Division Description Changes — Bills — Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail — 20th Aug 2024

Change	Division
representatives vote 2024-08-20#3 Edited by mackay staff on 2024-09-01 13:59:06	Title Bills — Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024; Consideration in Detail Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 - Consideration in Detail - Speed things along Description ~~<p class="speaker">Allegra Spender</p>~~ ~~<p>I move the amendment on the sheet further revised on 20 August 2024, as circulated in my name:</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 11 (after line 14), after subsection 323B(3), insert:</p>~~ <p class="italic">(3A) If the Minister determines a scheme under subsection (1), the scheme must provide that a person is not eligible to be a candidate for an election, or to be elected or appointed (including re-elected or reappointed), to an office in an organisation unless the person is a fit and proper person to be an officer.</p> ~~<p class="italic">(3B) Subsection (3A) does not limit subsection (1) or (3).</p>~~ <p>The CFMEU has forfeited the right to clean itself up. As I've already said today, I'm convinced that the administrator is the appropriate short-term response to purge this union of unscrupulous actors and misconduct. Under the process, the administrator will be granted powers to declare offices within the union vacant. But, as we've seen time and time again, these actors find a way of getting back into this union. That is why I'm moving an amendment that provides an extra layer of security on any appointments made by the independent administrator. Under this amendment, appointments of offices well first require the demonstration of 'fit and proper purpose and status', as defined already within section 255 of the existing Fair Work Registered (Organisations) Act.</p> <p>I acknowledge that the government has listened to my concerns and has moved an amendment that is of some similar substance. The amendment agreed to in the Senate would prevent those already removed from office by the administrator would be ineligible for office indefinitely unless they can demonstrate fit and proper status. I agree with this, but I believe it goes only halfway. We know that we've had serious issues in relation to members appointed to this union, and I want to see assurances from the get-go that people ascending to offices within this union meet the public's expectation of integrity. I believe this is a sensible solution and urge all members of the parliament to support it.</p> <p>This administration a start: however—and I've said this before to the minister representing the minister—it is not enough in itself. It has to be the start of where we need to go on this. I believe this is still something that is useful to add to further assurances, particularly from a community that doesn't have a lot of confidence, I'll be honest, in the union or, necessarily, in the government's ability or true will to clean up this union. I believe that this will be a useful amendment for the government to accept.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p>~~ <p>To respond on behalf of the government, there's nothing in terms of the concept of the amendment that the government disagrees with. We're in the unusual situation that, normally, we have this debate before the Senate, in which case we would have been in a different situation, I suspect. But an amendment which has the same impact as what's being moved has been carried in the Senate. Therefore, the government won't be supporting the amendment, but acknowledges that the member for Wentworth is raising an issue that does improve the legislation. We believe that the effect of that has already been given by amendments that were carried in the other place.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Anne Webster</p>~~ <p>In our history on this side of the House of strong leadership on this vital issue, the coalition re-established the ABCC in 2016 after a double dissolution election. Labor shut the ABCC down in February 2023, leaving our construction industry and its more than 400,000 small businesses at the CFMEU's mercy. In tandem with the Registered Organisation Commission, the coalition had established watchdogs to prevent, bullying, thuggery and intimidation from unions like the CFMEU on worksites, but Labor has abolished them both. The coalition gave teeth to the watchdogs, but Labor have proven once again that they are lapdogs to militant unions like the CFMEU.</p> <p>On Monday, we saw the coalition stepping up to the plate to restore law and order in the construction sector, with the Leader of the Opposition introducing two bills—the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 to restore the ABCC, and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024.</p> <p>Since 2003 the CFMEU and its officials have broken workplace laws on more than 2,600 occasions, have been involved in approximately 213 proceedings and have been penalised by over $24 million by the courts. Yet it was that same union that, under radical industrial relations changes that were rammed through this place with the support of the Greens, Labor were willing to allow virtually unfettered rights of entry for the CFMEU into family owned small businesses and even farmhouses.</p> <p>The CFMEU has gained legitimacy within the Australian Labor Party. They influence votes within preselections, so there are members of the Labor Party in here who rely on CFMEU delegates at their conferences and preselections, and that's why they're remaining silent. Some Labor MPs know firsthand what is happening within the CFMEU. They fully understand and so does the minister.</p> <p>As the Nine Network's investigations have demonstrated, in my home state of Victoria the CFMEU has its claws deep into the Allan government. I note that a union official on major Victorian government construction sites and a senior Bandidos bikie gang enforcer has been charged with serious assault and is on trial for a home invasion where a woman was attacked. Yet the Fair Work Commission decided on 23 June that this person was a fit and proper person to have a right of entry on worksites.</p> <p>The Greens political party are sheepish, too, because they have been very significant beneficiaries of the largesse dished out by John Setka and his friends. Indeed, as the minister pointed out this morning, the Greens refused to support a bipartisan Senate motion on Monday to rule out taking donations from the CFMEU. Little wonder the Greens are squealing like stuck pigs and opposing this legislation.</p> <p>The old saying goes, 'Better late than never.' As Labor have been humiliated into acting against the CFMEU with this bill, the coalition has secured sensible amendments to ensure that we do not see a return of the same lawlessness when the public spotlight shifts away. The CFMEU will be put into administration for at least three years and as many as five years, due to the position we held from the outset that criminality, bullying, thuggery and intimidation within the CFMEU would take a long time to sort out.</p> <p>The administrator will report to parliament every six months, and I hope the press gallery will be paying attention every time. The administrator has also undertaken to ensure that the CFMEU will not engage in party politics during the administration, including making donations, having positions at party conferences or promoting candidates. We on the coalition side have also secured powers to ban the CFMEU officials for life—not five years, as Labor had proposed—better ensuring John Setka is held accountable for his actions.</p> <p>At this point in time, new Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Murray Watt—fresh from his stint as agriculture minister, uniting the farming sector against Labor—says he's concerned about the APRA review, saying, 'We are not supportive of that debate being opened up.' This is a rabbit hole of monumental proportions. <i>(Time expired.)</i></p> ~~<p class="speaker">Zali Steggall</p>~~ <p>I rise in this consideration in detail stage to, in particular, support the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth. It is an important one to recognise that any members appointed by the administrator need to be meet a fit-and-proper-character test. I think that it is incredibly important in the circumstances of why we are here with legislation. The allegations of criminality of the CFMEU in recent times have been deeply troubling and have been going on for quite some time. The Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, or CFMEU, is one of the biggest and most influential unions in Australia, but, when this union is in the news, it is far too often for the wrong reasons. Allegations of intimidation tactics, shutting down work at multiple infrastructure projects, bullying, harassment, intimidation, even leading figures within the union being accused of domestic violence and now these current allegations in relation to organised crime links—these are all particularly troubling. There are now also allegations of outlaw motorcycle gang members acting as delegates and being involved in government funded projects, including the $100 billion Big Build Victorian infrastructure plan. These are all incredibly concerning. The alleged criminality is almost certainly ensuring costs escalate on projects. That is particularly concerning in this environment of high inflation.</p> <p>The consequences are very real: a less-productive economy, slower construction time and cost blowouts. Since 1982, no fewer than four royal commissions have investigated at least some part of the construction sector, so this bill is the start of a process to clean up a union that for far too long has operated effectively without accountability. It means the CFMEU will be forced to accept an administrator. The administration period can last up to five years and will need the recommendation of the administrator to end it. It is definitely the time to act, and I certainly welcome the action of the government. It's a good first step, but we do need to replace the ABCC.</p> <p>Whilst that body didn't work as intended, it is clear there must be some sort of monitoring body for the building and construction sector. There needs to be some version of an oversight committee, and industry reps are putting forward investigations. It will need to have clear parameters and investigative powers, including criminal prosecution. It remains to be seen how effective administration will be, so we must remain vigilant. It remains to be seen if the administration process will be enough to clean the house and clear out all those elements of the CFMEU after a pretty diabolical history. I note that I had discussions with the minister about an amendment to improve this legislation as the bill commenced in the other place. It was handed to Senator Pocock and successfully adopted, so I thank the government and Senator Pocock for considering that aspect, which was that the minister must follow the administrator's advice about whether to place the union into or out of administration. It does ensure some protection from the decisions being overly politicised; they will instead be on the advice of the administrator.</p> <p>I support this bill and I support the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth. I think this is very important. I thank the government for their positive engagement, but I do urge the government to do more, especially in considering what oversight body will need to be put in place to ensure the criminality that we've seen in this sector can never happen again.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~ The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/28027/&sid=0000): > That the question be now put. In other words, they wanted to end discussion and instead vote on the matter (i.e., an amendment from Wentworth MP [Allegra Spender](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/wentworth/allegra_spender) (Independent)) straight away.

~~Allegra Spender~~
~~I move the amendment on the sheet further revised on 20 August 2024, as circulated in my name:~~
~~(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 11 (after line 14), after subsection 323B(3), insert:~~
(3A) If the Minister determines a scheme under subsection (1), the scheme must provide that a person is not eligible to be a candidate for an election, or to be elected or appointed (including re-elected or reappointed), to an office in an organisation unless the person is a fit and proper person to be an officer.
~~(3B) Subsection (3A) does not limit subsection (1) or (3).~~
The CFMEU has forfeited the right to clean itself up. As I've already said today, I'm convinced that the administrator is the appropriate short-term response to purge this union of unscrupulous actors and misconduct. Under the process, the administrator will be granted powers to declare offices within the union vacant. But, as we've seen time and time again, these actors find a way of getting back into this union. That is why I'm moving an amendment that provides an extra layer of security on any appointments made by the independent administrator. Under this amendment, appointments of offices well first require the demonstration of 'fit and proper purpose and status', as defined already within section 255 of the existing Fair Work Registered (Organisations) Act.
I acknowledge that the government has listened to my concerns and has moved an amendment that is of some similar substance. The amendment agreed to in the Senate would prevent those already removed from office by the administrator would be ineligible for office indefinitely unless they can demonstrate fit and proper status. I agree with this, but I believe it goes only halfway. We know that we've had serious issues in relation to members appointed to this union, and I want to see assurances from the get-go that people ascending to offices within this union meet the public's expectation of integrity. I believe this is a sensible solution and urge all members of the parliament to support it.
This administration a start: however—and I've said this before to the minister representing the minister—it is not enough in itself. It has to be the start of where we need to go on this. I believe this is still something that is useful to add to further assurances, particularly from a community that doesn't have a lot of confidence, I'll be honest, in the union or, necessarily, in the government's ability or true will to clean up this union. I believe that this will be a useful amendment for the government to accept.
~~Tony Burke~~
To respond on behalf of the government, there's nothing in terms of the concept of the amendment that the government disagrees with. We're in the unusual situation that, normally, we have this debate before the Senate, in which case we would have been in a different situation, I suspect. But an amendment which has the same impact as what's being moved has been carried in the Senate. Therefore, the government won't be supporting the amendment, but acknowledges that the member for Wentworth is raising an issue that does improve the legislation. We believe that the effect of that has already been given by amendments that were carried in the other place.
~~Anne Webster~~
In our history on this side of the House of strong leadership on this vital issue, the coalition re-established the ABCC in 2016 after a double dissolution election. Labor shut the ABCC down in February 2023, leaving our construction industry and its more than 400,000 small businesses at the CFMEU's mercy. In tandem with the Registered Organisation Commission, the coalition had established watchdogs to prevent, bullying, thuggery and intimidation from unions like the CFMEU on worksites, but Labor has abolished them both. The coalition gave teeth to the watchdogs, but Labor have proven once again that they are lapdogs to militant unions like the CFMEU.
On Monday, we saw the coalition stepping up to the plate to restore law and order in the construction sector, with the Leader of the Opposition introducing two bills—the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024 to restore the ABCC, and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024.
Since 2003 the CFMEU and its officials have broken workplace laws on more than 2,600 occasions, have been involved in approximately 213 proceedings and have been penalised by over $24 million by the courts. Yet it was that same union that, under radical industrial relations changes that were rammed through this place with the support of the Greens, Labor were willing to allow virtually unfettered rights of entry for the CFMEU into family owned small businesses and even farmhouses.
The CFMEU has gained legitimacy within the Australian Labor Party. They influence votes within preselections, so there are members of the Labor Party in here who rely on CFMEU delegates at their conferences and preselections, and that's why they're remaining silent. Some Labor MPs know firsthand what is happening within the CFMEU. They fully understand and so does the minister.
As the Nine Network's investigations have demonstrated, in my home state of Victoria the CFMEU has its claws deep into the Allan government. I note that a union official on major Victorian government construction sites and a senior Bandidos bikie gang enforcer has been charged with serious assault and is on trial for a home invasion where a woman was attacked. Yet the Fair Work Commission decided on 23 June that this person was a fit and proper person to have a right of entry on worksites.
The Greens political party are sheepish, too, because they have been very significant beneficiaries of the largesse dished out by John Setka and his friends. Indeed, as the minister pointed out this morning, the Greens refused to support a bipartisan Senate motion on Monday to rule out taking donations from the CFMEU. Little wonder the Greens are squealing like stuck pigs and opposing this legislation.
The old saying goes, 'Better late than never.' As Labor have been humiliated into acting against the CFMEU with this bill, the coalition has secured sensible amendments to ensure that we do not see a return of the same lawlessness when the public spotlight shifts away. The CFMEU will be put into administration for at least three years and as many as five years, due to the position we held from the outset that criminality, bullying, thuggery and intimidation within the CFMEU would take a long time to sort out.
The administrator will report to parliament every six months, and I hope the press gallery will be paying attention every time. The administrator has also undertaken to ensure that the CFMEU will not engage in party politics during the administration, including making donations, having positions at party conferences or promoting candidates. We on the coalition side have also secured powers to ban the CFMEU officials for life—not five years, as Labor had proposed—better ensuring John Setka is held accountable for his actions.
At this point in time, new Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Murray Watt—fresh from his stint as agriculture minister, uniting the farming sector against Labor—says he's concerned about the APRA review, saying, 'We are not supportive of that debate being opened up.' This is a rabbit hole of monumental proportions. (Time expired.)
~~Zali Steggall~~
I rise in this consideration in detail stage to, in particular, support the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth. It is an important one to recognise that any members appointed by the administrator need to be meet a fit-and-proper-character test. I think that it is incredibly important in the circumstances of why we are here with legislation. The allegations of criminality of the CFMEU in recent times have been deeply troubling and have been going on for quite some time. The Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, or CFMEU, is one of the biggest and most influential unions in Australia, but, when this union is in the news, it is far too often for the wrong reasons. Allegations of intimidation tactics, shutting down work at multiple infrastructure projects, bullying, harassment, intimidation, even leading figures within the union being accused of domestic violence and now these current allegations in relation to organised crime links—these are all particularly troubling. There are now also allegations of outlaw motorcycle gang members acting as delegates and being involved in government funded projects, including the $100 billion Big Build Victorian infrastructure plan. These are all incredibly concerning. The alleged criminality is almost certainly ensuring costs escalate on projects. That is particularly concerning in this environment of high inflation.
The consequences are very real: a less-productive economy, slower construction time and cost blowouts. Since 1982, no fewer than four royal commissions have investigated at least some part of the construction sector, so this bill is the start of a process to clean up a union that for far too long has operated effectively without accountability. It means the CFMEU will be forced to accept an administrator. The administration period can last up to five years and will need the recommendation of the administrator to end it. It is definitely the time to act, and I certainly welcome the action of the government. It's a good first step, but we do need to replace the ABCC.
Whilst that body didn't work as intended, it is clear there must be some sort of monitoring body for the building and construction sector. There needs to be some version of an oversight committee, and industry reps are putting forward investigations. It will need to have clear parameters and investigative powers, including criminal prosecution. It remains to be seen how effective administration will be, so we must remain vigilant. It remains to be seen if the administration process will be enough to clean the house and clear out all those elements of the CFMEU after a pretty diabolical history. I note that I had discussions with the minister about an amendment to improve this legislation as the bill commenced in the other place. It was handed to Senator Pocock and successfully adopted, so I thank the government and Senator Pocock for considering that aspect, which was that the minister must follow the administrator's advice about whether to place the union into or out of administration. It does ensure some protection from the decisions being overly politicised; they will instead be on the advice of the administrator.
I support this bill and I support the amendment moved by the member for Wentworth. I think this is very important. I thank the government for their positive engagement, but I do urge the government to do more, especially in considering what oversight body will need to be put in place to ensure the criminality that we've seen in this sector can never happen again.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/28027/&sid=0000):
> *That the question be now put.*
In other words, they wanted to end discussion and instead vote on the matter (i.e., an amendment from Wentworth MP [Allegra Spender](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/wentworth/allegra_spender) (Independent)) straight away.