Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

My question is: is this behaviour intimidation, and how broad is that intimidation? Or is it arrogance—an arrogance completely out of touch with community expectations of what is okay and what is clearly not okay: decades of the CFMEU running rampant over small businesses, decades of the CFMEU driving up construction costs and decades of criminal behaviour on our building sites? I can share stories—but there is not enough time here—of people who are known to me who have lost their businesses, who have lost their livelihoods, who have suffered terrible mental health impacts because of the conduct of the CFMEU and the way that they engage with individuals and small businesses who refuse to participate in the behaviours and conduct that they require.

We heard from Senator Scarr about the devastating impact that caused the loss of life of a young man. This is not okay. We can't look the other way. We can't say, 'There is nothing we can do about this.' It is our job to do something about the CFMEU. At the end of the day, it took a week of national media and a 60 Minutes story to get this government to take action. Let's not forget that it was those opposite that abolished the union cop, the Australian Building and Construction Commission. They were warned about this criminal behaviour, but they abolished the ABCC anyway. Why? Out of what—obligation to the CFMEU because of donations, because of the election day volunteers? Why?

I am pleased to see this Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 before us in the Senate, but it is nowhere near enough, and there are some glaring omissions. We have a number of concerns about this bill. It gives the minister far too much discretion with respect to the administration process, particularly the minister's ability to stop the administration process as they see fit. As an example, the minister could stop it the day after an election, if they so chose. We also need to ensure that the administrator will apply to all of the CFMEU's construction divisions, not just a select few. Under the current legislation, the minister could make a unilateral decision to end the administration of one or more of the state divisions at any time.

We must ensure there is an adequate reporting system back to the parliament through the course of that administration. I know that the cleaning up of the CFMEU can only benefit from more transparency and sunlight, and that should be achieved by reporting back to this parliament. There is a complete lack of standards with respect to how the CFMEU needs to change before it can be taken out of administration. The parliament must be absolutely clear in its view that the CFMEU is rotten and needs serious change. We must set out what needs to be done in order for the parliament to be satisfied that the CFMEU has been properly cleaned up and can do its important core job of representing workers, because it has undeniably lost its way. It is not doing its job. That must be outlined in the bill; at the moment, it is not.

Strangely, the bill only provides for an automatic three-year sunset on the administration. So it's suddenly out of administration automatically, even if it hasn't fixed the issues. There is no regard as to whether the administrator, the courts or the parliament are satisfied that the issues by which the administration occurred in the first place have been resolved. The administration automatically ends; it just stops. If we recognise, on both sides of the chamber, that the CFMEU is infected with criminal behaviour and has lost track of its fundamental task and that there is now a rationale to appoint an administrator to clean it up, how can we then say that we'll have no regard as to the success of that administration process in cleaning up these issues before the administration stops? It makes no sense whatsoever. Surely it must be the case that the administration cannot cease until the job is done. The legislation must reflect this, and, at the moment, it doesn't.

Another glaring issue with the legislation as it stands is the matter of political donations during the administration period. It's one thing for a democratic trade union to make donations to a political party. The reality is that that is just a function of our democracy. Whilst, of course, there is a conflict in terms of Labor governments and their IR and workplace policies, it is a democratically elected body making the choice to make a donation. However, under this legislation, the minister sets the terms of the administration of the CFMEU, which is allowed to make donations to the party of the minister that sets their administration terms. Let's have a think about that. The organisation that is under administration as a result of criminal conduct can make donations to the party of the minister setting the terms of the administration. I don't think that passes any test, pub or otherwise. It is an undeniable conflict. It cannot be allowed to occur under this legislation. Whilst the CFMEU is in administration, it cannot be allowed to make political donations.

It is concerning that the government wants to rush this bill through without adequate scrutiny. It should be subject to proper and careful scrutiny. Rest assured, where the government has failed to act, the opposition has sensible, commonsense amendments to ensure that this bill does its job and that it is effective. The administration must apply to all branches of the CFMEU for three years, and the minister should not have the ability to end the administration early. The scheme of administration should only be able to be varied by the Federal Court on the application of the administrator. The legislation must clearly set out what must be in the scheme of administration. This should not be determined solely at the discretion or whim of any minister; it should be clearly set out. As I noted before, political donations, political campaigns, and advertising by the CFMEU should be explicitly banned during the period of administration. That is an entirely reasonable request and requirement, and it should have been in this legislation to begin with.

For the purposes of transparency, the administrator must provide a written report to the parliament every three months, from the commencement of the administration, about its activities and progress, and they should appear at Senate estimates. I think that that in itself is a very clear indicator of good faith and transparency—to note that in legislation as a requirement. The administrator should be given the ability to impose longer expulsion or disqualification periods for officers, as opposed to 'up to five years', as outlined in the legislation. If the administrator sees fit, that longer penalty should apply. Why shouldn't they be able to apply those penalties?

We believe that a new fit-and-proper-person test needs to be introduced for all CFMEU delegates and officers. I spoke about that earlier when I spoke about Mr John Setka and the tattoo that he wanted everybody to see. He wanted everybody to know that the CFMEU would not forget and would not forgive. God would, but they wouldn't. If that isn't intimidation, if that isn't bullying, if that isn't attempting to silence someone, I don't know what is. Is that the type of character that we want in individuals who are leading our organisations? Is that a fit and proper person to be leading the CFMEU or any other organisation?

The administrator must appoint a special-purpose auditor to examine the financial dealings of the CFMEU prior to the commencement of administration, with the cost of a special-purpose auditor paid for by the CFMEU with the lots of money that they've got, not by the taxpayer. That auditor should be paid for by the CFMEU. The special-purpose auditor's first report needs to be tabled by the final sitting day of 2024. The retrospectivity date should be changed from 17 July 2024 to a date prior to the resignation of Mr John Setka. The administrator should be given additional powers to investigate dealings between the CFMEU and other parties, including other registered organisations or political parties. The administrator, in undertaking their duties, should be able to investigate the past practices of the CFMEU that relate to unlawful conduct. They should absolutely be able to look back and see what kinds of systemic issues exist in this organisation and how long they have existed.

The administrator should be given the power to review and amend the rules of the CFMEU. There should be the inclusion of an objects clause which outlines what the administrator needs to achieve before an administration can cease. It should specify what we want to see before we stop administration, rather than just have it automatically stop at a random date three years in the future. The administrator should be given the power to apply for the deregistration of the CFMEU if they deem that to be appropriate, and the administrator must be able to compel officers, employees and delegates of the CFMEU to not associate with an organised crime group or an outlawed motorcycle gang. I can't imagine that anybody would disagree with that or that anybody would have a problem with that.

The administrator should have the ability to renegotiate EBAs. We need to ensure that the administrator is required to exercise their function with specific regard to the objects of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 and with a focus on reducing the adverse effects of industrial disputation, ensuring the CFMEU—its officers, employees and delegates—act in accordance with our law.