Today in Parliament, Abigail spoke against NSW Labor's CFMEU administration bill. While the Greens collaborated with Labor to safeguard the bill from a future anti-union Liberal government, it remains a deeply flawed and dreadful bill.
Abigail said:
On behalf of The Greens, I contribute to debate on the Industrial Relations Amendment (Administrator) Bill 2024. I state at the outset that The Greens oppose the bill. It allows unfettered power to the Minister for Industrial Relations to appoint an administrator of a union on terms that are yet to even be set out. Despite the union's name being missing from the title of the bill, it is of course directed at one union, being the CFMEU. Its members work in some of the most dangerous jobs in our State. They work on big construction projects, in the energy industry, in boiler rooms and in oil refineries. They perform maintenance on major pieces of machinery and do other jobs where far too often the consequences of employers doing the wrong thing, cutting corners, pushing their workers too hard or not providing adequate safety equipment are serious injury and death. When it comes to construction in particular, the pursuit of profit at all costs by large corporations, coupled with the huge influence of big industry players on political parties, has led to a regulatory and enforcement environment that leans far too heavily in favour of the bosses and has paid insufficient regard to the rights and safety of the workers.
Unions are necessary in every industry, but construction is arguably the one in which unions have become most critical, because they are the ones policing businesses on their compliance with workplace safety laws in the absence of strong regulators. The CFMEU proudly says that it never compromises on worker safety and, from everything I have seen of it over the years, I believe that to be true. The CFMEU is well known for supporting workplace health and safety representatives, providing training and doing whatever it can to improve safety at worksites. It is regularly blowing the whistle on companies that do the wrong thing and demanding better for its members. It is also true to say that the CFMEU has done a remarkable job in delivering better wages and conditions, superannuation, redundancy pay, income protection and even a working week with reduced hours. It is worth commenting on the success of the CFMEU in keeping its workers safer, providing them with better pay and conditions and, in turn, keeping the exploitation of workers in check, because it helps to explain just how much big capital hates the CFMEU.
The more successful the union, the more hated it is by business and conservative politicians, and the more quickly anti‑union forces will act to bring that union down. It is in that context that we need to view the reporting in the Nine Media newspapers and the reactions to allegations that certain CFMEU officials are involved in corrupt behaviour. Make no mistake: Any allegation of corrupt behaviour needs to be taken incredibly seriously. There should be no tolerance for taking bribes, making threats or providing unlawful inducements in any business or undertaking. That sort of unethical, immoral conduct is undoubtedly harmful and needs to be stamped out. We have laws already for that. Those things are, and should be, illegal; and they need to be investigated, prosecuted and trialled in the usual way. But let us look at the utterly hysterical reaction we have seen from both sides of politics since these allegations first surfaced—or, in the case of the New South Wales branch, resurfaced—through media reporting.
Unlike when Qantas was found to have illegally fired workers, unlike when the Labor Party was accused of taking donations in paper bags, unlike when the Liberal Party became embroiled in multiple rorts and pork‑barrelling scandals, the response to allegations of illegality in the CFMEU has been not to let the usual legal processes play out, but for government to effectively cut the union off at its knees, removing the union's autonomy and disrespecting the membership of a democratic union by putting it into administration. Don't even get me started about the ridiculous calls by the Liberals for royal commissions and deregistration. It is sad that so much of our politics in New South Wales has become so populist. When faced with issues that demand sober and considered leadership and careful responses, the go‑to for the Minns Labor Government, unfortunately, has been to take the most simplistic route—the kneejerk extreme reaction to whatever the problem is, much to the glee of the equally populist Liberal Party.
We are now stuck in a race to the simplistic policy solution bottom, with only The Greens calling out both parties for their hypocrisy and calling on the Government to instead chart a sensible course that swiftly and decisively condemns all corruption while also seeking to protect one of our most critical unions from being disempowered in its continued fight for its workers. We can easily see what would happen without a strong and militant CFMEU fighting for its workers. On smaller construction sites across the country, many workers are non‑unionised. Their wages are lower, they are exposed to higher risks, and many do not even have toilets onsite. On larger State projects with big developers where unions have been involved, wages are higher and developer profits have been squeezed. Let me be crystal clear: Higher wages as a result of union bargaining is a good thing and not a product of corruption. On the other hand, the conflicts of interest and lack of transparency and accountability involved in government negotiations with large developers for critical State infrastructure, particularly when the Coalition Government was in power, are a bad thing and are almost certainly riddled with corruption, or at least some very dubious understandings of what is in the public interest.
Our inquiry into the use of consultants uncovered millions upon millions of dollars being paid by government transport and infrastructure agencies to consultants and contractors at rates that were multiples higher than those at which they would hire employees, and example after example where contract values with companies were restated at eye‑watering amounts compared to initially disclosed values. Don't even get me started on the dodgy privatisation deals done by the previous Government, and the way in which restrictive contracts were entered into across numerous transport projects that allowed big companies to walk away with massive unearned income streams for decades to come, at the expense of the residents of New South Wales. The revolving door between property developers and major political parties at all levels of government is equally shocking and telling. Yet what do we hear from those shamelessly wanting to bring down the CFMEU? "Oh, it's corruption"—as yet unproven, mind you—"that is pushing up the cost of construction of government projects." I mean, give me a break.
It is irresponsible in the extreme to be drawing that connection without looking to those in power—all the politicians and big corporations—and explaining what their role is in the myriad issues within the construction industry while reporting on the CFMEU. But, no; it is the CFMEU that is the convenient villain in this story, the one that can be reimagined as a sea of drug‑using brutes on motorbikes, speaking rough and up to their eyes in corruption, and not as the hardworking and critical workers in some of the most dangerous jobs in our State. The average union member in Australia is a 36‑year‑old nurse, and yet this misrepresentation of union members as thuggish men continues to live large in the imagination of many Australians. We could have had a sensible, non‑sensational response to the reporting of the Nine Media newspapers. Instead, we have an almost McCarthyist response to the stories, with the Liberal Party demanding to know who is a CFMEU member. I am not a CFMEU member—although I would love to be, if I was in that industry—and neither am I a witch.
Here we are, with this bill before us today. I acknowledge the work of my colleague Jenny Leong, the member for Newtown, who fought valiantly in the other place yesterday to try to defeat, or at least better, this bill. I also acknowledge the Treasurer and the Minister for Industrial Relations for engaging with me on the bill. While we can disagree on the need for the bill at all, we can agree on the importance of at least futureproofing it from a future anti‑union Liberal Government. I believe the amendments foreshadowed by the Government will go some way to alleviating the worst parts of the bill. I will not repeat all aspects of the excellent contribution that the member for Newtown made in the Legislative Assembly on the specifics of the bill, but I will reiterate a few of The Greens' primary concerns.
First and foremost, the fact that we are debating a bill that is able to be changed later by regulation, to fit whatever gets decided in the Federal version of this bill, seems a very strange and dangerous way of going about lawmaking. The case for urgently rushing this bill through today, before the Federal bill has been agreed, has not been made out. I note that just in the last hour the Federal Parliament voted down a procedural motion that would have allowed its bill to proceed. It is now deeply unclear whether that bill will make it through the Federal Parliament in the current sitting fortnight. That has led to an extreme Henry VIII provision being included, which, ordinarily, in other circumstances, The Greens would not allow to be included in legislation. The incredibly broad powers to be granted to the Minister are concerning, although they are made less concerning if at least they will be excluded prior to the next election.
These incredibly broad powers will be granted also to the administrator under the bill, which is extremely concerning. The union's assets and funds will be under the control of the administrator, but they are, of course, the workers' assets and funds. Members have paid their union fees to ensure that the union can represent their interests. Giving control over those assets to an administrator in place of a democratically elected leadership is an extraordinary move for a Labor Government to be taking part in. To conclude, The Greens are the first to call out corruption in all of its forms. We are fierce defenders, though, of the rule of law, and we will always call out sensationalist, overreaching kneejerk responses like this one that are predominantly about political games and not about solving the issue at hand. The Greens are incredibly disappointed to see the Labor Government betray the union movement in this way. The Greens oppose the bill.
Abigail later moved the following amendments:
I move The Greens amendment No. 1 on sheet c2024-149A:
No. 1 Administrator to report to Parliament
Page 9, Schedule 1. Insert after line 18—
16A Reports about administration to be tabled in Parliament
(1) The administrator must give the Minister reports about the administration of the CFMEU, C & G Division at intervals of not more than 6 months.
(2) Without limiting subclause (1), the report must include details of the following—
(a) actions taken by the administrator under this schedule, including under the administration order,
(b) the expenses of, and incidental to, the conduct of the affairs of the CFMEU (NSW) by the administrator during the period to which the report relates, including the administrator's remuneration during the period.
(3) The Minister must table the report in both Houses of Parliament within 10 business days after receiving the report.
We did, and we had preliminary discussions with the Treasurer and the Minister about it. The amendment is very similar to what my colleague put forward in the lower House, with the exception of paragraph 2 (b), where we refer only to the New South Wales branch of the CFMEU. That is to acknowledge that, although the Minister in New South Wales will receive reports from the administrator about the New South Wales aspects of the CFMEU, under the administration it would not be appropriate for that information to come to the Parliament if it was not about the New South Wales branch. It would instead be referred to the administration of the Federal entity more broadly. On that basis, given that the Minister will be receiving those reports from the administrator, the request is for that information to be passed to the Parliament so that we can see with full transparency whether assets such as property and land are being sold off. On that basis, we commend the amendment to the Committee.
The amendments were not supported by the Government or Opposition.
15 August 2024