James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

With the indulgence of the chamber, before I get into the meat of this disallowance, I would like to pay homage to Senator Cadell and his first speech from earlier this evening. Ross and I worked on the Country Liberal campaign up in Darwin back in 2012. I've known him since then, and I can see that he's going to be such a strong fighter for regional and rural New South Wales and across Australia. His earthy sense of humour and his self-deprecation will be a welcome addition to this place. I thank the chamber for allowing me that small indulgence before I get down into what we're here for.

What's interesting, for those who might be listening at home or over the worldwide web, is the name of what we're dealing with here. We keep talking about a disallowance. It's a motion for disallowance of the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work Amendment Instrument 2022. What the Labor Party are doing is trying to slowly strangle a safe workplace in Australia. Before they can get legislation before the chamber, they've brought forward regulations that, in the words of Tony Burke, will mean the Australian Building and Construction Commission's powers will be pulled back to the 'bare legal minimum'. That's what this is about. This is about the Labor Party doing the bidding of their union paymasters.

What is interesting if you're a student of history and especially if you're from Queensland, like Senator Scarr is, is that Queensland is the birthplace of the Labor Party. It came from a shearers' strike. The Labor Party came out of the union movement. The Labor Party was established as the political wing of the union movement. Labor senators and MPs are very proud of that, and good on them; I'm sure their parents are proud. But what has happened with the modern Labor Party is that it actually isn't the political wing of the union movement; the union movement has become the campaign wing of the Labor Party. The Labor Party, in its soul, has died. The flame on the hill of Prime Minister Chifley has become a sort of damp sponge. What has happened with the union movement is that they've effectively become subcontractors to the Labor Party, as you might see set up in some of the government affairs agencies around town.

What the union movement do is say to the Labor Party, 'Look, we'll campaign for your election, but we want something in return.' Remember, for those who are listening and fellow senators, the union movement now has only about 10 per cent of the workforce. Nine out of 10 Australians don't join a union. I'm someone who proudly believes in freedom of association—that you should have the right to join an industrial association and the right to join a union but also the right not to join an industrial association or union. So what the Labor Party do, through their subcontractors in the union movement who run these public campaigning bodies, is try to protect the institutional power of unions. Unions have failed in their fundamental reason for existence—that is to be mass membership organisations that defend the rights of the working class. They don't do that anymore. They defend the rights of union officials.

For those who are listening, this debate is not about union members. This debate is not about the right to join a union or not join a union. This debate is about the exercise of power by union officials. In particular, it is about the exercise of power by union officials who, over the decades, have proven themselves incapable of understanding good governance, but proven themselves capable of understanding the power of thuggery, understanding the power of corruption and understanding the power of pure malice.

That is sad because that reflects upon the entire union movement. It reflects poorly—and this is quite sad—on those union members who trust those union officials to do what is in their best interests. That does not happen with the CFMMEU, because this effectively is a criminal organisation. It is an organisation who exists not to protect the rights of its members. This organisation exists purely to protect the power—the feudal power—that exists within the structure of the CFMMEU. We've heard tonight some very powerful examples. I want to commend Senator Reynolds and, in particular, Senator Hughes's very strong and very touching approaches about how safety in the workplace is disregarded by the Labor Party and the union movement when politics are involved. We hear in this place loudly and clearly that we must have safe workplaces across Australia, and, indeed, in this building we've had reviews and committees. As Senator Hughes very eloquently said she's never felt unsafe in this place, but she did go through some examples of what women and what some gay Australians have had to deal with in the workplace because of officials of the CFMMEU. What is interesting is that of the speakers opposite, none of them—none of them—have commented on or expanded upon why they think that the conduct of these union officials is right or defensible, because they know it's not.

Remember that in the UK we do have—and I am looking forward to the announcement of the new British Prime Minister in 45 minutes time—the House of Lords, an appointed chamber with 92 hereditary peers. But in Australia we've got the Senate which is, for the Labor Party, the house of retired union barons. They come here after serving a term or two as the assistant general secretary of some acronym. They come in here as part of a deal and they sit on the benches over there. Quite frankly, they don't add much to this place except when they depart and then someone else comes in to warm that particular seat. This is what is sad. You'd think that these union officials who sit opposite us would defend the right of all Australians to have a safe workplace. But, no, they don't do that. Remember that the unions are subcontractors to the Labor Party—and we experienced this during the May election, when my side sadly lost. But what was interesting was the dying Labor Party infrastructure across Australia and how it was saved—or salvaged—by the union movement. I experienced this on various prepolls around the place. You would have these charming—I use that word sarcastically—men, and they're always men, who would come along from the particular union headquarters. They'd have their tattoos and their generally menacing approach to life, where they snarl at trees and chase cars. What they'd love to do was intimidate people. They'd stand over the little old ladies and little old men of the LNP—that's why I love my party, because the little old ladies and little old men would stand their ground as the union thugs would stand over them and intimidate them and call them all sorts of terrible names.

That's when we get to the breaches of a safe workplace that the CFMMEU have been found to undertake. I know it's true. I don't need a court of law to tell me that because I've seen that on polling day. I've seen that on what should be a day of celebration of our boisterous democracy, when often there are frank exchanges of views between the Left, the Right, the far left over there and the Greens. But what the union thugs do is always take it to the next level and threaten violence against the coalition volunteers. And they are volunteers, whereas these aren't union members; they're union officials and union thugs.

The CFMMEU has been penalised for more breaches of the Fair Work Act than any other union. I am going to read out some of the findings of what's happened in these workplaces because I want those opposite to defend the actions of these union officials. I want them to get up and say that it was right for a CFMMEU official who once was jailed for assault to tell a female inspector she was an effing, well, S-word that rhymes with glut, asking her if she brought kneepads because 'you are going to be sucking off these'—goodness me—'effing dogs all day.' I want those union officials over there to come into this place and defend those actions.

So yes, that was what should happen in a workplace! This is why we need an honest cop out there. This is why we need the Australian Building and Construction Commission because they go in and stop this behaviour. The Courier Mail revealed that a CFMMEU official allegedly barked like a dog at a female health and safety consultant on a Gold Coast construction site. From memory, this was when the Commonwealth Games were being structured. This charming guy who you'd love to take home and meet your parents—imagine him sitting around the dining table—said, 'Go on, off you go, you effing dog'—goodness—'C. Go get your police.' Then he went on to call her.

We love the Left over here, who are always speaking about the rights of women and the rights of minorities but not when it comes to those women and those minorities who might have a different view to them as to the role of thuggish union officials. No, they don't have their rights. They don't have any rights, not in a workplace that is going to be governed by officials of the CFMMEU. Welcome to the modern Labor Party: the party that, as Senator Rennick said, is not the party of the working class; it is the party who defend the rights of spivs and thugs to threaten women and members of minority communities in Australia.

The CFMMEU delegates have also been accused of harassing the daughter of a builder when they picketed a worksite. This is charming, isn't it? This is our building industry, which is so important for Australia's economy and so important to make sure that people have jobs, that people have skills, that people have homes, that we have roads and that we have everything that we can build to make Australia a better place. We're not talking about some two-bit business, as much as I love two-bit businesses because I'm a big fan of small businesses. This is a multibillion dollar industry that is held to ransom by the thugs of the CFMMEU. Because of their failure to act, grow and mature as a political party over the decades, the Labor Party needs to subcontract their campaigning to the unions. People talk about the need for a federal corruption commission: 'The Labor Party's going to bring that in.' And I wonder sometimes whether the Labor Party doing a policies-for-votes deal with the union movement would fall within the remit of an anti-corruption commission. Is the Labor Party saying to the union movement, 'Campaign for us and we will deliver the following policies,' or is it a case of the union movement saying to the Labor Party, 'We'll campaign for you if you deliver the following for us.' In terms of some of the definitions of this anticorruption commission, I wonder whether I'll be knocking on that door at 9 am when this anticorruption commission opens and lodging complaints there about the conduct and behaviour of this terrible, terrible octopus that is the modern Labor Party and the failing union movement.