Wednesday, 28 August 2024

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.

Ryan BATCHELOR (Southern Metropolitan) (15:47): I am pleased – I probably should use a better word. I am going to speak as a further speaker in relation to the Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill 2024, a private members bill moved by Mr Mulholland which the government does not support, largely because the government is taking this issue seriously and taking serious action and Mr Mulholland’s attempt to do something in this space is neither of those things. It is a misguided bill that seeks to do a range of things urgently but does so without any form of consultation, thought or assessment about the consequences of the action that it is seeking to take. That is perhaps indicative of their view that serious matters in our community are issues from which a political opportunity can be sought and a political advantage might be held rather than any sort of notion that there is a real public policy or integrity issue that needs to be addressed. At that very basic level the government will not be supporting the bill, because there are a range of issues with the proposition that has been drafted and rushed before us today and which seeks to permanently alter the laws of the state of Victoria. We do not think that that is the right approach.

What we have seen from the government since revelations came to light several weeks ago about allegations of illegal activity in the construction sector is a very clear response that has demonstrated the seriousness with which the government takes matters to do with the infiltration of criminal elements into the building and construction industry and our determination to stamp it out. What we have seen, sadly, are criminal elements using and misusing the good work that the union movement has done in the construction industry for a very long time, and that has undermined the excellent work that generations of hardworking unionists have done in the construction industry. What we have seen by the infiltration of organised criminal elements into the construction industry is not unionism, it is the antithesis of unionism. It is not about the collective good, it is about individual gain, and that is nothing to do with unionism and is all to do with selfish and illegal activity.

What the opposition has tried to do in their drafting of this private members bill is to appear to be tough and appear to be serious. What we have actually seen from the government, firstly, in immediately dealing with issues around the construction and general division of the CFMEU Victoria and Tasmania branch is asking for immediate action from the federal government, which has constitutionally that workplace relations authority and has constitutional responsibility for registered organisations in this country. You have seen that as a result of that swift action has been taken to put in place administration regimes, which will weed out criminal behaviour and criminal elements from these registered organisations and which are putting in place mechanisms to ensure the continuation of the absolutely fundamental role that organised labour has to keep workers safe and to ensure that their pay and conditions are upheld and respected, that they get home safely from work and that they get paid a proper wage for the work that they do, which recognises the often dangerous work that many in our construction industry do. You have seen swift action to put in place administration regimes to ensure that those unions can continue to do their job properly.

You have also seen from the Premier the immediate commissioning of an independent review of Victoria’s construction sector, looking at how we can strengthen the powers of the bodies which are engaged with construction companies and construction unions to respond to allegations of criminal or unlawful conduct. The Premier also immediately referred allegations of serious misconduct to Victoria Police and the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. Those were the immediate actions that the state government here in Victoria took when these allegations emerged. At the time we also, led by the Attorney-General, made mention of some work that was being done – it is well underway – to strengthen anti-bikie laws to make it easier for police and courts to prevent certain individuals from associating with each other. It was very pleasing to see today, following the time a couple of weeks ago when the Attorney said it was in development, the announcement of the introduction of new laws to toughen and strengthen our existing laws to combat organised and serious crime.

The Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024, which was introduced in the Assembly today, will improve and strengthen Victoria’s unlawful association scheme, introducing a new serious crime prevention order and prohibiting the public display of gang colours. This is a significant crackdown on organised crime and bikie gangs, with some of the toughest laws in the country to deal with thuggish, illegal and bad behaviour. As part of the changes, members of specified organised crime groups will be banned from entering Victorian government worksites, ensuring that these sites are free from the influence of outlaw gangs and criminal groups. This will complement the work that I briefly mentioned earlier that is going to stamp out the rotten, unlawful culture that had emerged in sections of the construction industry.

The strengthened unlawful association scheme will give Victoria Police more power to stop criminals associating with each other and to discourage other people from joining them in a criminal network. Importantly, the threshold which exists in law for issuing unlawful association notices will be lowered to allow police to issue these unlawful association notices more easily and in a wider range of circumstances. The threshold will be lowered for the issuing of unlawful association notices, allowing police to issue them more easily and in a wider range of circumstances, with up to three years in prison for a breach of those orders. Importantly, part of the legislation being introduced into the Legislative Assembly today, the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill, will grant the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission new responsibilities to monitor, oversee and report on the operation of the scheme. So we are giving new powers to police to crack down on these organised criminal associations and how they are engaging with a range of elements in the community but particularly in relation to the construction sector, ensuring that certain worksites that exist can be free of that influence, and we are providing IBAC as the integrity agency responsible to the Parliament with the necessary oversight and monitoring powers to ensure that the scheme is working as is intended, to produce reports to enable that oversight to take place and to satisfy both the Parliament and the community of its operations.

The legislation also proposes that a new serious crime prevention order scheme will come into effect that allows the Chief Commissioner of Police to apply to a court to impose a broad range of conditions on an individual who has participated in a serious criminal activity or is likely to help other person who is engaging in serious criminal behaviour. This serious crime prevention order scheme is designed to restrict the activities of certain organised crime group leaders. What these orders might include is a prohibition on a person leaving Victoria or possessing firearms or possessing a certain amount of cash.

Outlaw motorcycle gang members often wear and display colours, logos and other insignia to represent their gang membership, to intimidate others and as a mechanism to recruit and attract new members. The ban that this bill will introduce will ban the public display of insignia of certain criminal groups and in certain circumstances.

We said a couple of weeks ago when the allegations of criminal activity in the construction sector were aired that this work was being undertaken. A couple of weeks later we see the government delivering on that and introducing tough new laws to combat serious and organised crime, particularly giving and expanding powers to also enable that to be extended into certain Victorian government worksites. We think that the worksite prohibition in particular here will help address some of the concerns that have been raised in relation to conduct. I think the comprehensiveness that the government has shown in relation to drafting and introducing these laws stands a little bit in contrast to the bill that we are debating here today. What we have been able to do is draft laws, get them right and get them introduced. It seems that the opposition managed to do just the last of those things.

I think what we also have to understand is that the construction industry is an exceptionally important part of the Victorian economy. It is important in providing thousands of jobs to Victorians – and this links a little bit to the debate we were just having – and is part of ensuring that our city and our state are able to continue to have strong economic growth. The construction industry is a vital part of our economic toolkit to ensure that we have the public civil infrastructure but also the private infrastructure, the homes and the private capital that enable our state to not only continue to grow and support growing jobs and economic growth but allow that expansion to occur in a productive way that ensures that the economic capacity of the state is improved through these measures that we are introducing that I have spoken about earlier in this speech. The strengthening of integrity around the construction unions and the review of the government contracts and projects in these new laws that have been introduced in the Legislative Assembly today will ensure that this vitally important sector is able to do the job it needs to do to support all Victorians in a way that is free from unlawful criminal activity.

The alternatives we have, I think, are to go one of two ways. We could let criminal elements gain more of a foothold in parts of the construction industry, with all of the negative consequences that that would bring. We cannot allow that, and there is action that is being taken to not do so. The alternative, the other path, is to do the things that those opposite seek for us to do, which is to destroy the capacity of workers to engage collectively for their own safety and to improve their own pay and conditions. We will not do that. In fact what we are doing, and what the Labor government federally is doing, is ensuring that those unions continue to have that capacity. That is the fundamental issue. It is a fundamental issue for any civilised society that it has effective and functioning associations of workers who can act in the collective interests of those workers, and that is what our actions are doing.

We know that those opposite would prefer that we did not have trade unions in this state; they would prefer that we did not have protections. They vote against increased protections that we bring as a Labor government to this Parliament. They have voted against a raft of laws that we have brought into the statute books here in Victoria that have strengthened protections for Victorian workers. They are only interested in running down the protections that Victorian workers have. They have used every opportunity in the past to do it, and we have stood against them every step of the way. These laws that this bill would seek to introduce on the statute books here in Victoria are ill thought through, yet again, and do not deserve to be supported.

John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (16:02): I rise to speak on the Liberal Party’s private members bill, namely the Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill 2024. In doing so, I note that Mr Mulholland moved this two weeks ago and laid out two main points of the bill. First, it requires the parties to major construction contracts with the Crown to ensure that no person with a criminal history, links to the criminal organisations listed in the schedule to the bill or links to the declared criminal organisations is employed or engaged for these projects; and second, it mandates that registered employee organisations do not issue entry permits under section 83 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 to individuals associated with these criminal elements.

This bill, in my view, wants to do everything urgently, and by doing everything in a rush it gets nothing right. If you look at my contributions in Hansard, there is word I often say and it is a keyword, and that word is ‘consultation’. We believe in consultation on this side of the chamber, because by listening to the experts you can achieve the best outcomes. This is what makes a good government great: checking, double-checking and checking again with people who have dedicated their lives to becoming experts in their field. We do not know what unintended consequences will come; these proposals could be constitutionally invalid. The plenary power of the state is not unlimited. This bill just simply does not consider the possible ramifications these measures could have, and by rushing into this we do not know the consequences.

While those opposite are reckless, the Premier has been serious about getting down to business. The Premier has referred allegations of serious misconduct to Victoria Police and IBAC, or the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. We are toughening anti-bikie laws, and that bill will be debated this month. The Premier has established an independent review into our construction sector. As part of that review, we will find out how we can strengthen the power of the bodies engaged with the construction companies and how the construction unions respond to allegations of criminal and unlawful conduct. We want to be thorough, and we want to ensure that nothing is missed by the legislation.

The opposition clearly has no interest in delivering meaningful change for Victorians. They do not want a better Victoria – or they would not be wasting our time with this bill. This government is serious about getting to the core of these matters and taking advice from experts to deliver reforms that will do good for this great state, but this bill before us is not grounded in any legal advice we can see. It is a slapdash effort to punish workers for the acts of a few. This bill proves that the opposition is not fit for government. They would rather rush through these measures than stop and consult and follow the appropriate steps. Those across from me are no friends of the Victorian people; they have no clue what they are doing, and they have no vision for the future.

This bill would stop the overwhelming number of hardworking men and women trying to earn a solid and good living in construction. There is being tough on crime and then there is this. I believe the word ‘draconian’ is more than fit to describe this bill. Let alone believing in second chances, those opposite do not even believe in first chances. It is wrong and it is uninformed. Being tough on crime should not mean punishing those who do not deserve it. Blocking those individuals from employment could only serve to do one thing: push them back into crime. Crime is a socio-economic matter. Harsh punishment should be reserved for individuals who have proven they have a pathological disregard for the safety of others and themselves – a fundamental disrespect for society. This bill would instead prevent them from rehabilitating themselves. Why on earth you would not want someone to be able to improve themselves and turn away from crime is beyond me. This is not effectively addressing what they want to fix; it could even make it worse.

This matter is complicated and requires thorough independent examination, but the opposition wants to jump to conclusions before we even have had the opportunity to get all the facts straight and before we have had a chance to examine the best way forward. Because of this I look forward to the review led by Mr Greg Wilson leading to a strengthening of the integrity agencies, and not just strengthening the integrity agencies but ensuring that they do not unfairly punish those hoping to move away from mistakes and misgivings of the past. I look forward to a serious report, unlike that by their mate Dyson Heydon. Then the government can get down to the brass tacks and do what needs to be done to ensure all Victorians are protected in the best possible way once we have all the facts and not before.

As I said earlier, being tough on crime and misconduct does not mean punishing those that do not deserve to be punished. This government is very proud of its track record in addressing criminality in the state of Victoria. Victoria’s success in addressing it is in no small part due to the exemplary efforts of cabinet ministers working tirelessly to improve this state’s response to and mitigation of crime, like our current Minister for Police and Minister for Crime Prevention, my good friend Anthony Carbines, who is in the other place, and our colleague here Minister for Corrections Enver Erdogan.

This government knows that crime is a multifaceted problem with a lot of influences. We understand that measures to address crime must be balanced to ensure the best outcomes for the community. This does not mean letting off offenders lightly – absolutely not. This government is tough where it needs to be. That is what this bill fails to deliver for the Victorian community. The opposition want to appear as if they are tough on crime, but they have just shown us they know nothing about addressing crime. This government’s track record, however, speaks for itself. Last year Victoria Police recorded that the crime rate is at the third-lowest point that it has been in the past decade. That is not a coincidence – this is due to the hard work of our Minister for Police.

This government have been prolific in introducing programs and policies to improve the way that we are addressing crime, and it has already paid off – like the Made for More campaign to boost recruitment to the police force, therefore ensuring that our police force is better staffed and better equipped to respond to criminal activity. For large-scale crimes we introduced reforms that will catch career criminals unable to explain how they acquired their wealth. This means that Victoria Police have more avenues to disrupt organised crime – crime that ruins countless lives in its operation. That is what a government serious about addressing crime would do. We are exploring how to reduce reoffending rates. This bill does not consider that.

There is another thing that leaps out at me from this bill before us about the coalition’s entire response to the situation: the coalition’s fundamental hatred of unions, the union movement and, in that vein, workers in Victoria. They pretend to care about workers. They say that Victorians lose out under Labor governments. They could not be more wrong. The opposition has been given countless history lessons on what the union movement has done for this state – and for the world, for that matter. At this point they must be blocking their ears, because there is no other explanation. They have taken this situation to jump to demonising unions before a proper independent investigation has even been completed. I know a bit about the union movement, so I am more than happy to tell those across from me once again exactly what they are demonising. They are demonising the movement that gave us minimum wages, 40-hour work weeks and the criminalising of negligence – and the opposition wants Victorians to believe that they are on their side. I think that is quite ridiculous.

I was the secretary of the Transport Workers’ Union from 2016 to 2021. Before that I was the assistant secretary for seven years. The Transport Workers’ Union is a proud union with a history of delivering wins for workers in some of the most dangerous roles in the workplace, and I am very proud to be able to say that I presided over the TWU during some of those significant campaigns. Over the past decade the TWU has successfully fought for fairer conditions and wages for workers. It was the TWU that fought to get bus drivers in Melbourne safety screens to prevent harm coming to them while on the job. Without unions, workers are left vulnerable; with the unions, they are protected. I was also lucky enough to participate in the criminalisation of wage theft, now codified nationally thanks to our federal Albanese Labor government and the minister for industrial relations Tony Burke. This means that Australia is now a country where it is criminal for workers to be taken advantage of – vulnerable workers who are owed their fair wage. Australia is no longer a place where that can be tolerated.

Without unions, mechanisms would not be in place to properly prosecute and punish employers who abuse and mistreat their employees. Without unions, we would not be able to secure job security and safety. This was made painfully clear during the COVID-19 pandemic when companies like Qantas tried to unfairly dismiss nearly 2000 workers. It was the union that stood by these workers. The Transport Workers’ Union took Qantas to the High Court of Australia, and the High Court found that Qantas was responsible for the largest illegal sacking in Australia’s history. It was the union movement that ensured that they were held accountable. It was the union movement that ensured that these workers were not being left out.

Those across from me want to equate the union movement with criminality while enjoying the benefits of what the movement has brought to this country. They are no friends of the Victorian people. When they criticise the union movement, it is not out of genuine concern. They do not care about Victorian workers, plain and simple. On this side we believe in workers, and we know that what has to happen is not an indictment of the entire union movement. I am keen for our side of the chamber to get on and deliver for all Victorians and to continue to support the more than 300,000 hardworking Victorians on construction sites. Our government builds things: the North East Link, West Gate Tunnel and, yes, Metro 2.0.

Mr Mulholland said in his second-reading speech that ‘Every Victorian loses.’ It speaks to their great privilege and small mindedness that they could imagine expanded transport infrastructure as a loss. More trains more often is somehow a loss. Traffic cut on the Eastern Freeway is somehow a loss. Better conditions for our transport workers who keep Victoria running is somehow a loss. It is actually an insult to Victorians to say that better public transport is a loss. Victorians lose when the Liberals come in and ruin our public transport system. However, Labor governments make public transport better, just as this Labor government has.

The Metro Tunnel is set to open next year. Running through the city, the Metro Tunnel will take pressure off our currently operating city loop to ensure more comfortable, quicker experiences for commuters and passengers. When the tunnel opens, you could get on a train at Sunbury station and take it all the way to East Pakenham. The Metro Tunnel will introduce five new stations on our transit system, ensuring low congestion in our existing stations during peak hours. And speaking of congestion, this project is expected to slash down road congestion during peak hours. The economic, environmental and social benefits of this project are endless. Those across from me want to make out that it is a bad thing for Victorians, and this is absurd.

Other rail projects the Allan Labor government is delivering include the SRL East and the Level Crossing Removal Project. These will transform what it is like to travel around Melbourne for the better – safer, quicker and better. We are not just making advancements in rail infrastructure; projects like the West Gate Tunnel and North East Link are set to massively improve the state of road travel in Melbourne. The North East Link is of particular interest to me as the terminus is located right at the northern end of my community of Southern Metro, and I cannot wait to see how this will improve the commute and the day-to-day lives of people living in my community. However, the opposition would rather they did not benefit from this project. They do not want a better Victoria.

I could not imagine coming to this place and not fighting for a better Victoria, let alone trying to stop the government that is. This bill, hidden behind the pretence of concern, is just another example of the opposition trying to take from the Victorian people. As I have illustrated in my contribution, this is wildly inappropriate to address what it wants to address. The opposition clearly have no idea what they are doing and no regard for the potential harm that rushed legislation can cause. They see no value in thorough consultation and would have a bandaid solution rather than a proper one if they had their way. So our side will wait for Mr Greg Wilson’s interim report on 29 August 2024 and then the final report on 29 November 2024, and we will deliver real reforms informed by facts, informed by experts, unlike this so-called bill, which offers nothing to the Victorian people.

I look forward to voting in support of a bill that will deliver actual solutions for Victorians, a bill that will make for a safer Victoria. Until then I will do the right thing for working Victorians and vote down this pointless bill. I hope that everyone in this chamber will join me in the decision so that this house can get back to delivering for Victorians rather than wasting our time with the opposition’s opportunistic cheap shots.

Michael GALEA (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:15): I also rise to put my view forward and share a few remarks on this bill which has been put together by the opposition. At the outset I will reiterate what I have said already on this matter today, and that is that when it comes to matters of integrity on government construction projects, that is something that this government takes very seriously indeed. That is something that Premier Jacinta Allan takes very seriously, as evidenced by her comments on this matter, and our Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes takes very seriously as well.

The bill that we have before us today though is something of a rather hastily drafted piece of legislation that seems to be more in search of a media mention than it is in search of an actual beneficial outcome. There are a number of concerns that have been expressed and raised by others about this bill, and I would add my voice to a few of those concerns. More valuable than anything I might have to say on the matter, though, is what the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee had to say on the bill, which was, frankly, a scathing 13-page report on the various shortcomings of the legislation that is here before us. The SARC, which is one of the pre-eminent joint standing committees of our Parliament, plays an important role in going through and assessing all pieces of legislation that come before this place, in their relation to both the charter of human rights and other aspects, and indeed subordinate legislation through regulation as well.

I am not a member of SARC, but as other members do we receive the alert digests. In this one in particular we see a number of issues which have been raised by the SARC as it relates to this bill. SARC references that they have concerns that this bill trespasses unduly on rights and freedoms when it comes to the presumption of innocence – a very longstanding legal practice in this country. They note that even where charges are pending, this can lead to adverse actions being taken against individuals. The report also notes that it trespasses unduly on people’s rights and freedoms when it comes to spent convictions and implied repeal. It trespasses unduly upon rights and freedoms with regard to freedom of association, and freedom of association is of course one of the very fundamental rights that not just Victorians but all Australians have. I understand one of the very first pieces of legislation in our Commonwealth Parliament was to codify the rights of all Australians to freely associate, be they in unions or in other contexts. That is a very important thing and part of the bedrock foundation of our union movement. I will come back to the union movement as a whole a little bit later on.

In the view of SARC, the bill also makes rights, freedoms or obligations dependent on non-reviewable administrative decisions. Again, part of due process is that people do have the appropriate rights to recourse to challenge a decision that they may believe to be unfair and to go through every reasonable avenue. That is a very fundamental part of our judicial and our legal systems, and any bill which undermines that, even in a relatively small area of society, is a very dangerous thing and one we should not be rushing in to do – certainly not rushing into with the evident gaps in detail and the evident gaps in what this legislation before us here today provides, which is again why you legislate with the outcomes in mind, not with the media attention that will you get for a piece of legislation in mind. Pages and pages and pages of this SARC report continue talking about the risks of undue influence, undue requirement or authorisations – practices that may have an adverse impact on personal privacy within the meaning of the Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014 – and that is not even getting into the issues of where SARC views the bill coming into conflict with the charter of human rights. So there is a significant issue, as I say. Noting that there are currently no opposition members in the chamber, I am not sure how committed they actually are to this bill; however, if they were here, perhaps they would like to explain to us just exactly how these things can be suitably addressed and suitably answered. I see they have come back in, so I look forward to that explanation.

Notwithstanding the very, very many issues within this bill, as I said at the outset, this is a very significant issue which has come to public attention, and that is exactly why the government is taking serious action. I spoke earlier today about the Wilson inquiry that was set up immediately by Premier Jacinta Allan. I also note in particular that today the government is implementing its own legislation to directly address the issue of serious organised crime. Indeed they will be amongst the strongest laws in the country, if enacted, when it comes to stamping out organised crime. The Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024 as it is known will, as I said, be this new set of laws which addresses the unlawful association of criminal syndicates and criminal participants and other various gangs and criminal groups. The work will be done deliberately to complement work at the federal level to stamp out rotten behaviour where it has come up in the construction industry.

I do want to make a note of saying that despite whatever bad eggs, there are a great deal many more people – construction workers, electricians and other various people involved in major construction projects, the vast majority in fact – who do a hard day’s work for a fair day’s pay and deserve to be treated with that level of respect.

Evan Mulholland interjected.

Michael GALEA: I will absolutely not accept those opposite saying that the hardworking men and women who go to work each day – I will not have them being accused of taking bribes and all this other stuff. The actions of a few bad apples do not mean that an everyday worker on a construction site is doing those, and for you to imply that is a disgrace. It is an absolute disgrace for you to imply that about everyday Victorians doing their bit, helping out our state enormously through the Big Build. These people are going into their places of work just to do their jobs to support their workers, and for you to make those allegations against them, Mr Mulholland, is absolutely disgraceful.

The action that the government’s bill will focus on will not be attacking everyday workers, be they in construction or in health care or driving public transport or whatever else it might be. The actions in this bill will go directly to the heart of addressing the issue of organised crime and stamping it out. What we have from Mr Mulholland and his Liberal Party is a bill that is by his very own admission just then about attacking working people in Victoria and saying that everyday workers on construction projects are participating in the sorts of disgraceful behaviour that we have seen. They should not have to deal with that in their union, in their companies and in their workplace, and that is exactly why the government has taken firm action. The working people, the real working people of the union, deserve better than to have criminals infiltrating and getting involved with their workplaces.

Unions do play such a pivotal and important role in workplaces, whether in construction, in retail, in professional services, in nursing, in teaching or in public service, when it comes to protecting the living conditions, when it comes to advancing the pay improvements and other improvements for these people and when it comes to, perhaps most importantly of all, making these workplaces safe so that people can come home in the same condition that they went to work in. I have seen, in my previous career, far too many people dealing with the impacts of serious workplace traumas and injuries and the toll that they had on them and their families. In other sectors we have seen cases of deaths in workplaces, and that is something that has particularly been seen on construction sites.

We cannot overstate the importance of workplace health and safety, and that is something that working unions, along with health and safety reps and other things with them, are so pivotal in securing. What I do not want to see is the actions of a few officials who have gone very, very wayward and quite possibly outrageously corrupt – that is a disgusting thing, and it is a disgrace to working people that they would go into a union to take profit for themselves over others; that is a disgrace, and they should be out of the union movement. But the vast majority of people on these worksites – these delegates, these members, whichever union it is – are going in to advance themselves, their families and their workmates.

What we have in this legislation, aside from the very many issues with regard to what SARC has raised in its report, comes back to the fact that when the Liberals talk about this, they are talking about undermining the rights of working people, and that is ultimately what it is about. We know that they have opposed virtually every major infrastructure project that this state has done. They would rip those jobs away from those honest, hardworking people. I think one of the Liberal members before talked about filling in the tunnels of the Suburban Rail Loop. At least the silver lining of that is you would at least need some workers to do that, but aside from that disgraceful short-sightedness you would be ripping out those jobs that we have delivered with the Metro Tunnel and with the various road projects such as the West Gate Tunnel and the North East Link. You would rip out, for example, the level crossing removals that we have been investing in. These are all things that we have faced opposition from from those opposite. The big city- and state-changing infrastructure projects, right down to the Regional Rail Revival and other projects right across Victoria, are projects that the Liberal Party have opposed and attempted to block at every opportunity. Indeed we have seen it just today, just an hour or so ago, in the previous motion when they tried to stop and oppose yet another major infrastructure project. The result of that, if they were to be successful, if they were to ever be given the reins of power, would be that these people would not have their jobs. There would be no jobs in continuing to tunnel the Suburban Rail Loop. There would be none of the thousands of jobs for electricians to power the Suburban Rail Loop.

We know in fact that the Liberal Party are not really concerned about such things. On one of the few occasions in the last government when they actually did make some sort of transport investment, I was actually living in Pakenham at the time next to a brand new station – and I am very, very grateful that there was a new station at Cardinia Road. However, the then Liberal government forgot to provide an electricity substation so that trains could actually accelerate out of this new station. So they could run past, but they could not actually stop. We had a brand new station, and then no train could stop there. It was several months later before we actually got those trains up and running again. That is, I guess, what you have as well when you have a government that completely blithely ignores the role that electricians or other working people play and that you need to have. When it comes to these infrastructure projects, you need a steady stream of work – if you will, a pipeline of work – so that working people can continue to be supported and have the jobs that they need when it comes to making the Big Build happen and making the infrastructure changes that all Victorians need, be it for the local school being upgraded or rebuilt, the new road duplication, the new bus route or of course the major new transport projects.

I will reiterate that this is an important subject, and I do not discount that for a second; it is a very important subject that we are discussing today. The bill that we have before us does not treat the matter with the seriousness it deserves, and that 13-page blistering SARC report underscores why it should not be taken seriously. The government, under Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes, has brought in legislation to the Parliament today, which I very much look forward to debating at a point in the near future and which will bring in effective measures to, as I said, make Victoria one of the toughest states on organised crime. This is a government that, to steal a phrase from abroad, is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, because you need to address things from the source, and this is a bill that will bring in tough measures that will effectively work to stamp out bad behaviour, whether it occurs in construction or indeed in any other sector.

I will conclude my comments there. For the reasons I have outlined I will not be supporting the bill today, but I am very much looking forward to having some better legislation in a very short period of time, which I will enthusiastically support in the interests of making sure that the honest, hardworking people who make the Big Build and other projects happen can be supported and have honest, open workplaces.

Jacinta ERMACORA (Western Victoria) (16:30): I am happy and sad to speak on this bill, really. I have not got a lot of good things to say about this bill, although I am going to try and find a positive reframe as much as I can. I think it is not a very good example of legislation, and the reason is because it essentially proposes to ban anyone from working in the construction industry that has a criminal record or an association with someone that has a criminal record. It kind of sounds like a good idea, except let us have a look at just how that is going to play out in the community. Look at the evidence of how that will play out. It proposes to establish a legal form of discrimination – that is my opinion – against a significant portion of our community, many of whom are now upstanding citizens or indeed have always been upstanding citizens. The groups captured under this so-called bill are people who may have served their time in prison and have re-entered society, having committed some kind of an offence. That flies in the face of everything we know about restorative justice, everything we know about rebuilding your life after you have been in prison and all of the research that we know in the youth justice space, which we just debated last sitting week, about rebuilding the person – rebuilding the child – and bringing them back into society in a way where they can behave acceptably but also in a way where they can contribute to our society through employment, paying taxes and being a self-sustaining member of our community. Under this bill all of those people are not eligible to have a job – in this case, in the construction industry. I would even go as far as saying there is a bunch of legislation that would need to be changed in the justice space to accommodate this, so it is very poor from that perspective.

Then in relation to the bill’s use of the word ‘association’, a further group of people stand to be officially and legally discriminated against if this bill is passed – people related to a criminal or a former criminal. So if you are a child of a criminal or if you are the partner of a criminal or the parents of someone who was a criminal or is a criminal, that may well potentially exclude you from working in the construction industry. I think back to what Ms Terpstra said about the all-women drilling team. It is a real shame if people cannot go into an industry that might interest them or that might give them great satisfaction or at least give them a secure job and decent pay.

Then there is another group under this heading of association, and that is survivors of sexual assault and family violence. Even an ex-partner of a person who is guilty of family violence or sexual assault may be deemed as having been associated with someone with a criminal background. That is unclear in this bill. It is very, very all encompassing. The absurdity of this proposal is almost unbelievable. In fact it really does make me wonder if it was just hastily thrown together to provide the opposition with another opportunity to have a bit of a conversation about unionism – that concept that they do not really like.

To that effect I want to talk about what has been happening and what has been revealed in recent weeks. What we have seen in recent media reports is not trade unionism. Reports of organised crime elements infiltrating construction sites and the CFMEU are absolutely unacceptable. Construction workers certainly do dangerous work, and it is an important job. You only need to have the privilege of observing a construction site to see what must be very, very complex work in an incredibly dangerous environment, with cranes working all the time. The skill sets involved in working on a building site I think are absolutely fascinating but also a very strong set of skills that are unique. They are the workers delivering the benefits of the Big Build in Victoria in many cases, and they deserve good, honourable, honest union representation that puts their safety first and is in it for the right reasons. It is unacceptable for this important work to be undermined by any form of criminal or corrupt conduct.

The government has moved quickly to stamp this out, partnering with the federal government, which has the responsibility for industrial relations. I do remember when Jeff Kennett handed over responsibility for industrial relations to the federal government. Whether it was the right or wrong thing to do I do not have a view about, but it certainly changed the state’s role in industrial relations, so much of the regulation and monitoring in that space falls within the purview of the federal government. But of course the Victorian government have also taken action to make sure that we investigate anything untoward that may have been going on. We have set up an independent inquiry to rapidly investigate the government’s powers to address revelations of corruption, and that inquiry will be headed by respected senior public servant Greg Wilson, former Secretary of the Department of Justice and Regulation. Mr Wilson has been asked for recommendations on strengthening the state’s powers to address potential corruption and address any possible gaps in the government’s or a government body’s powers under that Victorian bailiwick. On this side of the chamber we believe everyone has the right to feel safe at work. Those opposite are really interested in playing political games with this. We have got multiple investigations underway, and I think that is the appropriate thing to do.

I just want to go on before I finish up. The construction industry and in particular the workers in the construction industry are working on Victoria’s Big Build projects, which of course we are incredibly proud of. That work is helping to shape the future of our state, whether it is tunnelling, whether it is construction or whether it is public transport. In particular with the Warrnambool railway line, I just want to highlight the complexity. I have learned a lot just monitoring and observing the work that has been going on on the regional rail upgrade on the Warrnambool line project in order to ready that line for VLocity trains. By the way, I do not think the coalition ever thought there would be VLocity trains there, but I can absolutely guarantee you that I saw one of the first VLocity trains on Saturday morning. They were testing the train, training the driver and testing the line and signalling by bringing the test train up to Warrnambool.

In terms of the Warrnambool line upgrade, upwards of 50 to 53 level crossings – in fact every public level crossing between Geelong and Warrnambool – are going to be fully signalised. When I say fully signalised, that is triple signalised – lights, bells and boom gates. This is going to be a huge safety improvement for the community of the south-west and the farming communities between Geelong and Warrnambool who cross that line. The complexity of the construction work in that project alone has involved installing wiring and signalling a kilometre each side of each crossing, so at various times there have been upwards of 600 construction workers working on that upgrade between Geelong and Warrnambool. I am very proud of the work of construction workers in our region and across the whole state.

Stabling facilities to allow the new VLocity trains to be cleaned and for the toilets to be removed and cleaned will be going in at the Warrnambool station. There have been sleeper replacements. There has been a station upgrade so that there are now fully compliant automated doors so that people with a disability can go in – and fully accessible toilets as well. There will be rumble strips perhaps updated on the platform and also a hearing loop added as well. That allows people with hearing aids to directly receive a station message through their hearing aids, which again is an inclusive thing that previously was not possible. You can imagine standing on the platform asking someone you do not know, ‘What was that announcement?’ Again, that is another incredibly positive infrastructure project that has a reflection of the values of our Labor government all over it.

In closing, I want to say that it really disappoints me to see a proposal that involves so much discrimination against people who want to get their lives back on track, and we certainly will not be supporting this bill.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (16:45): There have been some extraordinary comments by those opposite in regard to this bill, but can I pass on one message to the pimply-faced people who are writing these speeches, maybe with not so much experience, in the Premier’s private office: maybe give your members different speeches to say different things, because we hear so much repeating of lines and of talking points – most of which are untrue, by the way. We just see repetition after repetition in regard to these members all saying the same thing. To be honest, it is boring to hear the same things from member after member repeating exactly the same lines, most of which are wrong.

One interesting thing Mr Berger said was that the government was delivering Metro 2, which as far as I am aware, they have not even announced that they are delivering, which is interesting. Mr Galea talked about – I think he confused his words a bit. He said ‘a hard day’s pay for a hard day’s work’ or something along those lines. I know what he actually meant.

As uncovered in the media, we have seen a huge amount of kickbacks on state government projects – kickbacks using taxpayer money for their own benefit – and I know they have got the talking point in there that they all repeated, that, ‘This is not unionism.’ You have had union bosses that have literally said, ‘Okay. Here’s four shifts. You only have to have two turn up, and we’ll take the rest. We’ll just claim they all turned up and take the rest.’

You have got other examples where the union bosses have literally had members who were docked for Metro Tunnel work come to their homes and renovate their own houses at taxpayer expense. Every parent, every family that pays taxes is paying for union bosses to have their own homes renovated, but these guys think it is okay. That side of the chamber thinks it is all good – nothing to see here. These are union bosses personally benefiting from taxpayer dollars that we all pay, that everyone pays in taxes, for their own benefit.

We see the government itself has preferenced the CFMEU. They have aided and abetted, and they say they are talking about it now. We know the Premier is disgusted and says these revelations are completely new and she is completely shocked about it. Then when asked by Nick McKenzie if she knew, she said, ‘What? What? What? What?’ Of course they had documents. I also asked her about a lot of these matters last year and she said they were matters for the federal government, but now she is completely shocked.

I want to touch on something Ms Ermacora said that was completely wrong: that a domestic violence survivor – and I am – associated with a criminal bikie could be affected and prohibited from going on construction sites. This bill, if the member had read it, actually leaves it to the discretion of the Chief Commissioner of Police to report on associations and furnish relevant intelligence to decide if someone is an associate of a criminal organisation. Does that side of the house not trust the Chief Commissioner of Police? That is the assertion that is being made. Now I see on the day we are voting on this bill the government has finally announced some changes. The police have only been asking for extra powers since 2016. The government has finally been dragged kicking and screaming to bring in laws, but there are a number of things that I want to comment on – reasons why I think our laws are better. Our bill requires mandatory criminal and intelligence checks for all new employees on government worksites; Labor’s does not. Labor’s bill instead relies on organised crime figures openly identifying themselves on sites – volunteering to identify themselves through the display of covers – and on police coming forward to employers with relevant intelligence.

Labor’s bill reportedly beefs up their existing anti-consorting laws, which by the way have to date never been used to declare a bikie gang or organisation, so how can we possibly trust these new laws if they have actually never been used? I note Ms Symes said today police will be able to charge people if they are a current member of a prescribed criminal organisation when they enter a Victorian worksite. To date there are not any prescribed organisations – there just are not. We list that in the bill. Our bill fixes it by listing key known bikie organisations that are already prescribed in other jurisdictions. Ms Symes’s comment is basically nil – that police will be able to charge them – when we do not actually know, according to government legislation, who they are.

Another key difference is our bill is proactive. It deals with the issue at the procurement phase as well. It mandates background checks as a precondition of signing a contract and roots out all bikie influence across the sector. Based on the government’s announcement, their bill gives Victoria Police the ability to charge bikies if they come on a worksite. But how would they actually know? That is the question. How would they actually know who is on the worksite? It seems like the only people that get charged here are people under the active surveillance of police or those who openly declare themselves to be bikies. So the government’s bill is reactive. They have been dragged kicking and screaming. There have been repeated attempts by Victoria Police asking for these laws from as far back as 2016. The government has done nothing about it. They have reacted to detailed stories in the media.

The Premier on a lot of occasions has been warned about what has been going on on construction sites. And what is the Premier’s response? What is Premier Allan’s response? Actively preferencing the CFMEU on state government construction sites. We know this through documents obtained on the Commonwealth Games. For the build of the athletes village to all tenderers they put out: ‘If you’re not going to use a CFMEU workforce, you need not apply.’ That was written in the contract, extraordinarily. Usually they just get people in a room and say, ‘You have to use a CFMEU workforce.’ It was literally written in the contract for the athletes village. No wonder the CFMEU –

Harriet Shing interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I can show you the contract. I am happy to show you the contract, Minister. You may have been responsible for that.

In regard to the athletes villages for the Commonwealth Games, the government wrote it in the contract. It does not actually appear in any other contracts, but we know the government preferenced the CFMEU on state government construction sites, and we know that because of what happened with the east–west link, where you could not possibly have an AWU workforce. I think the day after or the second day after that was announced –

Members interjecting.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Don’t you talk to me about business cases. You have not submitted one to Infrastructure Australia for the Suburban Rail Loop. They are still waiting on it.

I saw many members speak about the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee report, and I am happy to make available my detailed response to SARC, which was acknowledged. I will make that available to members that want to peruse that –

David Davis interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: but it was in the digest. Please have a read. I encourage all members to have a read.

The bill responds to a real and ongoing threat of organised crime in Victorian government construction sites and on construction projects. It prioritises transparency, accountability and safety while carefully balancing and respecting individual rights. The bill is a proportionate response. The bill strikes a careful balance between protecting rights under the charter and the imperative to safeguard public safety and project integrity. The limitations on rights such as freedom of association and privacy are proportionate, targeted and justified within the specific context of preventing organised crime from infiltrating government projects. The bill carefully balances individual rights with the need to protect public safety and maintain the integrity of projects.

The bill’s restrictions on employing individuals associated with criminal organisations as outlined in clause 6(1) are a justified limitation on the right to freedom of association under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. The bill mirrors a framework created by the Criminal Organisations Control Act 2012, where such limitations have been upheld as necessary for public safety. In this context the bill’s focus is on government construction projects, where the stakes are high and the risks of criminal influence are too great to ignore. I think it is quite clear that they are too great to ignore, but they have been ignored by this government for years. What was said on the 60 Minutes program? It is an open secret. They all knew about it but they did nothing. They did absolutely nothing to stop the infiltration of criminal elements on taxpayer-funded construction sites.

David Davis interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: By doing nothing they are –

John Berger: On a point of order, Acting President, I think Mr Davis is out of his seat. If he is going to interject –

Members interjecting.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): Order! I would like to hear the point of order again, please, Mr Berger. I could not hear it.

John Berger: Thank you, Acting President. Mr Davis was interjecting while not in his seat.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): I uphold the point of order. If you are going to speak, you speak from your seat.

Evan MULHOLLAND: They are absolutely complicit in what is going on – the coercion, the corruption, the kickbacks that dodgy union officials have received to renovate their own homes and the ghost shifts that have occurred on major projects. And you wonder why there is over $40 billion of cost blowouts on our major projects – taxpayer-funded cost blowouts – which means you have to cut hospitals and you have to cut funding across the board. You are having to cancel other desperately needed infrastructure projects in our growth areas because of your cost blowouts on construction sites, because you have got dodgy union officials – and I agree – giving unionism a bad name, giving good unionists a bad name and giving good construction workers a bad name.

We have criminal elements on construction sites, like on the Hurstbridge line upgrade, where you have got bikie gang members using taxpayer-funded government cars to run criminal operations. And everyone knew about it. It was an open secret; people knew from the hospital reports. But what did the government do? Nothing – absolutely nothing. They hid it away and waited for it to be reported by 60 Minutes – an absolute disgrace. This Premier has been responsible for taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects for the past 10 years and is complicit in what has gone on, because she has aided and abetted the CFMEU, a criminal enterprise, at every step of the way. We need to support this bill. It is a good bill, and if the government is actually serious about getting criminal elements and bikies off government construction sites it will pass this bill. We know that there are criminal elements on our construction sites. The CFMEU acted very quickly when under the threat of administration to get rid of over 20 bikies from construction sites. But we know – and do not think I do not know – that there are more. There are absolutely more. The government’s pathetic attempt at an announcement today to avoid a serious vote on this bill is weaselling their way out. It is not proactive. It means that people will have to volunteer if they are a bikie gang member. The police might just have to show up and ask nicely. This is why this bill should be supported.

Council divided on motion:

Ayes (14): Melina Bath, Gaelle Broad, Georgie Crozier, David Davis, Renee Heath, Ann-Marie Hermans, Wendy Lovell, Trung Luu, Bev McArthur, Joe McCracken, Nick McGowan, Evan Mulholland, Rikkie-Lee Tyrrell, Richard Welch

Noes (22): Ryan Batchelor, John Berger, Lizzie Blandthorn, Katherine Copsey, Enver Erdogan, Jacinta Ermacora, David Ettershank, Michael Galea, Shaun Leane, Sarah Mansfield, Tom McIntosh, Rachel Payne, Aiv Puglielli, Georgie Purcell, Samantha Ratnam, Harriet Shing, Ingrid Stitt, Jaclyn Symes, Lee Tarlamis, Sonja Terpstra, Gayle Tierney, Sheena Watt

Motion negatived.