|
senate vote 2024-08-19#15
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-10-06 10:55:25
|
Title
Committees — Economics References Committee; Reference- Committees - Economics References Committee; Reference - CFMEU
Description
<p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>I move:</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2024-08-19.172.2) introduced by Queensland Senator [Pauline Hanson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/queensland/pauline_hanson) (One Nation), which means it failed.
- ### Motion text
- > *That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 18 November 2024:*
- >
- >> *The involvement of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) in the governance and management of industry superannuation funds, with particular reference to:*
- >>
- >> *(a) the implications of CFMEU members holding board positions on these superannuation funds, and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise;*
- >>
- >> *(b) the adequacy of the independent expert review mandated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in relation to trustees' compliance with their duty to act in the best financial interests of beneficiaries of the funds;*
- >>
- >> *(c) the broader impact of public allegations of misconduct within the CFMEU on the governance and trust management practices of industry superannuation funds;*
- >>
- >> *(d) the measures necessary to ensure transparency, independence and accountability in the governance of industry superannuation funds, particularly those with significant union involvement;*
- >>
- >> *(e) the role of APRA and other regulatory bodies in overseeing and enforcing compliance with prudential standards in industry superannuation funds; and*
- >>
- >> *(f) any related matters.*
<p class="italic">That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 18 November 2024:</p><p class="italic">The involvement of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) in the governance and management of industry superannuation funds, with particular reference to:</p><p class="italic">(a) the implications of CFMEU members holding board positions on these superannuation funds, and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise;</p><p class="italic">(b) the adequacy of the independent expert review mandated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in relation to trustees' compliance with their duty to act in the best financial interests of beneficiaries of the funds;</p><p class="italic">(c) the broader impact of public allegations of misconduct within the CFMEU on the governance and trust management practices of industry superannuation funds;</p><p class="italic">(d) the measures necessary to ensure transparency, independence and accountability in the governance of industry superannuation funds, particularly those with significant union involvement;</p><p class="italic">(e) the role of APRA and other regulatory bodies in overseeing and enforcing compliance with prudential standards in industry superannuation funds; and</p><p class="italic">(f) any related matters.</p><p>I spoke about these matters last week, but they bear repeating. It's about the CFMEU and industry superannuation funds. It's about them getting in bed with bikies and organised crime, criminal assaults on non-union workers who are just trying to make a living, them stalking and illegally intimidating people at their own homes, organised wage theft on an unprecedented scale in the coalmining industry, economic productivity in decline and major taxpayer funded construction projects worth billions of dollars at a standstill. All of this lies directly at the feet of the thugs in charge of the CFMEU and their puppets in Labor and the Greens.</p><p>I want to read part of an article from Robert Gottliebsen. He states:</p><p class="italic">It's been alleged for decades that the CFMEU, or at least groups closely linked to the union, have been involved in organised crime. Some of the legal and allegedly illegal money generated has swirled around in a massive pool that, from time to time, was allegedly used to fund both the ALP and the Greens.</p><p class="italic">… Increasingly, ALP people around the country have looked at the relationship between the CFMEU and the Victorian ALP which led to the "train to nowhere" project and worried that one day both the national government and other states might be ensnared in the same way.</p><p class="italic">Late last year, a warning bell rang. The CFMEU national construction division secretary Zach Smith stated that he would push to overhaul economic policy.</p><p class="italic">"I want to pull the Labor Party to the left on economics … I don't think economics works for working people. I think we need to have a massive rethink," he said. Then a few months later, the then boss of the union John Setka declared he was planning to use the union's delegates and members to sign up 1000 rank-and-file members to the Labor Party.</p><p class="italic">Such a large membership drive could give the CFMEU significant control over Labor preselection and party conferences, which elect the party executive and vote on policy.</p><p class="italic">It was time for the alleged CFMEU organised crime links to be revealed.</p><p>He goes on to say:</p><p class="italic">The ALP desperately wants legislation before the federal parliament to pass quickly, before the CFMEU money is diverted to obscure places enabling it to be again mobilised to exercise political power, Victorian style.</p><p class="italic">The original bill did not ban the administrator from making political donations—an important measure for the ALP, because any such donations would presumably go to the ALP (and maybe the Greens) and be an important source of funding in the next election. The Coalition stood firm and donations were banned. A big win.</p><p>One Nation supports that as well.</p><p>The conduct allegations made against the CFMEU have prompted the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to act. APRA has ordered two construction industry super funds, Cbus and the Queensland based BUSSQ, to have an independent review of their ties with the CFMEU. So they should. To have CFMEU members as directors of funds controlling almost $100 billion of Australian superannuation savings is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.</p><p>However, we've seen reviews like this before, and little to nothing has been done to implement the recommendations. The Cooper review of Australia's superannuation system in 2009 recommended that the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 be amended to ensure no less than one-third of employee representatives and trustee directors were non-associated. The Murray review of the financial system in 2014 recommended that a majority of independent directors and an independent chair be mandated for boards of corporate trustees of public offer superannuation funds. In that same year, an internal review of Cbus recommended the appointment of independent directors to its board. It wasn't implemented.</p><p>It's therefore understandable that yet another review ordered by APRA is unlikely to generate much confidence that these superannuation funds will rid themselves of the CFMEU's corrupt and malign influence. So I am moving a motion for a Senate inquiry into the involvement of the CFMEU in the governance and management of super industry funds. This inquiry will have the following terms of reference.</p><p>First, 'the implications of CFMEU members holding board positions on these superannuation funds and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise.' I say that because I have directors fees at the year ended 30 June 2023 here. The fees of A. Devasia of $50,368 were paid to AMWU. There's one here, A. Donnellan, which was $19,058, which was again paid to AMWU. Then there's R. Mallia, which was $109,648 plus super, which came to $121,224, to the CFMEU. Then we have J. O'Mara, $114,000 plus super, $818, to the CFMEU. You've got Setches, where another $89,037 went to CEPU. Wayne Swan, former Treasurer under the Labor government, received $199,000 plus $20,980, but that was as a director. He has been closely associated as a Treasurer with the Labor Party. M. Zelinsky had $45,901 paid to the AWU. All these payees are to unions. Where is the distancing?</p><p>The other terms of reference for the inquiry are:</p><p class="italic">the adequacy of the independent expert review mandated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) …</p><p class="italic">the broader impact of public allegations of misconduct within the CFMEU on the governance and trust management practices of industry superannuation funds;</p><p class="italic">the measures necessary to ensure transparency, independence and accountability in the governance of industry superannuation funds, particularly those with significant union involvement;</p><p class="italic">the role of APRA and other regulatory bodies in overseeing and enforcing compliance with prudential standards in industry superannuation funds; and</p><p class="italic">any related matters.</p><p>'Accountability' is the watchword here. Like their puppets in Labor and the Greens, the CFMEU doesn't believe it should be accountable to anyone—to the law, the parliament, the Australian people or even its own members.</p><p>Again, I must commend my One Nation colleague, Senator Roberts, for his diligence in uncovering wage theft, which has been called the largest case of wage theft in Australian history, by the CFMEU. Only after Senator Roberts exposed the unfair pay between work-hire workers and others did Labor do anything. I refer to the thugs controlling this union and their dirty deal with the mining company to rob hundreds of Queensland and Hunter Valley coalminers of their entitlements. If these thugs will steal entitlements from the members they're supposed to be helping, why on earth should they have any influence over the retirement savings of these same workers? They must be held accountable.</p><p>One Nation supports the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission, to support more accountability. Another effective curb on the CFMEU's unwarranted and unearned power would be to ban donations to political parties from this union or any associated entities. With that, I now must take you to another article, and it's by Hannah Wootton. It was written on 27 December 2023. It talks about donations to political parties and associated entities. She said:</p><p class="italic">The spending was revealed for the first time in late 2023, as funds were forced to publish itemised disclosures of funds' advertising, pay and political donation spending under tough new transparency laws.</p><p class="italic">Leaders of several funds faced questions from customers at their annual meetings about how their hefty spending on advertising and sponsorship meets their duty to always act in customers' best financial interests. Executives said marketing helped growth that would improve funds' scale and therefore drive down fees.</p><p class="italic">The prudential regulator and the Coalition—</p><p>and One Nation, in this as well—</p><p class="italic">are pressing for greater transparency about funds' spending and how it aligns with that legal obligation.</p><p class="italic">Construction industry fund Cbus paid unions the most of the eight super providers, with the bulk of its $2.6 million bill for sponsorships and directors fees going to the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union.</p><p>Perhaps we should ban these union thugs from any sort of involvement in elections. That would be a good start, wouldn't it! They certainly don't support democracy or the rule of law, so why should they even be accommodated? Yet, the industry super funds not only seem to accommodate them; they seem to protect them, and that is a serious issue. It's an issue that deserves a Senate inquiry, not another useless internal review ordered by APRA.</p><p>It's my expectation that the inquiry will uncover a lot of activity that demonstrates why the CFMEU doesn't belong in charge of almost $100 billion of Australians' retirement savings. Only last week, my office received correspondence from a non-union worker on Queensland's troubled Cross River Rail project saying: 'I'm a worker employed by the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane. I saw Senator Hanson's comments about this in the Senate today and would like to reach out. We have been picketed by CFMEU members for over a month now. Myself and my fellow employees who aren't members of the CFMEU have not crossed the picket lines to go to work, from fears of intimidation. A worker who crossed was attacked at his home only a few weeks ago. Our employer have taken us to the Fair Work Commission and won a ruling, legally forcing us back to work under threats of fines. However, they released all of our names and addresses on the court documents. This has put myself and hundreds of other workers in an impossible situation. I can speak for myself here, but I'm sure I am not alone. This is getting little media attention. No comments from my employer are being made on how they intend to rectify this. It is disgraceful what has happened—that their names and addresses have been released—and they are very worried about their safety now.'</p><p>That's what this inquiry is about—accountability. It's a dirty word for this Labor government, the most unaccountable in Australian history, with its litany of broken promises, NDAs and a Prime Minister who rivals Pontius Pilate for hand-washing. But accountability is a requirement of Australian democracy, and it's past time that the Prime Minister and his government and the Greens, with their unholy associations with the CFMEU, were held to account.</p><p>We can start by examining the CFMEU's unwarranted and alarming presence on super industry boards. If developers can't fund political parties or candidates, then why can unions? I question the Labor Party's direct connection to unions—the funding that transfers from unions into the coffers and election campaigns of Labor candidates. If money or services have changed hands, you can be sure deals have been done. Labor refuses to distance itself from union finances. How can the Labor government not pass legislation that has been bought and paid for by unions? It's jobs for the boys. Minister Watt won't act in the best interest of Australians, but only to make sure that their union cash cow keeps giving. In that spirit, I commend this motion to the Senate.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|