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

I've received a letter from the honourable member for Goldstein proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The government turning a blind eye to union corruption.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today is a landmark day in the exposure of union corruption in this country. We know that, last year, Geoffrey Watson SC was commissioned to deliver a report into the corruption of the Queensland CFMEU—not just the corruption but the violence. The report directly catalogued the scale of corruption that sits at the heart of the Queensland CFMEU, including a time following a Queensland Labor government election when CFMEU officials walked into consultations, stood over and intimidated public servants and said, 'You work for us now.' This is a fundamental issue of corruption that goes to the heart of the CFMEU-Labor model in Queensland, and now we are seeing it directly in the context of Victoria.

Yesterday, Transparency International released its latest report on corruption in Australia, and, under the Albanese government, corruption has increased and our international ranking has fallen. We are seeing explicitly why in the report that was finally tabled for public consumption looking at CFMEU corruption in the context of the state of Victoria. This report, which we know was provided to the CFMEU administrator on 1 December last year by testimony from Geoffrey Watson SC in the Wood inquiry in Queensland—it has been exposed in the Nine press that there has been a deliberate attempt to redact two chapters of this report. Why are they seeking to redact those chapters? Because those chapters go to the heart of the CFMEU-Labor cartel business plan, which has seen $15 billion of taxpayer money laundered through a process of Albanese government funded projects and Victorian government projects under the Allan government. And it's found its way where? Into the hands of organised crime and bikie gangs. This is the most disgraceful example and abuse of public money that could ever have been proposed. In fact, had someone suggested at the start of this inquiry that that was what was going to be revealed, I suspect most of the members on this side of the chamber would say it was impossible. This is now the lived reality of the CFMEU-Labor cartel of corruption and the consequences. The tragedy is the minister still won't answer basic information in this House.

Yes, it was absolutely a report that was commissioned by the CFMEU administrator. Yes, we now know that she received a copy of it on 9 February—only a few days ago. But what she's refusing to admit is whether she's been in contact with the CFMEU administrator, whether she asked for a copy of the report—we wrote to the minister last year saying: 'This report has been published. You should be requesting it, and why haven't you requested it? If you do have it, release it.' It's very clear to me that the minister knew full well that she didn't want to receive a copy because she knew how scandalous it was, and it took whistleblowers coming forward and saying the report had been redacted and the information had been kept from the public square—it is now clear that the minister is engaging in 'see no corruption, hear no corruption' so she does not have to answer for CFMEU-Labor corruption.

She also can't tell us what reports she received. We asked today in question time what version of the report she had on 9 February—whether it was the full report, a redacted report or the report that excluded two chapters. She hasn't answered that. There will be further questions, because we know exactly the consequences of when the minister won't reveal this information—she is running away from the consequences of CFMEU-Labor corruption because she knows how directly it connects back to the heart of the Albanese government. We know it. The Australian taxpayer knows it, and now an independent report to the CFMEU commissioner has confirmed it.

It's not just that part of the dishonesty that we are facing from this report. We know—once it was revealed that the CFMEU had become an enabler of organised crime and bikie gangs to launder money through Victorian government big build projects, the Prime Minister and various state premiers and leaders from the Australian Labor Party said: 'We'll never take money from the CFMEU anymore. We don't want their tainted cash.' But what we know from AEC disclosures from just last week is that that has been exposed as a falsehood. They might say they're not going to take the cash, but they seem happy to cash the CFMEU's cheque. When you think about the $15 billion that has been laundered through these public projects into the benefit of organised crime and bikie gangs and about how now some of those cartel kickbacks are going into the Labor Party's coffers, it directly compromises the foundations of this government.

More than that, the licence of this government and their willingness to tackle corruption is brought directly under question. While the minister stands here and boasts at the dispatch box that there are all these people removed from the CFMEU who have serious allegations to answer, what she won't tell you is that they're resigning just before they're sacked, and then they're walking over to the Electrical Trades Union to propagate the business model—the CFMEU-Labor business model—so that they can continue the extortion racket that is going on in public projects in this country. That's why the Labor Party wants multi-employer bargaining. It empowers the unions to engage in an extortion racket of public money to drive the cartel kickbacks and send them flowing through from the unions to organised crime, and some of it is ending up in the coffers of the Australian Labor Party.

We know that Labor has actively sought to undermine the limitations that we want to put on the flow of cash that has gone into redundancy funds. Why? Because it provides a slush fund for the unions to wash money around as they see fit. But, when it comes down to this report that was tabled by the author in the CFMEU inquiry in Queensland today, we get a shocking picture of the lived reality of union corruption that has been presided over during this period. You just need to go to the report. You can quote from it directly, but, of course, we can't quote from it directly as a document tabled in this parliament, because the Leader of the House refused to allow it to be tabled in the lead-up to question time. He wouldn't make it a permanent and public document so that it can never, ever be silenced or whitewashed again.

But let's go to what the report says:

But from those great heights the CFMEU in Victoria collapsed into a squalid mess. It slid from being a union which fought hard for workers to one which started a fight just for the sake of it. It devolved from being a union which honoured the dignity of working Australians to a union which cultivated the company of underworld figures. It deteriorated from being progressive, tolerant and respectful—

I would contest that, but I'll accept the author's claim—

into a violent, hateful, greedy rabble. It degenerated from being a union where people were respected for their honesty and decency—

again, a contestable claim—

to one where a good person, a decent person who spoke out against corruption, was shouted down and told they were a "dog," or a "rat", or—

a word I will not mention in this parliament. The report continues:

The cause of the collapse of the CFMEU was not from within, it came from the top.

To continue:

… it was shocking to see so much crime, so much corruption, such a perversion of values. The CFMEU was no longer on the right side of civil society, it was proudly on the wrong side. The Union was no longer the champion of the working class—

in fact, it turned to—

… looking after gangsters, standover men, bikies, heroin traffickers, and even killers.

By the end of this investigation I have been left with the empty feeling that the … Victorian branch of the CFMEU was no longer a trade union, it was a crime syndicate.

This is how $15 billion was fleeced from Victorian and Australian taxpayers, through big build projects that have been contributed to by the Victorian government, the Victorian taxpayer and the Australian taxpayer, and found its way into organised crime, criminal syndicates and bikie gangs. The least the minister and the Prime Minister could do is actually answer basic questions truthfully and honestly in this parliament about what they knew when, what they requested, and, more to the point, the type of the report that every single member that opposes this motion is going to be condemned for—seeking to run interference for that agenda.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us be clear. Under this government, 121 individuals have been removed from that union. Under those opposite, over nine years, how many were removed? That's right. Zero. Not a single official was removed from that union while they were in office, but 121 were removed during Labor's time cleaning up the mess that was left behind by those opposite. Your policy solutions did not solve any of these challenges—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Goldstein, I'm not taking your point of order just yet. I'm going to deal with the member for Fisher. That was a very aggressive interjection right by my ear. It couldn't be missed. Don't repeat it. You were warned by the Speaker during question time. You will be leaving if it happens again. Have you got a point of order, Member for Goldstein?

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do. The member reflected on the chair rather than members opposite.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Take a seat, please. I will deal with any points of orders. I couldn't hear it, because of your colleague yelling in my ear. But I will ask all speakers to direct their comments through the chair.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that last comment, Chair, and thank you very much. Let us be very clear. This government has no tolerance for corruption. We have no tolerance for criminal activity in the construction sector. That is why this government took the strongest action of any government of any persuasion when it came to cleaning up the CFMEU. We appointed an administrator. We support the administrator to do their work. We've had 121 individuals removed and we've made more progress in 18 months than those opposite made in nine years of government.

I want to make very clear, as was made clear to the shadow minister in question time, that the minister received the final report and did not request a single change. We can have 10 minutes from those opposite telling us a whole range of things, but it was clear from the contribution from the shadow minister that, despite asking questions in question time—and I congratulate the shadow minister for doing very well in their tactics of getting a large number of questions; I could see the jealousy of those behind you from that very odd place that I sit at, over there, during question time—they were not listening to the response. But what I think we also saw just then was 10 minutes of a brand-new television channel that has launched today.

Today, I watched with interest the interview with the shadow minister on Laura Jayes—he said two very interesting things. Firstly, he said, 'It doesn't matter who sits in the swivel chair.' Well, I think that is very interesting. He looks pretty comfortable there right now. I did note that the member for Farrer stayed for the shadow minister's remarks; I noticed that the member for Hume managed to get out of here pretty quickly. But I'm sure it was a great comfort for the Leader of the Opposition when the member for Goldstein said it didn't matter who sat in the swivel chair. But that wasn't the bit of the interview that excited me. The bit that excited me was the launch of a brand-new—I assume it's free to air—station. It might be pay per view. I don't know; you'd have to ask. The member opposite said, 'It has, on "channel Tim"'—and Laura Jayes said: 'Channel Tim. I like it.' Well I've just seen 10 minutes of 'channel Tim' and I don't know if I really liked what I saw. I think we'll leave it to the public to review.

We know the sorts of things that will get on 'channel Tim'. You can be guaranteed that 'channel Tim' will have a lot of self-promotion. We have seen that on Politics Now, very openly. On Boxing Day, which is a day for giving gifts, there was a gift from the member for Goldstein. When asked about his possible desire to seek higher office and to possibly get into the leadership role, he said:

I think there's a scenario where that can happen, but I think events will have to turn in my favour.

That's what he told the podcast. But he's been out there—every couple of months there's a new thing. If you go back a month earlier and look at the great industrial relations policy—the only industrial relations policy that's actually been released by those opposite was their commitment to not have parliament sit on Melbourne Cup Day. The member for Goldstein guaranteed:

I make this commitment: this will never happen under a Wilson government.

A singular policy—wanting to make sure that he and his colleagues get a day off on Melbourne Cup Day. But, while he wants to give himself—

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order in relation to relevance. This has absolutely nothing to do with the matter of—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can just take a seat, please.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe I've been unfair on the member for Goldstein by saying that he only has one policy, which is to give himself a day off for the Melbourne Cup. He has another policy. Just a few weeks after the election last year he dived in with Ronald Mizen at the AFR with this headline: 'Liberals' IR man Tim Wilson wants school kids taking up 'side hustles''. So we've got 'bring back child labour' and 'give the politicians a day off for the Melbourne Cup'. That is what we've got from someone who's been described by a mutual friend of ours, former member for Mackellar, Jason Falinski, as possibly the next Liberal leader.

It's amazing to see, if you go back all the way to May last year, the foresight that Mr Falinski had about what was going to happen in the Liberal Party. He wrote this:

Gather round—all who dare—as the Liberal Party indulges in its triennial version of The Hunger Games.

Well, indeed, they've gone longer than the book series did. But Mr Falinski also said one thing which I think both sides of the chamber would agree on, and it was this quote—to be clear, before someone gets up with an interjection, I'm just quoting.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give a reminder that quotations are no explanation for—

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It refers to a member by name, but I'll adjust it to be compliant with the standing orders.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'The member for Goldstein is not the Messiah.' That was the quote, and I think that's the one thing we can all agree on. But if the member for Goldstein is to achieve his goal of coming to a higher office, as he himself expresses, then he will have to do so as part of this new coalition of chaos that has been formed between the Liberal Party, the National Party and One Nation. We know they voted together when it came to opposing cutting student debt. We know that he voted happily with One Nation when it came to opposing the three-day guarantee for child care. We know that they voted together with One Nation to oppose closing loopholes and, indeed, to oppose free TAFE.

The other thing that no-one opposite wants to talk about is that this government has a record of delivering for working people. This government has delivered when it comes to wages. I remember when they opposed a single-dollar increase in the minimum wage. They refused and went into an election saying, 'Don't give people a $1 increase.' Under this government, we've seen those on the minimum wage get a wage increase per hour of $4.62, and those opposite are now interjecting again, opposing even a $1 increase, let alone $4.62 per hour. Those opposite might not care about those on the minimum wage, but I care and people on this side of the House care that those on the minimum wage are now earning, as a result of the efforts of the Albanese Labor government, an additional $9,120 a year.

It is similar when we talk about what's happened when it comes to penalty rates. Again, those opposite contested that we should not do anything to protect penalty rates. We had a different view. We saw the benefits of making sure that we protected the penalty rates of working people, and 2.6 million Australians have benefited because of our efforts to protect penalty rates. Further, those opposite opposed measures for those who work in early childhood education, but we thought it was necessary to support the early childhood workforce. As a result of the wage supports that we have put in place, now fully delivered, some 15,000 additional people have gone into the sector, removing the shortages that had been hurting parents, hurting families and denying children the education and care they deserved.

I will finish with some facts that I know those opposite don't like. Under this government, a record number of Australians are in work. Under this government, Australia's unemployment rate is just 4.1 per cent. We have incredibly high participation, at 66.7 per cent. In December alone another 66,000 Australians were in work. Did we see any celebration of that from the shadow minister? No, he must have been too busy on 'Tim TV'.

We will always look for ways to support working Australians so that they can earn more and keep more of what they earn. I think Australians have already seen enough of the clown show opposite. They have definitely seen enough of 'channel Tim'.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal National Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've just heard 10 minutes of unadulterated, unobscured, constant attack on the shadow minister, who has raised a matter of very significant importance about alleged corruption in the building industry. Madam Deputy Speaker Claydon, you have heard me speak about corruption in the building industry for 10 long years. I have spoken about this up hill and down dale. Whenever I spoke about it, those opposite—'Nothing to see here.' It was all white noise, nothing, there's no problem with the CFMEU. They kept taking their money, their donations, from the CFMEU.

It wasn't until, I think, last year, when Channel 9 did an expose which put the issue beyond doubt, that we saw the member for Watson and the Prime Minister say, 'We had no idea about the extent of this problem'—or that there was, in fact, a problem at all. It reminds me of the old Suncorp ad. The Queenslanders on my side will get this: 'Charter boat? What charter boat?'—nothing to see here. Well, Geoffrey Watson has belled the cat and identified that there is likely somewhere between $15 billion and $30 billion worth of corrupt payments that have been made within the building industry.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you know as well as I know—and many people in this chamber would know—that I used to work as a carpenter in the building industry in Victoria. On my first day in the building industry in Victoria, I experienced the bullying and corruption of the CFMEU predecessor, the Builders Labourers' Federation. As an 18-year-old kid, I experienced it, and that's part of the reason why I'm sitting on this side of the House today, because Norm Gallagher was a rookie at the end of the day. What we have seen time and time and time again—businesses have come to see me, consistently over the last 10 years, and talk to me about the standover tactics of the CFMEU, the fact that they can't get a start on a job unless they agree to pay kickbacks to the CFMEU. When I start talking about this, those on the other side of the House go very quiet, because I'm not talking out of a textbook; I'm talking out of experience—35 years, now close to 40 years, experience in the building industry as a chippie, a builder and then a construction barrister.

The CFMEU has overseen the greatest corruption in this country, in Victoria and in Queensland, and that's terrible in itself. But do you know what makes it even worse? You guys, the Labor Party, have taken millions of dollars in donations from the CFMEU. The Prime Minister, last year, said, 'We're going to stop taking donations from the CFMEU'—but they didn't. Not only did they not stop; you would think that, with this sort of an expose, the Labor Party would say: 'You know what? We'll do the right thing and we'll donate that money to charity'—to Mates4Mates or some charitable organisation. But, no, that money has stayed in the Labor Party coffers. I say, 'Shame on you.' Shame on the Labor Party, because that money is blood money. I don't use that term loosely, because the CFMEU have overseen physical harm on building sites and threats, particularly against women working on building sites—and even against public servants. I was in here every day talking about it, and the Labor Party did nothing. The Labor Party continued to take the money from the CFMEU. You continue to take the donations—'Nothing to see here.'

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The level of interjections is really unhelpful—on both sides. I would like to hear the member for Sturt without interjections.

Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The suggestion today is that the government is turning a blind eye to union corruption. That claim, made with a lot of drama, does not reflect the facts. It's a tired refrain—that Labor is beholden to trade unions and that it turns a blind eye to corruption for its own benefit. Those claims are tired, boring, unoriginal and incorrect. Trade unions have a long and important history in protecting workers' rights, improving safety and ensuring fair pay and conditions across industry, including the construction industry. That contribution, which is ongoing and which adapts to the ever-changing way in which we work, should be acknowledged. But acknowledging the positive role of unions does not mean ignoring misconduct when it occurs. To be clear, despite the comments from the member for Goldstein, multi-employer bargaining does not facilitate misconduct or kickbacks or corruption. It's designed to allow negotiations between employers, unions and workers to boost slow wage growth, to reduce pay inequality and to collectively negotiate for improved conditions.

This is why, because unions matter, integrity within them matters. Any corruption or lack of integrity within any union or indeed any trade organisation needs to be stamped out. Otherwise, the benefits enjoyed by Australian workers will be at risk. And Labor is the party of the Australian worker and of working families and the party that will take all necessary steps to protect Australian workers, jobs, wages and conditions. The construction industry is central to Australia's future, from delivering housing to building the infrastructure our economy depends on. To attract and retain workers, that industry must be safe, lawful and free from corruption, intimidation or criminal influence. When those standards are compromised, everyone loses, workers most of all. We cannot afford to lose workers.

In South Australia, my home state, we are building, building, building the submarine construction yard at Osborne, the new women's and children's hospital, the River Torrens to Darlington Project and record housing developments, particularly in the north and inner city. We need construction workers, and we need good conditions for those workers. The suggestion that Labor would turn a blind eye to corruption within a trade union, where the whole point of trade unions is to support workers, is plain wrong. That is also why strong TAFE and VET systems matter in this discussion. The people training the next generation of construction workers, apprentices, educators and supervisors need to operate in an industry that they can trust. When young people enter the system through TAFE or vocational training, they should see a sector defined by professionalism, safety and respect for the rule of law. A construction industry that is free from corruption supports better training outcomes, stronger workforce participation and greater confidence amongst educators and students alike.

The challenges faced within parts of the CFMEU did not arise overnight, and addressing them requires more than rhetoric alone. It requires careful, sustained reform that strengthens lawful union functioning rather than undermining unionism itself. That is why our approach has focused on intervention and support, not abandonment. The scheme of administration of the CFMEU's construction division is a clear example. It is a measured step to restore confidence, accountability and proper governance within the union. In a relatively short period, significant changes were made by the administrator, including staffing changes, the introduction of a national code of conduct, clearer expectations around behaviour and inquiries into state branches. These actions are about ensuring that the union can continue to represent its members effectively, lawfully and with public trust. So, rather than turning a blind eye, the government is taking a balanced approach, acknowledging the essential role of unions while acting responsibly to address misconduct, rebuild confidence and protect workers. That is not avoidance; that is responsible leadership.

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today shines a light on what so many Victorians have known for a very long time—that the Labor Party has worked with the unions and been paid by the unions—and particularly exposes the corruption of the CFMEU. The investigative report is horrifying to say the least. And I want to quote from the Age today, who have said:

Major infrastructure projects funded by the Albanese and Allan governments hosted drug trafficking, systemic corruption and bribery, bikie gangs and the shocking sexual exploitation of women at an estimated cost to the taxpayers of $15 billion, according to a landmark report into CFMEU corruption.

There was the bombshell release of an unredacted version of the report Rotting from the topnote the heading—by barrister and CFMEU investigator Geoffrey Watson SC into the CFMEU Victorian branch, where Labor has done nothing to address union corruption or organised crime, costing taxpayers an estimated $15 billion in Victoria's Big Build.

Now, why is that a problem? Why is that a problem for every Victorian? Why is it a problem for every Australian? It's because $15 billion—and some other suggestions are that it could be up to $30 billion—has been funnelled off into crime. That is outrageous. We are in a cost-of-living crisis. People are struggling to put food on their tables. They're struggling to turn their air conditioners on. Many won't turn their heaters on in winter. And yet here we have the government of Australia, the Labor Party, turning the other way, only coming out and saying, 'Well, you know, there's a problem.' Really? There's been a problem since 2015, under John Setka—as if the Labor Party knew nothing about this. This is absolutely outrageous, and every person in Australia who is suffering under the cost of living ought to be appalled, because the corruption continues to bleed into this government. The government must give answers. So far we have seen nothing, no answers at all.

Let me just pass on to the House and put on record that Victoria's debt at this point in time is $192 billion net debt by 30 June 2029. It equates to at least $22,000 per capita—per man, woman and child—at current levels, rising to $25,500 by 2029. If you think it's bad now, folks, let's wait. Interest rates are at $18 million a day. Are you joking? Victorians should not have to put up with this. This is a government that is out of control in Victoria. The fact that the Labor Party have stood side by side with the CFMEU for so long boils my blood, if that isn't apparent. It ought to boil the blood of every person in Australia because every one of us suffers under this incompetence. Worse than that is the fact that women are being exploited on these sites and nothing is being done. We have a government that is constantly lecturing us, and a crossbench that is constantly lecturing us, about kinder, gentler ways and nicer ways of speaking to one another. How about dealing with the corruption? How about dealing with the exploitation of women? This is outrageous, and every Australian ought to be offended by the behaviour of this government.

Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to address this proposition directly. This government does not turn a blind eye to corruption—in unions, in corporations or anywhere else. The rule of law in this country does not depend on ministerial preference; it depends on independent regulators, independent prosecutors and independent courts. Where there is unlawful conduct, it should be investigated and prosecuted. That is the position of this government. It is clear. It is consistent. It is not selective. I did not realise when I came into this place as a sparky turned lawyer that I would have to become an amateur historian to remind those opposite of their collective amnesia and that history actually matters.

For nearly a decade, those opposite presided over systematic wage theft across multiple industries: hospitality, retail, construction and franchising. Underpayment was exposed repeatedly. Large corporations admitted to short-changing workers by millions of dollars, yet the penalty framework remained weak. Enforcement was under-resourced and criminalisation was resisted. That was the blind eye not to allegations but to structural exploitation. They resisted the federal Anti-Corruption Commission for years. They argued against it, they delayed it and then they diluted it. This government established the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We did so because integrity cannot be factional; it must be institutional.

The opposition's argument today implies that unions operate without oversight. That is demonstrably incorrect. Registered organisations are subject to strict financial reporting obligations, officer duties, audits and disclosure requirements under federal law. Breaches attract significant penalties. In many instances, penalties imposed on unions for industrial contraventions exceed those imposed on corporations for comparable regulatory breaches. That is not an argument for impunity; it is an argument about proportionality. The question is not whether misconduct should be sanctioned. It should. The question is whether one class of lawful organisation should be subject to extraordinary penalty settings while corporate misconduct that distorts markets and harms workers is treated as a compliance matter.

During the previous government, industrial relations policy was framed not as economic management but as a cultural contest. Legislation such as the so-called ensuring integrity bill sought to make deregistration of unions easier than the removal of corporate directors for serious misconduct. That was not a neutral integrity measure; it was targeted regulation.

This government does not defend unlawful conduct. We defend consistent application of the law. The same job, same pay legislation is to me one of the greatest pieces of legislation this government has passed. When I was on the tools, I was building on a construction site up in the hills in Perth. We were building a crushing plant and there were four rates of pay for different sparkies. Because of that people just quit. And they wonder why productivity was low under the previous regime.

We've criminalised deliberate wage theft, because honest small businesses were being undercut by competitors who avoided paying lawful entitlements. We strengthened the enforcement so that those who do the right thing are not commercially disadvantaged. That is not turning a blind eye; that is correcting imbalance.

The opposition's pattern is familiar: amplify allegations in the Labor movement while remaining comparatively subdued about misconduct in the boardrooms. Integrity should not operate on a partisan bias. If corruption is the concern, then all corruption should be pursued without favour, without political narrative and without selective outrage. This government supports independent regulators doing their job. We do not interfere in their investigations. We do not issue instructions about targets. That is precisely what integrity requires.

The Australian people expect fairness and consistency. They expect that laws apply equally. We do not accept the proposition that equates supporting the union movement with excusing illegality. That is a false dichotomy. Unions are lawful institutions representing millions of Australians. They are regulated. They are accountable. When individuals breach the law, they face consequences like anyone else. The opposition is entitled to prosecute political arguments but is not entitled to rewrite its own record.

Ben Small (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst it isn't always the crime that gets you, by golly, the cover up always does. Isn't it amazing that at the first rays of sunlight shone here on union corruption and the stench of its ties to the Labor Party we see the cockroaches scampering for the corners, seeking refuge in the only place they know: the dark shadows of the underworld in Victoria. It is staggering to listen to the member for Moore speak of amnesia and selective amnesia whilst completely neglecting that the very first act of this government in terms of its industrial relations agenda was to defund and abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the very independent regulator that we put as a tough cop on the beat to address union corruption and the cost impacts that it has on the construction of literally everything in this country, from homes all the way through to the big-build infrastructure projects that are the focus of this.

Is this somehow a right-wing hit job? No. Let's go back through the very history of how Geoffrey Watson SC came to investigate these matters. This wasn't initiated by the Liberal Party; this was initiated by Zach Smith, the then national secretary of the CFMEU, responding to unthinkable allegations made public by Nine. His report—two chapters of that report—addressed some $15 billion of taxpayer money, worse than sprayed up against the wall like the rest of the waste this government oversees, funnelled to organised crime in this country. If the government were serious about addressing corruption and underworld criminality in this country, that would be worth investigating. But no, instead we find the Minister for Workplace Relations, the minister assisting the Prime Minister and this other cavalcade of Labor MPs come through here blustering: 'This report—what report? It was not a report to government. I don't know about those two chapters.' They do not want to know the answers to the very real questions that Australians need answered here.

In fact, worse than that, the member for Perth crowed about some 121 members of the CFMEU that have been expelled from that organisation. In the context of some $15 billion of taxpayer money allegedly directed to underworld crime in Australia, that equates to some $124 million per individual booted out of that union. If that stacks up to pass the pub test, then I have been drinking at the wrong establishments my entire life. In fact, I look forward to tuning in to 'Tim TV'. I'll be one of the first subscribers provided that we get 'The Possum Hour'. What we got there for 10 minutes from the minister assisting the Prime Minister was nothing short of rip-roaring comedy.

The CFMEU Labor cartel has cost Victorians and indeed all Australians some $15 billion in money now. The intriguing thing is just how much of it ends up back in Labor Party coffers. But of course this is the sort of thing that a government that's committed to scrutiny, transparency, being the most open in history, wants nothing to do with. That's why we saw the Prime Minister and the Minister for Workplace Relations shut down parliamentary scrutiny of that. We understand now, in the face of these revelations today, that this corruption is systemic, it is endemic and it is industrial in its scale.

The Prime Minister said that the Labor Party wouldn't accept CFMEU donations, but we know that the AEC disclosures show just how often they've been cashing the cheques of their cartel mates. Minister Rishworth should release the full, unredacted report, including the two dirty chapters that nobody wants to talk about, or else risk being complicit in a cover-up of corruption on an industrial scale in this country. The millions of dollars of CFMEU donations to the Labor Party surely don't buy those sorts of policy outcomes. I understand the pressure that must be brought to bear upon the minister, because you've even got the ALP president, Mr Wayne Swan, chairing Cbus, which is linked to the CFMEU as an industry super fund. The rivers of gold between this corruption and the Labor Party deserve sunlight to disinfect them once and for all.

Ash Ambihaipahar (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that Valentine's Day is coming up in a few days time. I'm feeling a lot of love on this side of the chamber for our union movement and its great work, but, on that side of that chamber, hearing the member for Goldstein talk about unions, particularly with this MPI today, is appalling. Clearly he loves to hate on unions.

I think it's really important that I highlight some other things in embellishment of all the things that have been said today, including in question time. Corruption in any institution, whether it's unions or whether it's businesses—whatever it is, even in government—should be called out. I think everyone on this side of the chamber believes that. It is important to highlight that, because all unions—most unions, I should say—do amazing work to represent millions of workers in this country. This side of the chamber supports many things that have been passed in this new term of government but also in the last term, particularly on protecting our workers, but clearly the other side of the chamber does not support these—things like Baby Priya's bill, which we passed; penalty rates; secure work; and also equal pay. These are really important things that the union movement have been fighting for and that we have delivered on this side of the chamber. The Labor Party was born from the union movement. I don't think we need to do a history lesson on this, but it's important to make sure that people in the community of Australia understand that the union movement has done a lot of work for our Australian people.

No-one on this side of the House supports misconduct. No-one on this side of the House believes that what's happened with the CFMEU is right. We've done things. We've heard about it in question time today. I've heard it from my colleagues here today. No-one is above scrutiny. No-one is above the law. But what I will not accept is this deliberate conflation of what happened with the CFMEU with other unions, and I need to call that out.

The other thing I want to highlight in particular is that, prior to question time, the AFR live blog said:

Watson told the Queensland commission of inquiry he was "absolutely appalled" to see some calling for Irving's resignation today.

"If anything I've said here today would suggest that is an outcome they should think again," Watson said. "They would be mad to get rid of Mark Irving."

He said, "I might have said harsh things—they're my opinion and Irving may have had another.

"I've worked for Irving for two years now, and I've never met a more honest or decent man … I can tell you, everything he did was opposed to corruption and was in favour of fixing the CFMEU."

I think that needs to be identified here today, because I listened to the contributions from those opposite and they don't want to face the facts.

I also want to reflect on my experience. I heard the member for Fisher indicate his experience. I didn't hear about what he did in his time as a chippie. But, as a union lawyer, I have worked for the ETU and for the Nurses and Midwives' Association. They are doing amazing work to support workers who have been underpaid and have been working in unsafe conditions, and it's important to highlight that as well. During my time at the ETU, we did a lot of work, particularly during the time of the royal commission, to make sure we were doing the right thing, which we did. During the coalition's time in government, nothing came out of that—just a slap on the wrist. Now, with an Albanese Labor government, more has been done.

I also need to highlight that I wish the opposition had taken this more seriously. They have a passion for asserting that the government is turning a blind eye to union corruption, but I think it's also important that they're saying nothing about the significant underpayment that's occurring in the corporate world. They should be taking that very seriously as well, along with phoenixing and franchising. We heard about it today, and I wish they could take that very seriously, because they have not said anything about that in particular.

Mary Aldred (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Something is rotten in the state of Victoria, and it's starting to infect Labor federally. Something is rotten in the state of Victoria when, over a long period of time, you've got such a significant undermining of public confidence in public institutions and in government integrity, which has become so much worse under Daniel Andrews and since his tenure.

I only need to look at how state government ministers treat this issue. I go back to 30 September last year. Australia's worst energy minister, Lily D'Ambrosio, was asked about an IBAC survey on the perception of corruption, and she waved reporters away and was extremely flippant. She said she was more interested in community perceptions, but the reality was that nearly 90 per cent of MPs in the Victorian state parliament were worried about corruption, and the figure was a bit less than that for local government councillors. That is one example of how prolific some of these issues are. We're not talking about some minor infractions here. We are dealing with some pretty profound issues—$15 billion didn't just vanish. It was siphoned off while the government looked the other way. We're talking about strippers being brought into a workplace. In what other workplace or office in Australia would that be acceptable? That's what's happening in Victoria.

This is not incompetence; it's wilful ignorance. I read today about a contract that was taken out on the administrator when he was appointed. This is really serious stuff. We read about this sort of thing internationally. We like to think it doesn't happen here in Australia, but it does when it comes to the CFMEU, and it's allowed to flourish under a Labor federal government that is not prepared to toughen up and deal with it. We're talking about organised crime figures buying and selling workplace agreements. I note that, at the moment, we're paying something like $500,000 a minute on government debt. Every dollar lost to corruption is a hospital bed not funded, a road not fixed, a school not repaired. But that's the Victorian government. That's Labor in Victoria, which has infected Labor federally. The standard that you choose to walk past is the same one that you choose to accept.

It's also impacting regional communities and small businesses. I'll give you an example. In my electorate of Monash, there are many family-run building SMEs. They do a terrific job. They employ young people. They give tradies a go. We've got a wonderful local workforce, but, so often, I speak to them about skills and labour shortages. These corruption issues in Melbourne that relate to the CFMEU have profound, ongoing and institutional consequences for the rest of the building sector and for small businesses, who are expected to abide by a very high level of compliance and regulatory standards. Clearly, the CFMEU are not. There are some really profound flow-on impacts here.

The member for Goldstein has done an outstanding job in holding a light to systemic corruption. The Age, which is not exactly the bastion of conservative publishing, has been like a dog with a bone on this issue, and I commend the bravery and the persistence of reporters like Nick McKenzie, because we need to get to the bottom of this. We need to see a report that is not redacted. If you are serious about standing up to corruption, putting out that report in full without bits and pieces taken out, redacted and blacked out is important. It's important to get to the bottom of why bikie gangs were running building sites. We need to know what is happening from here on in with that report, with cleaning up union corruption and with CFMEU donations to the Labor Party, because Australians deserve so much better.

Anne Urquhart (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On this side, we retain full confidence in the administrator, respected King's Counsel Mr Mark Irving. Can I reinforce again, as my colleague did a moment ago, the words of Geoffrey Watson KC—hardly a partisan figure. During the inquiry, after reading reports of coalition calls for the administrator to resign, Mr Watson paused proceedings and said:

There's something I'd like to say …

I might have said some harsh things here today, but in my opinion … I've never met a more honest and decent man.

They'd be mad to get rid of Mark Irving.

The Albanese government has acted decisively to stamp out corruption, criminality and violence within the CFMEU's construction division by placing it into administration, legislation supported by the coalition. These problems are deeply embedded in the industry. They didn't arise overnight—it didn't just happen like that—and they won't be fixed overnight.

Let's be honest about this: the disgraceful conduct outlined in the Watson report, commissioned by Mr Irving under our legislation, flourished under the coalition and the ABCC. After a $61 million royal commission, the same leadership in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria remained in place for nearly a decade. The ABCC issued fines, and judges said those fines were ineffective. Geoffrey Watson found they were treated as a cost of doing business, and even suggested breaching the law became part of the model. How many leaders did the coalition remove? Zero.

Now compare that with what this government has achieved, with what we've done. In August 2024 the scheme of administration removed the entire elected leadership of the construction division across six jurisdictions, 270 union officers and 12 paid officials. Since then, more than 100 additional staff have been removed or have resigned—the majority in leadership roles. Over half the organisers in Victoria are new, over 90 per cent in New South Wales are new and more than half in Queensland are new. Every individual named in the Watson report has been removed. This is action.

I say this as someone who has spent much of their working life in the union movement: before entering this parliament many years ago, before I was on the other side, I was an organiser for over 20 years and later secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union in Tasmania. I represented workers in factories, workshops and heavy industry, and I stood on picket lines. I negotiated enterprise agreements. I dealt with employers, regulators and governments of all persuasions. I know the difference between strong representation and unlawful conduct. The overwhelming majority of union members are hardworking people who want safe workplaces, fair pay and dignity at work, but they also want hardworking, honest people representing them. Corruption does not protect workers. Criminality does not advance their interests. Violence does not strengthen unions.

When I was a union organiser, my job was to lift standards to ensure compliance with the law and improve safety and wages, not to undermine the law. Cleaning up the construction industry is not anti-union; it's pro-worker. It's about restoring integrity so that members can have confidence in their representation and so that law-abiding businesses are not undercut. Under this administration, individuals who were fined for assault, illegal blockades, deplorable conduct and even bribery—people who were allowed to retain their roles under the coalition and the ABCC—have been removed. In just 18 months the administrator has achieved more than the coalition and the failed ABCC did in a decade.

But reform doesn't stop here. Following referrals from this government, regulators and law enforcement now have more than 100 investigations underway right across the construction industry. We know problems are not confined to one organisation. Employers and contractors also have responsibilities. That is why we established the National Construction Industry Forum, bringing together government, business and unions. It was unanimously endorsed as a blueprint for reform. Work is underway on a joint industry charter to lift behavioural standards across the sector, including procurement practices.

This is serious structural reform. The shadow minister's attacks on the administrator may make for headlines, but they do absolutely nothing to clean up the industry.