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

I also rise to speak on the motion in relation to the exemption of the bill from the cut-off. Let me be clear: the coalition will be supporting this motion. But I have to say, in relation to the speech just given by the minister, Seinfeld could not have scripted it better, because there is a pattern of behaviour in relation to this government—literally. Labor slams the coalition for refusing to rush migration bills through the Senate. Labor slams the coalition and the Greens for refusing to rush the HAFF bills through the Senate. Labor slams the coalition for refusing to rush NDIS laws through the Senate. Labor slams the coalition and the Greens for refusing to rush the closing the loopholes bill through the Senate. Labor slams the coalition and the Greens for refusing to rush the AAT appeal bill through the Senate. Does anybody see a pattern of behaviour here?

This is a government that couldn't care less about the Australian Senate. In fact, I'm quite surprised you don't actually move to abolish the place, because, as far as you are concerned, we have no role at all. You dump a piece of legislation in this place, and you then demand that we put it through with no scrutiny. That is not the way this place operates, in particular—and Minister Watt would love the Australian people not to understand this—when the purpose of the legislation is best summed up by a very famous saying: 'The fox is guarding the henhouse.' This legislation is nothing more and nothing less than a hollow attempt by the Australian Labor Party to try and pull the wool over the Australian public's eyes and pretend that it's doing something to curb the behaviour of what is now the most militant union in this country: the CFMEU. But, quite frankly, what is even more gobsmacking to hear in the speeches is the fact that, apparently, this legislation is so urgent because of the nature of the behaviour. Seriously? Is that some type of joke?

Let's talk about urgency when it comes to this type of behaviour. In 2019, a number of years ago now—five years ago, if you want to talk about urgency—the former coalition government brought forward the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill. Do you know what this bill would have done five years ago to clean up the joint—the CFMEU and the system? It would have included certain serious criminal offences as a new category of prescribed offence for the purposes of automatic disqualification for registered organisations' officials who break the law. But guess what? It wasn't good enough for Labor back then, was it? They turned a blind eye to everything the trade union royal commission had put on the table and said was occurring. Blind Freddy could have told you what was occurring, because of the trade union royal commission.

We brought forward the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill, and it would have started the clean-up process for the system, to hold these union officials to account. Do you know what the Australian Labor Party did? They fought us every step of the way. Senator Murray Watt was the chief protagonist—

in actually ensuring that this legislation did not go through the Senate, and he now jokes in this place as if it's a bit of fun. Well guess what, Minister Watt? Five years ago, we had the opportunity to start cleaning up the CFMEU, and you fought against us every step of the way, and this legislation did not get over the line.

It didn't stop there, though. There was another bill that the coalition brought forward at the time, because the trade union royal commission had told us what Senator Watt and Senator Gallagher have suddenly turned their minds to. It was called the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill. Do you know what this bill was designed to do? It was designed to ensure that members who gave funds to registered organisations could actually rely on that registered organisation to expend the funds in their best interests. In fact, this is in the explanatory memorandum:

The examples of corruption, financial misconduct and mismanagement outlined in the Report—

the trade union royal commission report—

have demonstrated that the existing regulatory framework is not satisfactory in preventing fraud and financial mismanagement, or ensuring acceptable standards of democratic governance in the interests of members. A consistent theme in many of the case studies considered by the Royal Commission was a lack of transparency and accountability of the financial affairs of registered organisations and their associated entities.

That is a bill the former coalition government brought forward: 'proper use of workers entitlements'. And guess what? The Australian Labor Party again fought us every step of the way.

In the first instance you've got the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill that would have commenced a clean-up of this system, a system that we have known for years and years is, quite frankly, corrupt. Those on the other side, Minister Watt in particular, stand here and say, 'It's time. Under the former coalition government you did nothing,' but we didn't have the numbers in this place. But we had the guts in 2016 to go to a double-dissolution election. We staked government on restoring the Australian Building and Construction Commission because we wanted to clean up the building and construction sector in this country. We wanted to stand up for the thousands and thousands of workers who, every day, were being abused by members of the CFMEU. We went to a double-dissolution election. That was the extent of our commitment.

I was the minister at the time, and I remember Minister Watt throwing everything at it to say no. We needed an additional 10 votes from the crossbench at the time. Guess what? We managed to get those votes, and we managed to do it because the Australian public voted us back in. They wanted a tough watchdog on the beat. But we needed the crossbench and their 10 additional votes. You know why? It was because of the Australian Labor Party, the party which has just woken up to corruption in the CFMEU, the bullying and thuggery. Seriously, you've got to go back and watch the videos of former Senator Cameron and now Minister Watt at estimates seriously defending these people and their behaviour. Butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. You have got to be kidding me, seriously!

We went to a double dissolution in 2016 and were fought every step of the way by the Australian Labor Party. I remember the campaigns because I travelled around the country at the time. I remember the abuse. But we were prepared to take that abuse. Why? Because it was in the best interest of the Australian people, and it was in the best interest of the construction sector in this country.

We also stood up the Registered Organisations Commission. Why? Because all registered organisations should actually have to comply with the law. They have a very privileged status in society. A lot of people wouldn't know that unions don't pay tax. How do you feel about that every day, Australian people? How do you feel about that, mum-and-dad small business? Every time you get up, every day, guess what? You earn a dollar, and the government's going to take some from you. You know what happens if you don't pay it? The tax man will come after you, but not when you are union.

They have all these privileges, and yet the trade union royal commission showed they were abusing them. Do you know what Labor did though? They fought us on the ensuring integrity bill. They fought us on the workers entitlement bill. They fought us on the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which we successfully stood up. They fought us on the Registered Organisations Commission bill, which we successfully stood up. There was no bad behaviour—to quote Mr Albanese and Senator Watt and every other Labor member: 'There's nothing to see here in the construction industry. Why do they need a separate watchdog? They should be treated like any other industry. The behaviour is no better and no worse.'

So the money flowed. There was $6.2 million—I mean you have got to be kidding me!—which flowed from the CFMEU to the Australian Labor Party. That is big money in any analysis. No-one knows where it came from. There are plenty of ideas, but no-one knows where it came from. It's since Mr Albanese became the Leader of the Opposition, and you know what the deal was? Mr Setka made it very clear. When you get into office, you abolish the tough watchdog on the beat.

Minister Watt will tell you it wasn't successful. If it wasn't successful, why was the ABCC found by the court in over 91 per cent of cases to be successful? Why did the courts impose in excess of $15 million in fines against the CFMEU in particular? If it was not successful, why did John Setka give Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia, his instructions to abolish it? Because if it wasn't successful, Mr Setka and Mr Albanese, what did the CFMEU have to be scared of? We know exactly what you were scared of—the law. That is why you gave the $6.2 million to the Australian Labor Party, and that is why, as one of their first items of business, they came into this place and said: 'There is nothing to see here. The CFMEU are upstanding citizens. There's no bullying, no thuggery and no intimidation.'

I was casting my mind only the other day back over the Hansard of when we were in office. Question time after question time after question time, we prosecuted the abuse against women in the construction industry—the harassment, the intimidation, the bullying and the thuggery. And do you know what those on that side of the chamber said at the time? They said we were embellishing it. We were making it up. It wasn't occurring.

And now they have been exposed while they are in government. Despite everything they did to ensure the corruptness of the system when they were last in opposition, when we tried to clean it up, despite everything they have done since they got into government to ensure that everything on John Setka's wish list has been ticked off, despite every cent of $6.2 million—seriously, if I was the Australian public I would have real concerns about where this money from the CFMEU has come from. It's from bullying, thuggery, intimidation, outlaw motorcycle gangs, bikies—you name it—but Mr Albanese says there's nothing to see here in relation to this money.

Suddenly they come in here and say the Senate has to pass this legislation. As I said, we will support the exemption from the cut-off, because this bill does need to be debated. The reason it needs to be debated is it's one of the biggest jokes to come before this Senate. I hope we will at least be able to inquire into it, because that's what the stakeholders want—to see what actually needs to go in a scheme of administration. As I said, at this point in time it is a shell and nothing more. It's a shell that entitles the minister to assume, quite frankly, the identity of the fox guarding the henhouse. With the legislation currently before the parliament, the minister has given himself powers to do certain things that not even the parliament can challenge.

Quite frankly, to the Australian Labor Party, you can say what you like. I hope the journos are smarter for once and actually look at Labor's conduct when they were last in opposition, because if you hadn't fought us every step of the way, a lot of this behaviour would not be occurring. What has occurred is on your head but as is always the way, the coalition will help you clean up your own mess.