Wednesday, 19 June 2024

Committees

Select committee

Establishment

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (14:02): I am pleased to rise, and I move:

That:

(1) a select committee of six members be appointed to inquire into, consider and report, by 30 June 2025, on trade union intimidation, including but not limited to:

(a) recent examples of union intimidation and threats, including the recent comments by John Setka, secretary of the CFMEU, and similar comments by other trade unions regarding the Australian Football League head of umpires Steven McBurney and other examples of union intimidation, threats and extortion;

(b) whether the criminal law, including the law as it relates to extortion, is sufficient and adequate to deal with Mr Setka’s threats and intimidation;

(c) the involvement of, and comment by, Luke Hilakari, Victorian Trades Hall Council secretary, and the apparent involvement of other Victorian unions;

(d) the impact on the construction industry, including construction costs, of similar threats and intimidation directed towards construction industry participants;

(e) whether union behaviour and culture has contributed to project cost blowouts and time delays in project completion, noting the massive cost blowouts on Victorian government construction projects and the significant time delays, including on the Big Build;

(f) whether the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission on 6 February 2023 by the Albanese Labor government has had a negative impact on construction costs;

(g) whether the abolition of the code compliance unit on 18 January 2015 by the Andrews–Allan Labor governments has had a negative impact on construction costs;

(2) the committee will consist of two members from the government nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Council, two members from the opposition nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Council and two members from among the remaining members in the Council;

(3) the members will be appointed by lodgement of the names with the President within seven calendar days of the Council agreeing to this resolution;

(4) the chair of the committee will be a non-government member;

(5) a member of the committee may appoint a substitute to act in their place for nominated meetings or for a defined period of time by that member, or the leader of that member’s party, writing to the chair advising of the member who will act as their substitute;

(6) a member who has been substituted off the committee must not participate in any proceedings of the committee for the nominated meetings or defined period of time that they have been substituted off for;

(7) substitute members will have all the rights of a member of the committee and shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purpose of forming a quorum;

(8) the first meeting of the committee will be held within one week of members’ names being lodged with the President; and

(9) the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.

I will leave the rest of those points there, which are essentially machinery points establishing an inquiry committee and seeing the establishment through the appointment of MPs and the rules for their engagement, which are standard rules for such a select committee. This is a very serious matter. I think many Victorians who are fair-minded are not pro or anti union. They are ambivalent. They think that unions have got a significant role, a significant place, in our community. Nonetheless we were shocked in recent days and recent weeks when we heard the series of extraordinary comments made by John Setka. The CFMEU is a rough and tumble union. Its history goes back to the days of the BLF and the decisions made in this Parliament, in this chamber, to deregister the BLF. That is the history. I am not going to step through all of that, but I think there are some lessons from the past where weak governments, spineless governments, like the Allan Labor government here in Victoria, allowed industrial thuggery to survive and thrive and then it had a significant impact. Eventually people – including Labor people, I might add, and I pay tribute to those who did take the proper stance – realised that in fact this was not tolerable. What we are seeing today is a reversion to the old days – not just to the Palaeolithic era but back to ancient history, back to the days when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. We have got thuggish people roaming around in a way that is completely unacceptable in a modern economy.

I think we have just got to go to some of the words that were said here. Let us be clear what is going on here. John Setka is very unhappy with the way Stephen McBurney, the new AFL head of umpires, acted when he was the head of the Australian Building and Construction Commission in a previous time. The ABCC was abolished in January 2023, and Mr McBurney has gone on and is now doing a different job. It is an entirely different scene and it is a different job. And yet we hear from John Setka. He has confirmed to Tom Elliot that he will target the AFL head of umpires Stephen McBurney due to historical industrial relations grievances. Setka has demanded Mr McBurney be sacked in any job he has in the future:

… after what he has done, us as a union will pursue these people.

…

We will tell everyone what he did, who he is and what his history is.

This is a vendetta, it is thuggish. As I said, this is a dinosaur-like individual and a thuggish attempt to intimidate and to pressure. It was just extraordinary to see some of the things that came out as this went forward.

Premier Jacinta Allan refused, according to the reports in the Herald Sun and other outlets, to condemn the powerful union boss Mr Setka, who vowed to halt or slow construction projects linked to the AFL and make those jobs an ‘effing misery’ for the league. This is just extraordinary stuff, isn’t it, really? Then we have got the CFMEU sharing a ‘Wanted: dead or alive’ poster of Stephen McBurney on social media. I mean, let us be clear: this is an attempt to intimidate, pure and simple. It is an attempt to thug the way forward, to make the AFL scared and worried about its projects.

The CFMEU secretary demanded the AFL sack its head of umpiring. He went on and on and on. He made a series of comments that I think most Victorians would be completely shocked by. He said they would follow McBurney ‘to the end of the earth’ for what he has done. This is the sort of commentary that is just beyond the pale when you look at what should be the situation in modern economies. Mr Setka conceded it would be fair to describe his position as a result of a ‘grudge’ against Mr McBurney but said it was not a threat to the AFL. He said:

“I don’t want to make any threats. I’m only talking about exposing people” …

“People like McBurney can’t attack workers and their conditions and be so undemocratic they make … North Korea look like a democracy, and then just ride off into the sunset like nothing’s ever happened.”

“The consequences –

he said –

will be that we are going to point him out to everyone, we’re going to let everyone know who he is, what he did, what he’d done to workers.”

He said:

“We’re not going to stop or put bans on stadiums being built …

But he then said that he is going to go on a go-slow. He will not allow overtime or any other further steps that would be a normal part of activities in these sorts of construction sites.

I mean, even Tony Burke cautioned Mr Setka:

The laws about unlawful industrial action have not changed, they have not changed, they are very specific and have been in Australia …

He went on about:

… the limitations of industrial action being assigned to specific bargaining periods, not because you don’t like someone who’s running umpires …

He said:

Anyone making any threat to Australian sport, it’s not the way to win over the Australian people.

He said – this is a federal workplace relations minister:

I find the whole thing very odd.

And I think most Australians and Victorians would find it very odd too.

The AFL came out swinging, and they said, ‘We’re going to defend Mr McBurney.’ They said he has umpired 401 games, including four AFL grand finals, and:

… has been a long-time mentor to umpires at every level and has done an outstanding job since returning to the AFL to take up the role of Head of Officiating …

They said:

All projects the AFL contributes to are designed to provide better training venues for AFL and AFLW players, gender-friendly facilities …

It goes on to talk about the role in welcoming footy environments for families:

We are hopeful any intended action does not impact players, supporters or the wider community …

But what is clear is that Setka knows what he is doing. He is not a silly person, he is actually a very sharp person. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is targeting McBurney, making the AFL pay a price, financially and potentially much more of a price, because they have employed someone.

This is bullying. It is thuggish behaviour. It is intimidation. These are threats, pure and simple. I think there is actually a whole series of matters in the old Crimes Act 1958 that this would fall foul of. I invite people to go and read the long list of offences at the back of the Crimes Act 1958. I am not a lawyer, but I reckon on a bush-law look at the Crimes Act a number of those points would fall very quickly into the mode of things that Mr Setka has fallen foul of here. He said he had:

… an “obligation to pursue anti-union, anti-worker f---ers like him, and we will until the end of the Earth”.

Until the end of the earth.

“They will regret the day they ever employed him …

said Mr Setka. I mean, these words should ring in the ears of Victorians. This is a shocking thing. You look to ‘work to rule’:

“… Things are going to drag out forever,” he said.

This is an industrial threat, simply.

“We get our blokes to work …rostered days off … sometimes on long weekends …

They say:

“Look, the job’s behind, they need to deliver this …

Mr Setka said the union would pursue the now-head of umpiring “until the ends of the earth”.

I mean, I just shake my head at this. I shake my head at this. How can anyone believe that this is acceptable behaviour? How can anyone? And he went further. A day later Mr Setka of the Victorian CFMEU was reported by a digital reporter for Sky News to have:

… unleashed a new onslaught against the AFL, branding it a “little private school boys club” following CEO Andrew Dillon’s pledge to back … umpire Stephen McBurney.

…

“This is going to cost the AFL a lot of f**king money –

said Mr Setka –

I hope it’s worth it. Projects without our full cooperation are going to be a f**king misery for them …They will regret the day they ever employed him.”

That is what he said. The article says:

Mr Setka stood firm on threats following the AFL boss’ comments, declaring the AFL would get “no favours” from the CFMEU.

“We haven’t changed our position one bit, we’re still doing the same thing …

he said.

“It’s just a waiting game … We’re patient people. We didn’t get to where we were doing stupid moves.

“Don’t worry, the AFL are going to reap the rewards of their actions … I can guarantee you. That little private school boy’s club. I just hope they’ve got deep pockets.”

Again, I think these comments, these extraordinary interventions, are completely unacceptable. One of the things that worried me tremendously was to see Luke Hilakari, the head of the union movement, also intervene on this, and he has basically made it very clear that in fact a number of other unions – the plumbers and others – are likely to be backing these moves. I mean, Mr Hilakari of the Trades Hall Council is a Victorian, and he should be working across the unions in Victoria for more modern approaches, for more sensible approaches, for more balanced approaches and for less thuggish approaches and outlawing bullying and intimidation and extortion – all of those sorts of things that certain parts of the union movement were once associated with. I hope few are now, but I am sorry, we are getting a very, very negative view of that with the comments that are coming out of some of the union officials now.

It is interesting in the Australian Financial Review article that the workplace reporter Marin-Guzman quoted Seyfarth Shaw partner Chris Gardner, who represented Patrick’s in one of the few successful cases against a covert union go-slow in 2014, and he said the Fair Work Ombudsman:

… would need to marshal a significant amount of resources to monitor and gather evidence in a type of case that is not easy to run or prosecute …

Marin-Guzman wrote:

Other lawyers have told AFR Weekend that Mr Setka’s threats and planned action … amount to unlawful adverse action …

And I actually think that is right. I think this is a very clear case of adverse action. I mean, it is clearly an attempt to intimidate, to threaten, to bully.

Regardless of the legal route, Mr Gardner said the CFMEU–AFL dispute was “a very public demonstration of what those in construction deal with regularly”.

And that is, I think, one of the key points here, isn’t it? Mr Gardner said:

“The tactics that we see on project … sites are bogus safety disputes, go-slows, restrictive work practices dressed up as ‘work to rule’ and can extend to sabotage of work …

Master Builders Australia chief executive Denita Wawn said “welcome to our world”.

“The behaviour we have seen over the last few days is something our industry has to deal with day in, day out, and it’s only getting worse since the industry watchdog was abolished.”

We notice that some of the other Labor leaders in WA and in New South Wales have been very clear. They have said, ‘We’re not having any of this. That’s nonsense. Get away. Go away, John Setka. We’re not interested in this sort of behaviour.’ But we have seen a very different outcome in Victoria. We have seen almost support by the Deputy Premier of Mr Setka – very, very close. I think his weakness in standing up is a problem, but I think also the Premier’s weakness – I mean, this is spineless, jellyback stuff. The Premier is compromised, with the links and donations that come from the unions. The jellyback response – the weak, sloppy response – by Jacinta Allan I think is bad news, and it would not stand up to the approach that was taken in the 1980s with the BLF, where the recognition was very, very clear.

I notice the federal plan to split the union, and this entirely makes sense. I was always personally very suspicious about these huge super unions, bringing together massive unions, forcing together groups that are not naturally part of one conglomerate. What you see in the comments by Michael O’Connor in recent days I think is very sensible:

He said the manufacturing division did not condone any type of threatening behaviour; did not use “members’ money to fund personal revenge campaigns”; and did not “attempt to hold public projects to ransom to settle personal grudges”.

“The behaviour of the construction division undermines the reputation of the whole trade union movement,” he said.

And I could not agree more.

“This is just the latest episode of Setka and the CFMEU construction division putting their personal agenda first – spending members’ money to settle a grudge and failing to act in the collective interests of members and the union movement.”

He is quite right.

Roger Cook in WA said:

“I don’t endorse these sorts of tactics. It’s not what we do today … It’s not part of the modern industrial relations landscape. This won’t impact on Western Australia, and I don’t want to give it any more oxygen than it deserves …

I do not blame him for wanting to close it down, because it is very damaging for the Labor Party and very damaging for the union movement. Of course many unionists are not like this; most unionists are not like that. Most want a decent day’s work for a decent day’s pay, and they want sensible arrangements in the workplace. That is what some of those code-compliance units and the ABCC were seeking to achieve. What we have seen here are threats and bullying. Basically Setka said, ‘You should go to North Korea’ to McBurney. This again is just absolutely unacceptable.

We have got a weak and hopeless Premier in Victoria and a Deputy Premier who I do not think has done himself any good on this matter, who could have actually stood up and stood up indeed to Jacinta Allan and said, ‘Actually, this is wrong.’ Everyone knows it is wrong. Anyone who is half-intelligent knows that this behaviour is wrong and totally and utterly unacceptable in a modern industrial landscape.

That is why this motion is here today. The motion is here to put on the record some of these points and to establish a way forward – to make sure that there are six members appointed who can take evidence, develop ways forward and come back with sensible and rational views on the way forward to deal with these sorts of people, like John Setka. Victorians should not have to put up with the thuggish behaviour of John Setka. The weakness of Jacinta Allan, the weakness of the Deputy Premier and the weakness of the Labor government in Victoria is a case study in how not to handle these things. Albo is weak as dishwater as well on this. I was going to use another word, but he is as weak as dishwasher, and I have to say he should have stood up and been clear on this as well. The truth is that this is totally and utterly unacceptable. I urge the chamber to support this motion, which is a sensible and balanced way forward.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (14:23): Yet again Mr Davis and the Liberal Party have wasted the time of Victorians and the time of this Parliament on another stunt. He stood over there and spoke for the last 20 minutes, reeling off quotes out of newspapers and using bland rhetoric that meant absolutely nothing, which reflects what the Liberals stand for – absolutely nothing. They have no plan for this state and they have no policy informing their values, because there is nothing there. I do think on this of all days the shadow energy spokesperson for the Liberal Party in this state should be getting across his brief when we have got nuclear power being called for across the country by Peter Dutton and we have got clear divisions between the opposition spokesperson and the leader. There were a lot of articles referred to over there. We have got Steve Price in the Herald Sun saying:

Pressure on Victorian Opposition Leader –

David Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, this is about industrial relations behaviour, it is about the Setka issue. It is about a way forward there. It is not an energy debate. Much as I would like to be doing an energy debate and would relish the chance, it is not this debate.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): I bring Mr McIntosh back to the motion.

Tom McINTOSH: Thanks, Mr Davis, for proving my point. It is your slot. You have an opportunity to debate something here in the Parliament of Victoria, yet you go on with a stunt. I will not discuss the division and the leaking and the reference to your name and the opposition leader’s name, but let us get back to this stunt you are on.

On this side we are very clear and proud to stand for better living conditions day in and day out for Victorians, ensuring that they have jobs, that there are quality jobs in this state where people are well paid, where they can support their families and where that money can flow into the community. We know that side do not believe in that form of economics, and I will come back to that later on. We believe in education, training and skills so that we can develop our workforce and we can ensure that there is a pipeline of workers able to deliver what this economy needs. We have seen it from the Liberals whenever they are in power, whether it was under Kennett when they cut the SEC and cut that generation of workers or whether it was under Baillieu and Napthine – or Dolittle and Nap Time – when nothing happened in this economy for four years. There was no infrastructure investment and they cut the guts out of TAFE, and that is what they do every single time. We believe in ensuring –

David Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, again this is an opportunity to debate the motion to establish a select committee about the behaviour of certain unions and Mr Setka. It is not for a general rant about the opposition and so forth.

Tom McINTOSH: Mr Davis, I can assure you that I am going to come to unions. I assure you I am going to come to working people. But we on this side have values. We on this side have values that, as I have said, underpin our policies and our plan for this state, unlike you lot, who come up with absolute stunts like this one. As I was saying, we ensure that these families with well-paid jobs can get the training and get into homes to support their families, that the health systems and infrastructure are there for them to commute around our state and that our state’s economy and environment are sustainable and there for future generations to come. This side works alongside Victorians. We have worked amongst Victorians in coming into this place. Those who have come from the union movement have represented and fought for workers.

I think part of the problem in this debate is that the majority of the Liberals have probably been to university, spent most of their time in the Liberal club, then gone on to work for a think tank where they are told how to think, and then they go out and prosecute arguments with no basis to what they are talking about. They come into this place with Reaganism or Thatcherism or ideas of trickle-down economics. Let us be quite clear: the values of this side are about workers being are well paid and that being there to support families and go into the community.

Members interjecting.

Tom McINTOSH: Your position is to suppress workers’ wages. That is the starting point that you have. That is your economic policy, to suppress workers’ wages. Mr Davis, you touched on history going back to 1958. I will give the chamber a brief bit of history of Kennett: you cut trains, you cut schools, you cut hospitals, you cut services. Mr Davis, if it was good enough for you, it is good enough for me.

David Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, I quoted an act of Parliament that actually deals with crimes. I did not quote something, as it were, about 1958 – I quoted the amended act that has been amended 47,000 times since then.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Mr Davis, you are debating the issue.

Michael Galea: On the point of order, Acting President, I do not think Mr Davis actually has a point of order, and I ask that Mr McIntosh be allowed to continue.

David Davis: On the point of order, Acting President, the point of order is very simple. He has strayed well outside the bounds of the motion, and it is not –

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Further to the point of order, Mr Galea.

Michael Galea: Further on the point of order, Acting President, as is the custom of this place, the first speaker from any given party is generally given somewhat more leeway, and I believe that Mr McIntosh was speaking in line with that.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): I will uphold the point of order. There is some leeway that has been introduced, and I will ask Mr McIntosh to continue.

Tom McINTOSH: Whilst in their last term of government nothing happened – no major transporting structure; nothing, zilch. This government has invested $208 billion, which is underway. Metro, North East Link –

David Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, again on a point of relevance, he is deviating well beyond the terms of reference of this inquiry and the motion. He is now heading back into previous times just as a simplistic attack on the opposition, and that is not his task.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): I will uphold the point of order and ask Mr McIntosh to come back to the debate, please.

Tom McINTOSH: We have invested in metro, in the North East Link, in the West Gate Tunnel, in 80 dangerous level crossing removals, in the Suburban Rail Loop and many, many more metro and regional road and rail projects. That is why our economy is growing faster than that of any other state. That is why there are more jobs being created in this state. There is more business investment in this state than around the country. 17,000 jobs have been created directly through the Big Build, with another 33,000 indirect, and within that we have ensured diversity of employment, whether it is – if Mr Davis wants to talk about culture on construction sites – getting women on construction sites, First Nations people and people with a disability. We have ensured that the apprenticeships and traineeships are there, because we know you lot could not give a damn about future generations of workers (a) getting a start and (b) being trained to understand their job, to do it safely and to go into the future. I have commented on the SEC before because it is a great example of how an entire generation of workers were wiped out. For you lot it is hands off the wheel. It is an easy ethos – just leave it, walk away, do not worry about supporting Victorians, supporting Victorian workers, ensuring there are quality, skilled workers in our system.

You bring these stunts into the Parliament – Kennett referred almost all of Victoria’s industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth. If you have got accusations, go and put them and have them heard rather than wasting time in this Parliament carrying on with your stunts.

David Davis interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: You did not support us when we took on wage theft in this place. You did not support us when we fought for portable long service leave. You did not support us when we took on dodgy labour-hire companies or workplace manslaughter. We have stood up on silica, and the union, the CFMEU, have stood up on silica, fighting for workers rights, ensuring that workers are safe.

In the last seven years 89 workers have died on construction sites. These are people’s lives we are talking about. We are talking about getting people home to their families, home to their children, home to their communities. Every death, every amputation, has an economic impact and a massive impact on our communities. Between April 2023 and March 2024, just to name a few, a 49-year-old man died from disease following exposure to silica – there are many, many asbestos cases in here as well, but I am not going to get time to go through those – another worker was crushed while loading a skid, a 25-year-old man died after being crushed between a steel beam and the cage of a boom lift, a 58-year-old traffic management supervisor died when his ute was struck by a car –

Members interjecting.

Tom McINTOSH: Those opposite may roll their eyes and say, ‘All right, all right,’ but these are people’s lives. A 60-year-old electrician fell from the ladder three storeys to his death at a residential construction site in Greenvale, and the list goes on.

This is a stunt. It is a waste of people’s time. If you have accusations, make them in the proper place and stop wasting the Parliament of Victoria’s time.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (14:33): I am pleased to rise on Mr Davis’s motion 461 relating to a select committee to be established to inquire into, consider and report by 30 June 2025 on trade union intimidation. Mr Davis has gone through his motion in full, but I want to make some points around paragraph (a):

recent examples of union intimidation and threats, including the recent comments by John Setka, secretary of the CFMEU, and similar comments by other trade unions regarding the Australian Football League head of umpires Steven McBurney and other examples of union intimidation, threats and extortion …

This is a very simple motion in relation to what this would do: establish that select committee to look into that. There have been comments by Mr Setka over a long period of time that are, quite frankly, completely unacceptable. His personal issues and the issues with his former wife and the domestic violence claims and other abhorrent actions that he has taken are well reported; I will not go into those. What we are talking about is what he has said about Mr McBurney in his former role and how he is now applying that into his current workplace, and the threats, the intimidation, the bullying, around projects that are largely funded by taxpayers. It is incumbent on every member in this house to support this motion so that we can have greater transparency and an ability to stamp out the disgraceful behaviour that we have witnessed over the last few days by Mr Setka. Even Labor premiers in other states do not find this acceptable. Premier of Western Australia Roger Cook said:

I don’t endorse those sorts of tactics; it’s not what we do today … It’s not part of the modern industrial relations landscape.

The South Australian Premier said that it was not in the interests of the broader labour movement. I think those two men are right. But what have we got here with Jacinta Allan? She is absolutely pathetic and hopeless on this very issue. When she was asked about this issue, she fobbed it off and said:

That matter is a matter for the AFL and the CFMEU.

No, it is not, Premier. It is in the interests of every single Victorian that we understand exactly what has gone on. I go to point (d) of Mr Davis’s motion, which talks about:

the impact on the construction industry, including construction costs, of similar threats and intimidation directed towards construction industry participants …

and then point (e):

whether union behaviour and culture has contributed to project cost blowouts and time delays in project completion, noting the massive cost blowouts on Victorian government construction projects and the significant time delays, including on the Big Build …

As we know, there is at least $40 billion of wasted taxpayers money in those project blowouts. I am somewhat curious to understand. The Premier herself has been briefed on CFMEU coercion, and she was briefed prior to the last election. If you look at various reports around this – they make for fascinating reading actually – they are quite telling, and I would urge anyone, if they really want to have a look into this issue, to read them. But that is why the select committee is so important – so we can stamp out this ongoing behaviour. But it is very evident that the Premier is close to John Setka. She does not hide from that.

Sonja Terpstra interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, you might groan, Ms Terpstra, but this is taxpayers money we are talking about – $40 billion in cost project blowouts. It is. And you fob it off like that. A man that has somebody’s sign up with ‘(Not) wanted: dead or alive’ – what does that say? And you are meant to be the champions of family violence prevention. You have just put in place somebody on male change programs, Mr Richardson – what is he doing about this?

But to get back to the Premier, the Premier is very close to this man, and it is well documented and well understood. As the Victorian minister for infrastructure – as she was at the time these briefs occurred – she knew. I am quoting from an article:

As the Victorian minister for infrastructure at the time, she had overseen a huge power grab by the CFMEU in the Victorian construction industry.

And that is the problem here – the Premier is too close to John Setka. She is. And that is the power and the hold and the intimidation, the bullying tactics, and why she is so pathetic and so weak in not calling out this man. He is appalling and he is a disgrace. Anyone else who did what he did to Mr McBurney would quite rightly be hauled over the coals. He is getting away with blue murder. It is extraordinary.

Sonja Terpstra: Oh, murder now?

Georgie CROZIER: Well, it is a saying. The Premier has been absolutely flippant. What we have seen in the past weeks is a leader of a union make some comments about someone they do not like. Really? She is the first one to call out if somebody says, ‘Have a respectful relationship.’ This is not somebody that Mr Setka likes. He has threatened projects.

A member interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Chase him to ‘the end of the earth’. It was an extraordinary outburst by John Setka, but it is even more extraordinary that the Premier is so weak – and she is weak because she is tied up and up to her neck in the CFMEU. As I said, she has been briefed on CFMEU coercion. The infrastructure portfolios that she has been responsible for are tied in with the CFMEU. It is no secret and no surprise that she is forging ahead with the Suburban Rail Loop at the expense of every other Victorian. Because they are not going to get the benefits of that.

A member interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, the Deputy Premier does not agree with what you are saying over there on the back bench, and you know it is a dud project. $200 billion –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Order!

Georgie CROZIER: In the lead-up to the last election we know that the deals were done. There they were, Ms Allan and the Treasurer, having a secret little lunch with John Setka in that hotel in Carlton. I will quote from that article again, from the Australian Financial Review:

The industry had been abuzz in 2022 with claims that the Andrews government had effectively given the go-ahead for the militant construction union – traditionally involved in commercial building sites – to take charge of civil construction.

It goes on:

It also opened up a sector of the industry to a union the courts had deemed the “greatest recidivist offender in Australia’s corporate history”, one that repeatedly sought to place itself above the law when it came to coercion, intimidation and other industrial offences.

This is why we need this select committee. This is what this Parliament is here for – for us as elected members to be able to oversee these actions.

I know that the Labor Party – I can hear them sighing over there; Ms Terpstra is sighing. She does not want this select committee to go ahead because of what it will uncover. I implore the crossbenchers to do the right thing – to vote for this, because we need to get to the bottom of it. You cannot have these standover tactics, this intimidation and bullying, by this union that is holding Victorian taxpayers to ransom like it is. The project overruns are just extraordinary – the waste and mismanagement. It is the Premier, who is the former infrastructure minister and now Premier in charge, that is letting this go. I say again: her remarks have been so flippant, so weak, because she is –

David Davis: Jellyback.

Georgie CROZIER: Well, more than a jellyback, Mr Davis. She is actually in an agreement with John Setka. She is very close to him. It is all reported.

Michael Galea: Where has she said that she agrees with that?

Georgie CROZIER: Look at her public comments, Mr Galea. They are weak and pathetic.

Michael Galea interjected.

Georgie CROZIER: ‘That matter is a matter for the AFL and the CFMEU.’

Sonja Terpstra: On a point of order, Acting President, Ms Crozier should make sure she addresses her comments through the Chair and stop addressing people across the chamber.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): I uphold the point of order.

Georgie CROZIER: I beg your pardon, Acting President. Through the Chair, I will say to Mr Galea that the Premier is very close to John Setka and extremely close to the CFMEU. Everybody knows that. It is reported. She and Mr Pallas were in that Carlton pub, restaurant or whatever it is – prior to the 2022 election. It came out. There were deals done. That was clear. She was briefed on the CFMEU coercion. Victorians have a right to understand what the Premier knows. Victorians have a right to get to the bottom of this, and that is why every member of this chamber should be supporting this important motion.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (14:43): I rise to also make a contribution on this motion in Mr Davis’s name calling for a select committee to be established of six members to inquire into, consider and report by 30 June 2025 on trade union intimidation, including but not limited to – there is a whole bunch of stuff there, which I will not repeat. But essentially it revolves around the comments that were reported in the media made by the secretary of the CFMEU construction division, John Setka.

I had the benefit of listening to the debate before, both Mr Davis’s and Ms Crozier’s contributions, and I just want to preface my remarks by saying the trade union movement has a long history in this state of standing up for workers and protecting workers. In fact the construction unions and the building unions, who are a group of unions, do some very important work in ensuring that workers who go and work in the construction sector actually get to come home to their families each and every day, because the construction sector is a notoriously dangerous place to work. There are lots of big and heavy pieces of equipment and machinery, and accidents do happen. Unfortunately, sometimes when those accidents happen they can be quite catastrophic. The union movement has a long, proud and important history of standing up for working people.

In regard to the comments that have been made by Mr Setka, clearly Mr Setka has issues with Mr McBurney and his former role at the Australian Building and Construction Commission. I am pretty sure that the opposition sees this as an opportunity and a stalking horse to kind of reinitiate a discussion around ‘Let’s get the ABCC back up and rolling.’ Because one of the first things that the Labor Party did when they came to office was to abolish that organisation as a disgraceful entity that did nothing but stalk good trade unions and try and bring them down and destroy them. That is why that entity is no longer operating.

This motion is misguided. I was doing a bit of research before I got up to speak on this and also listening to the comments. The comments that Mr Setka made referenced some projects that do not exist in this state. They were in regard to a Tasmanian stadium, and I will just read this little bit of information that the AFL were quoted as saying in the media. I am not sure which daily Rupert it was; there are a few of them. But in any event the AFL has said of the threats that were made – and this is in regard to the AFL and Mr McBurney’s role in the AFL – that for the projects that Mr Setka spoke of, the main financiers were the federal government. Let me just read this for the record:

In the case of the proposed Tasmanian stadium, the state government is expected to fund it by $375 million, with $240 million from the federal government and only $15 million from the AFL. Another $85 million will come from other state government borrowings.

The AFL also noted that the AFL is run as a not-for-profit entity and distributes most of its operating surplus to its constituent clubs, meaning that basically it is not for profit – it does not have money in its pockets. Again, this is important context. I do not even know why we have got this motion before us, because these projects are not in Victoria. This has got nothing to do with us. But nevertheless, do not let that stand in the way of trying to get another good strawman stalking horse going for the CFMEU.

I might say that despite the constant rhetoric and rubbish and false equivalence and ridiculous connections that those opposite try to draw, I must note that the Fair Work Ombudsman has indicated that she has commenced an investigation in relation to the comments attributed to the CFMEU Victorian state secretary John Setka. She has indicated that it would be inappropriate for her to comment further at this stage, because obviously they are investigating. Why would we as a Parliament have a motion in here today to have a joint select committee tie up important time and resources of the Parliament in looking at something that an appropriate statutory body is looking at? Why would we do that? That seems stupid.

David Davis interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: You cannot have it both ways, Mr Davis. Are you saying that the Parliament –

David Davis interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Your motion is politically motivated.

David Davis interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Your politically motivated motion would be a more appropriate place to look at these sorts of things. Because I tell you what, we could have a joint select committee into looking into how Kennett shut the SEC. Let us have a joint select committee into all of the things that Liberal governments have done in the past to attack working people and trade unions. How about we have a joint select committee into all of that?

David Davis interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Acting President, I cannot hear myself talk for the constant yelling and interjection by Mr Davis, and I ask that I be allowed to be heard in silence.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (John Berger): Mr Davis, if we could keep the level of noise down, that would be appreciated.

Sonja TERPSTRA: I just make the point that, as I said, there is an appropriate entity who has indicated that they are going to investigate these comments. What we will see come out of that investigation is actually a fact-based investigation that goes to look at what comments were made and who they were directed at, rather than the coalition – those opposite – using this as an opportunity to try and link up the CFMEU and John Setka with our Premier and all this kind of rubbish. It is just a waste of this Parliament’s time and resources. I notice that the motion broadens out into trying to attack the secretary of the Victorian Trades Hall Council –

David Davis interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: The Acting President has ruled that I be allowed to continue in silence. Are you disrespecting the ruling of the Chair?

David Davis interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Well, pipe down.

Renee Heath: On a point of order, Acting President, the member is not speaking through the Chair, so that in fact is unparliamentary.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): I ask the member to continue on.

Sonja TERPSTRA: On a point of order, Acting President, Mr Davis disregarded the earlier ruling from the Chair that I be allowed to continue in silence. That is the point of order that I was raising, and when I was raising that point of order Mr Davis still continued to talk over me. I ask that I be allowed to continue in silence.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): I take note of that and support the previous ruling that the member be heard in silence.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Again, this is a ridiculous notion of those opposite to try and tie in comments by union leaders who actually do a fantastic job in standing up for working people and in protecting workers rights. Like I said, let us have a joint select committee into those opposite and all the terrible attacks they have made on working people and on conditions of employment. We can go on and talk about how we have had decades of award stripping. We had decades of stagnant wages brought to you by the Morrison government and nobbling of the Fair Work Commission and all those sorts of things. We could make sure that we could talk about all of those sorts of things, but you only wheel these sorts of things out when you want to continue to attack the union movement. Everyone on the government benches over here knows what an ill-conceived, pathetic stunt this really is.

It is important to note the facts around this. As I said, the comments were made by Mr Setka in regard to projects that are going to take place in Tasmania – nothing to do with Victoria. There is no indication that any of the comments that were made were going to affect any projects in Victoria. Again, it is only because those opposite have no plan, no policy and nothing to do other than make stuff up – just making things up – to try and smear our government and smear our Premier. No-one is listening to you. You are so pathetic over there. You have got absolutely nothing. This is a ridiculous motion. Fancy tying up members of Parliament in this place for a long period of time with the finite and precious resources that we should be devoting to much more important projects and inquiries – many, many more important things that Victorians actually care about. The bottom line is that many Victorians actually benefit from the jobs that this government is supporting. Many projects in our Big Build program are supporting many Victorians into work in the construction sector, and they are well-paid, safe jobs brought to you by the union movement and this government because we have worked together in ensuring that we have appropriate enterprise agreements and industrial relations that make sure that these projects will get delivered on time. And we make sure that Victorians who work on these projects get to go to work and also get to come home to their families safely. Safety is a very important thing, and the union movement does an incredibly important job of ensuring that people get to go to work and come home safely.

This is a ridiculous motion. Nobody in this chamber should be entertaining such garbage and drivel, and I will take great delight in trying to vote this down.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (14:53): I rise today to speak on Mr Davis’s very important motion on trade union intimidation. Pretty much everyone in the country and in our state was absolutely appalled by the actions of John Setka and his threats to Stephen McBurney, so I think it is a worthwhile motion. I just want to touch on Ms Terpstra’s comments about the Australian Building and Construction Commission, that it is a disgusting organisation – so disgusting that it resulted in the CFMEU being fined by courts to the tune of $15 million for 1600 law breaches. What a disgusting organisation, that it sought justice for 1600 law breaches. Ms Terpstra might think it is okay to break the law without punishment, putting up costs for all Victorians and adding to the cost of construction for all Victorian taxpayers and Australian taxpayers, but this side of the chamber does not. This side of the chamber does not put up with that behaviour. This side of the chamber does not make excuses for that kind of behaviour.

The building watchdog played an important role. We have even seen Labor sources lately acknowledge the important role that the construction watchdog played and acknowledge that things have got pretty out of hand since the abolition of the ABCC. Union disputes, up; intimidation, up; bullying tactics, up; costs, up. That is what happens when you have Labor governments at a state and a federal level that are tied to the CFMEU, that are tied to a militant union that is increasing costs for all Victorians and for all Australians.

It is important to support Mr Davis’s motion. Threatening a private individual, a private worker in a private organisation, is not on. You can imagine the screeches on that side of the chamber had it been a big business trying to extort a private individual from getting work elsewhere. You could imagine the screeches on that side of the chamber, yet we hear nothing when it is John Setka. We hear nothing when it is Luke Hilakari, who decides all their preselections. We hear absolutely nothing in regard to Stephen McBurney, who from all reports is doing a superb job. From all reports he is a great head of umpiring. Kangaroos fans might not think so. But everyone in the industry says that he is a very reputable manager who is doing an absolutely fantastic job, and I would believe that. It is extortion. It is absolutely not on.

Going back to the ABCC, it is important because there is a bit of history to go through here. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had some sense and did not proceed with the abolition of the ABCC. For that he was labelled an ‘effing dog’ by John Setka. In 2022 Anthony Albanese promised what Rudd did not – that he would abolish the ABCC. Construction industry insiders say while the ABCC was by no means perfect, it had restrained the union due to its ability to dish out huge fines. Since the abolition of the ABCC the CFMEU has taken over the Big Build in Victoria through intimidation and coercion and is now able to dictate which suppliers get work on publicly funded projects. Some ALP figures question whether the union is now biting off more than it can chew but say there is little chance of much changing in the short term. There you go. They are acknowledging that things have changed. They are basically acknowledging that it is adding to cost, and you wonder why we get things like a $10 billion blowout on the North East Link. How does the government shrug its shoulders to that? I thought tearing up $1.1 billion on the east–west link was pretty bad, but $10 billion, seriously? Someone has got to be accountable for that. This government just shrugs its shoulders – ‘It’s a union; can’t do anything about that.’

But this government has a history of folding over on the bullying tactics and intimidation that are clearly going on in our worksites. We know what is going on in our worksites, and I want to point out one particular example in my own electorate, the Mickleham Road project, which is now the most expensive road duplication in the history of our state – a 1.6-kilometre duplication for $222 million. The government duplicated Plenty Road for 6.6 kilometres in 2019–20 for $145 million. Make that make sense. You cannot, because it is a CFMEU-run project where there has been bullying, intimidation and coercion – the kicking off of Indigenous firms from their worksite, replaced with shell companies attached to Mick Gatto, supposedly. We see concern from Kinaway, an Indigenous procurement firm. Ms Watt has boasted in this place about the government using Kinaway on government projects for Indigenous procurement, and I think that is a good thing. They are very concerned about the actions of the CFMEU kicking them off CFMEU sites because they do not have a job ticket with the CFMEU and replacing them with supposed Indigenous-only firms that have no affiliation with Indigenous communities in the area. How is that normal? How can you just shrug your shoulders to that? You boast on that side about how great Kinaway is, an Indigenous procurement firm, and then you have got the militant CFMEU kicking them off worksites in my electorate. You just shrug your shoulders – ‘Nothing to see here.’

We see bullying and intimidation over and over again on our worksites. We saw recently there will be an over 20 per cent pay increase for CFMEU workers across the country, and I think our nurses, our teachers and our ambos were pretty shocked to see union delegates bragging about buying Ford Raptors for apprentices and expensive Range Rovers and other vehicles and utes, because nurses are not getting that, teachers are not getting that and ambos are not getting that. While the government is penny pinching our frontline positions, stop–go sign holders are getting paid over $200 000 a year. How is that fair?

The government say it has got nothing to do with them. I reckon it does, because it is increasing costs for every taxpayer, it is increasing costs for every project. It means we cannot build bridges, build roads and build train lines at cost – because Labor cannot manage money and it cannot stand up to the CFMEU bosses. I mean, who is running this state really, Jacinta Allan or John Setka? He seems to get his way on absolutely everything. The government does not seem to care about projects costing billions more. Twenty per cent of costs, half of all residential construction projects, is on labour, the workforce. So overnight there has been a 10 per cent increase on every big project. Good luck meeting your phony housing statement when there is a 10 per cent increase on every project across the state.

Every residential apartment that you want to smash through our middle suburbs is going to be more expensive to build. As I have spoken about to many industry figures, they have now become uneconomical, because in addition to government taxes they will cost 10 per cent more. The government needs to have a view on this. Does it support getting young people into homes or doesn’t it? Does it support getting costs down on government projects or doesn’t it? We have got a situation where a 6-kilometre duplication of Craigieburn Road is costing almost $100 million more than a 7-kilometre duplication on Sunbury Road, where there is an AWU workforce, and they even built a bridge. Somehow the Craigieburn Road duplication is costing hundreds of millions of dollars more. It has already blown out. The Sunbury Road project has not. You have got to ask: where have the days gone when the AWU was civil and the CFMEU was the rest of construction? They have taken over every industry – and now they are coming after local government and now they are coming after garbage collection. There is going to be more cost shifting and more costs borne by local government. It is adding to the cost-of-living crisis. This government does not care about the cost-of-living crisis. This government does not care about getting young people into homes. It only cares about bowing down to the CFMEU bosses.

David ETTERSHANK (Western Metropolitan) (15:03): I rise to speak to the proposal to establish a select committee to investigate part or perhaps all of the trade union movement. I have been I suppose over the last 40 years on the periphery of a couple of royal commissions and multiple inquiries into union behaviour, and they have all had two things in common: firstly, they have been fishing exercises that have basically been looking to discredit the union movement; and secondly, they have always been moved by conservative parties who know that there is little or no veracity to their inquiries but are keen to disparage and besmirch their Labor Party rivals through their association with and – let us face it – their origins in the trade union movement.

In my humble opinion this is again just such an exercise. It seeks to cast a wide net to besmirch the union movement as a whole as well as particular unions and particular individuals. This is, for want of a better term, a political hamburger with the lot based on a traditional recipe. Let us ask ourselves the question: how does that recipe go? Firstly, you start with an attack on the construction unions, a favourite whipping horse bursting with conservative flavour. I would posit that this is because those unions have been unbowed despite the huge resources thrown at them by successive coalition governments. Alternately, perhaps it is the huge resources thrown at the Liberal Party by donors from the property and construction industries. Next, in the assembly of our burger –

Members interjecting.

David ETTERSHANK: Thank you. Next, and sticking with the flavoursome construction sector, tie in the abolition of the notorious Australian Building and Construction Commission, an organisation established solely to play the role of union buster. The ABCC was an organisation that history will record as not only an abject failure at reducing union influence but also a serial pest litigator, a Liberal attack dog and one that did more to undermine health and safety in the building industry than asbestos.

At this point, to make a big real burger statement – and I should apologise to Mr Berger here; there is no reference to Mr Berger. I am talking about a metaphorical burger that I am working on. At this point, to make a real burger statement and to add some much-needed colour and crispness, you need to throw in a few allegations of extortion and intimidation, suggesting that the broad scope of the criminal and civil code is probably inadequate to encompass the sheer villainy of those evil union officials that you refer to. Finally, finish your burger with lashings of the not-so-secret spicy sauce in the form of blaming unions for the skyrocketing costs of construction for all Australians and, because you know you want more, throw in those major state government infrastructure project costs. And there you have it – the all-singing, all-dancing, union-bashing burger with the lot. The trouble is this burger fails the taste test. To stick with my overly tortured hamburger metaphor, this burger is stale, it lacks substance. It is like one of those burgers that just has too much beetroot in it.

To go to something a little more serious, industrial relations is not for the faint-hearted. It is for the committed, and in many sectors if you do not get a bit antsy and you do not take action, employers simply assume that you are not seriously pursuing a claim. That is the nature of the sector. It would be nice if that was not the case, but the fact is that it is the reality. This is the industrial culture, and if you cannot work within that culture, you are in the wrong business. It is just how industrial relations all too often works. It is a cultural thing.

It is also worth noting that successive conservative governments have reduced the ability of unions to access the conciliation and arbitration system to undermine union influence but at the same time they have made the intensity of those conflicts greater. The old ‘get in early, get into mediation, get resolution’ has been carved away by conservative governments. At the same time those same conservative governments have created animals like the Australian Building and Construction Commission to attack and erode the legitimate role of the union movement, perversely only serving to increase conflict.

We recognise and accept absolutely the right of the opposition to propose such a select committee, but Legalise Cannabis Victoria is of a view that this proposal is basically a hit job on the construction unions, the Victorian Trades Hall Council and any other unions that might come within the crosshairs of such an inquiry. Accordingly, we will not be supporting the motion.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (15:09): I rise to speak on the motion of Mr Davis, and I note that he seemed to have a particular weird sense of glee on his face when he read this motion out in this place yesterday. What a shame, considering the thousands of members that are constituents of ours in Southern Metro. The first part of his motion requests that a select committee of six members be appointed to inquire, consider and report by 30 June 2025 on trade union intimidation, and it goes on. It goes on a lot. The second part of the motion talks about who will be on this committee that Mr Davis is so keen to see. But let us skip the third part of the motion to go to the fourth part of this motion. The fourth part reads that the chair of the committee will be a non-government member.

I am not going to bother with this motion, which is designed as an attack against the government, but what is worse, a motion that is an attack against working men and women of this state, and I assume that this chamber will agree. Unions built Victoria. Unions built the middle class, and Victoria is a union state. In 1856 Victoria became one of the first places in the world to introduce an 8-hour workday. As many of us know in this chamber, workers organising went on a strike when building what is known as the old quad at the University of Melbourne, stonemasons protesting against long unfair hours. They marched here to Parliament House, marking the birth of the union movement in Victoria and what began a more than 150-year legacy of fighting for the rights of working people.

Many workers in this building are union members, and I am sure the Department of Parliamentary Services has the Community and Public Sector Union, also known as the CPSU, fighting for the rights and entitlements every day. In this building, members and their delegates fight for them as well, because we know you must fight to win. In a poll in 2020 conducted by Essential Polling more than 74 per cent of workers found unions to be an essential part of workplace safety, 74 per cent agreed that unions are essential for proper pay and 74 per cent agreed that they were essential to providing a voice for them at work. Over two-thirds of respondents believe unions are crucial to pushing back against power imbalances in the workplace, and twice as many believe that they would be far better off with stronger unions in Australia. Unions play an integral role in industrial matters, and their role is just as relevant in 2024 as it was in 1856. They are essential in protecting workers rights, fighting for better pay and conditions and defending workers when they are unfairly treated.

This is never more evident than in some of Australia’s deadliest industries. The road transport sector is one of the most dangerous industries in this country, and after 38 years as a member and then leader of the union that represents them I am deeply passionate about ensuring every person gets home safe to their loved ones. Unions have a strong record of supporting workers. Most publicly, the Transport Workers Union led the charge against Qantas in the Federal Court, standing up for 1700 workers sacked by disgraced CEO Alan Joyce and the board. The TWU fought Qantas on every appeal and escalated it into the courts, and I am pleased to say the High Court found that Qantas had unlawfully sacked workers in a dodgy bid to avoid industrial action. Without a union these workers would not have had a voice, and that is what those opposite want.

Similarly, Qantas was found guilty of an illegal standing-down of health and safety representative Theo Seremetidis after he sought to protect workers on the job from COVID-19, with Qantas being forced to pay a fine of $250,000. At Virgin Airlines just last year, workers were pointing out concerns of fatigue from a reduction in breaks available on tiresome back-to-back shifts and sought industrial action to rectify this. It is only through the collective action of the TWU that workers at Virgin Airlines who did it tough through the pandemic saw compensation, and that took the form of universal two-year 6.5 per cent increases in wages as well as an 8 to 20 per cent increase for those most affected. The TWU has fought for better deals for members, and that is what unions will always do.

The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, or ‘shoppies’ as we know them, is another great example. It is something I know my colleague Mr Galea knows all about. At Bunnings the SDA secured a 10 per cent increase over three years and added 4.5 per cent in the first year for workers along with a bump to annual leave, helping to secure award rates of pay, and we have seen that with their work with Aldi. This is something that we have had to fight, with Mr Galea – fighting their race to the bottom, to fight for a boost in the number of hours and part-timers, increased retail wages, more parental leave, annual leave and stronger rights for casuals. I have stood at many picket lines with my comrades at the mighty Rail, Tram, and Bus Union, who consistently deliver strong results for their workers. ABS data shows that union workers have better wages, earning 25 per cent more than non-union workers, and wage growth benefits all of us. It powers economic growth across every area of society, and its unions are fighting to make it better.

The Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) has been abolished, and good riddance to it. It was set up to discredit and dismantle unions. It was an ideological hit piece of the Abbott–Turnbull–Morrison era, the same mob that brought you the 2014 federal budget that cut, cut and cut – because that is all they want to do. Those opposite just have no idea how to build anything. They have never built anything, just like they sold out Victoria during the Abbott–Turnbull–Morrison era, cheering on their Liberal mates as our funding got defunded. They were selling out Victorians. Even to this day we have seen scenes over the last few weeks where they have been cheering on the other states’ tourism sectors, encouraging people to go interstate. I say shame on you.

When they were last in Parliament they wasted four years. They sat back and did nothing while our transport sector was neglected, something I remember too well. They told us they could not remove any level crossings. Well, how is that going for you? They love to stand up here and pretend they care about growing the diverse western suburbs, but what do they know about delivering the West Gate Tunnel? They have not even got a single member in the other place that represents our west, so give me a break. What do you know about delivering in the north-east? Instead of building stuff, the member for Warrandyte in the other place makes cringey videos talking about slabs and tea while sledging the hardworking men and women out building the project that is going to benefit their community. It is disgraceful. They claim they want to build things, yet they go out and support organisations that are designed from the get-go to treat construction workers differently from other workers, to treat those at building sites differently. The ABCC did nothing to improve OH&S or fight exploitative wages and conditions in the industry, and it did nothing to increase productivity, despite what their cringey videos claim.

These people cannot decide what they are on about. When this mob was last in government, they failed to deliver a single major project. But what did they do instead? You went to war on the nurses, you went to war on the firies and you went to war on everybody else – even the teachers. When the last Liberal government in Victoria lasted more than a hot minute, they delivered pain and suffering and Jeff’s Shed. We all know what you think of unions. Kennett brought in contracts that outlawed penalty rates and leave loading and picket lines. He handed the state awards up to the feds. That is what you get in Victoria when you vote for the Liberals – hardline industrial relations policy. That is not what this place wants or the people of Victoria want. That is what you have been sitting there doing for a decade. I thank the house.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (15:17): I also rise to speak on this ridiculous, transparent motion that has been put forward by Mr Davis today, and I have to say at the outset, with a lot of my remarks Mr Ettershank probably expressed my views in a much more succinct and much more delightfully illustrative manner than I am probably intending to. But yes, the burger that we are being presented here by Mr Davis today does indeed have no substance at all.

It is indeed, as Mr Davis himself actually repeatedly exclaimed whilst interjecting during Ms Terpstra’s contribution, a broad motion. It certainly is. Point (1) of this motion says the select committee is ‘including but not limited to’. Again, Mr Ettershank highlighted this point most presciently – that is, we know that this is another Liberal attack on the union movement, which always means another Liberal attack on the working people of this state. Just as with every other time, whether it is federal or state, however they try to frame it, whether it is an inquiry or a royal commission or whatever else they try to put up, it is always the same result: an attack on unions is an attack on working people. It is an attack on nurses. It is an attack on truck drivers, on retail workers and on all frontline health workers. It is an absolute attack, and it is what we are used to from that side.

Normally we like to hear from those opposite that the motions they are putting up are very precise, very deliberate and very narrow. But by Mr Davis’s own admission in his interjections this is an extremely broad motion. It goes to not just one particular union; it goes to the entire Trades Hall Council and indeed to the union movement more broadly. It is absolutely as transparent as it is shameless, what we see from this Liberal Party, once again coming in doing everything they can to trample on the working people of this state. It is the sort of thing that you would only do if you hated workers. We have a long and proud history, as Mr Berger outlined, of democratic unions in this state and in this nation. We have a strong system and a strong network of legitimate, democratically elected unions. They play an incredibly powerful role, whether it is at the local level representing their members in their times of need or distress or whether it is at the union-wide level bargaining on collective bargaining agreements such as the ones that Mr Berger outlined, such as with Bunnings and other recent examples of hard-fought union wins for members, and it is at the broader movement-wide level as well through organisations such as the Victorian Trades Hall Council and the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

It is unions, each and every year, who are usually the sole voice putting forward at the Fair Work Commission’s annual wage review. The unions are usually the sole voice advocating for a wage increase. We know what the Liberals think about that, because when they were in government federally year after year after year they were advocating for no increase at all for working people – a slide back in real terms, which is an absolute disgrace. It is all the more disgraceful in light of the fact that it was during that last federal government that they completely lost control of the national economy and we saw the inflation genie spurt out of that bottle, and it is only finally now coming under control under the much better stewardship of the Albanese government with Jim Chalmers as Treasurer. Only now are those things coming through, and it is especially important right now for working people to get their fair share in wages, because they did not cause this inflation but they are certainly paying the price for it. The union movement is there standing by its members day in and day out, and they are doing that work. Those opposite do not care about that. They do not want unions to do that, and that is why we see what is not in fact a very specific motion but a very broadbrush motion attacking unions and attacking the working people of this state.

I mentioned before that unions are indeed democratically elected. They have a number of accountability functions already, and many of these are indeed enforced through the Fair Work Commission – and previously the Registered Organisations Commission, which has now been rolled into the Fair Work Commission. Unions have a number of important obligations such as reporting their finances and other important details to their members. Unions have to be registered with the Fair Work Commission, and in fact having worked at a union myself, though not in an office-bearing capacity, I can tell you of the very, very onerous requirements for reporting, as is appropriate. It is appropriate because they are democratically elected to use members’ resources to advance the interests of their members. Unions overwhelmingly do that, and it is appropriate that we have those accounting and reporting mechanisms so that members can see that their union is doing what they expect it to do. That is why it is important that legitimate unions are indeed supported and that we work productively, where relevant and where possible, with them and do not seek to undermine them – because to undermine them is to do exactly what the Liberals really want, and that is to undermine the working conditions and the pay of Victorian workers.

There were indeed, as interjections from those opposite touched upon and I think even Mr Mulholland’s speech touched upon, other federal bodies, such as the very, very political Australian Building and Construction Commission. It is interesting that the Liberals would actually put these organisations forward, given that this is a motion that we are debating in the state upper house here in Victoria. In their view the accountability here lies with the federal system, so it is quite curious indeed to see they want to see a state inquiry when I presume that they know all too well that, as I have just outlined, unions are actually regulated under the Fair Work Act 2009 – not a Victorian state act, but a federal act. So it is all the more curious as to why you wish to see a state-level inquiry into unions, if it is a sincere thing that you are looking to do, as opposed to the blatantly politically exercise that we see here before us today. As we know, that is what the Liberals do.

But we know what the unions do, and indeed I have given many examples. They have also contributed to us having superannuation. They have done an incredible amount of work in terms of workplace health and safety. There are many, many very hazardous workplaces that we have still in this country. I had the privilege of working for a trade union for 11 years. The space that I worked in is not generally considered to be hazardous, although it certainly does have its fair share of occupational health and safety risks, whether it is through physical strain in warehousing and repetitive movements, freak incidents, assaults from customers – which I have also talked about in this space and which the union movement has been very, very active on as well – right through to mental and psychological distress too. But of course we then go into other sectors such as transport, where those risks become a lot more life-and-death as well, and that is why having a strong union movement – especially in the field of health and safety, whether it is health and safety reps or the other various mechanisms by which unions support their members – why that function, why that role, is so important.

I also think back to some of the smaller issues as well, which in the broad scheme of things may seem trivial to some but to the working people themselves are actually critically important, such as representing a working mum with a roster change when she could not afford to work her new shift; she had different childcare arrangements that the company was not being reasonable over. That was an example of where the sort of work that I would get to do was to ensure that she had a voice and she had a way to work through that and to actually get a better outcome for herself, to ensure that she was not having to make the choice between her family and having enough money to keep their roof over their heads. These sorts of things are why I am so proud to have spent the first 10 years of my career working in the trade union movement, whether it was examples such as that to representing a teenage girl who was being sexually harassed by an older colleague and who was terrified of going into work and being completely fobbed off by her particular company’s management and HR – being that voice for her and getting that issue actually sorted out. That can have a profound impact on someone’s life and is something that I did.

I am very, very humbled to have had the chance and the privilege to be able to represent working people in different parts of this great state in that capacity. And it is why when I come here and see such blatantly and obviously anti-worker motions such as what we have here today put by Mr Davis, it saddens me in fact, and it saddens me because what we are seeing is yet another continued, sustained attack on working people in Victoria. We are dealing with cost-of-living challenges, and this government is addressing them in a number of ways as well, but they are going through a very difficult situation right now with the cost of living. The unions are there behind them. The unions are there fighting for their wage reviews and increases each and every year, and I am proud to stand with the working people of this state.

David DAVIS (Southern Metropolitan) (15:27): I am pleased to respond to the comments made by many throughout this debate and in doing so urge people to support motion 461 and its aim to establish a select committee to deal with union intimidation. I think it is actually unbelievable that not one Labor member, nor Mr Ettershank for that matter, condemned the behaviour of John Setka. Not one condemned the behaviour – the thuggish, extraordinary behaviour – of John Setka. They all think it is okay. They all think the bullying, the thuggishness and the threats are okay. That is the point here. We are beginning to understand what the labour movement is really like here. They are wholly-controlled subsidiaries; they are like little dolls having their strings pulled by these unions down at Trades Hall. That is the truth of the matter.

The fact is the threats and the bullying that came out of Mr Setka the other day were completely unacceptable on a modern worksite. The Premier would not stand up against it, the Deputy Premier would not stand up against it and indeed Trades Hall would not stand up against it, and nor would many of the unions. They are all tacitly cheering Mr Setka on. They think it is okay to threaten someone’s job – for somebody to threaten their job and to chase them to the ends of the earth. They think the bullying, the intimidation and the threat to the AFL are okay. Well, I do not. People who are reasonable people in a modern economy do not think the bullying, the threats and the intimidation are okay. They do not think targeting people in a new job in an entirely different industry is okay – of course it is not okay. They do not think threatening the AFL with increased costs in their construction is okay. But these people, these Labor people on that side of the chamber over there, think it is okay. They think it is fine to have the threats, the bullying, the intimidation.

Higher costs for construction absolutely is where we are headed. The blowouts on the Big Build, higher housing construction costs – you wonder why housing is difficult for people to afford. You have got massive state government taxes on it, but you have also got a huge union push on these things. The thuggish bullying behaviour that came out of John Setka the other day is typical of the nasty underbelly of unions. Most unions and most unionists do not agree with that, but these people over here, the government members, would not even condemn John Setka. That is extraordinary. It is a shocking reflection on the Labor Party – the modern Labor Party – that they would tolerate the frank and out-there threats, the bullying and the intimidation that came out of Setka’s mouth the other day. Why should we tolerate that? Why is that acceptable in a modern workplace? Well, these people think it is. Not one of them spoke up against it, and that is exactly –

John Berger: On a point of order, Acting President, could you ask Mr Davis to stop pointing at us.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Yes. I think your hand motions could be a bit more neutral.

David DAVIS: The Labor side of the chamber are all apologists for John Setka, just like the jellyback Premier, the weak Deputy Premier and the Trades Hall people, who actually should have stood up. That side of the chamber – the Labor side of the chamber – supports the bullying, supports the intimidation, supports the unreasonable activities, and I say this should be dealt with. We should actually have a proper inquiry. There should be a proper inquiry. Who thinks that is satisfactory? No-one outside on Bourke Street thinks it is acceptable to see somebody threatened and have their job threatened by a thuggish union bully. And yet the Labor side of the house is happy to support this thuggish, bullying, extortionate behaviour. I say support the motion, support the establishment of an inquiry. We can actually get to the bottom of this. We can actually reintroduce the code. We can reintroduce the ABCC. All of that would make sure that there is a lower cost of construction in this state and would outlaw the bullying and threats that Setka typifies.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (13): Melina Bath, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (21): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Sheena Watt

Motion negatived.