CFMEU

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:07): With leave, I move the motion on behalf of the member for Colton:

That this house–

(a) notes the takeover of the South Australian CFMEU by Victorian union officials;

(b) notes the threats to South Australia’s building and construction industry that have been made by union officials;

(c) notes the attempt to replace a South Australian workers entitlement scheme with the Victorian alternative;

(d) notes the specific threats to the AFL mad by John Setka on behalf of the CFMEU; and

(e) condemns the Albanese Labor government for its abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

In doing so, I note that the motion—as is the process now and a welcome one—is timely as opposed to having been put on the Notice Paper many months in advance, and yet even sitting on the Notice Paper for the time that it has sat there, it serves almost as a sort of sentimental reminder of what might have been a source of some angst and controversy right in that moment but now on its face looks like a plain statement of the obvious.

I note paragraph (d) in particular. There might be a minor typo, but how mad indeed was the now former head of the CFMEU, John Setka, to have gone after, of all people, a senior official at the AFL—uncontroversially madness. I note the minor typo. The form of the motion is in the following five paragraphs:

That this house—

and it should—

(a) notes the takeover of the South Australian CFMEU by Victorian union officials;

(b) notes the threats to South Australia’s building and construction industry that have been made by union officials;

(c) notes the attempt to replace a South Australian workers entitlement scheme with the Victorian alternative;

(d) notes the specific threats to the AFL made by John Setka on behalf of the CFMEU; and

(e) condemns the Albanese Labor Government for its abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

So there it is. Clearly, paragraph (e) is a statement of intent and the balance speaks to the sorry history that occurred in this state over the better part of 2½ years, following the election in March 2022.

It is a salutary reminder for all South Australians. Of course, it is particularly a lesson to be learned by the Premier and the government that when we talk about the threat of militant and belligerent union behaviour on politics, on public life and in terms of the potential for it to cause great harm in the particular sector in which such bad union behaviour occurs, it is not just so much rhetoric. This sounds in terms of real consequences to the lives of ordinary Australians.

We know, because we say it with every breath, that we have an ongoing inflation problem in the country. In particular, in South Australia we have an ongoing housing crisis, we have a broader cost-of-living crisis, which is a challenge for governments both state and federal, and in the midst of all this we have a union that operates in an area that is so immediately consequential to all of those important issues in daily life that has gone so dramatically off the rails. So much is clear.

By way of illustration today, I want to take the opportunity to pay particular tribute to the prescience and leadership of Will Frogley as the chief executive responsible for the Master Builders Association. Do not hear it from some sort of partisan position in politics in this place, but listen to the words of one who speaks on behalf of members of the Master Builders Association in this state; someone who engages very effectively with all sides of politics and whose day-to-day business relies on ensuring that the environment in which he advocates is as healthy as it can possibly be. First, a bit of context, and I talk about the March 2022 state election.

It was not until the August of 2022 that the Premier was moved to deal with what had been a donation, let alone the activity of the union in the election—and I will deal with that in a minute. He had been moved, but not until the August, finally to be dragged to a position where it was just untenable for the Labor Party to retain what had been a $125,000 donation from the CFMEU to the Labor Party to help it prosecute the election campaign. Leave aside the complete inadequacy of the hypocrisy of applying that donation in the interests of achieving the outcome and then saying, 'Well, rather than provide that to some good cause or really make amends, make proper restitution'—if such a thing could ever happen—'we won't do that, we will re-empower the union by giving the money straight back to them.' Never mind the inadequacy of that whole situation.

We saw writ large through 2022 that this is an issue for Labor. It is an issue for Labor politics in this state; it is not just an issue of making sure that unions behave themselves. In 2022, the story was that the Master Builders Association was saying that there was a looming threat of the CFMEU coming in and taking over in South Australia, imposing on South Australia an 'our way or the highway' approach, including violently, and yet you see for the balance of 2022 Labor being happy to associate with the CFMEU, happy to take their money, and only then dragged to a position where they have to front up and move to return. The Advertiser newspaper wrote on 8 August 2022 that:

The John Setka-led Victorian branch of the CFMEU has formally taken control of the SA branch after union members unanimously endorsed the controversial proposal.

We then see some credit given to Premier Malinauskas, and I quote:

Premier Peter Malinauskas' move to stand up to the CFMEU by handing back a controversial $125,000 donation has sparked fierce backlash from union bosses, who have accused him of betraying members and lashed his comments as 'irresponsible'.

Here is the kicker:

Just hours after the Labor Party state executive endorsed Mr Malinauskas' request to relinquish the money, the union issued a scathing statement that likened his decision to 'calling for reinforcements and then shooting them in the back when the battle is won'.

That piece is there for all to see. Tellingly, at that point, in August 2022, The Advertiser concludes its reporting—and again I quote:

Legislation to ban political donations—a Labor election commitment—will be introduced 'well before the next election'.

We are seeing that sort of starting to pan out in the debate just finally now in these last months of 2024. I might say that in that regard you have a situation where Labor accepted $125,000 from the CFMEU ahead of 2022, and we then heard much from the Premier in particular about this kind of high moral ground of wanting to see donations out of politics, and yet all we have seen from the government in relation to its now very far down the track production of a proposal to do away with donations, gives more or less the framework for the rolling out of the red carpet to the CFMEU and others to participate just as freely as ever with many hundreds of thousands of dollars of participation in election campaigns going into the future. Labor is showing no sign of changing its tune really when it comes to the substance of reforms that the Premier would like to take some sort of high moral ground credit for.

I want to then reflect on what was about the best encapsulation of the circumstances as they arrived in the middle of this year, 2024. In the words of Will Frogley, and reported in the press on 15 July 2024, I quote:

'God forgives, the CFMEU does not.'

The voice on the other end of the line was different from the previous calls I'd received from private numbers, but the words were the same.

There's an irony about someone trying to intimidate you when they don't have the balls to identify themselves.

But the menacing tone of the calls I received on a Wednesday morning in late June were unnerving.

The previous day I'd gone harder in my criticisms on John Setka and the CFMEU than at any time before.

Did I go too hard, or were they just trying to scare me into shutting up?

For a moment, the image of Setka openly posing with patched senior bikies, who he'd hired as CFMEU organisers and delegates, flashed through my head.

In Melbourne, the dissenting voices shut up years ago. You play by the CFMEU rules over there, or you don't play.

Here it was always different.

The union was robust. They never took a backward step on safety or worker conditions, and nor should they have.

Unions have an important role to play in our industry.

The work can be tough and dangerous. Our workers deserve to be well paid and kept safe.

But back then we could generally sit around a table with the union and nut out our differences and come to a fair agreement.

That changed in August, 2022, when Setka's Victorian branch took over the SA CFMEU.

Within 24 hours my car had been vandalised, as had other MBA SA vehicles.

But it's what has been happening to people with skin in the game—business owners trying to deliver our infrastructure projects in already challenging economic conditions—that really worries me.

I've seen evidence of at least one SA CFMEU representative brazenly standing over a local business recently.

The message was simple: If the business didn't ensure his workers joined the union they wouldn't be allowed on work sites. The business would also miss out on future contracts.

That's where we're at now in SA.

SA apprentices being told they can't work unless they join a Victorian union which stands over their bosses and has open ties with bikies. Businesses being told to toe the line or miss work.

Would I want my son or daughter working in an industry like that?

It's heartened me over the weekend to see federal Industrial Relations Minister Tony Burke say that nothing is off the table—even deregistration of the construction arm of the CFMEU.

And now the national office of the CFMEU has taken control of the SA, Victorian and Tasmanian branches.

Premier Peter Malinauskas and Infrastructure Minister Tom Koutsantonis also deserve credit for asking SA Police to investigate whether any local links to the CFMEU and organised crime groups exist in SA.

But others have looked at me as if I'm union-bashing when I've warned them about the dangers of the CFMEU, and the takeover of long-running SA workers entitlements fund BIRST, being attempted by the Victorian CFMEU-backed Incolink.

A few weeks ago the CFMEU went on a blitz, shutting down sites of businesses across the nation who were holding out on signing Enterprise Bargaining Agreements that mandated workers entitlements be paid into Incolink.

Incolink's board of directors still included Setka at the time of writing this, as well as other CFMEU figures.

Mr Speaker, the balance of the article, which I do not have time to read into Hansard, I seek leave to incorporate, and I otherwise move for the motion to be supported.

The SPEAKER: Member for Heysen, I think only tables can be inserted into Hansard.

Mr FULBROOK (Playford) (11:22): I move to amend the motion by the member for Colton/Heysen as follows:

Delete (a) to (e) and replace with the following:

(a) notes the serious allegations of misconduct against the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU;

(b) affirms that there is no place for corruption or criminal activity, including threats of violence or intimidation, in South Australia's building and construction industry;

(c) congratulates the Albanese Labor government for taking strong and decisive action by placing the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU into administration; and

(d) affirms its support for the South Australian branch of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU to return to responsible, local leadership as soon as possible.

Mr TEAGUE: Point of order: it goes to the quality of amendment as opposed to the complete removal and substitution of a new motion. I move that this goes beyond the ordinary bounds of amendment; it is out of order.

The SPEAKER: The amendment seems to be in order and germane to the original motion.

Mr FULBROOK: As members of the house would be well aware, there have been significant developments in relation to the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU over recent months. The amendment I move to this motion seeks to reflect those developments.

I am quite sure every member of the house would be disturbed by the allegations of misconduct, including corruption and infiltration by outlaw motorcycle gangs, that have arisen particularly in relation to the Victorian branch of the Construction and General Division. That conduct has led to widespread condemnation not only from the government and opposition but also from the mainstream trade union movement, including figures like the ACTU Secretary, Sally McManus.

In relation to the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU, the government has been absolutely clear about these matters. First, building and construction is a dangerous industry and workers in the industry deserve to have strong union representation looking out for their wages and conditions as well as their health and safety, just like any other worker in our society.

Secondly, there is zero tolerance in South Australia for outlaw motorcycle gangs or the use of violence or intimidation tactics in our building and construction industry. South Australia has historically had a relatively harmonious industrial environment and it is essential to our state's future prosperity that we keep it this way.

If any person has information about unlawful activity in the building and construction industry then that should be reported to the appropriate authorities—whether that be South Australia Police, SafeWork SA or the Fair Work Ombudsman—for investigation. Those involved in any unlawful conduct in the South Australian building and construction industry should face the full force of the law.

Finally, the involvement of the Victorian branch of the CFMEU in the affairs of the South Australian branch has been a failed experiment. South Australian construction workers have been badly let down by the influences of figures like John Setka, who are a long way from the kind of responsible and thoughtful union leadership that these workers deserve.

The government has made its view clear: it wants to see the South Australian branch of the CFMEU detached from the Victorian influence and returned to local responsible leadership. CFMEU National Secretary, Zach Smith, has also told media that is his intention and he hopes it will be facilitated by the administration of Mark Irving KC as soon as possible.

In response to the serious allegations of misconduct by the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU, the federal Labor government has taken decisive action, quickly passing legislation to place the union into administration. This is a strong response aimed at cleaning up the union from the top down, and it is one that has been supported by the Malinauskas government.

The strong response of the federal government contrasts with the calls of the federal opposition to simply deregister the CFMEU, an action which would place the union outside the reach of industrial law and allow elements to continue operating unregulated. It is no surprise that not even the Master Builders Association supports such a policy.

Nor does the answer lie in the opposition's call to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC). Many of the most serious allegations against the CFMEU relate to the period where the ABCC was still in existence. The ABCC did nothing to combat this kind of serious corruption or misbehaviour now in issue. Indeed, the ABCC was so ineffective in its role that industrial disputation actually decreased after the organisation was abolished and its powers were remitted to the Fair Work Ombudsman.

We therefore do not support the Liberals' policy of spending significant taxpayer resources to re-establish an organisation that did nothing to combat corruption or criminality, drove up industrial disputation in the industry and exercised extraordinary powers for political purposes like trying to ban flags on construction sites.

The house should stand united to see a building and construction industry free from corruption and criminal behaviour and to see the South Australian branch of the CFMEU detached from Victorian influence and returned to local leadership as soon as possible. On this side of the chamber, we therefore feel this house should also congratulate the federal Labor government on its strong and decisive response to those allegations. With all these points in mind, I commend the amended motion to the house.

Mr TELFER (Flinders) (11:28): I rise to speak in support of the original motion as put by the member for Heysen and look with interest at the change of the motion that the member for Playford has put. I am surprised, but also not surprised probably, at their trying to manipulate the narrative around this significant, serious issue that South Australia's construction industry is facing at the moment, and I look with interest at the motion which has been moved by the member for Heysen, noticing the nuance that we are now facing in the last couple of years because of the takeover of the South Australian CFMEU by the Victorian union officials.

Indeed, we have already heard in this place, and I will continue the remarks, of some of the threats, the intimidation and the bullying tactics which have been used against people participating in the building and construction industry here in South Australia that have been made by union officials, especially in those two or so years since the Victorian union has taken over the South Australian arm. These stories cannot be disputed, and they are horrendous really when you look at it from an individual perspective. The people, as individuals, are having to deal with this level of vitriol, abuse and intimidation just for trying to go about their job.

As the motion puts in the original form, we note the attempt to replace the South Australian workers' entitlement scheme with the Victorian alternative, and the threats that have been made to individuals; they are becoming more brazen. We saw that with some of the narrative and the commentary around the threats that were made to the AFL. We should not be in a society where that sort of bullyboy tactic, intimidation, threats and abuse should be tolerated. That is why I said I am surprised to see that this change is being made, but also not surprised.

The point that the member for Heysen had started to make from the article that was written by Will Frogley, the man in charge of Master Builders SA who has copped the main brunt of this CFMEU vitriol—and the headline for that article is 'Union bashing was never my reason for warning SA about the CFMEU'—is exactly the same for those of us on this side of the house. We recognise the role that unions play in making sure they are representing workers to get their fair entitlements and making sure that they have a voice within their industry, whatever it might be. It is not about union bashing. It is about highlighting that the actions of certain union officials go over and above that representation, that joined voice.

As the member for Heysen started, and as I will continue to read in some of the remarks from the head of the MBA, Will Frogley, which he wrote back in July, I understand that nothing has changed. Indeed, aspects have become worse. He writes:

A few weeks ago the CFMEU went on a blitz, shutting down sites of businesses across the nation who were holding out on signing Enterprise Bargaining Agreements that mandated workers entitlements be paid into Incolink.

Incolink's board of directors still included Setka at the time of writing this, as well as other CFMEU figures.

At the end of last financial year, Incolink paid the CFMEU a $20 million dividend to help fund its operations.

The CFMEU model has contributed to disastrously high building and construction business insolvency rates in Victoria.

It’s a model we must avoid in SA if we're to deliver on our state government's ambitious policy and infrastructure agenda over the next few years, without budgets blowing out.

But the CFMEU represents more than just an economic threat to SA.

It poses a question about our values, regardless of which side of politics you sit.

If we're serious about making building and construction an attractive industry for our young men and women, and overcoming SA's skills shortage, we must take a stand against the CFMEU.

It remains to be seen whether Burke and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have the courage to do as the late Bob Hawke did, when he deregistered CFMEU forerunner the Builders Labourers Federation in the 1980s.

But we do have levers we can pull from North Tce.

It starts by mandating that workers entitlements on state government jobs be paid into a South Australian workers entitlements fund.

We must also explore avenues to help legitimate trade unions like the AWU move into the SA construction space.

These words that Will Frogley, as the CEO of Master Builders South Australia, spoke really do ring true when it looks at some of the cost of construction here in South Australia. It is at a time when there has never been more pressure on the housing market. There has never been more pressure on people who are trying to get into buying their own homes, who are looking at the housing crisis in a very personal way because of the way that they are impacted.

That should be front of mind for this state Labor government, but it is also at a time when the cost of public infrastructure build should be absolutely front of mind for this state government, because the amount of extra cost, regulation and risk that can be put onto public infrastructure jobs should not be underestimated, with the influence that this union in particular can have here in South Australia.

It is at a time when we as a state are staring down the barrel of record debt levels. If you look at the forward estimates, we have got to $44 billion in debt—$44 billion in debt. This government should be looking seriously at every opportunity they have to try to minimise that. Why are we getting to a situation where construction infrastructure works are going up and up and up? From my observation, the correlation between the Victorian arm of the CFMEU taking charge of the South Australian arm and these jobs going up and up and up with this Labor government is pretty clear.

We look across the border at our Victorian colleagues, who are facing the incredible debt to revenue ratios. Unfortunately, South Australia is going down the same path. Unfortunately, now we are second only to Victoria. For me, as a South Australian who wants to see our state thrive, we should be looking at trying to do all we can as decision-makers to minimise that cost to us as taxpayers and not just open the door for these sorts of negotiations to inflate the costs of infrastructure, to inflate the obligation of the taxpayer and to inflate the obligation on future taxpayers. With a $44 billion debt, our current taxpayers are not going to be able to pay that. We are asking our future taxpayers—our children and our children's children—to pay for infrastructure at these inflated levels because of what is happening within this state Labor government.

I commend the original motion that has been put by the member for Heysen. I think it really does speak truth to this place about the situation that is being faced at the moment. I will be voting against the amendments that are being put by the member for Playford, because I think it completely changes the direction of what this original motion is. I speak a word of warning to this state government that if they continue down this path they are doing South Australians a disservice.

The Hon. D.G. PISONI (Unley) (11:38): I stand to support the original motion and condemn the government, through the member for Playford, for removing every single word from that motion and replacing it with a series of points that can only be seen as being a suck to the CFMEU. They do not want to upset them. They know that they have been a very important part of the Labor Party for a very long time.

Before that, they were the painters and dockers and, of course, we saw what happened with that union as it was deregistered under a pyramid of corruption, kickbacks, brown paper bags exchanged and houses being built for union officials by intimidated employers and intimidated businesses. We are seeing evidence of that again in this new union, the union that was created to deal with the painters and dockers union that was deregistered in the 1990s. You cannot change the stripes, unfortunately, on a zebra or the CFMEU.

It is extraordinary that the Labor Party must be the only people who believe that these are only allegations. It has been well known for a very long period of time how the CFMEU does business. The Mining and Energy Union entered a marriage not that long ago, when they were known as the CFMMEU. Well, they had enough of it, and by 1 December 2023 they said, 'That's it. There's a divorce. We're out on our own.' They could see it, but those on the other side could not see the corruption and the mafia/bikie-run CFMEU that this government is defending through this amended motion by the member for Playford.

There is no condemnation of the CFMEU in Labor's amendment. As a matter of fact, it affirms support for the South Australian branch of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU to return to responsible local leadership. It is in administration for five years and the aim of the administrators is to bust the union up. This is in conflict with what the federal government is in the process of doing.

It goes to show that they are still indebted to the CFMEU for the work that the CFMEU did in campaigning against the Marshall government and the poster work that it did, in particular, that was extremely offensive to many people at polling booths. I witnessed Labor candidates denying any liability—'We don't agree with it either, but it's the union that's done it, we don't agree with it'—but they were happy to take the votes that they may have been generating from that very ugly campaign of the CFMEU.

When else was the government silent? On the Adelaide Market Square development. On 21 June, we learned through a media release put out by Incolink that it now has a $15 million stake in that project. Why does it have a $15 million stake in that project? Because the project has blown out because of the CFMEU enterprise bargaining agreement. The major developers were getting very nervous about the cost rising, the increased costs and the diminishing of their return, because their costs were increasing because of the behaviour of the CFMEU. So what did the CFMEU do? They used Incolink money—the fund that they have foisted on employers here in South Australia to compulsorily contribute to through their new enterprise bargaining agreement—to prop up that project.

Where was the government saying, 'We don't want CFMEU money in projects in South Australia because then they're here for good'? They are here for good. We cannot manage them; they are here for good. What were the circumstances? Why was it the CFMEU? Who invited the CFMEU to invest in that project? Why did the CFMEU invest in that project? What do they get in return? What outcome will that have for investors? What message does it send to other investors who want to invest in construction projects here in South Australia? That it is best if they are in partnership with Incolink, the CFMEU's insurance arm.

It is an extraordinary situation that, within a very short period of time of the takeover by the Victorian branch here in South Australia, we now have a major capital project that has financial interests contributed by the CFMEU for a share in the ownership of the project. It is an extremely concerning development. We did not hear anything from any minister—nothing from the Premier, nothing from any other minister—about that very big leap into the South Australian construction industry by the CFMEU through Incolink.

Every single member of the government and their backbench is a union member. That is a condition of being a member of the Labor Party. The Labor Party is the political wing of the union movement. It is extraordinary; can you imagine if you had that sort of interest in any other business or any other organisation? You would have to declare it and not vote on issues that affected it, but for some reason the union movement is completely exempt from having a conflict of interest for members of the Labor Party. They are happy to vote on anything that protects their interests through protecting the union movement. It is an extraordinary situation.

It is a bit like how picket lines are exempt from police action. They stop people from going to work, they stop people from conducting their business, they rob people of their own liberties and their own choices, yet they are exempt from police action when it comes to allowing people to walk through those picket lines to get to work to earn their day.

Everyone has a right to withdraw their labour, but no-one has a right to stop other people from working. Nobody has that right, but the unions think and the Labor Party thinks that it is their right to stop people from working if they are not working under the terms and conditions that they would like to see them working under or they do not even agree with them. We saw how the CFMEU, through John Setka, treated that umpire at the AFL because he was a commissioner at the Building and Construction Commission prior.

It is just an extraordinary situation that that could be tolerated and could be seen by any organisation as a reasonable and fair thing to do in a democracy, where we argue our points, we have decisions made by a majority decision, whether it be at elections or in the parliament. That has given us the standard of living, the quality of life, the rule of law, and the safety and certainty we all have in our lives. It is that Westminster system that is not just in this place: it is how we run our society and how we run our economy. All of that is ignored by the CFMEU, and this government has ignored those concerns by insisting on putting these amendments forward today. That is why we do not support them.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:48): I rise to close the debate. I thank members for their contribution, which I might say, in its own way, was really quite telling. We saw the government move what was more or less a comprehensive recasting of the motion that I moved. In doing so, it is telling the government's attitude, because of course we did not hear very much more than that from the government in terms of contribution to the debate. But this comprehensive recasting, an attempt to put it in terms that might be moving away from the pointy end of some of the truth-telling that is there at the core of the original motion, is really, rather, saying, 'Let's talk about something that is just about marginally connected to what is at the core of the original motion.' I thank the member for Playford for his contribution otherwise, and I thank the members for Flinders, Frome and Unley for their thoughtful contributions.

One thing that stands out about the government's response to the motion really is quite telling because what you see from the government in the context of this debate is a sort of sheepishness about the whole topic. Again, I stress that this comes against the background of the fellow John Setka, who is referred to in paragraph (d) of the original motion, having been kind of at large—as literally as at large on the side of public transport in this state—over a period of more than a couple of years, during which this government had very little if anything to say about that sort of consequence and in circumstances where it took this government the better part of a year in 2022 to be embarrassed into returning a donation, a very significant donation from the CFMEU of $125,000, but even then not having a whole lot to say about Mr Setka kind of having free rein, throwing his weight around in South Australia over that period of time.

But now we see, 16 October 2024, the government in its sort of sheepish way this morning saying at least by paragraph (d) of this amendment that the government wants to affirm its support for the return to local leadership as soon as possible. We hear the government saying, 'Yes, okay, we have got it, finally. We are against the Victorian takeover.' So I would ask the members who might be contemplating the government's amendment: what is wrong with supporting paragraph (a) of the original amendment, of course, the circumstances in paragraph (b), paragraph (c) and absolutely obviously paragraph (d)?

As I said in moving the motion, really, you have room for a difference of view politically, and I think the member for Playford has articulated it to some extent about paragraph (e) of the original motion. But in its own sort of sheepish way, the government is saying in its amended paragraph (d), 'Yes, Vics out. Alright, we get it. Alright, we will give the $125,000 back.' They were slow to do that. Leave it another couple of years, and then, 'Alright, we are wanting to signal that we are kind of ready to recognise the need to heed those wise words of Will Frogley and call for local leadership.' Well, let's see that done actively. Let's see the leadership of the Premier and the government now come out and stand up against what has been a very poor chapter in the history of South Australia over these last couple of years. I affirm my support for the motion in its original form.

The house divided on the amendment:

Ayes 22

Noes 11

Majority 11

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Amendment thus carried; motion as amended carried.