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

I've been waiting all morning for the opportunity to continue my remarks on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. It's a substantive bill that people have been discussing in various terms throughout the morning. What I'd like to do initially is to just highlight the areas that I will be addressing. For many people who've perhaps been either in the gallery or listening online to the last couple of hours, they may well wonder just what on earth this is all about. I will talk a little bit about the context of this morning and the context of this bill that we are currently debating, but I will also talk about why the coalition has concerns about the bill as presented by the government in response to the situation with the CFMEU. I'll talk about why the actions of the CFMEU are bad for my home state of South Australia, for taxpayers, for small-business people and even for workers in the construction industry.

The coalition believe that this bill does need to include measures around a minimum term for any administration that is put in place as well as transparency to make sure that this parliament, on behalf of taxpayers and those people who are affected by the actions of militant unions such as this, can be scrutinised.

The topic that has absorbed the chamber for all of this morning is this: if we genuinely believe that the actions of a union under its current leadership, even though Mr Setka has left, are illegal and toxic and not in the best interest of Australia then why would parties either not return funding or commit to not taking funding, and that includes both the Greens and the government—I can almost guarantee they've never donated to the coalition—into the future?

Why is there an issue? For people who have been following this—this is an issue that has been around for a long time, but the most recent trigger was probably the bullying behaviour we saw from Mr Setka and the CFMEU over football umpiring of all things. People would ask, 'What has football umpiring got to do with the debate we just had here in the chamber?' People may recall that, under the coalition government, we established a watchdog to make sure that the militancy and illegal activities of the CFMEU and other militant unions acting in that construction sector were actually held to account. It was such a bitter relationship between Mr Setka and those in the Australian Building Construction Commission that, when the former head, Mr Stephen McBurney, who was involved with AFL football umpiring, was appointed by the AFL to a leadership role in their football umpiring, Mr Setka said that the unions would target all of the construction programs that were associated with the AFL. On one hand, you could say, 'Well, why should the broader public care?' They should care, at least partly, because football leagues are largely funded by memberships, mums and dads, small sponsors and the taxpayer—look at the debate around the stadium in Tasmania, where the taxpayers are putting up funding—and they should look at the evidence that has come forward over a number of years about the cost premium of 10 to 20 to up to 30 per cent across a range of areas once was the CFMEU decided that they would action on or against those projects.

I think it was the public response to something as inane as Mr Setka having a personal dislike of Mr McBurney that flowed out to the Australian public and media which highlighted that this kind of bullying behaviour and the cost it would then impose on community is not good. It also highlighted the unwillingness of the Prime Minister and his senior ministers to send a forceful message to Mr Setka and the CFMEU that said that this behaviour that divides our society is just not appropriate. We've seen this weak leadership on display from everything from the immigration disasters, which my colleague Senator Paterson has prosecuted so successfully and where the Prime Minister has been unwilling to intervene let alone sack a minister who has caused so much disruption in the release of criminals into our society, right through to issues around the Middle East and how our society has been divided because of a lack of moral clarity and leadership about what is acceptable in this country, regardless of your views or what happens overseas. The Prime Minister has been weak on setting clear boundaries and standards as to what is acceptable in this country.

Following the football incident, the thing that probably pushed the government into acting were the revelations by the Australian Financial Review and others that underworld figures, including bikie gangs, had infiltrated the CFMEU's ranks and had adopted positions of leadership. This potentially explains the illegal behaviour. Indeed, documents in the Federal Court claim that the CFMEU has breached workplace laws some 2,600 times over 20 years and has accumulated more than $24 million in fines. Some 213 of the court cases resulted in total penalties of that $24 million plus at least $4 million ordered against particular officeholders, employees, delegates and members.

You would think that those actions would be enough to dissuade wrongdoing, but what it highlights is that those financial penalties are not enough to dissuade a group like the CFMEU because the total that they can extort from industry far exceeds the fines and because of the power and control that is given to them. The result is like that old saying, 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' For an organisation that is set up to be, on paper, for the benefit of its workers, we've seen, like in many totalitarian regimes, that it's actually to benefit the senior leadership and enhance its power base. That's why we see, for example, manufacturing division members of the same union being intimidated, harassed and bullied by the construction division simply because they're in a different part of the union that doesn't bow the knee as much as people in the construction sector do.

We heard evidence here from my colleague Senator Scarr about some of the actions that have been taken against people who've turned up to a workplace wearing the wrong T-shirt—one alleging loyalty or fealty to a union other than the CFMEU and Mr Setka—and who were driven to the point of taking their own life. Mr Setka has even been recorded on video intimidating the leaders of other parts of the union, highlighting that he knows where they live and that they can be affected if there is not loyalty to that union.

Long story short, the government have come up against what we would call a boundary and have said: 'The Australian public is not going to accept this, because of the bullying and illegal behaviour, particularly involving the underworld. We need to do something about it.' Many of you would know that my former career was as an experimental test pilot, and there's a condition in aircraft design that we try to avoid whereby a pilot can induce an oscillation. Some pilot induced oscillations are caused by what we call boundary avoidance: you suddenly realise that you're flying far too close to an obstacle, or you're approaching the ground more quickly, and you instinctively react; you jerk the controls, you overcorrect and, before you know it, you get into a big porpoising movement that is unsafe. To some extent, that's what we've seen here, with the government rushing to bring in this bill. They've rushed to bring in this legislation without adopting the normal processes of the Senate.

One of the objections that the coalition has is that, rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to put forward a bill that may well have unintended consequences; that may not achieve the outcomes that are intended—I'm giving the benefit of doubt that the intention is good—or, in the worst case, if there is a commitment to do something purely to avoid public criticism, that may have a structure that is not going to achieve the outcome intended by the government and put forward to the public, the reason we have the Senate, the house of review, and the committee system is to engage with stakeholders, legal professionals and others and to ask: Will this bill address the problem? Will it have the outcome that we're looking for, or are there unintended consequences that will make matters worse?

One of the strengths of the Senate is the committee process, where we can scrutinise legislation, and, where there is a timeframe, that can be done quickly. I have sat on committees before that have had very limited time and that have, within a week, asked for submissions, considered submissions, held hearings and then reported. It adds value to the whole process and it means the laws that are passed by the parliament are actually effective.

The sorts of things that we are concerned about are: if we have laws that don't actually hold the CFMEU to account; if we have laws that enable executive government to establish or disestablish the administration at will; if there are no terms for the length of administration—for example, in this case, if there are elements of the CFMEU, in terms of branches, that are not covered—or if the actions of an administrator are not open to scrutiny by the parliament, including by the mechanisms of the Senate, such as Senate estimates, where we get to evaluate whether or not an appointed authority—be it a department, an agency or, in this case, an administrator—is actually implementing what the public and the elected representatives in the Senate expect of them and is being effective in its role, then it's almost worse than appointing them in the first place, because people assume they're doing the right thing, but, without that transparency mechanism, nobody would know.

For a government that was elected on a platform of transparency and accountability, it is truly shocking the number of times this government has sought to frustrate measures to put in place transparency and accountability for its actions or the actions of bodies that it wishes to appoint.

To the last point, around the funding, if we genuinely believe that these are essentially proceeds of crime, that the money the CFMEU has in its coffers has come about because of actions that have seen it face numerous fines and convictions, then on what basis can any party of government or, indeed, any party of protest—being the Labor Party and the Greens, respectively—actually refuse to commit to taking funding from such a body?

So there are a number of areas, and I'm aware that there have been discussions between the coalition and the government where we have closed the gap; the government has ceded in a number of these places. But the whole purpose of the Senate is to have the inquiry so that we can lay out for the public whether legislation will be fit for purpose and we can propose amendments. Rather than doing this in backroom deals, it's done through the process of debate, informed inquiry and amendments moved in this chamber, which, again, is part of transparency and is in the best interests of the Australian people.

I cannot support this legislation unamended by the amendments proposed by the coalition.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The questions everyone in this building wants answered are: Has the deal been done? Have Senator Watt and the Prime Minister swallowed their pride and come to the table to agree to the sensible recommendations the coalition has made to approve this deal? We don't know.

We don't know whether Senator Watt and the Prime Minister have admitted that they were wrong to put forward the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, a bill with so many holes in it that it looked like it was drafted by John Setka. We don't know yet whether or not Senator Watt and the government have agreed to fix up the errors of drafting they made in the bill, which left holes so wide you could drive a truck through them. We don't know whether Senator Watt or the Prime Minister have agreed to actually put in place a tough administrator who can do the job of cleaning up the CFMEU.

What we do know is that the government have conceded their own bill was so flawed that they are moving amendments themselves to fix up legislation they introduced into the parliament only last week. What we know is that some of the suggestions put forward by Senator Cash and the coalition have been agreed to in principle by the government, but we're waiting to see the drafting to make sure that they give effect to the intention of the coalition in putting forward these amendments.

These are very reasonable amendments. These amendments make sure that the bill achieves its intended purpose of fixing up the squalid, corrupt and criminal CFMEU. For example, they include backdating the retrospectivity to a date that actually allows the administrator to get to the problem of this matter. They provide for the administrator to have accountability to parliament on an ongoing and regular basis. They include removing the arbitrary five-year limit on disqualifications from office. They include making sure the administrator has the power to expel officers, delegates and employees who consort with criminal organisations. They include the administration taking at least three years, not a maximum of three years, before the administrator or indeed the minister can vary or revoke the scheme. They include commitments to ensuring political donations and political expenditure from the CFMEU are banned during the period of the administration. They include allowing the administrator to compel assistance from any person who's relevant to assisting the administration of the union. They include a fit and proper person's test. They include allowing the administrator to investigate the past practices of the CFMEU and other important matters. The only reason you'd be opposed to these sensible amendments put forward by the coalition is if you weren't genuine about cleaning up the CFMEU.

The government says it has finally seen the light. After years of carrying water for the CFMEU, doing their business in this place, running a protection racket for the CFMEU and allowing them to continue their criminal and corrupt wrongdoing, finally the straw has broken the camel's back. Finally the government realises that, after all, maybe there is something wrong with the CFMEU. But it shouldn't have taken the reporting by Nick McKenzie and his colleagues at the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age, the Financial Review and 60 Minutes to have revealed this. We have all known for years about this conduct of the CFMEU. Indeed, that's why the former coalition government had a royal commission into the union movement. That's why the former government introduced the Australian Building and Construction Commission; that's why the former government introduced the Registered Organisations Commission; that's why the former government tried to legislate an ensuring integrity bill: to hold union officials to the standard the public would expect they meet. And yet, on every one of those questions, at every step of the way, those opposite fought those measures.

The Labor Party did the bidding of the CFMEU, their paymaster—to the tune of $6 million under Mr Albanese's leadership—to defend the interests of the CFMEU against the interests of the public. What have the consequences of that been? The CFMEU have got even worse than they were just a few years ago. Organised criminal elements have infiltrated this organisation. Organised crime has gone all the way to the highest levels of the CFMEU. That should come as a surprise to no-one. This is no longer just an industrial matter. This is not a union matter. This is not a question of an ideological issue. This is an issue of law and order, community safety and national security. This government says, in its own defence, that, when it abolished the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission, it had to do so because they weren't effective in tackling these issues. If their genuine concern about the operations of the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission was that they were not effective in dealing with the problems of the CFMEU, the remedy for that was increased powers, increased resources and more support for the ABCC and the ROC, not to abolish them entirely and put the feckless and hopeless Fair Work Ombudsman and Fair Work Commission on the beat. How many cases have the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Fair Work Commission taken against the CFMEU in the last two years since the ROC and the ABCC were abolished? How many actions have they taken to clean up the CFMEU, to make sure that the law was being upheld? We all know the answer to that question. The number of actions that they have taken is the number of actions that those opposite intended for them to take—which was zero.

When I first got in this place, I sat in Senate estimates on the Employment and Education Legislation Committee. I remember Labor senators, during our time in government, coming in, time and time again, to those estimates sessions to relentlessly bully, intimidate and try to scare the public servants appointed to run the ABCC and the ROC. Former senator Doug Cameron was a particularly notorious practitioner of this art. He pursued them at every turn and at every opportunity, and it was very clear what this was designed to do. It was designed to frustrate them and prevent them from doing their jobs. It was designed to scare them and to intimidate them because Doug Cameron was running a protection racket for the CFMEU. He did not want his mates in the CFMEU to be subject to the oversight and the constraints of either the Registered Organisations Commission or the ABCC. He didn't want the endemic cultural problems of bullying and corruption in the building industry to be exposed by these bodies—and expose them they did.

According to documents tendered in court by the Fair Work Commission, since 2003 the CFMEU has been the subject of findings of contraventions of federal workplace laws on more than 1,500 occasions, plus there have been 1,100 contraventions by its office holders, employees, delegates and members, resulting in $24 million in fines. There are so many quotes from justices who sat on these cases during that period that go to the recidivism of the CFMEU and the bad conduct of the CFMEU, and none of this was enough to move the Labor Party at the time. For example, Chief Justice Debra Mortimer said the CFMEU:

… weighs up the cost of engaging in such action—that is, likely prosecution and imposition of penalties—and nevertheless concludes it is a collateral cost of doing its industrial business.

The evidence suggests this ongoing behaviour is tolerated, facilitated and encouraged by all levels of the organisation.

There are many others, who've said many other similar things.

As fun as this morning's brief interlude of focusing some attention on our friends on the crossbench and the Greens for their complicity in defending the CFMEU was—I still cannot understand why they intend to stand in the way of the passage of this bill when even the Labor Party has given up the ghost and stopped defending the CFMEU—the truth is that, on their own, the Greens and the other member of the crossbench sympathetic to the CFMEU can't do anything to defend the CFMEU's interest. They needed a party in crime to do that. They needed the Labor Party to be willing participants in that. Over the last few years, they've had that. They've had that in the Labor Party's willingness to take $6 million of donations on Mr Albanese's watch from the CFMEU, despite all of the issues raised. They've had that in votes in this place, whether it's on an ensuring integrity bill or the abolition of the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission. I won't be so impolite as to name them in this place, but I hope those members of the Senate crossbench, who are not members of the Greens or the Labor Party, reflect on the role that they played in preventing the passage of the ensuring integrity bill and reflect on the role they played in passing the ABCC and ROC abolition. This includes those so-called teals in the other place, who voted to abolish these bodies and who are now out there saying, 'Why isn't the government doing more to tackle corruption and criminality in the building industry?' If only they had listened to the warnings made by the coalition, by the building industry and by many justices of the federal courts and supreme courts around our country, who warned repeatedly about the behaviour of the CFMEU.

I myself have read into the Hansard in Senate estimates over the years repeated instances of misogynistic and sexist bullying by CFMEU officials and delegates on building sites toward female construction employees, industry employees and female public servants. That wasn't enough for the defenders of women on the crossbench, the Greens or the Labor Party to stand up. We've all seen the very serious allegations being raised about this union over years and years. The truth is: finally the jig is up. Finally, a threshold has been crossed. Finally, John Setka and his mates have done something that even the Labor Party cannot abide, yet it appears that their colleagues and friends in the Greens are willing to abide by it.

This step today is only a first step; let's be really clear. We have very grave concerns about whether an administrator can fix this problem at all and whether in fact the CFMEU is reformable. It appears that the CFMEU's conduct in recent years is core to its business model. It's how it operates. Not all unions operate like this. We're not here today talking about special legislation to put an administrator in for the nurses federation or many other legitimate, respectable unions who represent their members and their interests. We are here talking about the CFMEU because core to their business is intimidation and relying on criminal elements to carry out their business on workplaces to intimidate building companies to go along for the ride and pay money to them. There are very real questions about whether a KC or a public servant appointed by the Fair Work Commission or the government could actually fix this problem of whether the CFMEU is reformable. The government should have, first, deregistered the CFMEU, as we've called on them to do. Second, they should bring back the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Third, they should bring back the Registered Organisations Commission. Fourth, they should support our ensuring integrity bill, which we will, of course, provide them an opportunity to do before this debate has concluded.

It is critical that this is not just a bandaid. It is critical that, after passing this administrator, the government doesn't just wash its hands, walk away and say: 'Mission accomplished; job done. CFMEU is reformed.' We all know, as the BLF reared its ugly head again, the CFMEU will rear its ugly head again unless it's properly dealt with by the Commonwealth parliament—unless it's provided for in legislation that deals with not just the current issues and the current leadership of the CFMEU but the structural, cultural and endemic issues that have led to the CFMEU operating its business the way it does. It is incumbent on every party in this chamber to commit to this course of action—to cleaning up this industry—to commit to no longer taking money from this corrupt and criminal organisation, and to commit to fixing these problems.

At the end of the day, these have real and tangible impacts for the Australian people. It is no wonder that, in this country, we cannot deliver an infrastructure project at the state or federal level without massive blowouts. It turns out that we've been paying ghost workers of the CFMEU, who don't even turn up to work but get paid nonetheless to line the coffers of the CFMEU. It's no wonder that state taxes around this country, whether it's property taxes in my home state of Victoria or elsewhere, are rising, to meet those black holes in infrastructure blow-outs we've seen on the watch of the Allan government and the Andrews government in Victoria, for example. It's also no wonder that housing has become so unaffordable, when every first home buyer is paying a CFMEU tax on their first home, on their apartment. Credible experts have placed this CFMEU premium as up to 30 per cent of the cost of the build. When young homeowners are struggling to save, to build a deposit to buy their first home, when they're struggling with the 12 interest rate increases on this government's watch, it adds a special insult to injury that one of the reasons why they're paying more than they should is that the CFMEU was tolerated and buttressed and supported by this government and by the Labor Party for so many years.

Make no mistake, this is a cost-of-living issue, and, if those opposite are sincere about alleviating the very serious cost-of-living crisis we're facing in this country, then they'll take real action to reform the CFMEU, real action to reform the building industry, real action to tackle the criminality and corruption that's emerged on their watch, rather than just wiping their hands of it after they've appointed an administrator after the bill is, hopefully, agreed by the chamber this week.

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

I notice the Greens this morning said we should all look at ourselves in the mirror. Well, do you know what? I say, 'Right back at you.' Quite frankly, I have no idea why you're blocking this legislation. They are thugs. They are bullies. They treat women like second-class citizens. That is what the CFMEU are doing. Yet, you're standing by them. It blows me away.

I've very good sources that have told me that construction workers are being compelled to join the CFMEU for an annual fee of $1,200 as a condition for participating in Victoria's Big Build project. This practice raises serious concerns about the violation of workers' rights and the enforcement of freedom of association, which is a fundamental legal principle in Australia. My sources say this is happening on foreign owned, tier 1 contractors, such as CPB, John Holland and ACCIONA. They must be held account for their apparent disregard for Australian law. These companies must follow our local laws or lose the privilege of working on taxpayer funded projects. I've also received credible information that suggests these tier 1 contractors may be colluding with the CFMEU to breach anticompetition laws and engage in price-fixing on government projects. This alleged conspiracy involves selecting only CFMEU endorsed, non-competitive labour hire firms, undermining fair competition.

Specifically, I want to address a senior executive. Let's call him Craig; that's not his real name. Craig moved from the CPB to the UGL and the CIMIC Group company. It has come to my attention that Craig may have collaborated with the CFMEU to unfairly target and remove AWU affiliated workers from a government funded project in Melbourne. Not only is this unethical; it's illegal, and this behaviour cannot be tolerated. Craig is just one of many that I have been made aware. If foreign owned contractors continue to engage in, or turn a blind eye to, this level of corruption, then the government need to consider withholding taxpayer funding from their federal projects, effective immediately.

Regarding certain CFMEU officials, including Gerry McCrudden and his associate Jerry McQuaid, both men were exposed by Age journalist Nick McKenzie for threatening a traffic management firm. This government needs to investigate the possibility of revoking their work rights in Australia, once again effective immediately. Joe Myles, who I understand plays a significant role in orchestrating these activities in Victoria, should also be looked at. As a senior vice-president of the CFMEU, Joe Myles's actions reflect very poorly not just on him but on the organisation as a whole. It's time to remove individuals like Joe and the other dumb and dumber officials I've mentioned from any involvement in government funded construction projects. If the Greens can find their courage today and help get that administrator in place, the administrator will be able to look at the CFMEU credit cards, and I'm looking forward to that because I've been told they will find some interesting charges. That's right—some interesting charges.

But I say this: while I'm waiting for the administrator, if the ATO and ASIC aren't already on to this, before we make fools of you, I suggest you start looking at it today because this is part of your departmental jobs. Here's a wake-up call. There is information available out there. People are prepared to come forward. So, once again, if the ATO and ASIC aren't looking at this, I suggest it'd be very wise to start looking before you are called out.

Finally, ongoing issues with union raffles, ghosting by union officials and the alleged skimming of funds from training programs, long-service leave, income protection and superannuation also need to be put under the administrator's microscope. It needs to be part of the whole program. If you're not going to look at them in full, then we're wasting taxpayers' money by going in the first time. Once and for all, if just one side of politics could finally clean up the CFMEU and set an example, then the rest of the unions can follow, and we'd have a much better Australia for it. There is no doubt. These activities appear to be designed to siphon off money from workers to benefit union officials—but who would've guessed?—rather than serving the interests of the workers they claim to be representing. If we can get this administrator in place today, that'd be a good start at cleaning this up. Every day we wait is another day that this corruption and intimidation just goes on and on.

Additionally, in Queensland and now Western Australia, they have introduced the best-practice industry conditions. This is a CFMEU takeover by stealth, and they are coming in those states. Isn't it interesting that they're both Labor states? They're feeding their own. In Queensland, all projects over $100 million are subject to the best-practice industry conditions, and, in Western Australia, the threshold of $1 million is coming soon. We have EBAs and industrial agreements, and now these state are bringing in CFMEU conditions by stealth through state based legislation. That's what your own state Labor parties are doing to you. They are working against you, and they should be shameful.

I'll tell you now: I'd love to see every Labor Party that is in power in every state also join up to the three years where they'll not take any money from the CFMEU. I want to hear it from them. I want to know what your partners in the states are doing on this, because it's going to cause, and is causing, credible damage. It shouldn't be just the federal party not taking money; it's about time your Labor states and your premiers out there grew a backbone and said: 'We too are going to join the forces here. We are not taking CFMEU donations for three years.' Otherwise, this is just a joke, and it makes you people over here look really bad. I have to say: what is the point of EBAs and fair work if the states introduce their own rules? That is where we are at, and, seriously, it's just beyond a joke.

I want to hear from you Labor premiers out there. I'm putting it on you today, and you journalists should be ringing every single one of them and asking them if they are going to say, 'We are not taking money from the CFMEU as of today.' Let's see what you've got.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, would like to make a contribution on this extraordinary bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. I say 'extraordinary' not because the bill is particularly extraordinary—in fact, it is probably one of the most un-extraordinary bills I've ever seen in my life—but I say it's extraordinary because we are in this place because we need to have such a bill.

What's most distressing is that we have a bill before us at the moment that really doesn't do what the government is trying to convince the Australian public it does do. They are feigning being tough about some quite extraordinary behaviour for a constituted union in this country. Yet, as we stand here today, the legislation introduced by this government makes dishwater look strong. It is a very, very weak bill and goes nowhere near achieving what the government would like the Australian public to believe it is going to achieve.

Notwithstanding that, the opposition would like to see some stronger action taken in relation to the actions of the CFMEU and the ongoing litany of behaviours that have continuously plagued this organisation because of their refusal to actually be lawful. Every other organisation, institution, individual or political party in this country is required to act within the law, but apparently not the CFMEU.

I have to say, one of the things that amazes me is that we haven't heard more from other unions in Australia, because the CFMEU gives them all a bad name. There are many unions in this country that I would have thought would have been absolutely horrified at some of the behaviours of the CFMEU.

In fact, it was really quite interesting to see that, a couple of weeks ago on television, the member for the Hunter Valley, Mr Repacholi, when he was asked about the CFMEU, kept on referring to it as the 'MEU'—almost as if the 'CF' part of the CFMEU didn't exist, or he didn't want to acknowledge it or to have anything to do with it. Now, for a member of the Labor Party and, obviously, somebody who's very aligned with the mining union because of his background, it's really interesting that he wanted to distance himself from the construction sector part of this union. So I'd call on other unions: if you don't want your reputation to be dragged through the mud as it currently is being, you should also be standing up and saying why you believe the CFMEU, like every other organisation in Australia, should actually have to abide by the rules—that is, to live by the laws of Australia.

But the sad thing about this is just how unbelievably weak this bill is. It professes to be going to do some tough things, but it really does very little. I don't think the government is really telling the Australian public the truth about this legislation. This legislation goes nowhere towards giving any confidence to the Australian public that the scandal-plagued CFMEU is actually going to be brought under control by this legislation. There are many people I have heard say that it looks like a bill that has been authored by the CFMEU; they might as well have written it themselves, because they certainly would not be in fear of any of the legislative provisions put forward by the government in the original bill.

Also, interestingly, the bill gives extraordinary power to the minister. The minister can pretty much do whatever he likes. He could end the administration early if he chose to. So, really, the bill doesn't achieve a great deal, apart from apparently giving power to the minister. When you consider that there are so many members of parliament or senators who owe their place in this place to the CFMEU, you would have to suggest that it's a little bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.

But, as we stand here today, probably one of the most egregious things is how much this union and its actions have impacted on the cost of really important infrastructure in this country. This union's behaviours, actions and demands and their unlawfulness have basically placed a tax on just about every single construction-sector project that they have had anything to do with, whether that be building new hospitals, new schools or new roads, or the impact it's having on our housing sector at the moment. It is very easy to sheet home the increase in prices partly to the CFMEU. It's interesting when you speak to the construction sector. They are quite happy—and everyone says exactly the same thing—that there is pretty much a 30 per cent efficiency penalty to deal with any construction that relates to the CFMEU.

So what I would say is that, if the government are really serious about doing more than just virtue signalling about actually making a difference and cleaning up the mess in this country that has been created by the lawlessness of the CFMEU, they will take real action and make sure that they give some teeth to this legislation so that it can deal with the problem that is before us.

The coalition have been very serious. We want to see the CFMEU brought under control and we want the CFMEU, like every other Australian, to have to abide by the law. We have sought a number of amendments, which hopefully we will see the Labor Party support. Clearly, as indicated by their contribution earlier in the day, we can't expect the same sort of sensible support from the Greens, who, for some weird and wondrous reason known only to them, seem to think that running a protection racket for the CFMEU is something that's in their best interest. But, anyway, hopefully Senator Shoebridge will make a contribution eventually on behalf of the Greens, and we might find out why it is their intention to run this protection racket—not just an ideological rant like we heard earlier today.

But the amendments that we've sought to move do a few things. A couple of them, I think, are really important to put on the record. If you're going to put an administrator in, give the administrator the teeth to be able to do something. Don't have a situation where the minister can overrule the administrator in their actions. Be prepared to have the strength of your own convictions. Put what you're saying in the legislation and make sure that the administration time is not something the minister can just cut short because he feels like it. Actually build into the legislation a minimum time that the CFMEU is in administration so we can have confidence that there will be time for the administrator and all the other necessary processes to be put in place so we can clean up this mess once and for all. Therefore, we believe that it should be in the legislation that there's at least a minimum of a three-year administration and the minister doesn't have the ability—should the Labor Party win the next election—to immediately put an end to the administration.

We also don't believe that the scheme of administration should be able to be varied without the application of the administrator. We also believe the legislation must clearly set out what the scheme of administration should do. It should not be solely determined by the minister. For the purposes of transparency, the administrator should be providing reports to this place, this parliament, so that we know what's going on, and those reports need to be provided very soon after the administrator takes on their role. The administrator needs to be given the power to ensure that the actions that are needed to make sure that this corruption that has been going on for as long as I can remember is stamped out once and for all, including things like making sure, for the CFMEU, that a fit-and-proper-person test applies to delegates and officers and that we have appropriate auditing so that the financial dealings of the CFMEU are transparent. Everybody else in Australia who is a public organisation is required to be audited. How come the CFMEU seems to be able to operate behind closed doors without any oversight of anything that they do?

I think the auditor should be paid for by the CFMEU. The taxpayers have forked out enough because of the corruption of this union. It's about time the CFMEU started paying something towards cleaning up the mess that they created themselves.

We need to make sure, as I said, that the administrator has the powers to be able to deliver what this government is promising is going to be delivered by this legislation, because, as it currently sits without amendment, you could not have any confidence whatsoever that that is going to be the case.

The government talks a really big game about how this particular piece of legislation is going to clean up the CFMEU, but the reality is that, if you want to restore respect and trust in this sector, you are going to have to do more than put a piece of legislation into this place that does little more than slap the CFMEU with a wet lettuce leaf. You could drive a truck through this legislation, and I think the government knows it set itself up in a way so as to retain control of what's going on with the CFMEU. This is all smoke and mirrors, and there is really very little substance. We hope we are able to get the necessary amendments through this place so we can strengthen this. Because if we don't, I fear we will end up with the same lawlessness we've seen on our building sites since time immemorial.

If the government were really genuine about making sure this legislation was real, they would accompany it with the restoration of the ABCC, because it was immediately after the ABCC was voted out, chucked out, unceremoniously by those opposite that we started to see a renewed escalation in the absolute blatant and flagrant lawlessness of the CFMEU. Why don't you pass our restoring and ensuring integrity bill which you voted against? You can't come in here and talk out of both sides of your mouths—

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

( ):  Thank you, Acting Deputy President Fawcett. You'd be delighted to know and delighted, I am sure, to support the idea we retained, restored and maintained the integrity in this particular sector, because, like every other senator in this place, we've seen in this place time and time again the first-hand examples of where the behaviours of the CFMEU have adversely affected the electorates we represent, the states we represent. What I would say to anyone in this place is: if you are going to pass this bill—and I assume we will despite the Greens doing everything they can to fight and kick and not pass it—it is a mess of Labor's own making that they are trying to fix. What I would say to Labor—through you, Acting Deputy Chair—is: if you really are going to fix this mess, you actually have to be genuine about the measures you are going to take.

Restoring the ABCC, which you abolished, would be a really good start, because the abolition of the ABCC basically gave control of the construction sector back to your mates in the CFMEU. Most Australians, if they knew of the kinds of behaviours we've witnessed over the years with the CFMEU, would be absolutely horrified to think that anybody would defend those actions. I will not repeat some of the things that the CFMEU have been not just accused of but found guilty of. They are so incredibly terrible that I am not even going to utter what they are. It is not only criminal activity, threats, corruption, bribery but the intimidation, the violence and bullying, the standover tactics, the misappropriation of funds and many other accusations of quite extraordinary behaviour are the kinds of things, I think, the average Australian probably would never believe occur in what is pretending to be a legitimate organisation within the Australian economy.

I am very hopeful that the government will realise the Australian public are not going to put up with a government that's going to run a protection racket for a union that has been single-handedly destroying our economy for so many years I can hardly remember. If you really are genuine showing you actually have the strength of your own convictions then make sure this bill is amended in such a way as you are able to put hand on heart and say, 'The strength of the provisions in this bill will actually make a difference to the behaviour of the CFMEU.' As it currently stands, I doubt that will be the case.

I think it would be wonderful if the Greens would stand up in this place and say that they will not accept one cent from the CFMEU during the period of administration, not accept any assistance in terms of resources to support any of their campaigns during the time the CFMEU is in administration. If they do that they will show they are genuine; if not, they aren't. (Time expired)

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

I want to start by reiterating a position that I put to the chamber just earlier today: the Greens will always oppose violence wherever we see it—especially in the workplace—and we will always support action to address sexism and misogyny, whether it's in the workplace, in this place or wherever else we find it. There is no question of the deeply concerning allegations against elements of the CFMEU. There is no question about that. And so working through these issues as best we can to squarely address those matters in a way that makes union members—particularly women union members and officials—as per their rights, feel respected and safe will always be a guiding principle in the work that we do. We've seen the allegations aired. At this stage, many of them are just allegations. But nobody could see that and not be deeply troubled, say something must be done and accept that, in that, there needs to be some external break on what has been happening to allow as rapidly as possible those principles of democracy and respect to be re-established throughout the CFMEU. That's a starting point for us as we confront this legislation and confront what has been brought to the parliament.

Saying that doesn't answer the question in its entirety in front of us. I'd also remind senators that there's currently a court case afoot that would, if the orders that are being sought by the general manager of the Fair Work Commission were granted, deal with these issues. That court case has got another date before the courts in just a little over a week. It will come back before the courts. I would have thought that it would be a principle that would unite us, that as best we can these issues should be dealt with in accordance with law, in accordance with established practice, to put independent arbiters in place. If we can conceive of a process that sees a lot less of these actions being done by ministers and politicians and far more being done by courts, who will not have the same political angles, political manoeuvres or political history, of course we should be aiming for that. Of course we should. We've brought these principles to our discussions with the government. Right now, it feels like forever, but we were given a briefing on this legislation by the government just less than a week ago. On this kind of principled, incredibly complex legislation, which has so many potential implications well outside the union movement, we will not apologise for wanting to get it right. We will not apologise for looking at legislation that provides unprecedented powers to a single politician over a civil society organisation. I'd say that, whether it's a union, a law society, an environmental group or a multicultural association, when we are looking at legislation that is providing, effectively, unlimited political powers to an elected minister without constraint by the courts or constraint by this place, we will not apologise for looking at it in incredible detail. I will deal with some of the specific concerns about that ministerial overreach further in this legislation.

Can I also say this: we know that a strong construction union keeps people alive and it keeps construction workers alive. And I've seen that. In a former life as a solicitor, I've been onto multilevel construction sites where there has been union representation and I've seen the detail about safety, the concern about safety and the respect about safety. I've been onto sites where there wasn't the union, and it was on sites where there wasn't a union that young workers' lives were lost. It was on sites where there wasn't a union where people's pay was not respected; they were paid cash, and they were treated like second-class citizens.

While in no way ignoring what I said earlier in this contribution about our very real concerns—and they are largely located in the Victoria branch, but they extend to the NSW branch—we will not forget that it has been the construction union that has saved the lives of countless workers and also ensured that construction workers in this country have a wage they can live on and have a wage and conditions that respect them for the work they do. I have heard repeated comments from the coalition that the fact that the union stands up for safety and the fact that the union stands up for workers' wages and the fact that the union stands up for workers' entitlements are 'inflating construction costs'. Another way of characterising that is, because of the union, construction workers who put their lives on the line, their bodies on the line in the work that they do, get a fair days pay for a fair days work, and that's an important principle in this legislation too. And that is a fundamentally important principle for us.

When we're looking at the potential precedent value of this legislation, there hasn't been legislation like this in the federal parliament before. To give such extraordinary powers, literally to take over an organisation, to rewrite its rules, to summarily terminate any and everybody without regard to natural justice—there has never been legislation like this brought to the federal parliament. Should it require scrutiny? Of course it does.

Just yesterday we saw a very clear statement from the NSW Council for Civil Liberties. The NSW Council for Civil Liberties are a rigorously apolitical organisation. Their concern is civil liberties, and they have raised serious concerns with the federal government's Fair Work (Registered Organisation) Amendment (Administration) Bill and the government's accompanying amendments. Very briefly, I'll read from their statement:

While any allegation of criminality is serious and must be addressed, the powers set out in this bill are far-reaching and establish a dangerous precedent for the trade union movement, membership-based organisations, and the rights of individuals to natural justice and procedural fairness.

The rushed nature of this legislation which is designed to override a process begun by the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court threatens the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. We note that the proposed legislation would set a precedent where membership-based organisations can have democratic control externally removed on the basis of untested allegations. This is of concern to all Unions, registered Clubs, and Australian membership-based organisations.

The Bill violates Australia's obligations under the International Labour Organisation, namely Articles 3 and 4 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948.

The NSWCCL has long held that everyone has the right to natural justice and procedural fairness, regardless of the allegations they face. If this legislation is passed next week, it threatens this fundamental right. The right to freedom of association and the nature of membership-based organisations across Australia must be protected.

We agree with them, and we have said to the government that we are willing to work with you to address those concerns but also to come up with a scheme that will address those other concerns that I raised. We've put detailed amendments to the government, and we've had meetings with the government, but the government's response has been to say no, and the government 's response has been to say: 'Don't you worry. We'll cover it in a scheme.' I say now: table the draft scheme. We say to the minister: table the draft scheme so we know what is in the mind of the minister when the minister is going to be given these unprecedented powers. Table the draft scheme. Show us what's in your mind.

We've raised concerns about giving the minister unlimited power over the rules of an organisation through the scheme. It does by means of multiple provisions in this bill: the bill creates a scheme that can summarily terminate anyone in the union, rewrite the rules or appoint whatever administrator they like. Our concern is that, when you give that power to this minister, you give it to every future minister. If there is a future Minister Cash—and I'll do what I can in my political work to prevent that happening—we have asked: is Labor comfortable with giving Minister Cash that power over the CFMEU? And, if Minister Cash—or Minister X, Y or Z—gets used to exercising that power over the CFMEU, what other organisations would Minister Cash seek to exercise that power over, without any constraint and with no referral back to this parliament?

The answer from the government has been to come up with some amendments that say that the scheme can't be changed by the minister unless there's concurrence from the administrator. Those are the amendments we've received. I say now to the government, as we said in negotiations: 'But the minister can sack the administrator.' And, if the current administrator won't agree to the amendments to the scheme, then future Minister Cash will sack that administrator and appoint their own administrator—maybe Administrator Dutton—

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

Minister Shoebridge, just be aware of standing order 193: imputations or personal reflections are disorderly.

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

A future coalition minister or a future Labor minister may sack the administrator to the CFMEU and appoint Administrator Dutton, who would no doubt be compliant with whatever a future coalition minister would want. Where are the checks and balances in that? We've said we will work with you to try and find a solution to this and that we will work with you so that natural justice can be re-established while giving sufficient powers under a scheme to deal with the unlawful elements—to deal with those organisations and to entrench elements of natural justice. We have provided detailed amendments to the government to try and work this through. In response to these matters of genuine principle and concern that we put to the government, we get these shallow, aggressive political attacks from the minister about how he wants to produce some Facebook squares to address it. Is it any wonder we're frustrated by what the government has been doing and by the refusal to have genuine and fair, open negotiations.

It is increasingly clear what Labor's plan is. They are not willing to negotiate in good faith with the Greens. They are seeking to cut a deal with the coalition to protect their right. We have been saying—and we continue to say—issues of fundamental principle that reach beyond this bill. We have in our mind, other civil organisations, such as protesters, forest protesters and climate protesters, which have been increasingly criminalised by both Labor and the coalition. We have in our mind using terrorist statements and weaponising national security organisations like ASIO to attack the government's political opponents and to advance the attack against other organisations. We have in our mind the way Labor and the coalition together want to ramp up federal powers to the AFP and ASIO and other centralising powers, and we see that one of the essential protections we have in this country is civil organisations that are not controlled and directed by the government or by a minister.

We're not just going to pretend those principles don't exist because it's politically inconvenient for us or because the government wants to rush this legislation through. We will continue to have an open door to get this right— (Time expired)

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not prone usually to statements of 'I told you so', but, on behalf of the coalition parties, as we stand here debating the lawlessness, corruption, bullying tactics and intimidation of the CFMEU, let me say to the Labor Party, the Greens and all those who've defended the CFMEU over the years: we told you so.

You've been warned again and again, not just by the coalition but by many across industry, many across Australian society and even from within Australia's courts, about the constant, persistent lawbreaking, business-destroying and productivity-crippling actions of the CFMEU. The revelations that came through Fairfax media or Nine's newspapers over recent months really weren't revelations at all. You would have to have had your head buried deep in the sand to be remotely surprised by all that was uncovered in relation to the behaviour of the CFMEU across Australia. Yet the Albanese government did indeed come out with 'Quelle surprise, oh my. Who knew that John Setka and the CFMEU were so bad? Who knew they were doing all of these terrible things?'

It has been on the record again and again. Indeed, the CFMEU's construction division has racked up around $19 million in fines and penalties, ordered by Australian courts, over the last eight years. They just treated it as a cost of doing business—a cost of doing business for them to continue to extract every possible concession they can in every possible workplace, not for the benefit of the workers but for the power of the union. That is the way that these officials have gone about their operation. That is why, at this moment in time, when a Labor government has been forced, dragged kicking and screaming, to take action to clean up the CFMEU, we must get it right.

These are the same Labor Party and the same Greens political party who voted against every possible effort, over the past decade and beyond, to clean up the CFMEU. When the Australian Building and Construction Commission legislation came to the parliament, they opposed it. They fought to water it down and weaken its standing. When the Registered Organisations Commission legislation came to the parliament, they opposed it and they ensured every effort was made to weaken it and water it down. When the ensuring integrity legislation was brought to this parliament to ensure the integrity of union officials by ensuring that, if they were getting repeated criminal offences against them, they could no longer hold those offices, the Greens opposed it and, indeed, worked with parts of the crossbench to defeat it.

Australia would not be at this point if not for the obstinate opposition of those opposite over the last decade-plus in relation to the CFMEU. If they'd ensured the ABCC had real teeth—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were in government. Why didn't you do something?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take the interjection. We did—and you opposed, you weakened and you stood in the way at every possible step. You say, 'Why didn't we do something?' Why didn't you vote for the ensuring integrity legislation that would have ensured John Setka was no longer an office bearer years ago? Years ago, he could have been driven out of the CFMEU—

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

Senator Polley, interjection is disorderly under standing order 197.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This was all foreseeable and all preventable, but those opposite stood in the way. Listening to the Greens contribution just now, I can't help but be astounded by the most unprincipled position being taken but cloaked in some sort of pretence of principle by the Australian Greens. Where is their stance and their commitment to standing up for all those who have been abused by the CFMEU—to the sexism, misogyny, lawlessness and corruption? How is it that the Greens can come here and continue to pretend that?

We are also intent on holding the government to account. This cannot be a pretend administration. This must be one with teeth, and that is why we've been taking the days to work through negotiations with the government to ensure it is an administration of teeth with teeth that will properly clean up the CFMEU.

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

It being 1.30, we will move to two-minute statements.