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

I want to be really, really clear. The amendments that the coalition will put forward, the 20 recommendations for changes that need to be made to this legislation to put the CFMEU into administration, need to be adopted, because we do not want this bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, to become a back door for bikies and organised crime to continue to control the CFMEU organisation and have an impact on worksites around this country.

I heard Minister Watt on Patricia Karvelas's show this morning refute the fact that CFMEU projects are 30 per cent more expensive for the taxpayer than other projects. This is a fact, Minister. It is classic Labor strategy to state your preferred outcome over reality and evidence based requirements, but, in this instance, if you say you're going to clean up the CFMEU then you need to put some muscle into it, right? That means adopting our 20 recommendations, which are about transparency and accountability.

The administrator must be able to compel officers, employees and delegates to not associate with organised crime or outlaw motorcycle groups. It sounds pretty stock standard. Why does the Labor Party not want to put that type of amendment forward? The administrator needs to have the ability to renegotiate EBAs so that we have a sustainable construction sector. These are sensible amendments being put forward by the coalition. We need them adopted by the Labor Party so we can get the CFMEU into administration as soon as possible. (Time expired)

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to also make a contribution on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, which is before the Senate. Let me begin by remarking that industrial relations debates in our country have, for a very, very long period, been characterised or prosecuted through an ideological lens. On one level, that is very necessary because everyone comes to the parliament with a particular world view, and that world view informs their position on matters like industrial relations laws but also other matters. I'm a coalition senator who—and I suspect there are others as well—believes that the civility that we witness in our broad industrial relations environment is an important part of the work and contribution of the trade labour movement in our country many, many years ago. I think the safety that is afforded to workers and the entitlements that are afforded to workers are a productive and positive feature of our industrial relations system, and I don't mind acknowledging the fact that they were hard-fought gains by the trade labour movement, particularly in the early years of the birth of this nation.

But I'd also have to say that the broad Australian trade labour movement of today does not look like that, does not prosecute the interests of Australian workers and does not have a proud legacy like the Australian trade movement of generations before us does. When we look very, very closely, or perhaps look more deeply, at how this particular government chooses to operate, we can see more clearly that it has a very strong preference—a laziness, almost—to work through big business, big government and big unions. And the interests of the ordinary worker in our country, I think, are being left behind.

That corporatist style of politics, which I think is rightly a particular style afforded to previous Labor governments and which I think we can see quite clearly in the actions and approach undertaken by this Labor government, I believe diminishes the interests of Australian workers. So, when we come to the particular bill that's before us, which seeks to correct what has been the most outrageous behaviour of a trade union organisation thus far, I think many senators can say with great confidence that the interests of the government in bringing forward this particular legislation are less about wanting to protect and stand up for the rights of ordinary workers and more about wanting to protect the institutional arrangements that dominate the modern Australian Labor Party and are a feature of the modern Australian labour movement.

Much attention has been put on the CFMEU and their known activities to date. I'm someone who believes that unfortunately this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Today we talk about the CFMEU; tomorrow we might talk about the HSU or the TWU. I suspect that what we're being asked to address today is not behaviour that is uncommon or almost unique. This is behaviour that has been empowered, emboldened and left unprosecuted because it's been protected by the institutional arrangements that govern the Australian trade union movement in the broadest sense and also its political partner the Australian Labor Party. Much is said about the crimes and behaviour, the thuggery, that is known. Unfortunately, we don't know yet what is unknown, but I suspect, with the passage of time, those unknowns in terms of other behaviours in this particular union and in other unions will become more and more apparent.

This is an important issue. This is a very important issue because we have a predominance of economic and political influence by trade unions in our country at a time when the membership of these trade unions is actually falling. When we think about their predominance in Australia's very successful and well-capitalised superannuation scheme and when we think about their overrepresentation in the Australian Labor movement, how can this be possible? How can this be proportionate at a time when trade union membership in our country is declining? It's declining for a couple of reasons. It's declining because the nature of work is changing. It is declining because people don't think they need to have their interests represented by a trade union movement, or they believe that the trade union movement doesn't actually represent their interests.

The overwhelming challenges of the Australian economy in 2024 are around productivity gains and competition improvements. The character of this Labor government's approach to industrial relations reforms and so-called improvements has been to introduce rigidity to our industrial relations system, a rigidity that is undermining competition and leading to a worsening of productivity improvements. This country is getting poorer. It's getting poorer not because of bad luck; it's getting poorer because of the conscious policy decisions being taken by this Labor government. There is rigidity in our industrial relations system and an unwillingness to adopt an orthodoxy when it comes to fiscal management—an orthodoxy that I don't think Bob Hawke or Paul Keating would have had any problem with. The fiscal guardrails which were such an important feature, the cornerstone, of successful previous budgets have been abandoned by this government. The country is getting poorer not because it's unlucky but because of the conscious policy decisions being taken by a government led by Anthony Albanese.

There's been some media commentary in the last 12 hours about progress towards amendments and getting some coalition endorsement of the government's bill, subject to certain proposals. I think it is important to say that, at this particular point in time, as I'm aware, there is not yet a formal agreement on any of the 20 propositions that the coalition has put before the government. There is not any formal agreement on the 20 sensible propositions for improvement to the bill that Senator Cash, as our spokesman, has made.

So I suspect that this debate will go for a little while yet, and it is not to diminish the importance of this debate, but I think it has to be said that the willingness of the government to resolve this issue quickly is not, I doubt, because they want to establish the administration and to start prosecuting the case. I suspect their motivation is driven primarily by the fact that they want this political obstacle, this political embarrassment, removed from the political agenda.

One of the propositions that have been mentioned in media commentary in the last few hours has been the requirement, the possibility, of the parliament being reported to regularly on the progress of the administration arrangements. That is a very, very sensible and necessary inclusion, because these problems have been allowed to occur because the CFMEU has acted without transparency. The Australian Labor Party, a beneficiary of the largesse of the CFMEU, has failed to properly ensure due diligence over its relationships.

I hope that, when this bill is finally put to a vote, there is a reporting mechanism to this parliament so that senators like me and others see with great clarity what has really happened, not just what we do know but also the things that we don't yet know, because the parliament has a right to know how the traditions of the Australian trade labour movement have been tarnished and trashed by this union. People will want to be sure, Australian workers in our country will want to be sure, that other unions are free from this sort of behaviour and, importantly, that we are not starting to see behaviours become permissible in other unions because of the strife and destruction that have been allowed to happen in the CFMEU.

Our industrial relations system is well supported by employer groups. It has traditionally been well supported by Australian trade unions. Their role has been to disrupt and to advocate on behalf of workers. That is part of an open, democratic society like our own. The interests of employers change over time; indeed, the interests of workers change over time. But this particular chapter of the Australian labour movement and its political ally in the form of the Australian Labor Party is a very, very tarnished one. While speed must be taken to bring this corruption, criminal activity, threats, bribery, intimidation and violence to an end, it has to be done in a way that these changes to culture become permanent features of the broader trade union movement in our country and not just the CFMEU, because I'm not sure if anyone in this Senate, and I don't believe any of the Labor senators, can say hand on heart that this is behaviour that is not infecting other trade unions in our country and that it will not infect other trade unions in years to come.

Australian workers deserve better, Australian employers deserve better, and if productivity and competition gains are to be achieved in our economy then reforms like this are necessary, and I suspect it will not be the last of them.

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'God forgives. The CFMEU does not' might be not only all over the media this week, tattooed around the neck of the CFMEU thug John Setka, along with all of his other bikie tattoos and symbols, but it is also tattooed in the hearts and emblazoned in the minds of all CFMEU officials. Make absolutely no mistake about that. It's tattooed on some of their bodies. It's on their T-shirts, their hoodies, their bumper stickers, their flags, along with the slogan 'Whatever it takes'. It's not 'Whatever it takes legally'; it is simply 'Whatever it takes' in any way possible to achieve their means. These two statements taken together summarise the CFMEU in every way that is abhorrent to the values of Australians and that is abhorrent and contrary to the laws of our land, to our ethics and to our morals. And yet not only have those opposite turned a blind eye; they have taken active steps to encourage and allow this behaviour to flourish once again.

There is no question that for many years those opposite—in fact most Australians who read the paper or watch the news will know that the CFMEU is consumed by, is riddled with, criminals and bikies. It's going about its daily business, using bikies to intimidate and to threaten other hardworking Australians on work sites and building sites right across this country. It is unacceptable, yet those opposite know it, they facilitate it and they encourage it. Well, this is the day and this is the bill to say enough is enough. This is not something we are going to walk past anymore. It is not something we're going to turn a blind eye to simply because they have contributed over $6 million in campaign assistance to the Australian Labor Party—13 pieces of silver which are costing our nation dearly.

In Western Australia we have UnionsWA saying: 'Oh, there's nothing to see here. Come back to us when you've got credible evidence.' We've got the Premier saying: 'Oh well, there were some problems, but they're historical problems. Let's not worry about that.' I'll tell you what; that is cowardice and that is not leadership.

In WA we are clearly now being taken back to the bad old days of the 1980s, and Labor, federal and state, are actively encouraging and letting this happen to appease—I was going to say to appease their union mates, but they are not just mates; they are their national masters. Today in the West Australian, which for years has been full of stories about bikies and their associations with trade union movements, particularly the CFMEU, they have absolute evidence of this, yet the Premier and UnionsWA, and Minister Watt, are saying: 'Nothing to see here. We'll introduce this almost ineffective'—or completely ineffective as it currently stands—'legislation.' I would implore every Western Australian and every Western Australian senator in this place to go and read the West Australian today just to see how pervasive bikies still are in the CFMEU.

The CFMEU don't have bikies on their payroll to bake cakes for them or to give them a ride on their Harley-Davidsons. They have them in there to intimidate and to conduct criminal activities on their behalf. In Western Australia it is particularly of concern. And it shouldn't just be of concern to Western Australians—to those who are working in our mine sites across our state—because the harder you make it for Western Australian workers, and Western Australian mining companies in particular, impacts on the rest of the nation and how we can afford to pay for our education, our health and our criminal justice system.

Let me give you some examples of what's been happening in Western Australia. Just this week, on BHP mine sites, we've had unions turning up unannounced to start holding our state's economy to ransom. The CME Western Australia chief executive officer Rebecca Tomkinson has said, 'It is unthinkable, at this critical juncture of WA's role in the energy transition, if the militant unions send us backwards.' The Minerals Council of Australia has said this move is of grave concern to the Australian economy. Along with this chaos in the mining and construction industries, Fremantle port is facing two days of closures this weekend, when workers will walk off the job to demand another incredibly large pay increase. WA's union crisis is slowly turning Australia into a 'state of the union'. It is a blast from the past. The bad old days of the 1980s, which we had hoped, in Western Australia and nationally, would never return are coming back all too quickly, facilitated by those opposite who currently reside on the government benches.

What's Labor's role in all of this? This bill is a direct result of them rolling over to the CFMEU and abolishing the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The only beneficiary of that was the CFMEU. It was certainly not to the benefit of Australian workers or Australians who are already struggling to afford to build houses, to afford their mortgages and to get themselves into their own homes. This legislation has come about squarely because of the abolition of the ABCC. As a result of that—surprise, surprise!—we've seen a significant increase in criminal activity, threats, corruption, bribery, intimidation, violence, bullying, standover tactics, the misappropriation of funds, theft and other accusations of lawlessness by the CFMEU right across the construction sector. Again, it's hardly a surprise. Those opposite, when they got rid of the ABCC, can't possibly credibly claim that John Setka, the CFMEU officials and their bikies would not revert to type, and, of course, they have.

The Albanese government knew this would happen. They were warned this would happen, but they abolished the ABCC anyway. We believed—and we still believe—that there should have been an inquiry into this bill to hear from the department, the Fair Work Commission and the building sector itself on how this bill would operate. That is the role of this place; that is the role of this Senate. Yet again the government is denying the Senate the opportunity to do our job.

Minister Watt himself has spent his entire time in this place being the CFMEU's biggest cheerleader. I remember quite clearly how, at Senate estimates, he would mercilessly attack the building regulator who dared hold his mates at the CFMEU to account and to the law of this land. He achieved his lifelong dream in abolishing the ABCC and giving John Setka, a most despicable human being, control of the construction sector in Australia. So make no mistake: this legislation is a direct result not just of the incompetence of those opposite but also of their inability to stand up, be leaders, govern for all Australians and stand up to the worst of the worst in the trade union movement, the CFMEU.

I think there is no question that the PM made this choice to change workplace laws because he got $6.2 million from his mates and his comrades in the CFMEU. Unfortunately, all Australians are now paying the price for this. The CFMEU construction division were bad before, even under the ABCC, but, in a few short years under this government, they have taken their lawlessness, their bikie activities and their intimidation to a whole new level.

What does this cost Australians? What does it cost Western Australians? Australians are now paying 30 per cent more for major projects on their homes, on other buildings and on infrastructure generally. Why does that matter to them? It's not just about their own home; it's because their taxpayer dollars are getting 30 per cent less infrastructure for hospitals, roads and all other vital infrastructure projects.

In relation to this legislation, the Albanese government is not telling the truth when it says that this legislation will clean up the scandal plagued construction sector. There are more holes in this legislation than you'd probably see in a piece of swiss cheese. It rather conveniently provides the minister, the CFMEU's chief cheerleader, with far too much power and discretion, and, with the stroke of a pen, their biggest cheerleader can end the administration early. For example—heaven forbid—if Labor were re-elected, they could end the administration the day after the election. Not surprisingly, the bill doesn't talk about any links to the $6.2 million of donations to the Labor Party and future donations to the Labor Party by the CFMEU. In fact, this bill is so weak it could well have been written by John Setka himself, and maybe it was.

We also need to amend this bill to ensure that this administration will apply to all of the CFMEU's construction divisions, not just a select few. It must apply to Western Australia, and, if UnionsWA and Premier Cook do not think that there is any contemporaneous evidence of the CFMEU's malfeasance, bullying, intimidation, corruption and bikie affiliations, they are completely and utterly wilfully blind. Just look at the West Australian today for evidence of that. Currently, this bill sunsets after three years, regardless of what may or may not have been achieved by the administrator. But this legislation also must, by our amendment, make sure that political donations cannot be made by the CFMEU and that they cannot run political campaigns on behalf of any political party here in this country.

This legislation was brought on by the Labor Party abolishing the ABCC and deliberately allowing the CFMEU to run riot. They've been forced into this legislation, but they've presented legislation that will have no practical impact and that allows the chief cheerleader and supporter of the CFMEU over the years to, with a single stroke of a pen at any time, end the administration. This is not leadership. This is not political courage. This is the basest of all political actions and expediency. This country deserves so much better than this bill, and it is so important.

We have to set the standard in this place, and, where we see corruption, thuggery, intimidation and a real and practical impact on the Australian economy and on Australian homebuyers, everybody in this chamber has to stand up and say the law applies to us all—to all Australians. It is time to accept our amendments.

Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this debate on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, although, in reality, it might be better named 'The placing the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff bill'. It is an example of the government acting hastily to try and address a mess largely of its own making. On 29 July, the minister, Senator Watt, became the responsible minister. I wish him well, because he has inherited a portfolio from his predecessor where the balance has completely tilted in favour of the power of the unions.

Everyone accepts in this place that Labor has had a close link with the union movement, which founded the ALP. As such, it should be in a prime position to strike a balance between employees and employers, with a view to productive and long-term stable jobs. However, there's been a monumental failure in one of the most vital sectors in building our country's productivity, the construction sector. Over one million Australians are employed in this sector, and many more are in industries which rely on and support it. It is a significant driver of our country's economic growth. Allegations of bullying, intimidation, standover tactics, bribery, retribution and other criminal activities by union officials of the CFMEU's construction division in Victoria have been downright frightening to hear about. Revelations that construction workers across the state were turning up to their worksites and enduring this type of harassment and abuse—let alone the allegations of criminal misconduct—should be an embarrassment to this Labor government. The media has well reported these allegations over several years; however, the government has now sought to introduce this bill to the Senate, after of its persistent failure to take action, because suddenly it realises the Australian public has had enough. The bill can only be described as a knee-jerk reaction that fails to provide any repercussions for the CFMEU and deter them from these activities.

This bill seeks to deregister the CFMEU and to place it under administration for three years. It also grants powers to the Fair Work Commission to give them the authority to appoint the administrator and direct the CFMEU to pay for the cost of administration. It is a temporary and weak piece of legislation. This temporary bill fails to send a strong message to the CFMEU that these types of behaviours are not acceptable. It doesn't apply any conditions or penalties to stamp out this behaviour once and for all. It has significant flaws and does not do enough to stamp out the corruption in the CFMEU for good, and it doesn't compel the union to make any changes at all at the conclusion of the administration period.

For example, this temporary bill states that the CFMEU will be deregistered for a period of three years with absolutely no conditions. That means there is no incentive for the union to make changes, and they don't need to provide any proof or documentation that they have made the changes. It provides a timeframe to allow the current leadership of the union to simply wait out their deregistration process until it expires, and then they can go straight back to resuming their previous conduct, allegedly engaging in criminal activity, harassing and bullying other workers, and misappropriating funds, some of which have been used to grant sizeable donations to the Labor Party's election campaigns and, it is evident, donations to the Australian Greens in the past.

The union movement was established to support employee rights. It was supposed to be for the worker, and many fine Australians have led unions with that ideal in mind. But that philosophy has been thrown away by the CFMEU, who have resorted to dirty tactics to get what they want. It was only a few months ago that the former state secretary of this union, John Setka, was filibustering and holding important AFL infrastructure upgrades, including the proposed development of Tasmania's Macquarie Point stadium, to ransom because of a personal stoush he apparently had with the head of the AFL's umpiring department, who is a former commissioner of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It is rather extraordinary that an individual, a union official in fact, has so much clout that he can threaten to stall important infrastructure upgrades and hold them to ransom because of a 'professional' disagreement.

Let us not forget that the construction industry, particularly those who work in the commercial sector, rely on a steady pipeline of work and often transfer from one worksite to another. The actions taken by Mr Setka would have caused significant stress and uncertainty for those workers. Every worker on a construction site has the right to go to work and do that work in a respectful environment without the fear of thuggery, intimidation and bullying from a union that purports to support employees. This temporary bill does not go far enough to root out the corruption at the heart of the CFMEU and ensure that all workers can go to work without fear of harassment, intimidation or retribution for having a different opinion to the union.

We all have the right to go to work and not be bullied. In fact, this week is the national action week against bullying. If the Labor government were serious about drawing a line in the sand against this behaviour, they would consider adopting the coalition's amendments, as a first step, and support the referral of this matter to a Senate inquiry.

The CFMEU is a union with arms reaching far into the construction and building sector across the country. The Victorian branch, on which most of the allegations are centred, also runs the Tasmanian branch of the union. As a senator for Tasmania, that makes me particularly concerned that the behaviours and attitudes of the Victorian CFMEU branch have also filtered down to the Tasmanian branch, which is under its control. There are many honest and hardworking construction workers in Tasmania who may be members of the CFMEU, and I am heartened that so far there have been no specific allegations against Tasmanian CFMEU members. I believe it is important that a bill like this sends a strong message to all members of this union that this behaviour will not be tolerated by this parliament, anywhere across the country.

There needs to be an inquiry into this temporary bill, because we need to hear from the department, the Fair Work Commission and other stakeholders about how this proposed legislation will operate if it is enacted. We also need to hear from stakeholders about its effectiveness. Given the seriousness of the allegations, we need to ensure administration of this temporary bill is a transparent and independent process that reports to parliament regularly and sets clear objectives of how the CFMEU needs to change before it can be taken out of administration.

I am sure the families of those who are calling out the criminal behaviour of officials at the CFMEU, and those who have experienced the bullying, intimidation, death threats and other behaviour, would not feel that this bill goes far enough to ensure that the CFMEU truly changes its trajectory. There have been calls from within the industry for increased protections for whistleblowers, saying that they fear for their lives and for the retribution they will receive for speaking out against a union with a lot of political and professional clout. There is nothing in this temporary bill that describes how the administration process will provide protections for these whistleblowers, who have, quite literally in some cases, risked their lives to speak out against this behaviour.

Some stakeholders have suggested that officials who are found to have been engaged in bad behaviour should be held to account and have their status as a union official removed. That would be a far more effective deterrent than simply deregistering the CFMEU, which is the whole basis of this proposed legislation. It does nothing to allay the concerns of whistleblowers who have alleged criminal misconduct and the misappropriation of funds by members of the CFMEU; nor does it address the serious issues of donations to the Labor Party by this union.

Labor wants to rush this bill through—yesterday, if it could—without any scrutiny. If the Senate is to pass this temporary bill, it needs to be amended. After first sighting the bill on Monday of this week, by Tuesday afternoon, just 24 hours after receiving it, Senator Cash had reviewed the contents and the proposals within it and had issued a media release outlining a number of comprehensive amendments required to deal with the many flaws contained in the proposed legislation. Despite circulating several government amendments that simply fix the basic flaws identified in the drafting of the legislation, the minister now, 48 hours after receiving Senator Cash's proposed amendments, has still not agreed to the coalition's amendments. In her media release on Tuesday, Senator Cash noted:

The Government's Bill is so weak it could have been co-authored by the CFMEU.

It conveniently provides the Minister with far too much power, including the ability to end administration early. For example, if Labor were re-elected they could end the Administration the day after the election.

She goes on to point out:

Not surprisingly, the Bill is silent on the Labor Party receiving political donations from the CFMEU, despite the clear conflict this presents.

In reality, if Labor are serious about cleaning up the construction sector, they must bring back the ABCC, deregister the CFMEU and reintroduce the former coalition government's ensuring integrity bill, which Labor blocked in 2019. The ABCC need all the powers they had in the past, and more, so they can go after criminal activity in the industry. Penalties for breaches of the Fair Work Act need to be increased, and the fit-and-proper-person test for right of entry onto construction sites needs to be tightened. People with multiple criminal offences should never be granted right-of-entry permits.

In relation to this temporary bill before us, Senator Cash's media release outlines 20 key amendments that the coalition have proposed. They are crucial to the integrity of this bill, and, for clarity, I'll go through them. 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.

For the purposes of transparency, the administrator must provide a written report to parliament every three months from the commencement of the administration about its activities and progress and appear at Senate estimates. The administrator must be given the ability to impose longer expulsion or disqualification periods for officers, as opposed to the 'up to five years' as outlined in the legislation. A new fit-and-proper person test must be introduced for all CFMEU delegates and officers. 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 the special-purpose auditor paid for by the CFMEU, not by the taxpayer.

The special-purpose auditor's first report needs to be tabled by the final sitting day of 2024. The retrospective date must be changed from 17 July 2024 to a date prior to the resignation of Mr John Setka. The administrator must be given additional powers to investigate dealings between the CFMEU and other parties, including other registered organisations and/or political parties. The administrator, in undertaking their duty, should be able to investigate past practices of the CFMEU relating to unlawful conduct. The administrator should be given the power to review and amend the CFMEU rules. There needs to be the inclusion of an objects clause which outlines what the administrator needs to achieve before administration can cease.

The administrator must be given the power to apply for the deregistration of the CFMEU if appropriate. The administrator must be able to compel officers, employees and delegates of the CFMEU not to associate with an organised crime group or outlawed motorcycle gang. The administrator must have the ability to renegotiate EBAs. The administrator is required to exercise its functions with specific regard to the objects of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act with a focus on reducing the adverse effects of industrial disputation, ensuring the CFMEU, its officers, employees and delegates act in accordance with the law and promote a productive and harmonious construction industry. And, finally, the amendments will strengthen the powers of the administrator to compel compliance with the scheme of administration.

This temporary bill does not go far enough in providing any incentives to stamp out this behaviour from the CFMEU. It does nothing to hold those accused of criminal misconduct to account and will be cold comfort to the families whose loved ones have endured this abuse for years at the hands of a union that has become more of a militant activist than a workers' union. I thank the Senate.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. I have to say that, when I first saw this peace of legislation and read my briefing notes that were supporting it, my mind went back to that 1980s advertisement that said: 'What's the drink that you have when you're not having a drink? A Claytons.' My mind immediately went to Claytons because it has become such a ubiquitous part of our language, off the back of that advertisement. I was looking for something different, but the reality was I found exactly what I was looking for.

The situation we find ourselves in today is the government purport that this piece of legislation is all about resolving a series of problems that, they say, they had no idea of. They had no idea of what was happening within this union despite the legal cases, despite the convictions, despite the fines, despite everything else that had been going on, despite the work of the ABCC. We have had from Labor, and from the Greens to a certain extent, a conga line of Sergeant Schultzes who have come out to say: 'We know nothing. There is nothing to see here.'

Repeatedly, over a continuous period of time, the Labor Party have defended the CFMEU and its actions. Why is that? Why have Labor members come out on a continuous basis and defended the actions of the CFMEU? It's really quite simple. Because the CFMEU are Labor. They are part of the labour movement. They fund the labour movement. They preselect and determine who comes to this place and the other place on the other side of the building.

Of course Labor members defend and deny the illegal activities of the CFMEU, and only when they are dragged screaming and kicking do they come to this place with what I genuinely believe is, as it is currently drafted, little more than a clayton's solution to the issues we see in the construction industry today, perpetrated by the CFMEU senior membership. Why do I say that? Quite simply, because everything that Labor have done during this term of parliament has been to facilitate the actions of the CFMEU, to accommodate the wishes of the CFMEU. They abolished the ABCC at the bequest of the CFMEU, the one organisation in this country whose role was to ensure, or to attempt to ensure, that operations within the building and construction industry were conducted within the law. So one of the first things that Labor did was to take away that instrumentality.

But then what did Labor do? They then adjusted the industrial relations laws in this country to take them back to what they were in the 1970s, to return pattern bargaining, a facilitative tool for the CFMEU. I know because I saw it when I was working in the construction industry in the 1970s and eighties, before the Hawke and Keating governments brought in the accord, which allowed employers and employees to sit down, to work together, to enterprise bargain for the benefit of both the employer and the employee. This government took that away and brought back the processes that supported the BLF in the 1970s and now support and facilitate the CFMEU today.

This government laid the ground rules. This government set the framework for the disgraceful behaviour that we are seeing. This government defended the officials. They denied that they saw anything wrong. That conga line of Sergeant Schultzes walked out and denied that there was illegal activity or that there was anything wrong going on in the CFMEU until it came to the point where they had no choice. The evidence was so stark. In fact, it was so stark that the leader of the CFMEU himself decided his position was no longer tenable.

But they continue to deny that there's a problem. The leadership of the CFMEU write to us, as members and senators, and say, 'We can sort all this stuff out ourselves.' I know what the Labor Party would say if a large business said: 'We'll sort this out. We'll do this ourselves.' In fact, I saw it during recent Senate inquiries. 'How can you possibly trust someone to investigate themselves?' was the line that was being run by Labor members. And yet that's what the CFMEU is saying today. Admittedly, the CFMEU don't want this legislation passed, which I have to say, to start with, is one incentive for me to support it and for the opposition to support it. But it needs significant improvement. Who on earth believes that the illegal activity and the corruption that exist within the CFMEU are going to be resolved within three years? Who believes that? This is accepted behaviour. This is the way the labour movement works. This is the way that the government has legislated it, to support the way the union movement works. It's part of their DNA. It's who they are. So this legislation needs serious amendment.

Minister Cash has proposed 20 amendments to see the opposition support the passing of the legislation. Minister Watt has been out there saying, 'Things are going well; we're close to agreement.' There he stands with his glass of Claytons and dry, clinking his glass with the Prime Minister, saying, 'Negotiations are going well, Prime Minister,' apart from the fact that they're not. There is no agreement with the opposition in relation to the amendments that we're seeking on this legislation. And the government needs to genuinely come to the table if it wants, as it says, to see this legislation passed quickly. It needs to genuinely take up the amendments that have been proposed by the opposition to support the passing of this legislation.

But the government also needs to take a deeper look at what it has done during its term, because it is now the facilitator of this sort of activity—not only in the CFMEU; any union can pull the same tactics now, because the government is the enabler. The government is the enabler of this disgraceful behaviour. And they should take a close look at what they have done—supported by the Greens and the crossbench, I must say. They have taken the money. They have denied the existence of illegal activity. They have been preselected and supported by members of the CFMEU to be here. They should look to the people who they should be serving—the Australian people—in terms of having a decent industrial relations framework to support lawful activity within the construction industry.

On what basis should Australian taxpayers pay 30 to 40 per cent more because the CFMEU have a union deal on a particular project? Why should we pay a CFMEU tax because a union is involved in a government project? We're talking schools. We're talking roads. We're talking bridges. We're talking vital infrastructure that supports our economy. If the CFMEU is involved in those projects, we have to pay 30 to 40 per cent more for the privilege of having them involved, and then the union gets to determine who the contractor might be and who the subcontractors might be because they've got a deal with the head contractor that the subcontractors have to have a union deal to be on the project. Then they start milking the project. The CFMEU tax starts getting paid, which is then filtered back to the Labor Party and to the Greens. That's what the Labor Party has enabled. That is the behaviour that has been supported by the actions of this government, yet the minister goes out publicly to say: 'Negotiations are going fine. We're progressing well.' What he doesn't say is that there is agreement on zero of the 20 items that have been put before the minister in relation to this matter.

This government needs to come to its senses. Not only does it need to deal with the illegal activity within the CFMEU—this legislation does start that process, but, as it stands, it is woefully inadequate; it is a piece of Clayton's legislation—but it also needs to look very closely at the broader industrial relations framework within this country so that we can get back to a situation where an employer and an employee can sit down together and work out how they're going to work and operate in that business without having the imposition of a union to do their work for them. In some cases, it might be very appropriate.

I'm not someone who's anti-union at all. I've had the opportunity to work very collaboratively with many unions over my time both in the business community and in this place. But we don't need standover tactics. We don't need illegal activity. We don't need behaviour like we've seen from the CFMEU, and we don't need a government, like this one, that is an enabler of that sort of behaviour and has legislated to create the situation that we see today by removing institutions such as the ABCC and legislating to bring back things like pattern bargaining, which support the thuggish, illegal behaviour of these unions. And, all the time, the government keeps taking the money, and so do the Greens. They continue to take the money, and, on many occasions, they trot out the Sergeant Schultz line: 'I didn't know anything about this. I know nothing.' It's about time they genuinely came to the table.

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

The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 is a hallmark of this government's approach to doing business, and it's what we've seen consistently over the last couple of years. It's this embarrassing approach to not being able to manage their agenda, not being able to keep the promises that they make to the Australian people about the things they said they would do at the last election and, of course, that usual high degree of opacity around what it is they're actually doing.

Some of us are old enough to remember Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, who was otherwise known as 'Baghdad Bob' or 'Comical Ali'. He was the Iraqi foreign minister under the Hussein regime in Iraq as it was about to end in the early 2000s. I reference this character because he was the fellow who would hold those daily press briefings telling the world that the Hussein regime was on the march, that everything was under control, that there was nothing to see in Iraq and that there were no US tanks in Baghdad while, only a couple of hundred metres from where he was holding these press conferences, there were scores of US tanks taking Baghdad. It reminded me of something. It reminded me of Minister Watt and his claims that everything is under control—that the government have got control of their agenda, so much so that they would march in here with a guillotine motion and they would demand that by the end of today we would have this bill passed, not having entertained one of the very reasonable amendments that have been put forward by the coalition to make this bill fit for purpose.

Debate interrupted.

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

Thank you, Senator Duniam. I'm assuming you're seeking to be in continuation?

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

I most certainly do.

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

It being 11.15, we'll move on.