George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

You may be proud, Senator Bilyk, to represent a dwindling number of people in the Australian workforce who represent organised labour. We on our side of the chamber have no problem with organised labour, but we do say that organised labour ought to be the subject of the same rule of law and accountability principles as business and other industrial organisations.

For all of this year and before, you have heard my colleague Senator Michaelia Cash in question time and in debate describe, time and time again, the thuggery, the savagery, the disgusting behaviour which is the routine of the CFMEU. We know that the Heydon royal commission, which sat for over two years, concluded that the CFMEU and other militant trade unions were responsible for serial law-breaking and a culture of absolute contempt for the rule of law. So what does this bill seek to do? It seeks to restore the rule of law to the building industry, and industry which represents, according to some estimates, 11 per cent of Australia's GDP. Why would you stand against that? Why would you stand against a bill that does nothing more than try to restore the rule of law to what, on any view, is a culture and an area of the economy where the rule of law is not respected?

You have to wonder, Mr President, why it is that those opposite are so desperate to stop the restoration of the rule of law to the workplace and particularly to the building industry. I answered that question earlier in my remarks: because so many of them come into this place not as servants of the Australian people but as servants of trade union bosses. As servants of trade union bosses, some of them—not all of them—represent no-one and no interests but the interests of trade unions, including militant, lawless, savage and thug-like trade unions like the CFMEU. So let us get on with this debate.