Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I might try a slightly novel approach and return to the question, which is that the Senate take note of answers given by Labor ministers to questions asked by Senators Cash and McKenzie, because what we have heard in taking note today from Labor members opposite is no words at all in relation to the questions that were asked by Senators Cash and McKenzie.

As I watched that 60 Minutes program recently—we're talking about it today because it's the first opportunity we have had, because we're back here in the parliament this week—I lamented what had happened to the industry that I worked in for 25 years before coming to this place. To see the corruption, the violence, the disgraceful activity and the actions that are being facilitated by the legislation passed by this government and denied by this government—let's not forget the words in Senator Cash's question. The Prime Minister gave this issue four words. That's four more words than we heard from those opposite in response to the motion that we're debating. He doesn't talk about it and he doesn't want to know about it. He wants to pretend it's something else. So what do Labor do? They talk about us and they talk about our leader. They're not prepared to go anywhere near addressing the issues relating to corruption, violence and disgraceful behaviour in the CFMEU, particularly in Victoria but now spreading to other states of this country. They're not prepared to address the fact that construction projects where the CFMEU are engaged cost 30 to 40 per cent more because of the activities of the CFMEU. They do, however, continue to take the CFMEU's money, as Senator McGrath quite rightly said.

I lament what has happened to my industry. Over the 25 years that I spent in construction, I worked with a lot of union members who were fervent in their support of people working in the sector. They played a pretty hard game at times, but nothing like this. We didn't have bikies, we didn't have standover—well, not so much standover, but we didn't have bikies. We didn't have people doing jobs where, as was disclosed on 60 Minutes, they were paid $10,000 a week to do nothing. Yet this government gets rid of the ABCC, which had a 91 per cent success rate in prosecuting union misconduct—and employer misconduct, for that matter. This is not one-sided and this is not just about the unions. Employers have a role in this as well and should, equally, be held to account for the behaviour.

Even the administrator, Mark Irving KC, has admitted that the union's corruption is worse than initially reported, and Labor revert to one thing: it's the coalition's fault. Yet they were the ones who changed the legislation so that it is the unions who decide who you work with, not a business. A business doesn't decide who its subcontractors might be; the unions get to decide that. That is corruption, and the Labor Party legislated for that to occur. They are the facilitators of this activity and they should be condemned for it. Every time we tried to change industrial relations, they ran a scare campaign against us. They opposed the reintroduction of the ABCC—they have killed it off twice—yet its success rate is a matter of public record.

Corruption investigator Geoffrey Watson SC, who was appointed by Mark Irving, the administrator, has accused the Victorian Labor government of running a protection racket. This government pretends they haven't seen or heard anything about this matter. It's an absolute disgrace.

Question agreed to.