Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment on the sheet further revised on 20 August 2024, as circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 11 (after line 14), after subsection 323B(3), insert:

(3A) If the Minister determines a scheme under subsection (1), the scheme must provide that a person is not eligible to be a candidate for an election, or to be elected or appointed (including re-elected or reappointed), to an office in an organisation unless the person is a fit and proper person to be an officer.

(3B) Subsection (3A) does not limit subsection (1) or (3).

The CFMEU has forfeited the right to clean itself up. As I've already said today, I'm convinced that the administrator is the appropriate short-term response to purge this union of unscrupulous actors and misconduct. Under the process, the administrator will be granted powers to declare offices within the union vacant. But, as we've seen time and time again, these actors find a way of getting back into this union. That is why I'm moving an amendment that provides an extra layer of security on any appointments made by the independent administrator. Under this amendment, appointments of offices well first require the demonstration of 'fit and proper purpose and status', as defined already within section 255 of the existing Fair Work Registered (Organisations) Act.

I acknowledge that the government has listened to my concerns and has moved an amendment that is of some similar substance. The amendment agreed to in the Senate would prevent those already removed from office by the administrator would be ineligible for office indefinitely unless they can demonstrate fit and proper status. I agree with this, but I believe it goes only halfway. We know that we've had serious issues in relation to members appointed to this union, and I want to see assurances from the get-go that people ascending to offices within this union meet the public's expectation of integrity. I believe this is a sensible solution and urge all members of the parliament to support it.

This administration a start: however—and I've said this before to the minister representing the minister—it is not enough in itself. It has to be the start of where we need to go on this. I believe this is still something that is useful to add to further assurances, particularly from a community that doesn't have a lot of confidence, I'll be honest, in the union or, necessarily, in the government's ability or true will to clean up this union. I believe that this will be a useful amendment for the government to accept.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To respond on behalf of the government, there's nothing in terms of the concept of the amendment that the government disagrees with. We're in the unusual situation that, normally, we have this debate before the Senate, in which case we would have been in a different situation, I suspect. But an amendment which has the same impact as what's being moved has been carried in the Senate. Therefore, the government won't be supporting the amendment, but acknowledges that the member for Wentworth is raising an issue that does improve the legislation. We believe that the effect of that has already been given by amendments that were carried in the other place.

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In our history on this side of the House of strong leadership on this vital issue, the coalition re-established the ABCC in 2016 after a double dissolution election. Labor shut the ABCC down in February 2023, leaving our construction industry and its more than 400,000 small businesses at the CFMEU's mercy. In tandem with the Registered Organisation Commission, the coalition had established watchdogs to prevent, bullying, thuggery and intimidation from unions like the CFMEU on worksites, but Labor has abolished them both. The coalition gave teeth to the watchdogs, but Labor have proven once again that they are lapdogs to militant unions like the CFMEU.

On Monday, we saw the coalition stepping up to the plate to restore law and order in the construction sector, with the Leader of the Opposition introducing two bills—the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 to restore the ABCC, and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024.

Since 2003 the CFMEU and its officials have broken workplace laws on more than 2,600 occasions, have been involved in approximately 213 proceedings and have been penalised by over $24 million by the courts. Yet it was that same union that, under radical industrial relations changes that were rammed through this place with the support of the Greens, Labor were willing to allow virtually unfettered rights of entry for the CFMEU into family owned small businesses and even farmhouses.

The CFMEU has gained legitimacy within the Australian Labor Party. They influence votes within preselections, so there are members of the Labor Party in here who rely on CFMEU delegates at their conferences and preselections, and that's why they're remaining silent. Some Labor MPs know firsthand what is happening within the CFMEU. They fully understand and so does the minister.

As the Nine Network's investigations have demonstrated, in my home state of Victoria the CFMEU has its claws deep into the Allan government. I note that a union official on major Victorian government construction sites and a senior Bandidos bikie gang enforcer has been charged with serious assault and is on trial for a home invasion where a woman was attacked. Yet the Fair Work Commission decided on 23 June that this person was a fit and proper person to have a right of entry on worksites.

The Greens political party are sheepish, too, because they have been very significant beneficiaries of the largesse dished out by John Setka and his friends. Indeed, as the minister pointed out this morning, the Greens refused to support a bipartisan Senate motion on Monday to rule out taking donations from the CFMEU. Little wonder the Greens are squealing like stuck pigs and opposing this legislation.

The old saying goes, 'Better late than never.' As Labor have been humiliated into acting against the CFMEU with this bill, the coalition has secured sensible amendments to ensure that we do not see a return of the same lawlessness when the public spotlight shifts away. The CFMEU will be put into administration for at least three years and as many as five years, due to the position we held from the outset that criminality, bullying, thuggery and intimidation within the CFMEU would take a long time to sort out.

The administrator will report to parliament every six months, and I hope the press gallery will be paying attention every time. The administrator has also undertaken to ensure that the CFMEU will not engage in party politics during the administration, including making donations, having positions at party conferences or promoting candidates. We on the coalition side have also secured powers to ban the CFMEU officials for life—not five years, as Labor had proposed—better ensuring John Setka is held accountable for his actions.

At this point in time, new Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Murray Watt—fresh from his stint as agriculture minister, uniting the farming sector against Labor—says he's concerned about the APRA review, saying, 'We are not supportive of that debate being opened up.' This is a rabbit hole of monumental proportions. (Time expired.)

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in this consideration in detail stage to, in particular, support the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth. It is an important one to recognise that any members appointed by the administrator need to be meet a fit-and-proper-character test. I think that it is incredibly important in the circumstances of why we are here with legislation. The allegations of criminality of the CFMEU in recent times have been deeply troubling and have been going on for quite some time. The Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, or CFMEU, is one of the biggest and most influential unions in Australia, but, when this union is in the news, it is far too often for the wrong reasons. Allegations of intimidation tactics, shutting down work at multiple infrastructure projects, bullying, harassment, intimidation, even leading figures within the union being accused of domestic violence and now these current allegations in relation to organised crime links—these are all particularly troubling. There are now also allegations of outlaw motorcycle gang members acting as delegates and being involved in government funded projects, including the $100 billion Big Build Victorian infrastructure plan. These are all incredibly concerning. The alleged criminality is almost certainly ensuring costs escalate on projects. That is particularly concerning in this environment of high inflation.

The consequences are very real: a less-productive economy, slower construction time and cost blowouts. Since 1982, no fewer than four royal commissions have investigated at least some part of the construction sector, so this bill is the start of a process to clean up a union that for far too long has operated effectively without accountability. It means the CFMEU will be forced to accept an administrator. The administration period can last up to five years and will need the recommendation of the administrator to end it. It is definitely the time to act, and I certainly welcome the action of the government. It's a good first step, but we do need to replace the ABCC.

Whilst that body didn't work as intended, it is clear there must be some sort of monitoring body for the building and construction sector. There needs to be some version of an oversight committee, and industry reps are putting forward investigations. It will need to have clear parameters and investigative powers, including criminal prosecution. It remains to be seen how effective administration will be, so we must remain vigilant. It remains to be seen if the administration process will be enough to clean the house and clear out all those elements of the CFMEU after a pretty diabolical history. I note that I had discussions with the minister about an amendment to improve this legislation as the bill commenced in the other place. It was handed to Senator Pocock and successfully adopted, so I thank the government and Senator Pocock for considering that aspect, which was that the minister must follow the administrator's advice about whether to place the union into or out of administration. It does ensure some protection from the decisions being overly politicised; they will instead be on the advice of the administrator.

I support this bill and I support the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth. I think this is very important. I thank the government for their positive engagement, but I do urge the government to do more, especially in considering what oversight body will need to be put in place to ensure the criminality that we've seen in this sector can never happen again.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Warringah for her comment with reference to the Fair Work Commission Bill. It's worth pointing out that the leader of the Liberal Party this week moved in the House of Representatives one of two bills to bring before the House, and that was to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission and, in a separate bill, to enhance the integrity measures to combat criminality at our nation's building sites. Hopefully, we can rely on the support of the member for Warringah when those two bills come into the House.

At the next election, I suggest that Australians will be making a decision on which government they can trust. When you see the behaviour of the CFMEU and the near-on indistinguishable relationship that exists between that body and the Australian Labor Party, it is palpable. We saw this week, or some weeks back, when this issue was raised, a conga line of Labor ministers going to the dispatch box and saying, 'We had no idea that this behaviour was happening in the CFMEU.' When it comes to the Australian public trusting the Australian Labor Party or trusting the coalition, there is only one side of this House that can clean up the mess that's before us. It's disappointing that the bill has been guillotined and that the list of speakers has been shortened. It's worth noting that no speakers from the government side got to their feet to speak to this, other than when the bill was introduced by the Manager of Government Business.

Whilst we absolutely support the bill, I fear—looking back at the old BLF some 40 years ago—that whilst this bill is endeavouring to go somewhere, the rubber will hit the road when these other two bills return the Building and Construction Commission watchdog onto the block. It's worth noting that the former Federal Police Assistant Commissioner, Mark Neil, said on 60 Minutes, when asked who was policing the construction industry in Australia at the moment: 'There's no-one at the moment. It's in a vacant space, and there's a gap there.' For us to really fix the problems in front of us, we need to return that watchdog.

I'm glad that the recommendations that have come forward are that the donations coming out of the CFMEU be revisited. One has to ask, of the $6.2 million that has gone previously, what was the return? What was the transaction? What was needed by the CFMEU in return for that investment? To take you back two years, the first order of business, when the government was appointed to come into this place, was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. That was their first order of business. When a conga line of ministers is suggesting that they had no idea, but they took the $6.2 million, it is just difficult to comprehend.

This bill before the House is nothing more than Labor setting a torch to the building and then wanting to have a hero's welcome because they called the fire brigade to come and put it out. This is window dressing. I'd suggest that you watch this space over the next couple of years, because I don't think we're going to see the systemic behaviour shift until the adults are back in charge and the behaviour of allocating contracts by Labor state premiers to CFMEU shops stops. That has to stop. The connection between the CFMEU and the Australian Labor Party is indistinguishable. You can't trust the CFMEU. At the next election you can't trust the Australian Labor Party.

We commend this bill to the House. It could go further. I want to acknowledge Senator Cash for the work she did in putting in 21 amendments to give it some more strength, but I will watch with bated breath as to how this is reinforced.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me start by saying that I regret not having the opportunity, as many members do, to have contributed to the second reading debate on this bill. It's always disappointing when so many of us that work hard to get elected to this chamber miss out on an opportunity to make a contribution at the second reading stage. It's certainly outside the principles of the way in which we debate in this parliament. No-one can forget the criticism in the last parliament, from those that are now employing these tactics, when similar things occurred. I've got just as much right as they did to make that point at the commencement of my remarks, when they mete out those sorts of tactics against the opposition.

But I welcome the fact that the government is bringing a piece of legislation into this parliament that is attempting to address the latest serious examples of egregious conduct by the CFMEU. And these are not unbelievable revelations of the moment, as some in the government might seek to claim, but simply the manifestation of conduct that is being continued by the union movement in this industry before they even went by the name CFMEU. We all know the history of these unions, back to the BLF days in the 1980s and before, even way back to the Second World War and the sort of conduct that the union movement engaged in in obstructing the war effort. There was outrageous conduct on the water front, obstructing the supply of materials and other important elements of supporting our troops in Papua New Guinea, which is extremely well documented and well understood. So this sort of conduct is nothing new, but it's as egregious now as some of the worst examples throughout history. We certainly welcome the opportunity to support this legislation. It's better late than never.

I join the lament of other colleagues that the ABCC was repealed by this government and make the same point that so many have—that when the CFMEU gave money to the Labor Party they weren't donations; they were investments. They were investments in policy outcomes and a policy agenda. At the top of that list was the repeal of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. We've come to find oh-so-clearly how necessary that body was. I remember some of the comments made by the now government about the need for integrity in politics. Nothing was better focused on ensuring integrity in the construction industry than the ABCC that they repealed.

We have an interesting circumstance. It is very rare for the Liberal Party and the Labor Party to be voting together on a matter of industrial relations. In this parliament today we happen to be on the same page. So it's an even starker reflection on the one political party in this country that doesn't support this bill—that being the Australian Greens. Boy, have they come a long way since they were an environmental movement focused on protecting the Franklin River in Tasmania and a number of other very worthy things to argue for. They have become, in effect, a camouflaged Communist Party in this country. Their agenda and the things that they stand for are nothing to do with a focus on environmentalism and the things that Bob Brown focused on and took inspiration from when he created that party. They have been infiltrated by the forces of political ideology on the hard, extreme left. We see it manifest in many positions that they take on public policy and, in particular, in this debate on industrial relations. To think that they could sit there, four of them, voting against the passage of this bill when even the Labor Party, which has been owned by the CFMEU for decades, is bringing this legislation into the House and, in fact, expediting its passage through the House through the guillotining of debate. The Greens should reflect on who they are now if their position is that they're on the hard left of the Labor Party on industrial relations.

When we go to the people at the upcoming election, I look forward to talking to my constituents in my electorate of Sturt about just who the Greens are these days and what the Greens stand for these days. They are a wealth redistribution party. They are a hard-left party with a dangerous ideology on some of the most significant and important issues of our future. They want to get rid of the submarine program. They want to slash defence expenditure and get rid of funding for private schools and private health insurance. That's who they are. Their behaviour in this debate tells you everything that you need to know about the Greens. On that basis, we commend the passage of this bill through the House.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the member for Wentworth's amendment to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. Criminality and corruption must be called out and rooted out wherever they occur. In the case of the construction division of the CFMEU, its links to organised crime and bikies have been there in plain sight for all to see for years. I am Victorian. I was a journalist. I know. It's an embarrassment to other decent unionists and to the Labor Party, which took its money nonetheless.

Putting the union into administration is a first step that I support, but I would argue that it's only part of the solution. If we're serious about cleaning up the construction industry, ongoing oversight as well as a comprehensive state and federal government police taskforce empowered to deal with the construction sector is vital.

The latest revelations discovered by Channel 9 and the Age point to the alleged actions of the union's Victorian construction division and links to organised crime and outlaw bikie gangs involved in government funded projects, including Victoria's $100 billion Big Build. This could come at specific cost to the constituents of Goldstein, in terms of both cost and amenity, given that several Big Build projects touch the electorate, including the Suburban Rail Loop. The state government is struggling with a crippling debt burden, and there are already serious doubts as to whether the project can be realised, let alone with potential inflated costs as a result of the CFMEU's behaviour.

It's important to acknowledge the role of unions in building better working conditions and entitlements for many workers in this country as well as protecting their health and safety. Indeed, it's important to make the point that the majority of union workers in 2024 are women working in feminised industries like nursing, aged care and teaching, and many of those women live in my electorate. The way the CFMEU has operated and, particularly, been led is not in keeping with this feminised cohort.

This legislation grants the minister the power to hire and fire the administrator and, in essence, oversee the operation of that process. It's an extraordinary step that requires strict scrutiny and accountability to ensure that the work of the administrator is free from political interference. It is not ideal, but I want to acknowledge that there is no perfect strategy available when it comes to dealing with the crisis the CFMEU construction division has created. Left to a conventional process of allowing the courts to appoint an administrator, that process would almost certainly be bogged down in endless legal action that could drag on for years.

I want to be clear that I don't support the guillotining of debate on this matter. But, on balance, overall it is my belief that swift and decisive action is required in order to ensure that the reform of the CFMEU construction division is effective and achieves its aim. And while I expect to support the legislation, it is only just the start, not the end of the work required to clean up this sector. While putting the CFMEU into administration will finally shine a light into the dark corners of its activities and while it aspires to stop the rorting, the double-dealing and the graft that's been the hallmark of this particular division of the CFMEU, that is only part of the challenge. Long after the administrator has gone, the CFMEU construction division cannot simply be free to revert to its former self. We cannot let union officials line their own pockets at the expense of their members and our wider communities.

That's why, again, I make the case for an upgraded state and federal government police taskforce to tackle criminal allegations within the construction industry as well as a permanent oversight mechanism. This could include unions like the CFMEU as well as the developers they have often partnered with. Workers in the construction industry do need a union that has their back when it comes to safety, working conditions and entitlements. But, for the good of the community as a whole, that union must play by the rules. This is critical for our communities and for our economy, including the Goldstein community that I represent. I commend the amendment from the member for Wentworth to the House.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. I would have liked to speak for 15 minutes, obviously, but the Labor government have guillotined debate on this. I remember, when we were in government, the now Leader of the House would go off his tree if ever a bill was guillotined. But on this issue they've got no government speakers and they don't want to let the opposition speak, which is wrong. We should be able to speak. There's no reason we can't sit late. But they're not letting us speak.

In relation to the amendment from the Independent member opposite, the member for Wentworth, she makes some good points in the sense that the shadow Attorney-General managed to get some good amendments in place that the Albanese Labor government were not going to put in. They weren't going to go hard on the CFMEU until the shadow Attorney-General got them in place. And the amendment that the member has spoken about talks about the donations to the Labor Party from the CFMEU. We know it's huge and that, in the lead-up to the 2022 election, almost $2 million was donated to Prime Minister Albanese and the Labor Party by the CFMEU—far more than when the former Leader of the Opposition, whose seat I've forgotten—

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Government Waste Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maribyrnong.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maribyrnong. There was about $850,000. We know that right around the country the Labor Party, both federally and in every state, has received some $100 million since 2017. This relationship that the Labor Party has with the CFMEU is costing the people in my electorate. We're in the middle of a housing crisis and everything is costing more because of the deals that the CFMEU does.

I was speaking to a tier 1 builder, and they told me that every day there was coercive control. The Labor Party talk about coercive control in relationships and how bad it is. If I was an employer using coercive control on my staff I would probably be in the slammer, but every day the CFMEU comes into workplaces around this country and coercive control takes place. They are like a militia.

Tier 1 builders are controlled 100 per cent under CFMEU agreements, and the rest of the industry isn't. The CFMEU want only their members on the construction site. So if they are not CFMEU—even if they're a member of another union—they will just down tools. What happens if the builder says, 'We're allowing someone who's not a CFMEU member on,' or the builder says, 'We're not going to allow CFMEU members to go and hand out for the Labor Party'—which is what they did at the last election. They all left their sites; I know that it happened in Brisbane. The builder still paid them—that is, the taxpayer still paid them, because most of these are state government jobs.

And what would happen? Those workers would be in the shed, and they'd sit there for hours with excuses like, 'The pie warmers aren't hot enough' or 'The site's too dusty' or 'We're getting wet from the rain when we're walking between the lunch room and going to the job site.' Or it's the heat, humidity or high wind. There are plenty of reasons to stop work: 'There's a bar of reo. The end's gone off of it. That's dangerous! Quick, into the shed.' This happens all the time.

In the private sector, if they're building houses in my electorate at Newport or in North Lakes, guess what: the builder doesn't get paid. But these guys are still getting paid all the time, and the Labor Party knows about it. And what's happening? The money that the Labor Party has received—the first order of business was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. I've been told that under the ABCC productivity was better. We know that, under this Prime Minister, it's fallen by almost six per cent. The watchdog at least was there; there was a policeman on the beat. There has been a definite change in behaviour from CFMEU officials since the Albanese Labor government were elected. They knew that they were protected by the Labor Party. They changed the legislation that they brought in.

Now, the relationship between the CFMEU and Labor is hurting mums and dads and my children. The young people here who serve in this place and right around the country or who are at uni now are going to pay more for housing in the future—30 per cent more. So it's a double whammy. Wages are higher under the CFMEU's EBAs, which the Labor Party allows. Productivity is lower, and everyone pays more in the middle of a housing crisis. It's an absolute joke. It's not good enough.

In places like Queensland, where we have the Olympics in eight years, will any of this infrastructure be ready? Meanwhile, Labor Party politicians in this federal government and right around the country turn a blind eye to this every day, and now they're guillotining debate on this. It's completely outrageous.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This has become a saga that is a shame on the Labor Party. They opposed us when we were in government and we first introduced the ABCC, which they removed when they came to government in 2007. Then they opposed the reintroduction of the ABCC when we brought it back in 2016, and then they removed it again after they came to government. Of course, they make the point that it wasn't as effective as it could have been. Well then, let's give it more teeth; let's give it some backbone. They've chosen not to go down that pathway; they've chosen to get rid of it instead.

The CFMEU has cost Australia hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. The on-costs of its actions on construction around Australia, but more specifically in Victoria, are horrific. My understanding is that construction costs in Victoria are 30 per cent higher than they are over the border in New South Wales. I can tell you that a very bad piece of news for South Australia is the Victorian CFMEU.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be put.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.