Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise to speak on this disallowance motion in relation to the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022. In doing so, I note that this is the first step in the Labor government's project to abolish the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which as at today is the only handbrake on the lawless activity of the construction division of the CFMMEU.

I've made the point in relation to this discussion previously that when Minister Burke first announced the substantial amendment gutting the powers of the ABCC under the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022 he did not even dare to mention the CFMMEU in his media announcement. He couldn't even bring himself to mention the CFMMEU in relation to his announcement of the substantial amendment, the gutting of the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022.

When you actually look at the regulation, the delegated legislation, itself and you look at the proposed amendments and then go through and look at the explanatory statement issued by the authority, you see that the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations cannot bring himself to even refer to the CFMMEU construction division, which is the whole reason we have this apparatus called the Australian Building and Construction Commission: because of the lawless activity that is occurring on construction sites all over Australia. When you go through the explanatory statement, the guide to all the provisions, there is no mention of the CFMMEU at all. There is not a single mention of the CFMMEU. There is not a single mention of the millions of dollars of fines which have been levied on the CFMMEU or their disgraceful conduct on construction sites all over Australia.

As I've said previously in this house and will say all the way up to the next federal election, the fact of the matter is that the Labor Party is institutionally incapable of dealing with the lawless nature of the activities of the CFMMEU. I saw this just recently in my home state of Queensland. I quote from an article appearing in the Courier Mail on 24 August 2022 in relation to an incident which occurred after this Senate last met, entitled 'Hundreds of CFMEU protesters storm Transport and Main Roads building in Brisbane CBD', by reporter Madura McCormack:

Public servants have been put at risk, a government building forced to lock down and events cancelled after hundreds of militant construction union members stormed a CBD building in a protest gone awry.

I'm not sure it was a protest gone awry, because if one looks at the conduct of the construction division of the CFMMEU, this is what they do. This is exactly their modus operandi. I again quote:

The Department of Transport and Main Roads confirmed 'more than' 200 CFMEU members held a protest at the government's Mary Street offices on Tuesday about 9am before forcibly entering the building. This included knocking down a security guard—who was not seriously injured—

lucky for the security guard—

and exposing staff members to 'upsetting and unacceptable' behaviour.

What about the workplace rights of the security guard, who was just doing his job—manning his post, going about his day—when he was knocked down by protesters from the CFMMEU? What about his workplace rights? What about his right to a safe workplace when he goes about his business, discharging his duties faithfully?

Transport Minister Mark Bailey, who was not in the building at the time—

unlike the poor old security guard—

confirmed some staff were trapped in a server room to get away from protesters.

So this was hardly a peaceful protest if there were staff—Queensland public servants; no doubt many of them members of the Together union—and I'll have something else to say about that later—actually trapped in a room, isolated, because of the violent thuggery of the CFMEU. I again quote:

Queensland Police confirmed they were called to protest action around 9.30am on Tuesday, though their estimates put the crowd at around 100 to 150.

The annual Queensland Transport and Roads Investment Program industry briefing was due to be held in the Mary St building that morning, with TMR director general Neil Scales scheduled to speak.

But a TMR spokesperson confirmed police presence did not stop CFMEU members from helping others forcibly enter the building, with the mob then entering the conference room set to be used for the event.

So it didn't matter the police were there, it didn't matter that this protest was so violent the Queensland public servants, no doubt members of a trade union themselves, had to call the police. That didn't matter. The construction division—I'm not talking about the mining division, I'm talking about the construction division—of the CFMEU is lawless, absolutely lawless.

It continues—and this is where it gets really interesting. There are senators sitting in this chamber, who sit on the other side of the chamber, whose ethics and morals I greatly admire. No doubt they would agree, as I do, with the principle of civil disobedience, peaceful protest and that sometimes you must take measures to make your voice heard. But in this case they've stormed into a conference—a conference that three members of the CFMEU had actually been invited to attend, to participate in the conference. And yet what do they do? One hundred to 150 or 200 violent members disturb the conference. As a consequence the conference had to be called off. Subsequent conferences also had to be called off because of the lawless nature of the construction division of the CFMEU's activities.

Mr Bailey—

who is my local state member—

defended workers ability to protest but said "you must do it respectfully, and you must do it peacefully and that's not what we saw yesterday".

"And, you know, I'm afraid that's, you know, I can't defend that at all. And I wouldn't defend that—

No, nor would I, Mr Bailey MP. I wouldn't defend it either.

Indeed the Premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk MP, described the incident as follows:

"That footage is incredibly disturbing and I would have hated being a person there with that happening … they owe an apology to those workers—

an apology to those workers—

who were subjected to that and who felt unsafe."

Palaszczuk said she understood police were looking into the matter.

And how does the CFMEU respond? Is there contrition on the part of the CFMEU construction division? Do they say: 'Well maybe we got a bit out of hand. Maybe our emotions got away from us. We genuinely apologise. We show remorse.' You don't have to be Nostradamus to predict how the CFMEU construction division actually responded to that call for an apology. Why do I say that? Because you only have to read the many, many High Court cases, Supreme Court cases, Federal Court cases where judges of this country have repeatedly said the CFMEU fails to show remorse. The construction division of the CFMEU repeatedly will not show contrition, will not show remorse.

This is what the CFMEU said, this is what the assistant secretary said—I'm not going to name him, because I believe this is a sick, sick culture in this union. He said:

The issue "seems like a bit of a storm in a teacup" …

What happened? 'Oh, it was a storm in a teacup'. He continued:

A bunch of fluoro shirts attended the meeting and unfortunately some people panicked about that.

Workers simply just wanted to go and listen about industry projects that were coming up.

We attended a meeting, the meeting got cancelled and we left.

That's from a senior official of the CFMMEU construction division. There was no contrition, no remorse and nothing about the security guard they knocked over as they ran into peaceful meeting which they had attended and been participating in. There was nothing about the public servants who, no doubt, are members of the Together union in my home state of Queensland who were trapped in a server room, unable to escape—not a word. No contrition, no remorse, what's the problem? Objective achieved. Business as usual for the CFMMEU construction division.

Mark Bailey called on Ravbar to make a public apology. Is that the same Ravbar who sits on the ALP national executive? Maybe some of those here could ask him to make a public apology. Bailey said:

I have backed in our workers from day one as their minister, I take that responsibility seriously, and they were mistreated by his union members.

That's what a Labor minister is saying about the CFMMEU in my home state of Queensland. Is anyone surprised? Where will this lawlessness end? How will the abolition of the ABCC promote lawful, safe working places?

I've spoken previously in this place about the fact that the Together union, which may well be the union that represents the security guard who was knocked down, and no doubt is also the union representing some of the public servants who essentially were deprived of their liberty and trapped whilst this violent protest was going on, had to take protected industrial action on behalf of workplace health and safety inspectors because it was not safe for the workplace health and safety inspectors to go onto construction sites in Queensland. That is how bad the situation is. Yet the minister is in the process of gutting the ABCC, taking away all of the ABCC's powers. In the explanatory statement, in the regulation, in all the documents relating to this matter, there is not a single mention of the CFMMEU and its unlawful behaviour. It is the union whose name we will not utter, and the Labor Party is proving itself of being institutionally incapable of dealing with the unlawful behaviour of the CFMMEU. Our public servants deserve better. Our workplace health and safety inspectors deserve better. Everyone working on our construction workplaces deserves better than to have to deal with this unlawful behaviour.

There was another case where the reasons were brought down after we last met or in our last week or thereabouts. This was the case dealing with the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the CFMMEU in relation to Pacific Highway Upgrade Case (No. 4). We know that in relation to every single major infrastructure project in this country involving the CFMMEU there are cases like this—again and again. Judge Humphreys said, at paragraph 52:

It is perhaps appropriate to deal with the CFMMEU first. This is a Union which has a long and troubled history of breaches of the relevant workplace legislation. It is a Union that appears to have a preferred mode of business that accepts prosecution for breaches of the relevant legislation as an occupational hazard, and presumably the imposition of pecuniary penalties in the same casual manner.

The judge then referred to the Pattinson case in the High Court and to the Broadway on Ann case, both of which I've previously referred to in this place. He said, at paragraph 56:

Given the findings of the High Court in Pattinson the Court is satisfied that it is entitled to look at imposing a pecuniary penalty at the very high end of the available range of penalties in order to again emphasise the need for specific deterrence.

It goes on:

The Court is also taken account that no remorse or contrition has been evidenced by the CFMMEU—

Just as there was no remorse or contrition about the supposed storm in a teacup when the security guard just doing his business, going about his day, was bowled over by members of the CFMMEU. his is their modus operandi, their way of doing business. The penalty in this case: another $100,000—just the cost of doing business. Another $100,000—who cares? When's our next protest going to be? When are we going to picket our next construction work site? This Senate has an obligation to consider the lawless activity of the CFMMEU.