Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

The prosecutor didn't know what it meant. I've got to tell you that I didn't know what it meant either when I first heard the term. Whilst those charged with this are appealing the decision, they're not appealing the finding that they said the term. They're appealing the finding that it was homophobic in nature. This is a term which I won't repeat in this place. I didn't know what it meant. I read Judge Vasta's annexure and I felt physically ill.

Maybe go and read the annexure, Senator Chisholm, and if you think calling someone the term that was used that is so vile—

Do I think that? In fact, do you know what? Just for your benefit—because Senator Chisholm here seems to think attacking the judge is something that should be brought out—I will say that the homophobic slur was 'pumpkin eater'. Do you know what it means? I didn't know what it means, but go and look it up. It is the most disgusting homophobic slur I have ever heard, and those CFMMEU members that are appealing the decision—

Government senat ors interjecting—

You snicker over there, and a female Labor senator is snickering over there. As this was said, they're not appealing against the finding that they said it; they're appealing that they didn't mean it in a homophobic way. What a disgrace!

So don't ever come in here and say you care about women's safety on workplaces. I'm looking at the far Left of the chamber, who pretend to virtue-signal about LGBT. Don't you ever come in as you defend the CFMMEU and tear down the ABCC, as the most homophobic slurs are allowed to be put around on worksites. It is not denied that they're said. The fines that are given are just the cost of doing business for these unions. Australians are allowed to be treated this way on the workplace, whether they're gay men or whether they are women. The fact is that those opposite—that whole side of the chamber—think that this is a union that, as we just heard up here, is filled with decent people doing wonderful things. Well, I'm pretty sure that most gay men being referred to as 'pumpkin eaters' wouldn't think that was a nice thing. I identify as a woman. I was born as a woman. I maintain myself as a woman. I breastfed my children—all of those things. I can tell you: if somebody referred to me as an 'F-ing slut' and said that I will need kneepads because I'm going to be sucking off these F-ing dogs all day—

Government senators interjecting—

Well, do you know what? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't take it as a compliment. I wouldn't say, 'That's a pretty cracking workplace, and I want to head back there tomorrow.' I think that would be something that I might have a look at and about which I would think: 'Well, they're not a particularly pleasant person. I don't think you're providing a safe workplace for me. I don't think you're defending my rights as a worker.' I would suggest that calling someone—a woman—those things might actually be considered a little derogatory.

Those opposite were the bastions of the Jenkins review, saying that we needed to adopt everything because everyone needed to feel safe in their workplace. We know Senator Thorpe pulled out a cracker to me last December,. If I wanted an apology from Adam Bandt, I apparently needed to go and get it myself and ask for one. That's the class and consistency of that lot up there. To be fair to the ALP, it is not everyone. A couple of their decent members did come and see me and say that was the most abhorrent thing that they had heard. To be fair, it was in reference to my son with a disability. It could have been misinterpreted in another way. It wasn't meant that way, and no-one heard it that way at the time in the nature of the debate. But that's equivalent, in some ways, to being referred to as an 'F-ing S'. Maybe I could enjoy—

An opposition senator interjecting—

Well, maybe Lidia could get to the CFMMEU and they'd actually welcome her language.

Again, I think we are all clear that, if you turn up to work and bark at a woman like a dog, it's not really a sign of affection. It's not really saying to them: 'I value your work. I welcome you into this workplace.' Yet that wasn't enough for this CFMMEU official. He then called her an 'F-ng dog C'. As most women will tell you, when someone tells you they'll see you next Tuesday you'd usually think they're asking you for coffee, but occasionally in the CFMMEU that's not what they mean. They think that you should go to the police, and they say, 'You F-ing dog.' Again, those opposite—and, of course, the hypocrites of the century up the far end will insist on taking any opportunity they can to grandstand, because they love saying Parliament House isn't a safe workplace. I can tell you I feel very safe in this workplace. Most people I speak to feel very safe in this workplace, because we don't refer to each other as F-ing Ss or F-ing Cs. Well, maybe some do, but certainly not in this chamber, and certainly with it being considered unparliamentary language. But I can also say—and maybe I'm not paying attention—that no-one has ever threatened to gang-rape me. Now, rape's not about sex; it's about violence. It's not about thinking, 'She's a bit of alright,' or 'A few of us are interested in you.' This is an act of absolute misogynistic violence. Yet women on worksites are being subjected by CFMMEU officials to threats of gang rape.

Yet we will hear from those opposite that the ABCC's interested in stickers on helmets. No, they are not. They are interested in protecting people at work places and worksites from being abused, from having the most derogatory and offensive language used—and not even behind their back. At least in this place when people say stuff about you it's usually kind of in the background. You hear about it through the corridors occasionally. But this is to their faces, onsite. Maybe that's what you think, because hypocrisy's your special flavour. But you might actually welcome the CFMMEU. They're not so much hypocrites as just blatantly revolting. They don't hide behind what they do. They actually promote people who behave in this way, because, as I said, these fines from the ABCC are just the cost of doing business.

We could just keep going through these: three threatening phone calls, late at night, to a female inspector. Is this the way the ALP and the Greens think anyone should behave—that women should go home from work to be subjected to a continuing form of intimidation and harassment? As if it isn't enough that they are being abused on the worksite. I genuinely ask the question, and I look forward to hearing from those opposite as they go through the litany of findings from the ABCC, as they go through the decisions that have made. I mean, it almost seems silly that anyone could be offended by being called a bimbo or daddy's girl on a site, because maybe they should be grateful that they aren't called an F-ing C. It's almost as though the person who called them a bimbo and a daddy's girl didn't get the memo that we'd upped the language! I feel as though that was the kindergarten side of things, and those who have moved up into the more senior echelons of the CFMMEU use language that is so derogatory that it can't even be used in this place.

So I do look forward and I hope we see some of them tonight, if any of them are actually paying attention. They can put it on channel 104. It will tell them what is being debated. They won't even have to think for themselves. They can come in here and just say to us: 'We think it is completely appropriate to refer to women as F-ing Cs at the workplace; not only that, but we think it is completely appropriate to continue that harassment and intimidation when they go home with late-night phone calls. We don't think women should be safe in the workplace, but we are going to hypocritically stand here at every opportunity and bark on about safety in the workplace whilst they allow this to occur.'