Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity this afternoon to make a statement on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019. We've all heard the contributions from those opposite, trying to justify why this bill should not proceed. Their hypocrisy is rank. Day after day, they continue to stand up for the union bosses over the workers they claim to represent. They stand up for unions over small and family businesses, they stand up for unions over everyday Australians who are out there having a go, and they stand up for unions over the law. It might come as a shock to them, but it's us—only us—on this side of the chamber who are standing up for everyday Australians. We've banned dodgy secret payments between employers and unions, we've protected over 35,000 owner-operator truckies, and, despite the nonsense that Senator Watt spouted this morning, we've stopped a hostile union takeover of 60,000 CFA volunteers, and we're protecting 1.1 million construction workers and 380,000 small businesses from their thuggery.

We often talk about the pub test in this place. I can tell you that Australians reject the idea that the unions should be a law unto themselves, they reject the notion that they're immune from our legal system, and they reject the double standards of those opposite here. We believe in enforcing the rule of law and in holding law-breakers to account. Our reintroduction of the ensuring integrity bill demonstrates that commitment. We're making organisations, whether they be unions or otherwise, more accountable, ensuring they're delivering in the best interests of their members, keeping Australian industries moving and the economy growing and making sure the jobs are being created.

As a senator and also a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, I sat through the hearings on this bill, and I had the great pleasure of enduring the many hours of questions from those opposite to employer organisations and to unions. After all of that, it became clear to me that they have little to no reasonable justification for standing in the way of this bill. They have nothing. They've published a dissenting report, which is no surprise, but what is it? It is a long bow that they've tried to draw, a very, very long bow. So concerned are those opposite about the impact on lawlessness and on their campaign coffers that they've claimed that this bill would have adverse impacts on 'the state of democracy in Australia'—I mean, how far can they go! They say that it's going to take us down 'an authoritarian path', and that it undermines our human rights obligations in relation to freedom of association. Give us a break. This is just about ensuring that those who have the great pleasure of being a union official or representing workers might need to comply with the law. Yet they take it so far. That being said, I do find it interesting that in their view there is no policy justification for this bill.

Some of Australia's best legal minds have made the following comments in their judgements:

The union has not displayed—

this is what was said—

any contrition or remorse for its conduct.

…   …   …

Substantial penalties for misconduct, prior to that presently under consideration, have not caused the CFMEU to desist from similar unlawful conduct.

In another judgement, they said:

… the facts demonstrate the need to impose penalties which meet the objective of specific deterrence, particularly in relation to the CFMEU whose organisers appear to have shown a somewhat cavalier disregard both of the need to comply with the law and of penalties which have been previously imposed on the union for similar conduct.

It paints a pretty depressing picture for those opposite and their dwindling union membership base.

The Leader of the Opposition in this place went on live TV just yesterday morning claiming that these laws were undermining the ability of workers to do their job. This is the best that they can do, and this is what they expect us to believe. When they can't win on reason—we've seen how hard they've tried and failed in the inquiry into this bill—they just set out to scare people they claim to represent. I would urge the Senate to support the bill when it comes up, finally, and get on the right side of history.