Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk again says, 'This is the way you want to bring back Work Choices.' Under her theory, the secret, cunning plan to bring back Work Choices is to go after rotten officials! That would be the way to bring it back! I would have thought there would be bipartisan support for that. It is not a return to Work Choices or anything else. It means ensuring the public can have confidence that there is a proper regulatory regime in place so that those who do the wrong thing will be held to account, such as those who, in that minority of cases—that small number who put a stain on all other representatives—instead of doing their jobs diligently for the benefit of those that they represent, seek to enrich themselves through rorts. Surely, we should all be able to agree on that. But it appears, as we debate this legislation, that we cannot. We cannot agree on something that seems fairly straightforward to me.

The introduction of a registered organisations watchdog will ensure governance of these organisations is kept to a high standard, and a robust compliance scheme will deter wrongdoing and promote good practice. This watchdog will also have the capacity to lead better and more thorough investigations of misconduct. The new Registered Organisations Commission will have the necessary independence and the powers it needs to regulate registered organisations effectively, efficiently and transparently.

I have referenced the HSU scandals: the Fair Work Australia investigation into the Health Services Union took far too long, and the ensuing legal proceedings remain ongoing. A KPMG review of Fair Work Australia's investigations into the Health Services Union identified shortcomings in the conduct of those investigations. Again, surely we would all want to see little more efficiency in the way these things are investigated. That is fair to the accused and to those who have allegedly had wrong done to them, because when these things are not investigated properly and efficiently—if they stretch out for years—that is not fair to the accused. If you are innocent and you are being investigated and it takes years and years to resolve, that is unfair to you. It is certainly unfair in a case where wrongdoing is not proven. It is unfair to those who are seeking redress. It is unfair that it would take so long to get justice in those cases. I think that is another aspect of this legislation which is important.

The commission will have the power to commence legal proceedings and refer possible criminal offences to the Director of Public Prosecutions or law enforcement agencies, as is appropriate. The bill also ensures there are appropriate sanctions against efforts to hinder or mislead investigations. Again, I would think that any observer with common sense would look at that and say, 'That seems a reasonable safeguard to ensure that investigations can occur and that we don't have someone trying to block those investigations, so the commission can thoroughly investigate the alleged wrongdoing and get to the bottom of it.'

I do not know whether or not this legislation will have the numbers in the Senate today. I know that the Labor Party is going to oppose it; I know that the Greens are going to oppose it. I think that is unfortunate. If the Senate does block this legislation it will be a genuine case of obstructionism.

There are many things we disagree on; there are many contentious things. When we debate budget changes they are difficult and we all understand that. Presumably, we are trying to get to the same goal. But I understand the contentiousness of that. But I do not see why this legislation would be contentious to any reasonable person. I do not see what would be contentious to a reasonable person, in saying, 'Yes, we've had some problems. Are they isolated cases? We certainly do not believe they represent the majority, but we know of some very serious wrongdoing.'

Senior judges have identified the fact that the penalties are simply ridiculously low. They favour wrongdoers. So some people have absolutely done the wrong thing where the penalties, at least according to some senior judges, are too low. You have senior union leaders like Paul Howes, saying, 'I don't have any problem at all with there being proper penalties, proper oversight and a proper regime for the minority who do the wrong thing.'

I would say to those considering how they are going to vote on this bill: are you really doing the right thing by your community, by hardworking men and women in Australia, who, in some cases, have been ripped off, if you leave a regime which makes it easier for them to be ripped off? Are you really doing the job of representing your community? I would have thought that a common-sense look at this legislation would say that it is fair, it is reasonable and it absolutely deserves to be supported by the Senate today.