Marise Payne (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I didn't expect anything better from those opposite, and I wasn't disappointed. The Leader of the Government in the Senate has moved a resolution this morning to bring on the debate on this bill. We have had 34 speakers, which has taken just over 11 hours of time—as it should for a bill that is a very important bill for this chamber to discuss. The bill was introduced into the parliament in July. It's been the subject of multiple inquiries, and it has been the subject of intensive and extensive debate in this chamber. Interestingly: what does it mean those opposite are afraid of? Are they afraid of recognising the fact that registered organisations in this country, both employer associations and unions, have a privileged position in the Australian industrial relations system and in the economy more broadly and should be accountable? Is that what they're afraid of? Are they afraid of making accountable people who breach the trust they hold in leading registered organisations, breach the trust of their members? Is that what they're afraid of? Are they afraid of those who exercise their own interests at the expense of their members' interests being held to account? You could be forgiven for thinking that.

As the Attorney-General pointed out in the House of Representatives yesterday, in the beginning of the second reading debate on this bill, there were 15 speeches by Labor senators. Apparently it amounted to 37,000 words, and I feel slightly sorry for the person who had to count that. In those 37,000 words, the attributes of the principal registered organisation that concerns part of this bill, the CFMMEU, was mentioned—how many times? How many times do you think it was mentioned? It was mentioned only once, and it wasn't acknowledged at all—no errors, no mistakes, no excesses acknowledged at all. They are living in oblivion. They are completely oblivious to the impact these organisations have on workers, they're oblivious to the impact these organisations have on the economy and they are asserting that this is a process of endeavouring to rush through a bill. Nothing could be further from the truth—34 speakers, and over 11 hours of debate.

So, after multiple inquiries, after months of the bill being on the table, the government seeks to bring the bill on, because we have seen egregious, persistent and consistent ignoring of the requirements of basic lawful behaviour in this country. And Australia is a rule-of-law country. We absolutely have the reasonable expectation that registered organisations will behave according to the law and will comply with the law, but in mountains of examples they do not. So, this bill is absolutely required to have been reintroduced. It is required in order to restore integrity. It is required in order to provide that, where an organisation, a division, a branch or an officer is doing the wrong thing, something can be done to stop the misconduct and to assure members that organisations are acting with integrity and that they are acting in the interests of members and not in the interests of their leaders. We know that the existing laws have proven to be lacking, including observation of those laws, in addressing the widespread culture of misconduct in some registered organisations. We went through some of that last night, and I am sure we will discuss it at length today.

Our intention to is to ensure that registered organisations are representative of and accountable to their members. We want to encourage the efficient management of organisations, with high standards of accountability providing for the democratic control of organisations. They are basic principles of competent administration and they are completely rejected by those opposite, which speaks volumes for the way they would approach government. We have seen that in the past, as well.

This bill is absolutely consistent with the purpose of the act under which it sits because its provisions are directed at ensuring that all organisations act with integrity and act in the best interests of their members. I would have thought that would be in the nation's interest, I would have thought it would have been in the interests of the registered organisations, and I would have thought it would have been in the interests of the Senate to continue the discussion of this bill today.