James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 and the debate it's often said that the standards you walk past are the standards you accept. With the Labor Party and the CFMEU, the Labor Party are bending over and giving the CFMEU a big sloppy kiss, because we know about the relationship between the Labor Party and the CFMEU. They are one and the same and one and the other.

Let's talk about the tactics and the behaviour of the CFMEU not just over the last year or last month but even what they have done today. The CFMEU are a corrupt criminal cabal. The CFMEU are a blight on Australian democracy and a blight on all those who believe in the freedom of people to join a union and the right of people to form together and start a union. With the CFMEU it is all about them. It is all about their corrupt conduct. It is all about the sexism within the CFMEU, which is never called out by the Labor Party or the Greens. It is all about the violence within the CFMEU not just to other members but also on worksites across Australia—violence that is never called out by the Labor Party or the Greens. It is all about their connection with bikie gangs, drug taking and drug selling—lawbreaking that is never, never called out by the Labor Party or the Greens.

What we see in Australia is a protection racket between the Labor Party, the Greens and the CFMEU. You just have to look at who the president of the Labor Party is. It is Wayne Swan, the world's worst Treasurer. What other role does Wayne Swan have apart from being the world's worst Treasurer and president of the Labor Party? Guess what? He happens to be the chairman of the CFMEU's superfund, Cbus. So you see there is a revolving door between Labor Party politicians and the financial interests of the CFMEU.

But then we look at the green light that has been given to the CFMEU by, for example, Sally McManus, from the ACTU, who, a couple of years ago said that people should break the law if they thought the law was wrong. What that said to the CFMEU, who are a lawbreaking organisation who specialise in breaking laws, who specialise in intimidating people and who specialise in thuggery, was that the chief unionist, Sally McManus, said we can break the law. For the CFMEU, breaking the law is just the cost of doing business. It is the cost of doing business and they will bail out their members. They will make sure that the criminals, the thugs and the people who perpetrate violence against innocent people are looked after. But they forget about looking after the real interests of normal union members across this country, because the CFMEU exists for one reason only, and that is to continue to grow its influence within the Labor Party and grow its influence across Australia.

We saw John Setka rather charmingly show off his new tattoo during the week. It was not a tattoo like 'I love you mum' or of a dolphin or something nice; it was effectively a threat to everybody. When you at John Setka and look at that tattoo, you see the face of the union movement in Australia at the moment. The Labor Party sometimes must wonder—if they a brain cell between them—why it is that union membership in this country has gone from 40 per cent under the Hawke-Keating government to less than 10 per cent. Fewer than one in 10 Australians in the workforce is a member of the union. I can give you a reason why. It is because of the CFMEU. It is because of their practices. It is because of the corruption within that union.

What is interesting about the Labor Party is that, when they won the election in 2007, one of their first acts was to abolish the then Australian Building and Construction Commission. When we won the election in 2013, we were able to reintroduce the Australian Building and Construction Commission and then, when Labor won the election in 2022, they abolished it again. Why does the Labor Party want to keep abolishing the cop who is going through the worksites protecting the small businesses across Australia, protecting normal union members and protecting those who may not be union members? It is because of the financial interests between the Labor Party and the CFMEU.

Since Anthony Albanese became the Leader of the Labor Party, $6.2 million has gone from the CFMEU to the Labor Party. The CFMEU is one of the largest donors to the Labor Party. It's effectively the Labor Party's sugar daddy when it comes to helping it run election campaigns, helping it fund election campaigns and getting CFMEU acolytes into parliament. So 6.2 million reasons should show every Australian why the Labor Party is soft on the CFMEU and why the legislation currently before this parliament does not go far enough. The Labor Party and the CFMEU are one and the same, and we have minister after minister who are effectively the ministers for protection rackets and for boondoggles, who will not stand up to the financial interests of the CFMEU because they know it is not in the financial interests of the Labor Party.

People across Australia will wonder why everything costs so much at the moment. We are in a cost-of-living crisis. Power prices are up, mortgages are up, rents are up, food is up—everything has gone up since the Labor Party came to power. The main reason is the Labor Party's economic policies—an extra $315 billion being spent. But another reason why everything is going up is the impact of the CFMEU on infrastructure projects across this country. When the CFMEU are involved with an infrastructure project, it costs an extra 30 per cent. This is not 30 per cent that comes from some magic money tree at the bottom of the garden; this is 30 per cent for publicly funded infrastructure projects that comes from the taxpayer because the CFMEU see the taxpayer as a giant money tree from which they can continue to get money, and that forces up the cost of infrastructure projects.

It's the same in the private sector, where the CFMEU force up the costs of projects and use their so-called industrial blackmail to exhort from private businesses corrupt payments. They try and exhort from private businesses over-the-top pay rises. They try and exhort from private businesses any sort of sweet money deal. Just look at Queensland. We have the Ekka on this week—the royal exhibition, in Brisbane. It's in August every year. But for the second year in a row the local railway station is unable to open for the Ekka—particularly for People's Day, which is today—because the CFMEU is refusing to allow it to be opened. Welcome to Queensland and welcome to Australia, where a political union, an industrial union, use their might to make life more difficult for people because they just don't care about normal people. They don't care about small-business people. They don't care about normal union members. To them, life is a game and the point of the game of life is to make as much money as possible. The CFMEU is a corrupt organisation, and it is supported by the Labor Party and the Greens. That is why we want the ABCC to come back. We want the Australian Building and Construction Commission to come back to be that cop on the beat.

We also think this bill should be sent to a form of public inquiry. We're all here now in this building. It would be very easy for the relevant committee of the Senate to conduct an inquiry into this bill. We could do it on Friday. The alternative, as Senator Michaelia Cash has said, is that there are a number of amendments that have been proposed by the coalition. If the government accepted these amendments, we'd pass the bill tonight. There's no point challenging the Greens, but I challenge the Labor Party: if you are serious about reforming the CFMEU, if you are serious about ensuring that the CFMEU represents the interests of its members and that the CFMEU can become a positive player in Australia's industrial relations scene, accept these 20 or so amendments we are putting forward and we can pass the bill tonight. This should show the Senate at its best, where, when the parties of government can agree there is a situation, we will compromise and you will compromise. Let's just put these amendments to the vote and let's get on with the job. But dear viewer, dear listener, I think we all know that is not going to happen. The Labor Party and the troglodytes and the Greens will certainly not allow that to happen. They will continue to try and run their protection rackets, and the bill that is before the Senate is a bill that will not do the job.

So what are these amendments that the opposition is putting forward? They are pretty simple amendments. They are what you would call 'head-nod' amendments. But the Labor Party, the Greens and those other left-wing Independents who pretend to be centrist Independents certainly won't be supporting these. The first amendment will include that the administration of the CFMEU must apply to all branches of the CFMEU for a minimum of three years. That is a pretty good recommendation, you would think, considering how deep the corruption, the misbehaviour, the malfeasance, just the general appalling behaviour, are entrenched within all branches of the CFMEU. So you would think that would be a head nod.

The next recommendation is the minister should not have the ability to end the administration early. The minister shouldn't have that power. If the parliament has made the decision that the CFMEU will be placed into administration for a period of three years, let it be for three years. And let it be that the minister, particularly our Labor Party ministers who know that their own organisation has received $6.2 million worth of donations from the CFMEU—I may not be the smartest cookie in the jar but to me that is a slight conflict of interest—cannot end the administration early. But the scheme administration can be varied by the Federal Court on the application of the administrator, so if an administrator has been appointed and says, 'Look, we need to vary it,' then the Federal Court can say 'yay' or 'nay', and the legislation must clearly set out what must be in the scheme administration. This should not be merely at the whim of the minister, because the bill before this parliament allows the minister to effectively become the minister for the CFMEU. It gives the minister all of the power, and we don't think that is appropriate. We think an appropriate balance is for the administrator to have their powers set out, rather than the minister determine what those powers should be.

This one will be very controversial: political donations and political campaigns and advertising by the CFMEU should be explicitly banned during the period of administration. Now, the Labor Party in the Greens certainly won't be supporting that one, will they? We all know why—$6.2 million is why. There is no way they are going to say no to that. We all know what you are. The CFMEU just pay you all the time. We know exactly what you are. You are in the pocket of the CFMEU and it is a very deep pocket. It has $6.2 million in it, and this is what this debate comes down to. This debate comes down to an opposition who have put forward amendments, sensible amendments, that will improve this legislation but we know the Labor and the Greens won't do it because they love the money. It is the standard that you walk past that is the standard you accept. This mob, they don't just accept the standard; they bend over and give it a big sloppy kiss every time, because the CFMEU, the Labor Party and the Greens are in bed together and it is a disgrace.

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

Can I just say, some of the language was amazing. No organisation should expect numerous serious allegations of criminal misconduct against its leadership to simply blow over. If it happened to the leadership of your school council, you would say they were dysfunctional. It happened to the leadership of a business you would say they were corrupt or maybe even dodgy. And if the leadership of a school council or a business faced these allegations, there would be people to answer to, investigations into the allegations and consequences if the allegations were true. You'd expect nothing less. So you can't hold the union that's working on the biggest infrastructure programs in the country to a different standard.

The CFMEU are facing serious allegations of criminal behaviour, and they don't want to tell the truth about what's going on. Telling the truth is something that's really important to me. It's a core value that I've carried throughout my life. It's something my mum and dad drilled into me when I was young. They said, 'A lie hurts more than the truth.' I taught my own kids the value of telling the truth even when they know it might get them in trouble. I told my employment service clients to tell the truth, even if it might reflect badly on them. If you've done something wrong, you fess up, tell the truth and face the consequences—not chuck a toddler tantrum when questions are asked. That's why this bill to appoint an administrator is necessary.

Not everyone in the CFMEU is a bad egg. Most of the members are ordinary people—tradies who just want to get on with their jobs—but they're being tarred with the same brush as the people who refuse to do the right thing. Allegations and rumours about the CFMEU have been around for years. It's about time the government got their heads out of the sand and took action against cowboys within the union.

With these allegations coming to light, it's impossible to ignore the elephant in the room. There's currently no independent watchdog for the construction sector. It's a dance we've seen for years. The coalition set up the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Then Labor came into government and got rid of it. It's back and forth, back and forth. It's like a bad version of a tango, except that, with the tango, the only consequence of getting it wrong is showing you have two left feet.

We've just seen the consequences of not having construction cops, with the allegations against the CFMEU. The CFMEU works on the biggest infrastructure projects in the country. If they wanted to, they could bring construction in this country to a standstill, and I think they have at times. When anybody or any organisation holds this level of power, there has to be someone to hold them to account, and, after these serious allegations, Labor can't ignore the need for some kind of watchdog.

So here's some free advice, Labor. You should take this opportunity to set up an independent body to monitor the construction sector. If you didn't like the way the ABCC was doing things, then don't do that, but you should work with industry to come up with something you're happy with. That way we'll have something that sticks. That way we'll have consistency. That way, if there are allegations of serious and gross misconduct like those against the CFMEU, the body should stamp it out before it gets to where we are now. It's not a free pass to go soft on the union. An independent watchdog will still need to have teeth to do what's necessary. When someone does the wrong thing, that needs to happen. But let's be honest; it's pretty hard to look at the situation we're in now and argue that we don't need a watchdog. Political grandstanding over the ABCC means that, at the height of these serious allegations, when we need an independent body the most, there's not one there.

Every single Aussie has to face consequences if they do the wrong thing. Whether it's your boss, your family or the police, there's someone to answer to. The CFMEU are definitely not above the law, and, if they won't tell the truth and if they won't face the consequences, then appointing an administrator is the right way forward.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to rise and again raise, along with my coalition Senate colleagues, profound and serious concerns about this rogue union. Of course, what this bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, tells us is that Labor has gone into panic mode after failing to do anything about the bullying, the intimidation, the lawlessness, the standover tactics, the illegal payments, the corruption and all the other heinous conduct courtesy of the CFMEU. And it has to be said again, as Senator Cash said so strongly in her media statement, the Albanese government is not telling the truth when it says that its CFMEU legislation will clean up the scandal plagued construction sector. The government's bill is weak. The government's bill does not do the job. The CFMEU should be deregistered the way the late Bob Hawke had the courage to do when he led the deregistration of the BLF. Only a number of years before he died, he even called out Labor for failing to take the strongest stand against the CFMEU.

And what people perhaps don't understand about the CFMEU is that every Labor politician who comes into this place, and particularly those in the Senate, comes as a representative of their union. There are a number of representatives of the CFMEU on the Left. In fact, I am still waiting for answers from the member for Corangamite—on 10 July 2020, I issued a release after it emerged that the CFMEU, which had backed Ms Coker in her campaigns, was demanding that Ms Coker repay hundreds of thousands of dollars in industrial Left union donations.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's that got to do with the bill?

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take the interjection. This is not a laughing matter. Whatever deal has been done between the CFMEU and the member for Corangamite—I was at the other end of that campaign, standing at polling booths dealing with the thugs and the bullies and the aggressors from the CFMEU. And for those of us who've had to face this in a marginal seat campaign, it is a disgrace.

I will also call out a former member for Corangamite, Darren Cheeseman. He has now been forced to leave the Labor Party because of his conduct, including serious allegations of sexual harassment—we don't know all the details. He was also backed by the CFMEU. What's that got to do with the bill? What's that got to do with the bill, Senator Ciccone? I'll tell you what it has got to do with the bill. The CFMEU has backed certain members that are still in this parliament, through their thuggery, through their lawlessness.

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

Senator Henderson, take your seat please! Do I have to remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly? Please have respect for the senator who has the call. There's plenty of time for you to make your contributions during adjournment.

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I continue to remind those opposite what this has got to do with members of parliament. Over a very long period of time, the CFMEU have backed their union representatives who end up in the parliament.

As I said in July 2020: 'Revelations in today's media name the CFMMEU's John Setka as one of the union bosses pursuing payment. It is alleged that hundreds of thousands of dollars are involved. It's also reported that the CFMEU provided close to 100 volunteers to Ms Coker, and also to the Labor MP Ms Kearney.' And so, as I do right now and as I did back then, I say this: the member for Corangamite needs to reveal whether these union election donations were properly recorded and declared as required by the Australian Electoral Commission. The member for Corangamite needs to come clean with what happened.

She reportedly defected to Victorian Labor's extreme Socialist Left faction. I think she then went to another faction. Who would know? There are just so many shabby factional deals. The people of Corangamite deserve answers. Did she repay this money? Why was this demand made? Was this money properly declared? And why are members, like the member for Corangamite, embroiled in these dirty deals with this union when we have known for years that they have been up to their neck in unlawful behaviour, bullying and intimidation. It is an absolute and utter disgrace, so I say to the member for Corangamite: it is time that your constituents knew what went on. 'What deal was done with John Setka?' I say to the member for Corangamite. Why was she required to repay money, which was reportedly hundreds of thousands of dollars? What money was given in the first place and what was the agreement? Frankly, Australians have had enough.

It is no wonder that we have such a disaster in our economy in Victoria under the reckless state Labor government, after years of shonky deals with this union that have driven up construction costs in Victoria by some 30 per cent. I say to the minister responsible, Minister Watt, who is sitting opposite in the chamber: if the Albanese government is serious about taking on the CFMEU then this legislation must have teeth. Get a bit of Bob Hawke. Invoke his spirit, his guts, his courage, because we're not seeing it from this Prime Minister and this government.

We are going to be pursuing a number of amendments. The administration must apply to all branches of the CFMEU for a minimum of three years. The minister should not have the ability to end the administration early. The scheme of administration can only be varied by the Federal Court on the application of the administrator. The legislation must clearly set out what must be in the scheme of administration; this should not be determined solely at the whim of the minister. Political donations, political campaigns and advertising by the CFMEU should be explicitly banned during the period of administration. Frankly, if the Prime Minister had any moral courage he would repay the $4 million that he has received in CFMEU donations since he became the Prime Minister. It's $6.2 million in total and four grubby million dollars from this union since Labor was elected.

We also want to see greater transparency. The administrator must provide a written report to parliament, every three months after the commencement of the administration, about its activities and progress and appear at Senate estimates. The administrator must also be given the ability to impose longer expulsion or disqualification periods for officers. There must be a new fit-and-proper-person test. There must be the ability for a special purpose auditor to examine the financial dealings of the CFMEU. The special purpose auditor's first report needs to be tabled by the final sitting day of 2024.

If these and other amendments are not agreed to by the government, we know that this government is only giving the CFMEU a slap across the back of the hand with a wet lettuce. I also invoke Paul Keating in that reference, because one thing I will say about both Bob Hawke and Paul Keating is that they had the courage of their convictions when it came to driving certain reforms. This would never have been tolerated if Bob Hawke were the Prime Minister, but we have a weak and unprincipled government running this country, led by a weak and unprincipled Prime Minister, the most left-leaning Prime Minister in living memory.

David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's actually funny!

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's about time that this government took its job and its duty to the Australian people seriously.

This is, again, a mess of Labor's own making. This came about because the government let the CFMEU and the crooks and the spivs and the bullies and the members of outlaw motorcycle gangs off the hook when it abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission and gave control of the construction sector in Australia to their mates in the CFMEU. As a result of Mr Albanese's decision to abolish the ABCC, we have seen a skyrocketing of criminal activity, threats, corruption, bribery, intimidation, violence, bullying, standover tactics, misappropriation of funds and other accusations of lawlessness by the CFMEU in the construction sector.

I hear the chuckle from a member of the Greens. I'm reminded that when we stood with Senator Lambie to take the strongest of stands in defence of women and the way they were treated by the CFMEU, the Greens voted against Senator Lambie's private senator's bill. The Greens did not have the courage of their convictions to stand up to John Setka and the thuggery and particularly, as Senator Lambie was focusing on, the appalling treatment of some women by this union.

As I say, we have a number of very serious concerns about this bill. This bill provides far too much discretion to the minister. In fact, under the current provisions of the bill, he could remove the CFMEU out of administration tomorrow, figuratively speaking, if he wished. If this legislation is going to be supported by the coalition, we need to make sure that it has teeth, that it makes a difference, that there is proper accountability and, frankly, that Australians' trust in the government can perhaps be restored to some degree. I don't know really know, because of the way in which Labor members, senators and candidates have covered up this disgraceful conduct over so many years.

Time and time again, we raised serious concerns about multiple breaches of the law. There were multiple findings that the law had been breached and very serious penalties issued against the CFMEU and many of its members. It is really quite disgusting that it took the work of a media organisation, the very fine work of Nick McKenzie and other journalists, to wake up this government, because it didn't seem to matter. The rap sheet of offences and intimidation, the bullying, the shocking stuff that was going on in construction sites—none of that seemed to resonate.

Of course, even Senator Wong used to work for the CFMEU. I have not heard her get up and call out the CFMEU's conduct that she obviously would have seen when she was working for them. I'm sure it was not all squeaky clean when Senator Wong was working for the CFMEU. She was an industrial officer for the CFMEU. There are times in public life when you've got to do the right thing and stand up to what is right and stand up against what is wrong.

This is a huge warning to the government. You start taking corruption, bribery and these shocking incidents of lawlessness seriously. Don't just paper over the cracks, because that's what this bill currently does. You need to give this bill teeth. You need to support all of our amendments, and only then would we agree to pass this bill.

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

I wanted to thank Minister Watt and the government for your constructive and proactive engagement on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. I also wanted to thank Senator Cash for the good faith engagement around the amendments that the coalition is planning to put forward. This legislation has obviously been done quickly, but it now has been done with some consultation and a genuine willingness to improve this bill, and I think we'll see that through the amendments to be circulated. The overwhelming message I've heard from stakeholders is that we need action now. We can't delay the need for administration. The need for someone to get in there and start to have a good look at what's been happening is urgent.

I'd like to repeat what I have noted previously in this chamber. There haven't been, against the ACT branch, the kinds of allegations of organised crime that we've seen elsewhere. I want to recognise the correspondence I've received from various subcontractors about the constructive role that the local ACT branch of the CFMEU has played on really important issues like security of payments. When the government decided to defund the ABCC and then roll its abolition into a much broader omnibus bill, I warned that we'd need to have a stronger regulator, one that could actually withstand the seesaw between Labor and the coalition that we've heard various independents talk about when it comes to the ABCC.

Worksites around the country are suffering, and insolvencies in the construction sector are at record highs. We need certainty on a path forward, and we also need a longer term solution that can attract support from across the parliament. I'm hopeful that by passing this legislation we can then turn our eyes to what that looks like. The depth and breadth of the allegations across other branches of the CFMEU mean we need action now. They demand action from the parliament, and this bill will do that. The amendments that have been circulated and the others being drafted will ensure a stronger piece of legislation that is tough but also fair. Those who have done the wrong thing will go; those who haven't won't, and there will be a fair process, with the appropriate powers for the administrator, while allowing legitimate operations in support of members to continue.

Again, thank you to both sides for the way you are collaborating on this, and I look forward to seeing what happens in the Senate tomorrow.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll start by addressing Senator Pocock's point about the ACT CFMEU being somehow a cleanskin. They have been inserting themselves into the procurement processes of the ACT government for years, to the point where the Master Builders have actually had to complain about the level of interference that the ACT CFMEU is undertaking in government procurement. This is an organisation with a track record which would make some criminals blush. They have time and time again been seen to be involved with thuggery, coercion and illegal activity—and with using language that would make most of us blush—in a way that is designed to intimidate on worksites and intimidate people in the building industry. We've heard and seen, through prosecutions in our legal systems, the intense criminality of this organisation, but sadly this is part of a much bigger picture.

We have to go back to the start of this Labor government and the tranches of industrial relations legislation that it has brought into this place and that, with the help of the Australian Greens and the crossbenchers, we have seen passed through this place. Those pieces of legislation were called all sorts of Orwellian things like 'closing the loopholes' or 'same job, same pay'—Orwellian phrases. They're Orwellian because they did not mean what they said and they did not do what they said. They were doublethink from this Labor government and the Greens—its aiders and abetters—who basically had a laundry list of union demands and took them through this parliament with no thought to what that would do in the longer term to the Australian economy and Australian businesses. They were quite happy. For years, Minister Watt was quite happy in estimates to, through his years in opposition, defend the CFMEU and its behaviour.

Minister Watt was quite happy to do it, and now he's all crocodile tears and outrage that these allegations have come to light. They've been part of the known behaviour of the CFMEU for decades. These allegations haven't suddenly come to light in the last few months. They've been known for years, through repeated prosecution through our court system. The standover tactics, illegal behaviour and thuggery was not only tolerated, but it was part of the union's business model. So what did Labor do when they came into power? They passed this series of industrial relations bills, which should've been called 'Let's do what the unions demand,' because that's the truth. If you want to use clear and upfront language to name a bill, the bill should've been called 'Industrial relations amendment (what the unions want)'.

We've seen it, and we're starting to see it, particularly in my home state of WA in the mining industry in the Pilbara. I'll remind everyone again, because this is the elephant in the room when we have these conversations, that only eight per cent of the private sector workforce believes that unions are worth joining—one worker in 12. If you strip out some very heavily unionised parts of the white-collar workforce, that figure drops even lower. Yet we see the union movement using Labor's IR laws to insert themselves into workplaces where there is no union presence, via five-year-old enterprise agreements, and insert themselves into new negotiations so they can, once again, impose their ridiculous demands and their ridiculous approach to labour relations onto our mining powerhouses.

Let me take you on a history lesson, because, sadly, I am old enough to remember this. In the mid-eighties, there was a very famous dispute, the Robe River mine dispute, where union practices were basically sending a company to the wall. There were over 200 workplace practices that were, quite frankly, ludicrous, and I'm just going to go through a few of them. On a relatively small mine site, there were 20 shop stewards who didn't have to do their own job. They were just there to represent the union. They had to have an office and a telephone. They were just there to represent the unions. If someone was asked to do five minutes of work after hours, they had to be paid for an eight-hour day.

The thing that triggered the Robe River dispute involved a superintendent at the power station, the manager of the power station. When all his staff were off on strike, the power station tripped. It literally was a flick of a switch to get the power station back on. It didn't just power the mine; it actually powered the community. It actually powered the homes of the families who were living in that community near the Robe River mine. It was literally the flick of a breaker switch to get power back on for those families, but the union was out on strike. It said that the superintendent wasn't allowed to do that; it had to be a trade union member who flicked that switch—'We're off on strike again!' Well, they were already out on strike, but the strike action went on, demanding that that power station manager was punished for turning power back on to the community! Think about that for a moment. The sad bit about this story is that the mine management at that time actually rolled over and punished that manager—suspended him from his workplace. Do you know what the union did? They said: 'That punishment's not enough. You have to punish him more.' Charles Copeman, the manager of Robe River Mining, who gets awful criticism from those opposite and their fellow travellers, came in. You know what the first thing he did was? He didn't sack any workers. He sacked five of his senior managers for rolling over to these ridiculous demands based on union thuggery.

The final upshot of that three-month dispute was that, after that dispute and the de-unionisation of that workforce, Robe River Mining was taken from being a failing company—a company that was literally going broke, operating at 60 per cent of capacity with declining levels of productivity—to being a profitable company again. It was actually able to provide people with jobs, long term, because guess what? Within the ridiculous systems that the union had set up, there were 20 shop stewards who didn't actually do their job; they were employed to be, say, an electrician, a miner or a machinery operator, but they didn't do their job; they sat in their office as a shop steward. They found that two out of every three positions in that mine were actually unnecessary for its production. They actually produced more ore with two out of those three positions not being there. And—and this is the kicker, because those opposite and the unions say, 'It's all about safety'—accidents on the mine site and disputation actually went down. The mine became safer. The mine became profitable, and there were long-term jobs there for the people who were employed—long-term high-paying jobs, I would add. These were not people who were struggling in terms of their wages.

That was the 1980s. We went through a period of reform, and the Australian economy became more efficient. Productivity improved. But now, sadly, with Labor in charge once more, with the most left-wing prime minister since Gough Whitlam, we are now seeing the Labor Party follow the union's playbook every step of the way with no deviation. That was until now, where we again have the minister crying his crocodile tears about the CFMEU and wanting to be seen to be tough on this thuggish organisation—the same organisation that he, for years, in this place and in estimates, not only defended but carried water for. He attacked, to support the CFMEU—he attacked Senator Cash, for years, to support the CFMEU, absolutely knowing the thuggish behaviour. It's on the record of courts. It's been litigated so many times. It's been prosecuted so many times. Nobody can deny for a second that they did not know about the thuggery within the CFMEU.

The latest example of that—I honestly thought this might have been fake news when I saw John Setka's new tattoo. The threat inherent in that tattoo—and, for those who haven't seen, John Setka has a tattoo now around his neck that reads 'God forgives the CFMEU doesn't'. There's a threat inherent in that tattoo to every company in the construction industry. I suspect there's a threat inherent to those opposite if they don't toe the line and do the right thing by the union movement, which is who sent them here. Let's remember that: the union movement sent each and every one of them here.

The Labor Party is the political wing of the union movement. They do the bidding of the union movement, which represents, at best, one in 12 of the private sector workforce in Australia. And I know why it's only one in 12. Those 11 out of 12 workers who reject the unions know about that thuggery. They know about the standover tactics. They know that a positive relationship with their employer is best done one on one. It's best done at the workplace. They understand that the union movement is out for itself. It's not out for them. It's not out for the workers. And this Labor government is not there to help the workers. It's just there for itself.

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

Well, here we are again, in the Senate: instead of dealing in a sensible, calm, rational way through a government's legislative agenda, we're here having to mop up another mess of the government's own making. As senator after senator has made clear through the debate on this bill, this Labor government is a fully owned subsidiary of the union movement. It is a badge that they wear very proudly in this chamber and outside of this building, each and every day, and we know that the Australian Labor Party is the political arm of the Australian trade union movement, just like in the olden days when the Country Party was the political arm of the farmers in this country. That is a fact.

If you look at the most successful minister in the Albanese government over the last two years, it Minister Burke. He's got through this parliament every single thing the Australian trade movement has wanted. He's the most successful minister in this place, because he was elected and appointed with a wish list from not just the CFMEU but the ACTU, and he's delivered in spades for them.

Anyone that has served any period of time in the Senate and has sat, especially, on the Senate Standing Committees on Education and Employment, you will have heard ad nauseam, whether the coalition was in government or the Labor Party is in government, a litany, a rap sheet a mile long—anyone who's interested go to the Hansardof allegation, of court judgements of the behaviour of the CFMEU which makes unconscionable the surprise on the faces of so many in the Labor government on public revelations by the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age and the Nine Network more generally, led by Nick McKenzie.What a surprise! It is like a bad kabuki. Honestly, where have you been?

And do you know what's galling? This is a complete comms strategy from the Labor government. If they feign surprise to the public, if they hurry and rush a flawed piece of legislation to look like they're doing something, the Australian public, who are being crushed by a cost-of-living crisis, will somehow forget that Labor owe their preselections to the CFMEU. You are not MPs, senators, ministers or prime ministers without being fully owned subsidiaries of your union movement.

Most Australians think the union movement is there to help the Australian worker to get better pay, conditions et cetera, to stand up for the workers in the workplace. But the tragedy of the union movement as it stands now is a lack of productivity and pushing an agenda that Bill Kelty, Bob Hawke and the late Simon Crean fought to overturn in their accord process, because Australians lose their jobs when private business goes bust. That's actually what happens. If you actually care about Australian workers, you want them in well-paid businesses where they can afford to pay their mortgage and rent and raise their families. That's actually what the workers paradise is supposed to be about in this country.

The tragedy of the union movement as it stands now in this country seems that the CFMEU is anything but a union that stands up for workers. Just ask Ben Nash, a young worker heading off to a job he loved, in civil construction, in my home state of Victoria. His mother has said:

She didn't know that the construction industry her son was entering was infested with underworld figures and cronyism, fuelled by crooked businesses and certain CFMEU officials who have formed an unholy alliance to control who works, and who doesn't …

Ben had worked for an Indigenous construction company. But guess what? It wasn't a CFMEU controlled construction company. And so, because young Ben rocked up to work one day, he was bullied, he was harassed and he was locked in a shed on site for hours. It is a tragedy for the party that is supposed to support workers to think it's okay somehow that their own preselection backers have people involved in their organisation that did this to a young Australian to the point where Ben committed suicide. He went home and didn't wake up the next morning. I think the construction industry's fantastic. I'm very lucky that a lot of people close to me are involved in it. And I think we need more young Australians doing apprenticeships and seeing themselves on site building the future of this country but for the fact that an Indigenous company that isn't a CFMEU controlled company therefore entitles the CFMEU officials on site to bully, harass and intimidate to the point where a kid commits suicide.

Let me not even go to the rap sheet of what women have been subjected to, not just by John Setka. Everyone wants to point out that Mr Setka is somehow the only bad apple, the only sexist, in the CFMEU. I have sat here as a conservative woman for years and have been lectured to by the Labor Party, by the Greens, but by the Labor Party in particular, about how the standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and every single preselection season you turn a deaf ear to John Setka's sexism and the sexism that's embedded in the CFMEU. Those opposite don't care. It's okay. It means they get to be a senator for another six years. It means they get to be a minister in the next Australian Labor government. Well, you know what? A very smart man a few centuries ago said, 'When good people'—he actually said 'men', but let's say 'people' because it's the 21st century now—'don't stand up, bad stuff happens.' Just saying, 'It's okay. They're all not bad,' then coming in here and voting against our amendments to actually make sure criminals can't be union officials, somehow that's a bad policy?

The Australian public would be so devastated to know the party of the workers thinks it's okay for people with a rap sheet a mile long to be their local union officials. So what I would like to see in this parliament is every time a Labor Party minister or senator stands up and talks on industrial relations that they declare their conflict of interest. How about that? Declare which union sent you to this place so that people can judge the standard you choose to walk past, the standard you choose to say is okay. Because the conflict of interest is in your organisation, in your preselections—who gets to sit on your national executive and who doesn't, what policies get passed at your conference and what don't. That's your structure. Who gets to be a minister, an MP? It is not the Prime Minister's role and, let's be honest, it's not even caucus. You get a few phone calls the night before about who would be a good pick and it's all tied back to who your preselectors are.

For me as a shadow infrastructure minister, the inherent conflict of interest is also with your state premiers, who have signed up to publicly funded infrastructure projects where egregious behaviour is occurring and no-one is checking—no KPIs, let's just keep the funding going to make sure it's CFMEU-controlled proponents doing a cosy deal with tier-1 construction companies. You want to talk about cronyism? Talk about big government, big unions, big corporations, hand in glove, very cosy.

Guess who misses out? Ben Nash missed out. The Australian taxpayer misses out. Because guess what happened in the last budget? There was $10.1 billion shovelled out the door, not for one extra kilometre of road or rail, not an additional school or a hospital but for cost overruns. Five billion dollars went just to my home state of Victoria. Thank you so much, Premier Jacinta Allan, you did a great job for the CFMEU on the big build, overseen by Premier Andrews—$5 billion and not one extra kilometre. But that's okay because we don't need more doctors. We don't need more teachers. We don't need to be able to fund pay increases for aged-care workers and childcare workers; we just need to shovel it into the pockets of bikies and organised crime, and that's okay because you don't bother to tell the Australian public that's what is happening.

Everyone has known this has been going on and everybody is paying the price. The forestry division of the CFMEU has wanted out for years. Its members don't want to have these thugs destroying its reputation as a union that actually wants sustainable timber harvesting going on in rural and regional communities and employing people across the regions in what is the ultimate renewable resource, Australian timber. They have wanted out for years. They don't want to hang out with thugs and criminals. But guess what? The Labor Party got in and actually passed legislation to make sure they can't leave, even if they want to. Somehow, for the forestry division, it's like being in a bad marriage. Whitlam brought in no-fault divorce, but not if you are a division of the CFMEU. Foresters, you're going to be wedded to the construction division. Manufacturers, you're going to be wedded to the construction division.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McKenzie. You will be in continuation.