Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

This bill is based on a lie. It's a scam from a government that couldn't lie straight in bed. The Turnbull government peddles the lie that corruption only happens in the industrial setting. Obviously, that raises many questions. Why would they go with such a scam? Why? Because they have certain interests to uphold—the interests of their constituency, and their constituency is corporate Australia. What does corporate Australia want? What do they have to do, according to the law? Work out how to increase their profits. What is one of the easiest ways to increase your profits? Go after unions—and that is what this bill effectively does.

Again, if you were serious about fighting corruption then you would go for it across the board. You would come in here with a bill that would deal with corruption wherever it rears its ugly head, whether it be in the industrial sphere—as this government has suddenly discovered—in the corporate board rooms, in the public sector, or in this parliament. Do we really think that there is no corruption at the federal level? We have heard that time and time again from the government. The government is showing us how biased it is. It is not taking on corruption wherever it appears, which is clearly the responsibility of any federal government, but is using corruption as a cover to continue its agenda to weaken the union movement. It is doing this even to the point where it will make it difficult for employers. You will find, when you dig into this bill, that, because of how broadly this bill has been drafted, it will become very difficult for employers and employees to engage in what are often normal practices.

What the government should do—because it really is so blind to where corruption appears—is apply the famous pub test it often trots out when it is hard-up for an argument. It should go and ask the regular punters what they think about corruption and where they think corruption is. I think even it would know, in its heart, that the answer it will get back is: politicians, corporate board rooms and, maybe, the public sector. That is what the regular punter would say if you went and asked: what do you think about corruption? But, looking at this bill, the government must be thinking, 'We can probably get away with it; we'll just go hard on the union movement again.'

What we've got here is a pathetic bill that would have been an embarrassment to draft. If passed, this is what would happen: it will only be the industrial sphere that will be targeted. Corrupt activities elsewhere have been ignored. The message coming from the government to areas other than the industrial sphere is: 'No worries. You can get away with it. There is no corruption in the federal parliament, or the corporate board rooms, or government agencies. No legislation is needed. You'll be right; you'll be able to get away with it.' That is effectively the message that's coming from this government when it brings in a bill like this. It is a bill that should be withdrawn.