Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Will the minister please explain whether the government is concerned at reports of repeated and consistent breaches of workplace relations laws by militant unions? What is the government doing to address these matters?

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. Of course, we are concerned about that. There is a very important bill before this House today that would allow for a court to make a finding that a person was not a fit and proper person to be a public official for a union or, indeed, for an employer association. It applies to both of those instances. For instance, the court may make that finding that because the person in question had a significant history of breaking Australian civil law or because they had a history of breaking serious criminal laws that are punishable by two years or more of imprisonment. Ultimately, it must benefit employees, workers and all Australians who pay for infrastructure that the court has the discretion to disqualify a serious lawbreaker from holding a position of public office in a union.

It has become obvious this week that the members opposite don't like being asked whose side they are on. Instead, why don't we ask who is on Labor's side? Is John Setka, the Victorian branch secretary of the CFMEU, on Labor's side? He was on the Labor team for a very, very long time. The Leader of the Opposition then said he was off the side. It now looks like he is back on the side and is going to be there for quite some period of time. The Leader of the Opposition said he would be gone by 5 July. The Leader of the Opposition even said that it was an open-and-shut case. Clearly he has been getting more legal advice from the shadow Attorney-General. Although he's batting better than his usual average, because he got the open part of the open-and-shut case right. It's just that the shut part was a little bit of a problem.

On radio, it was put to the Leader of the Opposition:

Well you're putting yourself on the line if he isn't thrown out, it makes you look pretty silly as leader.

Remember that 5 July was the deadline. The Leader of Opposition said 'that's right'. It is right, because he's still there. Why would it be the case that we would have one rule about what is a fit and proper person for the Labor Party but have a completely different rule for what is a fit and proper person to hold a public office in a union? Indeed, why would you oppose a bill that sought to put a test in place so that a court could actually determine what is a fit and proper person to hold public office?

An honourable member: What are you afraid of?

That's a good question. What is there to fear for the Labor Party? Perhaps it was identified by that very man—John Setka himself—when he said that he'd stop the CFMEU giving money to the Labor Party. As he said, it would be a 'big threat' to a lot of people. One response, Leader of the Opposition, is that you could get rid of that problem entirely by declining to take money from the CFMEU. There would then be nothing to worry about and nothing to fear. You could float through and see this person gotten rid of.

Ms Kearney interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Cooper is warned!

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Surely there must be a reasonable test to see people such as this no longer holding public office in the union movement. (Time expired)