Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (14:39): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Attorney-General regarding an illegal picket by the CFMMEU.

Leave granted.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK: Last month, it was reported that the CFMMEU lost their appeal to the Federal Court over a 2019 protest at 250 East Terrace deemed by the Australian Building and Construction Commission as an unlawful picket in its ruling at the time. A combined fine of $384,000 for the CFMMEU and a subcontractor's role in the unlawful protest was considered appropriate by the Federal Court, in part due to the union's prior history of flouting industrial laws. Justice O'Sullivan condemned the union's conduct as 'serious, deliberate and unjustified' and the fine has been described as one of the biggest fines of its type in Australian history.

With the abolition by the federal Labor government of the ABCC and this government's refusal to even debate our state-based Construction Industry Commissioner Bill, significant concerns of bullying, intimidation and threatening behaviour are increasing across South Australian construction sites. My questions for the Attorney are:

1. Has he been briefed on the implication of the Federal Court's rejection of the CFMMEU's appeal?

2. Is he going to be willing to debate a construction industry watchdog, given serious and increasing concerns over the militant behaviour of the CFMMEU?

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Public Sector) (14:41): I thank the honourable member for her question. It is rather confused. It is not as confused as the contributions we have seen earlier this week from some of her colleagues. The honourable member just outlined how the laws in the federal jurisdiction, which of course has the sole responsibility for private sector industrial relation matters, are working. She has made her case that it is working effectively at the moment.

The honourable member has stated—has actually put forward the fact—that threatening behaviour and intimidation are increasing. The honourable member made this as a positive statement, so the honourable member obviously has evidence of this. I would encourage the honourable member to take to the regulators, to take to the police, her very specific knowledge of intimidating behaviour or threatening behaviour that she has stated is increasing. If she does not do this, I think that speaks volumes as to whether or not she has evidence of this. I think the honourable member should take these concerns and the evidence she has of this to the police if there are criminal acts occurring.