Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Hansard source

When you think about all the diverse views in this chamber which are the subject of private senators' bills and are always afforded an inquiry, this is not a particularly controversial matter. This is purely a protection racket for an issue, the CFMEU, that the government wants to go away.

The government has pretended to be shocked about corruption in the CFMEU, in the last few weeks. No-one else is surprised, in Australia, that the government has been concealing these issues as part of their alliance with the unions and the CFMEU. All this bill is looking to do is to remove the ability for the CFMEU and the Cbus super fund to access taxpayer funds, because it is an integrity and probity issue here that taxpayers should not be exposed to corruption and wrongdoing. I think, even if there are different views on the idea of having a fund like this—which we don't agree with—everyone would agree that taxpayers should not be exposed to the CFMEU. If it's good enough to put the organisation into administration, then surely it's good enough to protect taxpayer funds invested in this organisation from co-investing with an organisation that the parliament has sought to put into administration.

The fact that there are three CFMEU trustees on the board of the fund and that significant transfers are made each and every year shows that these are linked organisations. The idea that the Cbus fund could co-invest with the Housing Australia Future Fund exposes the taxpayer directly to corrupt activities—and that is before you even look at the litany of examples where the Cbus-CFMEU cartel has sought to impose a significant tax and levy on construction sectors while it has not done so for its own organisations and its own investments. This is a bizarre turn of events for the government to agree, at selection of bills last night, that this fairly uncontroversial proposal would go to an inquiry, take submissions from interested parties and have a hearing. I would say the only reason the government has changed its mind is because it is fearful of further exposure and unpacking of these issues.

The main objective of the government is to stop exposure of these issues. They want to move on. They want to say they've done the job by putting the organisation into administration. They don't want to look at this exposure through the Housing Australia Future Fund. They don't want to look at any of the governance issues in relation to any of the superannuation funds which are linked very closely to the CFMEU with the various trustees and the financial transfers.

It's very clear what has happened here. The government has had a change of heart. It doesn't want to see any further discussion or exposure of these issues. But the Senate's job is to inquire; the Senate's role is to look at any matter—particularly where there have been significant allegations of wrongdoing. It is a very dangerous precedent for anyone to be voting against inquiry and investigation. That is a job that senators are here to do, and people would be rightly disgusted if they thought we were seeking to conceal wrongdoing and corruption.

We're talking about taxpayer funds. We're not talking about private funds; we're talking about $10 billion of taxpayer funds. The only super fund that has sought to engage with the Housing Australia Future Fund is the Cbus fund, which is chaired by Mr Wayne Swan, who, last time I looked was not the chief investment officer of the fund. He was the chairman of the fund. He also happens to be the president of the Labor Party. He is going out there making commitments of $500 million and saying that he wants to commit to co-invest with the Housing Australia Future Fund.

The parliament wants to inquire as to whether this is an appropriate party for the government to do business with, and the Senate is saying, 'We are not even going to have an inquiry into these issues or take submissions from the public.' I'm sure there are a lot of builders and developers who've got evidence about wrongdoing in these sectors that would like to engage with this inquiry and would like to avail themselves of parliamentary privilege because they are afraid to make statements in the public domain where they could be thumped by people who have no regard for the law. It is a very dangerous precedent for the government to be closing down an avenue to have an inquiry into a matter of great public interest where taxpayer funds are at stake.

Original question, as amended, agreed to.