Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings.

The Albanese Labor government has introduced a bill to ensure a clear pathway to enable the appointment of an administrator to all branches of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU.

To senators today, there are times when legislation comes to this place that we need to deal with expeditiously, and this is one of those pieces of legislation. I'm calling on everyone in this chamber to agree to exempt the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 from the cut-off. I know that senators have been provided with copies of the legislation—it was introduced yesterday—and that briefings have occurred. Everything the government could have done to ensure that people are briefed on this legislation to allow this motion to proceed has been put in place, and I would say that the people of Australia are expecting a strong response to the allegations that have been raised publicly about the behaviour of some elements within the CFMEU across this country. That is what this legislation seeks to assist in resolving by appointing an administrator.

We don't have time to have this sit around for weeks. We want to respond quickly. The issues are fairly clear. The allegations are serious, and I think the Australian public expect us to respond quickly and put in place arrangements that can provide assurance to the public and the members of that union that steps have been taken to make sure that the problems identified, the allegations raised, are being dealt with and that the union can continue to go on and represent its members across the building and construction industry.

It's essential, because of the nature of the work that's done in that industry, that members are represented by a strong union. We know that that is an important part of ensuring workplace safety on the building sites, but serious allegations have been raised, including those that involve outlaw bikie gangs, and the government needs to respond. That's what this legislation does. All the motion before the Senate today does is allow for this bill to start being debated and for us to start working through our process.

The government would like this bill dealt with in this chamber this week so that it can go to the House and be dealt with in that chamber. We think it is important that we are able to leave this week's sitting with a very firm view from the Senate that this legislation is the right way to proceed. I know that a lot of work is being done by the minister to make sure that people are briefed and to make sure that, where there are discussions about possible amendments or areas of the legislation that need to be clarified, that work is done and people aren't held up. But this Senate cannot, and should not, get in the way of this legislation passing. It is urgent. We have all seen the stories of the unacceptable behaviour that is alleged to have been occurring on building sites in this country, and this is one way to ensure that proper processes are being put in place. We acknowledge that the union has taken some steps under the national secretary, but we believe that more needs to be done. This bill will allow those arrangements to be put in place quickly and allow the work to start rebuilding the union to occur.

There is no reason to delay. If there is any advice people need, any briefings people need or any assurance people need, officials are available and able to brief people. Anything that seeks to delay the passage of this bill is pure politics, when it is no time for those kinds of games. It's all about getting the job done and making sure we get this legislation passed and an administrator put in place across all branches of the CFMEU so that the recovery work for that union can begin, to make it the union that its members need it to be. We know there's a lot of politics attached to this, and we have no doubt that the opposition will provide some commentary in that space as soon as I sit down. But, in relation to this piece of legislation, this is one time that this Senate can get together and do the right thing, which is to put in place those arrangements as quickly as possible and not leave the parliament this session without that job being done. The people of Australia expect us to respond quickly when we need to and when we have to, and this is exactly one of those types of situations.

I urge everyone to support this motion to exempt the bill from the cut-off but, more than that, to support this legislation and get it done quickly. We could pass it today if it were the will of the Senate. There is no reason why we cannot sit and pass this legislation today and get it to the House tomorrow. They can deal with it then, and we can have this legislation and an administrator in place as soon as possible. That is the challenge I throw out to the Senate. I think it's a reasonable challenge considering the allegations that have been raised, and I urge senators to support this motion.

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

I also rise to speak on the motion in relation to the exemption of the bill from the cut-off. Let me be clear: the coalition will be supporting this motion. But I have to say, in relation to the speech just given by the minister, Seinfeld could not have scripted it better, because there is a pattern of behaviour in relation to this government—literally. Labor slams the coalition for refusing to rush migration bills through the Senate. Labor slams the coalition and the Greens for refusing to rush the HAFF bills through the Senate. Labor slams the coalition for refusing to rush NDIS laws through the Senate. Labor slams the coalition and the Greens for refusing to rush the closing the loopholes bill through the Senate. Labor slams the coalition and the Greens for refusing to rush the AAT appeal bill through the Senate. Does anybody see a pattern of behaviour here?

This is a government that couldn't care less about the Australian Senate. In fact, I'm quite surprised you don't actually move to abolish the place, because, as far as you are concerned, we have no role at all. You dump a piece of legislation in this place, and you then demand that we put it through with no scrutiny. That is not the way this place operates, in particular—and Minister Watt would love the Australian people not to understand this—when the purpose of the legislation is best summed up by a very famous saying: 'The fox is guarding the henhouse.' This legislation is nothing more and nothing less than a hollow attempt by the Australian Labor Party to try and pull the wool over the Australian public's eyes and pretend that it's doing something to curb the behaviour of what is now the most militant union in this country: the CFMEU. But, quite frankly, what is even more gobsmacking to hear in the speeches is the fact that, apparently, this legislation is so urgent because of the nature of the behaviour. Seriously? Is that some type of joke?

Let's talk about urgency when it comes to this type of behaviour. In 2019, a number of years ago now—five years ago, if you want to talk about urgency—the former coalition government brought forward the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill. Do you know what this bill would have done five years ago to clean up the joint—the CFMEU and the system? It would have included certain serious criminal offences as a new category of prescribed offence for the purposes of automatic disqualification for registered organisations' officials who break the law. But guess what? It wasn't good enough for Labor back then, was it? They turned a blind eye to everything the trade union royal commission had put on the table and said was occurring. Blind Freddy could have told you what was occurring, because of the trade union royal commission.

We brought forward the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill, and it would have started the clean-up process for the system, to hold these union officials to account. Do you know what the Australian Labor Party did? They fought us every step of the way. Senator Murray Watt was the chief protagonist—

in actually ensuring that this legislation did not go through the Senate, and he now jokes in this place as if it's a bit of fun. Well guess what, Minister Watt? Five years ago, we had the opportunity to start cleaning up the CFMEU, and you fought against us every step of the way, and this legislation did not get over the line.

It didn't stop there, though. There was another bill that the coalition brought forward at the time, because the trade union royal commission had told us what Senator Watt and Senator Gallagher have suddenly turned their minds to. It was called the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill. Do you know what this bill was designed to do? It was designed to ensure that members who gave funds to registered organisations could actually rely on that registered organisation to expend the funds in their best interests. In fact, this is in the explanatory memorandum:

The examples of corruption, financial misconduct and mismanagement outlined in the Report—

the trade union royal commission report—

have demonstrated that the existing regulatory framework is not satisfactory in preventing fraud and financial mismanagement, or ensuring acceptable standards of democratic governance in the interests of members. A consistent theme in many of the case studies considered by the Royal Commission was a lack of transparency and accountability of the financial affairs of registered organisations and their associated entities.

That is a bill the former coalition government brought forward: 'proper use of workers entitlements'. And guess what? The Australian Labor Party again fought us every step of the way.

In the first instance you've got the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill that would have commenced a clean-up of this system, a system that we have known for years and years is, quite frankly, corrupt. Those on the other side, Minister Watt in particular, stand here and say, 'It's time. Under the former coalition government you did nothing,' but we didn't have the numbers in this place. But we had the guts in 2016 to go to a double-dissolution election. We staked government on restoring the Australian Building and Construction Commission because we wanted to clean up the building and construction sector in this country. We wanted to stand up for the thousands and thousands of workers who, every day, were being abused by members of the CFMEU. We went to a double-dissolution election. That was the extent of our commitment.

I was the minister at the time, and I remember Minister Watt throwing everything at it to say no. We needed an additional 10 votes from the crossbench at the time. Guess what? We managed to get those votes, and we managed to do it because the Australian public voted us back in. They wanted a tough watchdog on the beat. But we needed the crossbench and their 10 additional votes. You know why? It was because of the Australian Labor Party, the party which has just woken up to corruption in the CFMEU, the bullying and thuggery. Seriously, you've got to go back and watch the videos of former Senator Cameron and now Minister Watt at estimates seriously defending these people and their behaviour. Butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. You have got to be kidding me, seriously!

We went to a double dissolution in 2016 and were fought every step of the way by the Australian Labor Party. I remember the campaigns because I travelled around the country at the time. I remember the abuse. But we were prepared to take that abuse. Why? Because it was in the best interest of the Australian people, and it was in the best interest of the construction sector in this country.

We also stood up the Registered Organisations Commission. Why? Because all registered organisations should actually have to comply with the law. They have a very privileged status in society. A lot of people wouldn't know that unions don't pay tax. How do you feel about that every day, Australian people? How do you feel about that, mum-and-dad small business? Every time you get up, every day, guess what? You earn a dollar, and the government's going to take some from you. You know what happens if you don't pay it? The tax man will come after you, but not when you are union.

They have all these privileges, and yet the trade union royal commission showed they were abusing them. Do you know what Labor did though? They fought us on the ensuring integrity bill. They fought us on the workers entitlement bill. They fought us on the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which we successfully stood up. They fought us on the Registered Organisations Commission bill, which we successfully stood up. There was no bad behaviour—to quote Mr Albanese and Senator Watt and every other Labor member: 'There's nothing to see here in the construction industry. Why do they need a separate watchdog? They should be treated like any other industry. The behaviour is no better and no worse.'

So the money flowed. There was $6.2 million—I mean you have got to be kidding me!—which flowed from the CFMEU to the Australian Labor Party. That is big money in any analysis. No-one knows where it came from. There are plenty of ideas, but no-one knows where it came from. It's since Mr Albanese became the Leader of the Opposition, and you know what the deal was? Mr Setka made it very clear. When you get into office, you abolish the tough watchdog on the beat.

Minister Watt will tell you it wasn't successful. If it wasn't successful, why was the ABCC found by the court in over 91 per cent of cases to be successful? Why did the courts impose in excess of $15 million in fines against the CFMEU in particular? If it was not successful, why did John Setka give Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia, his instructions to abolish it? Because if it wasn't successful, Mr Setka and Mr Albanese, what did the CFMEU have to be scared of? We know exactly what you were scared of—the law. That is why you gave the $6.2 million to the Australian Labor Party, and that is why, as one of their first items of business, they came into this place and said: 'There is nothing to see here. The CFMEU are upstanding citizens. There's no bullying, no thuggery and no intimidation.'

I was casting my mind only the other day back over the Hansard of when we were in office. Question time after question time after question time, we prosecuted the abuse against women in the construction industry—the harassment, the intimidation, the bullying and the thuggery. And do you know what those on that side of the chamber said at the time? They said we were embellishing it. We were making it up. It wasn't occurring.

And now they have been exposed while they are in government. Despite everything they did to ensure the corruptness of the system when they were last in opposition, when we tried to clean it up, despite everything they have done since they got into government to ensure that everything on John Setka's wish list has been ticked off, despite every cent of $6.2 million—seriously, if I was the Australian public I would have real concerns about where this money from the CFMEU has come from. It's from bullying, thuggery, intimidation, outlaw motorcycle gangs, bikies—you name it—but Mr Albanese says there's nothing to see here in relation to this money.

Suddenly they come in here and say the Senate has to pass this legislation. As I said, we will support the exemption from the cut-off, because this bill does need to be debated. The reason it needs to be debated is it's one of the biggest jokes to come before this Senate. I hope we will at least be able to inquire into it, because that's what the stakeholders want—to see what actually needs to go in a scheme of administration. As I said, at this point in time it is a shell and nothing more. It's a shell that entitles the minister to assume, quite frankly, the identity of the fox guarding the henhouse. With the legislation currently before the parliament, the minister has given himself powers to do certain things that not even the parliament can challenge.

Quite frankly, to the Australian Labor Party, you can say what you like. I hope the journos are smarter for once and actually look at Labor's conduct when they were last in opposition, because if you hadn't fought us every step of the way, a lot of this behaviour would not be occurring. What has occurred is on your head but as is always the way, the coalition will help you clean up your own mess.

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

Just over six weeks ago the Greens had the opportunity to vote with the whole chamber and allow the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union to hold a secret ballot—a secret ballot that would enable the TCFU to run their own race. This was a few weeks before the shocking revelations from the Nine newspapers and 60 Minutes of the behaviour of John Setka and the CFMEU leadership—the bullying, the extortion, the links to organised crime. But the Greens voted against letting workers have a free vote and backing in Australia's worst union—an ugly stain on the whole union movement. This is from a party whose leader proudly proclaims that he is a feminist. I commend the government for moving quickly and bringing, finally, legislation that will determine a scheme for the administration for the CFMEU. I can assure you it's been a long time coming.

Now the blue team are asking for stronger measures. I have to ask them: what were they doing for the nine years they were actually in government? And sorry, but the ensuring integrity bill doesn't cut it. That was an omnibus bill. Get serious! That had some good laws, but it had other unions put in the same basket. You never needed to do that. You wanted to throw them all into one. That is where you come unstuck, so don't go blaming the other side. I watched this play out. You've been just as bad. And while you're there, there's a Dyson Heydon report sitting locked away. Why don't you ask them to present it out here? I read that 100-page report, and it was shocking! I don't know what you paid him for, but I can assure you he never got the job done, otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here discussing this today. We would never have been discussing it today. You lacked the ability to get the job done, so you're as bad as each other!

Unfortunately, you always have to watch out for government bills that have the word integrity in the title. They had a royal commission that failed utterly and brought no control over the bully boys of the CFMEU; it just gave them huge fines. What's that ever going to do? What we don't need is more inquiries. Thanks to whistleblowers and journalists, Australians are in no doubt whatsoever about what the leadership of this union has been up to. It has been absolutely—I don't even have a word for it! It has been shameful, and they've got away with it for this long. You cannot tell me that the ETU isn't attached and didn't know what was going on. There are members of your own party over there who've known exactly what has been going on for years.

You'd better make sure this bloke is doing the job properly, this administrator. I can tell you there's a hell of a lot more filth to come out, and there are going to be people's names attached to it, if it is done properly. If you're not going to do it properly, then you might as well stop it now, because I don't want to waste any more time. A Senate inquiry won't bring any more evidence against the bully boys of the CFMEU. I'll be looking forward to having the Comancheros and the Rebels sitting before me, because you people won't get witnesses coming forward. They're too scared. They won't come forward. They've got lives. They've got families. They will not dare to come in here. But I look forward—and I'm sure the chair, Senator Hanson, does—to standing in front of John Setka and his bully mates. We have no problem. But that's all you're going to get at a Senate inquiry. It will be a waste of time because nobody in their right mind, without proper whistleblower laws, is going to come forward; they're just not.

I'm hoping that you people are not going to grandstand over there in the coalition. Seriously, I'm sick of it. I don't want any more grandstanding. I just want a job that's done properly to finally set these bully boys where they need to be. My God, they are shocking!

But what about the Australian Greens? What will they do? What will they do? What will they do? Most Australian women are unionist. They are teachers. They are nurses. They are childcare workers. And they are textile workers, something you didn't stand for last time. The Greens have a lot to say about women on the website, including:

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

except when it comes to the CFMEU and their bully tactics. Apparently, according to the Greens, women in the union movement have no rights. Otherwise, you would have stood up for them six weeks ago instead of the bully boys of the CFMEU. You aren't listening to those women who are asking all of us in this place to take action against the union that has a culture of misogyny, bullying and harassment. This is the underbelly of the Greens. That's who they are—the underbelly. My goodness! This is where you've got to. This is your hypocrisy on full display. So are you going to vote with us today? Are you going to finally have the courage to put the CFMEU in their place? That's what I want to know from the Greens: where are you going to be today?

I can tell you: what an embarrassment for you guys. You should get up with it. Some of us knew that 60 Minutes report was coming. I want to know what you're getting from the CFMEU. Why didn't you vote for those women? And, if you don't vote against the CFMEU and start putting them in their place today, I want to know what you're getting. What are you getting? Election ads? Is it a handing out for the Greens on election day? The Greens just love telling Australians that their emissions don't stink, that they are always the ones that stand on the moral high ground. The moral high ground hey? Look what they did to those textile women six weeks ago. If that is the moral high ground, blow me away! All I want to know from the Greens is a simple question: are they standing in the gutter with the thugs that lead the CFMEU, or are they actually going to stand, finally, behind what they say—their high and moral ground?

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

I'm standing here not surprised. We have seen this government time and time again avoiding scrutiny and treating this place, the Senate, with contempt. And we're seeing that happen here with the rushing through of this legislation without the proper scrutiny that it requires. In the 24 hours we've had to look at the bill, we've already seen that there are significant gaps and holes within it. We need to be able to properly examine it. We don't need an extensive amount of time; this can be done quite expeditiously. But the way that this government is rushing this through shows contempt for this place.

Now, this is, of course, a very serious matter that is of no surprise to anyone in this place—except the government, who are trying to pretend that this is almost like the first they're hearing about it. I mean, we're seeing the line-up of ministers, from the Prime Minister down, standing up at press conferences and acting all surprised at these incidents of intimidation and thuggery and of misuse of funds occurring, as if it's the first time they're learning about them. Yet you only need to go back to Hansard, even for just the five years that I've been here, and have a look at Senate estimates, where we've had none other than Senator Murray Watt, the minister, sitting in front of estimates, while the coalition and other senators—there and in other inquiries we've had—have outlined quite thoroughly the incidents of intimidation and unlawfulness that the CFMEU, or certain members within the CFMEU—officeholders—have been able to perpetrate in workplaces across Australia. These issues were brought to the minister, who was sitting at the table, along with, at the time, the ABCC and other officials—even the department themselves—who were in front of us in estimates, and the minister would defend them. The minister would just bat the questions away, saying, 'Oh, it's not an issue,' or, 'The ABCC is just there dealing with frivolous issues like flags and stickers, not dealing with serious issues.' But we were able to bring forward evidence that the CFMEU had been involved in serious misconduct in workplaces. Yet we're seeing Minister Watt, the Prime Minister and others—Minister Burke, before him—standing up at press conferences, and in this place and in the other place, and acting like this is the first they're hearing about it, acting with some sort of urgency! Well, they've known about the thuggery and the unlawfulness that occurs through this organisation for years and years and years. It's nothing new. It's just the BLF replaced with the CFMEU. I mean, it's continuing.

So we need this issue to be taken with some seriousness. We've already uncovered, in the limited and short amount of time we've had, some serious gaps in the legislation before us. We're saying: this should go to an inquiry. We should have a couple of days to look at it. You've got a great chair in Senator Sheldon, who will, no doubt, oversee that inquiry with the fairness with which he usually operates—and I know that Senator Roberts would agree with me: that we could get this done. I'm prepared to stay over the weekend if we have to. I don't mind. I'm the deputy chair of that committee. I don't mind. Let's get it done.

I realise that we have to deal with this urgently, because we can't allow this organisation, and those mongrels within this organisation, to treat their workers with such contempt in the way that they do, with little backhand deals and brown paper bags. These things need to be dealt with, and they need to be dealt with quickly. But we need a couple of days to properly scrutinise this legislation, to reveal the gaps and the holes that have been provided through this legislation. For the CFMEU, this legislation, if it were to pass, would just buy some time. The CFMEU would really just need to allow a little bit more time to go by, because there's a sunset clause with this bill, and then they'll be right back at it. And that's what they know.

The minister will have the powers without any scrutiny in this place and without it being disallowable by the Senate. That's the first thing that needs to change. That's something we've revealed and been able to look at in just the short time that we've had to look at it. But let's hear from stakeholders, let's get some evidence from all sides of this debate and let's make sure that we have proper and thorough legislation to properly deal with it once and for all.

The first thing that should be happening—and this bill should include it—is the restoration of the ABCC. As Senator Cash was saying, it was the first piece of legislation in one of the first tranches of legislation that came through this place on this. We now have a union body for that industry that has been operating without any tether, without any checks and balances, since this government has come in. So the issues have got worse, because they know that they've got a friend in this place. They know that they've got those sitting on that other side of the chamber and in the other place right within their grips, because their preselections and their funding that comes into their coffers are controlled. We saw Senator Cash say that over $6 million has come from the CFMEU into the Labor Party in recent years. Where is the government standing up, saying, 'We will hand that back'? Of course they are not doing that but they should. They should hand that money back. I saw the powers that be within the Labor Party say, 'The money has already been spent. It was a previous campaign.' Too bad. Take it out of the money raised already for this campaign. Hand it back or give it to charity—I don't care—but certainly don't give it to the CFMEU. Don't give it back to them. This government won't do that, of course, because they are addicted to the funding, addicted to the control and the power that comes from this organisation. There are many sitting on that side of the chamber who are here because of the support they received from the CFMEU. Their preselections are controlled by the powers who have that control. That is the nub of what is going on here.

The government should be restoring the ABCC. They should be taking from the ensuring integrity bill that we brought into this chamber in the last parliament, when we were in government. I remember sitting on that inquiry, going around the country and hearing case after case after case of the sorts of things that are coming forward now. Of course, it's a surprise to that side. We heard it then. The now government, with the crossbenches and the Greens—sadly, some of the Independents sided with the then opposition—voted against the ensuring integrity bill, which would have brought the checks and balances necessary to ensure union organisations, registered organisations, operated within the standards expected of them by their members and, indeed, by the wider Australian public. Here are the other things they should do: restore the ABCC, implement measures in the ensuring integrity bill and do it properly. Let's deal with that. We already have legislation that has been through extensive inquiries. Senator Ayres was on that committee at the time. We sat there together and heard the evidence time and again. We have the data; we have the evidence; we have what we need. Let's do that properly, ensure we can proceed in a way that is consistent with standards that are acceptable to Australians, not to those who are beholden to this organisation.

So don't come in here with your pretend, forced surprise and outrage against what is occurring in this organisation. Don't pretend this is some kind of revelation to you. We know this is the worst-kept secret in this country. Everyone knows; it is baked in. I speak to people about this. They see it on the front page of The West Australian in my state or in The Australian. They see it and they go, 'We know this has been going on forever. Why is it only now we had a royal commission into this issue. Why is it only now the government is trying to act?' As I explained, we know why: because they are beholden to them.

We have an opportunity here. Let's have a proper inquiry into this. We don't need an extensive amount of time to do it. Senator Sheldon can work expeditiously. I worked with him as deputy chair of that committee. We will get the evidence we need, we will make sure we properly scrutinise this bill and we will put forward the recommendations as a committee that need to be made to improve this bill to make sure the pitfalls are not there—firstly, that we don't have a minister without accountability back to this place; I mean, that is the most obvious change that needs to be made. It can be done very quickly. We will support the cut-off. We will do that but we ask the government to work with this Senate to ensure a proper inquiry can take place. We will do it quickly, get it done and come back as soon as we can.

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

This place is supposed to look at legislation put before us without fear or favour. That's not the case when it comes to unions, especially the CFMEU. We know the Labor Party was based initially on unions. It was started by the workers of the country. It was supposed to back the workers by all means. But we've seen over the period of time since that the unionists have become so powerful that they are actually directing the Labor Party. This place is no longer without fear or favour. Instead it is controlled by the unions, as I see it.

We know the problems that the CFMEU has been faced with. It's getting into bed with bikies and organised crime, committing criminal assaults on non-union workers just trying to make a living, and stalking and illegally intimidating non-union workers at their homes. When I first came back to the Senate in 2016, the ABCC bill was brought before me and my colleagues. After months of research and talking to not only unions but also building and construction workers and organisations, the thuggery and bullying that were going on were clearly shown to us—where subcontractors couldn't deliver or go on the grounds of the worksites. They actually had to hand over cash or they couldn't deliver their concrete. They were denied. They were told by the unions, 'If you don't comply with what we want, you won't get any more jobs.' That was dealt with by the ABCC, and I was pleased that it was our vote that actually got that bill up and brought it into play. It did very well during its time, as did ROC, the Registered Organisations Commission. They reined in what was happening and gave more accountability.

I have to admit that One Nation voted against the ensuring integrity bill because, at that time, we looked at the legislation and we thought that we were not being told upfront what it actually entailed. I think that both sides of this parliament—the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties—need to be upfront with us. I've only just received this bill that's come before us, and you're wanting it to come before the parliament. We only received it in our office this morning. That's when we got it. Knowing the record of the Labor Party, you're going to bring it on in the parliament, and, like 90 or 100 other bills, you'll guillotine it. You guillotine bills so they can't be debated. Is that your plan? Is that what you intend to do? Or will you have a full discussion about it because you know the effect being associated with CFMEU is going to have on the Labor Party? In one way, I don't trust what you're actually going to do.

Let me refer back to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. It's supposed to set up an administrator, but, under 323B, relating to the scheme for the administration of the Construction and General Division and its branches, it says, 'The minister may, in writing, determine a scheme for the administration of the Construction and General Division.' In (3) it says the scheme 'may' provide for the appointment of a person as the administrator of the scheme, and it goes on. In this bill, there are absolutely no guidelines for office bearers or employees, to check if they have a criminal record or are associated with a criminal organisation. That's not in the bill, so we don't know who you're going to have working in this office. Are they criminals? That's not even covered in this bill.

There's also no whistleblower protections in this bill. Where's the protection for people who are whistleblowers? If they're subcontractors and are forced to pay money, where is their protection in this bill? Where can they go then and not be told at the next job controlled by the CFMEU that they aren't going to be allowed onto the site? Where is it in the bill that states that donations from the CFMEU should not be accepted by any political party or organisation? What about the third party that you've allowed to go on? You've done nothing about that. You're backdooring of getting those donations from the CFMEU and other organisations stinks to high heaven because you have no intentions of really doing anything about it. Then you go further in the bill. This is only what I've been able to pick up in the short period of time, the last hour before I came into the chamber, that I've had this bill. Let me go to section 323C, appointment of an administrator. It says, 'The general manager must, in writing, appoint a person to be the administrator of the scheme.' But it then goes on to say, 'The general manager may, by writing, terminate the appointment.' On what basis?

You're going to appoint a general manager who can then appoint an administrator—who is probably going to be one of your backroom boys, one of your pat-on-the-back mates—and then general manager can actually sack the administrator, possibly if they're not doing the job that you want them to do, so that he can appoint whoever he wants to. What an open-ended, smoke-and-mirrors bit of legislation this is. It's a load of rubbish as far as I'm concerned. You have no intentions of reining it in, because you have an obligation the CFMEU and the other union organisations that you are here at the behest of. That's the real problem that I have with all of this.

Yes, we do need to do something about it. We're aware of the problems with it. If you are serious about it, instead of this piece of rubbish that you put before this parliament, I suggest that you introduce the ABCC. If you are fair dinkum and want to rein it in—and I agree with what Senator Michaelia Cash said; what she says is all very on point—bring back the ABCC, bring back the ROC legislation. And One Nation will look at the ensuring integrity bill, and we will then support that, if you're fair dinkum about doing something about it without fear of favour in this parliament. But you haven't got the guts do it, because you're relying on unions to give you those donations.

You're not fair with the Australian people. You're not backing the Australian workers out there who are connected to the unions. You're letting these thugs run and control this country, and that is a real shame. These workers are dragged along with this, because, if they don't go along with the bosses are telling them, they will be without a job. And there's thuggery that goes on—they're forcing them to join these unions at a huge financial cost to them, and for what?

I'd say to the Australian people out there, those people who are connected with these unions, who are on the sides and who know this is wrong: why don't you stand up for your fellow Australians, these small businesses and these people that are trying to do their jobs? Why don't you do the right thing by them? At the end of the day, it is actually costing you. A lot of these government sites that the CFMEU are working on are costing taxpayers in excess of 30 per cent more because of the CFMEU thugs and bullies on these sites determining it. Even the Cross River Rail in Brisbane is now being controlled by the CFMEU and the stunts that they're pulling at the moment.

What I say to the Australian workers out there is wake up to yourselves. You're not a bunch of thugs. Don't be railed in and called one under the CFMEU. You are hardworking Australians. Consider your fellow Australians in standing up to these thugs.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wanted to add my voice to the calls for the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill to be dealt with in this sitting of parliament. There is definitely a way forward to consider legislation in a short committee hearing to look at the detail of it, to work in good faith on amendments, as is already happening, and to ensure that the parliament acts in line with what people in our communities want to see, and that is for these very serious allegations to be dealt with. I do note that there haven't been allegations of criminality here in the ACT, but I think it still warrants a broad look at the CFMEU. I agree with Senator O'Sullivan about donations, and the quickest way to deal with that is to put them into administration—to ensure there are no further donations. The administrators made it very clear that there will be no political donations while in administration.

When the government defunded the ABCC and rolled its abolition into a broad omnibus bill, I warned that we'd need a stronger regulator. Worksites across the country are suffering. Insolvencies in the construction sector are at a record high, and we need a path forward. We need a longer-term solution that isn't a political football, and we've seen industry groups calling for that—to start with cleaning up the union, putting a fair process in place and, most of all, listening to what people in the sector calling for.

The MBA have been crystal clear on this. They don't want another inquiry; they want action. The Civil Contractors Federation were on the radio this morning, calling for action now. ACCI has asked for amendments but supports administration. The Ai Group have also said the appointment of an administrator was an important first step. There is broad agreement on the next steps, and I'd urge the parliament to work together to ensure that this happens.

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

I move:

That the question be put.

Question agreed to.

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

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher to exempt the bill from the cut-off be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

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

I move:

That the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 be called on immediately.

Question agreed to.