Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 enables the manufacturing division of the CFMEU, which includes the textile, clothing and footwear workers, timber workers and furniture workers, to hold a secret ballot to demerge from the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, or, as we all know it, the CFMEU. Just two weeks ago, this bill was an amendment to the government's closing loopholes stage 2 legislation. Just two weeks ago, the Greens and the government voted to block the amendment and deprive these union workers of the opportunity to have a say on their future.

The textile, clothing and footwear sector is currently part of the CFMEU. The textile, clothing and footwear sector is the part of the CFMEU with the greatest number of women. Many of these are from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Many have had firsthand experience of exploitation, underpayment and unsafe conditions—everything that the Greens talk about that is unacceptable. After the merger, the textile, clothing and footwear sector moved into the CFMEU's offices. One of the union secretaries told the Age newspaper about the first meeting with the CFMEU, 'It was a male-dominated space.' But the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union had merged with the CFMEU, and that also meant sharing the office space. The union rep told the paper:

Within the building there were jokes about domestic violence. It was very uncomfortable to the point where our division had to leave the building.

To say the CFMEU have had women problems in the past is an understatement. I do not have eight hours today to go through every single one of them—otherwise, nothing else would get done—but I do want to say this: the past behaviour of the CFMEU, and indeed the Builders Labourers Federation, the BLF, before that, really does give unions a bad name. That's a real shame, isn't it? It's not just a shame about the behaviour but a shame that it so often overshadows the good things the union movement has achieved for this country over the years.

The first unions were formed by free workers—that is, not convicts—in Sydney and Hobart in the 1820s. The earliest unions in Tasmania were organised by craft workers in the late 1820s. Print workers, tailors, carpenters, bootmakers and bakers unions followed in the 1830s. Early trade unions were working people who came together to support each other through illness, death and unemployment. Yes, I'm going to give you a history lesson here this morning, Mr Deputy President!

On 21 April 1856, stonemasons in Melbourne walked off the job in protest over their employers' refusal to accept their demands for reduced working hours. This protest led to Australia becoming the first country in the world to have a mandated eight-hour working day. But this applied to only a minority of workers, mainly those in the building trades. Women became active in the union movement in the 1870s and often formed their own unions. Most workers, including women and children, generally worked longer hours for less pay. Working people and their unions kept fighting, and in 1916 the Eight Hours Act was passed in Victoria and New South Wales. It would take another 32 years for the Commonwealth arbitration court to approve a 40-hour, five-day working week for all Australians.

In the 19th century Australia was a male-dominated society. Women weren't allowed to vote and often not allowed to work. There were jobs for the blokes but not many for us women. Even if women could get a job, they weren't welcome in most workplaces. That's not to say they didn't work at home, doing all the domestic stuff—but, of course, women still don't get paid for that! Australia's first union for women, the Tailoresses Association of Melbourne, was founded in 1882, a year before Australia's first female student graduated from the University of Melbourne. In 1883, these ladies went on strike. The tailoresses strike was to protest a reduction in wages and call for an end to sweatshop hours. That these 200 brave women were going out on strike was described by commentators at the time as being 'extraordinary' and 'sensational'. Their strike resulted in changes to their working conditions and it got the attention of a royal commission, which ultimately led to a reformed Factory Act.

The fight for women's working rights continued and kicked up a notch after World War II, when women took over jobs done by men, who were now fighting for their country overseas. The ladies got a shock when they opened their pay packet and found their pay was less than the blokes'. The Victorian Trades Hall established a subcommittee for equal pay in 1943, taking up the longstanding demands of female-only unions. Once the war ended, many women wanted to keep their jobs and the pay they had fought hard for. The unions had to campaign for this issue well into the 1950s. It wasn't until 1972 that women were granted equal pay for work of equal value.

Trade unions in the late seventies and early eighties were getting a bad reputation, and they were often in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. The Builders Labourers Federation was headed up by a very corrupt man whose name was Norm Gallagher. The unlawfulness of the BLF's industry-wide intimidation, violence, extortion, sabotage and financially damaging stoppages is widely documented. Following a royal commission into the BLF, the union was deregistered. Gallagher was convicted of, amongst other things, obtaining building materials to build himself a beach house—all for himself, instead of for his union and his workers. I can only say I hope that is not going on these days!

While the bad boys of the union movement did their best to overshadow the good parts of the union movement, the union movement itself was changing. Yes, union membership was falling—not helped by Norm and his mates—but the unions that survived and grew were often dominated by women: nurses, teachers, aged-care workers, textile workers and footwear workers. The modern Australian unionist is more likely to be a woman. According to the latest census, women make up a greater proportion of trade union membership, at 54 per cent, than men, at 46 per cent. Yet a division of a union with the greatest number of women isn't allowed to have a secret ballot to take charge of their future. That's all they're asking for—to take charge of their future.

Why does it need to be secret? That is a good question, and the answer is actually more depressing than anything else. It's because these union members have been intimidated in the past. The CFMEU do not want to let them go, because they want their money and they want control of them. How awful, in 2024, that the union wants their money and wants to control them! How about that? I hope the Greens over here are listening to me. I really do. It'd be nice to see some of your females sitting down here listening to this, because this is really important stuff. So let's review: a union with thousands of women, many of them from non-English-speaking backgrounds, wants to be able to have a secret ballot to leave the bully boys of the CFMEU and take control of themselves. That is all they are asking for. That is it. I have to ask: since when did a secret ballot become so controversial?

Some of these women made the trip to Canberra this week, and not one serving member of the Greens in the upper or lower house would meet with these women. The women asked to speak to Adam Bandt, the Leader of the Greens, and guess what? He wouldn't meet with them either. He sent a staffer instead, which makes me ask: Where is the Leader of the Greens and his courage? Where is his backbone when it comes to these women? Where is it? I have to say that he's dragging the rest of you down. This is the same Adam Bandt who put out a press release following the March4Justice protest that said:

… the men of this government are still not listening. But they can't ignore it and hope women will go away.

Right back at you, pot calling kettle! That is exactly what the Greens are doing. They're hoping that if they ignore these women they will go away with their request. Well, they won't, because I've got their backs.

When I say I stand up for women, I mean every woman in this country—not just the people I pick out of those women but all of them. The coalition has their backs. Senator Cash has your back. The only people in this place who don't have your back are the Greens and this government—the ones that go on about poor females and how poorly done by they are. They finally have a chance to stand up for these women, and what have they done? They've gone missing in action. That's right—they've run away, and they've bent over to their mates at the CFMEU. They're more worried about their donations than about women's rights in this country.

And that's what it comes down to. How can you, in all conscience, vote against these women? If your party is telling you to vote against this bill, I want you to think about how you will feel about betraying these women—these women that you've gone on about for years and years and years, about their equal rights and how they shouldn't be coerced or bullied. It's sitting here in front of you, and you're in silence mode. That's where you're at. We seriously cannot believe anything that comes out of your mouths anymore about females in this country and standing beside them, because it's rubbish. You do not. Both the government and the Greens do not stand beside them. All the passionate speeches that I've heard in this place about domestic violence, all the speeches about how women should be empowered to take control of their own lives—once again, I ask you this, one last time; go away and think about it: did you mean them? Now you're going to have to show it. Will you stand by your words, or will you look like hypocrites? Will you stand by your principles, or do you have none? And, last but not least, will you finally stand up for these women and do everything that you've always talked about when it comes to the women of this country?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of Senator Lambie's private senator's bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024, and I thank Senator Lambie for bringing this bill to the chamber. Personally, I wish she didn't have to. Why do I say that? Because in 2020 the former coalition government actually passed legislation to enable constituent parts of unions who did not want to be part of the larger union to demerge. Why did we do that? Because we saw it as being in the best interests of those workers who said: 'Guess what? The bigger union doesn't suit me'—and I'm going to go through why they may have said that—'and we no longer want to be part of it.'

But guess what? The reason we are standing here today—given that, as I said, in 2020 the former coalition government passed laws to allow this to occur—is that unfortunately now the Labor Party are in government and, as we know, once the Labor Party are in the government they must deliver on the union agenda. The question people need to ask themselves is: why? Why do the Labor Party deliver on the union agenda? The answer is very simple: because the Australian Labor Party, as we know it today, was formed by the union movement. They are actually one and the same thing. So, when you say that the Labor Party, when in government, are able to deliver on only one agenda, it's not the agenda that is in the best interests of the Australian people. It's not the agenda that Senator Lambie said is in the interests of, in particular, vulnerable women.

And I have met some of those women. They can't be named, for very obvious reasons; we can call a spade a spade in this place: they don't want retribution taken against them for standing up to the most militant union in Australia. But they are screaming out to the Australian Labor Party for help. They are saying to the Australian Labor Party, 'Please, will you allow us at least the decency of a secret ballot to get the hell out of this union?'

And do you know what the Australian Labor Party say? As Senator Lambie said, they're very good. They talk the talk, when they talk about protecting women in this country, but they don't walk the walk. And, when this bill goes to a vote, whether it's today or the next time it comes in this place, let's see what the Australian Labor Party actually do. Do you capitulate to the most militant union in Australia? Or do you stand up for the rights of the vulnerable workers, overwhelmingly represented by vulnerable women in this country, and merely give them the opportunity and the right to hold a secret ballot to consider whether they wish to demerge from the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, otherwise known as the CFMEU, in Australia?

When I met with a number of these women I asked them, 'Why do you want to demerge?' And they were very clear. They said that they are sick and tired—these are Labor Party people saying this—of being associated with the actions of the militant members of the construction division of the CFMEU and its current leader, John Setka. I said to them, 'Tell me why, though.' And they talked about intimidation, standover tactics and even violence from members of this union. As I sat there and listened to them it was pretty obvious to me: well, why wouldn't these women want to be given the opportunity to vote to demerge in a secret ballot? And as Senator Lambie said, we all understand why it's got to be a secret ballot. You couldn't put your hand up and have the unions watching you do this, because you'd soon find out what they thought of you. But, under the Albanese government, they're not even allowed the opportunity, in a secret ballot, to demerge from the most militant union in this country.

As I've said, I'd like to see this bill go further. I would personally have liked to have seen the Australian Labor Party not bring in the changes that they did, which actually threw the good policy—which the unions asked for in 2020 and which we delivered for the union movement, in the very best interests of the workers of the unions—out the door but a few weeks ago.

I thought that in this country we held dear the principle of freedom of association. I thought we said to Australians: 'We fundamentally believe in your right to be or not to be a member of a union. It's your right—freedom of association.' That's why we passed our laws in 2020. It's because we fundamentally believe in freedom of association. This is your choice. It is not my choice. It is not Senator Lambie's choice. It's certainly not the Australian Labor Party's choice, yet the Australian Labor Party stand here today, for all their big headlines—as I often say, always look behind the press release with the Australian Labor Party because the press release is just some nice words. Look at what they're actually doing—they've already done it. They have taken away the right of workers—in this case, textile, clothing and footwear workers, timber workers and furniture workers—to demerge from the CFMEU if they so choose. So much for freedom of association under the Australian Labor Party!

But what's even more ironic—the minister talked about closing loopholes. I am yet to understand how this was a loophole, because, when the now Labor government were in opposition, they actually supported the legislation the coalition government put through. This is what Minister Burke said in 2020:

The problem with the provisions as they currently exist is that they only provide a window of between two and five years after an amalgamation in which a vote of that kind can take place. It's a narrow window that doesn't contemplate the possibility that the desire for a demerger and the reasons for a demerger may arise after that five-year window.

He didn't just say it. He then voted for our legislation. Assistant Minister McAllister was even more strident in her comments. She said:

We also need to recognise the principle of freedom of association, which includes a right to join or leave a group, and that right doesn't only operate within a three-year time period …

I'm no longer sure what happened. You believed in freedom of association in opposition when we brought forward the legislation. You acknowledged that there were problems with the provision, but I'm beginning to think that Minister Burke and Assistant Minister McAllister are now very much like the Prime Minister of this country, Mr Albanese. They say their word is their bond. Again, look behind what they say. By their own actions it is patently evident that their word is not their bond. They don't believe in freedom of association. They don't believe that there are problems with the provisions. In fact, they've now created problems with the provisions. I'm not sure, again, what loophole they were trying to close when they supported the closing of the loophole back in 2020.

Why would members want to get out of a union? Let's consider that question. For example, what if one part of the organisation in question has a record of not complying with the law, and this causes reputational damage for the amalgamated organisation? What if workers in another part—timber, manufacturing, footwear, textiles—want to get out? What are the Australian Labor Party saying in this place? They are saying, 'No, you cannot.' So, as I said, I am very pleased that Senator Lambie has brought this bill forward because, like Senator Lambie, the coalition are very, very pleased to be able to fight for the rights of members of the manufacturing division of the CFMEU—which includes the textile, clothing and footwear workers, timber workers and furniture workers—to hold a secret ballot to demerge from the CFMEU.

As Senator Lambie has said, this is a union made up mainly of women that isn't allowed a secret ballot to take charge of its own future—wow! Shame on the Australian Labor Party. I hope I never see another photo of any of you standing next to those women who are on bended knee begging you for the right to hold a secret ballot so they can demerge from this militant union. But you have no shame. I'm quite sure you'll be out there taking photos with them, yet you won't deliver on what I would say are fundamental rights for them: (a) freedom of association and (b) the right to get out of this union and not be associated with them.

Why don't these women want to be associated with the CFMEU? Well, let's see what the High Court of Australia has said about this union. This is not me speaking; let's look at what the highest court in the land has said about this union: it is a 'serial offender' that will 'engage in whatever action, and make whatever threats, it wishes, without regard to the law'. And, at that time of the handing down of this judgment, the union: had contravened laws on approximately 150 occasions; was well resourced, having more than sufficient means to pay any penalty that the court might have been disposed to impose; and treated penalties for serious breaches of the law as just a cost of doing business.

What is the reality then for the manufacturing division and the textile section of the union? This is their very basic reality. They do not want to be affiliated with this militancy. They do not want to be affiliated with this law breaking. As Senator Lambie put forward in her second reading speech, a union with thousands of women, many of them from non-English speaking backgrounds, wants to be able to have a secret ballot to leave the CFMEU and take control of themselves. Wow! I would have thought that with that sentence alone, Senator Lambie, you could just put the question, the bill would be supported unanimously, we could send a message down to the House, it could go through the House, and we could stand in solidarity with these thousands of women. But that's not going to be the case.

Let's talk about why it is not going to be the case. We know why: they have no money. That part of the union has no money, but the part of the union that does have the money is the part that is dictating the shots. As I said, the Labor Party love taking money from the union. In the last two years the CFMEU donated nearly $5 million to the ALP—$4.8 million. That's a lot of money. The total donation from unions was $22.4 million. In 2022-23 it was $5.7 million. In 2021-22 it was $16.7 to the ALP, with an additional $23.37 million in political campaigning from the union movement. Where do we end up? We end up in a very simple position where the Australian Labor Party, with their opposition to this bill, will be saying to all of the union members who want to get out and to all of those women—in particular, the vulnerable women who want to no longer be associated with this militancy—'We can't support you. Quite frankly, when it comes to the scheme of things, you're completely, totally and utterly irrelevant to us and our agenda. The militancy and the money are going to speak, and we will not be standing with you to give you a very basic right that the former coalition government was prepared to legislate for you.'

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank Senator Lambie for introducing the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024. Whilst we recognise and appreciate the position put forward by Senator Lambie and the motivation behind the bill, we understand that there are ongoing discussions between the relevant parties. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt the outcome of those discussions, and as such the government will not be supporting this bill.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thousands of casual miners working in central Queensland or the Hunter Valley are each owed, on average, for wage theft, back pay of around $33,000 per year for every year of service. That's $33,000 per year. If you're a casual, you're likely to be owed an estimated $33,000 per year as a victim of Australia's largest wage theft. How? It's due to the CFMEU union bosses betraying and controlling workers, because the CFMEU was the sole union in coalmining production. When entities lack competition, they tend to behave with impunity due to a lack of accountability. They can do whatever they bloody well want.

We support Senator Lambie's Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 because it encourages competition for the unions and gives freedom of choice to workers, and it portrays fairness. I'll move to Senator Lambie's excellent bill after closing on the largest wage theft scam, because that illustrates, yet again, the importance of Senator Lambie's bill to protect workers from unaccountable union bosses.

A team of experienced workplace lawyers, consultants and coalminers reviewed and analysed five significant labour hire coalmining enterprise agreements. The CFMEU were involved in, were a party to, or signed all five agreements. This is the report of these experts. The Fair Work Commission approved all five agreements. The enterprise agreements all underpay the award. For example, for the CoreStaff 2018 enterprise agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $22,623. It gets worse. For the FES 2018 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $27,563. For the WorkPac 2019 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $33,555. For the Chandler Macleod 2020 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated $39,341. For the TESA Group 2022 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $40,645.

It's all due to collusion between the CFMEU, labour hire companies and the Fair Work Commission. The CFMEU signed and approved all. The CFMEU agreed in writing—we've seen the letter—to not pursue complaints that workers raised. The Chandler Macleod group, one of the parties to the enterprise agreement, is a subsidiary of the world's largest labour hire company, Recruit Holdings—a foreign multinational. How did this happen? For a decade, CFMEU union bosses have betrayed coalminers. The Fair Work Commission has betrayed workers in approving enterprise agreements paying far less than the award, and the Fair Work Ombudsman turned a blind eye to it all and refused to get involved. The CFMEU's mining division, the Fair Work Commission and some large labour hire companies have colluded to screw workers using enterprise agreements that are unlawful.

As I said, we commissioned an experienced team to investigate Australia's largest wage theft case involving thousands of miners across the industry for up to a decade. They were stunned at the brazen collusion between the CFMEU union bosses, employers, Fair Work Commission and Fair Work Ombudsman. Some of these consultants and lawyers have over 40 years of experience in industrial relations and were stunned with what they confirmed was happening across our coal industry. The workers' supposed protectors, the CFMEU union bosses and the government's Fair Work Commission and Fair Work Ombudsman, have cruelly betrayed workers en masse. I've written to the current and former members for the Hunter in federal parliament, to CFMEU union bosses and to Minister Burke. All have done nothing. They buried the issue to protect union bosses.

Let's move to Senator Lambie's bill. I support Senator Lambie's bill. The issue she raises is symptomatic of many large unions and the decline of the union movement under unaccountable union bosses, who are tarnishing the movement. Labor's recent legislation giving enormous power to union bosses will eventually hurt the union movement and unions overall because it entrenches the huge monopoly power of union bosses and removes accountability. The union movement will crumble because of that lack of accountability. Workers will abandon it, as they already are.

An essential freedom of the Australian workplace scene should be the freedom for workers to choose who they want to represent their interests through a choice as to the union they want to join. There are thousands of women in the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union, currently part of the CFMEU. Many of those women have expressed dissatisfaction with the representation the CFMEU provides them through their membership. Unfortunately, many of these members, who often have limited English language proficiency, are handicapped by having experienced exploitation, underpayment, intimidation and poor working conditions. The Labor government, with the Greens, have to date voted to prevent these women from exercising their right to choose to leave the CFMEU. These women are afraid of intimidation after losing their right to an anonymous vote—women afraid, in Australia, of union thugs. This is as a result of the passing of the draconian Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023.

As a coalminer working at coalfaces, mostly underground, around Australia, I was a proud union member—back when the coalminers union was the Miners Federation, a strong, honest union. As a mine manager and, later, as an executive general manager, I dealt with many honourable union delegates who strongly spoke for, and served, their members' interests. The union movement has a proud history, and in Australia that includes a proud history of women playing a lead role in the movement. It's a fact, though, that as a result of some powerful union bosses who could only be described as cowardly, dishonest thugs or possibly criminals there's been a decline in union membership and subsequent loss of union power in the Australian industrial landscape. This means a loss of membership funds and other moneys that have historically flowed to the Labor Party. Labor hates to lose campaign money.

The TCF women do not wish to be members of the CFMEU and to be associated with an organisation that has such a poor reputation and is not providing service in exchange for union fees. In recent years, the CFMEU have been caught selling out their members to benefit large, multinational labour hire firms and enrich the CFMEU, at the members' expense, by unprecedented wage theft.

The current Queensland government is trying to prevent the development of the new Red Union, which is making inroads into the previous membership of failed mainstream unions, like the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union and the Queensland Teachers Union, which have failed to adequately protect and represent their members in disputes with employers. Red Union membership is now almost 19,000 and has rapidly grown in the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland and the Teachers Professional Association, and now it's growing in every state around our country. Teachers and nurses, not union bosses, lead the new and rapidly growing union. Fees are around half those of the Queensland Teachers Union and the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union, which provide inferior service and donate membership funds to the Queensland Labor machine. That's why the Queensland Labor government has stepped in with an attempt to ban the Red Union—to protect the Queensland Teachers Union and the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union and the millions of dollars flowing to the Labor machine's election campaign. So we have the Queensland Labor government trying to ban the formation of a new union because it nobbles them. Queensland union bosses publicly and openly showed their power in appointing the new Premier of Queensland. We saw it in Queensland: union bosses saying who would be the next Premier. It's Steven Miles.

What's at issue here is freedom of choice. These women need to be able to choose who they wish to represent them and should be able to make those choices in a secret ballot. This is necessary to ensure that intimidation from thugs is kept to a minimum. I support this bill and I commend Senator Lambie for it. It's solid, effective legislation. It supports vulnerable women and is a further step both in recognising the right to freedom of choice and in determining an important issue of autonomy for women and for all workers. The ability of these women to choose to demerge from the CFMEU must be confirmed. Union membership must be voluntary, and there must be freedom of choice as to who someone's representative should be. That is for the benefit of the union movement, because with choice comes competition and then accountability.

We support this bill that gives women and workers rights that union bosses have stolen. We call for a public and parliamentary discussion on restoring industrial justice and basic human rights and freedom of choice to workers. We applaud Senator Lambie for her bill as another step towards freeing workers from powerful union bosses.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024. I thank Senator Lambie very much indeed for bringing this important bill before the Senate for us to consider. It's something that should be supported by everyone here and by anyone who wants to see freedom of association—enabling individuals within groups and organisations to have the right to determine who they associate with. I can't see why it would even be controversial.

Anything that dilutes the pervasive influence and control of the CFMEU is a good thing. This union does appear to be losing friends. First, we saw the mining and energy division wanting to leave, and now the manufacturing division—the textile, clothing and footwear division—wants to do the same. I don't blame them at all. Why would they want to be associated with characters such as John Setka? One of the good things that we've seen is that he's announced he's going to be retiring. It's going to be good to see him exit this landscape of trade union control and, obviously, the negative things that we see that he has been associated with. Nonetheless, it's right and proper that sections within this organisation want to distance themselves from the lawlessness and thuggery that we see within the CFMEU. Why would you want to be associated with it? It's absolute anathema.

We're seeing the Labor Party fighting this tooth and nail, although it's surprising to see Senator Watt, the representing minister here in this place, get up and speak for about 40 seconds against this bill. What does that reveal about where things really are within the Labor Party? Where is the line-up of Labor speakers on this bill? This is an absolute joke. It's a shame that this is going on. Given that trade union membership has been in freefall for a long time, they don't want to see the unions break themselves apart. According to the ABS, union membership in the private sector is at 8.2 per cent. That is a long way from the union's glory days in the 1970s, when union membership was at 51 per cent. It was 51 per cent in 1976, and it has dropped to less than 10 per cent. That includes workforces such as the public service, where we know there's a much higher union membership, and it includes nurses. When my wife was a nurse, she had to be part of the federation to get her insurance; that necessitates membership for some workplaces. Those workplaces are included in that figure. In my home state of Western Australia, in the mining area, union membership is hardly even a thing. People wouldn't even consider it, because they're not seeing the value in it.

Here's an organisation that wants to separate from the CFMEU. The textile, clothing and footwear section of the manufacturers part of the CFMEU want to leave, and I think they should be supported in doing so. They should be able to do that. Yet, under the cover of darkness and with the rush through the parliament of the amendments to the so-called closing loopholes bill only a couple of weeks ago, we've seen the right of unions to go through their democratic systems and processes to make a decision to determine for themselves to leave and separate being taken away. Unions should be able to do that and should be supported in doing that, so Senator Lambie is right to bring this bill before us. I would go a step further and not narrowly cast it just to the CFMEU. I think a trade union or any organisation that wants to be able to separate and go its own way so that it can better serve its members should be able to do so. Maybe it could be expanded, Senator Lambie—through you, Chair. I think there's a good case for that to happen.

But we know this government is beholden to the trade union movement. They have been since the failed Whitlam government, and that is certainly present in this Labor government. They are absolutely beholden. This government is the gold standard for delivering its paymasters' wish list, and it has proven that since the election. They are resolute in delivering for their traditional owners: the trade union movement, the ones that are funding their existence. They are beholden to them, and they have acted in haste in delivering for them their wishes.

Under this government's fair work bills—several have come through this place now—it's attempted to insert pernicious trade union influence in just about every workplace across the country. Let it be remembered that this is the government that abolished the critical role of the ABCC in their first tranche of IR laws—and, boy, did they move at pace with that! We had an about 21-day inquiry, I think it was, into that. That didn't allow time for scrutiny, which seems to be the way with this government. They're happy to do things with real pace and not allow proper scrutiny, as we see with the amendment that this bill is trying to address. The government was resolute in ensuring that the first thing they did—one of the big, hallmark things that they were able to do in their first couple of months of government—was take away the ABCC, which we all know they had their sights set on, and which was actively providing assurance and protection for workers in the construction industry. For the government to take that away has been a real shame.

One can hardly think of a bigger Christmas present than the one that was delivered by this government to the trade union movement in November 2022, and that was the abolition of the ABCC. What a glorious Christmas present they all received that year! Master Builders Australia estimates that the abolition of the ABCC alone will cost the economy $47 billion by 2030. Productivity is at an all-time low in this country, and it's little wonder when you don't have a cop on the beat ensuring that workplaces are operating and that there's not undue influence by trade unions that are exerting control not necessarily to the benefit of their members but just in their self-interest. I think it's something that needs to be dealt with. Unfortunately, this government isn't serious about that.

The ABCC, an integral oversight body with a proven track record of winning prosecutions against union thuggery, would've been the agency that was more experienced and more strongly placed to provide the supervision of building and construction workplaces. The ABCC was for the longest time the adversary of the CFMEU, and the government couldn't move quickly enough to see the abolishment of that agency after the 2022 election—the same agency which investigated and prosecuted nefarious behaviour and law-breaking activities by the CFMEU. This is what the ABCC was doing, but now that it's no longer there, of course, there's a free-for-all, because this government doesn't want to see these organisations held to account and monitored. It doesn't want to ensure that they are, in fact, providing support in an appropriate way to workers within these industries. A Federal Court judge recognised that there was 'systemic unlawful conduct', while another Federal Court judge once said of the CFMEU:

The union has adopted the attitude that it will not comply with any legislative constraints, placed on its operations, with which it disagrees. Such an approach is an anathema in a democratic society.

We know that the CFMEU has a long history of being one of the ALP's biggest donors as well. For example, the Victorian branch of the CFMEU was one of the largest donors to the Victorian ALP in the lead-up to the October 2022 Victorian election. We know that total union donations across all unions to the ALP were $22.4 million between 2021 and 2023. Now, $22.4 million is enough to influence your thinking, isn't it? That's why we're seeing this government act in haste to protect their union.

Not only that; they also spent a motza on campaigning directly for the Labor Party, so it might not necessarily be money that's going to the Labor Party through their donations. You see their ads on television and social media, where they pump millions of dollars. Through disclosure we know that $23.37 million has been directly spent on political campaigning by the union movements. They're entitled to do that. I've got no problem with that. Any organisation is entitled to campaign in this free democratic society that we live in. That's not my beef. My point is that when you see the enormous amount of money that is spent it's little wonder that these guys over here, the Albanese led government, are completely beholden to the trade union movement, especially the CFMEU.

I think the fact that they can't come in here and defend against this bill shows it all. Getting only a 40-second speech from the representing minister, Minister Watt, here in this place on this issue bells the cat and shows exactly what's going on. They are embarrassed by this union, and they should really be doing something about it. One thing that they can do is support Senator Lambie's bill. It's very simple. We're just wanting to see freedom come into the trade union movement to allow people to exercise their democratic right. If groups within the CFMEU want to separate, and they think they can best serve their constituency and their members by being out there on their own, then that is a great thing.

The other question on the deafening silence on this debate is: where are the Greens in coming out in support of the women that are part of the textile, footwear and clothing industry? We know there are significantly higher proportions of women working in this sector compared to other parts of the CFMEU. Of course they don't want to be associated with the likes of John Setka. Where are the Greens? They are always in here advocating, rightly, for women—good on you; fantastic. But where are they on this issue? Are they also beholden? It seems that they are, because they're deathly silent on this. Come on! Where is the Greens line-up of speakers? Was there even one on this list? I don't think there was. Not a single Green was prepared to speak on this, to defend this. They would be embarrassed to stand up here and do that, because they know they're complicit in it by standing by and allowing this lawlessness to continue.

I must conclude. In 2020, the former coalition passed legislation that enabled greater flexibility to branches and divisions of amalgamated registered organisations. We provided an opportunity to withdraw from amalgamation if that would better serve them and their members. Interestingly, the Labor Party supported it at that time. In opposition, Labor supported that amendment. Yet we've seen now, in government, that as soon as they had the opportunity they've ripped that away. Just like with the stage 3 tax cuts, the Labor Party has a different position when in government, and it's shameful. The Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union should be allowed to depart from the notorious CFMEU if they want to. It makes sense that, where one part of the organisation has a record of not complying with the law, this causes reputational damage to them, good people who are wanting to represent the rights of their workers and their members. If they're embarrassed or don't want to have that association—and I completely understand why—and want to disassociate themselves from those activities, they should be able to. Why would you continue to force them to be wedded to lawlessness? Why would you continue to force them to be wedded to thuggish behaviour? It's unacceptable, and they should be free to leave.

As I said at the start, I commend Senator Lambie for bringing this bill forward. It's something that she has been a strong advocate for. I recognise—particularly, out of all of the crossbenchers, I've got to say—her application in the inquiries. I'm deputy chair of the education and employment committee, and Senator Lambie was at almost all of the hearings that we held. She's diligent. She's focused on this. And I think this bill is worthy of the full support of everyone in this Senate.

Debate adjourned.