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

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 18 November 2024:

The involvement of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) in the governance and management of industry superannuation funds, with particular reference to:

(a) the implications of CFMEU members holding board positions on these superannuation funds, and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise;

(b) the adequacy of the independent expert review mandated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in relation to trustees' compliance with their duty to act in the best financial interests of beneficiaries of the funds;

(c) the broader impact of public allegations of misconduct within the CFMEU on the governance and trust management practices of industry superannuation funds;

(d) the measures necessary to ensure transparency, independence and accountability in the governance of industry superannuation funds, particularly those with significant union involvement;

(e) the role of APRA and other regulatory bodies in overseeing and enforcing compliance with prudential standards in industry superannuation funds; and

(f) any related matters.

I spoke about these matters last week, but they bear repeating. It's about the CFMEU and industry superannuation funds. It's about them getting in bed with bikies and organised crime, criminal assaults on non-union workers who are just trying to make a living, them stalking and illegally intimidating people at their own homes, organised wage theft on an unprecedented scale in the coalmining industry, economic productivity in decline and major taxpayer funded construction projects worth billions of dollars at a standstill. All of this lies directly at the feet of the thugs in charge of the CFMEU and their puppets in Labor and the Greens.

I want to read part of an article from Robert Gottliebsen. He states:

It's been alleged for decades that the CFMEU, or at least groups closely linked to the union, have been involved in organised crime. Some of the legal and allegedly illegal money generated has swirled around in a massive pool that, from time to time, was allegedly used to fund both the ALP and the Greens.

… Increasingly, ALP people around the country have looked at the relationship between the CFMEU and the Victorian ALP which led to the "train to nowhere" project and worried that one day both the national government and other states might be ensnared in the same way.

Late last year, a warning bell rang. The CFMEU national construction division secretary Zach Smith stated that he would push to overhaul economic policy.

"I want to pull the Labor Party to the left on economics … I don't think economics works for working people. I think we need to have a massive rethink," he said. Then a few months later, the then boss of the union John Setka declared he was planning to use the union's delegates and members to sign up 1000 rank-and-file members to the Labor Party.

Such a large membership drive could give the CFMEU significant control over Labor preselection and party conferences, which elect the party executive and vote on policy.

It was time for the alleged CFMEU organised crime links to be revealed.

He goes on to say:

The ALP desperately wants legislation before the federal parliament to pass quickly, before the CFMEU money is diverted to obscure places enabling it to be again mobilised to exercise political power, Victorian style.

The original bill did not ban the administrator from making political donations—an important measure for the ALP, because any such donations would presumably go to the ALP (and maybe the Greens) and be an important source of funding in the next election. The Coalition stood firm and donations were banned. A big win.

One Nation supports that as well.

The conduct allegations made against the CFMEU have prompted the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to act. APRA has ordered two construction industry super funds, Cbus and the Queensland based BUSSQ, to have an independent review of their ties with the CFMEU. So they should. To have CFMEU members as directors of funds controlling almost $100 billion of Australian superannuation savings is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

However, we've seen reviews like this before, and little to nothing has been done to implement the recommendations. The Cooper review of Australia's superannuation system in 2009 recommended that the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 be amended to ensure no less than one-third of employee representatives and trustee directors were non-associated. The Murray review of the financial system in 2014 recommended that a majority of independent directors and an independent chair be mandated for boards of corporate trustees of public offer superannuation funds. In that same year, an internal review of Cbus recommended the appointment of independent directors to its board. It wasn't implemented.

It's therefore understandable that yet another review ordered by APRA is unlikely to generate much confidence that these superannuation funds will rid themselves of the CFMEU's corrupt and malign influence. So I am moving a motion for a Senate inquiry into the involvement of the CFMEU in the governance and management of super industry funds. This inquiry will have the following terms of reference.

First, 'the implications of CFMEU members holding board positions on these superannuation funds and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise.' I say that because I have directors fees at the year ended 30 June 2023 here. The fees of A. Devasia of $50,368 were paid to AMWU. There's one here, A. Donnellan, which was $19,058, which was again paid to AMWU. Then there's R. Mallia, which was $109,648 plus super, which came to $121,224, to the CFMEU. Then we have J. O'Mara, $114,000 plus super, $818, to the CFMEU. You've got Setches, where another $89,037 went to CEPU. Wayne Swan, former Treasurer under the Labor government, received $199,000 plus $20,980, but that was as a director. He has been closely associated as a Treasurer with the Labor Party. M. Zelinsky had $45,901 paid to the AWU. All these payees are to unions. Where is the distancing?

The other terms of reference for the inquiry are:

the adequacy of the independent expert review mandated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) …

the broader impact of public allegations of misconduct within the CFMEU on the governance and trust management practices of industry superannuation funds;

the measures necessary to ensure transparency, independence and accountability in the governance of industry superannuation funds, particularly those with significant union involvement;

the role of APRA and other regulatory bodies in overseeing and enforcing compliance with prudential standards in industry superannuation funds; and

any related matters.

'Accountability' is the watchword here. Like their puppets in Labor and the Greens, the CFMEU doesn't believe it should be accountable to anyone—to the law, the parliament, the Australian people or even its own members.

Again, I must commend my One Nation colleague, Senator Roberts, for his diligence in uncovering wage theft, which has been called the largest case of wage theft in Australian history, by the CFMEU. Only after Senator Roberts exposed the unfair pay between work-hire workers and others did Labor do anything. I refer to the thugs controlling this union and their dirty deal with the mining company to rob hundreds of Queensland and Hunter Valley coalminers of their entitlements. If these thugs will steal entitlements from the members they're supposed to be helping, why on earth should they have any influence over the retirement savings of these same workers? They must be held accountable.

One Nation supports the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission, to support more accountability. Another effective curb on the CFMEU's unwarranted and unearned power would be to ban donations to political parties from this union or any associated entities. With that, I now must take you to another article, and it's by Hannah Wootton. It was written on 27 December 2023. It talks about donations to political parties and associated entities. She said:

The spending was revealed for the first time in late 2023, as funds were forced to publish itemised disclosures of funds' advertising, pay and political donation spending under tough new transparency laws.

Leaders of several funds faced questions from customers at their annual meetings about how their hefty spending on advertising and sponsorship meets their duty to always act in customers' best financial interests. Executives said marketing helped growth that would improve funds' scale and therefore drive down fees.

The prudential regulator and the Coalition—

and One Nation, in this as well—

are pressing for greater transparency about funds' spending and how it aligns with that legal obligation.

Construction industry fund Cbus paid unions the most of the eight super providers, with the bulk of its $2.6 million bill for sponsorships and directors fees going to the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union.

Perhaps we should ban these union thugs from any sort of involvement in elections. That would be a good start, wouldn't it! They certainly don't support democracy or the rule of law, so why should they even be accommodated? Yet, the industry super funds not only seem to accommodate them; they seem to protect them, and that is a serious issue. It's an issue that deserves a Senate inquiry, not another useless internal review ordered by APRA.

It's my expectation that the inquiry will uncover a lot of activity that demonstrates why the CFMEU doesn't belong in charge of almost $100 billion of Australians' retirement savings. Only last week, my office received correspondence from a non-union worker on Queensland's troubled Cross River Rail project saying: 'I'm a worker employed by the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane. I saw Senator Hanson's comments about this in the Senate today and would like to reach out. We have been picketed by CFMEU members for over a month now. Myself and my fellow employees who aren't members of the CFMEU have not crossed the picket lines to go to work, from fears of intimidation. A worker who crossed was attacked at his home only a few weeks ago. Our employer have taken us to the Fair Work Commission and won a ruling, legally forcing us back to work under threats of fines. However, they released all of our names and addresses on the court documents. This has put myself and hundreds of other workers in an impossible situation. I can speak for myself here, but I'm sure I am not alone. This is getting little media attention. No comments from my employer are being made on how they intend to rectify this. It is disgraceful what has happened—that their names and addresses have been released—and they are very worried about their safety now.'

That's what this inquiry is about—accountability. It's a dirty word for this Labor government, the most unaccountable in Australian history, with its litany of broken promises, NDAs and a Prime Minister who rivals Pontius Pilate for hand-washing. But accountability is a requirement of Australian democracy, and it's past time that the Prime Minister and his government and the Greens, with their unholy associations with the CFMEU, were held to account.

We can start by examining the CFMEU's unwarranted and alarming presence on super industry boards. If developers can't fund political parties or candidates, then why can unions? I question the Labor Party's direct connection to unions—the funding that transfers from unions into the coffers and election campaigns of Labor candidates. If money or services have changed hands, you can be sure deals have been done. Labor refuses to distance itself from union finances. How can the Labor government not pass legislation that has been bought and paid for by unions? It's jobs for the boys. Minister Watt won't act in the best interest of Australians, but only to make sure that their union cash cow keeps giving. In that spirit, I commend this motion to the Senate.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that we will be supporting this reference to the economics committee. We are supporting this motion because we are very concerned that there is a longstanding nexus between the superannuation funds, the unions and a major political party in this country, which is not in the interests of Australian workers.

The big question is: why has the government been so quiet—almost silent—on these questions since the CFMEU scandal broke only a few weeks ago? Of course, the whole idea that the CFMEU scandal was news to Labor is actually hilarious. These are the same people who campaigned for this Labor government, who, the government members knew, were involved in corrupt activities and systemic wrongdoing.

The silence on the superannuation issues is very troubling, because the government comes into this chamber and says that they are standing for strong action in relation to the CFMEU and are in fact supporting putting that organisation into administration. But what about the people that have their money invested in the Cbus fund, where they have three CFMEU trustees sitting on the board and apparently holding themselves out to be great fiduciaries? That is extraordinary hypocrisy—that you can be concerned, on one hand, about the administration of the union, but have no interest in the activities of these people who are sitting on the boards of compulsory savings schemes as enacted by this parliament back in the early nineties. So it is ridiculous that the Minister for Financial Services and the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, have had nothing to say about these issues in this past month.

The reason that they are silent is that they are beyond conflicted, because there are two key design features in the superannuation model which support the political apparatus of the labour movement: firstly, the directors on the boards; secondly, the rivers of gold which flow from the super funds into the union movement and the labour movement more broadly. It is very troubling, and it has always troubled me, that sometimes it's unclear whether a Labor senator is supporting the agenda of a trade union or is there to represent their state? The same can be said for the superannuation movement. I believe these conflicts are going to rot the core of the labour movement, which once stood for workers. It is now clear that there are huge organised elements of the labour movement which now stand for institutional power inside unions and the great wall of money that is superannuation.

The first design feature is the directors of the board. In this case, I think the Australian people will be shocked that their government is prepared to put the CFMEU into administration but couldn't give a rat's about the three board members on the CBUS fund who are CFMEU officials and do not have anything to say about this—nothing, crickets. This has been left to the prudential regulator, APRA, which released a statement last week saying it is seeking a report and a review into these boards. I assume one of the questions that the APRA board will be asking is: how can it be that CFMEU officials can conduct themselves as directors on the boards of these super funds while the organisation is in administration, or soon to be in administration, and is subject to multiple law enforcement activities, including engagement in mass corruption, which is inflating the cost of construction in this country by up to 30 per cent? When young Australians say, 'I can't afford to buy a house,' one of the reasons for that is because when people go and build an apartment block in Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane or elsewhere, they're paying a 30 per cent premium to these criminals who are inflating the costs so they can make off with people's money. So the director's issue is very serious.

There are CFMEU directors, in some cases, who have been on the CBUS fund's board for more than 10 years: Dave Noonan, 16 years—extraordinary; Rita Mallia, 13 years. APRA's own guidelines say no more than 10 years is appropriate on a board, so I don't see how it can be the case that APRA can allow anyone, let alone anyone with the status of a CFMEU official, to be on the board for 10, 15, or 16 years in this case. Of course, the chair of this fund is Mr Wayne Swan. He's also the President of the Labor Party. And, again, I wonder whether or not these howling conflicts of interest are ever going to be matters of interest for the minister? Because the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, Mr Jones, who would have to be one of the worst ministers in the government—and that is really saying something—has said nothing about these issues, so it's been left to the prudential regulator.

One of the reasons we're supporting this motion is because we think there should be the most pressure on the prudential regulator to enforce its own guidelines. How can it be the case that the prudential regulator can say, 'Our guideline is 10 years on the board,' and sit there while people sit on the board for 16 years? I think it's just extraordinary, so we look forward to there being more pressure on the enforcement of these guidelines. But this is not a new issue.

There have a been multiple reviews going back more than 14 years now into the question of the governance of the super fund boards and whether or not the idea of having all these people who work at the union on the board is an appropriate model. I would say, just as the employer groups make up half the board in these funds, they are part of the problem. They are part of the IR club who work together to rort workers. The employer groups and the unions, they love superannuation because they get lots of money from it. The rivers of gold, I'm about to canvas, is the reason that the employer groups and the unions want to keep their people on these boards. The reason that they maintain the status quo or want to maintain the status quo is because that is how the money goes from the super fund into the union or the employer group. They are paid in directors' fees. Often these are inflated fees, and these fees go through to the employer group or to the union. They are paid in directors' fees—often these are inflated fees—and these fees go through to the employer group or to the union.

Of course, the other way that the money flows is through inflated, bogus and rubbish commercial agreements. In fact, in the case of the Cbus fund and the First Super fund, they have massive sponsorship and advertising agreements with the CFMEU, whereby the super fund pays enormous funds, $700,000 contracts, to sponsor the CFMEU. The amount of money going from the funds into the unions reached, in the last year, $40 million. So $40 million of Australian super fund members' money is being siphoned off to the unions and all their associated lobby groups. Why is this happening? Because the law in relation to best financial interest duty, which was passed in the last parliament, has not been enforced as strongly as it could have been. I welcome that APRA has finally had something to say on this matter, in its statement on Cbus.

But it shouldn't have taken for the crisis that we've seen in relation to the CFMEU for this to happen. I believe that over the last two years, as we have canvassed these issues endlessly at Senate estimates, APRA could have acted early to put a stop to these huge amounts of retirement savings being siphoned off to the unions. In the case of the Cbus fund, they have given over a million bucks in the last year to the CFMEU, and the First Super fund has given more to the CFMEU, even though it's a tiny fraction of the size of Cbus. It is true that this is the first time APRA has flagged it would invoke the best financial interest duty, but I don't think it would be wise for this parliament to vote against this motion, because this motion will ensure that there will be a separate inquiry by this parliament to look at the issues that are being canvassed, including why on earth they allowing people to be on the board for 13 years and how, in fact, they propose to enforce this best financial interest duty. I do not see how it can be in the interests of the workers for the Cbus fund or the First Super fund to be making $700,000 or $800,000 sponsorship payments to the CFMEU, particularly now that it's going to be in administration. We have to get to the bottom of this system.

If I were running the Labor Party and one of my favourite achievements were superannuation, I would be taking these issues very seriously. These issues of probity, if not managed correctly, will undermine confidence in the scheme. It is a very paternalistic scheme. When Paul Keating was quizzed on it in the early nineties, he said he would be open minded to looking at the question of letting people use their own money in super for a house. These days the modern Labor Party will do anything to keep the money hermetically sealed inside super, presumably so it can be plundered by their mates at the unions. That may be a cynical view, but I think super is now at risk of unravelling, because, if people feel that CFMEU trustees like Dave Noonan and Rita Mallia are allowed to go and sit on the Cbus board for 15 or 20 years or whatever and send as much money as they want down the road to the CFMEU, then I believe that will erode confidence in this scheme, as it rightly should.

What it will also potentially do is show that the parliament, if it votes against the motion, doesn't give a rat's about these people, doesn't care and is going to do the same thing that the executive government is doing, which is to say nothing. The executive government want to hide behind APRA. APRA are doing the right thing by flagging that they're going to do something, after waiting for years to do anything in relation to best financial interest. But it's not good enough, because the Australian people know that the Cbus fund is linked to the CFMEU, and, as we have read about in the Nine newspapers, there appear to be all sorts of agreements underneath the table, where the CFMEU will do a special deal for property which has been developed by Cbus. You pay 30 per cent tax if you're developing an apartment building and if you're a regular property developer, but you get exempted from that tax if you're the Cbus fund and you are developing property on behalf of Cbus and the CFMEU. So this is a very important motion, which we'll be supporting. For a long time our view has been that the model of equal representation where unions and employer groups come together to steal money from workers and sit on the board for decades like it's a holiday has had its day. This law, the equal representation law, should have been removed a long time ago. There should, at least, be a handful of independent trustees on these boards. Ultimately, the conflict of interest here, where you have Mr Wayne Swan and all his mates from the CFMEU and the employer groups sitting around the board table and working out how they can steal money from workers, is a very crooked scheme. There should be independent directors on these boards. That should be happening at a minimum.

The second thing that should happen is there should be no more of these payments from the super funds to the unions for any reason. This money is supposed to be held in trust for workers' retirements; it is not there for political purposes. It is not there for the unions to use in their campaigns to help re-elect a Labor government. This is the money that belongs to the workers. It should be there for their retirement, and Labor should reflect carefully. This could be an opportunity to get some incremental reform which allows them to maintain their favourite issue, which is that they created this compulsory super scheme. They could use this as an opportunity to maintain the integrity and probity of the scheme, which I would say is now at the greatest risk since it was created 30 years ago. So we'll be supporting this motion because we believe that probity and good governance is very important in relation to a scheme which is compulsory, in that you can't get out of it.

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

On behalf of the government I just want to say a couple of words. The government will not be supporting this motion. The government is strengthening the superannuation system so that more Australians can retire with more money in their pockets and with dignity. Since coming into office, the government has also implemented a strong record on expanding transparency within the superannuation sector. We've expanded the superannuation performance test and required superannuation funds to lodge reports with ASIC in line with reporting standards for public companies, and we are working with APRA to publish a transparency report of fund expenditure data.

It is of critical importance that superannuation funds make decisions that are in the best interests of their members, and that is what the law requires of them. The law also requires all trustees to operate to the highest standards of governance and performance. Trustees are required to ensure that directors and senior managers meet fit and proper requirements prior to appointment and on an ongoing basis.

It is appropriate that the independent regulator, APRA, has required Cbus to conduct an independent review into recent issues. APRA has not alleged any wrongdoing that has impacted superannuation members. This process should be followed without any political interference.

The government is also taking action to address allegations of misconduct, corruption and criminality within the construction division of the CFMEU. We'll no doubt deal with this later today through government legislation which will enable the minister to determine whether it is in the public interest to appoint an independent external administrator to the CFMEU construction division. The independent administrator would have the power to investigate allegations of misconduct by officials of the construction division. The government has also referred allegations to the Australian Federal Police and the Fair Work Ombudsman.

Working in construction is hard and dangerous, and union members and workers in the industry need a strong, effective union. They need one that is clean and free from constant allegations of organised crime, bikies and violence.

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

The CFMEU stole more than a billion dollars from members it was supposedly protecting in Australia's largest ever case of wage theft. The key to this theft was CFMEU union bosses appointed as directors to oversight agencies supposedly protecting workers. They colluded and enabled that theft from their own members. This is verified. The figures are verified in an independent report that I commissioned called Coalminers' Wage Theft, printed earlier in the year.

We have seen an analysis of five enterprise agreements in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley with the wage theft varying from $41,000 per person, per year to $21,000 per person, per year. The Independent Workers Union of Australia, now getting members in the mining sector in the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland, has just lodged a number of complaints with the Fair Work Ombudsman. One of the complaints is for $211,000 in money owed due to wage theft for one person.

The CFMEU drove that theft of wages, so what we can see is the former protector of miners has been their exploiter, with collusion of the regulator, the Fair Work Commission. It's been verified independently because the Mining and Energy Union, which split off from the CFMEU—it couldn't handle the CFMEU—and which looks after miners recently applied to the Fair Work Commission to negotiate a new enterprise agreement. The uptick in wages has been around $50,000. It's been verified they've been underpaid. What has not happened is that same union, the Mining and Energy Union, which used to be part of the CFMEU, will not go back and seek back pay, because they know that will expose them. There is no back pay. They will let these miners lose $211,000. They will let these miners lose $41,000 per person, per year.

So now we have the Independent Workers' Union of Australia making inroads in the mining industry in the coalmines of Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. Their union dues are less than half of the Mining and Energy Union. Why? That's because they don't pay millions of dollars in donations to the Labor Party. It is the same with the Queensland Teachers' Union. The new Red Union's dues are less than half of the Queensland Teachers Union. It is the same with the nursing union, where the dues of the new Red Union and the Nurses' Professional Association of Queensland are less than half of the Queensland Nursing Union. What we need to do in the union side of things is end monopoly unions and make sure unions have competition. That will fix it. Members can scrutinise when there is competition.

Let's move to what I said earlier in my opening statement. The directors in the coalmining agencies that oversaw this theft from coalminers, the directors of Coal Mines Insurance, ignored the plight of miners. We even know of miners who failed to get their Coal Mines Insurance that they were entitled to, scrimping and saving and sleeping on their parents' garage floor in the Hunter Valley. That's what the CFMEU directors have done. They turned a blind eye to their duty to look after miners.

Coal Mines Insurance is a statutory agency with the CFMEU providing half the directors. AUSCOAL Superannuation, another one supposed to look after super, has provided admin services to coal long service leave, another government entity. So AUSCOAL Superannuation, which has directors from the CFMEU, provided the administrative services for coal long service leave and that enabled the hiding of the wage theft, because the CFMEU directors were 50 per cent of Coal Mines Insurance, AUSCOAL Superannuation and Coal Services, which looks after basic things like health checks, medical checks. AUSCOAL, by the way, has been renamed Mine Wealth + Wellbeing—that's a cute little phrase!—and now Mine Super. These directors have prevented many of the benefits that they should have been overseeing going to miners. They stole the rights and entitlements of their own members.

By the way, the Labor Party under Julia Gillard changed the coal long service leave legislation in 2011 to enable the use of casuals, because casuals are not allowed in the black coalmining industry award. They wouldn't have been able to get their super. So the Labor Party, to enable this scam, changed the coal long service leave legislation in 2011. The next thing: we can't rely upon the normal back stop, which is the Labor ministers, departments and agencies. I've just explained how the agencies are colluding, the departments are colluding and the Labor ministers are colluding. This wage theft would not have occurred without the deliberate collusion of Labor Party MPs in the Hunter electorate, who just hid this atrocious theft. The Senate ordered an investigation a couple of months ago into this. Two ministers since then, Minister Burke and Minister Watt—they've done nothing. They had not even reported back to the Senate—they've done nothing. That's the Labor Party. So much for looking after the workers!

I wonder if it's because the Labor Party relies on millions of dollars of donations from the CFMEU? Would that be the answer? Would it?

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

Yes.

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

The Labor Party is wedded to donations from the CFMEU, the crooked CFMEU. Minister Watt, in section 323B(2) of his legislation, to which we have an amendment, wants an absence of a disallowable regulation. He wants no disallowance, so that he can control the whole show. Then we see the Labor Party also being tainted by John Setka. In a report in the Australian Financial Review, on 12 April this year, David Marin-Guzman, a journalist with the Australian Financial Review, said that 'the core issue here is that John Setka stood up and said he will take over the Labor Party and move members of the CFMEU into branches and then preselect various candidates, and also the Premier'. That's what we see going on here—the Labor Party in a massive cover-up and massive wrestle with the CFMEU. By the way—I think Senator Hanson mentioned it—the size of the funds in question is just short, $1 billion short, of $100 billion in funds. That is twice the Australian defence budget. That's more money than Belgium makes in a year. And we want to take it away from parliamentary scrutiny? Like hell. That's why we need this reference to the committee.

Then we see more tainting, with the CFMEU being connected with bikie gangs, criminal bikie gangs. Then we see Senator Hanson's terms of reference. I must commend Senator Hanson for introducing this motion. The first term of reference that I want to highlight—I'll read it for the reference committee:

… the broader impact of public allegations of misconduct within the CFMEU on the governance and trust management practices of industry superannuation funds …

That's basic. These people have shown that they don't care about their members—their members' lives, their members' health, their members' workers compensation, their workers' livelihoods, their workers' wages or their workers' retirement. They don't care. They bypassed the retirement provisions. The next one I want to read out is term of reference (a):

… the implications of CFMEU members holding board positions on these superannuation funds, and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise …

The potential conflicts of interest are enormous. We can't rely on the Labor Party to clean it up, nor on departments and agencies from the Labor government. We see them tightly knit together.

The second of Senator Hanson's six terms of reference is:

the adequacy of the independent expert review mandated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in relation to trustees' compliance with their duty to act in the best financial interests of beneficiaries of the funds;

This is absolutely essential. The CFMEU union bosses who are directors of agencies—statutory bodies charged with the responsibility to protect members—are stealing from the members or enabling their agencies to steal from members. This lot are above the law. Senator Hanson read out the note from the person from Cross River Rail who is not a member of the CFMEU. They are 'intimidated', 'frightened' and 'scared to work'—in our country, they are scared to work. We have now a proven record of the CFMEU stealing from members and workers. Wouldn't it be going on in the $100 billion of super funds they manage? I support the referral of this matter to committee, to protect members so that they can retire with security and dignity.

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

I, too, rise to speak on this very important issue. Sadly, it's a motion that should not be needed. I don't even think we need to call them 'potential' conflicts of interest, Senator Roberts; these are conflicts of interest. Whether you want to call them out or whether you want to run a protection racket for these conflicts of interest is a separate question, but these are clearly conflicts of interest. It is something, as Senator Bragg pointed out, that has been inquired into before. There is no doubt that the cosy relationship between the unions, industry super funds and some business groups is not a positive thing for Australian workers, for their retirement savings or for the economy in general. They lead to a situation where potential conflicts of interest become real conflicts of interest. As Senator Bragg pointed out, the Chair of Cbus—someone who is very well known in the Australian political environment: former Treasurer Wayne Swan—is actively campaigning for this Labor government's particular approach to the housing issue. Three members of the board were appointed by the CFMEU. You really couldn't make up the conflict of interest. If you submitted this as a plot to Hollywood, they'd laugh in your face.

It's a ludicrous situation that we currently have, where these billions of dollars of savings are controlled by these small cabals, dominated by union representatives. Superannuation savings are now bigger than the entire Australian stock market—they are bigger than the entire market capitalisation of the Australian stock market. In fact, it depends on the year because it does bounce around a bit, but in 2023 superannuation controlled something like 36 per cent of shares on the ASX. Over a third of all shares traded on the ASX are controlled through superannuation. And, through their representatives, the union movement plays an outsized role compared to any fair judgement of what its level of influence should be in that sector. Unions represent less than 10 per cent of private sector workers, all of whom are contributing to superannuation. Ten in 10 contribute to superannuation; less than one in ten is a member of a union—and yet they get these privileged positions with very large remuneration attached and, behind the scenes, the ability to influence, to direct funds, to direct investments and to direct support service contracts. There are the infamous training levies that we've all heard so much about. All these things are controlled by a tiny cabal of individuals. Now it's revealed—surprise, surprise—that the CFMEU has been involved in corrupt and thuggish behaviour. But this isn't 'surprise, surprise'. There is literally no surprise. The trail of case law, of matters before the court, of CFMEU officials being prosecuted and the fines levied against the CFMEU for decades means that there is no 'surprise, surprise' here. Governments have tried to do something about this before.

Senator Hanson, I think, glancing around, that you're probably the only one in this chamber that would remember this along with me. I wasn't in the chamber at the time; I worked for Senator Cormann. Early in the Abbott government, there was an attempt to legislate independent directors of superannuation funds. That had been agreed with the crossbench at the time, but guess what? The unions, particularly, as I remember it, the CFMEU, did their work in this place and they got to the crossbenches—not you, Senator Hanson, I make sure to add. They got to other members of the crossbench, and the deal that had been done disappeared under the intimidation of the union movement, acting through various bodies, but I'm pretty sure the CFMEU was part of that push at the time. I was working in the building at the time and I remember it very clearly.

They have a track record here. There's nothing that the union movement won't do to protect its cushy little relationship with the industry super funds. Yes, the CFMEU has been revealed to be perhaps more thuggish, more brutal and more unreasonable in the way it behaves, but, quite frankly, this is a set of relationships right across the union movement that bears much, much more scrutiny. In fact, in a modern world, where superannuation is bigger than the entire stock market, the justifications for any of these cosy relationships to appoint board members disappeared long ago. They are a relic of a past industrial relations system that was centrally controlled. Sadly, they've managed to survive to this point, where we have a new Labor government trying to recentralise the industrial relations system and defend the indefensible in terms of these very cosy structures that Australians have to live under.

Australians are forced, by law, to contribute to superannuation. Many young Australians, in their first job, are put into a super fund controlled by the union movement. Australians, being who we are, don't think about our retirement when we're young, so we stay in that super fund. So you've got millions of Australians in these super funds controlled by unions like the CFMEU that has three board members on the Cbus board. Wayne Swan, the National President of the Australian Labor Party, the former Labor Treasurer of Australia, is the chairman. These cosy relationships just should not be tolerated in this day and age. Yet, here we have, again, merely an inquiry into this clear problem area of the CFMEU and its level of influence not just over public policy and not just over the Labor Party—we've already heard of the 6.2 million reasons why they have so much influence over the Labor Party—but over the retirement savings of hardworking Australians. Why? Why do we have a system that gifts the CFMEU—I understand the Labor Party is about to pass legislation putting them into administration, but why does that union have the right to place three board members on an industry super fund? It's absolutely ludicrous given everything that we have heard. It's ludicrous anyway without everything we've heard about the CFMEU and people. It's not just this gentleman. I shouldn't call him a gentleman. It's not just John Setka; it's a raft of CFMEU officials going back decades whose behaviour has been not only tolerated but actively encouraged by the Labor Party through legislated rewards, such as guaranteed board positions on industry super funds. The benefit that they're handing to corrupt, thuggish union officials is extraordinary.

Never forget what John Setka did after he was forced out of the CFMEU. What did he do? He got a tattoo, a permanent mark around his neck saying, 'God forgives. The CFMEU doesn't.' It's a direct threat. This is the person who was able to influence the appointment of board members on industry super funds managing the life savings of Australians. If it wasn't such a ridiculous scenario, you'd find it extraordinarily hard to believe that something like this could have been allowed to happen in the modern Australian society. Yet there we have it.

We have it because of those opposite, the Labor government, enshrining in legislation a set of principles that reward bad behaviour, thuggishness and the institutional strengths of unions, even though they don't represent the workers. They don't. Fewer than one in ten private sector workers in this country have decided to be members of a union, yet they are given all this control. The crossbench has never been brave enough in unison to vote against that power, control, thuggishness, brutality and corruption. We need that to change. We need the superannuation industry to change. We need to see those independent directors on every single board.

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

The question is that business of the Senate No. 2, as moved by Senator Hanson, be agreed to.