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

I rise to speak in support of Senator Lambie's private senator's bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024, and I thank Senator Lambie for bringing this bill to the chamber. Personally, I wish she didn't have to. Why do I say that? Because in 2020 the former coalition government actually passed legislation to enable constituent parts of unions who did not want to be part of the larger union to demerge. Why did we do that? Because we saw it as being in the best interests of those workers who said: 'Guess what? The bigger union doesn't suit me'—and I'm going to go through why they may have said that—'and we no longer want to be part of it.'

But guess what? The reason we are standing here today—given that, as I said, in 2020 the former coalition government passed laws to allow this to occur—is that unfortunately now the Labor Party are in government and, as we know, once the Labor Party are in the government they must deliver on the union agenda. The question people need to ask themselves is: why? Why do the Labor Party deliver on the union agenda? The answer is very simple: because the Australian Labor Party, as we know it today, was formed by the union movement. They are actually one and the same thing. So, when you say that the Labor Party, when in government, are able to deliver on only one agenda, it's not the agenda that is in the best interests of the Australian people. It's not the agenda that Senator Lambie said is in the interests of, in particular, vulnerable women.

And I have met some of those women. They can't be named, for very obvious reasons; we can call a spade a spade in this place: they don't want retribution taken against them for standing up to the most militant union in Australia. But they are screaming out to the Australian Labor Party for help. They are saying to the Australian Labor Party, 'Please, will you allow us at least the decency of a secret ballot to get the hell out of this union?'

And do you know what the Australian Labor Party say? As Senator Lambie said, they're very good. They talk the talk, when they talk about protecting women in this country, but they don't walk the walk. And, when this bill goes to a vote, whether it's today or the next time it comes in this place, let's see what the Australian Labor Party actually do. Do you capitulate to the most militant union in Australia? Or do you stand up for the rights of the vulnerable workers, overwhelmingly represented by vulnerable women in this country, and merely give them the opportunity and the right to hold a secret ballot to consider whether they wish to demerge from the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, otherwise known as the CFMEU, in Australia?

When I met with a number of these women I asked them, 'Why do you want to demerge?' And they were very clear. They said that they are sick and tired—these are Labor Party people saying this—of being associated with the actions of the militant members of the construction division of the CFMEU and its current leader, John Setka. I said to them, 'Tell me why, though.' And they talked about intimidation, standover tactics and even violence from members of this union. As I sat there and listened to them it was pretty obvious to me: well, why wouldn't these women want to be given the opportunity to vote to demerge in a secret ballot? And as Senator Lambie said, we all understand why it's got to be a secret ballot. You couldn't put your hand up and have the unions watching you do this, because you'd soon find out what they thought of you. But, under the Albanese government, they're not even allowed the opportunity, in a secret ballot, to demerge from the most militant union in this country.

As I've said, I'd like to see this bill go further. I would personally have liked to have seen the Australian Labor Party not bring in the changes that they did, which actually threw the good policy—which the unions asked for in 2020 and which we delivered for the union movement, in the very best interests of the workers of the unions—out the door but a few weeks ago.

I thought that in this country we held dear the principle of freedom of association. I thought we said to Australians: 'We fundamentally believe in your right to be or not to be a member of a union. It's your right—freedom of association.' That's why we passed our laws in 2020. It's because we fundamentally believe in freedom of association. This is your choice. It is not my choice. It is not Senator Lambie's choice. It's certainly not the Australian Labor Party's choice, yet the Australian Labor Party stand here today, for all their big headlines—as I often say, always look behind the press release with the Australian Labor Party because the press release is just some nice words. Look at what they're actually doing—they've already done it. They have taken away the right of workers—in this case, textile, clothing and footwear workers, timber workers and furniture workers—to demerge from the CFMEU if they so choose. So much for freedom of association under the Australian Labor Party!

But what's even more ironic—the minister talked about closing loopholes. I am yet to understand how this was a loophole, because, when the now Labor government were in opposition, they actually supported the legislation the coalition government put through. This is what Minister Burke said in 2020:

The problem with the provisions as they currently exist is that they only provide a window of between two and five years after an amalgamation in which a vote of that kind can take place. It's a narrow window that doesn't contemplate the possibility that the desire for a demerger and the reasons for a demerger may arise after that five-year window.

He didn't just say it. He then voted for our legislation. Assistant Minister McAllister was even more strident in her comments. She said:

We also need to recognise the principle of freedom of association, which includes a right to join or leave a group, and that right doesn't only operate within a three-year time period …

I'm no longer sure what happened. You believed in freedom of association in opposition when we brought forward the legislation. You acknowledged that there were problems with the provision, but I'm beginning to think that Minister Burke and Assistant Minister McAllister are now very much like the Prime Minister of this country, Mr Albanese. They say their word is their bond. Again, look behind what they say. By their own actions it is patently evident that their word is not their bond. They don't believe in freedom of association. They don't believe that there are problems with the provisions. In fact, they've now created problems with the provisions. I'm not sure, again, what loophole they were trying to close when they supported the closing of the loophole back in 2020.

Why would members want to get out of a union? Let's consider that question. For example, what if one part of the organisation in question has a record of not complying with the law, and this causes reputational damage for the amalgamated organisation? What if workers in another part—timber, manufacturing, footwear, textiles—want to get out? What are the Australian Labor Party saying in this place? They are saying, 'No, you cannot.' So, as I said, I am very pleased that Senator Lambie has brought this bill forward because, like Senator Lambie, the coalition are very, very pleased to be able to fight for the rights of members of the manufacturing division of the CFMEU—which includes the textile, clothing and footwear workers, timber workers and furniture workers—to hold a secret ballot to demerge from the CFMEU.

As Senator Lambie has said, this is a union made up mainly of women that isn't allowed a secret ballot to take charge of its own future—wow! Shame on the Australian Labor Party. I hope I never see another photo of any of you standing next to those women who are on bended knee begging you for the right to hold a secret ballot so they can demerge from this militant union. But you have no shame. I'm quite sure you'll be out there taking photos with them, yet you won't deliver on what I would say are fundamental rights for them: (a) freedom of association and (b) the right to get out of this union and not be associated with them.

Why don't these women want to be associated with the CFMEU? Well, let's see what the High Court of Australia has said about this union. This is not me speaking; let's look at what the highest court in the land has said about this union: it is a 'serial offender' that will 'engage in whatever action, and make whatever threats, it wishes, without regard to the law'. And, at that time of the handing down of this judgment, the union: had contravened laws on approximately 150 occasions; was well resourced, having more than sufficient means to pay any penalty that the court might have been disposed to impose; and treated penalties for serious breaches of the law as just a cost of doing business.

What is the reality then for the manufacturing division and the textile section of the union? This is their very basic reality. They do not want to be affiliated with this militancy. They do not want to be affiliated with this law breaking. As Senator Lambie put forward in her second reading speech, a union with thousands of women, many of them from non-English speaking backgrounds, wants to be able to have a secret ballot to leave the CFMEU and take control of themselves. Wow! I would have thought that with that sentence alone, Senator Lambie, you could just put the question, the bill would be supported unanimously, we could send a message down to the House, it could go through the House, and we could stand in solidarity with these thousands of women. But that's not going to be the case.

Let's talk about why it is not going to be the case. We know why: they have no money. That part of the union has no money, but the part of the union that does have the money is the part that is dictating the shots. As I said, the Labor Party love taking money from the union. In the last two years the CFMEU donated nearly $5 million to the ALP—$4.8 million. That's a lot of money. The total donation from unions was $22.4 million. In 2022-23 it was $5.7 million. In 2021-22 it was $16.7 to the ALP, with an additional $23.37 million in political campaigning from the union movement. Where do we end up? We end up in a very simple position where the Australian Labor Party, with their opposition to this bill, will be saying to all of the union members who want to get out and to all of those women—in particular, the vulnerable women who want to no longer be associated with this militancy—'We can't support you. Quite frankly, when it comes to the scheme of things, you're completely, totally and utterly irrelevant to us and our agenda. The militancy and the money are going to speak, and we will not be standing with you to give you a very basic right that the former coalition government was prepared to legislate for you.'