Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Cash) to questions without notice asked by Senators Wong and Cameron today relating to the resignation of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner.

Well, wasn't Senator Cash—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, please resume your seat.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order: Senator Macdonald should withdraw. He shouted the word 'grub' across the chamber earlier. Some might say, 'Look in the mirror,' but I'd ask him to withdraw.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said, 'Apologise, you grub,' and he should.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, we've just heard a lengthy statement from the President about the need to be respectful and the need to treat each other with respect. You were out of order in calling out. I would ask you, without repeating the offence, to withdraw that comment.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I have repeated it. I will withdraw it. But, how about—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Deputy President!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please resume your seat.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've asked you to resume your seat. I want some separation between you withdrawing those remarks and then seeking a point of order. Senator Macdonald?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order: Senator Wong, in taking the point of order, said, 'He should look in the mirror,' which means she is using this—can you sit down at least until I've finished, Senator Wong!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you sit down!

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, resume your seat! I really should not have to repeat my statement that you be respectful. I should not have had to repeat that, and yet I did. I will now hear from Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy President, will you allow me to finish my point of order?

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've heard enough on the point of order. Please resume your seat.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, I see. You just hear as much as you want to.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please resume your seat. I believe that Senator Wong has the call if she wishes to continue. Otherwise, I will go to Senator Cameron.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald reflected on the Chair. He should withdraw.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind all senators of the statements made, not 10 minutes ago, by the President. I appreciate there is a lot of tension in the Senate, and I would ask all senators to be respectful of one another and to be respectful of the chair.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Cash to questions asked by myself and Senator Wong. Well, wasn't it an uncharacteristically subdued performance from Senator Cash today, when she had to answer questions without prepared bile being flung against the trade union movement? Minister Cash knew about allegations against Mr Hadgkiss, allegations that were sufficiently robust to be vented in the Federal Court and sufficiently robust to be proved correct. They were sufficiently robust that Mr Hadgkiss had to concede that what was put before the court was correct.

Minister Cash either colluded with Mr Hadgkiss to cover up his illegal activity or was completely incompetent. Minister Cash had a responsibility to inquire as to whether there was any validity to the allegations that were being made against a very senior Commonwealth officer. Minister Cash failed to do this. She failed to do it because any cursory examination of the allegations that were being made would have resulted in the conclusion that the allegations were correct. Minister Cash failed to ensure that the law that applied in this country, that was under her portfolio, was applied correctly. Minister Cash just failed in the basics of what her responsibility was to ensure that the law was applied.

Did Minister Cash advise the Prime Minister or the cabinet of the allegations that were being made against Mr Hadgkiss? Because if even a cursory examination of those allegations had been made, it would be clear that the person being put forward for a very senior public service position was, in fact, a law-breaker. That is what would have been seen, yet this minister failed to do any examination of the allegations that were before the Federal Court. She continued to work with Mr Hadgkiss and promoted Mr Hadgkiss to a position that he should not have been entitled to take up, given his unlawful behaviour.

I wonder if the minister did disclose the cloud that was over Mr Hadgkiss to the cabinet? If she did, what was this cabinet doing appointing Mr Hadgkiss to a position in which he was supposed to uphold the law but in fact was breaking the law? He was the regulator who was supposed to uphold the law. When did Minister Cash advise the Prime Minister of the illegal behaviour of Mr Hadgkiss? Why didn't Minister Cash sack Nigel Hadgkiss, instead of allowing a two-week extension and providing him with $16,000 of public money while he had admitted to breaching the law? He was a self-confessed person who had undertaken illegal activity, yet he was rewarded by this minister with $16,000. He is a self-confessed law-breaker, given an extra $16,000 of public money by Minister Cash. If that had been some poor worker in a low-paid job trying to get access to the Fair Work Commission for unfair dismissal proceedings, Senator Cash would have waved that away and said, 'No, we don't want people to have access to unfair dismissal proceedings.' But this is a minister who knew that this person had acted illegally, who did not take steps to do anything proper about it, who should not be a minister in this place and who should resign. (Time expired)

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that the Labor Party didn't want to take note of the questions in their grubby attack on Senator O'Sullivan. Perhaps they are reflecting on their grubby tactics when it comes to that. But when it comes to these questions before the Senate at the moment, let's be clear about the difference in standards between this government and the coalition and the Labor Party and their union mates. We've got, on the one hand, Mr Hadgkiss, who has been forced to resign as a result of activity. I understand allegations were confirmed of failing to update a website. There is no doubt that we take the law very seriously and, be they minor breaches or more serious breaches, we have shown the kinds of standards that we will hold officials to. But let's be clear about the alternative and the absolute contrast in the way that the Labor Party treat criminals and law-breakers, the very people who put them in this place.

Let's have a look at some of those people who we are talking about who have breached the Fair Work Act and, in fact, all sorts of other legislation. Labor Party senators here owe their spots in the Senate to some of these criminals and some of these organisations which have engaged in criminality, corruption, standover tactics and violence. They will never condemn them, because they own them. The modern Labor Party is but the subsidiary arm of groups, criminal organisations, like the CFMEU, led by people like John Setka. John Setka is supported by Labor senators in this place and of course the Leader of the Opposition. John Setka has twice been jailed for contempt of court. He is currently facing serious charges of blackmail. In 2015, the Federal Court found him guilty of coercion. Recently, in front of cheering crowds at a CFMEU rally, he said there was nothing wrong with breaking the law before saying disgraceful things about the police and threatening ABCC inspectors.

These are the kind of people that those opposite are close to. They are not just close to them; they are funded by them. They are funded by groups like the CFMEU and by Mr Setka and Joe McDonald, the National President of the CFMEU. He has been found by the courts to have breached industrial law 53 times. He has criminal convictions for assault, trespass and contempt of court. Luke Collier is the labour hire and youth organiser for the CFMEU in Western Australia. Luke Collier has been jailed for violent assault. In 2016, Mr Collier was found guilty of attempting to intimidate an FWBC inspector at the Barangaroo site, using disgraceful language. I am not going to repeat that language, Deputy President, because it is too disgraceful to be quoted in here. It is the lowest level of language.

But of course it goes well beyond that with some of those criminals that I have mentioned. We saw during the royal commission some of these standover merchants and some of this extortion. We have seen violence from the Labor Party's mates. They are not just their mates; they are the people who put Labor senators into this place and Labor members into the House. They are the people who support Bill Shorten and keep Bill Shorten in his role.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: A point, Senator Seselja—

That is, Mr Shorten. They are the people who keep the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, in his role—the likes of John Setka.

Mr Hadgkiss has paid a heavy price for failing to update a website. There is no doubt about that. He has paid a heavy price and he has lost his job. I compare him to his opponents, for whom there is no accountability from the Labor Party, such as the likes of John Setka. This is what John Setka had to say in a tweet:

Good riddance to the rat that is Nigel Hadgkiss. From the widows and families of construction workers, may you rot in hell.

I am going to table this tweet from Mr Setka. That is disgraceful; it is disgusting. I table the document.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You need to seek leave.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I don't. John Setka and his likes are the kind of people who are supported by the Labor Party. I would be very, very happy to compare and contrast. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, what have we seen in here again today? Hypocrisy at the highest level. But what was different about today with Senator Cash was that her performance for her backbench really was less than a D—it really was. We know that when she comes into this place at question time she has her Dorothy Dixers all ready, she has rehearsed in front of the mirror, she is out there and she is stalking, trying to emphasise what she is trying to put over not only us on this side but also the general public. Well, today she wasn't that minister at all. That's because she knows that she has done the wrong thing. She definitely has done the wrong thing, and the appointment of Mr Nigel Hadgkiss is firmly at her feet.

Now, why would a minister, who had known for around 12 months that somebody had broken the law, once that had come to light after two months, then appoint such a person to a job that pays $460,000 a year? At the same time, this government always comes into this place and makes these allegations, like Senator Seselja. Once again, it wasn't a great performance. The unfortunate thing is that when they start attacking people on this side of the chamber and when they are making their assertions that somehow I'm here because of the CFMEU, it is just plainly wrong. The assertions that we are all trying to protect some unionists who have done the wrong thing is wrong. Never once have I ever come into this chamber and defended anything that the CFMEU has done or any individuals have done.

The minister today, in trying to deflect away from the explanation that she should have been giving as to why she should in fact resign from being a minister, was trying to assert that the language that has been used by these males allegedly has been defended by those on this side of the chamber. Well, I would have to say, with the Minister for Women saying that, I'm offended. I'm absolutely offended that the minister would make that sort of allegation in the chamber. But, as always, what we see from this government is them doing whatever it takes. They will throw a bomb over this side and expect that we are just going to sit here and take it.

Well, the table was turned today, because the minister was unable to defend her appointment to a very senior position. Mr Hadgkiss was hand-picked and appointed as the ABCC. They said, 'Oh, well, he lost his job.' The only reason he lost his job was that he got to be too much for the minister. He should have been sacked The hypocrisy in this place from those on that side never ceases to amaze me. I know they think that the community out there are silly. Obviously they do think that, because otherwise they wouldn't come in here and have such double standards that are just so obvious. This government are in such disarray. We have a minister who likes to throw out allegations and tarnish everyone with the same brush and who can't defend her position when Mr Hadgkiss should have been sacked. It is quite funny, really. When Minister Nash got up today, I thought for a moment there she was trying to outperform Senator Cash in her defence today of a question that was directed towards her.

The reality is that this government is seen for what it is. It is a dysfunctional government that has ministers, such as the Deputy Prime Minister, that it is questionable should be here. We have Minister Nash, whose status is questionable, yet she starts lecturing the people on this side, and we have a minister who has clearly demonstrated today that she isn't fit to hold that position. She also has a glass jaw. She can throw it out. She can overdramatise and do her dramatic moves to try to be emphatic. But what she has failed to do today in any shape or form is defend the decision she made to appoint this man. (Time expired)

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What an extraordinary outburst from Senator Polley. But it shouldn't be surprising after what we saw in question time today. The issue of Nigel Hadgkiss was made perfectly clear by Senator Nash. The claims against Mr Hadgkiss first came to Senator Nash's attention in October 2016 when the CFMEU sought to add the Commonwealth as a respondent to its proceedings. They were only allegations before a court, and they were contested. As you well know, Senator Polley, it would have been entirely inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of such court proceedings.

Senator Polley interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Polley.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is totally staggering that the Labor Party is suggesting that any individual should be summarily sacked as soon as an untested allegation is made against them and without any form of due process. That is an astounding suggestion coming from a Labor Party and opposition completely beholden to the CFMEU. It was, in fact, only this Tuesday night that Mr Hadgkiss admitted to a contravention of the Fair Work Act, and he summarily submitted his resignation to the government that evening.

We have said time and time again that this is a government that firmly believes in the rule of law. Unlike the Labor Party, this is a government that practises what it preaches. Our commitment to upholding the rule of law stands in stark contrast to that of those opposite, the leaders of Australia's trade union movement and their supporters. When it comes down to it, this is really nothing more than a smokescreen from those opposite to cover up the extraordinary revelations that we heard yesterday when the CFMEU was handed unprecedented penalties for its concerted campaign of industrial lawlessness at the Barangaroo building site in Sydney. The judgements and incredible fines—they were fined $2.4 million—that came out yesterday demonstrated the utter contempt that the corrupt CFMEU has for the law, which is echoed in the words of Sally McManus from the ACTU that there is nothing wrong with breaking the law.

This government will not be lectured by those who hold such contempt. The recidivist, militant CFMEU officials continue to believe that the law doesn't apply to them. Enough is enough. The opposition leader, Mr Shorten, must immediately and unreservedly cut ties with what has become Australia's most notorious union. I want to quote from the judgement yesterday. This extraordinary announcement is from Justice Flick:

It is difficult to perceive how such conduct can be regarded as in the best interests of the bulk of its members and the workers it supposedly represents. Such conduct may promote the CFMEU as a "militant" union. But the constraints imposed by the law apply to all including the CFMEU.

What I find most galling is that, in a week when the world sits at a point of military brinkmanship on the Korean peninsula, the likes of which we haven't seen since the Cuban missile crisis, and a week where successive failures of Labor state governments and Labor federal governments have left our nation on the brink of a looming energy crisis that quite clearly only the Turnbull government has any solution for whatsoever, no alternative policies have been presented by those opposite. The Turnbull government is clearly the only government capable of providing a solution. In a week when economic data is finally showing the green shoots of a flourishing economy—more jobs; 250,000 jobs in just over six months, 80 per cent of which are full-time—in this week, when we have this news, this is the subject that the opposition chooses to pursue: Mr Hadgkiss's resignation. The integrity deficit of those opposite is as broad as it is deep. These militant unions not only own your party, but they own your souls and, as demonstrated today, you are an opposition that lacks both substance and civility.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will get to some of the comments that have been made in response, but I do want to make a comparison between Senator Cash's rather unsophisticated manner, indeed her rant, about unions, and her statement in relation to Mr Hadgkiss. In her answers, she said that no-one on this side of the chamber has ever worried or condemned a union or union officials who break the law. She is wrong. She is so wrong that we on this side of the chamber always laugh at her when she says it. Of course we condemn unlawful behaviour. We know better than anyone on the other side of the chamber the cost to members of unions, and to those who aren't union members but who benefit from the terms and conditions that unions negotiate on work sites, when unions do not act in accordance with the law. Of course we know that that is wrong. I'm going to come to the moral question of having clients, knowing people who act immorally. I'm going to come to that later in relation to Senator Cash and the foreign minister.

Senator Hume had some factual inaccuracies in her speech taking note. For many months Senator Cash has kept on the head of the ABCC while knowing—she actively had knowledge, so it wasn't constructive knowledge; it was active knowledge—for 11 months, Mr Hadgkiss had breached the very act, the very piece of legislation he was supposed to be upholding and the regulations he was supposed to be enforcing. Senator Hume said, 'We only knew on Tuesday night.' That is factually inaccurate. There was an agreed statement of facts that was tendered to the Federal Court earlier this week. An agreed statement of facts does not just happen in one day. So for some time Senator Cash must have known that the head of her agency had acted improperly and was in fact prepared to admit it in the Federal Court this week.

This isn't the first part of the time line. In fact, it was in December 2013 that Mr Hadgkiss acted improperly. That's some time ago. Then what happened was that in October 2016 the minister became aware of it. Then this week she gave a statement saying, 'We wish Mr Hadgkiss all the very best for his future.' What kind of minister does something like that? Mr Hadgkiss acted improperly. He was head of an agency. It is really quite unbelievable. What was her response when she learnt about it? This is three years after the improper actions, by the way. After that, even then she doesn't act. Does she ever get briefed by the department? Does she ever meet the agency heads or agency senior staff? Because of course it wasn't just Mr Hadgkiss who was aware of this: she decided to ignore the warnings of the senior staff at the ABCC who also knew that Mr Hadgkiss was acting improperly.

In her answer she also asserted that Senator Wong was somehow a questionable lawyer because she had union clients. That would be like my saying, for example, about that the member for Curtin—who is also a former lawyer—that she is a former lawyer, albeit one who acted for CSR, a criminal asbestos company who knowingly poisoned workers with their toxic products. When the foreign minister was one of the lawyers for CSR, she decided that the best tactic there was to delay, delay and delay the trial in the Barrow and Heys case, so that those people dying of mesothelioma would not receive full compensation. What a totally immoral way of behaving—tick-tock, tick-tock, waiting for the victims of asbestos poisoning to die so that her client did not have to pay the full compensation. But it seems that Senator Cash and the member for Curtin are perhaps peas in a pod. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.