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 the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024. I have to say that the irony of this legislation does not escape those on the coalition side of this chamber, the reason being that this was the law, in part, that we introduced when we were last in government in 2020. That's right: it was the former coalition government that listened to constituent parts of unions that no longer wanted to be part of the militant, thuggish, bullying CFMMEU, and we allowed them, should they choose to, to put in place a process whereby they demerged. In other words: they got out of the part of the union which was bullying, intimidating and indulging in thuggery.

At the time, on Wednesday 9 December 2020, the now Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Tony Burke, in a speech in the House of Representatives, supported the coalition's legislation on behalf of the then Labor opposition. I have the speech here. There's not often a time and place in which the Labor opposition will support the coalition when it comes to changes to industrial relations. So, when they do, you've got to look at it and go, 'Wow, the coalition really did get it right.' And that we did. Why? Because we listened to those workers, those members of bigger unions, who said: 'We are sick and tired. We are fed up with the bullying, the thuggery and the intimidation. We want to properly represent our workers, and the only way that we're able to do that is if we demerge from the larger union.'

Let's have a look at what Tony Burke, the now minister for industrial relations, said at the time. He said:

The bill before us—

that was, of course, the coalition's bill—

represents a commonsense technical amendment to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009—specifically the provisions in the act that deal with withdrawal from amalgamation. Currently the act allows a constituent part of an amalgamated union to withdraw from the remainder of the union. It's a democratic process involving a ballot of the members of that part of the union that would be seeking to withdraw from the amalgamation. The problem with the provisions as they currently exist—

in other words, what the coalition was seeking to fix and, indeed, did fix—

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.

You probably now need to ask yourself, 'Hold on. If Mr Burke, when he was the opposition spokesperson on industrial relations, was prepared to support a coalition bill that did, within reason, what this bill is doing today, how have we actually ended up in this place whereby we are re-legislating something that the coalition had put in place.' That's because, as we know, after the Labor then opposition supported our legislation, they got a knock on the door, and, lo and behold, who did they get a knock on the door from? That would of course be from the person whom many of the courts, including the High Court of Australia, have made some rather interesting comments about. That is Mr John Setka, who has been named, 'The most bullish thug in Australia when it comes to standing over other people.' The problem the Labor Party then had was that what Mr Setka says, has to go.

As such, in the 2021 Special Platform Conference, the Australian Labor Party did a complete, total and utter backflip. They went from supporting what Mr Burke had said was, 'A commonsense technical amendment,' because as I said, the then coalition government had been talking to the workers, in particular in the textile unions. The textile division of the CFMEU had told us, 'Please, we have to get out of the CFMEU. They intimidate us, they bully us, they are thugs, and we need to be able to get out.' So we allowed them that pathway to get out, which, at the time, Mr Burke supported.

Knock on the door, it's Mr Setka of the CFMEU, different marching instructions are given. We also know there was the small figure, I say sarcastically, of $4.3 million, which the CFMEU provided to the Australian Labor Party in the lead up to the 2022 election. So we saw a complete, total and utter backflip, and in the 2021 Special Platform Conference, this is what the Australian Labor Party outlined in relation to what there 'further industrial relations policies' were to include:

Union demerger reform—reversing the Morrison union demerger government's legislative changes that make it easier for unions to demerge.

One might ask, 'On what planet would the Australian Labor Party have to take that as a policy in its platform to the election when only 12 months before, they proudly stood in both the other place and this place, supporting legislation that Mr Burke himself described as merely a commonsense technical amendment to the Fair Work Act to allow those parts of unions who didn't want to be part of a bigger union, to actually leave?' As I said, it is right there in back and white. They had to reverse their position with a spectacular backflip because Mr Setka, in Mr Setka style, stood over the Australian Labor Party.

We know that is true, and why do we know that is true? Because since they reversed the coalition's very sensible legislation, the textile union and representatives of the textile union have been walking this place, and they have been quite rightly speaking to anyone who will listen and telling them about the issues that they have with, in particular, the militant division of the CFMEU—the construction division—and actually begging for the ability to demerge from them. In fact, one of the union secretaries told the Age newspaper about the first meeting with the CFMEU:

"It was a male-dominated space," she recalls. "He just went on this big rant and there was fear if anyone tried to say anything it would have just got a lot worse."

Wow! That's a great way to treat low-paid women from a part of the union that can't afford to give a lot of money to the Australian Labor Party. You just leave them there to be bullied and intimidated by thugs, and you say, 'Well, that's okay.' As long as the $4.3 million was coming in prior to the last election, John Setka—guess what, mate—what you say goes.

One of the other union reps stated, in regard to the workplace culture of the CFMEU—let's be very clear here; these are people who are members of the union. This is what they have been saying to the Australian Labor Party:

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

Clearly, that doesn't worry the Australian Labor Party, as they were happy in February of this year to vote against both an amendment to their industrial relations legislation and a private senator's bill that Senator Lambie brought forward—both were supported by the coalition opposition—that would actually allow the textile division of the CFMEU, the manufacturers, to demerge from the bigger union. Why? Because we believe in freedom of association. It's something that those on the other side are fundamentally opposed to.

If you believe in freedom of association, you actually stand up for the low-paid women in the textile division—the textile, clothing and footwear sector—of the CFMEU. You listen to what, frankly, are completely, totally and utterly abhorrent complaints in relation to the CFMEU, and you then act on them. Twice earlier this year, the Australian Labor Party was given the opportunity to do just that. Both times, instead of standing up for the low-paid workers in the textile, clothing and footwear sector of the CFMEU—it has the greatest number of women—they did the bidding of John Setka.

In 2019 there was an affidavit provided, a sworn statement to the police, by Mr Setka's estranged wife. This is what she said, in relation to when Mr Setka had physically assaulted her:

John was out of control. He hit my head against the table about five times. It was very painful. John is a lot bigger and stronger than me and he can totally physically control me.

Again, the Labor Party did not listen to the pleas from, in particular, the women in the textile, clothing and footwear sector of the CFMEU and twice did not support the ability for them to get out of the CFMEU. In fact, in relation to Senator Lambie's bill, Senator Watt made it very clear. Senator Watt gave the position on behalf of the Albanese Labor government. He said, 'The government will not be supporting this bill.' So you really have to ask yourself: how did we get to this place today? The answer is very obvious. Mr Albanese has shown that he is a weak and impotent Prime Minister, in his inability to stand up to the bullying, thuggery and intimidation that Mr Setka is still throwing around.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Urquhart, a point of order?

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that Senator Cash withdraw that imputation on the Prime Minister. It was a reflection.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It wasn't a reflection of improper motive. It was within the political discourse. Go on, Senator Cash.

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

It was by his actions, in failing to condemn the recent statements by Mr Setka in relation to Mr Stephen McBurney and his position at the AFL. If you recall, Mr Setka said to the Prime Minister, who by his actions shows that he is weak and impotent, 'Stay out of it.' And, in press conference after press conference after press conference, that is exactly what the Prime Minister did. The leader of our country failed to stand up to the person who even the courts have said is a militant thug and part of the most militant union in this country. And it then became a political problem, because not even the press in Australia could believe that Mr Albanese would take his instructions from Mr Setka, and not listen to the pleas of the low-paid women in the textile, clothing and footwear sector of the CFMEU.

We know that they are still taking their instructions from Mr Setka. How do we know that? Look at the limited application of the legislation that we have before us today. It doesn't revert to the coalition's position and say: 'Any smaller union, if you want to get out of the bigger union, we agree that you should because we believe in you. We believe that you should have the right to properly represent your workers. We believe in the right to freedom of association, and, if you do not want to be part of the bigger union, you can leave.' That is the second reading amendment that I now move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to allow any division of any amalgamated registered organisation to withdraw from the amalgamated organisation after a vote of members within the division, to ensure that unions remain true representatives of the workers they represent".

I don't expect the Australian Labor Party to support that because, again, this is a political bill, and nothing more, to clean up a mess. If you truly believe that smaller unions should be allowed to withdraw if they want to—and it really doesn't matter what the reasons are, quite frankly—because they no longer feel that they can represent their own workers within the bigger union that they are in, the only logical law to have in place is one that allows them to demerge. But no, this is a tightly drafted bill. Worse, it even has a timeframe in it, so that, if you don't do it in a certain timeframe, it's 'too bad, so sad' and you've got to stay. Shame on Mr Albanese and shame on Mr Burke. It's a political fix to what is a very, very serious problem.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Greens oppose the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024. I note that, when this was debated in the House of Representatives, Liberal MP after Liberal MP rose in that place and enthusiastically supported the legislation, and while, of course, a minister had to have carriage of the bill, almost no Labor MPs stood up in there and spoke to this legislation. The Australian Greens say to the Labor Party, 'That fact alone should give you pause for thought and should encourage you to reconsider what you are proposing to do with this legislation.'

When you look at the speaking list in this place for this legislation, you see one Labor senator on the speaking list: Minister Watt. You see one person from the Australian Greens—that is me—putting our position of opposition on the record. The rest of the people on the speaking list are Senator O'Sullivan, Senator Lambie, Senator Scarr, Senator McKenzie, Senator Duniam, Senator McGrath, Senator Brockman and Senator Liddle. Again, we're going to see Liberal senator after Liberal senator—opposition senator after opposition senator—rise and enthusiastically support this legislation. This should give the government pause, but it won't. The reason it should give the government pause is that that mob over there are no friends of the union movement. They are no friends of the working people in this country. The Liberal Party has a long history of union busting and concocting labour-market reforms, or so-called reforms, that undermine the rights of working Australians. They've got a reputation—well deserved—of doing the bidding of big corporations and employers.

Let's have a look at some of the relatively recent history in this policy area: Work Choices—who can forget Work Choices?—disastrous industrial relations changes brought in by the Howard government in 2005 that smashed the rights of working Australians. More than a million Australians on awards suffered a real pay cut of nearly $100 a week because of changes to the way minimum wages were set up under Work Choices, delivered by a Liberal-National Party government that had the numbers in both chambers in that parliament.

Let's look at something else: creating the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This was effectively a construction industrial police force, a union-bashing exercise that undermined the basic rights of construction workers to be treated equally under the law. The ABCC failed to act as an independent regulator committed to the best interests of the construction industry, the conditions of workers and the legitimate needs of employers. Under ABCC rules, construction workers had their right to silence undermined. Workers were forced to name names under those rules. It undermined the rule of law, particularly the principle that the law is applied equally and the principle of the presumption of innocence. And let's not forget former prime minister Tony Abbott's royal commission witch hunt into the unions—a witch hunt that was determined to weaken the labour movement in this country.

So, the Liberal Party has a demonstrated track record of throwing workers under a bus. The fact that they are going to so enthusiastically support this legislation should give pause to the Australian Labor Party. I mean, look who you are going to be voting with when the bells stop ringing. You're going to park your backsides on the same side of the chamber as the mob who are now in opposition, who've built political careers and an entire movement on throwing workers under a bus. The Liberals push for higher unemployment, they push for lower wages and they will take every opportunity to weaken the union movement—all in the service, of course, of big business and their corporate donors.

To think that the Liberals have suddenly changed their tune and are deciding to take a position that would be positive for workers in Australia is naive at best; 'stupid' would be a more accurate description. I have no doubt that this debate in the Senate today, up until its conclusion, will reflect the debate in the House of Representatives, where Liberal MP after Liberal MP—in the case of this place, Liberal senator after Liberal senator—is going to get up and explain why they think this is a terrific piece of legislation. Well, that should give the Australian Labor Party pause. The government should be seriously questioning how they're going to end up sitting on the same side of the chamber as a mob that has a demonstrated track record of smashing the union movement and throwing workers under a bus in the interests of increasing corporate profits.

Labor is defending this bill by saying the changes will impact only one union. If that's the case, we have a question: why are the Liberals so thrilled with this change? The answer to that question of course is: because it sets a precedent; it opens the door for yet more coalition-era anti-union reforms. As the National Secretary of the CFMEU, Mr Zach Smith, pointed out:

This bill risks setting a dangerous precedent for anti-worker ideologues in future coalition governments to break up unions.

Unions are a critical part of our society. Time won't permit me to run through all the amazing things workers collectively have achieved through their unions and the broader union movement throughout Australia's postcolonial history. But, in overview, they fight hard for fair pay, they fight hard for safe working conditions and they also make critically important contributions to our democracy. They've been pivotal in achieving so many of the things that we take for granted today: paid leave, public holidays, Medicare, superannuation, workplace health and safety, maternity leave, the eight-hour working day, minimum wage—as I said, time prevents me from listing all of the achievements.

I also note that unions have been pivotal in the battle to save built heritage in Australia and also to save green spaces, particularly in urban areas in our country, from the relentless march of developers. I do note that the green bans that were put in place by a part of the union movement so many decades ago were instrumental in the naming of the German Greens at the time when Petra Kelly, then leader of the German political environment movement, came out to Australia.

The Greens have a straightforward and very principled position on this legislation. We are not going to support this legislation. We're going to stand with working Australians, and we're going to support unions that in turn support the rights of working Australians. That's why we opposed things like the ABCC, that's why we voted against Work Choices, that's why we were so critical of the royal commission into unions, and that is why we're going to oppose this legislation today.

We're not convinced that this legislation is not designed to fragment the union movement and dilute the power of workers to organise, stand up for themselves and take collective action. We are not convinced that this bill will not weaken the union movement, and we have concerns that any bill that weakens the union movement and therefore weakens the power of workers will ultimately lead to lower wages, to more unsafe working conditions and to a lack of ability for working people to take collective action in this place.

The Greens say to the Labor Party here today: the enthusiastic support from the Liberal Party for this motion should be a canary in the coalmine. It should be a giant red flag to the Australian Labor Party. I ask again the simple question: if you're bringing in industrial relations legislation that is supported by the coalition, who have built their political brand on smashing workers and have a demonstrated track record of throwing workers under a bus, are you really sure you are doing the right thing? That's the question for the Labor Party here.

Senator Scarr might be uncomfortable with the way I've described the Liberal Party, but history speaks for itself. We will never forget Work Choices, Senator Scarr. We will never forget the Australian Building and Construction Commission. We will never forget Tony Abbott's witch-hunt of a royal commission into the union movement. We know this mob over here. We know what their track record is in supporting working Australians, and that is that they don't have one. They don't have one because, when push comes to shove, they will do everything they can to drive wages down.

I well remember—and I'm sure Senator Scarr does as well—the admission from former senator Cormann that low wages were a feature of the industrial relations system designed by the coalition when they sat on the Treasury benches. I well remember that admission from Senator Cormann when he said the quiet thing out loud. He said the quiet thing out loud one day, and we will never forget that. The opposition has a shameful track record of doing over workers in this country. They do that because they are being manipulated. They exist to deliver for the big corporations in this country. That is the modus operandi of the mob that find themselves on the opposition benches. They have a demonstrated track record of throwing working people under the bus at every opportunity. They don't want to see high wages; they want to see low wages. Former senator Corman admitted it on the record and he said the quiet thing out loud. He was being truthful and honest. It is about time this mob here today were truthful and honest as well. They want low wages. That's why they don't support the union movement.

So to the Australian Labor Party I say—

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Lambie! I expect you will want to be heard in silence when it is your turn.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am surprised that Senator Lambie would disagree with my characterisation of the opposition as being antiworker, but here we find ourselves today.

In conclusion, I want to say this. The fact that they are getting such enthusiastic support for this bill from the people they claim to oppose in this place, the fact that Liberal member after Liberal member in the House got up and enthusiastically supported this bill, should give them pause for thought. The fact that when the bells stop ringing they will be sitting next to a bunch of unavowed antiworker senators should give them pause for thought. It's shameful that not only is it not giving them pause for thought; it's not actually going to change their position.

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

What material do I have to work from now after that presentation? Who would have thought? I am speaking on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024. Senator McKim says that we are no friend of union movement. I'll tell you what: from what we just heard there, the Australian Greens are no friend of women who want to stand up for themselves and disassociate themselves from a union that is absolutely atrocious when it comes particularly to the bullying and treatment of women in workplaces. For Senator McKim to stand up there in the way that he did, obviously the Greens are thinking there are some votes in it for them. Finally we are seeing the Labor Party stand up against this and the Greens are thinking, 'Here's an opportunity for us to maybe bleed off some votes from the construction division of the CFMEU.' The Australian Greens should be ashamed. Here is an opportunity to right a wrong that has been in place for quite some time and here we have a section of the union that wants to disassociate itself, that wants to remove itself from the CFMEU and change its membership and become an autonomous group, and the Greens party want to stand against that. That just says all that we need to know about them.

We are in this situation, and I am pleased that we are here. I just wonder why it took so long. Why has it taken us so long to get to this situation? The coalition parties and the Australian Labor Party are standing together in condemning the actions and behaviour of a trade union—who would have thought? Anything that dilutes the pervasive influence and control of the CFMEU, frankly, is a good thing. The union appears to be losing its friends. This union appears to be losing its friends and there's little wonder why. We saw Mr Setka, only a couple of weeks ago, hold up against every AFL-loving and sports-following fan in this country. They want to stand up against any construction project on any football field, AFL club or ground around the country just because they didn't get their way. The guy they despise the most, the former commissioner of the construction watchdog, the ABCC, has been appointed back to his old career of umpiring, and just because they're not happy with that appointment, they want to hold up jobs around the country. They want to hold up construction projects around the country because of their vendetta against someone who was just doing his job, to hold this union to account, to stop the thuggery that occurs in workplaces and to stop the intimidation that occurs on construction sites. It's holding our country back. It's holding back the ability to construct jobs and projects in a timely and efficient way because of the union interference. Finally, Mr Albanese has been dragged into this kicking and screaming, but he's working with the coalition to resolve this.

I want to commend Senator Lambie. Earlier in the year she actually brought forward an amendment—or was it a private senator's bill; I can't recall, Senator Lambie—to deal with this very thing. Would the government support it at that time? No. But the coalition did. The coalition backed Senator Lambie all the way on that. And maybe it's because the CFMEU tapped into a vein, because AFL is the biggest sport in this country—sorry, Queenslanders and New South Welshmen, but it is—but there was outrage across the country. There was outrage across the country at the absurdity of Mr Setka calling that out in the way he did. So, finally, the Prime Minister and Mr Burke came forward with a sensible proposition. But it took Mr Setka to threaten the AFL for this decision to finally be made. Here we are, nonetheless, and I'm pleased that we're here.

In February this year, Senator Lambie brought forward a private senator's bill that would have allowed the manufacturing union, which included the textiles union, to demerge from the CFMEU. This government had an opportunity back then to deal with an insidious issue where that section of the union wanted to disassociate itself because they were embarrassed to be connected with the behaviour of the construction division of the CFMEU. This government wouldn't do anything about it then. But, finally, we have a bill here—that we are going to pass today, hopefully—that will resolve this issue and allow the textiles union, in particular, to demerge from the CFMEU. This is a good thing.

This legislation is enabling that demerger and enabling them to disassociate themselves. But I have a question for the Labor Party. Will you go a step further and stop taking political donations from the CFMEU? We know that you're absolutely addicted to those donations. We know that they're the biggest donors to the Australian Labor Party. We know that they provide your resources to campaign and peddle the rubbish you pedal. They know that that's who gives them this funding. This Labor Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the trade union movement, particularly the CFMEU. Will they follow through in the way that they brought forward this legislation? Will they accept donations in the future, or will they do the right thing and start to stand up?

We know that the CFMEU gave the last federal election $4.3 million. Not only that, they have control of their preselections. These guys over here are in their seats; these guys up in the gallery get to have their jobs because of the preselections that occur. And they're all happening right now. Everyone has been facing preselections in recent months or is about to. The union powerbrokers have control over their preselections and decide whether they get to keep their jobs or not.

But they also have control over the funds that come into that party, so will the Prime Minister be ruling out any further contribution from the CFMEU? If ever a government was beholden to the trade union movement since the failed Whitlam government, it is this present Labor government. They are the gold standard when it comes to delivering their paymasters' wish list. When it comes to industrial relations, we've seen their list of legislation go through this place. We've seen the sham inquiries that occur, the way that they guillotine debates and the way that they rush stuff through without proper scrutiny, without proper debate and without a committee process in this place because they are beholden to this union.

They need to start standing up, but will the Prime Minister do that? Will the Prime Minister actually stand up? We know that this Prime Minister is weak. We know that this Prime Minister will not stand up. We know that they will continue to take these donations. We know that they will continue to have this undue influence over their processes and over their party. Maybe we could be surprised, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Under this government's fair work bills, they've attempted to insert pernicious trade union influence into just about every workplace in the country. It wasn't good enough to just have that pernicious influence over construction workplaces; they've now brought it into almost every workplace, including, in particular, small businesses across Australia. That is what this government's agenda is. They're just beholden to the trade union movement.

We know that union membership has declined across this country. About seven per cent of workers are in a union. That includes police, nurses, teachers, public servants. If you were to take them out, I don't know what the number would but it'd be very, very small. We know they're heavily unionised. And there are many good unions, by the way.

I'm not against unions. Senator McKim said that we're no friend of the unions. That's not true. We do believe in the right of association and the freedom of association. My wife's a nurse. She's seen the support of the federation over there in Western Australia. They do good work. The teachers union do fantastic work. There are good unions. But here we have an example, the CFMEU, particularly the construction section of the CFMEU, that clearly is absolutely atrocious, and this government will not call them out. You watch: in any of their contributions on this debate, there won't be any call-out of that. They're just going to appeal to the fact that they've got a group within that want to separate themselves, but they won't call out the atrocious behaviour that occurs.

And it is atrocious. A Federal Court judge once described their conduct as systemic and unlawful, yet, despite this known pattern of behaviour by the CFMEU, this government rushed to abolish the ABCC in the early days after its election. Part of their first tranche of industrial relations law that came through this parliament was to abolish the ABCC. That was an integral oversight body with a proven track record of winning prosecutions against union thuggery, and they couldn't bear it any longer, so what did they do? They abolished it, rather than actually standing up and fighting against the pernicious activity that occurs in those construction workplaces.

Back in the mid-1980s, in 1986, the Hawke Labor government passed a bill which deregistered the BLF, Builders Labourers Federation. This was a union that adopted, as a slogan, Mao Zedong's motto: 'Dare to struggle, dare to win!' In a long history of having leaders that were communists, one actually went to jail. Things must've been bad if the forces of the Labor government were lined up against the BLF, but the spirit of the BLF lives on in the CFMEU. Bill Kelty, former ACTU secretary—and a former AFL commissioner no less—is reported to have said this recently of Mr Setka's threats to the AFL:

You're not entitled to be threatening people, you're not entitled to threaten the AFL …

Why would you be threatening the AFL? The clubs have done nothing. The AFL members have done nothing. So why would you want to damage the AFL or its membership? It's not fair. It's not fair to the clubs, it's not fair to the members.

Why would you make them pay? If you do things in life and you hurt people, you hurt organisations, somebody pays the price. Who will pay the price? It will be the clubs and the supporters.

So it took the recent threats of Mr Setka towards the AFL for this Labor government to finally act. Senator Lambie, as I said, I congratulate you, because this in many ways emulates what you brought forward earlier this year. It took that bill and now these threats on AFL fields across the country for this government to finally come forward with something that addresses it.

Labor should have addressed this issue long ago. We had an opportunity back in the last term of government for the then opposition to support addressing this issue, but they didn't. But finally, with their own bill being brought forward—a bill that very much resembles what we had in the previous term of government and certainly resembles what Senator Lambie brought forward earlier this year—we have an opportunity now to resolve this issue.

One of the things that I'd like to see is an amendment, and I foreshadow the amendment on sheet 2694, which reads:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 to ensure that anyone convicted of more than 10 criminal offences cannot be appointed as an officer of a registered organisation".

We're not asking for much. In fact, it's a pretty high bar—10 criminal offences. Government, why don't you support this as well? Here's an opportunity to make sure that you can't be a union official or hold any office or authority within a trade union movement if you have a record of 10 criminal offences against you. It is a pretty high bar, but let's see if the Labor Party are prepared to do that or are going to continue to go low and support thuggery and the ability for union officials—people of authority within unions—to hold office within these organisations if they carry with them a record of significant offences. Let's see if they have got the guts to go one step further and fix that too.

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

Well, hallelujah! The Labor Party has finally seen the light. I've been trying to fix this for six months now. In early February, I brought an amendment to the Senate so that the manufacturing division of the CFMEU, which include textiles, clothing and footwear workers, timber workers and furniture workers, could hold a secret ballot to demerge from the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union. The textile, clothing and footwear sector, the TCF sector, is currently part of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, or the CFMEU, after a merger in 2018.

My amendment was knocked back, so in late February I brought forward a private senator's bill that would do the same thing. The textile, clothing and footwear sector is part of the CFMEU, unfortunately for it, and it has greatest number of women. Many of these women are from non-English-speaking backgrounds, and many of them have had firsthand experience of exploitation, underpayment, unsafe conditions and abuse. I was absolutely gobsmacked that this was knocked back. Seriously, all they are asking for is a secret ballot. Isn't that the core of our own democracy?

The women in the textile sector probably know better than most what it's like to work for an organisation that is run by a bloke who likes to throw his weight around—putting it mildly. There are no prizes for guessing who I'm talking about: yep, John Setka, of course, the current state secretary of this Victorian branch of the CFMEU—you know, that bully boy who told a meeting that Rosie Batty's advocacy work had led to men having fewer rights. These women had to share offices with the CFMEU. As a union rep said to the Age newspaper:

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

After these comments were leaked to newspapers, as usual Mr Setka, like the bully that he is, went after his critics and hired a private investigator, no doubt with members' money, to bug and follow them. That's what sort of man this bloke is. He is gutter trash and he is a bully! Many quit their positions and were forced out. Once reports of Setka's comments were out there Sally McManus, the secretary of the ACTU, and Anthony Albanese, then opposition leader, called for Setka's resignation.

Later in 2019, John Setka's attitude towards women, especially to his wife, was revealed when reports emerged of an incident that took place in 2018. Following this incident, Victoria Police charged Setka with 30 domestic violence charges including recklessly causing injury and a pattern of harassment by breaching court orders and making threats. The harassment included 45 texts in which he called his wife horrible names using the most hateful, violent language.

I brought that amendment and that private senator's bill so the women of the textile union could have some control over their own working lives without fear of harassment and intimidation. I thought it would be easy. Surely the modern Labor Party would support these women, especially as the current Prime Minister removed John Setka from the Labor Party years ago? But it wasn't easy because Labor was too scared of the CFMEU to do the right thing.

Worse are the Greens—the party that constantly talks in this place about gender equality and fighting the good fight against domestic violence. Guess what, you Greens supporters. They voted against my amendment and they voted against my private senator's bill. They voted against the women of the textile union having a secret ballot, which is all they were asking for, so they could decide who was in charge of them and so they could get bully boy Setka out of their lives and finally feel empowered. That's all they wanted. But the Greens weren't having any of it and are still are not having any of it today! This is a party whose leader proudly proclaims that he is a feminist! So a union with thousands of women, many of them from non-English-speaking backgrounds, were denied by the Labor Party and the Greens the right to be in charge of their own destiny. This is the Australian Greens who have a lot to say about women on their website including:

Women have the right to equal access and participation in decision making processes in all areas of political, social, cultural, intellectual and economic life.

How's that quote going on your website right now?

That's where we are at today. I was never going to back away from this fight—not ever, not for these women. I would have kept fighting for these women and also for the men in this sector so they could be free of John Setka and his intimidation and abuse. But then, just a few weeks ago, old Setka—he just can't help himself, that bloke!—started to bully the AFL, demanding that they sack their head referee because he previously worked for the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Seriously? This bloke is off the planet. He's incredibly dangerous! That was the last straw for Minister Burke. I'm glad we finally got you over the line for that, Minister Burke! God forbid that they would allow a man in an organisation like the AFL to be bullied. No, no, no, they couldn't be having any of that.

So here we are, the Labor Party has copied my private senator's bill and have finally brought it to the chamber today—hurray. Well done to Minister Burke for acting quickly, no matter his motivation. I am confident the coalition will back this in. They know very well how John Setka operates and what pressure he puts on people to make sure that he gets what he wants. No matter what methods John Setka wants to use, he uses them. He does not care about human life. He does not care if he plays standover man to get what he wants. He's a disgrace. He's nothing but gutter material. That's all John Setka has ever been and will ever be. The CFMEU and their behaviour have put a stain on the entire union movement. You are disgusting. The core of the CFMEU behave like thugs. They don't care about these workers. They just want to make sure they get all those big-city construction projects, no matter how they get them. They don't play in the law, because the CFMEU don't know what 'law' means. They just care about money: they care about money, and they care about power.

Let's see what the Greens do today—my goodness. Yesterday they refused to support a motion that I brought condemning the defacing of war memorials. You would have thought their standards dropped enough towards the gutter yesterday. But, oh, no. It's all about the CFMEU, instead of doing what they've said they'll always do—standing for the rights of women in this country. Here's your chance today. I have to ask: if you don't vote for these women, what are you getting out of the CFMEU?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order. The senator should be directing her comments at the chair, not across the chamber at us. She knows that.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lambie.

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

With all due respect, the Greens will have to grab a kleenex today. I have no feelings for them. Let's see who they are taking their orders from. Who are the Greens taking their orders from? Are they taking them from women in this country, or are they taking them from John Setka and the CFMEU? I can tell you now: that's the only thing that we want to know today. I want to know if the Greens are finally going to hit the gutter at the lowest end they possibly can today. Let's see what you've got. I hope your supporters are watching this, because I can tell them that the Greens are not the party they say they are. They're not even close to it. You can continue to support the Greens if you like, but open your eyes as supporters and wake up to them. They are divisive in this country. They don't stand for what they say they're going to stand for, and now they're supporting thugs in the CFMEU and John Setka. That's what seeing today.

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

I really do applaud Senator Lambie's courage in relation to this matter. It takes a lot of courage to come into this place and say what Senator Lambie has put on the record in relation to such a powerful organisation as the construction division of the CFMEU. I really do congratulate Senator Lambie. People listening in the gallery should know that there is a cost when Senator Lambie does what she does, because the construction division of the CFMEU do not abide by the rules. Their playbook is intimidation, threats and bullying tactics. It takes a lot of courage for Senator Lambie to do what she did. I congratulate Senator Lambie. From my perspective, it represents the very best of this place, the Senate—speaking on behalf of the most vulnerable. Senator Lambie talked about vulnerable workers in the textile industry, speaking up for those workers and their right to a safe workplace. Good on you, Senator Lambie. I congratulate you. I'm so pleased that I'm on the same side as you on this debate, and I always will be.

I have risen on many occasions and talked about the construction division of the CFMEU. This is not about trade union movements. My father was a member of a trade union, as was my mother. My sister still is. This is about the construction division of the CFMEU, a toxic blight upon our industrial relations landscape. Every single major construction project in my home state of Queensland—hospitals, schools, even the construction of Ronald McDonald House near one of our hospitals—has been subjected to intimidation, bullying tactics and unlawful conduct and behaviour by the CFMEU construction division. They are out of control.

In that context, the Labor Party got rid of the cop on the beat, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which was the only handbrake on the CFMEU construction division. Those on that side removed that handbrake, and we are all paying for it. We're paying for it as taxpayers, because every major infrastructure project in this country is costing 30 or 40 per cent more than it should. We're paying for it in terms of the workplace health and safety of workers on those sites, of contractors, of their wellbeing. It got so bad in the state of Queensland, in my home state, that the workplace health and safety inspectors—those people employed by the regulator to go onto building sites to make sure those sites are safe for the workers—had to take industrial relations protected action because they were too scared to go on the sites, because of the CFMEU. That's how bad it got in my home state of Queensland.

This is a division of a union that is out of control, and we are all paying for it. I've got a number of cases from just the past 12 months in relation to the actions of the CFMEU. Here's one: the Fair Work Ombudsman v CFMEU, in relation to the Mordialloc Freeway project case. Every freeway that's built in this country has to try to grapple with the unlawful conduct of the CFMEU. The judge, in a judgement brought down on 21 June 2024, said that the CFMEU has a well-documented record of noncompliance with industrial laws. And this is a judge, not a politician. He said:

On any view, the CFMEU is properly to be described as a well-resourced, recidivist offender. Since 2010, it has been held to have contravened [section] 500 of the [Fair Work] act more than 170 times in no fewer than 50 proceedings …

Its record of contravening demonstrates a general disregard on its part of workplace laws …

But they don't care about the law. They don't care about the wellbeing of people in our community. Anyone in their way is fair game. It's absolutely disgraceful.

In this case, it was a female occupational health and safety manager. And I come back to Senator Lambie's point with respect to the position of the Greens. As Senator Lambie said, at every opportunity the Greens say they are for gender equality, as we all are, et cetera, et cetera. But when the rubber hits the road, where are they? In this case it was a woman who was the occupational health and safety inspector who was on the receiving end of vile language from a CFMEU thug. Senator McKim couldn't even bring himself to mention the letters C-F-M-E-U. It's disgraceful.

Here's another case. In my home state of Queensland just recently, in May, from Justice Logan of the Federal Court. In Queensland we have a bridge called the Centenary Bridge, which needs to be duplicated. Who would have thought: the CFMEU turn up—50 of them—unannounced and surround the workplace in their LandCruisers and intimidate everyone. This happened just a few months ago. This is an important piece of infrastructure. This is how a witness described it in an article in my home state:

The CFMEU are everywhere and confronting the workers on the bicycle path.

We just tried getting through. About 50 people facing off and a heap in the carpark … .

About 40 CFMEU blocked access to the front gate and surrounded a concrete truck on the main road, causing traffic problems.

That's part of their strategy. They'll go and stop the concrete pour midpour—intimidation; make sure the site incurs costs. This is hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional cost to that infrastructure, which is partly funded by the Australian taxpayer, as a result of the intimidation and bullying tactics of the CFMEU.

And where are the Australian Greens? It's absolutely outrageous. The judge had to issue an order called a penal notice to the CFMEU, including its delegates, officeholders, employees or other representatives. I'm not going to name the individuals, because they are working in a toxic culture. This is the culture of this division of this union. This is what the order says: 'If you refuse or neglect to do any act within the time specified in this order of the doing of the act or disobey the order by doing an act which the order requires you not to do, you will be liable for imprisonment, sequestration of property or other punishment. Any other person who knows of this order and does anything which helps or permits you to breach the terms of this order may be similarly punished.' That's the state we've gotten to. This isn't about orderly industrial relations conduct. The CFMEU construction division is something out of TheSopranos, without the good humour. It's an absolute disgrace.

You will not hear any member opposite in the Labor Party even mention the CFMEU. I've sat here during the debates. They refuse to even mention them, even though they sit on the national executive of the Australian Labor Party and donate millions and millions of dollars to the Australian Labor Party.

As for the Greens, it seriously just baffles me how the Australian Greens could possibly vote against this legislation. This is about the right of the textile worker members who form part of that union not wanting to be associated with the CFMEU construction division because they don't agree with the tactics of the CFMEU construction division and how they conduct themselves. On what possible basis would you say to a group of people who are currently part of a union and don't want to be part of that union because they don't agree with its intimidation, bullying, threatening and unlawful behaviour, 'No, you've got to stay there'? The Australian Greens say: 'You've got to stay there. We don't care. You've got to stay with John Setka and his bullying mates. You don't have the right to leave.' What right do the Australian Greens have to say that to those workers? What gives you the right to say that to those workers? They are people's mothers, sisters and daughters. What gives you the right to issue that edict from this place? What gives the Australian Greens the right?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Scarr was here earlier when I made the same point of order in relation to Senator Lambie. He needs to direct his comments to the chair, not the Australian Greens. He is deliberately being inflammatory. We're not going to rise to that, but I ask you to bring him to order.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr, I will ask for you to reflect on your comments and to address them directly to the chair.

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

Indeed, I will. This isn't about politics. Senator Whish-Wilson said this is about politics. This is not about politics. This is the Senate doing the work it should do in terms of standing up for vulnerable people in the community who are being monstered by this unlawful activity of the CFMEU construction division. That is why we are here. It is certainly why I am here. Senator Jacqui Lambie's impassioned speech will be at great personal cost. Don't be in any doubt. You don't take on people like the CFMEU construction division without suffering a personal cost. So, again, I applaud the courage of Senator Jacqui Lambie. She had an option. She could stay silent. She could say nothing when these workers are in this terrible position. But she chose not to. She was the first to rise in this place back in February to seek action in relation to this issue, and she should be applauded for that. Senator Jacqui Lambie has been proven to be absolutely correct. Hats off to Senator Lambie in that respect.

So this is not about politics—far from it. It's about the wellbeing of these workers. It's about their industrial democratic right to choose not to be part of a union infested with mugs, bullies and people who break the law. It doesn't get more fundamental than that, and yet the Australian Greens take it upon themselves to say that they can deny those workers their industrial democratic right to choose to demerge. Those workers don't want to be part of the construction division of the CFMEU. They don't want to be associated with them, and I can well understand why. What gives the Australian Greens the right to do that? It just flummoxes me. Really, you should reconsider. Senator McKim, at times I've stood, as you know, and congratulated you on certain things, absolutely. I'll do it again, but, seriously, you should really reconsider. I know you're a person with a good heart, and I know you would not want your daughter, sister or anyone close to you to be at the receiving end of the intimidating thuggery of the construction division of the CFMEU. They really are beyond the pale.

As I think a previous speaker said, they actually do wider damage to the broader trade union movement because the reality is, if you look at the figures in terms of contraventions of the law, the CFMEU construction division are absolutely off the planet with their offending. Then, at the other end of the scale, you get the odd infringement from some of the other unions. But the CFMEU construction division are off the planet and our workers are suffering because of it. Every single Australian taxpayer suffers because of it because the cost of every single construction project in this country is 30 or 40 per cent over what it should be due to those intimidatory tactics such as occurred at the Centenary Bridge in Queensland when concrete pours were interrupted. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional construction costs were added to that project, which we paid for. That was money which could have gone into social programs to help people in need in the community but was just wasted as the 50 CFMEU workers surrounded that worksite. Can you imagine what that's like? They had to lock the gates on the worksite. They were fearful for their wellbeing. Have a look at the video of what occurred: those are the tactics of the CFMEU construction division.

I think every single senator in this place should support this legislation, and every single senator in this place should congratulate Senator Lambie for her courage in taking this fight on.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to stand today to support the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024. As somebody who has sat on the Senate education and employment committee for a very, very long time, including back in the day when we actually did have the ABCC as the top cop on the beat of our building worksites, I saw Labor senators argue that that be dismantled. They win an election and what do we see: militant, aggressive, violent behaviour on construction sites not just in my home state of the socialist republic of Victoria but right across public works programs across this country. It goes back a long way. You can change the name of an organisation, but you can't change the culture.

I'm old enough to remember the BLF, the Builders Labourers Federation. I'm old enough to remember a Labor Prime Minister that stood up to the BLF and the aggressive, militant, violent tactics of that union in the workplaces of Australians. Now we have the CFMEU, who are very proudly telling Australians that they run this government. They run the Victorian Labor government and they also run Anthony Albanese's government. It's all a bit rich, isn't it, for the Labor Party to walk in and talk about how tough they are on the abuse of women and how tough they are on workplaces with negative and toxic cultures, and yet they're very, very happy to accept the CFMEU's votes for their preselections and they're very, very happy to accept the CFMEU's support for the motions at the Labor conference.

It's taken them a long, long time to actually come to the point where they're prepared to do what Bob Hawke wasn't afraid to do and say that the CFMEU is no friend of the Australian worker and does not have the workplace culture that we think is appropriate. You talk about Set the standard. Now is your opportunity. But too many of you are conflicted. Too many Labor MPs and too many Labor ministers are conflicted in their conversation about the CFMEU—because they owe their jobs to the CFMEU. That is the sad reality of politics in this country. If we talk about how the CFMEU is behaving and the impact it's having on my own portfolio in infrastructure and transport, major contracting groups warn that productivity has declined by 40 per cent on major construction projects because of restrictive work practices over the past 30 years, driven by the union—pay rises but no productivity increases.

On a public infrastructure build in excess of hundreds of millions of dollars, it's not government money being put into these projects; it's the Australian working public's money being put to these projects. Every time productivity falls and costs go up because of an excessive EBA agreement with no productivity gains, guess who pays more? The men and women working very hard in the suburbs are just trying to keep a roof over their heads as their mortgages escalate because Jim Chalmers can't get the budget under control.

Some examples of these productivity gains on major projects are no concrete pours on projects past 11 in the morning; no automatic detection systems, so you can't have a truck that beeps in reverse; you have to employ someone to tell you whether you're going to bump into something in your truck on-site; and a spotter, so you don't need to use technology; you need to hire someone whose only job for the day is to tell you that you haven't been looking in your rear vision mirror enough. I mean, it beggars belief! This is stuff we had to do in the forties! We have a computer in our hands, but we still need a spotter on a CFMEU worksite. Superglue and other adhesives also need to be applied to lock gates to stop workers from getting into worksites. Why? Why can't they get to work? And when they actually say, 'We would have loved to have started work on that project,' they can't, because the union has locked the gate. It's not the employer; it's the union that has locked the gate.

The CFMEU has won RDOs that are baked into the calendars of workers regardless of the need for flexibility on particular jobs. I'll tell you that, when you're pouring concrete, rainy days matter. It's a bit like farming. When it's raining, you can't pour the concrete. 'So why don't we pour it tomorrow?' 'Oh, sorry, all the boys have an RDO. It's a Friday.' These are the types of issues that this union bakes in, and the taxpayer and the community pay. The community pays because roads take longer to build. They're more expensive. Councils and governments say, 'You can have stage 1, but you can't have stage 2 of that project,' which would mean you're not sitting in traffic for an additional hour that you don't need to.

The Australian Constructors Association has calculated that there would be a $56 billion productivity lisp in our economy if these restrictive work practices and turf wars between unions were removed. How many schools is that? How many hospitals is that? If this government was actually interested in delivering real outcomes for the Australian people, it might want to look at the productivity of our worksites and the impact of its paymasters, the CFMEU bosses, on destroying productivity on worksites and on infrastructure projects around the country. The two centres of the CFMEU power are in Queensland and in my home state of Victoria. You don't have to go far to understand the rorts, the rubbish and the violence that the CFMEU has wrought upon the streets of Victorian worksites.

The CFMEU in Victoria secured a 21½ per cent pay rise on their EBA agreement, and they took the rest of the day off to celebrate. Don't worry about the concrete pour. Don't worry about doing your job. Go and have a beer on the taxpayer for the rest of the day, boys. That is how it's run. Workers responded to the decision with, 'A 20 per cent pay rise. That's not enough. There's not enough Ford Rangers in the country.' That's what one speaker said. Meanwhile this mob's trying to stop you buying Ford Rangers, remember. It's got to be in EV. First-year apprentices are going to get Raptors—God bless the CFMEU. What is forgotten in this conversation is the 25 per cent increase on the cost of critical road and rail and the electrical rollout of our transition. The cost of these projects is borne by the taxpayer.

Then we had the fantastic situation of John Setka—aka head headkicker of the headkicking CFMEU—running around trying to tell the AFL, 'We're not going to build any stadiums. We're not going to do any change rooms. We don't care that you're a sport,' that most kids now, thankfully, girls and boys play right across not just Victoria but every sensible state in the land. 'We're not going to do any of your projects because one of your umpires used to do a job that meant the CFMEU had to actually follow the law. This guy's job was just to check whether the union was kicking down any doors, bullying, harassing any women on worksites, ripping off bosses and punching people. Is the union following the law? That was this guy's job, and because he had that job they are now threatening the AFL to not build any infrastructure projects for the AFL.

What did the Labour Party say? Nothing. That's because they are so conflicted. They owe their jobs to these guys. Let's face it, there aren't a lot of chicks in the CFMEU. There might be one or two ladies driving a truck somewhere and a lot are holding the signs, but in terms of who the powerbrokers are in this hypermasculine, toxic union, it is men.

I want to say thank you to Senator Lambie for always having the guts on this issue. This is not the first time she has stood up and put her principles about trying to hold this particular union to account to paper and onto the floor of this Senate. I wholly support the fact that union members should decide whether they want to be part of a bully gang. Some members will vote to stay members of the bully gang, but a lot of workers won't. They love what they do, they love their jobs, they love their industries, but they don't want to be tarnished with the bad culture that the CFMEU has brought onto workplaces.

There was another member of the CFMEU—the forestry division—who I'm sure would love to get out from under this pack of bullies, because where is this union standing up for the forestry industry? Where is the CFMEU standing beside timber workers, timber truck drivers and manufacturers in country towns right throughout Victoria, as the Labor Party shut down the native timber industry? Cooee! You couldn't find them. They were too busy buying their next Ford Ranger on their pay rise as they ripped their bosses and the taxpayers off as a result of the bullying tactics that I've outlined.

When you look at the first two years of this government, there's one minister who's actually done his job. It's not Chris Bowen, it's not Tanya, it's definitely not Giles. Unfortunately, PM, it's not you either. We wish you were not weak and distracted, but unfortunately that seems to be the character of the man we find leading our country. The minister who has actually done his job and is best placed, I think, if the membership and the unions were to actually have a say in who should lead the Labor party, is Tony Burke. He's actually done every single thing the ACTU has asked him to do.

What do we have a result? We have a weaker economy and businesses going bust at almost record levels. That is why this bill is a fantastic step forward. I'm sure the forestry division would also like the right to get out of this space, but anything that shuts down the CFMEU and brings sanity to our workplaces in the construction sector is something I will support.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be put.

I invite the government to rearrange business such that all stages of the bill can be concluded.

Question agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.