Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Hansard source

I, too, would like to make a contribution on this extraordinary bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. I say 'extraordinary' not because the bill is particularly extraordinary—in fact, it is probably one of the most un-extraordinary bills I've ever seen in my life—but I say it's extraordinary because we are in this place because we need to have such a bill.

What's most distressing is that we have a bill before us at the moment that really doesn't do what the government is trying to convince the Australian public it does do. They are feigning being tough about some quite extraordinary behaviour for a constituted union in this country. Yet, as we stand here today, the legislation introduced by this government makes dishwater look strong. It is a very, very weak bill and goes nowhere near achieving what the government would like the Australian public to believe it is going to achieve.

Notwithstanding that, the opposition would like to see some stronger action taken in relation to the actions of the CFMEU and the ongoing litany of behaviours that have continuously plagued this organisation because of their refusal to actually be lawful. Every other organisation, institution, individual or political party in this country is required to act within the law, but apparently not the CFMEU.

I have to say, one of the things that amazes me is that we haven't heard more from other unions in Australia, because the CFMEU gives them all a bad name. There are many unions in this country that I would have thought would have been absolutely horrified at some of the behaviours of the CFMEU.

In fact, it was really quite interesting to see that, a couple of weeks ago on television, the member for the Hunter Valley, Mr Repacholi, when he was asked about the CFMEU, kept on referring to it as the 'MEU'—almost as if the 'CF' part of the CFMEU didn't exist, or he didn't want to acknowledge it or to have anything to do with it. Now, for a member of the Labor Party and, obviously, somebody who's very aligned with the mining union because of his background, it's really interesting that he wanted to distance himself from the construction sector part of this union. So I'd call on other unions: if you don't want your reputation to be dragged through the mud as it currently is being, you should also be standing up and saying why you believe the CFMEU, like every other organisation in Australia, should actually have to abide by the rules—that is, to live by the laws of Australia.

But the sad thing about this is just how unbelievably weak this bill is. It professes to be going to do some tough things, but it really does very little. I don't think the government is really telling the Australian public the truth about this legislation. This legislation goes nowhere towards giving any confidence to the Australian public that the scandal-plagued CFMEU is actually going to be brought under control by this legislation. There are many people I have heard say that it looks like a bill that has been authored by the CFMEU; they might as well have written it themselves, because they certainly would not be in fear of any of the legislative provisions put forward by the government in the original bill.

Also, interestingly, the bill gives extraordinary power to the minister. The minister can pretty much do whatever he likes. He could end the administration early if he chose to. So, really, the bill doesn't achieve a great deal, apart from apparently giving power to the minister. When you consider that there are so many members of parliament or senators who owe their place in this place to the CFMEU, you would have to suggest that it's a little bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

But, as we stand here today, probably one of the most egregious things is how much this union and its actions have impacted on the cost of really important infrastructure in this country. This union's behaviours, actions and demands and their unlawfulness have basically placed a tax on just about every single construction-sector project that they have had anything to do with, whether that be building new hospitals, new schools or new roads, or the impact it's having on our housing sector at the moment. It is very easy to sheet home the increase in prices partly to the CFMEU. It's interesting when you speak to the construction sector. They are quite happy—and everyone says exactly the same thing—that there is pretty much a 30 per cent efficiency penalty to deal with any construction that relates to the CFMEU.

So what I would say is that, if the government are really serious about doing more than just virtue signalling about actually making a difference and cleaning up the mess in this country that has been created by the lawlessness of the CFMEU, they will take real action and make sure that they give some teeth to this legislation so that it can deal with the problem that is before us.

The coalition have been very serious. We want to see the CFMEU brought under control and we want the CFMEU, like every other Australian, to have to abide by the law. We have sought a number of amendments, which hopefully we will see the Labor Party support. Clearly, as indicated by their contribution earlier in the day, we can't expect the same sort of sensible support from the Greens, who, for some weird and wondrous reason known only to them, seem to think that running a protection racket for the CFMEU is something that's in their best interest. But, anyway, hopefully Senator Shoebridge will make a contribution eventually on behalf of the Greens, and we might find out why it is their intention to run this protection racket—not just an ideological rant like we heard earlier today.

But the amendments that we've sought to move do a few things. A couple of them, I think, are really important to put on the record. If you're going to put an administrator in, give the administrator the teeth to be able to do something. Don't have a situation where the minister can overrule the administrator in their actions. Be prepared to have the strength of your own convictions. Put what you're saying in the legislation and make sure that the administration time is not something the minister can just cut short because he feels like it. Actually build into the legislation a minimum time that the CFMEU is in administration so we can have confidence that there will be time for the administrator and all the other necessary processes to be put in place so we can clean up this mess once and for all. Therefore, we believe that it should be in the legislation that there's at least a minimum of a three-year administration and the minister doesn't have the ability—should the Labor Party win the next election—to immediately put an end to the administration.

We also don't believe that the scheme of administration should be able to be varied without the application of the administrator. We also believe the legislation must clearly set out what the scheme of administration should do. It should not be solely determined by the minister. For the purposes of transparency, the administrator should be providing reports to this place, this parliament, so that we know what's going on, and those reports need to be provided very soon after the administrator takes on their role. The administrator needs to be given the power to ensure that the actions that are needed to make sure that this corruption that has been going on for as long as I can remember is stamped out once and for all, including things like making sure, for the CFMEU, that a fit-and-proper-person test applies to delegates and officers and that we have appropriate auditing so that the financial dealings of the CFMEU are transparent. Everybody else in Australia who is a public organisation is required to be audited. How come the CFMEU seems to be able to operate behind closed doors without any oversight of anything that they do?

I think the auditor should be paid for by the CFMEU. The taxpayers have forked out enough because of the corruption of this union. It's about time the CFMEU started paying something towards cleaning up the mess that they created themselves.

We need to make sure, as I said, that the administrator has the powers to be able to deliver what this government is promising is going to be delivered by this legislation, because, as it currently sits without amendment, you could not have any confidence whatsoever that that is going to be the case.

The government talks a really big game about how this particular piece of legislation is going to clean up the CFMEU, but the reality is that, if you want to restore respect and trust in this sector, you are going to have to do more than put a piece of legislation into this place that does little more than slap the CFMEU with a wet lettuce leaf. You could drive a truck through this legislation, and I think the government knows it set itself up in a way so as to retain control of what's going on with the CFMEU. This is all smoke and mirrors, and there is really very little substance. We hope we are able to get the necessary amendments through this place so we can strengthen this. Because if we don't, I fear we will end up with the same lawlessness we've seen on our building sites since time immemorial.

If the government were really genuine about making sure this legislation was real, they would accompany it with the restoration of the ABCC, because it was immediately after the ABCC was voted out, chucked out, unceremoniously by those opposite that we started to see a renewed escalation in the absolute blatant and flagrant lawlessness of the CFMEU. Why don't you pass our restoring and ensuring integrity bill which you voted against? You can't come in here and talk out of both sides of your mouths—