Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

as to whether or not they've got the gumption, Senator Pratt—to talk about, head on, the recidivist behaviour of the CFMMEU.

And it's not just me who says that. After the writs for the last election were issued, the High Court brought down a judgement, a unanimous judgement, in the case of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Pattinson. This case involved the unlawful activity of the CFMMEU with respect to using unlawful measures to promote their business strategy of no-ticket no-start on construction sites across this country. And what did the highest court in our nation say? Not Senator Scarr, not someone from the coalition—certainly, don't wait for Tony Burke to refer to it in his media releases on the CFMMEU. It doesn't exist to him. It's the elephant in the room that doesn't exist. But what did our High Court say? Let me quote from paragraph 43. I'll be very interested to hear what the Greens have to say about this, as well, because I'm going to talk about an issue dealing with occupational health and safety and women on our website shortly. This is what the High Court said at paragraph 43—not a Liberal coalition senator; the High Court:

… the Full Court's approach in this case is apt to undermine the primacy of deterrence as the objective of the civil penalty regime in the Act is amply demonstrated once regard is had to the failure of previous penalties to have any deterrent effect on the CFMMEU's repeated contraventions of s 349(1) of the Act—

their repeated contraventions of section 349(1) of the act. What do those opposite say to that? It goes on:

The circumstance that the CFMMEU has continued to breach s 349(1), steadfastly resistant—

steadfastly resistant—the High Court's words, not mine—

to previous attempts to enforce compliance by civil penalties fixed at less than the permitted maximum, is a compelling indication that the penalties previously imposed have not been taken seriously because they were insufficient to outweigh the benefits flowing unlawfully—

this is our High Court—

to the contravenor—

the CFMMEU—

from adherence to the "no ticket, no start" policy. To the contrary—

our High Court's saying this—

the CFMMEU's continuing defiance—

continuing defiance, snubbing their nose at the rule of law of this country—

… indicates that it regards the penalties previously imposed as—

and I quote the High Court, Senator Pratt—

"an acceptable cost of doing business".

That's what our High Court said.

Subsequently, in the election campaign the Hon. Justice Logan, in the case of Australian Building and Construction Commissioner v Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (the Titan Cranes Case), referred to unlawful activity conducted by the CFMMEU in accordance with its standard business practices, as referred to by the High Court. This is what the Hon. Justice Logan said—not my words, not the words of an ideologically driven Liberal coalition senator, but the judge's words:

The time when enough was enough in relation to compliance with the law by this union—

by the CFMMEU—

its immediate predecessor and, for that matter, others in history, and its officials—

no doubt this refers to the BLF—

has well and truly passed.

That is what the Hon. Justice Logan said in this case. There is no mention of this case in Minister Burke's media release, put out on Sunday, and there will be no mention of this case in the speeches which we are going to hear about workplace health and safety on our construction worksites around Australia—absolutely none. It's the union that dare not speak its name. It is the union whose name they dare not speak: the CFMMEU. When they are found out in photographs with senior officials of the CFMMEU, they can't scamper quick enough in the other direction to say: 'I didn't know such and such was subject to all of these penalties and engaged in all this unlawful activity. I didn't know; he just turned up at the May Day party and was in the parade wearing a big CFMMEU T-shirt. I didn’t know the history of that member of the CFMMEU Michael Ravbar'—who sits around the National Executive of the Labor Party—'in terms of his unlawful activity. No, I don't know.'

We will not hear the term 'CFMMEU' contributed in this debate from the Labor Party. I am absolutely certain of that, because you are embarrassed by them. You're embarrassed. It's your dirty little secret. You're trying to keep it secret from the Australian public, and it's pathetic—absolutely pathetic.

What did we hear from the industrial relations minister, Tony Burke, in relation to the exercise of the rule of law with respect to these industrial relations powers? This is what Tony Burke said: 'We're going to move it to the state workplace health and safety agencies. They can look after this. There's no need for an ABCC.'

I see senator Roberts is here, from my home state of Queensland. The issue we had in Queensland in 2019 is that the Together union, representing public servants in Queensland, had to take industrial action to protect their workplace health and safety inspectors who were members of the Together union from the CFMMEU. How ironic and how pathetic that the Together union—a public service union—had to take industrial action so that their own members—workplace health and safety inspectors—could not be forced to attend 17 construction sites around Queensland, because they were in fear of their own safety on those construction sites.

That's a nice quip, Senator Pratt, but what's your answer to that going to be? Are you going to defend the CFMMEU? Workplace health and safety inspectors in Queensland had to take union action to protect themselves from the thuggery of the CFMMEU. What is your response to that, Senator Pratt? You don't have one, because there is no response. It's your dirty little secret. You want to keep it your dirty little secret and keep it secret from the Australian public. I can assure you of this, Madame Acting Deputy President, we will shine a bright light—