Tuesday, 30 July 2024

Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill 2024

Introduction

David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (15:05): I move:

That I introduce a bill for an act to impose certain obligations on parties to construction contracts entered into by or on behalf of the Crown and on certain registered employee organisations and for other purposes.

This bill is about booting bikies and organised criminals off taxpayer-funded worksites. The bill is a test for the Premier’s leadership. If the Premier is serious about cleaning up corruption on the Big Build, then Labor will act immediately and support this bill.

As a proud Victorian, I hate that this Labor government has turned Victoria into the gangster state. Labor’s rotten culture of CFMEU corruption did not happen overnight. It has been happening for years, and it must end right now. For a decade, first as the minister in charge of the Big Build and now as the leader of our state, the Premier has turned a blind eye to John Setka and the CFMEU corruption on taxpayer-funded building sites. For years the Premier has put on a hard hat and a hi-vis vest and taken media out to Big Build projects and Allan government sites at any possible opportunity. And the cost to the Big Build – that did not matter. The CFMEU bullying and corruption – that did not matter. The one thing that mattered to the Premier was cutting ribbons and getting the headlines. Well, this must stop. We need to clean up corruption. We need to clean it up now, and that is why we need to introduce this bill right here and now to remove bikies from Big Build sites.

The CFMEU bikie gangs have bullied contractors into signing away taxpayer funds on CFMEU deals. They have harassed workers who refused to join their union. They have taken over every single major project in this state and driven project costs right through the roof. And because the Premier has spent a decade doing deals with her CFMEU donors, Victorians are paying the price: $40 billion in infrastructure projects; the highest taxes in the country; cuts to hospitals, schools, emergency services, local hospitals and infrastructure and roads. Everything is a shambles because we are broke, and the money is being spent on the rorts of taxpayer funds. A state debt bigger than New South Wales –

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I am not quite sure what the member for Caulfield is speaking about now, but it is definitely not on whether or not to introduce a bill into this place. I ask that you call him back to addressing the issue that he wishes to raise, which is introducing a bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Caulfield was talking about reasons for introducing his bill and can continue.

David SOUTHWICK: I know the government is keen to hide the facts, but it is so important right now to clean up the mess – to clean up the bikie gangs from the Big Build on taxpayer-funded construction sites. The time is now. Not in a week, not in a month, not in a year – it is right now. If the Premier is serious about cleaning up this mess, the Premier would move to this bill and debate the bill and pass the bill. There is nothing more important now than cleaning up this mess. Every single day wasted is more taxpayer-funded money that is being used to pay people off and to ensure this criminal behaviour by these bikies continues to happen. Dollars wasted: $40 billion of taxpayers money has been wasted on these projects, and we now know where this money has gone. In recent times, even since this was exposed by 60 Minutes, we have been told that this behaviour is continuing to happen. Only today I received a message from somebody on a Big Build site to say the CFMEU has got worse. No more delays, no more wasting time – if the Premier wants to show some leadership, if the Premier wants to clean up the mess, she simply needs to pass this bill now.

This bill is so important to clean up corruption. It removes bikies and criminal activities off Big Build sites. It treats these worksites like every other worksite. If everybody else has the ability to run police checks, why shouldn’t we do the same on these Big Build sites? Why can’t we get these things under control?

We know for a decade, as the minister in charge of the Big Build and now as the leader of our state, the Premier has been John Setka’s chief enabler. She has allowed bikies to get rich off taxpayer-funded projects, all while slashing funding for teachers, nurses, hospitals, schools and regional roads. Victorians are paying the price because Labor cannot manage major projects, and the Premier has been in charge for 10 years.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is not an opportunity to mislead the house. I ask that you ask the member for Caulfield to deal in facts. Our government has not cut funding to health or schools, or any of the other allegations that he has made.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order, Leader of the House, and I think you know that. The member’s time has expired.

Paul EDBROOKE (Frankston) (15:11): Unbelievable. It is almost as if those in the opposition think that the louder they speak, the more truth they speak, or the more angry they get, the more factual they will be. Even in hearing the long-form title for this bill I was a little bit confused. We had the long-form title of this bill, and then the shadow minister went off on his own rant, totally against standing order 60, about how bills should be put together in the form that the house requires. We have an agreement where the Leader of the House, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and any third party, under standing orders, will meet as a business committee, and they will try to agree with members of the house on what the house will deal with for government business that week. This is the first time I have heard of this bill being introduced, and certainly I do not see any reason to change our government business program to accept this.

We have heard a ton of allegations from that side of the house, certainly things that I think people would not say on the front steps of Parliament about others. It is great to have the protection of parliamentary privilege, but I would say to other people: be brave, step 10 steps outside the door and say those things to the media. Say those things loud and clear and tell us what you really think, because it is incredibly cowardly to make allegations under parliamentary privilege like we have just heard. The facts still remain, as the Minister for Health just said, on allegations regarding cuts. As the minister said, there have been no cuts to health. We still hear this time and time again from the opposition, again like repetition will make something a fact. It is very Trumpian. It is very JD Vance in a lot of ways as well. But certainly in this house, where on this side we have integrity, we will not be putting up with rubbish like that.

I stand up now to say to those opposite: if you do have a bill you would like to introduce in good faith, a bill that would help the community of Victoria, bring it to the business committee that sorts out the business of the house. Do it the right way. Do not just stand up and do the performative content for the cameras. Do not just stand up like the Greens and be media influencers and put your clips on social media. If you want to get things done in this house, do it the right way. For that reason I see no reason to support the introduction of this bill today. I do not think there would be a person in this house that would see a bill being based on dialogue, as we just heard, that is not factual, that is very inaccurate, to say the least – you would not base a bill on that. You would not base the substance of a bill on that. It brings into question whether this bill has actually been formed under the procedures of the house, and those procedures in the standing orders are very, very black and white. I note again that the long-form title of this bill is far from the 5 minutes we just heard from the opposition.

David Southwick: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member should know that you are not able to actually speak on the bill. This is in terms of the importance of having the bill brought on and the timing of the bill., so I ask you to bring him back to his contribution.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Frankston was referring to the long title. Before that ‍–

Members interjecting.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am not sure any of us actually know the content of the bill. Certainly I do not, so I cannot necessarily comment. But I encourage the member to come to the purpose of the introduction or otherwise.

Paul EDBROOKE: If that is all they have got, I am feeling quite safe. I know people on this side agree that this would be a flagrant waste of the house’s resources, especially with the reasoning we have just heard, to put this bill up in this house. With that, I will leave it to other members of this house to give their opinion on why we should not be supporting this.

Bridget VALLENCE (Evelyn) (15:15): Under Labor in Victoria the ugly gangster culture of bullying, thuggery, intimidation, abuse and corruption by CFMEU bosses and bikie gangs is absolutely rife and enabled by Premier Allan’s Big Build, the rotten Big Build. This is precisely why we are introducing the Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill 2024, because it is about time we restore integrity on construction projects and state government projects in this state. We have all known about this militant and corrupt behaviour for at least a decade, but with the exposure in these past weeks the Liberal leader John Pesutto has wasted no time in ensuring integrity in construction is restored, which is why this major projects integrity bill should be debated and should be debated now.

The Victorian Liberals have demanded a royal commission. We have written the terms of reference already, and we have committed to a Liberal government installing a new building watchdog to rid Labor’s state government projects of criminal links and corruption. But sadly Premier Allan and the Labor government have ignored these important reforms, which is precisely why we are introducing this major projects integrity bill for debate today.

Juliana Addison: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, I believe the member for Evelyn still thinks that she is at Liberal Party state conference and not in the Parliament.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Wendouree knows better. That is not a point of order, and she is warned.

Bridget VALLENCE: Clearly Labor thinks corruption on state government projects is funny, which is why you are doing absolutely nothing to clean it up. If you are serious about this you would absolutely clean it up, and you would support this bill and bring it on for debate right now.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member is not using the correct forms of this house. She is referring to ‘you’. I am sure she is not meaning to cast aspersions against you, Deputy Speaker, but that is exactly what she is doing in her speech. I ask you to call her back, to use the correct forms of the house and to respect you as Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I ask all members to refrain from using the word ‘you’ as it is a reflection on the Chair. I also ask the member for Evelyn to resume her debate on the introduction of this bill.

Bridget VALLENCE: The Premier was minister for the Big Build and major transport infrastructure projects dominated by CFMEU control and thuggery, and it is really hard to believe that the Premier or anyone in this Labor government was not aware of the corruption taking place on these infrastructure projects. It has become the rotten Big Build, and when serious allegations of corruption and criminal links surfaced a few weeks ago, Premier Allan took half a week to come out of hiding before fronting up to the cameras to say that she would, and I quote, ‘tear this rotten culture out by its roots’.

If the Premier was actually serious about doing just that and tearing this rotten culture out by its roots and being true to her word, then the Premier would support this bill. If she and the Labor government do not support this bill and have debate right now, then Premier Allan is effectively giving a green light to bikie gangs and convicted criminals to continue the bullying, abuse and intimidation on worksites like the West Gate Tunnel Project and like the North East Link Program today. Nothing has changed, and the Premier and Labor’s dismal response to have a bureaucrat doing a bureaucratic review will do nothing to restore integrity and safety on these worksites. They are not safe for the construction workers who want to do the right thing. It is not safe for them right now under this Labor government – these workers are trying to do the right thing – and that is because the Premier has a vested interest in appeasing militant and corrupt CFMEU bosses so she can keep her grip on power longer.

Mary-Anne Thomas: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this narrow procedural debate is not an opportunity for the member for Evelyn to cast imputations on the Premier. I ask you to ask her to refrain from doing so.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take it the point of order is on relevance. The member had strayed a little from the introduction of the bill. Please come back.

Bridget VALLENCE: We see that Premier Allan wants to keep her grip on power, but we want to restore integrity and safety on construction projects, on state government projects, which is precisely why we want to bring on debate right now on the Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill. Allegations of kickbacks and misuse of public funds by the CFMEU are not being ruled out by this Labor government.

Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:20): I am going to pick up on that word ‘integrity’, because I think if the opposition were really serious about prosecuting that matter then they would have raised this particular bill in the appropriate format. They would have done it in good faith and not gone on the rather extraneous tangents that we have heard over the past 10 to 20 minutes or so, with all sorts of accusations flying wildly.

James Newbury: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, just for clarity for the chamber, we are at the moment on introduction of bills. Is there another time to introduce a bill other than during introduction of bills?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I do not believe that is a point of order, but I am quite happy to refer your question to the Speaker for a response. The member for Albert Park to respond to the introduction of the bill debate.

Nina TAYLOR: The premise to that I would be prepared to give the benefit of the doubt if it had been put forward in an appropriate manner. But we saw the wild and woolly accusations flying left, right and centre, because it is hard to see a central and consistent thread – a purposive element to the central tenets of legislation to be put forward here and to be taken seriously. Rather we saw this sort of wild and woolly rant, plus all sorts of pretty scurrilous accusations et cetera that were not well substantiated. Hence it is hard to give this purported legislation any sort of credence or to value it because of the rather loose and fast manner in which it has been introduced to the chamber. Referring to some of the language that has already been referred to – X equals Y and all sorts of strange correlations – it really does not make good sense.

On that front, I am not questioning the introduction of a bill per se, but I am looking to the lack of rigour that has been attributed to this process in the chamber. Ergo how can it be taken seriously when you look at the rather ridiculous manner in which all sorts of accusations are flying about? On the one hand, ‘It is strictly procedural’; on the other hand, ‘We are seeking to validate this legislation.’ It is all very confusing. I would suggest if they really did have conviction behind this cure-all bill that purports to be able to magically correct anything and everything that is going on in the state of Victoria, then they would have put in a little more work in the lead-up to the delivery of this particular piece of legislation. Hence we are not particularly impressed in the chamber and would prefer that we could actually debate bills that have been introduced appropriately and which have the requisite rigour.

David Southwick: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, just for clarification if I could, the request was for the ability to introduce the bill, not to debate the bill. Can I have clarification: are we able to debate the actual contents of the bill? Because if we can, our next speaker will do that. I think the member is straying in terms of what she is saying.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate is on the introduction of the bill. The member for Albert Park was debating the introduction of the bill, and she can continue.

Nina TAYLOR: Exactly. I concur 100 per cent with the premise on which the Deputy Speaker has responded to the query that was raised, because on the one hand saying, ‘Yes, we do not debate the bill’ is accepted – granted – but on the other hand, wild and woolly accusations are flying about as if somehow to validate the premise of the introduction of this bill. That seems to be rather contradictory in and of itself. Hence it is not that evident on this side of the chamber exactly what the opposition are trying to achieve, but for a stunt to interrupt the normal and appropriate processes of the Parliament. Of course we are accustomed to the opposition delaying, mucking about and obstructing processes in the chamber. Yes, granted, we are accustomed to this. However, on this front I would say a bit more rigour in the lead-up to the introduction of the bill would go a long way, rather than flouncing about and making some pretty unfair and unwarranted accusations which were not substantiated in any case. On that note I will – (Time expired)

Wayne FARNHAM (Narracan) (15:25): I am very happy to rise to speak on the Government Construction Projects Integrity Bill 2024. I am going to start off by saying this first off: there are hardworking men and women in the construction division of the CFMEU. I have many friends working on government projects. We are going to talk about facts. I am going to go to facts, but I want to say this first up: there are many, many hardworking men and women that are not guilty of corruption. It is a small, small percentage of people. I have been in this industry a long time and I have had to deal with the construction division of the CFMEU. I have had to deal with them and their bullying tactics, and their intimidation has been the same for a very long time. But over the last decade it has accelerated. The current crop of CFMEU organisers make Normie Gallagher look like a pickpocket compared to what they have been doing in the construction industry. They make Normie Gallagher look like he took small change. I can tell you now I have been on worksites where I have had to put up with these roided, neck-tattooed Neanderthals – because that is what they are, and they intimidate people.

The Premier alone has been in this portfolio since she has been here. She has been in government a decade, and you cannot tell me that it passes the pub test that she did not know prior to 2022. I find that absolutely amazing. But this bill is about stamping out the corruption. The City of Melbourne now in construction is like the old New York mafia days in the 1980s, when we had the five crime families. But now we have got the bikies – and nobody can deny that. The member for Frankston wanted to be factual. That is factual. There is bikie infiltration right throughout this construction industry now, and the government either has chosen not to do anything or is powerless to do something, to do anything at all. Back in 2010 to 2014 under Napthine and Baillieu we had a watchdog, a state-based watchdog, and it was fantastic because the unions had to give us notice to come onsite. They had to give us a reason to come onsite, and it quelled the behaviour of the union. There is nothing there anymore. Then when their Labor federal mates abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission these guys saw it as a green light and went nuts.

This industry has to be cleaned up. We are giving the government an opportunity to support this bill, to back what the Premier says, to clean the industry up, roots and all. The Premier has said it 100 times in the last week. So why won’t we pass this bill to clean it up? This is the first step. If you are serious about cleaning up the industry, take notice of what we are doing, because we are doing it for a good reason. We are trying to protect the workers – the honest workers of the CFMEU. We do not care about the corrupt ones. We are trying to protect the honest people that go to work; they are trying to earn a living, support their family and put their kids through school. That is what this bill is about. It is about getting rid of the criminal element, and I cannot believe the government is resistant to this. They are resistant to something that is going to protect workers.

What about the young fellow that the CFMEU thugs locked in the shed? He went home that night for 3 hours and then committed suicide. This is what this bill is about. This is why we are debating this bill. Get on board with it, because we are doing it for good reason. I contributed to this bill, and I am proud I did, because I know the problems in the industry. There are a lot more problems out there than what have been reported to date – Nick McKenzie has only touched the tip of the iceberg. But the problem is people will not come forward because they are scared. You end up with a big bikie on your front door because you spoke out and you see how you feel – you have got your wife and kids inside. How would that feel, for anyone to end up with one of these thugs on their doorstep?

I would strongly urge the government to get behind this bill because we have introduced it for good reason – because the criminal element in the construction industry now is rife. The government has had a decade to deal with that and has done five-eighths of stuff-all. So now it is time to get on board, read the bill, see what the bill is about, support the bill and clean up the bloody industry.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I remind the member for Narracan that ‘bloody’ is unparliamentary.

Wayne FARNHAM: My apologies, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Accepted.

Nick STAIKOS (Bentleigh) (15:30): I did not disagree with everything that the member for Narracan just said. I think the member for Narracan is a good, decent member and I do respect the expertise that he brings to this house. But I will say this: I disagree with him when he says that the opposition have brought this bill to the Parliament with the best of intentions. This is just a stunt. It is just a stunt because the opposition know the outcome of the vote we are about to take, because the government overwhelmingly has the numbers in this house. But I would also say there is no need for the member for Caulfield’s intervention on this matter. The government does not require the member for Caulfield’s intervention on this matter, because the government has also taken a number of steps to address the rotten culture that was uncovered in recent revelations by the media. Firstly, the government has referred these matters to both Victoria Police and the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission. Secondly, it is important to note that in the 1990s industrial relations powers ‍– the bulk of them anyway – were referred to the Commonwealth government, so the state government, based on that, has requested that the federal government use its own powers under the Fair Work Act ‍2009 to review and if necessary to terminate CFMEU enterprise bargaining agreements on Victorian construction sites to prevent criminal activity.

As the Premier reminded the house again today, she has ensured that the government will undertake an independent review to strengthen the power of Victorian government agencies that are engaged with construction companies and construction unions. So the reality is that we do not need the intervention of the opposition to deal with this matter. This is a very inexperienced opposition. It is probably the most inexperienced opposition in the country. The government does not need their assistance or their intervention to deal with this matter. The government has already outlined a series of very strong steps to deal with this matter.

If I were a cynic – and I am a bit of a cynic sometimes – I would say that this has a lot more to do with the decade-long opposition of those opposite to the government’s infrastructure agenda. We heard from their second speaker on this, the member for Evelyn, who called it the rotten Big Build. But I have heard the member for Evelyn in this house I guess really lament the fact that the government has removed several level crossings in her electorate in Lilydale, I think, so there we go!

Bridget Vallence: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker, this is a serious procedural motion about introducing a bill to remove criminals who are actually still on state government construction sites today. Perhaps instead of trying to joke about things, government members may want to come back to the very narrow procedural debate about introducing a bill that will rid the Labor government’s projects of criminal elements.

David Southwick: On the point of order, Deputy Speaker, the member for Bentleigh also misquoted the member for Evelyn, saying she called it the rotten Big Build. I think Nick McKenzie also called it the rotten Big Build.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, member for Caulfield. It was going so well. The member for Bentleigh had strayed somewhat, and I bring him back.

Nick STAIKOS: With points of order like that, my point is reinforced that the government does not need their intervention to deal with this matter – not at all. But I have made the point that the government is already addressing these revelations. That is why we do not need such a bill to be introduced. And as I said earlier, I do very cynically believe that perhaps this has more to do with a decade-long opposition to the government’s historic infrastructure agenda, which I think has served Victorians very, very well. I really do think that this is an opposition that is very, very good at wasting the house’s time. We see that sitting week after sitting week. They know what the outcome of this vote is going to be, yet they persist in wasting the time of this Parliament. I do hope that they turn over a new leaf after this is over, because there is a lot we need to deal with as a Parliament. We are debating three bills this week. We have got more bills to debate next week that we are introducing this week. I will leave it at that.

Assembly divided on motion:

Ayes (26): Brad Battin, Jade Benham, Roma Britnell, Tim Bull, Martin Cameron, Annabelle Cleeland, Chris Crewther, Wayne Farnham, Sam Groth, Matthew Guy, David Hodgett, Emma Kealy, Tim McCurdy, Cindy McLeish, James Newbury, Danny O’Brien, Michael O’Brien, Kim O’Keeffe, John Pesutto, Richard Riordan, Brad Rowswell, David Southwick, Bill Tilley, Bridget Vallence, Peter Walsh, Jess Wilson

Noes (51): Juliana Addison, Jacinta Allan, Colin Brooks, Josh Bull, Anthony Carbines, Ben Carroll, Anthony Cianflone, Sarah Connolly, Chris Couzens, Jordan Crugnale, Lily D’Ambrosio, Daniela De Martino, Steve Dimopoulos, Paul Edbrooke, Matt Fregon, Ella George, Luba Grigorovitch, Bronwyn Halfpenny, Katie Hall, Paul Hamer, Martha Haylett, Mathew Hilakari, Melissa Horne, Natalie Hutchins, Lauren Kathage, Sonya Kilkenny, Nathan Lambert, Alison Marchant, Kathleen Matthews-Ward, Steve McGhie, Paul Mercurio, John Mullahy, Tim Pallas, Danny Pearson, Pauline Richards, Tim Richardson, Michaela Settle, Ros Spence, Nick Staikos, Natalie Suleyman, Meng Heang Tak, Jackson Taylor, Nina Taylor, Kat Theophanous, Mary-Anne Thomas, Emma Vulin, Iwan Walters, Vicki Ward, Dylan Wight, Gabrielle Williams, Belinda Wilson

Motion defeated.