Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I'm not sure how many people in this place have actually read the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. I note there are not that many people from the government speaking in support of it. But this bill does contain some unprecedented provisions, and, when civil liberties groups make the point that this threatens some of the fundamental principles of the rule of law and the way that processes are usually followed in this country, we should listen to them.

It, of course, goes without saying that criminality and corruption are serious matters. That's why we as the Greens were pushing for an independent anticorruption commission before anybody else in this place. We introduced legislation to bring it about. We pushed to strengthen it. There is zero tolerance, I suspect, from anyone in this place for violence, including on workplaces and in organisations, whether it happens in a corporation, in a union or anywhere else. We have also fought very, very strongly, and we'll always fight, against sexism wherever it occurs in society, because it is a society-wide problem.

But what usually happens in our society when there are serious allegations of criminality is that the law enforcement authorities investigate; if there's evidence, they bring a matter before a court; the court decides whether or not a crime has been committed; and then it issues a sentence on the basis of that. And also outside the criminal sphere, if there are allegations of other kinds of wrongdoing, there are processes for dealing with that as well. Indeed, in the Fair Work Act there are processes for dealing with putting unions into administration. In this instance a process was in fact underway and was working its way through the courts, including about the very allegations that have been referred to here by the government and by the opposition.

Given all of that, the approach we the Greens take is to say, 'Well, if there are strong laws in place already and strong law enforcement agencies in place already, then investigate every claim, and if someone has done something wrong then the appropriate punishment should follow.' We've seen something very different here from the government, though. The government has brought in legislation that, in its own words, is unprecedented and is the toughest action ever taken against a union or a corporation. They were I think the words of the minister. So, they brought in unprecedented legislation to override all the existing processes that are set up and that are part of what we would call the rule of law here in this country. You would think that bringing this legislation in such a rushed way, doing something that has never been done before, would be worthy of very serious scrutiny, to justify why it needs to be done and why it needs to be done in this way, and then to make sure that, if you're going to do it, there are no unintended consequences.

But, coming back to my point suggesting that no-one has actually read the legislation: under this legislation, if there's a change of government then Michaelia Cash will be able to appoint Tony Abbott as the administrator of the construction union. That is what is being pushed through here with this unprecedented, rushed and flawed legislation. They're basically handing over the keys to an incoming coalition government should there be a change of government at the next election.

There are also provisions in this legislation, as has been pointed out, that make offences retrospective. Now, sometimes, in very rare instances, legislation is released that says, 'This operates from date X; here are the provisions'—even if it might not have been legislated—'and if you breach them from now on, that is what is going to apply.' This legislation says it is a civil offence to breach rules of a scheme that have not even been made public yet. In other words, under this legislation, going back several months, you can be prosecuted for or found guilty of breaching rules that haven't even been enforced yet, that aren't even public yet.

Again I make the point about whether anyone has actually read this legislation. In the Federal Court they said, 'Well, here are a number of branches of the CFMEU against which a number of serious allegations have been made, and we're seeking administration against those.' This bill applies to the whole union, even those branches where no suggestion has been raised that they've done anything wrong. All those officials, all those employees, are now caught by this, even though there's not even a newspaper article that suggests something wrong has been done.

This legislation also provides for the administrator to put individuals on a blacklist that means not only that they can't work in the industry again but also that they can't work in many other areas again. Crucially, though, there's nothing in the legislation that requires the administrator to do any kind of investigation or satisfy themselves in any way before they do that. In other words, there's no test. So a basic principle of procedural fairness—which is that you at least ought to have some grounds against you and be entitled to know what they are—doesn't apply here.

This is why it's so important that legislation like this is not rushed. If you give people power to do something like that, what if they make a mistake and someone who's entirely innocent gets kicked out of their position and put on a blacklist and has no guaranteed way of getting back in? There are no safeguards in this legislation for people who've done nothing wrong, they're caught up in it.

Why is this happening? This is happening because the government has decided to introduce rushed legislation that is draconian and that offends against the rule of law and takes away people's basic rights, and they've decided to go and work with the anti-union, anti-worker Liberals to get it passed.

We pointed out these matters to the government. We said that they needed to be fixed and we said that there needed to be a different approach taken because otherwise you are fundamentally threatening the rule of law. Instead, the government has decided to work with the Liberals to—in their words—'make the bill tougher'.

In this situation, the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties has said this, and it's important to listen to what they said because they made some very, very serious points.

The NSW Council for Civil Liberties has serious concerns with the Federal Government's Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 and the Government's accompanying amendments. While any allegation of criminality is serious and must be addressed, the powers set out in this bill are far-reaching and establish a dangerous precedent for the trade union movement, membership-based organisations, and the rights of individuals to natural justice and procedural fairness.

The rushed nature of this legislation which is designed to override a process begun by the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court threatens the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. We note that the proposed legislation would set a precedent where membership-based organisations can have democratic control externally removed on the basis of untested allegations. This is of concern to all Unions, registered Clubs, and Australian membership-based organisations.

The Bill violates Australia's obligations under the International Labour Organisation, namely Articles 3 and 4 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948.

The NSWCCL has long held that everyone has the right to natural justice and procedural fairness, regardless of the allegations they face. If this legislation is passed next week, it threatens this fundamental right. The right to freedom of association and the nature of membership-based organisations across Australia must be protected.

They are absolutely right in saying that.

We now have a situation with the passage of this bill where Labor is potentially handing over the keys to one of the country's biggest unions to Michaelia Cash if there's a change of government at the next election, without having put in place any basic protections for the entirely innocent individuals who will get caught up in this legislation. All the while, they're removing the basic principle that if you've got an allegation against you, it should be tested. That's something that, up until this legislation, if you asked most people in this country, 'Do you think that if there's an allegation against you it should be tested? most people would say yes. Labor and the Liberals say no and that they're prepared to take away your rights and potentially put Michaelia Cash in charge of a union. That is being done in order to rush legislation through this parliament.

I'll repeat the point that we made these points to the government repeatedly and suggested ways of dealing with it. But that's clearly not what the government wanted to do. As a result, there will be a lot of people around this country who will be concerned. After the passage of this legislation, they will be wondering who's next. As the New South Wales Council for Civil Liberties has said: if this is the test that now gets applied, what will it mean for my rights and for my organisation's rights? That will be on the Labor Party's and the Liberal Party's heads. They clearly want this legislation to pass, even with all its flaws, and that is something that should be very concerning to people in this country and to anyone who believes in the basic principles of freedom of association, of the rule of law and of respect for individuals' rights.

We're witnessing today, in the boastful words of the minister, the passage of some of the most serious and powerful legislation ever brought against a union. They seem to be cheering it through. I would urge people who think this is so good to consider why no-one from the government is here speaking in favour of it. Labor and Liberals, when you read the legislation and you realise what you're actually doing, you ought to understand why so many people across this country will now look at this and be worried, thinking: am I next?

See this speech in context