Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Hansard source

Yes. I'm sure Senator Bilyk can take it. But listen to this, from Geoffrey Watson SC. And it is not a politician who is saying this. It is a senior counsel who is saying this, in relation to his investigation of the CFMEU: 'On 30 June 2021 two Victorian branch organisers were bashed at a site in Hawthorn East. It was a serious attack. One of the organisers lost sight in an eye. I was told by a senior official that the Victorian branch did not engage with the police but instead went to'—guess who!—'Mr Gatto to negotiate.' We go to an underworld figure to negotiate. That's the way of the CFMEU—when one of their organisers lost sight in an eye on a construction worksite. This is what Geoffrey Watson SC says, not me:

From my investigation, it appeared to me that, in this cycle of intimidation and violence, the CFMEU had lost control.

… on the information available to me, I consider that the Victorian branch has been infiltrated by OMCG and by organised crime figures.

You didn't hear any of that from Senator Sheldon. We'll see if we hear any of it from the Greens or anyone else on the Labor side. He said, 'infiltrated by outlaw motorcycle gangs'. When Senator Sheldon talks about flags being displayed, as if you're just attacking them because of flags, these aren't flags. They're the equivalent of the colours of an outlaw motorcycle gang. They go around with Hell's Angels on their back. That's what it's all about—bullying, intimidation, staking ground and corruption.

This is what Geoffrey Watson SC says: 'In witness interviews, officials commonly referred to giving enterprise bargaining agreements to entities rather than entering into enterprise bargaining agreements with entities. In the words of one senior official, "We want to unionise the industry; that's our job." I understand that certain kinds of EBAs hold special value. One organiser told me that an Indigenous labour hire agreement was a licence to print money and a gold mine. I'm aware of EBAs entered into between the CFMEU and entities connected with underworld figure Faruk Orman. I'm also aware of evidence that EBAs could be in effect transferred through the sale of an entity, thus giving the EBA a trading value.' That's the mentality of the CFMEU. That's the mentality you're dealing with here. They have an enterprise bargaining agreement which has value. They will give it to a company or entity—it's not about the workers—which in this case was connected with an underworld figure, and then that company or the shareholders can sell to another company and crystallise the value of that EBA. That's the scam that was going on. It's absolutely outrageous. The workers are at the bottom of the heap in these practices. It's absolutely outrageous.

I want to talk about some of the sections in this bill, because this bill contains a number of provisions which mean that it wouldn't be the decision of politicians to actually take away the right of someone to be an official in a union like the CFMEU. It's actually up to the court. You didn't hear back from Senator Sheldon. This is about rule of law—something the CFMEU doesn't recognise. The CFMEU doesn't recognise rule of law. The High Court said that. They're the most recidivist union in Australia's history. They don't care. It's a cost of doing business. But this bill recognises the rule of law. It is only if an official of a union has been found to have committed a particular offence or contempt of court; engaged in some other sort of criminal finding or contempt; engaged in multiple failures to prevent contraventions by an organisation; committed some other impropriety; or are not fit and proper because they've been found to have engaged in fraud, dishonesty, misrepresentation or concealment of material, facts or a breach of duty that a application can be made to the court. Then the Federal Court decides what should be done.

I want to read this section, because this is very important. 'Under the bill being proposed by my good friend Senator Cash, the decision as to whether someone can be an official in a union like the CFMEU after they have committed certain offences or contempt or have engaged in some other egregious behaviour is made by the court.' Isn't that the way the system is meant to work? In rule of law, the court makes the decision. In section 222 subsection (2), the Federal Court may make an order disqualifying the person from holding office in an organisation for the period the court considers appropriate. It's if the court is satisfied that the ground for disqualification set out in the application applies to the person—they have been found criminal or in contempt or have shown some other egregious behaviour—and the court does not consider it would be unjust to disqualify the person, having regard to the nature of the matters constituting the ground, the circumstances and nature of the person's involvement and any other matters the considers relevant.

So the court has absolute discretion to decide whether or not someone, given their criminal record, given their past behaviour or given them being found in contempt of court, should be disqualified. Even in that situation, under the bill presented by Senator Cash and under the principles of the rule of law, the Federal Court receives an application that someone should be disqualified for a nominated period, and then the court considers all the facts. The court considers whether or not there are any other relevant circumstances. The court considers the nature of the matters which have led to the application, including, no doubt, the seriousness of the offence. The court considers the circumstances around that person's involvement in the matters: Were they a driving force? Were they simply a bystander? This is all up to the court, and the court can consider any other matters it considers relevant. It's entirely up to the judge who's sitting there considering the evidence, including the evidence from someone who's making an application that a person or a registered organisation be disqualified and the evidence from the other party who's defending that application and seeking not to be disqualified. The judge considers it. The judge makes the decision and considers the seriousness of the matters. The judge considers all the circumstances, including how intimately involved the person was in relation to the relevant activity—whether or not they were the motivating force or along for the ride. The judge considers all this. It's not politicians; it's the judge. That's what this bill provides. It provides rule of law, something which the CFMEU thumb their noses at. They don't care about rule of law; they just steamroll over the top of it.

Our highest court in the land, the High Court, has called the CFMEU out in relation to this. What is objectionable with a bill that says if someone commits a criminal offence and has been found guilty or if someone has been found to have committed fraud, dishonesty or some other egregious behaviour then an appropriate person can make an application to the court that this person not hold a senior position in a union, which gives them all sorts of rights, including right of entry? That person has a right to defend themselves, either personally or through their union, and then the court decides whether or not they should be deregistered or disqualified. The court decides, and there's no limitation on the discretion of the court. The court can consider any evidence that's relevant to the matter, and then it's up to the court. How could you possibly object to that?

This isn't about government making decisions that people should be disqualified or that a registered organisation should be deregistered. It's up to the court. That's the process we should have. These serious matters should be dealt with by the court. How can you seriously object to that? However, I have no doubt that those sitting on the government benches will continue to defend the indefensible, and that itself should send a message to the Australian people: when it comes to choosing between the interests of the Australian people and the CFMEU, that side, that mob, will choose the CFMEU.