Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to also make a contribution on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, which is before the Senate. Let me begin by remarking that industrial relations debates in our country have, for a very, very long period, been characterised or prosecuted through an ideological lens. On one level, that is very necessary because everyone comes to the parliament with a particular world view, and that world view informs their position on matters like industrial relations laws but also other matters. I'm a coalition senator who—and I suspect there are others as well—believes that the civility that we witness in our broad industrial relations environment is an important part of the work and contribution of the trade labour movement in our country many, many years ago. I think the safety that is afforded to workers and the entitlements that are afforded to workers are a productive and positive feature of our industrial relations system, and I don't mind acknowledging the fact that they were hard-fought gains by the trade labour movement, particularly in the early years of the birth of this nation.

But I'd also have to say that the broad Australian trade labour movement of today does not look like that, does not prosecute the interests of Australian workers and does not have a proud legacy like the Australian trade movement of generations before us does. When we look very, very closely, or perhaps look more deeply, at how this particular government chooses to operate, we can see more clearly that it has a very strong preference—a laziness, almost—to work through big business, big government and big unions. And the interests of the ordinary worker in our country, I think, are being left behind.

That corporatist style of politics, which I think is rightly a particular style afforded to previous Labor governments and which I think we can see quite clearly in the actions and approach undertaken by this Labor government, I believe diminishes the interests of Australian workers. So, when we come to the particular bill that's before us, which seeks to correct what has been the most outrageous behaviour of a trade union organisation thus far, I think many senators can say with great confidence that the interests of the government in bringing forward this particular legislation are less about wanting to protect and stand up for the rights of ordinary workers and more about wanting to protect the institutional arrangements that dominate the modern Australian Labor Party and are a feature of the modern Australian labour movement.

Much attention has been put on the CFMEU and their known activities to date. I'm someone who believes that unfortunately this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Today we talk about the CFMEU; tomorrow we might talk about the HSU or the TWU. I suspect that what we're being asked to address today is not behaviour that is uncommon or almost unique. This is behaviour that has been empowered, emboldened and left unprosecuted because it's been protected by the institutional arrangements that govern the Australian trade union movement in the broadest sense and also its political partner the Australian Labor Party. Much is said about the crimes and behaviour, the thuggery, that is known. Unfortunately, we don't know yet what is unknown, but I suspect, with the passage of time, those unknowns in terms of other behaviours in this particular union and in other unions will become more and more apparent.

This is an important issue. This is a very important issue because we have a predominance of economic and political influence by trade unions in our country at a time when the membership of these trade unions is actually falling. When we think about their predominance in Australia's very successful and well-capitalised superannuation scheme and when we think about their overrepresentation in the Australian Labor movement, how can this be possible? How can this be proportionate at a time when trade union membership in our country is declining? It's declining for a couple of reasons. It's declining because the nature of work is changing. It is declining because people don't think they need to have their interests represented by a trade union movement, or they believe that the trade union movement doesn't actually represent their interests.

The overwhelming challenges of the Australian economy in 2024 are around productivity gains and competition improvements. The character of this Labor government's approach to industrial relations reforms and so-called improvements has been to introduce rigidity to our industrial relations system, a rigidity that is undermining competition and leading to a worsening of productivity improvements. This country is getting poorer. It's getting poorer not because of bad luck; it's getting poorer because of the conscious policy decisions being taken by this Labor government. There is rigidity in our industrial relations system and an unwillingness to adopt an orthodoxy when it comes to fiscal management—an orthodoxy that I don't think Bob Hawke or Paul Keating would have had any problem with. The fiscal guardrails which were such an important feature, the cornerstone, of successful previous budgets have been abandoned by this government. The country is getting poorer not because it's unlucky but because of the conscious policy decisions being taken by a government led by Anthony Albanese.

There's been some media commentary in the last 12 hours about progress towards amendments and getting some coalition endorsement of the government's bill, subject to certain proposals. I think it is important to say that, at this particular point in time, as I'm aware, there is not yet a formal agreement on any of the 20 propositions that the coalition has put before the government. There is not any formal agreement on the 20 sensible propositions for improvement to the bill that Senator Cash, as our spokesman, has made.

So I suspect that this debate will go for a little while yet, and it is not to diminish the importance of this debate, but I think it has to be said that the willingness of the government to resolve this issue quickly is not, I doubt, because they want to establish the administration and to start prosecuting the case. I suspect their motivation is driven primarily by the fact that they want this political obstacle, this political embarrassment, removed from the political agenda.

One of the propositions that have been mentioned in media commentary in the last few hours has been the requirement, the possibility, of the parliament being reported to regularly on the progress of the administration arrangements. That is a very, very sensible and necessary inclusion, because these problems have been allowed to occur because the CFMEU has acted without transparency. The Australian Labor Party, a beneficiary of the largesse of the CFMEU, has failed to properly ensure due diligence over its relationships.

I hope that, when this bill is finally put to a vote, there is a reporting mechanism to this parliament so that senators like me and others see with great clarity what has really happened, not just what we do know but also the things that we don't yet know, because the parliament has a right to know how the traditions of the Australian trade labour movement have been tarnished and trashed by this union. People will want to be sure, Australian workers in our country will want to be sure, that other unions are free from this sort of behaviour and, importantly, that we are not starting to see behaviours become permissible in other unions because of the strife and destruction that have been allowed to happen in the CFMEU.

Our industrial relations system is well supported by employer groups. It has traditionally been well supported by Australian trade unions. Their role has been to disrupt and to advocate on behalf of workers. That is part of an open, democratic society like our own. The interests of employers change over time; indeed, the interests of workers change over time. But this particular chapter of the Australian labour movement and its political ally in the form of the Australian Labor Party is a very, very tarnished one. While speed must be taken to bring this corruption, criminal activity, threats, bribery, intimidation and violence to an end, it has to be done in a way that these changes to culture become permanent features of the broader trade union movement in our country and not just the CFMEU, because I'm not sure if anyone in this Senate, and I don't believe any of the Labor senators, can say hand on heart that this is behaviour that is not infecting other trade unions in our country and that it will not infect other trade unions in years to come.

Australian workers deserve better, Australian employers deserve better, and if productivity and competition gains are to be achieved in our economy then reforms like this are necessary, and I suspect it will not be the last of them.