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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to questions without notice asked by Senators Cash and McKenzie today relating to the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union.

It does disturb me, Deputy President, that with that wry grin that you have on your face, I think I might possibly be breaching the standing orders, and I think that's an outrageous allegation for your face to make.

I do wish to comment on the answers made by Senator Wong concerning the CFMEU, and I take note that today in Queensland my Premier, the Queensland Premier, David Crisafulli, has made a substantial and brilliant announcement concerning the Olympics coming to Queensland in 2032. The reason this is relevant to the answers put forward by Senator Wong in relation to the questions is that the construction industry in Queensland, over the last decade or so, has suffered under a CFMEU tax. Builders in the private sector and builders in the public sector have had their costs blow out consistently because of the actions and the activities of the CFMEU. We're going to see in Queensland an Olympics that is delivered for all of Queensland, whether it is archery in Maryborough, equestrian events in Toowoomba or sailing and cricket all the way up the coast of Queensland. And it will come on a budget, because the state LNP government is getting a grip with the CFMEU.

But, sadly, across the country we're seeing the results of the Labor Party's historic but also ongoing connections with the CFMEU. In particular, I make reference to the $11½ million that the Labor Party has received in donations and in benefits of a kind from the CFMEU. It is no good for Labor Party cabinet ministers to come into this chamber and say that they are standing up to the CFMEU and taking action against the CFMEU when their party, their organisation, has benefited to the tune of $11½ million. If the Labor Party were serious about saying they are going to take a big stick to the CFMEU, they would hand the money back to the unions—and by that I mean hand it back to the members of the unions. The $11.5 million doesn't come from a union; it comes from those workers who are effectively forced, sometimes coerced, into joining the CFMEU, who are coerced and forced into joining what is a criminal organisation.

What is very sad is that every time Labor get elected they abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This is the honest cop on the beat who holds the criminal elements within the CFMEU to account. This is a police service to try and stop bad people from influencing unions and workplaces across the country. It is an organisation the coalition has introduced twice and an organisation the Labor Party have abolished twice. Why is that? Is it anything to do with the millions of dollars the CFMEU give to the Labor Party? It would be very cynical for someone so young to suggest such a thing, but I am going to suggest that you follow the money trail here. The Labor Party are in hock to the CFMEU.

There is no point in Labor ministers and Labor senators getting up here and saying, 'We've done this; we've appointed this KC to look into them,' until they hand back the $11½ million. Words mean nothing, but we know the Labor Party won't hand the money back, because the Labor Party need the money to run their scare campaign. The Labor Party need the millions of dollars to run their scare campaign because the Labor Party cannot run on their record over the last three years. The simple question most Australians are asking themselves is, 'Are we better off today than we were three years ago?' The answer is, of course, no, they're not. The next question is, 'Will I be better off in three years time, having had six years of a Labor-Greens government?' Of course, the answer is no.

Once we get through this election, the Labor Party will give the CFMEU a free pass, and they'll come back on board, because they know the CFMEU will give them more money to help with campaigning against those who wish to hold them accountable—that is, the coalition. Follow the money. I say to the Labor Party: hand the money back.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In budget week, just weeks from an election, senators on this side of the chamber and Australians are asking themselves whether Mr Dutton and the Liberals, those opposite, have any policies they'd like to share with the Senate or with the Australian people other than the deregistration of the CFMEU, other than their policy to cut $350 billion from the federal budget and other than their policy to cut 36,000 Public Service jobs. Australians are asking: do the Liberals—does Mr Dutton—have any policies other than cutting the services that those public servants provide today?

We know that Senator Cash has a lifetime achievement award for seeking to deregister unions. We know that. We know that Senator Cash and Mr Dutton want to focus on anything other than budget week and their complete absence of any policies to help Australians with the cost of living. We know that Mr Dutton is desperate to hide the one policy he has attempted to articulate to the Australian people: cutting $350 billion from the budget. He wants to hide his cuts so much that he won't tell Australians what he will cut until after the election. All that Australians know today is that Mr Dutton cuts and they pay. Mr Dutton cuts, and Australians pay. Mr Dutton wants to cut 36,000 Public Service jobs right around the country, including in my home state of Victoria. He wants to cut those jobs. He wants to cut the services that those public servants are providing as well, including critical services like processing the tens of thousands of veterans payments that were held up by the Liberals and their understaffing of our Public Service, that were held up by the Liberals and their contracting out of our Public Service, and that were held up by the Liberals and their waste of billions of dollars on outsourcing and consulting.

All of the progress that federal Labor has made in just three years is at risk from Mr Dutton—make no mistake. The progress we have made in rebuilding Medicare is at risk from Peter Dutton. Our $25 PBS prescriptions are at risk from Mr Dutton, our bulk-billed doctors visits are at risk from Mr Dutton, and our historic investments in women's health are at risk from Mr Dutton. We know that, when Mr Dutton was health minister, he cut $50 billion from our public hospitals and he was voted the worst health minister on record. By whom? Australia's doctors. And Mr Dutton recently said that past performance is the best indicator of future practice. These are his words. That is one thing we can agree on, because, when it comes to Medicare, Australians would be worse off under Mr Dutton, the man who was voted the worst health minister on record and who, when he was health minister, cut $50 billion from our public hospitals. He cuts, you pay. That is what Australians can expect from Mr Dutton.

Right now in Australia, after three years of Labor, jobs are up. Over a million new jobs have been created. Wages are up. There have been five consecutive quarters of real wages growth. Inflation is almost a third of what we inherited when we took office. Interest rates are heading down in the right direction. We are rebuilding the foundations of a good life in this country and providing the relief Australians need. Mr Dutton and the Liberals have nothing but cuts—$350 billion of cuts that they won't tell you about until after the election. Peter Dutton cuts, and you pay. That is what is clear today.

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

The real problem the Australian people have is that for three years they've had a government that is only focused on the narrow vested interests of the people that support the Labor Party: the unions and the big super funds—the people that man their polling booths, fund their campaigns and are involved in the inner workings of the labour movement. For three years, the government has funnelled cash and policy exclusively to these narrow vested interests. That is why they've had no time to solve the grave problems facing the Australian people, which is evident, and they are the cost of living, housing and inflation. The government has been so focused on narrow vested interests that it has had no time to solve the great economic problems of the day. That is a structural problem for this Labor Party because it is literally owned by the union movement. When the Nine newspapers exposed this massive corruption and wrongdoing last year, they were all so surprised and shocked. It was like a newsflash. But everyone knew the dirty little secret. Everyone knew about the corruption, the bikies and the malfeasance. It was not news to everyone else.

The people who are paying the CFMEU tax are the people of Australia who want to buy their first flat or who want to drive on a public road. They're paying a 20 or 30 per cent premium to people who don't want to actually work, who want to be paid for doing no work, because they want to pretend that they are part of a construction project. What they really are is part of a massive corruption scheme that has been supported by this Labor government for the last three years. One of the reasons that housing is out of reach for young Australians is that new apartment buildings are inflated in some parts of Australia by 20 or 25 per cent because of these CFMEU mafia style racketeering tactics, which are a huge stain on the labour movement.

I understand that every political party has problems, but this is a structural problem where it turns a blind eye to corruption—so much so that wrongdoing is pushed under the carpet. In the case of the CFMEU, it is still allowed to own a major superannuation fund. It is allowed to own 21 per cent of the Cbus fund. The Labor Party has a national president who is also the chair of the Cbus fund, which has failed to pay 10,000 death claims for people. When someone dies, they should be able to have their death claim paid if they have paid their insurance premiums. I think that is a reasonable expectation. But Cbus asks people to get two death certificates and to deal with six to nine or 12 months of bureaucracy at perhaps the worst time in their lives. Can anyone seriously imagine having a person as the head of any other political party who remains the chair of a major fund—it's a compulsory scheme nonetheless—and is allowed to continue?

When Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, was asked about a scandal at Westpac, he said, 'We should throw the book at these people.' He's right; malfeasance is malfeasance. But, when it's to do with Wayne Swan and Cbus, there's silence, nothing. In fact he said, 'We don't comment on cases before the courts.' Well, he did when it was Westpac, and he does when it's any other organisation—a supermarket, perhaps. This double standard goes to the heart of this issue that the Labor Party is a party for vested interests. It is a government for vested interests that abolished the Building and Construction Commission because the CFMEU asked it to, because of services rendered at the last election campaign where they supported the Labor Party. They have done the same throughout this term of government in relation to these scandals in the super sector, in relation to the Cbus fund. A fair minded person would find it very hard to believe that a union in administration is allowed to own a compulsory pension fund with billions and billions of dollars. It is unbelievable, but it shows the government for vested interests in action.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to make a contribution to this debate too. I want to applaud Senator Walsh for the magnificent contribution she made. I'm the same as Senator Walsh: we're in budget week and here we go again. We see the opposition, potentially weeks out from an election being called—I have no idea what day that will be—and what do we get on the first day sitting back here in question time? We get the hearty old annuals from the opposition: union bashing and superannuation bashing. They wave the racism flag. The immigration flag pops up all the time. They are the same old hoary chestnuts that they go to when they are at the lowest of their low. You'd think that, leading into an election campaign, some of them on that side—excluding you, Mr Deputy President—on the front bench would actually be switched on. Anyway, I better be careful that I don't mislead the Senate and have people think that they are switched on.

But I really have to take—through you, Mr Deputy President—a challenge to Senator Bragg. Senator Bragg has been here for about three years, and it's a well-known fact that Senator Bragg hates industry superannuation. He makes some comments and he chucks in the word 'corruption' and all this sort of stuff around union super funds. There is a misconception out there in the public that all us senators in here, when we leave, are going to walk out with some pot-of-gold superannuation payout. I have to tell you that some of the good investors will, but we don't have the old superannuation fund that John Howard—we're not arguing; we're just proud and happy to be here representing our states. But I am still in my industry fund.

When I was a young truck driver, at the age of 26, at TNT, I was given the opportunity to have superannuation as part of my remuneration. At 26, I said, 'What am I going do with this $2.60 a week?' I had no idea. At 65, I'm so glad that we had industry super funds who had our best interests at heart. And let's not forget that—most people out there do know this—superannuation is not given to you because your employer loves you; superannuation is given to you because it's part of that magnificent opportunity of collective bargaining. We have, over the years—I know I've done this—traded off wage rises to get superannuation increases.

You listen to Senator Bragg and his one-eyed hatred of superannuation funds—I don't know what's wrong with you, Senator Bragg; I don't know what happened in your previous life. There are thousands and thousands of Australian workers who, thank goodness, have an industry fund. I want to get this out there very clearly: my industry fund, the TWUSUPER fund, which has now amalgamated with the Mining and Energy Union and is called Team Super, has a lazy $33 billion, and I am so glad. But these funds, if you listen to Senator Bragg, have the mafia and bikies running them. I take offence at that because my superannuation fund, like every other industry superannuation fund, has equal representation on its board. You listen to the nonsense that comes out over there—mafia, corruption and bikies. I can tell you now that there are no mafia members of the board at Team Super and there are certainly no bikies. There are union officials, national and state union secretaries, who have equal representation with the employer bodies.

At Team Super, I can tell you that there is TWU representation on one side and the ARTIO, the Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation, on the other side. And, for those out there who think they're normal bedfellows, they have the greatest of respect for each other, but they are the employers' and employees' representatives. Serious businesspeople are looking after the investment for the members of those funds. I know, on the Mining and Energy Union side of it, it's the same deal: half union and half employers—that is, the NSW Minerals Council and the Queensland Resources Council.

So I take great umbrage when Senator Bragg gets on his high horse and is very happy to defend the likes of AMP and these other BT funds, all these other ones who gleefully take members' money and charge exorbitant charges compared to the industry super funds. Check out all the returns the bank ones get and compare them to the industry super funds. I tell you that, after 45 years of being in the super fund, I am so damn glad that I have an industry super fund. And let's not forget that great reason we have it: so we're not a burden on the taxpayer when we retire.

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

I might try a slightly novel approach and return to the question, which is that the Senate take note of answers given by Labor ministers to questions asked by Senators Cash and McKenzie, because what we have heard in taking note today from Labor members opposite is no words at all in relation to the questions that were asked by Senators Cash and McKenzie.

As I watched that 60 Minutes program recently—we're talking about it today because it's the first opportunity we have had, because we're back here in the parliament this week—I lamented what had happened to the industry that I worked in for 25 years before coming to this place. To see the corruption, the violence, the disgraceful activity and the actions that are being facilitated by the legislation passed by this government and denied by this government—let's not forget the words in Senator Cash's question. The Prime Minister gave this issue four words. That's four more words than we heard from those opposite in response to the motion that we're debating. He doesn't talk about it and he doesn't want to know about it. He wants to pretend it's something else. So what do Labor do? They talk about us and they talk about our leader. They're not prepared to go anywhere near addressing the issues relating to corruption, violence and disgraceful behaviour in the CFMEU, particularly in Victoria but now spreading to other states of this country. They're not prepared to address the fact that construction projects where the CFMEU are engaged cost 30 to 40 per cent more because of the activities of the CFMEU. They do, however, continue to take the CFMEU's money, as Senator McGrath quite rightly said.

I lament what has happened to my industry. Over the 25 years that I spent in construction, I worked with a lot of union members who were fervent in their support of people working in the sector. They played a pretty hard game at times, but nothing like this. We didn't have bikies, we didn't have standover—well, not so much standover, but we didn't have bikies. We didn't have people doing jobs where, as was disclosed on 60 Minutes, they were paid $10,000 a week to do nothing. Yet this government gets rid of the ABCC, which had a 91 per cent success rate in prosecuting union misconduct—and employer misconduct, for that matter. This is not one-sided and this is not just about the unions. Employers have a role in this as well and should, equally, be held to account for the behaviour.

Even the administrator, Mark Irving KC, has admitted that the union's corruption is worse than initially reported, and Labor revert to one thing: it's the coalition's fault. Yet they were the ones who changed the legislation so that it is the unions who decide who you work with, not a business. A business doesn't decide who its subcontractors might be; the unions get to decide that. That is corruption, and the Labor Party legislated for that to occur. They are the facilitators of this activity and they should be condemned for it. Every time we tried to change industrial relations, they ran a scare campaign against us. They opposed the reintroduction of the ABCC—they have killed it off twice—yet its success rate is a matter of public record.

Corruption investigator Geoffrey Watson SC, who was appointed by Mark Irving, the administrator, has accused the Victorian Labor government of running a protection racket. This government pretends they haven't seen or heard anything about this matter. It's an absolute disgrace.

Question agreed to.