Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019 because our government has a strong belief not only that the rule of law should be respected but that those who choose to break the law should be held to account. The reintroduction of this bill demonstrates our commitment to upholding the rule of law in this country, and I make no apology for supporting a bill that requires registered organisations to operate within the law for the benefit of their members and not themselves.

This bill contains measures that were called for by the trade union royal commission, and there have been some important changes made since its first iteration in 2017. I think it's also important to note that this bill has been amended from earlier versions to reflect many of the concerns that were raised by members opposite. The measures in this bill are designed to ensure registered organisations in this country are working in the members' interests and always within the bounds of the law. The bill is also specifically designed to zero in on any organisations or individuals that are not doing the right thing by their members. The fact is that unions, employer organisations and their appointed officers have a privileged position, with many members placing a great deal of trust in them. Members expect them to act in their interests and to treat their positions with the respect they deserve. It's important to note that there are many registered organisations that are doing the right thing. There are many that are treating their members fairly, contributing in a positive way and abiding by the law. But this bill is not going to impact organisations that are already doing the right thing. It is only the organisations or officials that are doing the wrong thing, and that continue to do so, that will be affected. The bill applies equally to unions and employer organisations, and only to conduct occurring after the commencement of this bill.

I'd like to focus for a moment on schedule 1 of the bill, which will amend the act by expanding the circumstances in which an official of a registered organisation may be automatically disqualified from office. In addition, this schedule makes it a criminal offence for a person disqualified from holding office in a registered organisation from continuing to hold that office. The Federal Court will also be given further discretionary powers, to disqualify an official from holding office in certain circumstances. These amendments are important for improving public confidence in the integrity of registered organisations and to hold to account repeated law-breakers who are currently holding or significantly influencing the office of a registered organisation.

It's really unfortunate that this action is required but we know that some unions just do not take the rule of law seriously. We've heard in this place about how John Setka's militant mega union, the CFMMEU, has been fined more than $16 million—and counting—for breaking the law. The CFMMEU also has more than 2,000 breaches and 74 representatives currently before the courts. It's really not surprising then that a Federal Court judge described the CFMMEU as the most recidivist corporate offender in Australian history.

It makes me sad to say to the House that in my electorate on the Central Coast I have seen some of the behaviour we've come to expect from some of these militant unions and unionists. I've seen some of this behaviour first-hand, during campaigns on prepoll and on polling day. And I know I'm not alone. I note that the member for Boothby has publicly spoken about her experience. I commend her for speaking out and sharing her story. I think it needs to be said, I think we need to call this behaviour out and I think we need to take action. This is part of the reason that I'm speaking in support of this bill. I'm proud to be part of this government, which is taking this issue seriously and making sure that registered organisations, union and employer organisations and their officials operate within the law.

My volunteers and I have been subject to some appalling behaviour during the recent campaign, including when one of my volunteers was allegedly physically assaulted outside a polling booth by a person in a union-branded T-shirt. Others were incredibly subjected to verbal abuse that in some cases was not only downright offensive but also wildly inappropriate and defamatory. Members of the union and elected union officials who were working on polling booths and prepoll regularly cast aspersions about my volunteers, me and other local elected representatives, making highly offensive and derogatory comments on a number of occasions. When we called out this inappropriate behaviour—which, of course, if it was done or said in the school yard, or on the floor of an office, would be called out for what it is, bullying—the most common reaction that we got was for them to defend their actions and say, 'It was perfectly fine,' because we were Liberals. Therefore, it was okay.

When it got particularly bad—so bad that many members who were not campaigning for me, cringed as well—on more than one occasion, members of even the Labor Party, union representatives and their volunteers indicated that they didn't feel they were able to call out or to stand up to this inappropriate behaviour of union officials, because of their position. We had other members in union campaign T-shirts urinating in front of a young female member, who was on my campaign team. A number of my campaign posters were defaced, slashed and dumped outside our electorate office, which, of course, is almost par for the course these days. Union members in 'Change the rules' T-shirts were part of what appeared to be a planned attempt to shame me in public, chanting what were quite frankly disgusting comments about my character, in front of my two children, who, I might say, are eight and 10 years of age. Some of these comments were also part of a paid social media campaign on the Facebook and Instagram pages of New South Wales Labor.

Why did this happen? Well, it's because I dared to have a different view and I dared to speak up about it. Sadly, I know that the member for Boothby and I are not unique in our experiences. Many of our colleagues have had similar ones. I note, though, that it seems that in recent years this behaviour and this standard has gotten worse, not better.

I raise these experiences because I am committed to calling out this behaviour whenever it occurs. There is neither a need nor a defence for thuggery and intimidation, no matter where it occurs, and I make no apology for standing up to this behaviour in my electorate, at polling places and in this place. It is not enough for unions like the CFMMEU to say they have progressive policies and ideas, they have a policy about bullying in the workplace or equality. It is just not true. Their actions have to match what they say they support and believe. We know that some do, and some are doing the right thing. But some are not. Some are part of militant unions that show blatant disregard for their members and the law.

The standard you accept is the standard you walk by. Right now, by opposing this bill, members opposite are effectively saying they think that what is going on right now because the country is somehow acceptable. How can the Leader of the Opposition say publicly that he does not support the actions of John Setka? How can he call for his expulsion from the Labor Party but somehow not support legislation that would see someone such as John Setka, if he continued his unlawful behaviour, be expelled from his position as a union official?

On this side, we believe that the thuggish behaviour of militant unionists should be banned and there should be consequences for those who continue to act unlawfully. That is what this bill does—and members opposite are opposing it. On this side of the House, we are taking action on the militant unions in this country and those who act unlawfully time and time again. This behaviour is a danger to some employees and to our economy. Lawbreaking unions can, for example, increase the cost of roads, hospitals and schools by up to 30 per cent.

Members opposite, in opposing this, have some serious questions to answer. Why do they see the systematic lawbreaking that we have seen from unions like the CFMMEU as acceptable? Why is it appropriate for the Labor Party to continue to take $1 million a year from a union that seems to have a budget built in for fines? Are they on the side of Australians working hard to get ahead—or ae they on the side of militant unions and big union money? The bill will help unions and employer groups to work for their members and not for themselves. That is what we on this side of the House are about. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context