Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No.2) and I congratulate Senator Cash for introducing this private senator's bill into this chamber. Nothing has been clearer over the past few months than the fact that this ABCC is absolutely needed, that a tough cop on the beat is absolutely needed in the building and construction industry. It was an absolute travesty that this Labor government, once again, following the instruction set given to them from above by their union masters, wiped out the ABCC, wiped out the tough cop on the beat that kept the building and construction industry in some semblance of order.

It is quite shocking, quite revealing, to see those opposite, after having spent years and years and years in opposition, running a protection racket for the ACTU and the CFMEU in particular over these kinds of behaviours, not after one or two but after literally thousands of examples of malfeasance, wrongdoing and criminal activity. They continued to run the protection racket for the CFMEU until the evidence just got so overwhelming that they themselves had to appoint an administrator to the union. That's how bad it got. But before appointing that administrator, of course, they made the situation worse. They made the situation worse by repealing the role of the ABCC, by removing the ABCC, the Building and Construction Commission, from the scene of the building and construction industry.

It's not Liberal Party politicians who are pointing out the serious problems with the CFMEU. It's Labor's own Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission, in court documents, has said that the CFMEU broke the law 2,600 times. They have had $24 million levied against them in fines over 20 years. This is not something that just appeared a couple of months ago when the Labor Party finally decided to take action; this is something that has been going on and has been talked about for decades. That is why, when we were in government, we introduced the ABCC. We introduced the cop on the beat to police this industry.

Now, ironically, those opposite say: 'But it should have been tougher. It needed to be tougher.' We tried to make it tougher. We tried to give it more powers; you stopped us. The Labor Party and the Greens combined to stop giving the ABCC the powers it needed. Now, dragged kicking and screaming in the face of overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, finally the Labor Party has done something about it. It was kicking and screaming, and the reason why is pretty clear. The CFMEU has donated $6.2 million to the Labor Party in the time of Anthony Albanese's leadership alone. It is quite extraordinary that this is the sort of funds that are flowing from an organisation that broke the law 2,600 times—again, these are not my words nor Senator Cash's statistics; this is coming from Labor's Fair Work Commission—and have faced $24 million in fines.

I wonder what outrage we would see from those opposite and particularly from the Greens if a private company had faced 2,600 breaches of the law and faced fines of $24 million. Think about the howls of outrage that would have come from the Left if a company had been found to be that bad and that criminal—repeatedly, not just once or twice. There have been 2,600 incidents. There have been 2,600 breaches of the law. Think about the howls of outrage you would get from the Left, the Labor Party and particularly the Greens if a company had done this sort of activity. But what do you get about the CFMEU, particularly from the Greens? Absolute crickets.

The Labor Party has been dragged kicking and screaming to put the union into administration after years and years and years of running their protection racket. In estimates, time after time we saw coalition senators attacked for daring to raise issues about the CFMEU's behaviour on worksites. We got attacked over and over again for daring to say that there was a problem in the construction industry that needed to be fixed. Some industries do have systemic problems. They have systemic issues that mean that the government's response, the legal response to those industries, does have to be different. Not all industries are the same. We have a different legal framework around, for example, casinos because there is the risk of things like money laundering. So sometimes we look at an industry, and as legislators we say: 'There's a problem here. It needs to be fixed.' That's what the previous Liberal government did with the building and construction industry.

Labor unwound, again following the instruction list handed to them from above by the union movement. And then they regretted it because then, as the clear criminality and lawlessness inside the building and construction industry, particularly the CFMEU, came to light, they came under political pressure to act. I'm sure there was a lot of internal political pressure not to act as well, but they did act. But now they have an opportunity to actually restore the balance in the building and construction industry. There is plenty of evidence that the presence of and the behaviour of the CFMEU, their approach to the building and construction industry, has forced up costs for every Australian. And it's not just something that affects perhaps governments or large companies; it affects people. It affects people buying an apartment, buying a house. It pushes up costs in the industry, from some evidence, by 30 per cent—a 30 per cent increase in construction costs thanks to the behaviour and activity of the CFMEU. It is quite extraordinary that that is something that would be tolerated by any government.

The legislation before the chamber today gives us the opportunity to redress the balance, to get some semblance of legal order back into the building and construction industry. These behaviours, which have been on display in the past, have been clearly revealed through these 2,600 breaches of the law and the $24 million in fines levied against the CFMEU over the last 20 years. This kind of lawlessness, which, let's face it, is a form of corruption in our society, effectively allows for standover tactics, heavy-handed behaviour, bullying, abuse and potentially direct corruption—that is, the payment of bribes—to flourish. We need a tough cop on the beat to make sure that these kinds of behaviours are investigated and, when they are found, punished with the full force of the law. This kind of behaviour cannot be allowed to stand.

I find it quite extraordinary that in the Australia of 2024 we have someone like a John Setka who up until a few months ago was considered a leading light of the union movement, but who once he was removed from his union got a tattoo saying 'God forgives, the CFMEU doesn't'. That is a direct threat against Labor politicians, it's a direct threat against those who don't want to deal with the CFMEU, for very obvious reasons, and it's a direct threat to the legal system of this country. It should have opened everybody's eyes to just how dreadful this organisation has become. But it's not something that just appeared; it's something that has been around for a long time.

Once again, those opposite cry crocodile tears and say: 'You were in government. Do something about it.' We tried. We tried to strengthen the laws, and those opposite know this. We tried to strengthen the laws, and the Labor Party and the Greens blocked us at every turn. They did not want a tough cop on the beat, but they've got a chance to prove they're actually serious about this issue now. They have a chance to support this legislation, to recognise that this industry is one that does need special consideration in terms of the way it is policed and in the way it is oversighted by this parliament and the legal system as a whole.

Once again, if we saw an individual or a private company with 2,600 offences listed against it, if we saw an individual or a private company with $24 million worth of fines levied against it, that individual would probably be in jail and that business would be out of business. I mean, let's face it. But here we have a union that, sure, has been put into administration, but it still continues on; it still exists. I feel that unless we return to having a strong body with powers of investigation, powers to actually go into the workplaces to see what is going on in those workplaces, this bullying, this harassment, these standover tactics, this criminality—it might disappear for a little while, but it will creep back in.

Unless we take a stand, unless we stand up to the thuggery, unless we actually recognise what is happening here in a genuine way, unless the Labor Party stops following the playbook handed to them by the union movement, we will never solve these issues.