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

What material do I have to work from now after that presentation? Who would have thought? I am speaking on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024. Senator McKim says that we are no friend of union movement. I'll tell you what: from what we just heard there, the Australian Greens are no friend of women who want to stand up for themselves and disassociate themselves from a union that is absolutely atrocious when it comes particularly to the bullying and treatment of women in workplaces. For Senator McKim to stand up there in the way that he did, obviously the Greens are thinking there are some votes in it for them. Finally we are seeing the Labor Party stand up against this and the Greens are thinking, 'Here's an opportunity for us to maybe bleed off some votes from the construction division of the CFMEU.' The Australian Greens should be ashamed. Here is an opportunity to right a wrong that has been in place for quite some time and here we have a section of the union that wants to disassociate itself, that wants to remove itself from the CFMEU and change its membership and become an autonomous group, and the Greens party want to stand against that. That just says all that we need to know about them.

We are in this situation, and I am pleased that we are here. I just wonder why it took so long. Why has it taken us so long to get to this situation? The coalition parties and the Australian Labor Party are standing together in condemning the actions and behaviour of a trade union—who would have thought? Anything that dilutes the pervasive influence and control of the CFMEU, frankly, is a good thing. The union appears to be losing its friends. This union appears to be losing its friends and there's little wonder why. We saw Mr Setka, only a couple of weeks ago, hold up against every AFL-loving and sports-following fan in this country. They want to stand up against any construction project on any football field, AFL club or ground around the country just because they didn't get their way. The guy they despise the most, the former commissioner of the construction watchdog, the ABCC, has been appointed back to his old career of umpiring, and just because they're not happy with that appointment, they want to hold up jobs around the country. They want to hold up construction projects around the country because of their vendetta against someone who was just doing his job, to hold this union to account, to stop the thuggery that occurs in workplaces and to stop the intimidation that occurs on construction sites. It's holding our country back. It's holding back the ability to construct jobs and projects in a timely and efficient way because of the union interference. Finally, Mr Albanese has been dragged into this kicking and screaming, but he's working with the coalition to resolve this.

I want to commend Senator Lambie. Earlier in the year she actually brought forward an amendment—or was it a private senator's bill; I can't recall, Senator Lambie—to deal with this very thing. Would the government support it at that time? No. But the coalition did. The coalition backed Senator Lambie all the way on that. And maybe it's because the CFMEU tapped into a vein, because AFL is the biggest sport in this country—sorry, Queenslanders and New South Welshmen, but it is—but there was outrage across the country. There was outrage across the country at the absurdity of Mr Setka calling that out in the way he did. So, finally, the Prime Minister and Mr Burke came forward with a sensible proposition. But it took Mr Setka to threaten the AFL for this decision to finally be made. Here we are, nonetheless, and I'm pleased that we're here.

In February this year, Senator Lambie brought forward a private senator's bill that would have allowed the manufacturing union, which included the textiles union, to demerge from the CFMEU. This government had an opportunity back then to deal with an insidious issue where that section of the union wanted to disassociate itself because they were embarrassed to be connected with the behaviour of the construction division of the CFMEU. This government wouldn't do anything about it then. But, finally, we have a bill here—that we are going to pass today, hopefully—that will resolve this issue and allow the textiles union, in particular, to demerge from the CFMEU. This is a good thing.

This legislation is enabling that demerger and enabling them to disassociate themselves. But I have a question for the Labor Party. Will you go a step further and stop taking political donations from the CFMEU? We know that you're absolutely addicted to those donations. We know that they're the biggest donors to the Australian Labor Party. We know that they provide your resources to campaign and peddle the rubbish you pedal. They know that that's who gives them this funding. This Labor Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the trade union movement, particularly the CFMEU. Will they follow through in the way that they brought forward this legislation? Will they accept donations in the future, or will they do the right thing and start to stand up?

We know that the CFMEU gave the last federal election $4.3 million. Not only that, they have control of their preselections. These guys over here are in their seats; these guys up in the gallery get to have their jobs because of the preselections that occur. And they're all happening right now. Everyone has been facing preselections in recent months or is about to. The union powerbrokers have control over their preselections and decide whether they get to keep their jobs or not.

But they also have control over the funds that come into that party, so will the Prime Minister be ruling out any further contribution from the CFMEU? If ever a government was beholden to the trade union movement since the failed Whitlam government, it is this present Labor government. They are the gold standard when it comes to delivering their paymasters' wish list. When it comes to industrial relations, we've seen their list of legislation go through this place. We've seen the sham inquiries that occur, the way that they guillotine debates and the way that they rush stuff through without proper scrutiny, without proper debate and without a committee process in this place because they are beholden to this union.

They need to start standing up, but will the Prime Minister do that? Will the Prime Minister actually stand up? We know that this Prime Minister is weak. We know that this Prime Minister will not stand up. We know that they will continue to take these donations. We know that they will continue to have this undue influence over their processes and over their party. Maybe we could be surprised, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Under this government's fair work bills, they've attempted to insert pernicious trade union influence into just about every workplace in the country. It wasn't good enough to just have that pernicious influence over construction workplaces; they've now brought it into almost every workplace, including, in particular, small businesses across Australia. That is what this government's agenda is. They're just beholden to the trade union movement.

We know that union membership has declined across this country. About seven per cent of workers are in a union. That includes police, nurses, teachers, public servants. If you were to take them out, I don't know what the number would but it'd be very, very small. We know they're heavily unionised. And there are many good unions, by the way.

I'm not against unions. Senator McKim said that we're no friend of the unions. That's not true. We do believe in the right of association and the freedom of association. My wife's a nurse. She's seen the support of the federation over there in Western Australia. They do good work. The teachers union do fantastic work. There are good unions. But here we have an example, the CFMEU, particularly the construction section of the CFMEU, that clearly is absolutely atrocious, and this government will not call them out. You watch: in any of their contributions on this debate, there won't be any call-out of that. They're just going to appeal to the fact that they've got a group within that want to separate themselves, but they won't call out the atrocious behaviour that occurs.

And it is atrocious. A Federal Court judge once described their conduct as systemic and unlawful, yet, despite this known pattern of behaviour by the CFMEU, this government rushed to abolish the ABCC in the early days after its election. Part of their first tranche of industrial relations law that came through this parliament was to abolish the ABCC. That was an integral oversight body with a proven track record of winning prosecutions against union thuggery, and they couldn't bear it any longer, so what did they do? They abolished it, rather than actually standing up and fighting against the pernicious activity that occurs in those construction workplaces.

Back in the mid-1980s, in 1986, the Hawke Labor government passed a bill which deregistered the BLF, Builders Labourers Federation. This was a union that adopted, as a slogan, Mao Zedong's motto: 'Dare to struggle, dare to win!' In a long history of having leaders that were communists, one actually went to jail. Things must've been bad if the forces of the Labor government were lined up against the BLF, but the spirit of the BLF lives on in the CFMEU. Bill Kelty, former ACTU secretary—and a former AFL commissioner no less—is reported to have said this recently of Mr Setka's threats to the AFL:

You're not entitled to be threatening people, you're not entitled to threaten the AFL …

Why would you be threatening the AFL? The clubs have done nothing. The AFL members have done nothing. So why would you want to damage the AFL or its membership? It's not fair. It's not fair to the clubs, it's not fair to the members.

Why would you make them pay? If you do things in life and you hurt people, you hurt organisations, somebody pays the price. Who will pay the price? It will be the clubs and the supporters.

So it took the recent threats of Mr Setka towards the AFL for this Labor government to finally act. Senator Lambie, as I said, I congratulate you, because this in many ways emulates what you brought forward earlier this year. It took that bill and now these threats on AFL fields across the country for this government to finally come forward with something that addresses it.

Labor should have addressed this issue long ago. We had an opportunity back in the last term of government for the then opposition to support addressing this issue, but they didn't. But finally, with their own bill being brought forward—a bill that very much resembles what we had in the previous term of government and certainly resembles what Senator Lambie brought forward earlier this year—we have an opportunity now to resolve this issue.

One of the things that I'd like to see is an amendment, and I foreshadow the amendment on sheet 2694, which reads:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 to ensure that anyone convicted of more than 10 criminal offences cannot be appointed as an officer of a registered organisation".

We're not asking for much. In fact, it's a pretty high bar—10 criminal offences. Government, why don't you support this as well? Here's an opportunity to make sure that you can't be a union official or hold any office or authority within a trade union movement if you have a record of 10 criminal offences against you. It is a pretty high bar, but let's see if the Labor Party are prepared to do that or are going to continue to go low and support thuggery and the ability for union officials—people of authority within unions—to hold office within these organisations if they carry with them a record of significant offences. Let's see if they have got the guts to go one step further and fix that too.