Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024. I thank Senator Lambie very much indeed for bringing this important bill before the Senate for us to consider. It's something that should be supported by everyone here and by anyone who wants to see freedom of association—enabling individuals within groups and organisations to have the right to determine who they associate with. I can't see why it would even be controversial.

Anything that dilutes the pervasive influence and control of the CFMEU is a good thing. This union does appear to be losing friends. First, we saw the mining and energy division wanting to leave, and now the manufacturing division—the textile, clothing and footwear division—wants to do the same. I don't blame them at all. Why would they want to be associated with characters such as John Setka? One of the good things that we've seen is that he's announced he's going to be retiring. It's going to be good to see him exit this landscape of trade union control and, obviously, the negative things that we see that he has been associated with. Nonetheless, it's right and proper that sections within this organisation want to distance themselves from the lawlessness and thuggery that we see within the CFMEU. Why would you want to be associated with it? It's absolute anathema.

We're seeing the Labor Party fighting this tooth and nail, although it's surprising to see Senator Watt, the representing minister here in this place, get up and speak for about 40 seconds against this bill. What does that reveal about where things really are within the Labor Party? Where is the line-up of Labor speakers on this bill? This is an absolute joke. It's a shame that this is going on. Given that trade union membership has been in freefall for a long time, they don't want to see the unions break themselves apart. According to the ABS, union membership in the private sector is at 8.2 per cent. That is a long way from the union's glory days in the 1970s, when union membership was at 51 per cent. It was 51 per cent in 1976, and it has dropped to less than 10 per cent. That includes workforces such as the public service, where we know there's a much higher union membership, and it includes nurses. When my wife was a nurse, she had to be part of the federation to get her insurance; that necessitates membership for some workplaces. Those workplaces are included in that figure. In my home state of Western Australia, in the mining area, union membership is hardly even a thing. People wouldn't even consider it, because they're not seeing the value in it.

Here's an organisation that wants to separate from the CFMEU. The textile, clothing and footwear section of the manufacturers part of the CFMEU want to leave, and I think they should be supported in doing so. They should be able to do that. Yet, under the cover of darkness and with the rush through the parliament of the amendments to the so-called closing loopholes bill only a couple of weeks ago, we've seen the right of unions to go through their democratic systems and processes to make a decision to determine for themselves to leave and separate being taken away. Unions should be able to do that and should be supported in doing that, so Senator Lambie is right to bring this bill before us. I would go a step further and not narrowly cast it just to the CFMEU. I think a trade union or any organisation that wants to be able to separate and go its own way so that it can better serve its members should be able to do so. Maybe it could be expanded, Senator Lambie—through you, Chair. I think there's a good case for that to happen.

But we know this government is beholden to the trade union movement. They have been since the failed Whitlam government, and that is certainly present in this Labor government. They are absolutely beholden. This government is the gold standard for delivering its paymasters' wish list, and it has proven that since the election. They are resolute in delivering for their traditional owners: the trade union movement, the ones that are funding their existence. They are beholden to them, and they have acted in haste in delivering for them their wishes.

Under this government's fair work bills—several have come through this place now—it's attempted to insert pernicious trade union influence in just about every workplace across the country. Let it be remembered that this is the government that abolished the critical role of the ABCC in their first tranche of IR laws—and, boy, did they move at pace with that! We had an about 21-day inquiry, I think it was, into that. That didn't allow time for scrutiny, which seems to be the way with this government. They're happy to do things with real pace and not allow proper scrutiny, as we see with the amendment that this bill is trying to address. The government was resolute in ensuring that the first thing they did—one of the big, hallmark things that they were able to do in their first couple of months of government—was take away the ABCC, which we all know they had their sights set on, and which was actively providing assurance and protection for workers in the construction industry. For the government to take that away has been a real shame.

One can hardly think of a bigger Christmas present than the one that was delivered by this government to the trade union movement in November 2022, and that was the abolition of the ABCC. What a glorious Christmas present they all received that year! Master Builders Australia estimates that the abolition of the ABCC alone will cost the economy $47 billion by 2030. Productivity is at an all-time low in this country, and it's little wonder when you don't have a cop on the beat ensuring that workplaces are operating and that there's not undue influence by trade unions that are exerting control not necessarily to the benefit of their members but just in their self-interest. I think it's something that needs to be dealt with. Unfortunately, this government isn't serious about that.

The ABCC, an integral oversight body with a proven track record of winning prosecutions against union thuggery, would've been the agency that was more experienced and more strongly placed to provide the supervision of building and construction workplaces. The ABCC was for the longest time the adversary of the CFMEU, and the government couldn't move quickly enough to see the abolishment of that agency after the 2022 election—the same agency which investigated and prosecuted nefarious behaviour and law-breaking activities by the CFMEU. This is what the ABCC was doing, but now that it's no longer there, of course, there's a free-for-all, because this government doesn't want to see these organisations held to account and monitored. It doesn't want to ensure that they are, in fact, providing support in an appropriate way to workers within these industries. A Federal Court judge recognised that there was 'systemic unlawful conduct', while another Federal Court judge once said of the CFMEU:

The union has adopted the attitude that it will not comply with any legislative constraints, placed on its operations, with which it disagrees. Such an approach is an anathema in a democratic society.

We know that the CFMEU has a long history of being one of the ALP's biggest donors as well. For example, the Victorian branch of the CFMEU was one of the largest donors to the Victorian ALP in the lead-up to the October 2022 Victorian election. We know that total union donations across all unions to the ALP were $22.4 million between 2021 and 2023. Now, $22.4 million is enough to influence your thinking, isn't it? That's why we're seeing this government act in haste to protect their union.

Not only that; they also spent a motza on campaigning directly for the Labor Party, so it might not necessarily be money that's going to the Labor Party through their donations. You see their ads on television and social media, where they pump millions of dollars. Through disclosure we know that $23.37 million has been directly spent on political campaigning by the union movements. They're entitled to do that. I've got no problem with that. Any organisation is entitled to campaign in this free democratic society that we live in. That's not my beef. My point is that when you see the enormous amount of money that is spent it's little wonder that these guys over here, the Albanese led government, are completely beholden to the trade union movement, especially the CFMEU.

I think the fact that they can't come in here and defend against this bill shows it all. Getting only a 40-second speech from the representing minister, Minister Watt, here in this place on this issue bells the cat and shows exactly what's going on. They are embarrassed by this union, and they should really be doing something about it. One thing that they can do is support Senator Lambie's bill. It's very simple. We're just wanting to see freedom come into the trade union movement to allow people to exercise their democratic right. If groups within the CFMEU want to separate, and they think they can best serve their constituency and their members by being out there on their own, then that is a great thing.

The other question on the deafening silence on this debate is: where are the Greens in coming out in support of the women that are part of the textile, footwear and clothing industry? We know there are significantly higher proportions of women working in this sector compared to other parts of the CFMEU. Of course they don't want to be associated with the likes of John Setka. Where are the Greens? They are always in here advocating, rightly, for women—good on you; fantastic. But where are they on this issue? Are they also beholden? It seems that they are, because they're deathly silent on this. Come on! Where is the Greens line-up of speakers? Was there even one on this list? I don't think there was. Not a single Green was prepared to speak on this, to defend this. They would be embarrassed to stand up here and do that, because they know they're complicit in it by standing by and allowing this lawlessness to continue.

I must conclude. In 2020, the former coalition passed legislation that enabled greater flexibility to branches and divisions of amalgamated registered organisations. We provided an opportunity to withdraw from amalgamation if that would better serve them and their members. Interestingly, the Labor Party supported it at that time. In opposition, Labor supported that amendment. Yet we've seen now, in government, that as soon as they had the opportunity they've ripped that away. Just like with the stage 3 tax cuts, the Labor Party has a different position when in government, and it's shameful. The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union should be allowed to depart from the notorious CFMEU if they want to. It makes sense that, where one part of the organisation has a record of not complying with the law, this causes reputational damage to them, good people who are wanting to represent the rights of their workers and their members. If they're embarrassed or don't want to have that association—and I completely understand why—and want to disassociate themselves from those activities, they should be able to. Why would you continue to force them to be wedded to lawlessness? Why would you continue to force them to be wedded to thuggish behaviour? It's unacceptable, and they should be free to leave.

As I said at the start, I commend Senator Lambie for bringing this bill forward. It's something that she has been a strong advocate for. I recognise—particularly, out of all of the crossbenchers, I've got to say—her application in the inquiries. I'm deputy chair of the education and employment committee, and Senator Lambie was at almost all of the hearings that we held. She's diligent. She's focused on this. And I think this bill is worthy of the full support of everyone in this Senate.

Debate adjourned.