Wednesday, 28 August 2024

Production of documents

Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (10:03): I move:

That this house requires the Leader of the Government, pursuant to standing order 10.01, to table in the Council by 29 August 2024:

(1) a document outlining the cumulative total expenditure, excluding grant funding, by all departments and state government agencies, covering the period 1 January 2015 to 1 July 2024, on the CFMEU, construction and general (C and G) division, Victoria–Tasmania branch;

(2) a document outlining the cumulative total of grant funding by all departments and state government agencies, covering the period 1 January 2015 to 1 July 2024, provided to the CFMEU, C and G, Victoria–‍Tasmania branch; and

(3) a copy of all state government procurement contracts and project briefs, covering the period 1 January 2015 to 1 July 2024, which specifically name either the CFMEU or CFMMEU.

Michael Galea: On a point of order, President, I have concerns about this particular short-form docs motion, particularly that points (1) and (2) of it are not actually asking the government to supply a document but are asking the government to create new documents, which I do not believe is within the remit of standing order 10.01(1), which provides the Council may allow for documents to be requested from government. It does not actually say that the Council can order the government to create a new document. So I ask you to rule this short-form documents motion out of order or at least come back to the chamber if you need time to consider it.

David Davis: On the point of order, President, it is clearly possible for the government to provide this information. The essence of a documents order is to seek information from government, and it is certainly wide enough to request the creation of documents and to ensure that documents are provided.

Michael Galea: Further to the point of order, President, as Mr Davis I am sure well knows, nowhere in the standing orders does it provide for the creation of new documents, but also nowhere in the standing orders does it refer to the essence of documents.

The PRESIDENT: I uphold the point of order. I think the point of order speaks for itself. Mr Mulholland can still pursue point (3), that is pretty clear, ‘a copy of all state government procurement contracts and project briefs’. But to call for a new document I do not think is in line with the standing orders. I call Mr Mulholland, and he can talk on his point (3).

Evan MULHOLLAND: Anything for this government and this lot across the chamber to hide and cover up the corruption and coercion on construction sites that we have seen over and over and over again. We saw the Premier last year, when I asked her about a lot of coercion and corruption going on on construction sites, say it was all a matter for the federal government and the state government has no jurisdiction over industrial relations law. But when it was exposed on 60 Minutes – the exact same thing I was asking about – we saw the Premier get up and say she is absolutely disgusted at what is going on; she will not stand for it; she will not stand for Indigenous firms being kicked off construction sites in favour of Mick Gatto linked firms, especially up in Greenvale; she will not stand for the coercion going on on construction sites. But then she got up at a press conference, flanked by the Attorney-General, and said she is absolutely disgusted at what is going on on our construction sites and she is going to do something about it. She said she is going to introduce new bikie laws and said she is going to refer it for a review by Mr Wilson – a review that cannot seek to look into how the government has covered up corruption and coercion in this state by the Labor-linked CFMEU and cannot even look into the government’s own issues in covering it up. It had no way for people to submit to the review for over a week, and when they provided an email, the email bounced back and did not actually work. We wait to see the findings of that review.

In terms of the motion itself, we are calling for what the government has funded, because it is really important. Taxpayers money is going to a union the government has now distanced itself from, and we know it will only distance itself temporarily from the criminal enterprise known as the CFMEU. The Premier has claimed she has no responsibility for industrial relations law in the past. Now Premier Allan says that she is disgusted by the actions of the CFMEU and can actually do something about it – there are some things now that are in her remit. We know that she was warned about illegal corruption and coercion to do with the CFMEU but has done absolutely nothing about it, and she should be condemned. We are asking for a copy of all state government procurement contracts and project briefs covering the period of 1 January 2015 to 1 July 2024, and we specifically want to look at a few things, one of them being Incolink, a CFMEU-run workers entitlement fund stacked with union officials, with John Setka until recently a director alongside Elizabeth Doidge, a Labor councillor who accepted CFMEU donations for her council campaign, and Robert Graauwmans, a Victoria–Tasmania branch president of, you guessed it, the CFMEU. Anyone bidding for construction work with the government must show they meet the Department of Treasury and Finance’s mandatory guidelines for industrial relations criteria. One requirement is that bidders show where they plan to park workers entitlements, with Incolink being the only option actually highlighted.

This government will go to any lengths to cover up for the CFMEU. We saw Mr Setka on Sunday night reveal that he had a deal with the federal government, with the former federal minister for industrial relations, that they would not go into administration. We know that this government is bought off by the CFMEU. The federal government are as well, which is why they abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The state government are, which is why they abolished the construction code brought in by the Liberals and Nationals.

We know this government is tied to the CFMEU. You only have to look at the Minister for Skills and TAFE’s answers to our questions regarding the Skills First training program. If this government are so disgusted by the CFMEU, as the Premier says, why are they giving money still to the CFMEU? Why are they giving money to Incolink, as the government have? Why are they giving money to the Skills First training program? We saw the minister in all sorts claiming they do conduct spot checks, but then she could not claim how many and could not claim, after the revelations had aired, whether there were any spot checks done. We see Minister Shing, quite differently from the Minister for Skills and TAFE, say that she has sought assurances since the revelations aired of corruption and coercion on government housing sites but no such assurances from other ministers. Why would that be? Why would it be that some ministers do and some ministers do not? Could it be their factional allegiances?

We know this government is tied to the corrupt criminal enterprise known as the CFMEU; they go hand in glove. We need to get to the bottom of this scandal, because it is important that taxpayers money is not being wasted. We have $40 billion of cost blowouts across all major projects across Victoria. That is new hospitals that cannot be built, like in Ringwood; new schools that cannot be built; and roads that cannot be upgraded because this government is tied to the CFMEU.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (10:11): I do rise to speak on what is left of Mr Mulholland’s motion this morning, a short-form documents motion requesting information regarding contracts with the CFMEU, and in doing so note of course from the outset that it is the customary practice of the government not to oppose such motions. Obviously that does apply to where they are properly done within the standing orders. Whether it is just a bit of sloppy work that we have seen again from the opposition or whether they are just being cheeky and wanting the government to do their work for them, I appreciate your earlier ruling, President, on containing this motion to what is appropriate under the standing orders.

I find Mr Mulholland’s remarks quite curious as well. Firstly, I note that he did spend a great deal of his contribution reoutlining the strong words that the Premier has said in relation to this issue, and frankly I am grateful to Mr Mulholland for doing so, because it is true that the Premier has been very firm and very clear in speaking out on this. Again, if you want to say that things have not been done, well, that is simply not true. We obviously have the independent inquiry led by Mr Greg Wilson, which was very quickly announced by the Premier in the wake of these events coming to attention. But of course, as has been oft discussed in this place in the past few weeks, I again remind colleagues on the other side that the vast majority of industrial relations powers were actually referred by the state to the federal government, and that occurred of course in the 1990s under Jeff Kennett. I am surprised that you are so keen to so quickly abandon whatever legacy he may have had.

I also find it curious that Mr Mulholland ends by saying that we are not investing in big projects. The very fact that we have such booming construction at the moment is precisely because this government has been investing in projects big and small in inner and outer metropolitan Melbourne and in regional Victoria. We have heard in fact in a members statement just this morning from Ms Ermacora that the Warrnambool line is reopening, which is fantastic to see, with soon-to-come VLocity trains. A big part of that in fact is the rail duplication through South Geelong and to Waurn Ponds so that we can actually provide more services to that very fast growing part of Geelong and also improve the reliability of the line. We have seen similar V/Line track duplications across the state – there is a project right now going on in Mr McIntosh’s region in Bunyip – add to which the 110 level crossings that either have already been removed or are in the process of being removed and add to which the hundred new schools that this government is building. Indeed, we have already opened three new primary schools just in the suburb of Clyde North alone, with a further two under construction at the moment and a further high school being opened next year as well.

So to the point of construction works being done: whether it is roads, whether it is hospitals or whether it is other healthcare services like priority primary care centres, whether it is education facilities – whatever service it is that Victorians need, this is a government that has a track record of absolute delivery, and that is what we continue to do. That is why we have seen such strong jobs in these sectors, whether it is construction, whether it is sparkies working on the Metro Tunnel or indeed whether it is the Suburban Rail Loop, which of course those opposite want to cut. They want to cut those construction jobs. They want to take us back, and they will not provide working people in this state with the opportunities that this government has been providing them across the board.

When it comes to inappropriate behaviour in any union, that is something that this government takes very seriously, and it is something that I take very seriously as a long-serving former union official as well, because we are there to represent working people. It is a distinct honour to be in that role, and there is absolutely no place in the union movement for those who seek to profit for themselves or seek to bring other nefarious factors or figures into it. There is absolutely no place for that.

What the Liberals are always about is using any particular example they can find to attack unions as a whole. We saw it indeed under the last federal government with the outrageous royal commission, which found probably more things against the royal commissioner than it found actually against any of the union officials. But we know from that side what their real agenda is when it comes to this matter. This is a government that is taking firm, serious action through the Wilson review, and I will leave my remarks there.

Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (10:16): Here we are again on a short-form documents motion with no substance and with little time. This time it is actually above – well, would you say above or below expectations of what the Liberals will serve up?

A member interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: Yes, set expectations low and you will not be disappointed by that side. Point (1) and point (2) have already been knocked out of this debate, so we are left with point (3). We know with those opposite, from what we see in question time and what we see in their motions, there is very little of substance. They have no plan and they have no values, and there is nothing they believe in. It is what their think tanks serve up. Today what their think tanks have served up does not even sit within the guidelines of what we should be debating here.

Anyway, we will move past the laziness of the fishing exercise that has been brought and the fact that they will not put the work in so that we can actually debate something of substance. When I talk about those opposite and their conservative values, I say they have no values, no plan and no policies. But I should put a point there that there is one value that conservatives opposite hold deep, and that is seeing the wages and conditions of workers across Victoria and Australia driven down. We have seen for decades they are absolutely committed to it. Whenever they have the opportunity to be in government, whether it is federally or whether it is state, they go after the pay and conditions of workers. In Victoria, when we made legislation around anti-wage theft laws, where were the conservatives? They were nowhere to be seen. When we were talking about accountability for industrial manslaughter, where were the conservatives? Absolutely nowhere to be seen. When we were talking about dodgy labour hire companies, where were the conservatives? Nowhere to be seen.

I lose track of the number of leaders on that side. The leader who had lobster with a mobster – I think that was Mr Guy. I forget whether that was on his first or his second time, and maybe he will be back for a third attempt. I almost feel some sympathy or pity for Mr Pesutto at times, the way that those on his own side line up behind him not to support him but to try and stick knives into him. We know this lack of values and this lack of, at times, decency from those opposite saw Dr Bach go to the other side of the world.

Coming back to those values, as I have stated before in this place, when we were having a discussion or debate on the minimum wage in Australia – one dollar more for our lowest paid workers in this country – the Liberals could not even bring themselves to make a submission to the Fair Work Commission to support this. The last time the conservatives in this state were in power we know that not one infrastructure project for our roads or for our trains was started. They sat on their hands. There is a reason why those names ring out – Nap Time and Dolittle. They did nothing. This state sat still. And it all comes back to what I started this with: there are no values and no plan that informs policies to get on and do things, which is exactly what the Victorian Labor state government has done. We are investing in the infrastructure that supports jobs right now – tens of thousands of jobs – and will support our economic productivity for decades to come, because we need to be able to get our people from A to B and we need to be able to get our freight from A to B. It is about ensuring the productivity of our state. It is about ensuring the social fabric of our communities. It is about ensuring that our economy is strong for generations to come.

So yet again the conservatives have wasted our time on a short-form documents motion that was poorly thought out and was poorly written. As my colleague said before, we should not be surprised. The low expectations that we and indeed the majority of Victorians have of the conservatives in this state mean that we should not be surprised. While they do that – while they play games – we will get on with investing for Victorians in Victoria and ensuring that we are absolutely set up not just right now but for generations to come.

Sheena WATT (Northern Metropolitan) (10:21): I rise not to oppose the motion but to bring attention to this place, as my colleagues speaking before me have stated –

Members interjecting.

Sheena WATT: There are clearly some interruptions that are going to happen on this. This motion came to us at the very last minute. I would say that if it was so important to those opposite, can they perhaps explain to this chamber, as was not done by the opening remarks by Mr Mulholland, why that was in fact the case. I do need a moment to say that this was very much –

Evan Mulholland: It has been tabled for two weeks.

Sheena WATT: Well, why wasn’t it done last week? That is the question. Wishing the documents into existence, as was raised by the point of order by Mr Galea earlier, is just another crusade against workers. This motion has clear signs that it was rushed and it was hastily chucked together, and it serves to do nothing more than some pointscoring against the government. If it was such a quality document, then perhaps it should have been written in accordance with the standing orders. It was in fact poorly drafted, and I thank the President for his ruling this morning.

Those opposite now attempt to grasp at straws and hope that through this motion we can do their work for them, but the truth is the government is getting on with the business of managing the issues which this motion alludes to. In response to the allegations of unacceptable behaviour from a small cohort of members of one division of the CFMEU, the government has acted swiftly to ensure that the behaviour is put to a stop. We have referred the matter to the state’s anti-corruption watchdog, the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. We have requested that the federal government exercise its powers to ensure that construction workers remain protected by legitimate enterprise bargaining agreements. In addition, we have established the independent review, which will complement the investigations conducted by our own state integrity bodies. I spoke to that last week in the bill that is before us and will be debated later today. These steps will ultimately protect construction workers as they ensure that our Big Build projects operate smoothly, ensuring that workers are able to do their jobs in an environment which is free from bullying and free from corruption.

Victorian workers need a government that will protect their interests, and that is what we are doing. We are taking appropriate steps to curb the criminality within the unions. As I have outlined both last sitting week and right now, we will not do so at the expense of Victorian workers, those that are being targeted by those opposite in the motion before us. Targeting hardworking Victorians is just not the way to go. Unions are the cornerstone of our state. I will just finish off by reminding Mr Mulholland and those opposite that Mr Setka was first appointed to a Victorian government board, which was the Building Industry Consultative Council, in 2013 by the Attorney-General Robert Clark. That was not during our time in government – that was during the brief time of those opposite. But I will say that some years later he was in fact kicked off that body, in June of 2019, by our government. I will finish off by saying we are not going to break with our convention and oppose these documents motions, but I implore those opposite to wake up to themselves.

The PRESIDENT: I put the question:

That this house requires the Leader of the Government, pursuant to standing order 10.01, to table in the Council by 29 August 2024 a copy of all state government procurement contracts and project briefs, covering the period 1 January 2015 to 1 July 2024, which specifically name either the CFMEU or CFMMEU.

Question agreed to.