Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022, made under the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016, be disallowed [F2022L01007].

Madam Acting Deputy President, with rising inflation, rising interest rates and Australians under pressure from the cost-of-living increases, you have to ask yourself: why would the Albanese Labor government move to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission? We all know the answer to that question: it's because they're beholden to the CFMMEU. As we've said, donations come in to the Australian Labor Party and the CFMMEU's policy wants are then delivered to them. But, given the current economic situation and the importance of the construction industry to the Australian economy, in May of this year economy-wide modelling undertaken by EY showed this: there could be an overall economic cost over the next decade should the ABCC be abolished. Why wouldn't any government, given the current economic circumstances, the continuing global headwinds, the interest rate rises that we saw yesterday, and rising inflation, pause for just one moment and ask: 'Is handing over Australia's construction industry to the most militant union in Australia—as said by the independent judiciary time and time again—actually the right move to make? Is that actually in the best interests of the Australian people?'

I want to share this with you because it is very important. This economic modelling was undertaken by EY and handed down in May of this year. Let's just have a look at it. Regarding key economic costs to the Australian people—ultimately, it's to mum and dad, it's to the Australian taxpayer—this is what EY have said:

This is the reality for Australians who currently have a job in the construction industry:

You need to ask yourself, despite the ideological hatred of the tough cop on the beat—and we all accept that, because the Labor Party's position in relation to the Australian Building and Construction Commission is clear—why would you disregard modelling done by EY that tells you that the whole-of-economy costs between now and 2030 could be $47.5 billion? Not only that but also the lower economic growth that Australia will go through because of the impact on the construction industry will mean 4,000 Australians won't have full-time jobs. Despite every time those on the other side say that that they stand up for the worker and that they need to be doing more to get Australians into jobs, they're about to take out—according to the modelling undertaken by EY—4,000 Australians who won't have a job. And why? Because the Labor Party are beholden to the most militant and thuggish union in Australia.

Then there are the employment and labour cost impacts. Again, this is modelling undertaken by the respected firm EY. The construction industry is, as we know, without a doubt one of the largest employers in Australia. It employs around 1.15 million people. But what we also know is that the construction industry directly supports jobs in other Australian industries—for example, the timber industry, the cement industry, the steel industry and manufacturing. So when you hand over the construction industry to the most militant union in Australia, when you actually take into account the whole-of-economy economic impacts that EY has mentioned, those 4,000 jobs are just the start.

For a government that stands up and says: 'We put the interests of Australians first. We put the interests of Australian jobs first,' they are actually condoning the loss of up to 4,000 jobs in the construction sector. Again, you have to ask yourself: why would a government facing rising inflation, a government facing rising interest rates, a government that openly admits it is facing rising costs of living then move to destroy the fifth-largest industry in Australia, which we know will then have flow-on impacts, downstream impacts, on other industries in Australia? What are you saying to those who work in the timber industry? What are you saying to those who work in the steel industry? What are you saying to those who work in the cement manufacturing industry? This is what you're saying: 'You actually don't matter, because, you see, unless you're part of the CFMMEU, unless you are donating around a million dollars a year to the Australian Labor Party, you do not count.'

But one of the biggest concerns that have been raised with me, with the neutering of the building code and the abolition of the ABCC, is who is going to protect workers in the construction industry from thuggish behaviour. But, what is more, who is going to stop the harassment—and worse—of women by officials within the CFMMEU? That is one of the biggest concerns that have been raised by stakeholders.

What the Labor Party is doing by abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission is effectively condoning the CFMMEU's vile record of appalling treatment of women. And I'm going to build on what Senator Scarr has already put on the record, because, as he said, there is page after page after page of vile behaviour that CFMEU officials have been found guilty of when it comes to the harassment of women on building sites in this country. What does the ABCC do? It's dismissed by those on the other side, but it actually takes action. It takes court action to protect the rights of women in the construction industry. And what does the Australian Labor Party say? 'We don't care what the Australian courts say. All we care about is the CFMMEU.' That is the same John Setka that has been found guilty of domestic violence on multiple occasions, including incidents where he bashed his partner's head against a table repeatedly and another where he pushed her down a staircase.

But let's also go to some of the behaviour that the courts have found repulsive that those on the other side are effectively condoning by abolishing the ABCC. These are just a few examples. A CFMEU official jailed for assault once told a female inspector she was an 'F-ing slut', asking her if she had brought knee pads, as—I quote—'you are going to be sucking off these F-ing dogs all day'. The Australian Labor Party effectively condones that behaviour. The Courier-Mail revealed a CFMEU official allegedly barked like a dog at a female health and safety consultant on a Gold Coast construction site and said this: 'Go on, off you go, you F-ing dog C, go get your police.' He then allegedly called her an 'F-ing dog C' twice more that day.

Some of the sexist incidents recorded in the files of the Australian Building and Construction Commission include a CFMEU official threatening to gang-rape a woman after she inspected their site. One of the union officials also spat at a female workplace inspector during one visit—a female workplace inspector, someone who was just doing her job. She was called an 'F-ing slut' and a 'dog' by the union officials. And do you know what she was doing, Deputy President? She was just doing her job.

It gets worse. CFMMEU delegates, when they picketed a worksite, were accused of harassing the daughter of a builder. Why would you harass the daughter of a builder? Why? The picketers were accused of harassing the daughter of the builder, when she entered the site in her car, by commenting on her breasts and her bottom. Seriously? Young girls have enough issues today—let alone having a thug from the CFMMEU commenting on her breasts and her bottom.

It gets worse, though. A CFMMEU official made three phone calls late at night to a female inspector's mobile phone. The last call logged at 11.23 pm. An anonymous flyer was then circulated referring to the woman as a dog who wanted to become a pole dancer. The flyer gave the name of the woman's husband, her home address and her home phone number. A number of threatening calls were made. One caller said, 'You're an effing rat.' Another caller said, 'Me and my seven mates are going to come and eff you.' A former Fair Work Building Commission employee was subject to intimidation by John Setka and another CFMMEU official. Mr Setka and Mr Reardon made a number of sexually derogatory remarks. She found three missed phone calls from Mr Reardon and one missed phone call from Mr Setka, who left a sexually derogatory message on her telephone. So that's just a snippet of the behaviour that is condoned by those on the other side.

Let me follow up on what Senator Scarr was referring to, in the recent case where the CFMMEU and two of its officials were given the maximum penalty, $151,200, following right-of-entry breaches—get this—which included disgusting slurs on an individual on the $5.4 billion Queensland Cross River Rail project. The judge in that case said—and it was Judge Vasta—he had 'absolutely no doubt' that CFMMEU official Luke Gibson called the safety adviser 'a pumpkin eater', which was meant as a homophobic slur. And guess what? Senator Scarr was right; they had to add an annexure to the judgement to explain what that term meant. Any person who reads it should be utterly disgusted at the words that were uttered by CFMMEU official Luke Gibson, saying that to a safety adviser. What an absolute disgrace! Where is Anthony Albanese in standing up and fronting the Australian people and actually saying the words, 'I condemn CFMMEU official Luke Gibson for saying those disgusting homophobic slurs'?

The judge also says this:

The belligerent response and subsequent behaviour of—

Mr Blakeley and Mr Gibson—

speaks of a sense of entitlement and a recalcitrance to behaving as ordinary decent human beings.

He goes on to say:

The behaviour of uttering quite disgusting homophobic slurs has been consigned to the chapters of the dark history of Australia where the hurling of vitriolic insults which targeted a person's sexuality, race or religion were unfortunately tolerated as if such belittling and bullying was something that a victim just "had to cop". Those days are thankfully gone and only troglodytes would attempt to resurrect them.

For Mr Blakeley and Mr Gibson, who are—get this—allegedly:

… fit and proper persons to hold an entry permit pursuant to s 512 of the FW Act) to utter such slurs to bully and belittle a person simply must be deterred by all means available to a Court.

I would also argue: by all means available to any Australian government, and that includes by ensuring there is a tough cop on the beat. Where is the Prime Minister in standing up and saying any person, in particular a CFMMEU official who utters disgusting homophobic slurs—you have no right to be found a fit and proper person and given a right-of-entry pass, which, quite frankly, is a privilege, to go onto building sites in this country. But what does Mr Albanese do? Nothing. Crickets. I dare him to stand up and condemn and say the name of this official in the same sentence.