Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a delight to be back and pick up where I left off. I was reminding the chamber of an event in history that many of us can't forget and that is 'Baghdad Bob', who, in the early 2000s, was the foreign minister in Iraq at the end of the Hussein regime, and how, comically, 'Baghdad Bob' reminded me of a certain colleague we have in this chamber—that is, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister Watt.

'Baghdad Bob' told us that there were no US tanks rolling into Iraq and taking over that jurisdiction. He was holding a press conference, telling us everything was okay, while tanks were a couple of hundred metres from the room. This week, much in the same way as 'Baghdad Bob', Minister Watt stood up on the second floor of this building and told the media that the government had everything under control, that these laws introduced into this parliament, perfect in their first form, were going to pass, and that pesky Senate, that group of people elected by the people of Australia to interrogate and scrutinise legislation, didn't know what they were talking about, that it was all mis and disinformation and that this crowd, with their objections, were totally incorrect, as were all of the concerns being raised about this legislation.

As many of my colleagues have already outlined, there is a long history of these concerns being raised about the CFMEU and its actions that these will laws purportedly address, not only by members of this place, not just by Liberal politicians, but also by workers, by the Federal Court of Australia and by the former ABCC. There are entities out there that have of course pointed to concerns around the CFMEU and their actions. So why is the minister standing up in the Press Gallery holding press conferences telling us, 'Everything is okay. These laws are not necessary. We don't need to do anything beyond what the government proposes to do.'? I will come to the substance of the legislation, or lack of it, I might say, and what the coalition aims to do to improve these laws. It was amazing though, as I said, to watch Minister Watt at his finest, spin like there was no tomorrow, telling everyone that the bills were perfect and that this pesky thing called democracy was getting in the way of the government doing its job, getting in the way of urgently acting on clamping down on the CFMEU and their unlawful activities.

The fact is, these issues have been around for a long time. It's not like they weren't alerted to it, as Senator Cash, the shadow minister, has pointed out on a number of occasions. It is not like this government was only just recently informed of what was going on. We had years of allegations, court findings and claims against the CFMEU. Only now is the government seeking to act, having stood idly by doing nothing about the actions of the CFMEU and their leadership, standing idly by while workers got nothing out of their lawlessness. Now this government tells us it's urgent and has the gall to tell the Australian Senate, elected by the people of Australia, to just ram these through, saying, 'They are perfect. There is no improvement to be made here. Indeed, we are so in control as a government, we will have a deal done by end of week.' Yet it was only yesterday that we considered in this place what is known as a guillotine motion. This government often likes to use its numbers in partnership with the Australian Greens—thankfully, on this occasion it failed—to curtail debate on important legislation. It is an end point in time for this place to debate legislation. The government had a motion on the books to bring debate to an end today, only having introduced the bills this week. There was no proper scrutiny, no Senate inquiry, so we couldn't actually look at the bills in any detail; we just had to rush it through here.

We couldn't interrogate the department instructed by the government to draft these bills and ask them on what basis certain provisions were drafted up, why they were formed up this way, and was it a request from the minister or was it something from stakeholders? There was none of that, no interrogation of that whatsoever. It makes you wonder, why? Why would they want to just push this off? It's this whole 'nothing to see here' approach.

The government have adopted over a long period of time now an approach to doing business on behalf of the people of Australia. But if there is a problem, they will try and get you to look the other way, saying, 'Nothing to see here'—again, back to our 'Baghdad Bob' analogy. They say, 'Things are not as people might tell you but as we tell you. We will tell you what's going on. We will tell you whether things are good or bad and we will ignore the reality out there, the facts that actually relate to the situation, the facts relating to the workers that have been affected by the CFMEU, the facts that were outlined by Senator Colbeck in his contribution a little earlier on—the 30 to 40 per cent premium on public infrastructure projects, of course, because of CFMEU involvement.' How is that in the interests of this country? But, as I say, this minister spins like there's no tomorrow. He tells us that it's all under control and we've just got to get on with it; that it's the terrible Greens and coalition who are holding up this decisive action being taken by government.

Again, I go back to the motion moved yesterday as we opposed the government's attempts to curtail debate, their attempts to prevent democracy from doing its thing and prevent this Senate from interrogating this legislation. We had the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong, and the minister himself, Minister Watt, whom I've already referred to in this debate, say: 'Okay, you move an amendment to this motion. You tell us when you want to end debate.' Hang on! Government, it's your job to get your bills through this parliament. It is your job to take people on the journey with you. It is your job to ensure that the legislation is right, on behalf of those who elected you to government. Instead of saying, 'Opposition, you tell us when you want this done by,' work with us on the amendments.

That is why I now want to turn to some of the things that our shadow minister, Senator Cash, referred to. The holes in the legislation, the shortcomings—many in number—render this bill ineffective. It does not do what the government claim it will do. In line with Minister Watt's farcical claims that everything is under control and we just need to pass these laws is the fact that this bill does nothing at all, despite what he says. It does not deal with the issues at the heart of the problems being faced by Australian workers and taxpayers because of the lawlessness of the CFMEU. As the shadow minister has pointed out, the legislation before us, if rammed through as per Labor's intention, would vest in the minister—Minister Watt, who has told us there's nothing to see here and we should just get on and pass his bill, not interrogate or scrutinise it—too much power, too much discretion, too much ability to do whatever he wants whenever he wants in response to what we believe is a significant situation. It is to that end—we've heard it referred to multiple times in this debate, and rightly so—that we have concerns about at least a perceived conflict of interest. When a union donates to a political party, in this case the Australian Labor Party, which is, of course, the party from which the minister hails—it was a party elected to govern in the interests of all Australians—$6.2 million, you've got to wonder whether a minister elected as part of that political party, which was funded in its election campaign by this union, is genuine in seeking to deal with the issues that we face through the lawlessness of this union.

The administration of the union would not apply to all branches of the union for an extended period. With the bill as it stands right now, without any amendment—and this is one of the 20 things that the shadow minister raised—the minister, at his discretion, can end the administration early. To go back to the point I made before: union donates to Labor Party; Labor Party, from which the minister comes, gets elected; Labor Party introduces laws and has sole discretion as to when administration of the union ends; Labor Party could get elected at the next election and end administration the next day. I'm pretty sure Australians can draw a solid line between donation and action. That is a conflict of interest that needs to be managed, and it would be remiss of this Senate not to deal with it. We would not be doing our job on behalf of Australian workers, a group of people that the Australian Labor Party say they stand for.

The fact that the scheme of administration can only be varied by the Federal Court on the application of the administrator is also of concern. There is the fact that the legislation doesn't set out what must be in the scheme of administration. It should not be determined solely at the whim of a minister. Again, there is the fact that the minister has discretion in a situation where they're a political player, as part of a party funded in large part by the union that is the subject and central concern of the legislation.

The fact that political donations and campaigns and advertising by the CFMEU are not explicitly banned during the period of administration is also of concern. The fact that it is silent on that, that we would allow this to continue to occur despite what concerns have been raised—again, not just by coalition politicians but many sectors, many quarters of our community, including law courts—is just unbelievable. The minister, our friend Minister Watt who, as I said, reminds me of 'Baghdad Bob'—'Nothing to see here; no problems to deal with'—doesn't see this as an issue. Australians are not stupid; they're not mugs. They know when projects are costing a third more than they should—public infrastructure projects like roads and hospitals, schools, essential things that we all need to live in this developed and growing society. I find it astounding that the minister does not have their interests at heart and does not wish to address these issues.

There's no transparency around this process either—the administrator not being required to report to parliament as much as it should. One of the requests we've made is that there be a written report every three months from the commencement of administration so that, on behalf of the people of Australia, we can interrogate what it is that is actually happening in this black box of administration of the CFMEU.

There are 20 proposed changes that our shadow minister is seeking to deal with and amend within the legislation. Yet Minister Watt has the gall to front up to the press gallery to try and tell Australians that it is all okay and that these silly politicians from non-government parties have got it all wrong and there's nothing to see here. Well, as I said, Australians aren't stupid. The facts, the history, the numbers relating to public infrastructure projects bear out our concerns. Our amendments are reasonable. Our amendments are ones that Australians expect to be put in place to ensure the best outcome for them as taxpayers, as workers, as mums and dads of people on worksites who've experienced some of the issues that Senator Cash and others have referred to.

But, again, rather than taking the issue seriously, we've got a minister who, in his first real test, instead of properly dealing with things, simply seeks to spin in the way that failed Iraqi foreign minister 'Baghdad Bob' did. And we know how that ended. It didn't end well for them because it was not based on truth. It was based on a lie. I hope this minister sees these amendments and sees fit, on behalf of the people he purports to represent, to actually make good this legislation, make it fit for purpose, rein CFMEU in and restore law and order to building and construction sites and to the union movement in our country. Workers do occasionally depend on these bodies. Let's make them do the right thing by workers.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate isn't just about politics; it's about the very fabric of our society. It's about our economy. It's about our values. It's about what we hold dear. It's about exposing the rot that lies at the heart of a union, a union that is a pillar, indeed a key pillar, of the Albanese government—a government that dares to claim the moral high ground while swimming in the cesspool of corruption and lawlessness that has been demonstrated within the CFMEU. Minister Watt, the newly minted IR minister, was right in one thing. He said this morning that there is no time to waste. Well, he is absolutely right. There is no time to delay. There's no time to delay because the cost of living in this country is spiralling out of control.

I've travelled the length and breadth of the country as the chair of the cost-of-living committee and those opposite may not have heard it yet, but everyday Australians are doing it really tough. Really tough! But what do we see? We see a government that is not just complicit but is actively feeding the beast of inflation through turning a blind eye to the poor behaviour that has gone on in this union.

Government spending is a key driver of inflation, there's no doubt about that. You don't need to believe me, because the Reserve Bank governor, Michele Bullock, has been saying it too. Government spending is a key driver of inflation, but, when that government spending is tainted by the corrupt dealings of the CFMEU, the impact is catastrophic. The CFMEU has been involved in criminal activities that would make even the most hardened crooks blush—bribery, intimidation, violence and outright corruption. You don't need to take my word for it; you can take the word of senior, experienced journalists writing for the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald and reporting to Channel 9.

What has the ALP done about this? Instead of rooting out the cancer, they've actually coddled it, nurtured it, let it grow and let it fester, all the while telling people that union corruption is simply in the coalition's heads and saying: 'It's fine. Nothing's going on. Nothing to see here.' Every time a CFMEU official bullies their way through a worksite, every time they misappropriate funds and every time they engage in thuggish, standover tactics, it costs all of us money. The flow-on effect feeds the inflation beast. It drives up the cost of government projects, which means your taxes are higher than they need to be. It pushes up the cost of living, and the government have been complicit in this. The ALP, far from acting as the moral compass of the nation, has been right there, cheering them on from the sidelines. Again, they're not my words; it has been reported in the newspapers.

The cost is not just financial, although the cost is no doubt staggering. Labour productivity in the construction sector has plummeted by 18.1 per cent since 2014, and the decline is no coincidence. It's a direct result of the CFMEU's corrosive influence on the industry. By obstructing work, imposing costly conditions and encouraging lawlessness on worksites, the CFMEU has added 30 per cent to the cost of major projects. That's money that could've gone to hospitals. It's money that could've gone to roads and to schools. But, instead, because of the CFMEU, it's money that's gone to this lawless union. It's taxpayer money siphoned off to cover the cost of union thuggery and mismanagement. Who foots the bill? It's every single one of us. It's every taxpayer—every family trying to buy a home and every small business trying to stay afloat. This is not a small deal.

Let me talk about my home state of Victoria, where this corruption has been allowed to flourish for years under the watch of former premier Daniel Andrews and his successor, Premier Jacinta Allan. The Victorian government's Big Build projects have become a monument to waste and a monument to inefficiency and cronyism. They are synonymous with corruption. What should have been a proud investment in my state's future has become instead a black hole for taxpayer dollars. The cost blowouts are staggering—$40 billion and counting. This is the most profound economic waste and mismanagement by a government that we have seen in this country in decades.

Why is this happening? Well, (1) it's complete and utter incompetence; and (2) it's because the ALP have allowed the CFMEU to dictate the terms of contracts, to bully, to intimidate and to prioritise their own interests over the needs of Victorians. The figures don't lie. The blowouts, the waste and the inefficiency are directly contributing to the cost-of-living crisis—not only for people in Victoria but for everyone in our nation. Every dollar wasted on a bloated contract is a project delayed by union interference. It's a dollar that could've been spent on those schools, hospitals and roads and on a better standard of living for all of us. But, instead, because the ALP turned a blind eye to this, we are all paying the price. It's going into the pockets of union officials and their cronies, all with the ALP's blessing.

But there is hope. In Victoria we have a leader that is fighting back every single day in the state parliament. John Pesutto and the Liberal opposition are holding this government to account. The government are refusing to answer questions; even in question time they are refusing to answer questions about this. But John Pesutto is doing his job, exposing the truth about the CFMEU's stranglehold on our state's construction industry and demanding real action to clean up the mess. It's thanks to his efforts, continually calling out the behaviour, that the public is finally starting to see the rot that is at the heart of the Victorian and, indeed, the Australian governments. For as long as the Australian government is still taking donations from the CFMEU, as long as it's not returning the donations that it's already accepted, this is the standard its accepts.

John Pesutto has made it very clear that under his leadership Victoria will no longer be a playground for corrupt union officials. He's committed to replacing the oversight functions lost by the Albanese government's abolition of the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, with a new body called construction enforcement Victoria. That will ensure that Victorian construction, at least, will operate with integrity and efficiency. He understands that the CFMEU's influence has to be eradicated if we're going to restore confidence in our state's infrastructure projects and deliver real value for taxpayers, because surely that is our first job. His commitment to a royal commission on the CFMEU's activities in Victoria will ensure that those responsible for this mess are held to account.

The ALP pretend they have only just discovered this rot—'Oh, deary me! There's something going on the CFMEU? Who would have thought?' They act as though this is brand-new information to them, but let's be really clear: the ALP have known this all along. It's been problem, a secret, that's been hiding in plain sight. They were warned about the corruption, they were warned about the violence, they were warned about the intimidation and they did nothing. In fact, they did worse than nothing: they actively defended it. They even promoted it. They fed the beast. Corruption begins at home, and for Premier Jacinta Allan that could not be more true, considering her husband is a former CFMEU official. Tell me: how convenient is it for the Victorian Premier to turn a blind eye to the rot when it has been so close to home!

The ALP would have us believe that they are the guardians of moral integrity, the defenders of the downtrodden. But let's look at the facts. This is the same party that turned a blind eye to the criminal behaviour of men who are not just corrupt but violently so. We all know the story of John Setka, the man who plead guilty to harassing his own wife but who was then coddled and cuddled and protected not just by men in the Labor movement but by women too, women who have claimed to be advocates of women and who should have known better. This is a man who is a blight on the labour movement, a man who has been allowed to rise to power and influence under the watchful eye of the ALP's umbrella, warm in its embrace.

Now the Prime Minister and the ALP will tell us that they've taken a strong stance, strong action, by suspending the CFMEU, but let's be clear: they've only suspended the union in states and territories where elections are not on the horizon. Isn't that funny? Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia have all been conveniently excluded from the suspension. Why is that? Because the ALP will take the CFMEU's 30 pieces of silver. They will take the 30 pieces of silver to betray every other state in the Commonwealth. They'll cut ties with the CFMEU but only when it is convenient to do so.

What about their promises of reform? Well, the ALP say they will investigate, they will inquire, they will clean up the mess, but let's not kid ourselves. The Victorian Labor government and the Greens—the Greens, those heroes of fairness and apparent decency!—have treated the calls for these same investigations in Victoria with nothing but arrogance and contempt. Do we really expect anything different from our national government? I hope we do. For as long as the Labor Party pocket CFMEU donations, as long as they allow construction sites to operate without a watchdog, they are as morally bankrupt is the CFMEU itself.

Let's be very clear. The Albanese Labor government is now desperate to fix a mess that was directly created by abolishing the ABCC. It was directly created by giving control of the construction sector to their mates in the CFMEU, and the result of that has been a surge in criminal activity—threats, corruption, lawlessness—that has added 30 per cent to the cost of major projects, driving up inflation and hurting everyday Australians.

The Albanese government were warned that this would happen. They were warned, but they abolished the ABCC anyway. Who was asking for that abolition of the ABCC? Was it ordinary Australians? Was it parents with kids starting out in trades? Was it the coalition? Who was asking for the abolition of the ABCC? Only one group was—the CFMEU. They were the only organisation that wanted to see poor behaviour on construction worksites. Abolishing the ABCC was the first thing the Prime Minister did when he came into office, and he did it to the cheers of his mates. Why? Because they wanted to enable the CFMEU, not investigate it, not curtail its activities. They wanted it to flourish.

Let's be honest. They're trying to now pass legislation to fix the damage that they caused, but it doesn't go far enough; it goes nowhere near far enough. We need an inquiry to hear from the department, the Fair Work Commission and stakeholders about how this legislation will operate and whether it will actually be effective. The coalition has some serious concerns about this bill. It gives the minister far too much discretion over the administration process. Under the legislation, the minister could stop the administration at any time he chooses. Even if he doesn't choose to stop it, it's only got three years to run. At the end of three years, even if there are still problems with the CFMEU, the administration ceases. That's nonsense. It's acceptable.

We also need to ensure that the administration applies to all of the CFMEU's construction divisions, not just a select few. We need to ensure that the process is transparent and that it must report directly and regularly to parliament. The legislation should set clear objectives for how the CFMEU needs to change before it's taken out of administration. At the moment, this bill, sunsetting after three years as it does—regardless of whether anything is actually achieved—could potentially make no difference whatsoever. That's why the coalition are moving amendments. That's why we want to see changes to this bill. That's why we want to see it strengthened.

Critically, this legislation must ensure that the CFMEU cannot make political donations or run political campaigns while it's in administration. The government has known our concerns about this bill for around 48 hours, and it could have passed this bill in minutes. So when Minister Watt says, 'There is no time to delay,' that is on him. He could come in here right now and pass this bill immediately. But he cannot do it until those positions are strengthened, until the bill that we adopt is one that is actually going to have some effect.

If they don't adopted the changes, it's proof of the fact that the Labor Party not only are complicit in this corruption of one of the biggest and most powerful unions in the country but continue to enable the rot that has cost all Australians so dearly.

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

What a shameful state of affairs we find ourselves in. In one of the most important industries in this country, the construction industry, which provides the infrastructure all Australians need—roads, rail, schools, hospitals—and is responsible for many projects building the houses that Australians need in the middle of a chronic housing shortage, we have a union, the CFMEU, that is dominating the industrial relations landscape and is just beyond the pale. The cost of all that public infrastructure is 30 per cent, 40 per cent—goodness knows what per cent—more because of the CFMEU and the way it conducts itself. Everyone in this parliament knows this has been going on for years and years and years, and yet it's been allowed to persist, until now we've reached this stage. What a shameful state of affairs—which all Australians are paying for.

I would like to congratulate the Australian Financial Review, the Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and 60 Minutes for the investigation they conducted into the unlawful practices of the CFMEU. I want to read from an article that was prepared as part of that investigation, in relation to a young Indigenous Melbourne man by the name of Ben Nash, who took his own life after attending a construction site. He turned up to work at a construction site, came home to his mother and took his own life that night. I'm going to read from this article, and I'd like to specifically acknowledge Ms Tammie Parker, the mother of that young man, for her courage in speaking out:

When Indigenous Melbourne man Ben Nash left for work on the morning of January 24, a day before his 19th birthday, all his mother Tammie knew was that her son was heading to a job he loved.

"He was drawn to civil construction," she says of Ben …

She says he'd overcome mental health issues to throw himself not only into footy, but his dream of building a career in construction. An Indigenous construction firm, Marda Dandhi, had not only offered Ben a job, but gave him what Tammie described as a chance to "just embrace his Indigenous heritage".

"Ben loved it. He couldn't have loved it any more."

But ever since he skipped out the door that January morning, Tammie's days have been marked with discoveries about all that she didn't know and would yet find out.

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, on major projects.

The article goes on to say that she was unaware that the Indigenous company that had given her son his first start—and how wonderful it is that we have an Indigenous company in the construction industry, providing opportunities for people like Ben—had been targeted by the CFMEU. Nor did she know that, according to the article, a union organiser had, many months earlier, threatened to bash the founder of that company, a gentleman called Mr Danny Miller. A CFMEU official had threatened to bash Miller along with another of Ben's bosses and labelled the pair 'dogs'. The article continues:

Tammie had no idea that a second senior union official had warned her sons bosses that, without CFMEU backing, they would never access any sites funded by the Labor government …

She also wasn't expecting Ben to arrive home early from work distraught that same January day—

Picture the mother of this son, who'd left so excited for the start of his work day and who then comes home and tells his mum that he'd been bullied and humiliated on a building site because the CFMEU was angry because he'd previously been employed by that Indigenous construction firm, Marda Dandhi. There's no compassion; there's no empathy. There's anger. The article goes on:

Tammie didn't know that the next morning, when she was meant to be making him a birthday brekkie, she would instead find him in his bed, his lips blue and skin cold—

It's difficult to read. It goes on:

It will ultimately be up to a coroner to formally determine the cause of Ben's death, but Tammie is now demanding action against those behind the culture of fear and intimidation in the CFMEU she believes cost her son his life.

These are not a politician's word. These are the words of a mother who lost her son to suicide after he returned home from what was meant to be a day's productive work at a construction site here in Australia. The article continues:

Tammie believes Ben's treatment at work "tipped him over the edge".

Asked who she blames for his death, Tammy utters five letters: "C.F.M.E.U."

She says, in her words:

"According to Ben, he was pulled aside [by an unnamed CFMEU representative] and told that nobody that worked for Marda [Dandhi] would ever be welcome on site again. He was told to f--- off. He just wanted to work. He rang his employer to try and sort something out, and CFMEU wouldn't listen to him. They didn't offer any help. They locked him in a shed for three or four hours, just a young boy with mental health issues."

It's hard for me to read this. What must it have been like for the mother? The article goes on to say:

Nash's death, and his mother's determination to make something good of it, gives a human face—that of the ordinary suburban Australian worker—to an unfolding catalogue of construction union badness. The CFMEU denies responsibility for the death.

…   …   …

Over the weekend The Australian Financial Review and 60 Minutes also published covert video of the union official threatening to bash the two owners of Nash's company and an industry fixer—caught in a covert sting—who claimed to be able to bribe CFMEU officials in order to parachute corrupt companies onto the Victorian and federal government-funded Big Build and force non-preferred companies off sites.

…   …   …

Tammie says Ben's last day alive stands in stark contrast to his earlier time working for Marda Dandhi, a fledgling Indigenous construction firm started by Danny Miller.

According to Miller's LinkedIn profile, Marda Dandhi's vision—

and what a noble vision this is; just listen to this—

was to place Indigenous men and women into long-term, sustainable jobs by equipping them with new skills and a sense of pride and purpose.

The article then says that the founder of that company, Danny Miller, 'declined to be interviewed, with friends saying he's had his own mental health struggles after the firm's collapse.' It goes on to say:

For Ben, Tammie says Marda Dandhi was a "perfect fit".

"They were terrific. Employee welfare is really important to them. I'd be ringing him or messaging him, 'Are you coming home for dinner? …

The article goes on:

Despite initially securing CFMEU and Australian Workers' Union support, the former turned on them. The change in attitude is made clear in covert footage of two senior construction union officials, filmed in March 2022 on a publicly funded Big Build project.

The article says the film records a senior CFMEU official:

… repeatedly threatening to violently bash Miller—

the Indigenous man who started that company with that great vision—

telling him he would "f---ing end you, c--- and you know it, don't f--- with me. I'll f---ing take your soul and I'll rip your f---ing head off. Don't f--- with me, c---. F--- you. You're a f---ing dog.

In what world is that acceptable? The article continues:

The covert video also captures a second high-ranking CFMEU official … warning that any firms without CFMEU backing—in the form of a CFMEU-endorsed enterprise bargaining agreement—would struggle to win work on any big civil sites due to the construction union's control of the Labor government …

It quotes the CFMEU official, 'We've got them all, and youse won't be coming in with our companies.' The article continues:

It was only in January, the day Ben arrived home early, utterly distraught, that Tammie learned of the extent of acrimony between the CFMEU and Marda Dandhi.

He told her he had been bullied by an unnamed CFMEU representative and ordered to sit in a shed for hours because, even though he was working for a new company, Ben had worn a Marda Dandhi T-shirt.

He wore a T-shirt. His mum said:

He was angry and stressed, and yeah, just not himself. He was worried. Yeah. He'd been told that he wasn't welcome on site because of the … shirt that he had on—

a T-shirt. The articles continues:

He told his mum he had been "belittled … yelled at, sworn at and ignored".

"He said, 'I feel sorry for anybody that has ever worked for Danny, because anybody that has ever worked for Marda will never get a job on a CFMEU site ever again'," Tammie said.

Tammie believed Ben's treatment made him fear for his future in a career he had only started:

He was worried about his new job … He was 18 years old, first day on site. No other workers there that he knew. No support.

Consider his vulnerability; consider the vulnerability of this young man. Who was there on that work site, reaching out to support him? He was put in a shed for three or four hours. His mum says:

I thought that's what unions were supposed to do, look after their employees.

The article goes on:

For Tammie, what happened next is a blur. "I asked him if he was OK … and he said, 'Mum, I just need to sleep. I just need to sleep. I just need this to stop.'

"So, he went to bed and I checked up on him at about midnight to make sure he was OK, and he was fine."

But when Ben didn't walk out to the kitchen for breakfast, Tammie checked on her son again.

"He was cold. His lips were blue. He was clearly dead. His girlfriend was hysterical, obviously, we all were. And then it was just calling triple 0. He was gone. There was nothing we could do."

Next came the "most unbelievable pain".

"I just sat outside. The ambos came and the fireys come, police come and detectives come, because Ben was so young and an unexpected death."

Tammie hopes the coroner will get to the bottom of her son's death.

Tammie says CFMEU officials visited her and tried to downplay the role of workplace intimidation in Ben's death. But Tammie isn't buying it.

"Where was the duty of care for my son? Why was he locked in a shed for so long? Why didn't they tell him to turn his shirt inside out?"

"They didn't want him there. They didn't want him on site. They didn't want him there, purely because he was wearing the Marda Dandhi shirt.

"Kids can't go to work and end up dead the next day. No family needs to go through this."

This issue has a human face. It has a human cost, and there are families across Australia who are suffering. Their fathers, brothers, sons and sisters are suffering because of the state of our construction worksites. Action is required, and the coalition has put forward 20 sensible amendments to the legislation which has been put forward by the Labor government. In considering those amendments, I call upon the Labor government to consider the words of Ms Tammie Palmer, who lost her son after he arrived home distraught from one day on a construction worksite in our beautiful country of Australia.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kovacic, before I call you, we have a hard marker at 12.15, so you will be in continuation after.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to acknowledge the powerful contribution of my colleague Senator Scarr. I thank you for sharing that very difficult story with the chamber. Here we are, debating the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, a bill that is going to put the CFMEU into administration. I'm sorry to say that those opposite have had their heads in the sand for far too long about the criminal behaviour of the CFMEU. That is why we must act.

There has been a lot of silence about the actions of the CFMEU, and we must ask ourselves why. Why have people in the chambers in this place been silent? Is that because of intimidation? Is there also intimidation in this place? I think about the tattoo that we've all seen this week that Mr John Setka has advertised across his social media: 'God forgives; the CFMEU doesn't.' We need to think about that. Who is that a message for? Is that a personal message, or is that a message very clearly and plainly demonstrated and publicised to ensure that anybody that might want to stand against him can be very, very clear about what the consequences will be? We need to ask ourselves if we accept that. As people that have been charged with leading this country, if we accept that somebody can do that—

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It being 12.15, pursuant to order, debate on this bill is interrupted.