Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Can he confirm that the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019 would mean the same actions taken by unions for asbestos victims could result in union officials being struck off, unions being deregistered and rogue employers like James Hardie getting off scot-free? Can the Prime Minister tell the asbestos victims who are in the gallery right now why he is on the side of rogue employers like James Hardie rather than the victims in the gallery today?

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

It is simply an incorrect contention. It is one that has been made before. In fact, I think during the Senate committee process on this bill the point was sought to be made—it's not a true point—that minor infractions of industrial law could lead to deregistration. That's absolutely not the case. In fact, when it was raised during the Senate committee process by members opposite and endorsed by them, they took issue with two proposed sections of the law—proposed sections 28F and 28G in the bill. What is most notable, I think, is that those two proposed sections in the current bill were put into the industrial law by Labor in 2009. They were put into the industrial law by their side of politics in 2009.

The government has absolutely no interest in having—and it is a ridiculous proposition to suggest otherwise—anything other than the most serious, repetitive lawbreaking ever resulting in deregistration. That is for a great number of reasons, including the fact that ultimately the question resides with a court as to whether or not it would be just in all the circumstances to deregister. The fact is that we have organisations at the moment, such as the CFMMEU, that are in such constant and repetitive breach of the laws of this country that nothing is able to be done about them.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business on a point of order?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, it's on direct relevance. When we have asbestos victims in the gallery, he could at least give them three minutes to talk about a real issue.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The Attorney-General and Leader of the House has the call. He is being relevant to the question.

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

The answer to the question is direct. This is not about those victims. It's not about them at all. It is about the 83 separate CFMMEU officials who, since 1 January 2017, have breached the industrial law of Australia—

Ms Butler interjecting—

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

The Leader of the House will just pause for a second. The member for Griffith interjects loudly every day. The next interjection will see her ejected. Okay? I have made that very, very clear.

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

It is not about the people that you cite. This is about the 83 separate CFMMEU officials who, since 1 January 2017, have breached the law of this country 426 times. You turn a blind eye to it and you will not support the legislation that would let a rational, reasonable government end that sort of behaviour. That's the sort of behaviour we're talking about, not the spurious and pathetic argument that you're raising here now.