Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Berowra for his question. On this particular day, after the Senate has passed the corrupting benefits legislation and we have accepted their amendments, it's good to ask: 'Why is it that the Leader of the Opposition is always on the wrong side of industrial relations reform that is designed to support workers? Why does he always find himself on the side of the union bosses and, in this case, on the side of those who had been taking corrupting benefits from employers over many years?'

The government has acted yet again on industrial relations reform in this country and yet again finds itself on the side of the worker and of the honest union official. And yet again the Labor Party finds itself on the side of the dodgy union official and the corrupt union boss. This is not the first time. Since this government has been in power—since 2013—particularly in the last 18 months and since the election, we have reintroduced the Australian Building and Construction Commission opposed by Labor; we have reintroduced the Registered Organisations Commission, which was opposed by Labor. We have protected the Victorian CFA volunteers against that thuggish union—again, opposed by Labor. And we protected the owner-operators of trucks across Australia who were being intimidated by the union movement—again, opposed by Labor.

The Labor Party even voted against the update of the Building Code in the Senate last night to try and disallow that instrument. Why do they always find themselves on the wrong side of this debate? The answer is very simple: it is because the Leader of the Opposition is hopelessly compromised by the CFMEU and by his own history as the national secretary and the state secretary of the Victorian division of the AWU.

While this government continues to act, the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition in particular runs scared from his handlers like John Setka in the CFMEU. If he had any strength, if he had any backbone, he would have at least expelled John Setka from the Labor Party and distanced the Labor Party from him. He himself says Labor has zero tolerance for criminal and corrupt behaviour, be it by employers or union reps in workplaces. Zero tolerance means no tolerance, so this Leader of the Opposition doesn't have zero tolerance all the time. Sometimes he has a little bit of tolerance for union corruption, because otherwise he would've voted.

See this speech in context