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

My question is: is this behaviour intimidation, and how broad is that intimidation? Or is it arrogance—an arrogance completely out of touch with community expectations of what is okay and what is clearly not okay: decades of the CFMEU running rampant over small businesses, decades of the CFMEU driving up construction costs and decades of criminal behaviour on our building sites? I can share stories—but there is not enough time here—of people who are known to me who have lost their businesses, who have lost their livelihoods, who have suffered terrible mental health impacts because of the conduct of the CFMEU and the way that they engage with individuals and small businesses who refuse to participate in the behaviours and conduct that they require.

We heard from Senator Scarr about the devastating impact that caused the loss of life of a young man. This is not okay. We can't look the other way. We can't say, 'There is nothing we can do about this.' It is our job to do something about the CFMEU. At the end of the day, it took a week of national media and a 60 Minutes story to get this government to take action. Let's not forget that it was those opposite that abolished the union cop, the Australian Building and Construction Commission. They were warned about this criminal behaviour, but they abolished the ABCC anyway. Why? Out of what—obligation to the CFMEU because of donations, because of the election day volunteers? Why?

I am pleased to see this Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 before us in the Senate, but it is nowhere near enough, and there are some glaring omissions. We have a number of concerns about this bill. It gives the minister far too much discretion with respect to the administration process, particularly the minister's ability to stop the administration process as they see fit. As an example, the minister could stop it the day after an election, if they so chose. We also need to ensure that the administrator will apply to all of the CFMEU's construction divisions, not just a select few. Under the current legislation, the minister could make a unilateral decision to end the administration of one or more of the state divisions at any time.

We must ensure there is an adequate reporting system back to the parliament through the course of that administration. I know that the cleaning up of the CFMEU can only benefit from more transparency and sunlight, and that should be achieved by reporting back to this parliament. There is a complete lack of standards with respect to how the CFMEU needs to change before it can be taken out of administration. The parliament must be absolutely clear in its view that the CFMEU is rotten and needs serious change. We must set out what needs to be done in order for the parliament to be satisfied that the CFMEU has been properly cleaned up and can do its important core job of representing workers, because it has undeniably lost its way. It is not doing its job. That must be outlined in the bill; at the moment, it is not.

Strangely, the bill only provides for an automatic three-year sunset on the administration. So it's suddenly out of administration automatically, even if it hasn't fixed the issues. There is no regard as to whether the administrator, the courts or the parliament are satisfied that the issues by which the administration occurred in the first place have been resolved. The administration automatically ends; it just stops. If we recognise, on both sides of the chamber, that the CFMEU is infected with criminal behaviour and has lost track of its fundamental task and that there is now a rationale to appoint an administrator to clean it up, how can we then say that we'll have no regard as to the success of that administration process in cleaning up these issues before the administration stops? It makes no sense whatsoever. Surely it must be the case that the administration cannot cease until the job is done. The legislation must reflect this, and, at the moment, it doesn't.

Another glaring issue with the legislation as it stands is the matter of political donations during the administration period. It's one thing for a democratic trade union to make donations to a political party. The reality is that that is just a function of our democracy. Whilst, of course, there is a conflict in terms of Labor governments and their IR and workplace policies, it is a democratically elected body making the choice to make a donation. However, under this legislation, the minister sets the terms of the administration of the CFMEU, which is allowed to make donations to the party of the minister that sets their administration terms. Let's have a think about that. The organisation that is under administration as a result of criminal conduct can make donations to the party of the minister setting the terms of the administration. I don't think that passes any test, pub or otherwise. It is an undeniable conflict. It cannot be allowed to occur under this legislation. Whilst the CFMEU is in administration, it cannot be allowed to make political donations.

It is concerning that the government wants to rush this bill through without adequate scrutiny. It should be subject to proper and careful scrutiny. Rest assured, where the government has failed to act, the opposition has sensible, commonsense amendments to ensure that this bill does its job and that it is effective. The administration must apply to all branches of the CFMEU for three years, and the minister should not have the ability to end the administration early. The scheme of administration should only be able to 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 discretion or whim of any minister; it should be clearly set out. As I noted before, political donations, political campaigns, and advertising by the CFMEU should be explicitly banned during the period of administration. That is an entirely reasonable request and requirement, and it should have been in this legislation to begin with.

For the purposes of transparency, the administrator must provide a written report to the parliament every three months, from the commencement of the administration, about its activities and progress, and they should appear at Senate estimates. I think that that in itself is a very clear indicator of good faith and transparency—to note that in legislation as a requirement. The administrator should be given the ability to impose longer expulsion or disqualification periods for officers, as opposed to 'up to five years', as outlined in the legislation. If the administrator sees fit, that longer penalty should apply. Why shouldn't they be able to apply those penalties?

We believe that a new fit-and-proper-person test needs to be introduced for all CFMEU delegates and officers. I spoke about that earlier when I spoke about Mr John Setka and the tattoo that he wanted everybody to see. He wanted everybody to know that the CFMEU would not forget and would not forgive. God would, but they wouldn't. If that isn't intimidation, if that isn't bullying, if that isn't attempting to silence someone, I don't know what is. Is that the type of character that we want in individuals who are leading our organisations? Is that a fit and proper person to be leading the CFMEU or any other organisation?

The administrator must appoint a special-purpose auditor to examine the financial dealings of the CFMEU prior to the commencement of administration, with the cost of a special-purpose auditor paid for by the CFMEU with the lots of money that they've got, not by the taxpayer. That auditor should be paid for by the CFMEU. The special-purpose auditor's first report needs to be tabled by the final sitting day of 2024. The retrospectivity date should be changed from 17 July 2024 to a date prior to the resignation of Mr John Setka. The administrator should be given additional powers to investigate dealings between the CFMEU and other parties, including other registered organisations or political parties. The administrator, in undertaking their duties, should be able to investigate the past practices of the CFMEU that relate to unlawful conduct. They should absolutely be able to look back and see what kinds of systemic issues exist in this organisation and how long they have existed.

The administrator should be given the power to review and amend the rules of the CFMEU. There should be the inclusion of an objects clause which outlines what the administrator needs to achieve before an administration can cease. It should specify what we want to see before we stop administration, rather than just have it automatically stop at a random date three years in the future. The administrator should be given the power to apply for the deregistration of the CFMEU if they deem that to be appropriate, and the administrator must be able to compel officers, employees and delegates of the CFMEU to not associate with an organised crime group or an outlawed motorcycle gang. I can't imagine that anybody would disagree with that or that anybody would have a problem with that.

The administrator should have the ability to renegotiate EBAs. We need to ensure that the administrator is required to exercise their function with specific regard to the objects of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 and with a focus on reducing the adverse effects of industrial disputation, ensuring the CFMEU—its officers, employees and delegates—act in accordance with our law.

Ross Cadell (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With so many speakers contributing to the debate on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, I've been sitting here wondering which particular angle to take. I was here for the speech made by Senator Scarr. I hadn't heard the story of Ben before, and it was truly horrifying to hear that a young worker—a young Indigenous Australian—went to work, came home and, apparently, chose to take his own life because of the bullying he received on site for having had a previous employer that the CFMEU didn't like and for wearing the wrong shirt.

I can't help but think about the difference in perspective. If this were an employer who bullied a young worker for having a T-shirt on and locked them in a shed for hours and that worker then took their own life because of that, there would be calls from the other side for industrial manslaughter charges. There would be cries for tougher laws and for actually criminalising the directors of the company and criminalising the worksite. We would not hear anything but how unjust it is. But, with the CFMEU, we hear, 'Nothing to see here.' That's sad because we have to have standards that apply equally to all Australians in all circumstances.

I hadn't heard that story. I saw Senator Scarr's difficulty telling it. I saw him almost breaking up. I heard the mother talking about how she put her son to bed and that he was excited about a job one day, concerned the next afternoon and dead the next morning, because he wore the wrong T-shirt. If that's the power that enables you to do that sort of bullying—locking people in sheds—that creates a situation where people take their own life, without any ramifications, that is too much power. No-one in this chamber would say it is not.

I have very limited experience with this union, but a friend of mine did take me into their home. They were building a development in the Hunter, and they showed me onsite footage of two union members coming on site. One of them assaulted the site manager, and it was captured on video. They couldn't do anything about it. Nothing was a problem until the union found out that they had footage of it, and then the threats came: 'You won't get another employee on site. You won't pass safety checks. There'll be an electrical issue. You won't get final clearance. All of these things will happen if you go to the police, if you tell anyone or if you do anything.' So I was specifically told: 'Don't do anything. Please don't do anything. I need this to go ahead or I'm broke.' That is the power of a union that is out of control.

A lot of senators on this side have given Minister Watt a hard time for this action that he has taken in introducing this legislation. But, let's face it, he has been given an impossible task: 'Make it look to the Australian people that you're tough on the CFMEU. Make it look like we're doing something and make it look like we're taking a stand but without actually doing anything, without really taking steps to clean things up and without annoying the CFMEU enough that they'll start talking about what they're doing, about where their donations have gone, about how they have done these things and about who is a recipient of benefits from these actions.' So poor old Minister Watt is treading a fine line. He is walking a tight rope with this legislation: 'Make it look like we're doing something without actually doing anything.' That is the legislation we have before us.

One in three of the previous speakers mentioned the 20 amendments that the coalition is proposing. They're not secret. They're not hidden. They were put in a press release on 13 August, and the previous speaker went through them. They are reasonable. I don't think they go far enough in relation to a union that has caused such harm to individuals, such destruction to businesses and such harm to the taxpayer by inflating the cost of doing everything, especially in the state of Victoria. But they are there, and, if they are met, I will vote for the bill because it is something. But let's go back to that idea: 'Don't go so hard that the union turns rat on us.' Anyone looking at Mr Setka and seeing the tattoo he has around his neck will know: he is no rat. You can go harder because he won't turn. He has been a loyal soldier hiding secrets for the Labor Party for ever, and he won't turn now. You can go harder, and Australia needs you to go harder.

This is not about punishing the perpetrators of this behaviour that takes lives, closes businesses and threatens people. It is about silencing the witnesses. It is about coming to a deal where those that have perpetrated these acts do not stand up and say, 'A did this; B did this.' And I'm not just talking about politicians; I'm talking about the businesses that paid these bribes, the ones that are big enough to get away with doing it so that the small family businesses and the medium-sized businesses can't compete. They are all wrong, and this is when we get to the size of organisations. This is why Senator Lambie and people on this side all wanted a change of regulation on industrial relations—to be able to allow unions to separate from the CFMEU. That's why the government didn't allow it initially. 'Big' is best when it comes to oversight: big business, big corporations, big donations, big unions.

If we had an organisation like this operating in America, it would fall under the RICO Act since 1970. A business with a large number of people representing it that commit a large number of crimes would fall under the RICO Act, and the whole thing would be shut down. But we don't have that in Australia. I get how important unions are for safety. I get how important unions are for worker welfare. I get how important they are for pay and conditions. But I get how attractive they are to infiltrate for those that don't have those interests at heart. I get how easy they are for people who have their own interests at heart to infiltrate them to seek to control them.

It is a strange path I go down now. I was state director of the National Party in 2018-2019 when the far right signed up a number of people over time and they all showed up together for the first time at an annual general conference. We got a phone call that morning saying: 'There are a bunch of people here we don't know. What do you know?' Strangely enough, I thought we were being taken over by the Liberal Party because I didn't know who they were. But, after some research over about two days, we found out who they were. As the leader, as the state director, of the party, it was my responsibility to get them out. We didn't hide it. I'm still criticised to this day for being open and clear and allowing what we were doing to go on the front page of the paper. There were 32 people from extreme right-wing organisations—and we were open with the White Rose Foundation; we were open with the Jewish Board of Deputies—and we wanted them in no part of our party, because they sought to legitimise their own interests by taking over our brand and value. A leader does that.

I feel, with the CFMEU, the leadership has allowed this to happen—people without the best interests of their workers or of their members. They don't want their members' problems; they want their union dues. They want their superannuation. They want their vote. They want everything but their problems, and they want to control them. That a bill like this, which comes in without detail, without checks and balance and without KPIs, which is so common in government now—no KPIs on anything; 'Let's have our best shot and see how it goes!'—will do that is wrong. The 20 amendments are there. That will put some teeth behind this. I know that the real members, the real builders, the real Labor Party members, who support unionisation and the construction union doing the right thing by its members, will back this. They don't want an organisation that is controlled by those that don't have their members' best interests at heart. And it doesn't. It is all about control. Those seeking to control the world know that they have lost the argument. They can't win on merit. They can't win on facts. They have to have absolute control of every part of their lives. They have to control the worksites. They have to control the contractors. They have to control who can visit and who can't because, if it goes to the market, if there is a free bid, they will lose that control and they will have nothing. So this isn't about whether this union is to big or too small or violent; it's about the absolute control they have over everything.

Remember the words from Senator Scarr. Remember the words from Ben's mother. He wore the wrong T-shirt to work, got locked in a shed, was bullied, was punished and took his own life that night because he couldn't face it. That is the control that the CFMEU want. That is the control they have.

I feel sorry for the attendants, who have had to walk around with, I think, about 20 or 30 pieces of paper for the amendments that are going to be put to the vote today. There are so many of them because this bill has to have teeth because the bad elements in this union have total control and they have to be put in a box—not locked in a shed like Ben. The bad people have to be forced out, put in a box and eradicated from this union.

So when we are voting, I say to the minister and I say to those opposite, be bold. Stand up for what's right. The National Party, when I was getting rid of the far right, got front pages of the paper that I wish we never had. But it was the only way to force out those who sought to do evil to our organisation. Have the boldness and the strength to say: 'These people are not what the union needs. These people are not who the labour movement wants representing them.' Don't stop until they are all gone. Be open, be honest and be bold because Ben deserves nothing less, because the Australian people deserve nothing less and because it is time.

Let's get down to the facts here. When you create an environment where evil can flourish, it does. The ABCC was removed, we moved guidelines and we changed laws. In this place, through the laws we passed, we created the environment for this to happen, and, if we aren't taking responsibility for fixing it, we—not just the union—are failing the Australian people. So don't look at what we're doing now as a bandaid, because it won't stem all the blood. As my ex-surgeon wife says, all bleeding stops eventually for some reason. Let's make it stop not because we didn't tend to the wound. Let's make it stop because we fixed the wound.

So whenever this comes to a vote—this afternoon, next week, in the future—there is a choice: to do what looks good in a press release or to take the first step in what it takes to build a better country. We need to bring back the ABCC, we need to create an atmosphere where this can never happen again in any other union or any other organisation and we have to reward those organisations that do get infiltrated but stand up to it. We've seen the strength of the manufacturing side, wanting to break away from this union for so long. Up in the Hunter Valley, the mining side managed to escape the grasp of this union because they had their workers' interests at heart, not that of their organised thug group, the CFMEU.

When we move forward beyond this, we have to look at laws that create a competitive building industry, rewarding the small and medium-sized businesses that want to come in and have a stake and do things more efficiently than the big guys that have all fallen into line with what's going on down there, who have been complicit.

Everyone brings up the $6.2 million worth of donations since the current Prime Minister became Leader of the Labor Party. We don't want that returned; they shouldn't get that money back. It should instead be donations to charities and for people in need, for people in distress and at risk of suicide—to help people who are bullied like Ben. That's where that money should go. But it won't. It'll be kept. It'll be used to get more people elected to support the CFMEU. It'll be used for many things that that money's not meant to be used for, because when you get down to it here everything comes down to money. There's money in control and there's money in superannuation and there's money in union fees and there's money in bribes. If we start putting money above our country, if we start putting money above the lives of the workers in the construction industry, we have lost and we should pack up and go home.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fawcett, you've got about 40 seconds.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I recognise that the standing orders have a hard marker and that will curtail what I'm seeking to say now, but I'm trusting I'll have a future opportunity. What I would like to cover in this is a range of things—partly the process. Why is the Senate established as a house of review, why do we have Senate committees to scrutinise bills and why is it important that this bill does go before a Senate committee? It's to make sure that the legislation will actually achieve what is intended. I will run through the concerns that the coalition has with the legislation as it stands and the amendments that we seek to bring. More broadly, though, I think it's also important that we look at the weak leadership that Mr Albanese has displayed on this issue compared to—

Debate interrupted.

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

Now that it is 1.30, we will be moving to two-minute statements.