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

all the union money. We managed to stand up the tough cop on the beat.

I was looking back at the dissenting report of the Australian Labor Party at the time, the biggest champions you will ever get for the most militant union in this country, a union whose actions are bullying of the absolute worst variety, a union whose actions are intimidation, again. How would you like your wife and kids threatened? You wake up in the morning and all you want to do is go to work but you don't want to comply with the unreasonable demands of the CFMEU. The Labor Party turned a blind eye to the phone calls that were made late at night, at midnight. I remember the threats of rape. They turned a blind eye to all of that. But what is worse is that they then put in a dissenting report. Why? Because Labor senators 'do not see merit' in the building and construction industry bill. You have to be kidding me!

The Government's repeated attempts to re-enact the Australian Building and Construction Commission … is not based on a genuine requirement for workplace reform, but solely on political motivation.

That's right. Stamping out bullying, stamping out thuggery, stamping out some of the worst forms of harassment, including sexual harassment, was purely political motivation. They went further at the time—I'm surprised John Setka didn't write this report for them—saying:

Workers in the Australian building and construction industry should be subject to the same industrial laws as all other Australian workers.

This is what they went on to say:

We reject both the majority view of the Committee and the Cole Royal Commission's finding that the building and construction industry is special or 'singular' in nature.

Wow! Again, as so many are now saying, how has that worked out for you, Mr Albanese? The bullying, the thuggery, the intimidation.

In fact, I have to say someone reminded me of a movie called Casablanca. There is a scene in that movie, for those who have seen it, where the police captain walks into a room to find that there is gambling occurring in a casino. The shock that those on the Labor Party are now expressing in relation to the behaviours of the CFMEU, quite frankly, is about as genuine as the police captain from the movie Casablanca.

The legislation we have here today is a direct result of the incompetence of the Prime Minister of this country. It is the direct result of the Prime Minister of Australia placing the $6.2 million that flowed from the CFMEU directly into the coffers of the Australian Labor Party. Think about that. Since Mr Albanese became the Leader of the Opposition, $6.2 million has flowed from the CFMEU to the Australian Labor Party. There was one item on John Setka's wish list, and that one item was to be delivered by Mr Albanese, if and when he was elected to government. That one item, as we know, was to hand to Mr Setka the Australian building and construction industry on a silver platter, and that is exactly what Mr Albanese did. The bad news for everybody is that we now know how that ends. It ends here with a piece of legislation that has now had to be brought forward to clean up the mess created by Mr Albanese himself, as the Prime Minister of this country.

This mess lies solely at the feet of Mr Albanese. The problem is that he doesn't really want to clean up the mess. I say that because, when you look at the legislation, quite frankly, a year 5 student who was asked to analyse the flaws in the legislation could drive a truck through it. Based on any analysis—and this is after talking to stakeholder after stakeholder after stakeholder last night—this legislation needs major surgery if it is to work. Quite frankly you've got to ask yourself: is the Labor Party pulling the wool over the media's eyes—because the media seem to believe what the Labor Party have said to date—and the Australian people's eyes? The legislation, if passed, does absolutely nothing, other than give the minister the ability to basically do—I would say 'anything he wants', but, in this case, it's 'anything he doesn't want'.

The legislation, as currently drafted—and it was the Labor Party that drafted this legislation—gives Minister Murray Watt a blank cheque when it comes to this lawless organisation. Minister Watt is one of the CFMEU's own. He has stood on picket lines with them before up in Queensland, defending their behaviour. The legislation looks good in the first instance. But, for example, Minister Watt doesn't have to put anything in the deed of administration if he doesn't want to. There's no requirement in the legislation to put anything in it. On what planet do you draft legislation that doesn't require the minister putting an organisation into administration to put anything in the deed of administration? Again, a year 5 student could tell you that that is either deliberate drafting that Mr Albanese hoped we wouldn't actually pick up or, worse still, is sloppy, which justifies an inquiry into the legislation.

Whilst the minister is able to put in the application for administration, he has also given himself the power, at any time, to bring the administration to an end, and all he has to do is table an instrument in the parliament. Parliamentarians may want to know that the instrument is not disallowable. In other words, if the parliament disagrees, there is nothing that the parliament can do about it. Minister Watt has made a huge song and dance about the fact that all branches of the CFMEU are being put into administration—that is, until you actually read the legislation. Again, the legislation then gives Minister Watt, if it's in the public interest as far as he's concerned, to take branches out of administration, and all he needs to do is table an instrument in the parliament, and it is not disallowable. More than that—

Debate interrupted.