they are written on if they are applied universally. That is how liberal democracy is meant to work. But clearly, in this case, the government has decided to throw that completely out.

I will finish with this. We have seen serious allegations made against all sorts of institutions in this country. We saw the devastating impact of the banking royal commission and the impact that the banks have on people's lives. We have previously seen serious allegations made against institutions around systematic sexual abuse. We have seen serious allegations made time and again against institutions in this country and never have we seen a piece of legislation like this. Why is it that this reaches the threshold to override natural justice and the rule of law but all of those previous ones didn't? We have never seen the government come and propose to place a bank into administration, but all of a sudden, when it comes to a trade union, Labor and the Liberals are happy to team up and completely override all the basic principles that are meant to define how this country is run.

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

I rise to speak on this bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 bill, which aims to address the widespread corruption and criminality of the CFMEU. I do so confronted by the deep irony that the Australian Labor Party, which has been joined at the hip with the CFMEU, is trying to pass itself off as the saviour of Australian tradies on building sites. So let's just, first, call that out. We have Senator Murray Watt and his mate the ambitious member for Watson in this place trying to play the 'We are cleaning up the CFMEU' card. Some of the contributions we've seen in this place and in the media are frankly farcical. With faux concern and confected anger, Labor members have piled in here and beaten their chests, talking tough about the CFMEU. To those members I say: whatever helps you sleep at night. If you need to talk tough about the CFMEU to make you feel okay, sure, go right ahead.

But, for those of us on this side of the House that have been calling out the CFMEU for years and years, we know it is all a facade and we know, if it hadn't been caught on tape and exposed by Nick McKenzie, we wouldn't be where we are today. In fact, as these tough Labor members come in here and tee off at the CFMEU, to me, it's like watching a Siamese twin punch its other head, because the Australian Labor Party and the CFMEU are joined right at the hip and always have been. It's a symbiotic relationship. That might be a long word that our Prime Minister might not understand, but what it means is that the ALP and the CFMEU rely on each other to survive. Millions and millions of dollars in donations are proof of that. Anyone who has stood at a polling booth in a marginal seat knows that the CFMEU makes their presence known at elections too. So, yes, the ALP is the slightly better-looking side of the coin, but on the other side of that coin is the corrupt and criminal CFMEU.

While Labor are focused on hitting themselves and focused on their confected collective Deidre Chambers act, I want to call out the human carnage that the CFMEU have wrought on Australians across the country. As a bit of a teaser to keep viewers on the hook, I will point out one Labor member who sits in this very chamber who not only turned a blind eye to accusations of domestic violence against John Setka but actively supported him to try to rehabilitate his image. We have text messages which show that Labor members and their allies in the Labor ranks have been aiding and abetting the CFMEU for years.

We know without doubt that the CFMEU is driving up the cost of construction and have perpetrated violence and corruption across this country. Others will rightly talk about the CFMEU's role in driving up housing costs and the impact that has on the Australian dream and on families across this nation, but I want to focus on the role the CFMEU has played in perpetuating gender based violence on our building sites and making the work place unsafe for apprentices and trainees.

This is the dark irony. The Labor speakers who will talk on this bill will tell you the construction union just needs to be let back on site so they can do their job and protect people. The lived experience is the complete opposite. The CFMEU has taken a real toll on women—women who are interested in entering the construction workforce and women, more broadly, across Australia. The CFMEU has all too often damaged dreams of a career in construction and killed aspirations with their violence and thuggery.

We mustn't forget John Setka, who went after Rosie Batty, whose 11-year-old son was murdered by his father in 2014. Rosie Batty was made Australian of the Year in 2015, recognising her steadfast advocacy in this space, which began when she spoke publicly, addressing the media the morning after Luke's murder, about her experience of domestic violence. Rosie Batty is a national hero, and John Setka and his CFMEU mates thought going after her was the right approach. John Setka did not like that Rosie Batty was calling out bad behaviour, because bad behaviour was John Setka's MO. What does that tell you about the way the CFMEU thinks about domestic violence?

They have failed apprentices too. We mustn't forget Tammie Palmer, who said that her 18-year-old son, Ben, was bullied by the CFMEU on his worksite and that those actions led to his death. What was his crime? It was wearing the wrong shirt. His shirt had on it a logo of a small Indigenous construction company that had an AWU agreement, not a CFMEU agreement. So the CFMEU locked him in a shed for four hours. He later died at home following an overdose that Tammie, his mum, has attributed to the stress and torment he faced.

I thought the CFMEU was there to protect young people like Ben. How do you explain that, Labor members? We mustn't forget that John Setka pleaded guilty to harassing his ex-wife with barrages of text messages and calls, with threatening expletives I do not wish to hear ever directed at a woman. How did the Labor Party respond to such vitriol—the Labor Party that purports to support women, that claims they will drive a better deal for women and that wants to see more women supported into work and supported to remain in work?

Behind the scenes, the Labor Party supported the CFMEU, and they supported John Setka. We have text messages that were published in the Australian Financial Review that prove that, instead of admonishing the CFMEU and John Setka, Labor women helped him. The former head of Labor women's forum EMILY's List, Tanja Kovac, helped craft Setka's public messaging strategy to avoid pressure for his resignation. The member for Bendigo, a woman who sits in this very chamber, who may even now speak on this legislation, checked in on John Setka after a so-called tough interview, commending him for his efforts. This is proof that even those opposite can't be trusted on this issue. They talk tough on the CFMEU in public, but in private they are there helping the CFMEU behind the scenes. The Labor Party are speaking out of both sides of their mouths. The behaviour of the CFMEU and the actions of John Setka are inappropriate and unacceptable.

We see all of this, and then we have Labor come into this place and issue demands. Get real. We did the work to make this bill passable. Labor wanted a blank cheque to let the CFMEU off the hook. Shadow Attorney-General Michaelia Cash has sorted Senator Watt out on this one. The criminal activity, bullying, thuggery and intimidation within the CFMEU must stop, and we must crack down on this rogue union. We were not going to let this be a light-touch moment, because we know the need to clean up the construction industry. The government rushed this legislation into the parliament without adequate consultation and were dragged kicking and screaming to make sensible changes suggested by the coalition.

We secured a key amendment: that the administration period will last for a minimum of three years. That will ensure that the CFMEU faces scrutiny today and tomorrow, over coming months and after the election. When we win government at that election, we will be going through all the work that is being done very closely—very closely indeed. We secured enhanced transparency by requiring the administrator to report to parliament every six months. Labor wanted to keep the important work being done out of the public spotlight because they have been on the take from the CFMEU for years and years. We have forced them to have basic accountability to this parliament. This bill gives the ability to ban rogue CFMEU officials for life and changes the retrospective civil penalties avoidance clause to before John Setka resigned from the union. Frankly, we know exactly who needs to be banned.

The coalition is committed to restoring the Australian Building and Construction Commission and enhancing the integrity measures and combatting criminality on our nation's building sites. Labor has been forced to the table on this matter, and they hate it. Labor has comprehensively failed to confront the CFMEU, and they have comprehensively failed our construction industry. We have forced them to deal with the thugs, but there are other failures too.

Our construction industry is being hammered by Labor's bad decisions on the economy and on skills and training. Unfortunately, since Labor took office, Australia has seen 85,000 fewer apprentices and trainees, a loss of one in five. The number of female apprentices and trainees in training has fallen by 25 per cent, and female commencements have fallen by 40 per cent. Analysis of the National Centre for Vocational Education Research conducted by Build Skills Australia found that new starts or commencements for construction apprentices have dropped from record highs in 2022 under the coalition to new lows in 2023 under Labor, a 22 per cent drop or a loss of one in five construction trades apprentices. This means that there are fewer Australians starting a construction trade under Labor. The analysis has also found that the number of construction apprentices finishing their qualification has dropped 15 per cent. That's 3,700 less construction apprentices finishing their apprenticeships.

This means that there are fewer Australians becoming qualified construction tradies under Labor. Businesses that were able to keep apprentices on through a once-in-a-century pandemic are shedding them under the economic crisis created under this Labor government. Under Anthony Albanese, Australia is building fewer homes, skills shortages have worsened, and we have lost one in five apprentices and trainees across the country. This is all adding to increasing inflation and prices. The bottom line here is that we need more apprentices and trainees, not less. Labor promised that they would skill more Australians, but their programs are not delivering. The Australian Labor Party are failing Aussie skills.

Today is an important day in our national story. It is the day that the Australian Labor Party has been forced to deal with a monster of its own making. We're here today because weak Labor leader after weak Labor leader failed to stand up to the thugs and instead let them trade in corruption and coercion. We're here today because, when CFMEU thugs were called out for their bad behaviour, Labor MPs and their allies helped union officials duck scrutiny. We're here today because the Australian Labor Party made a Faustian pact with some of the darkest elements in our nation, all in the name of funds for political campaigns and seats in this chamber. Well, I know what happened to Dr Faustus, and it's not a Disney ending.

To those opposite: you might have won the last election because of the CFMEU, but you aren't running the show now. Only the coalition has what it takes to stand up to the CFMEU. Your name might be on this bill, but we did the work. I command the bill to the House.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 with—I don't know how I feel. I feel moments of irony. I also feel some degree of satisfaction, because I've come in here over the eight years that I've been the federal member and spoken about this issue on 65 occasions. On 65 occasions in eight years I have spoken about the illegality, the criminality, the bullying and the harassment by some CFMEU officials and about how they conduct themselves in the construction industry throughout this country. And on every occasion that I have spoken about this I've been met with derision and scorn by members of the Labor Party. So, when Channel 9 produced its documentary identifying the illegality of the CFMEU, it was a bit of a 'Well, I told you so' kind of moment.

But I'm just the federal member for Fisher; I'm just one person. Why would the Labor Party believe me? Those opposite might say I've got a political axe to grind. But what amazes me, what causes me utter disbelief, is how they could discount, disregard, ignore the comments that have come out of our courts about the CFMEU for years and years and years.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They didn't know about it; never heard about it.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll get to that in a moment. But it was absolutely fascinating, when the news of this story broke, to watch the Prime Minister and to watch the member for Watson and Senator Watt saying, 'We had no idea this was going on.' The member for Watson, last time I checked, in a former role was the industrial relations minister. One would think that as the industrial relations minister he would have had a keen eye on decisions that were coming out of the Federal Court. Admittedly, those decisions long pre-date his being the minister for industrial relations, but he was in that role or a similar role as the shadow minister for many years prior to the Labor Party taking government. The member for Watson said, 'Look, we had no idea this was going on, and yet the Federal Court spoke regularly in their judgements.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member will be granted leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.