Tony Smith (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware of any allegations of corrupted tender processes in public works in Victoria? What is the government’s response to these serious allegations, and what do they reveal about the role of industrial intimidation in the building and construction industry?

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Casey for his question. Indeed I am aware of allegations because today the Melbourne Age newspaper, on its front page, under the headline ‘Minister “caved in to unions”’, revealed that a senior Victorian Labor minister, John Lenders, caved in to pressure from the CFMEU to not award a contract to a Victorian company because that company had given evidence to the Cole royal commission into the building and construction inquiry.

This story as revealed by the Age newspaper is a very serious allegation against a senior Victorian Labor minister in the Bracks government, because it goes on to allege that the minister was involved in a conspiracy to pay a bribe in a public works tendering process. This relates to an $8 million public works contract in Victoria in which the company, Able Demolitions, was removed from the tender short list for the demolition of the Morwell Gasworks. The allegation has foundation because the Bracks government has previously admitted to breaking the law by removing the contractor from the short list. But, having admitted that, they then fought for a court case all the way to the full court of the Federal Court of Australia to seek to prevent the revelation or the disclosure and the production of the documents in the case. Of course, these documents go to why this contractor was excluded.

The documents that have been obtained by the Age newspaper, under a freedom of information request, show that Mr Lenders removed the contract from the tender list because of pressure from the CFMEU. Why did it do this? This occurred because this contractor had the temerity to provide evidence to the Cole royal commission about activities of the CFMEU on building sites in Victoria. This supports other evidence which was also provided to the royal commission about the influence of the CFMEU on the Victorian government.

Let us make no mistake about this: this was payback. This was payback by a Labor government on behalf of the Victorian CFMEU, and the point here is: if a union such as the CFMEU can exert this influence on a senior Labor state minister in the state of Victoria, then imagine what influence they would exert on the Leader of the Opposition if he were ever in such a position. Why do I say that? Because the Leader of the Opposition has already caved in. He has already caved in to this influence from the CFMEU, because they have demanded, and he has announced, that he would abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission—the very body which has been established to look into cases of thuggery and intimidation—

Peter McGauran (Gippsland, National Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bribery.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and, as it looks like now, bribery, which has been underway within the building and construction industry—a very vital sector of the economy in Australia.

What this reflects is why this Cole commission was put in place. It reflects the need for legislation such as that which has established the Building and Construction Commission, but what it also reflects is the weakness of Labor governments at a state level and the weakness at a federal level in terms of the Leader of the Opposition, who is prepared to cave in to union demands and to in fact allow to remain in place this sort of intimidation and thuggery and, indeed, possibly bribery as well. What it shows once again is the essential weakness of the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to these matters, his inability to actually stand up for what is right and what is proper—his weakness in every case that he simply bows to the bosses and the thugs of the union movement.