Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's just put the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 into context today. And the context we need to put it into is in the headlines of newspapers across Australia in relation to what we have known for a very, very long time about the CFMEU—the bullying, the thuggery and the intimidation on building and construction sites across Australia and the additional moneys, up to 30 per cent in fact, that taxpayers across Australia have been paying for a very long time now for publicly funded infrastructure. This includes roads, it includes hospitals and it includes schools.

When you pay more for publicly funded infrastructure, the flow-on effect is that it flows into civil construction. And guess what? Because of the actions of the most militant union in Australia—that's not me speaking; that's the High Court of Australia—condoned every step of the way and facilitated by the Australian Labor Party, and we'll talk about the money that has flowed directly from the most corrupt union in Australia through to the Australian Labor Party in particular under the Prime Minister, Mr Albanese, you can see why the reintroduction of the tough cop on the beat, the building watchdog, is required.

These are just some of the headlines in the last two weeks. 'CFMEU administrator says union's woes "worse than reported"'. 'CFMEU administrator moves for "clean sweep" of union super fund directors at Cbus'—and just on that, let's all remember what Cbus is. It is a superannuation fund that looks after its members' money. The article this morning by Ewin Hannan should worry every single member of any super fund that the CFMEU have anything to do with. The transferring of in excess of $3 million of members' funds to pay for legal fees of a union official—is that some type of joke? The bad news is that, no, it's not; it happens to be the reality.

Another headline is 'CFMEU deal puts the union in bed with bikies and the underworld: An investigation reveals the relationships that have vaulted companies with links to criminals into favoured positions on the nation's building sites.' Again, we've known that for a long time, after the Cole royal commission and the Heydon royal commission and after headline after headline and after Federal Court case after Federal Court case—and a High Court case as well!

Anyone who says they were not aware of this type of behaviour either has had their head in the sand or, quite frankly, was condoning and, indeed, facilitating it. Even Sally McManus—my understanding is Sally's having a hard time at the moment—had to come out and say, 'Self-serving CFMEU leaders ruined the union.' Another headline is 'Allan, Albanese told of union thuggery in 2022'. I think that's a slight 'unexaggeration' actually, because they've known of it and, as I said, have condoned and facilitated this behaviour for a very, very long time.

But what does the bill do today? We, as a coalition, are moving to reintroduce the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which, even in its previous form, former Labor Prime Ministers Rudd and Gillard understood needed to be in place. In other words, the behaviour of the CFMEU in the construction industry was so bad that even former Labor governments recognised that there was a need for a building watchdog. We want to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission's powers to enforce workplace laws in the building and construction industry.

On any analysis, what we have seen over the past couple of months shows that the decision by Mr Albanese to hand the construction sector over to John Setka, the former head of the CFMEU, on a platter as the first item of business for his government back in 2022 has been an unmitigated disaster. Why, though, do you think Mr Albanese, as Prime Minister of this country, would take such a step when construction industry participant after construction industry participant said, 'Please don't, because, if you do, you are going to expose us even further to bullying, thuggery and intimidation on construction sites across Australia.'

The Labor Party can try to deny their links to the CFMEU all they like but the evidence speaks louder than anything the Australian Labor Party will ever say. Since Mr Albanese became the Labor leader—again, they can deny this all they like—the fact of the matter is, and the evidence clearly shows, that the Labor Party have received more than $6.2 million in donations directly from the most corrupt union in Australia, a union that we know is in bed with bikies and the underworld.

Seriously, you would almost think that this is some type of TV script, because you cannot believe that an alternative party of government, the Australian Labor Party, now in government, would have condoned and facilitated this type of behaviour. But, let's face it, the millions of dollars—and we're still waiting to find out whether or not the money is actually clean money; I have my doubts about whether or not this money that has gone directly into the Australian Labor Party is even clean money—the $6.2 million that Mr Albanese, as the Labor leader and then the Prime Minister, has conveniently accepted on behalf of the Australian Labor Party speaks volumes.

Then you also have to put it into the context of the union movement. Many Australians won't know that since 2007 the union movement in Australia has given directly to the Australian Labor Party in excess of $100 million. That's since 2007. I'm hearing that Mr Albanese has got a few problems at the moment, because, you see, I'm told that Labor don't actually know how to fundraise because they've never had to fundraise. They just put out their hand and the union movement gives them the money. Now that that has dried up, the Australian Labor Party are facing their reality, and it is: not many like you, not many like your policies and not many want to support you. Money speaks louder than anything that Mr Albanese or the Australian Labor Party will ever say.

They like to run around saying that they can't support the reintroduction of the tough cop on the beat and the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission because 'it was a dismal failure and ineffective at bringing the issues of criminality and corruption that surfaced in Nick McKenzie's investigative report to the forefront'. The first point I would make is this: the Australian Labor Party, when they were in opposition, fought the coalition, which went to a double dissolution election to 2016 because we were so committed to cleaning up the construction industry in Australia and ensuring that mum and dad Australia—the Australian taxpayers, because it's their money that's used on publicly funded infrastructure—were not being ripped off by the Australian Labor Party and the CFMEU.

We were returned to office, and we did stand up the Australian Building and Construction Commission. In fact, I was the minister at the time. Let me assure you, the Australian Labor Party fought us every single step of the way. This was despite the overwhelming evidence. Again, this is not me speaking, there was evidence. Everybody knows about it because the court cases are on the public record. Since 2003, the CFMEU and its officials have broken workplace laws on more than 2,600 occasions. Seriously—can you imagine someone in the corporate world breaching the corporations law in excess of 2,600 occasions? After one breach the Labor Party would be calling for their head, let alone after 2,600 breaches. The CFMEU have been involved in approximately 213 proceedings and they have been penalised other courts.

The Australian Labor Party like to say that the ABCC went after the CFMEU, but the problem with that is it's not backed up by the evidence. All the ABCC was able to do is bring a case before the court. The courts of Australia, the independent judiciary, then adjudicated based on the evidence. In over 91 per cent of the cases that the Australian Building and Construction Commission brought before the courts of Australia, the courts actually found in favour of it and against the CFMEU. In fact, since 2003, the CFMEU has been penalised over $24 million by the independent judiciary in Australia. So when Labor stand up and say that the ABCC was a dismal failure, that is a reflection, quite frankly, on the independent judiciary and the fact that it found the CFMEU had breached workplace laws on more than 2,600 occasions. It is little wonder, based on the ABCC's exemplary track record, that John Setka has from day one argued that it needed to be abolished. Let's be honest, the ABCC was getting in the way of his business model.

But the other important reason that you want law and order on building sites in Australia is that mum and dad Australians are paying more for the cost of their infrastructure. On what planet does a government—or the then opposition—sit back, knowing full well that publicly funded infrastructure in Australia is costing up to 30 per cent more than it should, and say that is okay? We are talking hospitals, roads and schools. We're in a housing crisis in Australia at the moment, with the flow-on effect that has on what Australians have to pay for houses. On what planet do you sit back and say that is okay? Quite frankly, the only reason you do that is that you are on the take. It doesn't matter what the Australian Labor Party says; the donations records show money flows directly from the most corrupt union in Australia, the CFMEU—with bikies and the underworld—to Labor. You couldn't script this if you tried. This is the reality of life in Australia under the Australian Labor Party. There have been $6.2 million of donations made since Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia, became the Labor leader and there has been $100 million from the union movement since 2007. It's pretty obvious why the Australian Labor Party have continued to turn a blind eye.

Well, guess what? We say no more. The Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, has made it very clear. It's pretty obvious the Australian Labor Party won't stand up for the Australian taxpayer. It's pretty obvious that the Australian Labor Party are quite happy to let John Setka still turn up to building sites across Australia. They're quite happy for Zach Smith to turn up and tell people he's still running the CFMEU. They will do nothing and I can't wait to hear their speeches today justifying, but not based on evidence, why they will not be supporting the reintroduction of the tough cop on the beat when stakeholder after stakeholder have said it is required. This bill is a test and, if Mr Albanese refuses to support it, it will show the Australian people he is very much still in the pocket of the CFMEU.

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

As Senator Cash has just set out, there is a wall of money which goes from the union movement into the Labor Party's coffers. It's a wall of money which goes from the CFMEU but also its favourite tentacles, the super funds, and that has enriched the Labor Party. It has paid for its campaigning capacity for many decades and it has given it manpower at polling places and enormous internal power inside this building. Often it's unclear, when Labor members and senators give speeches in this place, whether they are speaking on behalf of the people that they seek to represent, or do represent, or whether they are speaking on behalf of a union they used to work for. It is very unclear who in fact they are trying to work for in this building, which is a howling conflict of interest and something that I think is eating away at the qualities of the Labor Party. It has been widely exposed by the media this year, and I think we all are in debt to the Sydney Morning Herald for its extraordinarily good investigative work, which has exposed all these issues. The reason that the parliament is considering these matters now is that the media have done outstanding work in exposing this wrongdoing.

What is the transaction here? The transaction for the CFMEU is that Cbus, First Super and BUSSQ—all these organisations—give their money through the union to Labor, and in return what do the CFMEU get? They get preferable policy settings. They are paid off in policy. One of the first actions of this government was to abolish the Building and Construction Commission. As has been canvassed before, the Building and Construction Commission was put in place by the Howard government because it was recognised that lawlessness was driving up costs and hurting Australians because of the inflated costs of building in this country.

Then, when the Gillard government came along, they sought to replace the ABCC with another body which was not as effective as the ABCC. The Turnbull government then sought to legislate the ABCC. It was stymied by the Senate, a double dissolution election occurred and the Turnbull government then legislated the ABCC with the support of One Nation, Derryn Hinch and the Xenophon team. Thank goodness for the crossbench of the day standing up for the good qualities of this parliament, which has one pretty clear job—to look after the Australian people and ensure that lawlessness is not something that is tolerated by the people in this building.

After 2,600 breaches of workplace laws and $24 million in penalties, the insertion of the CFMEU into enterprise agreements has a real consequence for the Australian people at a time when the Labor Party has presided over the largest growth in immigration since the 1950s and a collapse in building construction, a collapse in house building. So the nexus between bringing people into the country and building houses is in a terrible state. At that time they allowed the CFMEU to run rampant across building sites in this country, and the consequence of that has been a 30 per cent premium, a 30 per cent tax, on all apartment buildings and the like in this country wherever the CFMEU has been allowed to do business.

This 30 per cent tax means that housing, particularly apartment buildings, for so many Australians then become unaffordable. For many Australians who are living in the cities—bigger cities on the east coast, perhaps—the entry point for them into the Australian dream is going to be an apartment. So the deliberate inflation of apartment building costs by this government and its actions is a disgrace. It is hurting under-40s. When you look at opinion polls and you look at surveys of under-40s in this country, they are very angry about the housing situation, which has got so much worse under this government.

They should be angry, because the government is a government for vested interests and is running a protection racket for their best friends. They don't care. The Labor Party does not care that the Australian people have to pay a 30 per cent premium on a new apartment building because of the CFMEU. They would rather help out their favourite vested interests than look after the welfare of younger Australians. Unions are more important than young people to this Labor Party. That's where we find ourselves.

The lack of law and order has manifested in many places across our country. In relation to the Hakoah Club, in Sydney's eastern suburbs, this is a Jewish club that is being threatened by the CFMEU with pro-Palestinian protestors because of a dispute between Hakoah and its builder. This is the sort of activity the CFMEU is prepared to undertake. It is prepared to go into communities that are already very much under stress and strain and threaten them with all sorts of political and other measures, which is illuminating for this chamber to consider—the fact that you would threaten people who are already under siege with a particular form of sensitive protest in order to get an outcome. This has been shown in the good work of the Sydney Morning Herald, which has been able to canvass these matters in detail in recent weeks.

I want to take the opportunity here as well to flag something that it is very concerning to me about the tentacles of this organisation, the CFMEU. It is now in administration and has been described by the administrator as an organisation that even he was surprised was in such a terrible state, but the CFMEU is apparently still being led by its secretary, even though it's in administration, and still has very deep tentacles into this building.

I say to the chamber that a very risky precedent was set yesterday afternoon here in the Senate, when it voted against an inquiry into a matter which goes to the heart of all this—that is, that the CFMEU still owns 21 per cent of the super fund Cbus, and even though the administrator has kicked three CFMEU officials off the Cbus board they still own a large portion of the fund and exercise significant control as an owner of 21 per cent of the organisation that owns the Cbus fund. The bill before the Senate would ban the Cbus organisation from accessing taxpayer funds through the government's Housing Australia Future Fund. The reason that measure has been put forward by the coalition is we do not regard it as appropriate that the CFMEU should be allowed to use it surrogates, the Cbus super fund, to access taxpayer funds. That is a reasonably unremarkable concept—that taxpayer funds should be shielded from an organisation that has been found to be engaging in deeply corrupt activities. In fact, this parliament itself has put it into administration. So how can it be the case that the parliament thinks it's important enough to put the CFMEU into administration but is open to the CFMEU surrogates accessing taxpayer funds through the Housing Australia Future Fund through the Cbus organisation? The two things cannot be consistent in any form.

The bill before the Senate seeks to ban Cbus from accessing the housing fund while the CFMEU is in administration—an unremarkable concept. But the idea of having an inquiry into this bill was voted down yesterday by the Senate, and I think it is a very risky precedent. Our role here is to inquire and get to the bottom of things. Even if people don't agree with my comments today about these matters—and I understand there are different views—the concept of having an inquiry and doing investigative work, giving people parliamentary privilege when they are seeking it, being able to call in regulators to get to the detail of what they are doing in terms of protecting taxpayer funds and protecting the interests of members in compulsory schemes, is fairly unremarkable. Rather than asking this chamber to vote in a particular way on a substantive measure, we simply seek to have an inquiry into the bill.

I know there has been a significant amount of lobbying here to stop this bill going to an inquiry. I think it is a very dangerous precedent for the Senate, and I regret that some of the crossbench did not support the motion to refer the bill to a committee. I think the Australian people would expect us to conduct reasonable inquiries. I understand there are some things that are extremely sensitive that have not gone to committee inquiries before, for good reason, but when it comes to matters of probity and governance this is surely the core business of the Senate. I again urge my colleagues on the Senate crossbench—particularly the Greens, who have been very good generally in supporting measures that promote good probity and good governance in relation to these matters—to consider whether or not it is a good precedent for the parliament to vote to defeat an inquiry into a bill that seeks to prevent an organisation that is linked to an organisation under administration from accessing taxpayer funds.

The bill does not seek to put a blanket ban on an organisation forever; the bill seeks to put a ban on that organisation while the CFMEU is in administration. It is not a forever clause. So the idea of the crossbench voting against an inquiry, voting against investigation, voting against giving people parliamentary privilege, voting against bringing in the regulators to give evidence, voting against the idea of getting the detailed evidence that the Australian people would expect us to collect, is very dangerous. I again urge the crossbench to think carefully about the precedent it wants to set here. We have been sent to Canberra to get to the bottom of corruption, wrongdoing and malfeasance. There is certainly malfeasance happening with the CFMEU, otherwise the parliament would not have put the organisation into administration.

The crossbench should consider carefully the precedents that it seeks to make, because if we start voting against inquiries then I wonder what our role here is in Canberra at all. If we're not going to get to the bottom of things, then maybe it's not worth flying down here to the bush capital and wasting all these taxpayer funds—because I can assure you there's a lot of rubbish that goes on here.

There's the pantomime of question time, all the scripted answers and all the other rubbish, which are a huge waste of taxpayer funds. Who seriously thinks that getting up and asking two or three questions, with all the supplementaries, is good value, particularly the dorothy dixers? The Australian people see through it. I've made that point in government and in opposition. It is often an ugly place to be a part of because of the huge waste of taxpayer funds and resources, where people just get up and they read speeches. They read speeches with talking points on them. They've got no idea what they're saying. They're just here to fill up a few hours.

The real work of this Senate is done in the committees. I would say that any reasonable senator would agree that there is a level of collegiality that comes with the committee system that we inherited from the US in the early seventies which has given the Senate the best opportunity to make a contribution to Australia by developing policies, working together and getting to the bottom of things. I want to commend Senator Pocock, Senator O'Neill and Senator Colbeck for all their work on the PwC matter. They have exposed enormous wrongdoing in the corporate sector through the Senate committee system. If we didn't have the Senate committee system, I would really question the value of having this chamber, because there's not a lot of value that goes on here for the Australian people.

So I again urge the crossbench. It is a very dangerous precedent for the crossbench to vote against inquiries into issues of governance, probity, integrity and transparency. This is not about a culture war or some other sensitive issue. This is about the sorts of standards that people would expect us to apply to the protection of taxpayer funds. This is not a substantive motion. It's not a matter where you're being asked to nail your colours to the mast. It is asking the Senate to vote for a process which allows the Senate to undertake an inquiry and investigation. I conclude with those comments.

Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No. 2). This bill shows what the Liberal-National agenda for the building industry is all about. It's not about making the industry more productive. It's not about stamping out corruption or lawlessness. It's not about protecting working conditions. It's not about making construction sites safer. This bill shows that their agenda is about one thing and one thing only. It's about taking advantage of allegations that are already been dealt with by administrators. It's about taking advantage of the situation to attack the rights of construction workers. It's about de-unionising the industry by force. Workers aren't allowed to have a voice at work; that's the view they have on the opposition side. They want to shut down a voice as much as they can. I'll come to the evidence of that, because they were a party to it through the entire instalment of the ABCC. People aren't allowed to bargain for better pay and conditions. They aren't allowed to speak up when there are safety issues. That's what the ABCC was about. That's what they're about. That is what this is about.

Let's be clear about what this bill would actually do if it were passed by this place. Construction is one of the deadliest industries in Australia. Twenty-two construction workers died in 2022. But I guess, for those opposite and their cheerleaders, and some in the construction industry, that isn't enough, because they want to get rid of the one organisation that specialises in making work sites safer and fairer in the construction industry. The bill will result in more deaths. It will make construction jobs less safe and more deadly.

Specifically, this bill revives a disgraced, discredited organisation, the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The ABCC is a law enforcement agency set up to go after the political enemies of the Liberal and National parties. It's the kind of agency you'd expect in Putin's Russia—not in a democratic state like Australia. Just look at the state of the shonks and grifters they put in charge of it, like Nigel Hadgkiss. The first bloke those opposite put in charge of the ABCC had to resign in disgrace. He was found by the federal court to have engaged in 'serious contraventions of law that were required to police'. The court went on to say, 'The consequence of his conduct was dissemination by the commission at his direction of false information to the industry of which the commission was not only the regulator but supposedly a trustworthy source of reliable information.' The bloke those opposite put in charge, supposedly to clean up the construction industry, was breaking the very laws he was supposed to police. You just can't make this stuff up.

It would almost be worth letting the ABCC go through so we could see the shortlist Senator Cash has in her pocket of the psychopaths she would put in charge at this time. She'd demand these sort of people run this sort of organisation. The ABCC spent half-a-million dollars on legal action to stop a Eureka flag being flown on a building site, when the developer, Lendlease, didn't even have an issue with it. No-one—the union, workers or developer—supported the ABCC action. It was an ideological farce. Some of the other famous wastes of money the ABCC embarked on, with the full support of the Liberals and Nationals, include prosecuting the CFMEU for having COVID-19 safety posters in break rooms. Can you believe it? There was a common interest and a common goal, but no—they wanted them prosecuted, because the posters had the union and the employer association logos on the bottom. Heaven forbid! They launched cases about union stickers on hard hats. They launched cases about union officials having a cup of tea on a work site. In that case, Justice North said:

… it was "astounding" that commissioner Nigel Hadgkiss had briefed silk and conducted days of hearing with dozens of participants, including Australian Federal Police, over "such a miniscule, insignificant affair."

Justice North went on to say about the ABCC, 'Using public resources to bring the bar down to this level really calls into question the exercise of the discretion to proceed.' My personal favourite is the half-a-million dollars the ABCC spent on a losing High Court appeal in the case about the CFMEU requesting that a women's bathroom be put on a work site. That they spent half-a-million dollars on the most absurd cases designed to bully and intimidate workers from organising or participating in union activity is astonishing.

This bill would also result in the building code being re-established. The laws made compliance with the building code mandatory for the building companies and contractors tendering for or performing government-funded work. What did companies have to comply with? The bill banned companies from having enterprise-containing provisions covering, for example, apprenticeship ratios on worksites. How about that? We have a housing crisis created by those opposite, and one of their brilliant ideas was to ban requirements for apprentices on construction sites. Now we have a shortage of skilled construction workers. Between 2012 and 2020, apprenticeship numbers dropped from 376,000 to 134,000. That's a 64 per cent decrease in apprenticeship numbers in eight years under those opposite. I can't blame it all on the building code, because those opposite also did a very good job of gutting our TAFE system. But the building code definitely played a major role. Next time you can't find a builder for a home, remember those opposite introduced a ban on agreements on apprenticeship numbers at worksites, which happened between employers and unions. Even in the midst of a housing crisis, they're trying to bring it back. Isn't it brilliant? How smart! Aren't they clever! Don't let a union-busting, workplace-busting, worker-busting policy get in the way of their ideology.

The code also made it illegal to have terms in contracts about job security and ensuring contractors or labour hire workers won't earn less than the same pay they would earn under the agreement. To put it simply, the code was about lower wages, lower conditions and lower standards in the industry, because the Liberals and Nationals are all about lower wages and lower conditions. They see an opportunity and they just can't help themselves. That's their deliberate economic plan. They have very few, but they have one very clear plan.

The Liberals and Nationals hate it when working people earn a fair day's wage for a fair day's work, but they particularly hate it when working Australians earn well in certain industries, like the construction, maritime or mining industries. What do these industries all have in common? They have a strong union presence. It turns out that, in industries where you have strong unions, workers get a better deal. The only thing the Liberals and Nationals hate more than wage rises is strong unions making those wage rises possible, because those opposite are put in this building by very specific vested interests. These vested interests are the reasons the Liberals and too many of the Nationals are so anti wages and anti workers.

Let's take Senator Bragg, whose contribution I was listening to. You don't have to dig deep to find Senator Bragg's vested interests. Before he was elected to the Senate, he was a policy director of a lobby group for the financial sector and he was a director of the Business Council—the lobby group for business. Those are the groups that put up Senator Bragg here. Now, on behalf of the Business Council, he spends all his time attacking unions and workers' rights. On behalf of the financial sector lobby, he spends the rest of his time attacking industry super funds. That's why we have the same old tired arguments about the ABCC this time. The only thing preventing those opposite from gutting the wages and conditions of construction workers again are the Labor Party and construction unions.

I look forward to the construction industry having a strong and effective union again, because we've made practical changes in this place to deal with the issues of concern that we all hold—the legislation that we had to drag people on the opposite side, kicking and screaming, to turn around and support. We had to drag them, regardless of the industry backing us and the good people in the union movement backing us. Unlike this mob opposite, the good employers, the good unions, the good workers, the good leadership and the people in the construction industry were backing the changes that we put in place. Yet those opposite came up with this half-baked, half-stupid and obviously completely intended attack on workers and unions.

To listen to Senator Bragg, the crypto kid, talk about what should be happening with superannuation is amusing, because Cbus wins award after award for its performance, its engagement and its results. It invests in the construction industry to make sure there are construction jobs, and heaven forbid that it might even expect those construction jobs to be safe. That's what those opposite are against. They're against not only the mission statement but also the practicalities of how safe workplaces come from proper investment.

I say this of the members of Cbus and others that invest in the construction industry and development. Those that are doing the right thing—and there are many companies out there that do—know the scoundrels they compete with. They're the mugs that those opposite turn around and support. That's the industry they want to drive us down to: one that's unsafe, has poor super arrangements and has poor contracting chains, and where supply chain, contractors and phoenixing is all over the place.

I have been in estimates time and time again and seen nothing done by the ABCC about wage theft and phoenixing of companies. I saw the horrendous nature of how they dealt with the hundreds of exploited Chinese workers in Tasmania. They were part of a deal with one player in the construction industry that's very close to those opposite and always speaks on their behalf. Guess what the ABCC did? They did nothing. They said they investigated and, regardless of the information and the public statements, when it came to prosecuting anybody, they dropped the prosecution. When they had an opportunity to right the wrongs for people that were exploited when they were brought into this country, they turned around and applauded the ABCC. They said what an effective organisation they were. They were defending them in estimates. They defend them in here. They defend them out there, because they are not about a fair playing field for good employers, not about a fair result for hard workers in this dirty, dangerous industry. I remember, when I think about the sixties and seventies, that is was the last industry you went into; you had to be desperate to go into that industry, because of the danger people were in. That's the industry that their policy will drive this back into. And do they care? Not one iota.

I know there are good people over there. But those good people are blinded by the ideology that drives them, about crushing the voice of working people. This is not about 22 individuals. This is about the idea of people having a voice in the construction industry and standing up. When that bill finally went through to make this industry better and put the administrator in, it was based on making sure there's still a voice in this industry—a voice for everybody, not just for somebody, not just the good players, not just the workers—and also make sure those bad employers are held to account.

I spent lots of years working in conjunction with the construction industry when I was, proudly, at the Transport Workers Union and with the owner-drivers who were getting ripped off time and time again by that construction industry—small business people who were putting their houses on the line, their trucking business on the line, not getting paid for months on end. Well, the actions taken by those workers, by those owner-drivers, in collective fights against some of those outrageous, bad employers and developers is something I stood by in those days, and I'll stand by it these days. If you don't turn around and have a strong workforce with good employers then you have the shonks, the rip-offs, the phoenixing—all the things that have made this industry the way it is. Don't forget: this industry environment is driven by that. That's what drives the problems we've had in this industry.

Now, we're taking care of the issues that we see as being important, that this Senate has supported, regarding making sure integrity is brought back into this industry. But put this bill they're putting forward into the dustbin. This is simply about going back to the bad old days. They just can't wait: 'Let's bring back the seventies!' 'Let's see the death rates increase!' 'Let's have less worker voice!' 'Let's let good employers rot!'— (Time expired)

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No. 2) and I thank Senator Michaelia Cash very much indeed for bringing the bill before the Senate to consider. It is a bill that ought to be supported by everyone in this place. I recognise the contribution of Senator Sheldon, someone I have a great deal of respect for. But I've got to say, in this instance he is wrong when he asserts that those on this side don't want to see workers represented in workplaces. There is a very legitimate role for unions in workplaces that operate according to the law and that operate in a respectful way in workplaces, and I think it would be hard to find anyone on this side who would disagree with that fact. But the assertion that we somehow don't want to see workers represented, see their rights represented in workplaces, is an absolute fallacy and an untruth, and it is not something that is really to the point of what this bill is about.

This bill is about restoring integrity on construction workplaces—worksites that, as Senator Sheldon was saying, are very dangerous. Obviously the environment of these construction sites requires safety and requires having measures in place to ensure that they do operate safely. But these workplaces have also had a history of involvement of a militant union, a corrupt union, that has been taking advantage of its workers and not properly representing them in the way they ought to—in a lawful, sound way. So this bill is about restoring that justice, restoring the proper operation and oversight of these workplaces to ensure that these workers are provided with protection and indeed that the Australian people can see the value of this, without the interference of unions, which would increase the costs of construction projects. This is important. It's a very good bill. It's a sound bill. It's a bill that ought to be, as I said, supported by everyone here in this place.

Senator Sheldon said that we were brought, kicking and screaming, to support the legislation on the administrator. That's another fallacy; that's another joke. It's a bit like a scene out of Monty Python—'nothing to see here; it's just a flesh wound'. The issues that have been occurring on these work sites across Australia are nothing to really—I'm going to take you through some of those instances of the thuggery and the corruption and the unlawfulness of the CFMEU that is occurring and has historically occurred over a long period of time. There are serious issues that need to be dealt, and so for Senator Sheldon to say we were dragged, kicking and screaming, to support that legislation—no; we wanted to actually fix your legislation. And we did.

The amendments brought into that administration bill were sound and are enabling the administrator to operate with the transparency and the powers that he needs to be able to root these issues out and to provide the administration that was obviously necessary. If we'd just let you ram the legislation through, if we'd let you get it through, we wouldn't have seen the unlawfulness dealt with, we wouldn't have seen the corruption dealt with, we wouldn't have seen the transparency that was needed back in this place dealt with. Through the amendments that we were able to bring, we brought some integrity, via that bill, to that administrator to ensure that it was able to operate with the powers that it needed.

Anyway, this bill deals with a discredited union, the CFMEU. The reason it's discredited, and I think this government is in many ways discredited, is because the abolition of the ABCC was the want and the wish of the CFMEU. It was one of the first pieces of legislation that came into this term of parliament. Once the Prime Minister was sworn in down there at Government House, one of the first things he did when we got back here, after the election, was to abolish the ABCC. It shows the government's priorities.

The ABCC was the fair cop on the beat. It ought to have had even more powers. Some of the things they say, like criminal investigations were not able to be seen all the way through, is because the ABCC didn't have those powers. This bill that Senator Cash has brought here actually gives those powers to the ABCC, provides the ABCC, or a future construction commission, to be able to prosecute issues so that they're properly dealt with.

Now, the Prime Minister was warned of these issues all the way back in 2022. The AFR reports that Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia, was told of union thuggery in 2022. There's an article in AFR. Then you have the Canberra Times saying that self-serving CFMEU leaders 'ruined the union'. That's what's happening. That's what we're seeing. That's what the Canberra Times is reporting. You see the AFR is also reporting that 'CFMEU deals put union in bed with bikies and the underworld'. An investigation reveals the relationships that have vaulted companies with links to criminals into favoured positions at the nation's building sites. It has to be dealt with. The Guardian reports that the 'CFMEU administrator moves for "clean sweep" of union superfund directors at Cbus'. It goes on and on and on and on.

The government pretend these issues that have been brought forward through that fantastic investigation by the Sydney Morning Herald and the Nine papers are news to them, that they've only just heard about it for the first time. They pretend that it's news, that this is a recent revelation. But we know that the work of the ABCC was revealing time and time again serious cases of unlawfulness, serious cases of thuggery, serious cases of intimidation on construction work sites across the country. These are not new issues. These are issues that workplaces have been dealing with, that construction companies have been dealing with and that the owners of these construction projects have been dealing with. They want to see the efficient delivery of their construction projects but, because of the interference, thuggery and unlawfulness that is occurring on worksites, they've seen increased costs. There is an opportunity for the government to own up to this and deal with it. The administrator is one thing—that's good—but we need to see the restoration of the ABCC. We need to see the restoration of integrity and a reduction in the cost of construction projects across this country.

We know why the government, those opposite, come in here and defend the CFMEU. It's because they get the donations. The rivers of gold that flow into their campaigns primarily flow—you only need to look at the AEC's donation records—from the CFMEU. It was $6.4 million, I believe, prior to the last election. That is an extraordinary sum of money. The Liberal Party does not get anywhere near that money from any business, any single organisation—nowhere near it. You are talking exponentially greater sums of money that come through. And we know that's how their preselections are dealt with. Senator Sheldon was talking about Senator Bragg as if his preselection was controlled by the BCA. That's just absurd. They're not members of the Liberal Party. That organisation is not intrinsically linked in the way the CFMEU is within the Australian Labor Party. The proposition is absolutely absurd. But we know that that's what's happening. We know that that is why the defence is run. We know why the protection racket is run. It's because the rivers of gold, their preselections and their positions in cabinet are determined by what union they're part of and what faction they're in. It's not even a question of a Left or Right ideological position; it's whether you're a Left union or a Right union that determines whether or not you're going to be on the front bench. It's ridiculous. That is why they come in here and defend this. That is why they come in here, Madam Acting Deputy President, and defend the CFMEU. It's because they are absolutely wedded and indebted to the CFMEU, and that needs to be dealt with.

When the Albanese government abolished the ABCC in 2022, Master Builders Australia warned:

There are no sound grounds to abolish the ABCC or divert from the long-standing bipartisan approach of maintaining special industrial relations laws for the building and construction industry.

They said:

The work of the ABCC is not yet done and its removal will undo the significant improvements it has delivered for our building and construction industry.

MBA also found that, between 2016 and January 2022, '80 per cent of the ABCC's litigations involved some form of unlawful industrial action'. It said:

The ABCC has been influential in changing behaviour and upholding the law in the industry, especially given widespread exposures to various forms of industrial action (almost 70% of construction businesses surveyed had experienced industrial action in the past four years).

Despite this—despite a key industry stakeholder telling the government what the consequences would be if it removed the ABCC from the building and construction landscape—the government still went ahead and abolished it.

As I said, the consequences of that are that we have unlawful behaviour continuing, but we also have increased costs imposed upon building and construction sites right across the country. That means hospitals are more expensive to build. It means that roads, bridges, freeways and tunnels are more expensive to build. It means that train lines are more expensive to build. It means that schools are more expensive to build. Who pays for that? The Australian people pay for it. The taxpayers of this country are paying for that. The costs of construction projects like residential construction and high-rise buildings, which we desperately need to address the housing crisis, have gone up. Costs are up. Why? It's because of the corruption and the impositions that are put on these projects for often frivolous issues, like the right contractor not being selected and so the CFMEU get in there and disrupt it to make sure that their friends and their contract end up with the project. These are the sorts of things that go on and they've been going on forever. And those opposite act like it's the first time you are hearing about it. But this is a major issue.

Those opposite tell us that the ABCC only dealt with frivolous issues. They tell us that they only dealt with minor issues that really were wasting the time of the regulator and wasting the time of the CFMEU. Let me read out just one case. In Senate estimates, we asked about a particular case that was before the ABCC before it was abolished. It was in relation to a $428,250 fine that was imposed for breaches of workplace laws at the Adelaide Airport. We asked if we could get a little bit of information about this, and let me read into Hansard what the ABCC said to us in estimates:

The decision was handed down by the Federal Court on 13 August 2021, penalising the CFMMEU and six officials $428,250 for making misrepresentations about the requirement to show entry permits, refusing to follow directions and acting in an improper manner during the $165 million redevelopment of terminal 1 at Adelaide Airport. In that case, the court found that while on site, two officials, Desmond Savage and Te Aranui Albert, repeatedly abused a construction employee, with one or both saying, 'Eff you, I'm not dealing with you,' 'You're an effing waste of space,' 'He's a piece of shit,' 'You're an effing idiot'—

And, now that the ABCC's gone, those sorts of practices are able to continue in workplaces across Australia without any cop on the beat dealing with that sort of nonsense, often against women and inspectors in workplaces, and this lot over here stand in the way of the ABCC being restored. (Time expired)

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a fascinating debate we're having here. I'm sorry to see that Senator O'Sullivan can only manage to find one example in the seven-year history of the ABCC where it did something that was of note. I rise to, not surprisingly, speak in strong opposition to this so-called restoring integrity bill. The Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 (No. 2) represents a significant step, you might even say a leap, backwards. It seeks to revive a discredited, politically motivated agenda that we have seen play out over many, many years. It is a clear attempt to reignite these old ideological battles at the expense of Australian workers because those opposite just cannot bear them.

Senator Bragg has been telling us this morning that there should be an inquiry to look into this bill. Well, most of what is in this bill—if not absolutely everything—has been prosecuted ad nauseam through Senate estimates for more than seven years by Labor senators. We have prosecuted the reality of what was happening at the ABCC and the absurd actions of the ABCC at estimates session after estimates session. If Senator Bragg's looking for something to do on the weekend, he might want to sit down with some of those transcripts and see what the facts around what was actually going on with that useless organisation are.

Let's be clear what this bill actually aims to do. It proposes to re-establish the ABCC. We abolished it. The Albanese Labor government abolished it proudly, alongside the unnecessary and punitive building code. The ABCC was never about ensuring integrity or reducing costs. It was about wielding power against unions. That's it. It was about attacking the unions and discrediting workers. The hard-won rights of workers in this country should be protected. But all those opposite did in the nine years that they were in government was attack them, and they used the ABCC as the battering ram with which to do that.

As for some of the commentary over there about protection rackets and such like, I want to put on the record that I will stand in this place every single day and defend unions—defend the right of workers in this country to be a member of the union and for those unions to fight for those workers' rights, to stand up for the safety and wellbeing and the wages of workers across this country in every industry. And that includes the CFMEU. So here's a shout-out to all those people in the CFMEU who have never done a corrupt thing in their life, who have never bullied or harassed anyone. Here's a shout-out to those people who are working hard, in an industry that is tough, to protect the workers in that industry. I do not stand for any corruption, abuse or harassment, but I assure you the majority of the people in the CFMEU do not fall into that category.

The ABCC's track record speaks for itself. It was far more concerned with punishing workers and unions than ever addressing any of the real issues that we see out there, such as wage theft and safety standards—none of that. There was the laser focused obsession with trivial matters, wasting taxpayers' money—thousands and thousands of taxpayers' money spent pursuing idiotic issues like stickers on hats or people having a cup of tea, and also pursuing the CFMEU over trying to get toilets for women on a worksite. Come on! Seriously? No wonder you're all looking down. This is just ridiculous. You're trying to bring back an ideological battle that doesn't need to be had. It doesn't need to be had.

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

Why did you put them in administration?

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I'm going to take that interjection, Senator Brockman, I am going to take that interjection. You are taking one issue and smearing it across a whole range of unnecessary pieces. Yes, we did bring in administration. We brought in administration to deal with one specific issue that's going on right now that needs to be fixed because we won't stand for corruption. We will not stand for corruption in any area, and not in the union movement. So that is why we brought in administration. But you do not get to tar the entire CFMEU with that same brush. You just don't. It's deeply unfair and wrong—wrong, Senator Brockman.

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

You put them into administration.

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

Senator Brockman, your side have been listened to in silence. I'd appreciate it if you could control yourself and let Senator Grogan have her say.

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

I shall.

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

Thank you. Senator Grogan.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've seen plenty of criticism of the ABCC. As I've said, there are years and years and years worth of Senate estimates transcripts on this issue. The kinds of cases, the minor cases that I was talking about, were not addressing those significant problems that we see. They were not addressing the substantive issues on the ground—nothing, nothing at all. It was just an ideological waste of time and money.

The ABCC ran for seven years, and in that time it recovered just $5.9 million in unpaid wages. In contrast, the Fair Work Ombudsman, an institution much better suited to the role, managed to recover over half a billion dollars a year across two years. That is a billion dollars recovered by the Fair Work Ombudsman and $5.9 million recovered by the ABCC. Seriously? What a waste of time! So, yes, we abolished it. We are very, very proud of that.

In those seven years, there were headlines, there were arguments about stickers on hats, there were arguments about cups of tea, there was concern about trying to put women's bathrooms on worksites for the growing number of women that we have in the construction industry—and they are doing a fine job, too. Not one thing did the ABCC or the coalition government, when they were in power, do to deal with any criminal activity in certain parts of the CFMEU. They're all standing up here this morning, all the coalition people, one by one, telling us about criminal activity and bagging out the CFMEU in its totality, not just in the areas that there may be some wrongdoing in, but not once did they do anything about any criminal activity. They can stand there and bag us out for whatever they like. The facts—

Debate interrupted.