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

I rise to speak on the coalition's bill to remove criminals from worksites, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2). This is a bill that we brought to the parliament in 2017, when we were in government. And guess what? Despite all of the rhetoric from Mr Albanese now and despite every answer in question time that Senator Wong gives saying, 'The Labor government is taking the strongest action ever against the CFMEU,' do you know what happened in 2017, colleagues? When we were in government, the then Labor opposition voted against this bill. Had they voted for this bill—guess what?—some seven years later we would've had the ability to take criminals off worksites.

But it doesn't stop there. We were so committed as a government to cleaning up the construction industry in Australia that, despite the then Labor opposition voting against a bill, in 2017, that removed criminals from worksites in Australia, we brought it back to the parliament in 2019. And, again, what did the then opposition do? Well, it's not law today, so they could only have done one thing—that is, voted against the bill.

The bill that we bring before the Senate today is a very simple one. Who in Australia does not believe that we should have the powers to remove criminals from worksites? On what basis would an opposition, the Labor opposition, and now a Labor government that claims it is taking the strongest action possible against the CFMEU—no-one believes that; we'll go through that shortly—not support a bill that again is all about removing criminals from worksites?

I'd say any Australian listening in to this today would say: 'Hold on. I'm a little confused. Are you saying that criminals are allowed on worksites?' On what planet do we have a country where criminals are allowed to go on worksites? Not only can they go onto worksites; by law they are given a right-of-entry permit, which says, 'You are entitled to go onto a worksite.' Quite frankly, the Australia we live in was created by the Labor opposition who, in 2017 and again in 2019, not only didn't support this bill but pulled their second reading speeches. I tell you, Senator McKenzie and Senator Birmingham, they are fascinating to read. The justification for believing that criminals should be allowed on worksites—the protection racket for those members of the CFMEU who have been wreaking havoc on worksites for years and years—is laughable. They should be hanging their heads in shame.

Let's jump forward to 2024. When the Fairfax newspapers printed what is now known to have been going on for a very long time—that there is bullying, thuggery and intimidation on Australian construction sites; that basically they've been taken over by the underworld of the CFMEU—the Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Albanese, in July this year, stood up and said to the Australian people, 'I am shocked and surprised.' I have to say—

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

Surprised that they were found out.

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

Yes—surprised that someone was finally printing this—

Opposition senators interjecting—

That's exactly right. I was shocked and surprised, seriously, at Mr Albanese's reaction. Good grief! But do you know who was shocked and surprised even more? A CFMEU whistleblower named Andrew Quirk. Do you know why he was surprised and shocked at what Mr Albanese, as Prime Minister of this country, said to the Australian people? Remember, Mr Albanese was asked, 'When did you first find out about the allegations of bullying, thuggery, intimidation and harassment, but, more than that, that underworld figures controlled the CFMEU and the construction industry in Australia?' Mr Quirk was quite surprised that Mr Albanese was shocked and surprised and had only found out about it recently, because Mr Quirk had met with Mr Albanese in 2014. And Mr Albanese has not denied that that meeting occurred.

In fact, the CFMEU sacked Mr Quirk as a result of his going public with what was going on in the construction industry of Australia. He has now been vindicated in the courts, but it's taken years and years because he has been pursued every single step of the way by the CFMEU. Mr Quirk is on the record. He's even happy to have his name across the papers in Australia saying: 'Hold on, I met with the now Prime Minister of Australia in 2014. I told him of the bullying, thuggery, intimidation and harassment, but, more than that, that I had concerns that Mick Gatto'—Google Mick Gatto, anyone listening in on this debate—

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's part of the furniture.

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

He's part of the furniture—that's exactly right—in the CFMEU, who run the construction sites in Australia. Do you know why Andrew Quirk met with the Prime Minister, the then shadow minister for infrastructure? Because he was worried about his family, his wife and kids, and the threats that had been made to him—that is, if he dared expose what was going on in the Australian Labor Party and the CFMEU and the protection racket that they were running in relation to the underworld controlling the construction industry in Australia. As yesterday's editorial in the Australian said, 'The stench of CFMEU dealings is getting stronger for the ALP.'

That's the last decade. Despite what Mr Albanese says, read the comments online. It doesn't matter whether it's a News Corp or Fairfax newspaper now. Nobody believes what is coming out of the Prime Minister's mouth. I think, though, that they're going to believe Andrew Quirk before they believe the Prime Minister.

There is also the undisputed fact that $6.2 million was funnelled directly, in fact openly given, by the CFMEU, the most militant union in Australia—and that's not me talking but the High Court of Australia—to the Australian Labor Party since Mr Albanese became the Labor leader. Nobody believes what Labor is a saying when they stand up in question time and in press conferences—it's now just rolling off their tongues—and give the talking points they've been provided. They think that if they keep saying Mr Albanese is taking tough action against the CFMEU—'the strongest action ever'—then someone in Australia might believe them. Well, the bad news is that people just don't.

But you see, Mr Albanese has an opportunity to say, 'In 2019 and 2017 we voted against the then coalition government's attempts to pass legislation'—and I say 'attempts' because we did not have the numbers in the Australian Senate, by a long way. The Labor Party stands up and says, 'But you did nothing when you were in government.' The reason we were unable to pass legislation was that the Australian Labor Party didn't just vote against it but also railed against us across Australia every single step of the way. They say we did nothing. But as a coalition government we were so concerned with what was going on in the construction sector that in 2016 we dissolved the parliament. That is a huge call for a government to make. We dissolved parliament and went to a double dissolution election on two bills that, again, the Australian Labor Party, in opposition, opposed every step of the way.

The first of these bills was to make sure there was a tough cop on the beat to hold the construction sector to account, which they opposed every step of the way, as well as to clean up registered organisations. And guess what? Despite everything the Labor Party threw at us, the Australian people backed us in. They voted, in a double dissolution election, to put us back in. I was the minister at the time, and the Labor Party made it very clear to me up-front, 'Not only are we not going to support you; we are going to work against you every single step of the way.' But the crossbench at the time—and I think we needed up to 10 crossbenchers—understood (a) that the Australian people wanted to clean up the construction industry in Australia and (b) that if the Labor Party wasn't going to assist in doing that then they would need to. So, without the need for a joint sitting, we managed to get through this Senate the restoration of the tough cop on the beat and the cleaning up of registered organisations in Australia. And the Labor Party says we did nothing!

We also brought to the parliament a number of bills to keep the criminals off worksites. The Labor Party refused to support these bills. And look at everything that's currently going on within Incolink and Cbus. Another bill we brought to the parliament was a bill to protect workers entitlements—in other words, to ensure that workers' money could be used by the unions only for matters that benefited the workers. And now we're seeing with Incolink and with Cbus the exploitation of members'—workers'—money by the CFMEU. But, again, Labor couldn't have cared less. I mean, when you're receiving $6.2 million you need to protect those who are providing you with the funds!

Let's have a look, though. They say we're attacking unions with this bill. Well, we're not. The last time I checked, this is a bill to ensure that criminals are not allowed on worksites, and it applies to registered organisations. I don't care whether you're an employer organisation or an employee organisation. You should not be able to be on a worksite if you have been convicted of a crime. It is as simple as that. The law, as we speak today, is deficient. It is allowing people who have been convicted of crimes to go onto worksites. That is absolutely unacceptable. What this bill will do is to clean that up.

There is one official who is actually a convicted drug dealer. He was given a right-of-entry permit. On what planet does the law allow for a convicted drug dealer to be given a right-of-entry permit, which gives that official significant rights and privileges to enter a worksite and undertake certain actions? Well, it's the planet whereby Anthony Albanese, as Prime Minister of Australia, refuses to change the law. This bill will give the Federal Court the power to say no. This bill will give the Fair Work Commission the power to say no. Why? Because it says that if you are convicted of a crime you do not get to enter a worksite.

For those who are driving in their cars or listening at home: I would have thought you would get onto your local member of parliament, or write to Anthony Albanese or pick up the phone to his office and say: 'Mr Albanese we are sick and tired of you and the Australian Labor Party just talking. For once can you do what is in the best interests of the Australian people, the best interests of the construction industry, the best interest of the employees in the construction industry and vote for a bill which, in its simplicity, removes criminals from worksites.'

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

I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2). It's clear from this morning's stunt and the stunt last week that those opposite have no real ideas on how to clean up the construction industry, an industry where wage theft, sham contracting and industrial manslaughter are rife. There are no ideas from the Liberal and National parties to deal with construction workers being mugged by their employers or dying or being maimed on worksites. All we have had before us from those opposite is a rehash of the discredited, disgraced Australian Building and Construction Commission and, today, a rehash of the ensuring integrity bill—a bill that was so toxic that even when those opposite were in government they failed to pass it through the Senate not once but on three separate occasions. It shows how utterly devoid of ideas those opposite are.

Across the entirety of the opposition benches you can count the number of policies they've come up with on one hand: policy 1, uncosted and unmodelled nuclear power; policy 2, raiding everyone's superannuation for everything and anything—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sheldon, I have a point of order. Senator Scarr?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy President, whilst I can understand Senator Sheldon doesn't want to talk about the CFMEU, I query the relevance of nuclear power to this debate in relation to registered organisations.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a reasonable amount of latitude in second readers, and the point I think Senator Sheldon is trying to make is about this bill in a suite of policies. But I'll listen carefully, Senator Scarr.

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

Thank you, Deputy President. Senator Scarr might learn something here, because this is about their other farcical policies. There's policy 3, the $315 billion of cuts to essential services—only they won't tell us what they're going to cut; and policy 4, their never-ending war on unions and working Australians. That, Senator Scarr, is what you're onto today and what you were doing last week. It's a farcical attempt to turn around from the policies you don't have and make sure there's a war on unions and working Australians. I've never seen an opposition that wants to be in government with more ridiculous and offensive policies than those opposite. This rehash of the ensuring integrity bill is part of that fourth policy, opposition leader Mr Dutton's never-ending war on workers.

Let's take a step back and look at what Mr Dutton and the Liberals and Nationals are doing in their war on workers. First of all, they have opposed every single wage increase that this government has fought for. Under Labor the minimum wage has increased by 19 per cent across the three annual wage reviews. A 19 per cent pay increase for our lowest paid workers in three years is unprecedented. Those opposite have repeatedly opposed those increases. Yes, Senator Scarr, those people opposite me have opposed those increases. Who can forget former prime minister Morrison saying a $1 increase was reckless and dangerous for those on low pay? That's what this is about. That's what they're about. They're making sure that working people have less of a voice. Who can forget former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce saying Labor's minimum wage rises of $110 are just window dressing? Say that to those low-paid workers. What this is really about is a war on workers.

We've seen the shadow Treasurer opposing our workplace reforms because he was terrified that they would 'push up wages'. That's what they're opposed to, not the rubbish we just heard in the opening speech. What they're opposed to is the opportunity for people to actually get a fair earning, as we saw earlier this year, when Senator Cash, the shadow workplace minister, had a letter leaked to the press. In that letter she described getting rid of the better-off-overall test as a good idea that aligns strongly with the coalition's approach. We know that getting rid of the better-off-overall test would mean pay cuts for millions of workers. They just can't get enough.

Just this week we saw Senator Hume's train-wreck interview on Insiders, where she kept saying the quiet bit out loud. She promised the coalition would get rid of the right to disconnect to make sure that not only would people be earning less under Mr Dutton but they'd also be working longer hours for nothing. She promised the coalition would gut our changes to make casual work more secure, because the only thing the Liberals and Nationals hate as much as wage rises is job security. Lastly she promised a review of the same job, same pay. It sounds more like the targeted packages of repeals that the shadow Treasurer let slip on Insiders in February. I should commend Insiders because, every time a member of the opposition frontbench goes on there, they let slip another workplace right they plan to kill off.

This gives you a flavour of Mr Dutton's war on working Australians. His plan is to have you working longer for less, and this dog's breakfast of a bill is the latest element of that war. This bill rehashes a bill that those opposite couldn't get through the Senate on three occasions when they were last in government. There was an excellent Senate inquiry into the ensuring integrity bill back in 2019, with a dissenting report that did an excellent job of highlighting what an atrocity that bill was. The bill effectively creates grounds to disqualify union officials and deregister entire unions on the basis of minor and unintentional breaches of the law and gives the types of laws Mr Dutton would introduce for our workplaces, for example—

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unintentional? Come on, Tony!

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

I'd suggest that Senator Scarr listen to some more of this speech because he might learn something. If you listen, you might even do the right thing. Making it an offence to fly a Eureka flag or have a union sticker on your hat—you can see where this is going. You know where they're at. It gives Mr Dutton a blank cheque to deregister trade unions on a whim on the most ridiculous grounds. That's what they're up to. As the Centre for Future Work noted in its submission to the ensuring integrity bill:

When union activities that would be considered both normal and legitimate in most countries are prohibited (including things like organising strikes, encouraging workers to join, collecting dues, protesting, opposing employer measures deemed unfair, displaying union symbols and flags, and so on), a perverse and self-fulfilling dynamic is set in motion: by defining normal union activity as criminal, unions automatically become criminal organisations, thus seemingly justifying still further intrusions, restrictions, and penalties.

What they're really after is normal activities. It's not what they're trying to put up here, what they're lying about and what they're misrepresenting. They're actually about normal activities. That's the scope of what they're doing in this bill.

It's plain as day what the strategy is here, isn't it? It's to make basic trade union activities illegal and make breaking those laws grounds to deregister the entire union. The breaches of the law, as the ensuring integrity inquiry heard, could be as minor as paperwork mistakes. The dissenting report reads:

For example, the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation … Tasmanian branch, which is a small organisation that has difficulty with the current level of regulatory burden imposed on them, is often struggling to meet reporting deadlines. The penalties for non-compliance and the threat of deregistration are far too heavy handed …

The CEO, Ms Lara Giddings, told the inquiry:

… We are only a very small union body—in fact, we have around 336 members of our union here in Tasmania—and we have an annual budget of around $3,300.

…   …   …

The reality is that a budget of $3,300 per annum doesn't even cover the cost of my role as executive director. We have a conjoint agreement with AMA Tasmania to provide these services …

This is not uncommon. In fact, many unions rely on volunteers to help with the administration function of the union. UnionsACT secretary Alex White told the ensuring integrity inquiry back in 2019 that the ACT had 33,000 union members and 24 unions affiliated with UnionsACT. He said:

… All of the unions affiliated with UnionsACT have active rank-and-file member involvement in the governance of their unions. The vast majority of these members are volunteers and receive no remuneration.

So, how can you possibly make the case that a paperwork mistake by a volunteer should result in the disqualification or deregistration of the entire union? It shows the intent of those opposite is really to finish off the job they have been working on for decades and to kill trade unions altogether. So, there's the issue of ridiculous penalties for minor breaches.

Then there's the issue of ridiculous penalties for justified breaches. Since before Federation, unions have been at the forefront of fighting for safer workplaces. At times, that has involved activity that would now be considered illegal. Take, for example, evidence given to the ensuring integrity inquiry by the then national secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, Paul Bastian. As the dissenting report says, he:

… gave evidence that in the history of that union, it had been necessary to take industrial action that would now be considered unprotected, and under this bill would be grounds for deregistration of the union and disqualification of its officers, in order to secure compensation entitlements from James Hardie in instances where workers and members of the public developed debilitating and fatal disease after exposure to asbestos.

Mr Bastian told the inquiry:

On 21 December, after a concerted campaign, James Hardie finally reached … agreement with the ACTU, Unions New South Wales, victims groups represented by the tireless Bernie Banton and the New South Wales government. We had secured … uncapped compensation for victims of asbestos … $4.5 billion into a compensation fund that was originally only given $293 million. We achieved justice because unions and victims groups engaged in an escalating series of protests, work stoppages, work bans, boycotts, marches, investor activism and intensive political lobbying. It is beyond question that this campaign for sufferers of asbestos diseases made Australia a better, safer and more just place.

Those opposite tried to introduce laws to criminalise campaigning against asbestos or campaigning against engineered stone. We saw that before. Those opposite even make the lawyer who proudly defended asbestos companies, Julie Bishop, their deputy leader. Ms Bishop was passionate about denying access to compensation to victims who were dying from asbestos exposure. She was just as passionate as Mr Dutton is now about making campaigning against issues like asbestos grounds for closing entire unions.

The ensuring integrity inquiry also heard from Charles McKay from the Transport Workers Union and how he took unprotected industrial action to save the lives of transport workers. He said:

In the cash-in-transit industry it's pretty obvious that we carry guns, because obviously what we carry is sought after by a lot of other people in the community. Unfortunately, we had a spate of attacks around 1994-95—and again in the early 2000s … We had a lot of concern, certainly, from the workers and, more importantly, from their families. You've got to remember that if families see somebody killed they don't want their husband to go out there the next day and be the one who is delivering money and who comes home in a bag.

We had a series of meetings with the companies. Bear in mind that we were meeting with our company and that our members at Brambles were meeting with their company. We basically tried to have some meetings about safety and some of the issues surrounding the incidents. To cut a long story short, we went on an eight- or nine-day strike.

… in my 25 years as a senior delegate with Armaguard we never ever took strike action for one dollar in wages; it was only over safety and security for our members … Our members were fearful of going out for their jobs. We were doing it for a safety strike. We had a situation where the main clients of both our companies were financial institutions and their only concern was that the money be delivered on the day and time that they required. They were set times and set days, so all you had to do was follow a truck out of a yard and follow him on his rounds, because the bank or financial institution had said, 'We want this at eight,' or, 'We want this at 10.' The whole thing was focusing not on safety but on getting huge amounts of money to financial institutions.

…   …   …

The eight- or nine-day strike was an unprotected action, but our members basically were scared to go out without proper safety conditions. Conditions changed after that.

So we're looking at action that, under this bill, could see the entire union deregistered; that is, the integrity bill that has been put up previously by those opposite. And it wasn't even about money. It wasn't about new contracts or saving the lives of people who were literally being hunted and murdered by armed gangs.

The last point I will make, about how offensive and absurd this bill is, is about the different way Mr Dutton wants to treat unions and big businesses. Unions are not the equivalent of big businesses. They are not-for-profit, they are small and they are overseen by elected officials—many of whom are volunteers. Those opposite have smacked them time and time again with restrictions and regulations far beyond the highest-paid directors of the biggest businesses in the country. Take their mate Alan Joyce—someone who oversaw the largest illegal outsourcing in Australian history. There is absolutely nothing stopping Mr Joyce becoming a CEO or director at any other large company. Take the executives of the largest companies, like BHP, CBA and Woolworths—all of whom have been caught engaging in massive wage theft cases. There is nothing stopping their highly-paid executives continuing in their jobs or getting jobs elsewhere. This bill should be, rightly, rejected a fourth time.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We heard from Senator Sheldon a lot about many things but nothing about the unlawful activities of the CFMEU—and that gives the game away. For 15 minutes Senator Sheldon provided us with rhetoric that didn't even mention once, didn't admit once, that our construction sites across Australia, where our schools are being built, hospitals are being built, highways are being built and new housing is being built—which we desperately need—are rife with intimidation, bullying, harassment and corruption due to the activities of the CFMEU construction division. Senator Sheldon didn't mention it once—not a single time.

When this bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2), was first introduced by the coalition—or reintroduced, I should say—in 2019, in my first year in this place, we heard 39,000 words from the Labor Party in opposing this legislation. The reasons for this legislation were proven to be correct by the most recent events concerning the CFMEU, which the government has had to place into administration. In 2019, when we had this debate, in approximately 39,000 words those opposite in the Labor Party could only mention the CFMEU once—and that was probably a mistake. They mentioned the CFMEU once in 39,000 words. They talk about every other union—the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Transport Workers Union, the associated salary medical officers union in Tasmania—but not the CFMEU. Why? Because the CFMEU is the problem. The CFMEU construction division is the problem. The TWU is not the problem. The AMWU is not the problem. The associated salary medical officers union is not the problem. The problem is the construction division of the CFMEU.

Senator Sheldon talks about workplace health and safety. In my home state of Queensland, the workplace health and safety inspectors had to take protected industrial action so that they didn't have to go onto CFMEU controlled worksites—employees of the government regulator, the workplace health and safety inspectors. That's how bad it is in my home state of Queensland.

During the last sitting I referred to a very brave lady, Ms Tammie Palmer, whose son Ben committed suicide after coming home from a CFMEU controlled worksite. He was wearing the wrong T-shirt. This young man—a young Indigenous man, a First Nations man, who loved working in the construction industry—made the mistake of wearing the wrong T-shirt. So the CFMEU officials bullied him into a shed, where he stayed for a number of hours, and then his mental health went into a devastating decline, and he committed suicide that night. His mother has gone on the record talking about the effect of the bullying of the CFMEU.

So, don't come into this place and talk as if this is all about the CFMEU raising flags and doing this and that and there's nothing to be seen here. That is totally disingenuous. There's a major problem on our construction worksites. We see the economic cost in that the cost of building anything in this country has gone up by 30 or 40 per cent, and all of us suffer, because we don't get the hospitals, the schools and the highways that the Australian population needs, all because of the activities of the CFMEU construction division. And there's the human cost in terms of people like Ben, who took his own life after a day's work on a CFMEU controlled worksite.

Or, how's this? Geoffrey Watson SC, a renowned Australian expert on anticorruption—totally independent from our side of politics, and well regarded—released an interim report on allegations against the CFMEU in Victoria. Senator Sheldon didn't mention that once. We'll see if Senator Bilyk mentions the interim report by Geoffrey Watson SC in relation to allegations against the CFMEU in Victoria. Listen to this:

…the Victorian branch has been caught up in a cycle of lawlessness, where violence was an accepted part of the culture, and threats of violence were a substitute for reasoned negotiations

Those aren't my words. Those are the words of an independent senior counsel who's completed an interim report into the CFMEU. Senator Sheldon didn't mention it once. I'm sure Senator Bilyk's not going to mention it. I'll be impressed if she does. But I'm sure that, like everyone else in this place, she's got her driving instructions. I'll see if she does mention it.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through the chair, Senator Scarr.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll see if the Greens mention it. On 30 June 2021—listen to this—

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk?

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

A point of order: I think Senator Scarr is maligning me.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure that's a point of order, but I did direct Senator Scarr to direct his comments through the chair, recognising that it is disorderly to be shouting across the chamber at each other. So, I will re-remind him of that now. Senator Scarr, please direct your comments through the chair. You have the call.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I'm sure Senator Bilyk can take it. But listen to this, from Geoffrey Watson SC. And it is not a politician who is saying this. It is a senior counsel who is saying this, in relation to his investigation of the CFMEU: 'On 30 June 2021 two Victorian branch organisers were bashed at a site in Hawthorn East. It was a serious attack. One of the organisers lost sight in an eye. I was told by a senior official that the Victorian branch did not engage with the police but instead went to'—guess who!—'Mr Gatto to negotiate.' We go to an underworld figure to negotiate. That's the way of the CFMEU—when one of their organisers lost sight in an eye on a construction worksite. This is what Geoffrey Watson SC says, not me:

From my investigation, it appeared to me that, in this cycle of intimidation and violence, the CFMEU had lost control.

… on the information available to me, I consider that the Victorian branch has been infiltrated by OMCG and by organised crime figures.

You didn't hear any of that from Senator Sheldon. We'll see if we hear any of it from the Greens or anyone else on the Labor side. He said, 'infiltrated by outlaw motorcycle gangs'. When Senator Sheldon talks about flags being displayed, as if you're just attacking them because of flags, these aren't flags. They're the equivalent of the colours of an outlaw motorcycle gang. They go around with Hell's Angels on their back. That's what it's all about—bullying, intimidation, staking ground and corruption.

This is what Geoffrey Watson SC says: 'In witness interviews, officials commonly referred to giving enterprise bargaining agreements to entities rather than entering into enterprise bargaining agreements with entities. In the words of one senior official, "We want to unionise the industry; that's our job." I understand that certain kinds of EBAs hold special value. One organiser told me that an Indigenous labour hire agreement was a licence to print money and a gold mine. I'm aware of EBAs entered into between the CFMEU and entities connected with underworld figure Faruk Orman. I'm also aware of evidence that EBAs could be in effect transferred through the sale of an entity, thus giving the EBA a trading value.' That's the mentality of the CFMEU. That's the mentality you're dealing with here. They have an enterprise bargaining agreement which has value. They will give it to a company or entity—it's not about the workers—which in this case was connected with an underworld figure, and then that company or the shareholders can sell to another company and crystallise the value of that EBA. That's the scam that was going on. It's absolutely outrageous. The workers are at the bottom of the heap in these practices. It's absolutely outrageous.

I want to talk about some of the sections in this bill, because this bill contains a number of provisions which mean that it wouldn't be the decision of politicians to actually take away the right of someone to be an official in a union like the CFMEU. It's actually up to the court. You didn't hear back from Senator Sheldon. This is about rule of law—something the CFMEU doesn't recognise. The CFMEU doesn't recognise rule of law. The High Court said that. They're the most recidivist union in Australia's history. They don't care. It's a cost of doing business. But this bill recognises the rule of law. It is only if an official of a union has been found to have committed a particular offence or contempt of court; engaged in some other sort of criminal finding or contempt; engaged in multiple failures to prevent contraventions by an organisation; committed some other impropriety; or are not fit and proper because they've been found to have engaged in fraud, dishonesty, misrepresentation or concealment of material, facts or a breach of duty that a application can be made to the court. Then the Federal Court decides what should be done.

I want to read this section, because this is very important. 'Under the bill being proposed by my good friend Senator Cash, the decision as to whether someone can be an official in a union like the CFMEU after they have committed certain offences or contempt or have engaged in some other egregious behaviour is made by the court.' Isn't that the way the system is meant to work? In rule of law, the court makes the decision. In section 222 subsection (2), the Federal Court may make an order disqualifying the person from holding office in an organisation for the period the court considers appropriate. It's if the court is satisfied that the ground for disqualification set out in the application applies to the person—they have been found criminal or in contempt or have shown some other egregious behaviour—and the court does not consider it would be unjust to disqualify the person, having regard to the nature of the matters constituting the ground, the circumstances and nature of the person's involvement and any other matters the considers relevant.

So the court has absolute discretion to decide whether or not someone, given their criminal record, given their past behaviour or given them being found in contempt of court, should be disqualified. Even in that situation, under the bill presented by Senator Cash and under the principles of the rule of law, the Federal Court receives an application that someone should be disqualified for a nominated period, and then the court considers all the facts. The court considers whether or not there are any other relevant circumstances. The court considers the nature of the matters which have led to the application, including, no doubt, the seriousness of the offence. The court considers the circumstances around that person's involvement in the matters: Were they a driving force? Were they simply a bystander? This is all up to the court, and the court can consider any other matters it considers relevant. It's entirely up to the judge who's sitting there considering the evidence, including the evidence from someone who's making an application that a person or a registered organisation be disqualified and the evidence from the other party who's defending that application and seeking not to be disqualified. The judge considers it. The judge makes the decision and considers the seriousness of the matters. The judge considers all the circumstances, including how intimately involved the person was in relation to the relevant activity—whether or not they were the motivating force or along for the ride. The judge considers all this. It's not politicians; it's the judge. That's what this bill provides. It provides rule of law, something which the CFMEU thumb their noses at. They don't care about rule of law; they just steamroll over the top of it.

Our highest court in the land, the High Court, has called the CFMEU out in relation to this. What is objectionable with a bill that says if someone commits a criminal offence and has been found guilty or if someone has been found to have committed fraud, dishonesty or some other egregious behaviour then an appropriate person can make an application to the court that this person not hold a senior position in a union, which gives them all sorts of rights, including right of entry? That person has a right to defend themselves, either personally or through their union, and then the court decides whether or not they should be deregistered or disqualified. The court decides, and there's no limitation on the discretion of the court. The court can consider any evidence that's relevant to the matter, and then it's up to the court. How could you possibly object to that?

This isn't about government making decisions that people should be disqualified or that a registered organisation should be deregistered. It's up to the court. That's the process we should have. These serious matters should be dealt with by the court. How can you seriously object to that? However, I have no doubt that those sitting on the government benches will continue to defend the indefensible, and that itself should send a message to the Australian people: when it comes to choosing between the interests of the Australian people and the CFMEU, that side, that mob, will choose the CFMEU.

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

If there's one thing I'll give the opposition credit for it's their ingenuity when it comes to naming bills. Even when they're pushing the boundaries of legislative overreach, like they are with this bill, they come up with an innocuous title like 'removing criminals from worksites', a title that expresses a sentiment that's hard to argue with but also belies the true intent of this bill. At the same time as those opposite pretend to be friends of Australian workers, they are introducing the most extreme antiworker legislation. They claim they want to clean up Australia's building and construction industry, but the reality is they are using their response to the bullying and thuggery in one industry as a Trojan horse for an ideological attack on all workers.

The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2) is basically the fourth iteration of the coalition's ensuring integrity bill, another bill innocuously named to make it sound like they're doing workers and the union movement a favour. In the other three attempts at introducing the ensuring integrity bill, it was clear to the rest of the parliament that this was an ideologically motivated attack on workers and the trade union movement. History shows that the Liberals and Nationals have never liked the trade union movement. They've never liked workers being able to assert their rights at work or collectively organise to demand better pay and conditions. This is, after all, the coalition that engineered the 1998 waterfront dispute, conspiring with big business to sack a union workforce and replace them with industrial mercenaries. It's the coalition that introduced Work Choices. When last in government, the coalition were confronted with their poor record on wage growth, and they revealed that low wages were a deliberate design feature of their economic policies. They wanted to keep wages low. The coalition of Work Choices and the coalition of dogs and balaclavas on the docks is also the coalition of deliberately suppressing wage growth for Australian workers.

Now in opposition they have the gall and the hypocrisy to complain about the cost of living, but at the same time they vote against every measure we put forward to get wages moving again. You cannot argue that the measures they tried to block have not been effective, as has been astutely pointed out by Australia's unions. If Mr Dutton and those opposite had had their way and wages growth had remained at the levels seen under the previous government, the average worker would be $4,700 a year worse off.

As if the opposition's hypocrisy is not bad enough, they're making plans to unravel our workplace legislation, a move which will almost certainly see wage growth slow or possibly even go backwards. Ms Ley, in the other place, has said she will kill our changes, Senator Cash has said the coalition will wind back our policies and Mr Taylor has said they will take a targeted package of repeals to the next election. The opposition are already talking about ripping away the rights of casual workers and the right to disconnect.

What do the opposition think returning to the record low wages growth that we saw under their government would do to the cost of living? I cannot believe the audacity of those opposite complaining that Australian households are struggling when they plan to not only ditch cost-of-living relief measures, destroy retirement savings by raiding super funds and jack up power prices by funding expensive nuclear reactors but also introduce an industrial relations policy that will reduce the wages of Australian workers. Do they really think they can get away with telling Australians they care about struggling households while putting forward a suite of policies that will actually make them thousands of dollars worse off?

No matter how hard those on the other side pretend, they have never, ever been a friend of Australian households or Australian workers. When the third ensuring integrity bill was introduced in 2019, Labor wrote a dissenting report to the inquiry into the bill. Labor senators pointed out that schedule 1 of the bill impinges on the internationally recognised right of freedom of association, a concern which was shared by unions, academics, civil society groups, churches and the bipartisan Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. It was noted in Labor's report that the grounds for which an officeholder in a registered organisation could be disqualified go beyond those in corporate or banking sectors. Isn't that amazing?

Schedule 2 of the bill would have allowed for the deregistration of an organisation simply for taking industrial action or for less serious contraventions of industrial law. Those provisions would seriously impinge on the ability of registered organisations to function or represent their members effectively. What we have before us now is almost a carbon copy of those two schedules of the 2019 ensuring integrity bill, with nothing to allay the widespread concerns that many stakeholders had with the previous bill. It just goes to show that, when those opposite recycle their trash, they end up producing more trash.

The bill before us is nothing more than an attempt at union busting while, at the same time, doing nothing useful or substantive to address the real concerns about the construction and building industry. It's a radical, far-right attack on the rights of all workers, regardless of what industry they work in—whether they are nurses, teachers, first responders, flight attendants, retail workers, hospitality workers or even aged-care workers. Under this radical bill, a union official could be disqualified or an entire union deregistered for a minor technical breach. To give an example from the industry I previously worked in, if early childhood educators were to wear campaign badges or T-shirts supporting equal pay for educators, their union could be deregistered. If the nurses union were to hold a protest demanding that health services introduce safer nurse-to-patient ratios, they could be deregistered. A union could even be deregistered for something as trivial as being late for filing paperwork to the Fair Work Commission.

Under this legislation any person with sufficient interest would have standing to bring disqualification and deregistration charges. As such, these charges would open up all registered organisations—that is, unions and employer associations—to having to defend themselves endlessly against vexatious and frivolous proceedings. Whilst I give the opposition the benefit of the doubt—which I don't, really—I would say that burying registered organisations in this red-tape nightmare is a result of poorly designed legislation. But, while those opposite have a history of gross incompetence when it comes to developing policy, I suspect that this is something more sinister. Given their record, I would say this is a deliberate design feature. They want trade unions to be tied up defending endless vexatious and frivolous claims. They want them to be diverted from their core business. They want them to be unable to function or represent their members effectively. Why impose the same destructive requirements on an employer organisation? Because they consider it to be justifiable collateral damage in their crusade against trade unions. This is the kind of extreme anti-union, antiworker legislation we've come to expect from those opposite.

Let's face it: the coalition is a one-trick pony. When they were in government, they never once lifted a finger to address wage theft—not once. They did not advocate for increases to the minimum wage, not even to make the uncontroversial claim that the Albanese government made, which was that workers on minimum wage should not go backwards. They did nothing to address the underpayment and exploitation of labour hire workers or workers in the gig economy, they did nothing to address the need for equal pay in feminised industries, and they did nothing to fix the broken bargaining system and get wages moving. Whether in government or opposition, every time the coalition introduce industrial relations legislation, it is to erode the rights of workers and to erode the ability of unions to effectively represent their members. This bill is just another plank in the low-wage, anti-union, antiworker agenda that the Liberals and the Nationals have continued to pursue for decades.

This bill purports to be about the CFMEU and clamping down on criminal behaviour in the building and construction industry. But, as the actions of our government have shown, we are serious about cleaning up the CFMEU. In doing so we want to ensure that the CFMEU construction division members are effectively represented in advocating and negotiating for their rights and conditions. We also recognise that, where there is corruption, the legitimate role of decent trade union members, delegates and officials is undermined by the kind of behaviour that we've seen from the CFMEU construction division. By beginning the process to place the CFMEU construction division into administration we took swift, meaningful action which ensured construction workers would continue to have strong, effective representation and safe workplaces free of corruption, criminality and violence. I'm pleased that we had the support of the opposition for that legislation. Had we gone down the path Mr Dutton suggested, of deregistering the CFMEU, the same people and problems would have been in place but without the ability to effectively regulate them. By commencing the process to place the CFMEU construction division into administration, we took the strongest action that has ever been taken against them in history.

While we hear the opposition say that the issues in the building and construction industry were around for a long time and hear them ask why we didn't act sooner, it begs the question: what did they do? John Setka rose to power while those opposite were in government. They say they had the Australian Building and Construction Commission and that we should bring it back, but the ABCC was ineffective. They didn't want women's toilets on a building site! It beggars belief. Productivity in the construction sector fell when the ABCC was in place, and it has gone up since the ABCC was abolished. The uncomfortable truth for those opposite is that the ABCC was ineffective and no more represents action on these issues than throwing a damp cloth on the bench represents cleaning the kitchen.

The opposition pretend that this is an instrument designed to clean up the building and construction industry and to crack down on corruption and criminality, but it is nothing of the sort. They know full well that this is a cynical ploy to use the issues in the building and construction industry to launch an ideological attack on the entire Australian union movement. They are basically seeking to deploy a sledgehammer for an operation that requires a scalpel. Those opposite can drop the pretence that this bill represents a genuine attempt to clean up corruption and criminality in the building and construction industry, because if they think Australians are being fooled by this approach then they are only fooling themselves.

If the opposition are serious about forming government after the next federal election, they have an important lesson to learn: elections in Australian politics are fought in the sensible Centre. But a bill like this demonstrates that, under Mr Dutton's leadership, the coalition wish to occupy the extreme fringe of Australian politics. Far be it from me to offer the opposition free political advice, but this should be a no-brainer. When Australians are looking for cost-of-living relief, attacking their ability to earn a living is really not going to win them over.

Regardless of whether Australian workers choose to join a union or not, it is undeniable that most advances in pay, in job security, in working conditions and in health and safety outcomes have been hard fought and won by Australia's trade union movement. It's clear that this bill, if passed, would hamper unions' ability to effectively do their job, so much so that the right to freedom of association would be completely undermined. That would, no doubt, wind back the clock on pay and conditions, leaving workers worse off.

Let's be clear: all Australian workers would suffer as a result of this extreme bill, not just those who are union members. All Australian workers should be in no doubt that the undermining of their pay and conditions, their job security and their safety at work is not an unintended consequence of this bill; it is a design feature. Do not be fooled that this bill is aimed at the CFMEU or designed to clean up the building and construction industry. This bill has implications for workers in every industry. It is the extreme Liberal-National coalition's antiworker agenda laid bare. I call on the Senate to reject this extreme bill and consign it to the garbage heap, where it belongs.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The title of this bill before the Senate today is the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2). It's a pretty 'does what it says' type of bill: we're going to remove criminals from worksites. Yesterday in my office I had some students from Emmanuel College on the Gold Coast: Hugo, Charlotte, Enzo, Mia, Ella, Sophie, Evie, Maya, Noah, Ethan, Lily and Harry. Those students would be able to tell everybody in this chamber what this bill actually means: removing criminals from worksites. It's a bit of a no-brainer. If it's a no-brainer to students from Emmanuel College on the Gold Coast, you would think it would be a bit of a no-brainer to the Labor Party, to the Greens and to the left-wing members of the crossbench. But, sadly, no. This very sensible bill is being opposed by the left side of politics.

Now, why would the Labor Party and the Greens want to run a protection racket for criminals? Well, I can't really answer that question. I think that's a question that should be put to the Labor Party and the Greens. Why do they want to protect criminals on worksites across Australia? Well, thinking out loud, it might be to do with the $6.2 million of donations that the CFMEU have given to the Labor Party, and the other millions of dollars of donations that other unions who are under the cloud of—let's put it bluntly—criminal behaviour have given to the Labor Party and the Greens. So we've got a protection racket here, where the Left side of politics is willing to turn a blind eye to the worst type of human behaviour that takes place on workplaces across Australia.

Now, I'm going to use some language here—and I won't use the full language, because it would upset the standing orders, those who are listening and those students from the Gold Coast who were in my office yesterday. This is what is happening on worksites across Australia. One CFMEU official threatened the owners of an Indigenous labour hire firm, saying, 'I'll F-ing take your soul and I'll rip your F-ing head off.' Wow. We don't hear the Labor Party coming out and condemning that, do we? We don't hear Labor cabinet ministers coming out and condemning such behaviour, do we? This type of behaviour is common on worksites across Australia where the CFMEU is present. It is a criminal organisation that has been infiltrated by bikie motorcycle gangs. You might think, 'Oh, they're not that bad, are they?' These motorcycle gangs are the worst of the worst. They trade in drugs, they trade in people, they trade in misery and now they trade in workers rights.

This side of parliament believes in the right of Australians to join a union or not join a union. Indeed, in my home state of Queensland, I support competition amongst the unions, which is why I'm a strong supporter of the red unions. I'm a strong supporter of those workers who wish to set up their own industrial organisations, like the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland and the Teachers Professional Association of Queensland. I support them setting up their own unions and conducting their own workplace negotiations with their employers, rather than the current system with this corporatist approach where the Labor Party and their financial backers, the unions, run a closed shop in terms of industrial issues but also in terms of protecting each other when allegations of criminal behaviour come forward.

This bill is all about ensuring that those people who engage or have engaged in criminal behaviour do not go on our worksites across Australia. Our worksites should be safe places for Australians to go and work, earn money and go home and sleep safely at night. Instead, we've got a Labor Party who endorse this culture of fear and this code of silence, where people who speak out are called dogs or rats. We have people like John Setka, who the Labor Party have only recently disowned in relation to his conduct on worksites and in workplaces across Australia, conduct that is ongoing to this day. Yet the Labor Party had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the altar of understanding of the culture of criminality that exists within the CFMEU.

It's fascinating when you hear the left side of politics get up in this chamber and around the country and talk about fairness and equity and equality. But that never applies to the victims of union thuggery. It doesn't apply to the victims of union criminality. Why is that? I go back to 6.2 million reasons why. It's the money that this criminal organisation, the CFMEU, has given to the Labor Party, not over the last decade or the last 20 years but since Anthony Albanese has been Prime Minister. Since Anthony Albanese has been Prime Minister, the CFMEU has given $6.2 million to the Labor Party. What do they get for that? Obviously they get an obsequious prime minister, a prime minister who had a whistleblower come to his office 10 years ago and inform him of issues within the CFMEU. What did that then minister and leading member of parliament do? He duckshoved it, he hospital passed it and he passed it on to someone else, because it was not his problem. Well, Prime Minister, the standard that you walk past is the standard that you accept. A decade ago, you walked past someone coming to you with serious allegations concerning criminality within the CFMEU, so for you to suddenly decide in the last month or two, in some Damascus-like eruption of innocence, that there issues within the CFMEU is quite frankly not believable.

It is not believable that the Labor Party abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission—firstly, when this weak prime minister was leader; and secondly, when he was a cabinet minister. They have done it twice. In 2007, when Labor won, they abolished it with the connivance of their preference swappers, the Greens. Then, just recently after the 2022 election, they again abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission. They abolished the cop on the beat. Why did they do that? It's the political equivalent of brown paper bags being passed under the table—$6.2 million passed from the CFMEU to the Labor Party. One of those conditions of those donations and the support to the Labor Party from this criminal organisation was for the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. If there is anything that the National Anti-Corruption Commission should be looking into, it should be the relationship between the Labor Party and the CFMEU and the relationship between the Labor Party taking donations from a criminal organisation and then putting into practice, actually enacting, the wishes of that criminal organisation through passing a bill in this parliament to abolish the ABCC.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator McGrath. The time for the consideration of private senators' bills has expired. You will be in continuation the next time this bill is debated.