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

I like that word, 'gutted'—on a media show, on Insiders. That is an absolute disgrace and, quite frankly, is completely in contradiction to these high standards that the Prime Minister of the Australia (a) took to the Australian people and (b) demands of his ministers, which are set out quite clearly in the Code of Conduct for Ministers.

When the code of conduct says 'behaviour worthy of the Australian people' and making decisions 'taken with the sole objective of advancing the public interest', let's look at the consultation that did occur. Minister Watt, on behalf of the minister, confirmed that the only consultation that did occur, the only public interest that was advanced by Mr Albanese and the Labor government, was in relation to the interests of the relevant unions. Minister Watt actually confirmed that the consultation that was had in relation to the neutering, or the gutting, of the Building Code was with, and I quote, the CFMMEU. That is interesting because, as we know, they are one of the Australian Labor Party's greatest financial donors. Almost $1 million a year has flowed from the CFMMEU into the coffers of the Australian Labor Party. So what you are seeing is this: money goes in and policy favours come out. This clearly shows there is now only one accord in Australia: the accord that the Albanese government has with the CFMMEU based on the almost $1 million a year that flows into the Australian Labor Party, and then the policies flow out at the behest of the relevant union.

Consultation did occur with the CFMMEU. The consultation didn't stop there, though, as Minister Watt confirmed. There was also consultation with the AWU and with the ACTU. Again: consultation with unions. I go back to the Code of Conduct for Ministers. It clearly does state, under public interest and fairness, that decisions are to be:

… taken with the sole objective of advancing the public interest.

The public interest, I hate to tell Mr Albanese, now Prime Minister of Australia, is not just the public interest for the CFMMEU, it's not just the public interest for the AWU and it is certainly not just the public interest for the ACTU.

I think that any objective observer would ask, 'How about the construction industry?' How about the in excess of, I don't know, 1.1 million employees that the construction industry employs? How about the relevant stakeholders in the construction industry that are not unions? What about, even as a matter of courtesy—nothing more and nothing less; that's what the code of conduct talks about—do you think maybe even a call before you went on Insiders and made the announcement about 150 employees? Those on the other side always talk about the rights of employees. What about the common decency in relation to the around 150 employees employed by the Australian Building and Construction Commission who were effectively told by this Labor government, 'You don't have a job,' and they found out when they watched a media program on Sunday.

Another irony in relation to the consultation is this: one of the meetings Minister Watt put on the record on behalf of the minister from the other place happened on the same day the most militant union in Australia—and that's not me saying that; that's court after court. Minister Watt did say, in response to a question from me, that he and the Labor Party respect the independence of the judiciary. That is the judiciary in Australia calling them the most militant union in Australia. Get this: the consultation that the Albanese government and the minister had with the CFMMEU occurred on the same day that the most militant union in Australia received a record fine—this is a fine by the courts—of $840,000 for threatening unlawful strikes on Brisbane construction sites.

What we see is that they talk big on integrity, they talk big on transparency and they wave around their Code of Conduct for Ministers. And guess what? When they are asked about consultation with relevant stakeholders, when they have to produce documents—I do want to say to the chamber that over the break I will be going through these documents very carefully, because it's often not what the documents say, it's what the documents don't say that is actually a reflection on the government. The amount of redaction in these documents is actually astounding for a government that went to the Australian people on the bases of a platform of integrity and transparency. Well, guess what? When it comes to the Australian Building and Construction Commission, when it comes to the construction industry, there is none.