Phillip Thompson (Herbert, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations. I too am confident about Australia's future. Will the minister outline to the House how the Morrison government is working to make it even better, through its plans to protect Australian workers; and is the minister aware of any alternative policies?

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

I thank the minister for his question. The other group of people that we will stand up for are people who are routinely bullied, harassed and intimidated on construction sites around Australia. The ensuring union integrity bill is specifically designed to protect the people, who have included female inspectors, health and safety inspectors, apprentices, stubbies, contractors, small-business people, who have been bullied, harassed and intimidated. These people deserve the protection of an appropriate legislative scheme, which is what is contained in the ensuring integrity bill.

We've heard members opposite today—great champions of democracy that they are—criticise this government for dealing with this issue by moving the legislation through this parliament. And yesterday the shadow minister tried to move a motion which would have had the effect of banning this parliament from dealing with the ensuring integrity bill until the date 1 July 2022. He tried to move a motion that, for 2½ years, would have banned this parliament from dealing with a bill which is meant to protect people on worksites. Now, that doesn't sound terribly democratic, does it? In fact, what they did yesterday was give the clearest indication that they had no interest in debating a bill which seeks to protect people on worksites across Australia, because they wanted to ban the parliament from dealing with it at all, in any way, for 2½ years. What a strange thing for a member of parliament to do—to try and move a motion to ban parliament from dealing with a bill. Why on earth do you think that that might happen? The answer is that this bill goes specifically and directly to the behaviour of the CFMMEU—specifically and directly to the behaviour of an organisation that has racked up $16 million worth in fines for over 2,200 offences.

What is also notable about the CFMMEU is that they have given $14 million to the Labor Party. The outrage that we saw this morning—that's what it's all about. The more the outrage is shown, the more the money flows into the Labor Party. The more you try to ban parliament from dealing with this problem by banning parliament from dealing with the bill that will solve the problem, the more the money flows. Ultimately, that is what it is all about. And a big wad of that money comes from the Victorian branch of the CFMMEU, led by a man who has committed contempt of court, assault, assault of police, wilful trespass, resisting arrest, coercion—and you always seem to have room to take his money.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

The Attorney's time has concluded. The member for Solomon will leave under standing order 94(a).

The member for Solomon then left the chamber.