Wednesday, 14 August 2024


Bills

Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill 2024


Sheena WATT, Melina BATH, Sarah MANSFIELD, Sonja TERPSTRA, Trung LUU, Tom McINTOSH

Bills

Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill 2024

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Evan Mulholland:

That the bill be now read a second time.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (10:29): It is a delight for me to rise and speak to the bill before us today – that is, the Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill 2024, moved by Mr Mulholland. I had in fact been ready to speak on the short-form documents motion, and I had some good points to make in my remarks on that. Before I get into speaking on the bill before us – and it is one that I am familiar with, having scrutinised it recently in the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, which I did discuss yesterday as we tabled the Alert Digest No. 10 – there is indeed more that I would like to go into when it comes to our contributions. I have got 29 minutes, and I am ready to talk about the private members bill. There is more that I wanted to go into on the short-form documents motion. Maybe that is why my team voted with me to make sure we got to that, because I had some good points to make, but instead I will go to the bill.

I have got to say I stand here with a bit of a heavy heart because many of the conversations that have happened around the CFMEU and the bill before us, the short-form documents motion and the debates last week failed to accurately reflect the pain and the heartache felt by the family and friends of Ben Nash. Ben was known to many and loved by all. He was a gun at football. He was passionate about his career. He had some battles with his mental health. He came out the other end, and he really threw himself into what he loved. He had a really bright future, and those around him knew it. He threw himself into what he loved, but Ben – this young Indigenous man, a proud man – was found unresponsive on the morning of his 19th birthday. It is a day that should have been celebrated by his family, but instead they started that day in such profound trauma and with such loss – unimaginable loss. Can I take a moment to reflect on this tragedy before I speak on it and give my deepest condolences to his family, his friends, his elders, his ancestors and his loved ones. Bullying, coercion, standover tactics and criminality have no place on our construction sites or in our union movement and no place in our party. This state has a proud history of championing workers rights and supporting Victorians through progressive industrial relations reforms.

As someone who came from the union movement – it is true – I take really great pride in being part of a party that consistently defends workers and their rights. In fact not too long ago I was a workplace safety organiser at a union, and it was something that I loved. Every day my job was to help people and make sure that they came home safe from their work and came home safe to their families and their loved ones. It was a remarkably rewarding and fulfilling role, being a part of our movement. Those opposite in proposing this legislation before us are really targeting individual workers and eroding their collective rights, all without considering that these reforms before us in the bill may be constitutionally or indeed legally flawed. This is what happens when we have some really rushed bills come before us. This is a hastily assembled bill that disregards proper procedures. It masquerades as a solution that fixes everything.

The alleged behaviour of certain CFMEU members, which has come to light in recent weeks, is absolutely, unquestionably unacceptable. It does not reflect the broader union movement. We on this side unequivocally condemn any actions that could harm or endanger workers. Unions protect workers, and unionism is a collective action of workers standing in solidarity to ensure safe working conditions and the wellbeing of our families. The behaviour allegedly exhibited by a small group within one union is the antithesis of unionism – we know this. The alleged behaviour is self-serving and alienating, and it has no place in our movement.

To ensure that such behaviour is not able to take root in the construction industry, the Premier has already initiated an independent review into Victoria’s construction sector. This review will explore ways to enhance the bodies overseeing construction companies and unions to conduct effective investigations into allegations or criminal unlawful conduct. The Premier has already referred serious misconduct allegations to Victoria Police and also to the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission here in Victoria. Moving forward with the opposition’s bill today will mean disregarding those measures already put in place by the government and instead replacing them with some reforms that really falsely claim to combat corruption and organised crime, without any consideration for the broader implications or feasibility.

I ask myself: where is the analysis of the practical, operational ability of this bill? Has the opposition, in drafting this, engaged with Victoria Police or consulted with broader construction groups from all sides of that sector? Will these reforms impose an unmanageable regulatory burden on the very people that this bill claims to support? Are there any assurances that these reforms are even lawful, and has the opposition considered this? We know that legislating in the industrial relations arena is legally complex, and it falls under Commonwealth jurisdiction – a point that has been made many, many times. We may be wasting our time debating a bill that is not only toothless in impact but broadly potentially legally invalid.

We on this side recognise that the development of substantial and complex reform takes time and demands finesse, engagement, consultation and thorough consideration to minimise unintended consequences. We have already committed to introducing legislation in the coming weeks to toughen existing anti-bikie laws, making it easier for police and the courts to prevent certain individuals from associating with one another. These reforms are the product of extensive consultation with direct input from those responsible for enforcing them. True to form, those opposite have hastily cut corners and ignored the practical consequences of their union-busting bill, despite the community input that is available to them and the goodwill that is out there.

I want to take a minute to look at the second-reading speech. Mr Mulholland, you said that you are a big believer in second chances, but in this bill that is really hard to believe. Part 3 of the bill seeks to punish individuals with irrelevant historical convictions even if they have never reoffended. There is a clear lack of empathy or understanding for reformed offenders here, demonstrating a really cold, calculating and heartless approach by those opposite.

This bill, alarmingly, includes broad definitions of who can be identified as a member of a criminal organisation. This could theoretically mean that a high school ex-boyfriend, someone you have not seen for 15 years who is now a member of an outlaw bikie gang, could automatically disqualify you from working in the construction industry by virtue of the fact that you had once been in a relationship back in the day. It is an absolute travesty that those opposite show no concern for Victorians who may lose their entire livelihood for nothing, based on an old association. It gets even worse. This bill could also prevent victim-survivors of family violence from obtaining employment in the construction industry because of their violent ex-partner simply due to an association. I am absolutely gobsmacked when I read this. It is utterly obscene, and it highlights the consequences of this bill, which is full of unintended consequences.

The inclusion of prospective members as people targeted by the bill would also force an innocent third party to scrutinise the lives of those around them to ensure that they can work or continue working in the industry. For the opposition it is not enough to keep your own record clean, you also have to monitor everyone else’s in order to earn an honest living. This provision would also require Victoria Police to disclose sensitive intelligence about someone who might be about to join a declared criminal organisation to a potential employer, without any regard for the risk this poses to Victoria Police’s rightfully confidential operational tactics and intelligence-gathering processes. This bill would prevent Victorian workers from earning an honest living in construction.

Under the guise of believing in second chances, simultaneously we have got a bill before us that perpetually punishes Victorian workers for past actions. This is a chaotic opposition that we are dealing with with this bill before us. It does not just reject second chances; it does not even believe in first chances. This bill seeks to strip away the potential livelihoods of individuals simply because they may be associated with someone who is a current, former or prospective member of a declared organisation. There is no clear definition of ‘associated’, nor are there any exceptions provided. The bill as it stands would prevent workers from securing or retaining employment even if they have never been convicted of a crime.

According to those opposite, in the bill that we are debating it is enough for Victorians to be made unemployed just because, for example, a family member, even an estranged one, fits the ludicrous definition of a member of a criminal organisation. For me that is really quite troubling, because for some of us who have very, very big families, including people that I have not spoken to in 35 years, I too could get caught up in this. I mean, this is absolutely ludicrous.

A member interjected.

Sheena WATT: I am very happy to declare that my dead dad one time knew someone at the pub who at one time was a member of a bikie gang. If this bill goes through, I could not work in construction. So this is absolutely ridiculous and I condemn this bill. It is reckless, it is unnecessary, it is a complete overreach and it undermines hardworking Victorians. I cannot believe that –

A member interjected.

Sheena WATT: It is not an integrity bill. This is a bill that takes away the livelihoods of many thousands of Victorian workers.

We have zero tolerance for bullying and for corruption in Victoria and we are determined to root out this toxic culture. That is why we have got the reviews that we have moved, including an independent review led by Mr Greg Wilson to enhance the authority of Victorian government bodies involved with construction companies and construction unions. It will enable them to respond to these allegations of criminal or unlawful conduct in the Victorian construction sector. The federal government has confirmed that the Fair Work Ombudsman will review all enterprise agreements made by the Victorian branch of the union’s construction division that apply to Victorian projects, ensuring their integrity has not been compromised by the acts of a small group of unionists behaving badly.

Even the CFMEU has taken the initiative to support an independent expert Geoffrey Watson SC to conduct a review of the allegations. As a director of the Centre for Public Integrity and someone with extensive experience in handling cases involving wrongdoing and corruption, he is one of the most respected experts in integrity and anti-corruption in the country. The truth is that on this side and within the union movement we are making sincere and concerted efforts to bring about meaningful change and progress.

By contrast, those opposite along with their friends in Canberra tried to dismantle the union movement through a royal commission led by disgraced judge Dyson Heydon, and this multimillion-dollar inquiry had the sole objective of exploiting the extensive resources and powers of a royal commission to weaken the union movement. That royal commission had the power and the authority to tap phones, investigate bank transactions and interview witnesses, but it was evident that the focus of it was more about political attacks on the CFMEU, the union movement and Australian workers as a whole. We all remember what came out of that royal commission. Our government’s actions reflect a commitment to genuine reform, allowing our Big Build projects and workers to continue building the projects that Victoria and Victorians of the future need and ensuring at the same time a work environment free from bullying and corruption.

Let me just tell you that there are 20,000 hardworking Victorians on construction sites that may be sent home without a job. That is not how we have built so much infrastructure over the last decade. I have met, through the Y and the work of the Bridge, so many young fellas that got a start in the construction industry after, you know, running off the rails a bit. I think about them. Now they can support their families, their loved ones and their kids – their parents sometimes. I have met many of these young fellas through the work I used to do, and I tell you what, they would be absolutely devastated to learn that we are not supporting a second chance for them.

It would mean abandoning critical road and rail projects that are essential for getting Victorians home sooner and safer. Those opposite would willingly see some of the state’s most pressing projects discarded, all in a bid to score some political points, and I am not having it. Unlike those opposite, we are not rushing to take action without due consideration; we are waiting for the findings and recommendations from Greg Wilson’s interim report, due on 29 August 2024. It will be here before we know it, with the final report expected on 29 November 2024. Only after careful consideration of these recommendations will we decide how we might impact our infrastructure agenda in Victoria while continuing first and foremost to foster a safe, bullying-free and corruption-free work environment on our state’s largest construction projects.

Ensuring safety is our top priority as we undertake the most ambitious infrastructure agenda in our state’s history. Everyone on our state’s worksites is responsible for maintaining safety, and we require everyone onsite, regardless of their position, to adhere to OH&S standards and comply with Commonwealth industrial relations laws. We will not take advice from the Liberal and National parties, who had nearly a decade in Canberra and failed to address these issues. Our government is absolutely committed to meaningful reform that will address real problems, rather than pushing poorly conceived bills for political gain. Industrial relations falls under the purview of our contractors. We expect all our contracting partners to follow the law, including compliance with the federal government’s IR laws. Unfounded accusations of unlawful activity should not be aired under the protection of privilege here in this place. If there is evidence of illegal actions, those claims need to be brought before the Commonwealth courts and the tribunals that oversee industrial relations in our country, like the Fair Work Commission. When allegations of misconduct have been raised by members of our government, they have been referred to the appropriate department or agency for investigation.

I need to take a moment to acknowledge the real and very present dangers in construction work. Construction workers in our state perform a dangerous and vital job. They are delivering the benefits of the Big Build for all Victorians, and any and every worker deserves union representatives who prioritise their safety and are committed to it for the right reasons. It is unacceptable that this critical and dangerous work has been undermined by corrupt or criminal behaviour, and you know what, we are tackling it head on. However, we are not interested in supporting bills that would erode workers’ rights to self-organise and defend their material interests.

We are committed to the smooth operation of Victorian worksites, because the Big Build has provided employment and training opportunities for thousands of Indigenous workers and Aboriginal-owned small businesses across the projects. I do want to talk about that. These are people that I know and have supported. More than 5 million hours have been worked by Indigenous people on our projects, and over $116 million has been invested into Aboriginal owned and operated businesses. Our contracts also include targets for Indigenous employment. This has been a key aspect of our Big Build, demonstrating our commitment to empowering Indigenous and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Victorians and supporting our self-determination work as we step forward on the path towards treaty.

The presence of Indigenous firms in the Big Build is because our government mandated it in our contracting. Others have focused on tearing down Indigenous firms for their own political motivations, but we are absolutely committed to Aboriginal businesses. We stand firm in creating record-level Indigenous employment on government projects and remain absolutely steadfast and committed, and we are immensely proud of it. The apprentices that I have met onsite – on many, many sites I have got to tell you – are good fellows that deserve a second chance. These projects give them that second chance, and this bill would take it away.

The Big Build, through all the work built by folks enjoying a second chance, enables Victorians to get home sooner and get home safer. It is also making a significant difference in keeping Victorians employed. Currently there are over 17,000 Victorians employed on Victoria’s Big Build. That is a massive number. For every 100 jobs on the Big Build there are approximately 200 more that are supported through the supply chain, and at peak construction the Big Build is expected to support around 50,000 direct and indirect jobs. More than 277 million hours have been worked across the Big Build so far, and thanks to our local content and social procurement policies, which I am a pretty staunch supporter of, nearly 9 million hours have been logged by trainees, apprentices and cadets and more than 5 million hours have been worked by Aboriginal people on the Big Build. That is an extraordinary number, one that I will repeat many, many times to as many people who will hear it. That is 5 million hours that have been worked by Aboriginal people on the Big Build.

Victorians know that only the Allan Labor government will deliver the hundreds of projects under the Big Build. This includes the Suburban Rail Loop, which will help reshape how our city grows in the coming decades. It will better connect Victorians to jobs, retail, education, health services and each other, becoming critical when our city reaches 9 million people in the 2050s. It will be here before we know it, and that is why we have got to do the investment now to get the city ready for the many, many more that will call Victoria home. It will also create thousands of jobs and new homes around the SRL precincts, with SRL East, which is from Cheltenham to Box Hill, expected to deliver 70,000 new homes for Victorians. If you oppose the SRL, you are against jobs, better public transport and more homes in the right places. We will not allow this bold investment project to be overshadowed by the alleged actions of a small number of bad apples. This is part of the reason we are creating increased powers to tackle crime associated with organised crime outfits, and you will see that bill before us in this place before long.

A clear example of this, can I just let you know, is the introduction of the firearm prohibition orders granting police the power to conduct warrantless searches of anyone subject to an FPO. Violating these FPOs, these firearm prohibition orders, carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, and since the scheme’s inception police have issued more than 2300 of these FPOs to violent offenders, serious youth offenders, outlaw motorcycle gangs, crime groups and counterterrorism persons of interest. We introduced legislation earlier this year to strengthen this scheme, making it easier for police to serve FPOs to evading offenders. The Chief Commissioner of Police has described FPOs as a game changer in the police’s ability to respond to serious and organised crime – laws that those on the other side of the house have attempted to weaken. I will not have it. We have also established the illicit firearms unit to combat gun-related crime, and this unit frequently collaborates with other agencies to prevent the importation and trafficking of firearms.

Additionally, as part of a new bill passed by this Parliament in July, authorities can now target senior crime figures who play a key role in moving money and property and plan crimes by exploiting underlings while they reap the financial benefits. Under these changes, criminals must now prove that they acquired their wealth through legitimate means or face losing it entirely, and I recall some very strong contributions from this side of the house on that bill. The act now grants Victoria Police and the Director of Public Prosecutions additional powers to disrupt organised crime. Authorities can already confiscate wealth that police and the DPP believe has been illegally acquired. However, these existing pathways depend on the person having the wealth on them or a direct link to criminal activity, such as owning or having a controlling interest in an expensive house or car in their name. I think it was called the unexplained wealth bill if I remember correctly, Mr Berger.

John Berger: Correct.

Sheena WATT: Thank you for that. The act introduces a third pathway for authorities, called an unexplained wealth order, for example. If police believe an asset in a partner’s name was purchased with proceeds from crime, they can seize it. We are taking real action on organised crime, and the changes will for the first time also capture consumable wealth and wealth that has been gifted, disposed of or expended, such as the hiring of a yacht or a hotel penthouse or even adult services.

Can I just say, compared to the interventions that have already been launched by the government, this bill is a pretty deplorable excuse for legislation, and its sole purpose is to attack hardworking union members in Victoria and obstruct our simply transformative Big Build projects. I can see right through those opposite and their embarrassing attempts to introduce these draconian restrictions on personal relationships, working conditions and second chances for the people that need them most.

Also I cannot support a bill that contains so much nastiness and anti-union sentiment. I absolutely oppose this bill. I am very happy to say that I cannot support this bill for the people that I know that are out there on these major sites, getting a second chance as apprentices and as trainees, supported by organisations like Jesuit Social Services and others – those that started their career through free TAFE – who have seen a big, bright future for them and decided that, you know what, that is what they deserve and that is a future that they can grasp with both hands, and they have done it time and time again. For those young ones, for the folks that a long time ago, way in the distant past, might have done a wrong thing but cleaned up their life and got it together, I say I cannot support this bill. Good unions and good union organisers are doing the right thing and are absolutely committed to safety onsite and are absolutely committed to making sure that people come home safe from their job each and every day in one of the most dangerous industries that exist in our state. It is not an exaggeration to say that. These are folks that deserve people in their corner that are absolutely committed to making sure that they come home safe each and every day.

Thank you to those organisers that work in safety in our union movement. I was amongst you. I was a rank-and-file health and safety representative. I was a union organiser in health and safety, and I will stand each and every day for the safety of our workers onsite, on the way to work or on the way home. Anyone that has ever gone to a worker’s memorial service in our state will tell you that it is a troubling and dangerous industry, construction. For so many of those lives, as their names are rung out – the work that they have done and the site that they have worked; we all know it – we need to take that moment to say that they deserve a union that has their very best interests at heart, and that is why we have taken all the extraordinary steps we have to clean up the CFMEU. I and many of us here are looking forward to the review by Greg Wilson, coming at the end of this month, the interim review, and then the full review at the end of the year as well as a suite of changes and investigations that are being led by IBAC, Victoria Police and our friends in Canberra.

This is a bill that I cannot support. Having already reviewed it through the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee, I cannot even start on what it means for people with spent convictions. As someone who spoke on it and has a deep and clear commitment to people getting a second chance, it is not a bill that will ever be supported by me.

Melina BATH (Eastern Victoria) (10:59): I am really pleased to rise and show my support and the Nationals’ support for this private members bill that has been put forward by my colleague Evan Mulholland, and I say of course the Nationals support this bill entirely. In my contribution I would like to unpack a number of elements of this bill: why it is needed and what Victorians are being robbed of by this Labor government. I will correct some of the story time that we have heard today, some of the fantasy discussions that we heard from the previous speaker for the Labor Party. I will do that and put on record the truth rather than the embellished, I would say, rant which is just so far from the truth of what this bill actually does and will do for the people of Victoria.

This bill is not just necessary, it is certainly long overdue. It is time to take the gloves off and confront the thuggery and criminal activity on taxpayer-funded worksites. What we know is that for many people out there this whole discussion around unionism, around the CFMEU and around the bosses that are creaming taxpayer-funded projects, is a theoretical one. It does not impact them clearly and directly. But what they do understand is what is not being built in their regions, what is going missing from construction in their spaces, in their towns and in their communities.

The presence of organised crime on CFMEU-run, taxpayer-funded Big Build projects is at least partially responsible for this outrageous $40 billion in cost blowouts on our major infrastructure projects. Let us unpack some of those. We know, over and above, these are blowouts; these are past the contingency and on to the pain barrier. In the Big Build we have got the North East Link – $21 billion in cost blowouts. We have the West Gate Tunnel – $4.7 billion in cost blowouts. This is ‘billion’ with a B. The Metro Tunnel – $4 billion over and above the costed project. Level crossings – over $3.3 billion. Forty billion dollars.

Let me tell you what we are not getting built in regional Victoria. We are not getting built infrastructure for the Kilmore bypass. We are not getting built the Traralgon bypass, even though there was planning money in the past for it. It is just lying dead on the table. We are being robbed. Roads – let me talk about some of the roads that are in a most abominable state. It is not me saying this; this is the RACV response. The Bass Highway, Princes Highway, Phillip Island Road – our roads across the board are shocking.

Tom McIntosh: On a point of order, Acting President, I would love to talk about the investment the government is making in the eastern region, but on relevance to the bill, I think the member should come back to it.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I will uphold the point of order and bring the member back to the content of the bill.

Melina BATH: Let us talk about Marty Albert, a senior Bandidos bikie enforcer who was appointed as a union organiser on major Victorian government construction projects. Let us talk about this enforcer that remained in his role after being charged with violent assault. Let us talk about how in 2019 the Premier’s friend the disgraced CFMEU boss John Setka was exposed for his deep ties to bikie gangs such as the Hells Angels and the Comanchero outlaw bikie gangs. Let us talk about Mick Gatto. Let us talk about the multiple ways that the CFMEU tax is driving up construction costs, turning the Big Build into big blowouts. Meanwhile our schools, our hospitals and our public transport system are being starved of the funds that they desperately need. They want to shut us down from talking about the issues that are affecting real Victorians, not lining the pockets of bikie gangs and CFMEU bosses.

This Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill 2024, this bikie bill, introduces critical provisions to stop this from happening. It mandates criminal history checks, a normal and valid process that employees for the public sector and many other areas undergo as a matter of course. It excludes people with convictions or pending charges for organised crime offences – not the lines that were being fed by the previous speaker in this house. It excludes people with known associations to organised crime – established on the advice of the Victorian Chief Commissioner of Police – from taxpayer-funded worksites. These are commonsense, rational and appropriate actions that need to be taken.

We urge people in this house, including the crossbenchers – because clearly the government is hiding, ducking and weaving on the Wilson report, which is going to be tabled sometime in November. Whenever I hear these sorts of things, I picture the movie with Harrison Ford where they say, ‘We’ve got this particular item, and it is going to be safely put away,’ and then they scan to this vast warehouse and somewhere in that vast warehouse is a valuable document or a valuable artefact or whatever. That is what I see is going to happen here: they are going to take that Wilson report, they are going to shelve it somewhere, they are going to lock the door and they are not going to act –

Richard Welch interjected.

Melina BATH: Correct. They are not going to actually act to remove these people from worksites. We heard from the previous speaker as well defending the workers and their rights. It was very heartfelt, and I appreciate her comments about the illustrative example of the death of an Indigenous worker from that worksite. They are the people that this government and Victoria should be supporting and caring for, and they should be ensuring that this sort of terrible, tragic outcome does not happen. Some of the blame for that has to be laid on the union thugs and union bosses. Some of the blame for this has to be laid on the bikies that infiltrate the system and use it as their cash cow. And they do it with impunity – they act with impunity. I have had an example in my region of Eastern Victoria where a local construction company applied for a tender, got the tender and then was harassed and harassed and harassed constantly over the most nitpicky marginal things to the point that the bank overdraft – the union controlled their payments and stopped them working, so they had to keep paying their workers but they could not actually receive any funds – was in dire condition and their house was coming under pressure. I have talked to his wife, and this person said he was absolutely near breaking point, with a shocking outcome. I will actually put this on record.

Members interjecting.

Melina BATH: The previous speaker’s were fictitious. These are real cases – absolute cases. Let me discuss some of the topics that were raised in the previous speaker’s discussion of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee and her discussion and story time of the X, Y and Z that could occur. Let me provide some context.

I thank Mr Evan Mulholland for responding to SARC’s letter inquiring about further delving into the bill, so let me just explain some of the things that this bill actually does. It balances carefully the rights of individuals and the need to protect public safety and maintain integrity on government projects. There is a novelty: integrity on government projects. The temporary restriction of employment for those pending charges is appropriate and essential to prevent organised crime from undermining public trust. The bill’s restriction on employing individuals convicted of organised crime offences, as outlined in clause 6 of the bill – Mr Mulholland will go into this in further detail – is a justified limitation on the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, and that was part of SARC’s concern. The bill mirrors existing legislation, an act that is in existence today called the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012. The bill prioritises project integrity. This is some word that they use. They slap it on like Vegemite on a bit of toast, but it has to hold up in this state. Clause 6(2) of the bill ensures that the safety and integrity of government construction projects take precedence over the Spent Convictions Act 2021. This is a targeted response to serious risks proposed by organised crime. The bill does not – I repeat, not – repeal the Spent Convictions Act but operates within a specific context where the public interest demands a higher level of scrutiny.

The other point that is very important to clarify to clear the record after what we heard before is that the major contracts have to be requested through the Chief Commissioner of Police. He or she can make that decision about the release and respect of individual rights. Also, the sharing of personal information is strictly confined; it is absolutely there to protect people.

We heard from the previous speaker a whole lot of nonsense. It is important for this community of Victorians to know about this $40 billion in cost blowouts and the percentage that is that cream, that gold, that ends up in the pockets of CFMEU bosses and bikie gang bosses who are controlling people. I take a point of the previous speaker. They talk about defending the rights of workers, but they are not protecting the rights of workers. It is absolutely an indictment on this government that the Premier today has been the minister in charge of those Big Build projects that are costing Victorians an eye-watering amount: $25 million a day, in the forward estimates, in interest alone. What would that mean for people who need workers in their regions, need teachers, need nurses, need doctors – all of those? What would that mean?

These people over here do not want to hear about the issues that are vitally affecting people in my patch, because it does not look good on the slate. The Nationals support this bill. Unless you are actually going to come forward and come on this journey to protect workers, to clean out the thuggery element, to clean out the corruption in the workplace, then you are part of the problem – you are not part of the solution.

Sarah MANSFIELD (Western Victoria) (11:14): I rise to speak on behalf of the Greens on the Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill 2024. This bill obviously comes in the wake of recent allegations of corruption, intimidation and the presence of organised crime figures on Victorian government building sites. While the Greens certainly share the widespread concern about the content of these allegations, it is important to situate these claims and the bill’s proposed response within the broader context of the building and construction industry, the union movement and the safety of Victorian workers. In doing so, even if investigations find that the recent allegations are true, this bill would not be an appropriate response. Rather than effectively rooting out corruption and keeping building sites safe, this bill is a blunt instrument. At first glance the emphasis on organised crime and limitation to major government projects may seem like a reasonable way to protect workers and taxpayers in the wake of the recent allegations, but scratch the surface and it becomes clear that this bill would inflict a lot of damage without necessarily addressing the corruption it purports to prevent. As I said, it is a blunt tool, and it is unlikely to achieve its intended aims. There are likely many unintended consequences. It is also premature to enact legislation when there are investigations that have only just begun, and we do not yet know what they will find or what they will recommend.

The reality is that this bill would mostly hurt workers. It would exclude many people from decent, well-paying union jobs, not only anyone with a past conviction – which appears not to be time limited, so it could be decades in the past – but anyone with even a pending charge. If we flatter ourselves that we are a modern, decent society, then people with a history in the justice system should be able to get a second chance and earn a good wage in a safe environment. Politicians should not take that away for the sake of getting a few points over the government of the day. This bill goes further. It does not only exclude those who are directly charged or convicted but also prevents from working anyone who has at any time been associated with someone who is a member, a former member or a prospective member of a declared organisation or who has even been seen wearing a patch or insignia associated with a declared criminal organisation. In theory someone could be barred from a decent job because they were photographed 30 years ago with an acquaintance wearing their sibling’s jacket.

Imagine if we decided to pass similar legislation to apply to the people sitting here in this chamber. Imagine if we booted out anyone who had ever been in any way connected to a politician who had ever acted in a corrupt manner or accepted kickbacks or who had so much as worn the party insignia of someone who had. I think we know that there would be a whole lot of empty chairs in this place. That is not to say we should turn a blind eye to corruption and scandal, whether in politics, on building sites or anywhere else. On the contrary, the Greens have been doing all we can to get this government to fix Victoria’s anti-corruption system. In the last sitting week the Greens in the other place moved to reintroduce our bill to strengthen IBAC by broadening the definition of what constitutes corrupt conduct, bringing our IBAC into line with other jurisdictions, including our federal National Anti-Corruption Commission. This was unfortunately voted down by the government along with other integrity measures we proposed that week, like stronger government committees. The lack of commitment to integrity that we see from this government continues to be disappointing, but the bill before us is not the way to fix it.

Rather than creating reactive legislation, all of us in this place should be working together in a genuine effort to root out corruption wherever it is found, including within unions but certainly not limited to that space. The Greens support the strength and autonomy of the union movement, and we recognise that corruption weakens unions and betrays the workers that they represent. The government’s role is not to undermine unions or to bar everyday people from working on job sites but instead to strengthen our structures of workplace safety and ensure that we have adequate whistleblower protections in place so that people feel safe to speak out when something is not right.

We should also question why there is a perceived need for so-called tough guys in positions of power within the union. We have heard that for some workers this type of union leadership lends a certain sense of protection from elements that they perceive to be even worse, namely profit-hungry developers and company bosses, who would not make workplace safety a priority unless they were forced to. This government is not exactly known for holding property developers to account. The role of the government should not be to undermine unions or to bar workers from sites but to make sure that any company on the payroll is treating their workers safely and fairly and that Victoria has strong protections in place to protect workers if this does not happen. Like many in this place and around Victoria, the Greens are concerned about the serious allegations that have been recently aired around corruption, intimidation and organised crime infiltration of construction sites, including on Victorian government projects. We do not believe that this bill is the right path to take, and therefore we will not be supporting it today.

Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (11:19): I also rise to make a contribution on the Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill 2024. I will state at the outset that the government opposes this bill. The bill is misguided, and we have just had the benefit of listening to a number of contributions in the chamber today, and a number of speakers have actually pointed out where things are at odds with reality. The bill purports to urgently remedy everything. It purports to say that there is a massive problem, that they have got the solution to all of this and that there has been no consultation. There has been no assessment of whether these reforms put up by the other side will have unintended consequences. They have not even factored in the fact that these reforms, proposed by those opposite, may not even be constitutionally or legally valid. This is what happens when those opposite try to put bills through the Parliament. They are rushed, they are poorly thought through and they do not bear any semblance of or reflect on the reality of the situation. It is actually legislation cloaked in wanting to kick the guts out of the union movement and workers. That is what this is really about.

I noted Ms Bath was selectively quoting from the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulation Committee report – a committee of which I am a member – so I am going to go to what SARC actually decided in a moment to correct the record. I am pleased to be speaking in opposition to this bill as an actual union official – somebody who has actually worked as a union official and who knows how the union movement actually works – rather than having Tories over there projecting rubbish onto us, as if they know everything there is to know about the movement. We know what those opposite are like – they hate workers, they will always kick workers in the guts and they will always take every opportunity they can to tear down the union movement.

Let us talk about the reality of this in terms of what the Allan Labor government has actually done. I have spoken about this before, and I have to keep talking about it because obviously the message does not resonate with those opposite. They do not want to listen because what they want is an opportunity to use this as a political football. The Premier established an independent review into Victoria’s construction sector. The review will look at how we can strengthen powers of bodies which are engaged with construction companies and unions to respond to allegations of criminal or unlawful conduct. The Premier has also referred allegations of serious misconduct to Victoria Police and the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. We are also toughening anti-bikie laws to make it easier for police and the courts to prevent certain individuals from associating with each other, with a bill to be introduced to our Parliament in August. I am going to come back to that point when I go to the SARC report, because obviously the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee – that is what SARC stands for – which I am a member of looks at the legislation before the Parliament. We have got a job to do in terms of assessing whether the charter of human rights is impacted and whether anyone’s human rights are impacted as a consequence of the bill. And, guess what, there are some serious consequences, and I want to make sure I put those on the record.

To proceed with the opposition’s bill today would be to bulldoze in supposed reforms that will allegedly fight corruption and organised crime, without any considerations for the broader implications or even workability. Where is the assessment of operability? Has the opposition actually engaged with Victoria Police and the broader construction groups? Every time we put a bill through the Parliament here, we hear lots of catcalls of ‘Who did you consult with?’ I do not think the opposition have consulted with anybody on this bill, because, as I said, it beggars belief. I do not think they have consulted with Victoria Police or the construction groups or even the union movement. Consultation is a pretty important factor in any bill that you might put before the Parliament. Will these reforms create an inoperable regulatory burden on the same people the bill is purporting to support? Who is going to police this? Who is actually going to go through and check every person who works on a construction project? Under the reforms that this bill proposes, who is going to be policing this, and at what cost? Who is going to pay for it? The taxpayer? How are you going to fund it? These are things that they have not thought about over there. It does not occur to them, because they have never been in government. Can you just imagine if they were in government. What a chaos-filled –

A member interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Exactly – rabble.

I will talk shortly about what the SARC report said, because, again, where is the legal advice about whether these reforms are even lawful? Are they even lawful? Like I said, are these reforms even constitutionally valid? We know that the legislation and industrial relations space is fraught, because industrial relations is a Commonwealth responsibility as well. We may very well be wasting our time here. What I would like to say is: we are wasting our time here, but hey, it is okay, because it is wacky Wednesday, and here we are. We are debating a bill that is completely toothless and is legally invalid. But do not let that stop you over there, because it is your day. You can bowl up any garbage you like today because it is your day.

But we on this side know that the development of significant and complex reforms takes time and it requires finesse, engagement, consultation and detailed consideration to reduce to the greatest extent possible any unintended consequences. Again, I ask you the question: who is going to do this? If you introduce these reforms, who is going to go through everyone’s processes, and at what cost? Which government department is going to do it, or is it going to be? I know – you would contract it out to a private company. That is what they would do, and they would charge exorbitant amounts of money to do it. Again your rich mates would profit, because you do not like the public, you do not like the public service, you do not like the word ‘public’ at all. You hate it.

Let us talk about how the bill would operate. Again, I know, Mr Mulholland, you are on the record talking about giving people second chances, but this bill does not give anyone even a first chance. It gives people no chances. If I go to the specifics, Mr Mulholland, in your second-reading speech you said you are a big believer in a second chance, but it is very hard to believe that you actually said that and stand by it because the bill, as it currently stands, in part 3 intends to punish you even if you have reformed. This bill would stop you from earning an honest living in construction. Mr Mulholland has had the cheek to suggest that he is a big believer in second chances while at the same time putting up a bill that will perpetually punish you for the things you have done in the past or even if you might know somebody who may have done something in the past.

Let us talk about what the SARC report has said, because we had Ms Bath selectively quoting what the SARC report says. Under ‘Trespasses unduly upon rights and freedoms – Presumption of innocence’ there is a practice note. It says:

Clause [6(1)(c)] prohibits the Crown from entering into a major construction contract unless the contract requires each party to ensure that any person employed or engaged for the contract, does not have a pending criminal charge related to organised crime.

The whole point about having a court process, Mr Mulholland, is so that you have the opportunity to respond to criminal charges. The Crown puts their case against you, you have a defence counsel or barrister then to help you put your defence. The court then decides whether you are guilty of a crime. What SARC did when they looked at this was they noted that the statement of compatibility with the charter of human rights says:

The Bill seeks to impose obligations on parties to certain construction contracts entered into by or on behalf of the Crown, and on registered … organisations, to ensure that certain persons are not employed or engaged for the purposes of the contracts.

It talks about ensuring that any person engaged or employed for the purposes of a contract does not have a criminal history related to organised crime, has no pending criminal charges of this nature and is not a member or associate of a declared criminal organisation. How and what test are you going to implement to make it work? Let us just have a look at that again: ‘is not a member or associate of a declared criminal organisation’. Who is going to make that decision? On what evidence or information? Is it going to be a public servant? Is it going to be a court process? This bill raises more questions than it answers. Who could it be?

There are serious procedural fairness concerns about this bill, in fact, to the extent that these provisions engage human rights such as the right to privacy, freedom of association and the presumption of innocence. There is a really critically important one. Do not forget about the presumption of innocence. These rights may be subject to reasonable limitations under section 7 of the charter, but again the specific safeguards and procedural fairness requirements mentioned in the statement of compatibility may not be expressly included in this bill. The question remains: does it have a direct impact on the presumption of innocence of a relevant individual’s criminal proceedings before a court? Wow. That is pretty significant, I would have thought.

I have 5 minutes left. I will not have enough time to get to all of it so I might just jump to the end part, but I think I have gone to what the major concerns are. As I said, we want to take away individuals’ rights to procedural fairness even if they know somebody – they might have known somebody when they were 18 and had a boyfriend or someone they knew many years ago. But if you want to work in construction now, the mere whiff of the fact that you might have known somebody in your past who may or may not have gone on to do things that they may have faced proceedings for and may or may not have been found guilty of means you are out too. You are out for the mere fact that you have associated with somebody. I am going to go to what the conclusion was, and there are some interesting concerns particularly around the Spent Convictions Act 2021. I will just touch on that for a moment. I mean, the SARC report is gold. I thoroughly encourage everybody in the chamber to actually read the SARC report.

John Berger interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Yes, I do not think they read it, to be honest. I actually encourage everyone in this chamber to read the SARC report. It is pretty important, because it even raises concerns around spent convictions. I will go to the overall conclusion. I will just touch on this and then come back to the conclusions. The report says:

Spent conviction discrimination – Privacy – Request by party to major construction contract or registered organisation – Victoria police must provide criminal history and information appearing to indicate membership of named organisations

Wow. Again, this is what the committee said. In the report it says:

Clause 4(2)(a) excludes ‘a conviction that becomes spent under a law of another jurisdiction’. A ‘member’ includes ‘an individual whose conduct in relation to the organisation would reasonably lead another person to consider the individual to be a member of the organisation’.

Wow. That is ‘reasonably lead another person to consider’ – not even conclude – ‘the individual to be a member of the organisation’. The report continues:

A ‘criminal organisation’ is one of 28 organisations listed by name in Schedule 1. There is no definition of ‘associate’.

The Committee observes that the effect of clauses 7 and 8 may be that Victoria Police must, upon request, provide a party to certain contracts and the committee of management of certain registered organisations with every recorded conviction, finding of guilt and pending charge of a person under any Australian law, and any information known to Victoria police that appears to indicate that a person is a member, former member or prospective member of various named organisations or an associate of such a person …

How are we going to find this information out? Who is going to find it and from what source? Is it credible? Honestly, this is fantasy stuff. In the conclusion of the SARC report, it says:

The Committee will write to the member –

and I look forward to the response –

seeking further information as to:

• whether the definition of ‘major construction contract’ in clause 3 and the dealings with land described in new section 83A of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 are limited to major contracts or dealings

• whether the definition of ‘criminal history’ in clause 4 is limited to offences that are relevant to clause 6 or new section 83A of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004

• how the Bill ensures that any person whose rights may be affected by clauses 7 and 8 is provided with procedural fairness –

pretty important –

• the compatibility of clauses 7 and 8 with the Charter’s rights against discrimination on the basis of a spent conviction.

As you can see, what an utter shemozzle – it is disgraceful. Mr Mulholland professes to believe that people should have second chances, but under this bill anybody who wants a second chance – and construction work so often provides people with second chances to repair their life, to move on from any wrongdoing and to start again. Rehabilitation is what it is about. But of course those opposite just talk hot air. It is hot air over there, because again, anybody who might think that they can restart their life under those opposite would not have that chance. And who is going to decide this? Who is going to be the arbiter? What information are we going to collect and from whom? Are you going to ask the bikie gang, ‘Oh, did anyone actually have a conversation with you?’ Is that reliable? And what is the process for admitting people to being a member? I do not know. It is crazy stuff – lunacy.

Again, this is an attack on workers. This is an attack on the union movement. Our government, the Allan Labor government, has taken strong action to ensure that we stamp out any rotten culture in the union movement. This bill is a joke, and it should be roundly, resoundingly rejected by everyone in this chamber.

Trung LUU (Western Metropolitan) (11:34): I rise today to speak in support of the Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill 2024. The bill is designed to uphold the integrity and safety of our workforce in Victorian government projects, ensuring that organised crime figures and those with close connections to organised crime are locked out of major government project contracts, but it has also exposed the rot that has festered under the Allan Labor government. The Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill 2024 would set a barrier against the rampant criminality this government has allowed to thrive on taxpayer-funded worksites. Victorians are being robbed. Under the watch of the CFMEU there has festered an environment of corruption and criminality on government-run projects. Victorians deserve better. Transparency, accountability and ethical conduct must be restored. This is not about attacking workers rights, as those across the chamber have mentioned. It is about addressing corruption and bullying, and it is anti-bikies, to ensure the rights of ordinary workers on job sites are protected. It is about supporting workers on worksites and giving them the right to a safe workplace.

Every single one of us is paying the price for this disgraceful mismanagement that the Allan Labor government has permitted. Higher taxes, ballooning state debts and dodgy deals: this is what Labor has gifted us. The budget has blown out by a whopping $40 billion on projects, as we have experienced so far. Make no mistake, this is not just incompetence. Criminal elements have been permitted not just to survive but to thrive on major projects funded by the Victorian people. If you look closely at every single major project under this Labor government, it has blown out, not in the millions but in the billions of dollars. In every major project under Premier Allan, whether as the Premier or as the minister responsible for the state’s major projects, we have seen project blowouts. How much, we ask, of this has fallen into the hands of criminal bikie gangs? It is time we managed Victorian taxpayers dollars carefully, like we plan our family budgets. The Big Build is compromised, and it is high time we cleaned up taxpayer-funded construction sites.

This bill would prevent members, former members and prospective members of criminal organisations from taking on government contracts. This includes notorious gangs such as the Bandidos, the Hells Angels, the Muslim Brotherhood movement, the Coffin Cheaters and others alike. We have witnessed shocking cases of parachuting bikie members into senior positions, like Tyrone Bell – also known as ‘Little Ty’ – a former senior Mongol bikie who rose to CFMEU delegate position, earning over $200,000, and Sammy ‘The Turk’ Erkan, a Hells Angel involved in workplace disputes. This must end.

In 2019 the Premier’s friend and disgraced former CFMEU boss John Setka was exposed for his deep ties to bikie gangs such as the Hells Angels and the Comanchero outlaw motorcycle gangs. These are the connections of a man who should have never had the ear of the Premier, let alone been allowed to run rampant on construction worksites funded by taxpayers money. Fast-forward to 2021 and we see Mick Gatto, Melbourne’s underworld figurehead, allegedly mediating disputes between the CFMEU and construction companies. Mr Gatto’s alleged involvement is a blatant indicator of just how deep the criminal rot has set in on all these CFMEU construction worksites.

I know those across the chamber have mentioned the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee and that we on this side of the chamber have not responded. I just want to let the chamber know that my colleague Mr Evan Mulholland has contacted SARC in response to the report. In very, very deep detail his letter has addressed the presumption-of-innocence concern, clause 6(1)(c), and it goes into greater detail in relation to the employment and engagement of individuals. It also addresses the interactions of the Spent Convictions Act 2021 in clause 6(2) and inserts a new section 83A in the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004. It also goes on to address freedom of association.

John Berger: Give us the details.

Trung LUU: I will submit that letter, if I am allowed, to the chamber. I have the full details here with me – all the questions which Mr Mulholland has addressed to SARC in his response. I will make it available right now, if I am permitted to. This is in response to Mr Berger’s request.

John Berger: I asked you to read it out.

Trung LUU: I will make it available for you to read. It is quite detailed.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): Is leave granted for Mr Luu to table the document?

Leave refused.

Trung LUU: You do not want it? You asked me for the full details – it is three or four pages – and you do not want us to table it. You do not want it. You asked for it. It is full of detail for you to read, but you do not want it. Okay. This is what we are dealing with. I will go on with my response.

There was mention of support for workers. I would like to mention in relation to this that this bill is actually supporting not only those with past experiences but future workers on worksites. There was a very tragic incident in relation to bullying on worksites, which is what this bill is seeking to address. Ben Nash, a young man on the brink of adulthood, entered the construction industry with a dream of building a better future. Instead he faced the harsh reality where those in power made the rules, robbing him of dignity and leaving him in torment. His experience is not isolated. Our hope is that this bill will address and assist those who have experienced the same situations that Ben went through and prevent incidents like he experienced in the future. This reflects a system that fails to protect its most vulnerable members. We must be committed to a world where integrity is the foundation of our institutions, ensuring that no other dream is lost before its time. We have seen the devastating consequences of corruption in the construction branch of the CFMEU, shown by the tragedy of Ben, an Indigenous man who was locked up and tormented and took his own life because of bullying. Enough is enough. We must get to the bottom of the CFMEU’s actions and ensure that such behaviour is never tolerated again. People are suffering as we speak, at the moment, in silence. This bill will help address those issues. It will help those union member workers who are experiencing these incidents at the moment.

This year police uncovered that CFMEU shop stewards were receiving kickbacks from organised crime groups to facilitate drug trafficking on their own construction worksites. Why are we seeing such an increase in drug use on worksites? Because there is drug trafficking on worksites. The police have uncovered evidence of kickbacks from trafficking on worksites. This bill will address that as well. These are not just allegations, this is the reality of what is happening when the government turns a blind eye to criminality and continues to oppose these types of bills.

This bill opposes the real, ongoing threats of organised crime in Victorian government construction projects. It prioritises transparency, accountability and safety while carefully and respectfully balancing individuals’ rights. The opposition strongly supports this bill as a necessary step to protect the integrity of our public works, ensuring Victorian government projects are free of criminal influence. This bill, the Government Construction Project Integrity Bill 2024, is a no-nonsense, zero-tolerance response to the rot which is festering under this government’s watch. It will bar anyone with ties to organised crime from being involved in major construction projects. We are not asking for integrity, we on this side of the chamber are demanding, on behalf of Victorian people, that there should be and will be integrity on all sites.

In the amount of time I have left I would like to address why having a safe place to live, work and play is important. The CFMEU’s ties to bikies is a tax on every Australian. With great power comes great responsibility. Inviting bikies into leadership roles is a betrayal of both workers and taxpayers. I just wonder whether the conflict of interest given the CFMEU’s donations to MPs and the Labor Party has affected the government’s reaction to this bill.

Clause 6 of the bill provides that government contracts must meet certain requirements. This clause mandates that major construction contracts must include provisions ensuring that individuals employed or engaged for the contract do not have a criminal history involving certain serious offences. Those offences are outlined in the bill: an organised crime offence and consorting with a person convicted of a serious crime offence. Clause 6 continues to talk about employment. We have seen intimidation tactics, such as masked men sent to builders’ homes, pressuring them to sign enterprise bargaining agreements. This system intimidates and is designed to control honest tradespeople. We mentioned IBAC. The question is: why did IBAC not investigate this earlier? Because it has not got the power or the authority that this bill would provide.

This bill will carefully balance individuals’ rights with the need to protect public safety and maintain integrity for the government’s projects. In conclusion, this bill, on this side of the chamber, is a line in the sand. It is time to put an end to criminality, corruption and the sheer incompetence that plagues our construction industry under the Labor government.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (11:47): I rise to oppose this bill. While we see the circus going on in Canberra with Michaelia Cash trying to delay action, trying to delay intentions, we see the same thing here with this bill. Whilst the government responds in meaningful ways to ensure that our construction industry can continue to deliver the infrastructure that our city needs – that we continue to get on with building the housing that Victorians need – those opposite would prefer that tens of thousands of workers go home rather than go to work and get on with building what Victorians need. It would mean that we would be left without the critical road and rail infrastructure that we know this city and that this state absolutely needs to set us up for future generations

We have Greg Wilson, who will make his final report by 29 November. We know that this work is coming from someone who is highly respected. It is work that can be implemented. But those opposite do not want to work to that. As is typical of the conservatives in this place, the National and Liberal coalition, everything is a kneejerk reaction. It is a thought bubble that has been drafted up by I do not know who but without engagement, without consultation, without thinking about the bigger picture – drafted up and rushed into Parliament to try and get a cheap, quick win.

We know that industrial relations is a matter for the Commonwealth. In fact for those opposite, some may recall Jeff Kennett referred that off to the Commonwealth. I believe Mr McCracken is very aware of the activities of Mr Kennett and the terrible things he did across this state in the regions.

Joe McCracken: I missed that; sorry.

Tom McINTOSH: Yes, you did miss that. Your party has missed the fact that Mr Kennett referred those laws. It is a federal issue.

That being what it is, this government is getting on with the referrals we have made. That opportunity is there for IBAC, for Victoria Police, and as I said before, for Greg Wilson. But those opposite do not want to see those avenues used. They do not want to use those avenues; they want to come in here. There was a contribution made just before about drug dealing on construction sites. I think the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry exposed a hell of a lot more drug use and drug dealing in our white-collar institutions than Heydon’s royal commission, Heydon’s politically driven and politically motivated attack on workers around this country. For the millions of dollars that were spent, for the time that was consumed, what did it turn up? This is what we see time and again from the National–Liberal coalition – that they want to go on political and ideological witch-hunts. That is what they will do. We know that they will work to lower the pay and the conditions of workers. Anyone old enough will remember WorkChoices and the Liberals’ absolute drive to reduce the pay and conditions of workers. That is absolutely in their DNA.

This bill looks to bulldoze through with no consultation, no engagement. Things are flying across the other side of the chamber, because they know they are absolutely bringing in a bulldozer of a bill with no consultation and no engagement –

A member interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: It is business as usual for the coalition, that is exactly right, because there are not the values. There is not the development of policy. They bring in something and want to rush it through. There is no discussion, there is no detail about how it will work – what the regulatory burden will be or how it will be funded. We do not even know if it is lawful. At least over there you are consistent in bringing things to this place that are ill-conceived, are poorly put together and indeed waste a hell of a lot of our time, unfortunately.

We do know the impact this bill will have on people trying to get gainful employment, on people trying to provide for their families. This will be like a wrecking ball coming through in what is a dangerous industry. I often talk about the fact that those opposite have never set foot in a TAFE. I am pretty sure they have never set foot on a construction site. It is a dangerous industry. Ms Watt spoke earlier about when we remember annually the workers that have died across our state, the tragedies that have occurred. Whether it is those working on sites or when we have seen the public who have been injured and killed by unsafe construction standards, it is those workers and those families that are paying the ultimate price when corners are cut on safety. It ripples through communities. That does not even go to the amputations and injuries that stop people from being able to continue in their work.

It is critical that we have our workforce to deliver our major infrastructure investments in our roads and in our rail. We know that those opposite did not start one major transport infrastructure project in their four years. Dolittle and Nap Time were frozen, and it is the same National–Liberal coalition that have no values, no plans and no ability to be able to produce or deliver anything for this state, whereas we are seeing major projects being delivered – level crossing removals ahead of time and the Metro Tunnel ahead of time. These are going to unlock the economic productivity of this state for generations to come. We have employed people on the way through, and we have trained apprentices and trained trainees, because we know that you lot, like when you scrapped the SEC, do not care about generations of workforce. There is no consideration, and again it comes back to no values, no policy. There is no consideration of a pipeline of workers. You need to ensure that pipeline continues so those that grow into their profession and master their skills can train the next generation so we see a continuity and a continual improvement on the skills and ability of our workforce here in Victoria.

When legislation has been brought forward – whether it is on industrial manslaughter, whether it is on wage theft, whether it is on portable long service leave or whether it is on engineered stone silicosis –it is something that is there to protect the health and wellbeing of workers and it is something to protect the income of workers and their families and our communities. We talk about values and believing that we want to see workers go home well paid at the end of the day so they can support their families and so that income is within our communities and supports our communities to thrive – unlike the beliefs, as I said, of the valueless, planless and policyless opposition, who are still dreaming of their days in student politics at uni, worshipping Reagan and Thatcher and whatever on earth those economic policies were.

I made mention in the last sitting – and I note that it was not those opposite – of their Liberal counterparts who could not even bring themselves to see minimum wage workers get a dollar more an hour, a simple recommendation to the Fair Work Commission. That was too much for you lot to stomach, because you do not want to see workers get even $1 more. The reason why you lot come in here – we are about to go into question time – but cannot have a well-versed question is because you need your think tanks to write everything for you. It is okay if something breaks over the weekend, but if something happens in the moment, you sit there with your questions. You do not know which minister to ask; you do not know what to ask. You have got no idea unless your think tanks are sending it through on the fax machine to you, because you do not have the internet – you do not even believe in the science of the internet – so unless that is sent through to you –

David Davis: On a point of order, Acting President, he is diverging. He is now talking about think tanks and this and that, and it has nothing at all to do with the bill.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): There is no point of order. Mr McIntosh to continue for the remainder of the minute.

Tom McINTOSH: Following on from those major projects, we know what runs on those train lines and on those tramlines is built here by Victorians for Victorians. Again, I am sorry to come back to values and that lack of values, that lack of planning, that lack of policies you lot have, because again, you would just rather ship off the work to the lowest common denominator paid contract. You do not want to see that work being performed here, building the next pipeline of workers, the pipeline of workers that we have put the training and skills system around.

Business interrupted pursuant to sessional orders.