David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I want to start by reiterating a position that I put to the chamber just earlier today: the Greens will always oppose violence wherever we see it—especially in the workplace—and we will always support action to address sexism and misogyny, whether it's in the workplace, in this place or wherever else we find it. There is no question of the deeply concerning allegations against elements of the CFMEU. There is no question about that. And so working through these issues as best we can to squarely address those matters in a way that makes union members—particularly women union members and officials—as per their rights, feel respected and safe will always be a guiding principle in the work that we do. We've seen the allegations aired. At this stage, many of them are just allegations. But nobody could see that and not be deeply troubled, say something must be done and accept that, in that, there needs to be some external break on what has been happening to allow as rapidly as possible those principles of democracy and respect to be re-established throughout the CFMEU. That's a starting point for us as we confront this legislation and confront what has been brought to the parliament.

Saying that doesn't answer the question in its entirety in front of us. I'd also remind senators that there's currently a court case afoot that would, if the orders that are being sought by the general manager of the Fair Work Commission were granted, deal with these issues. That court case has got another date before the courts in just a little over a week. It will come back before the courts. I would have thought that it would be a principle that would unite us, that as best we can these issues should be dealt with in accordance with law, in accordance with established practice, to put independent arbiters in place. If we can conceive of a process that sees a lot less of these actions being done by ministers and politicians and far more being done by courts, who will not have the same political angles, political manoeuvres or political history, of course we should be aiming for that. Of course we should. We've brought these principles to our discussions with the government. Right now, it feels like forever, but we were given a briefing on this legislation by the government just less than a week ago. On this kind of principled, incredibly complex legislation, which has so many potential implications well outside the union movement, we will not apologise for wanting to get it right. We will not apologise for looking at legislation that provides unprecedented powers to a single politician over a civil society organisation. I'd say that, whether it's a union, a law society, an environmental group or a multicultural association, when we are looking at legislation that is providing, effectively, unlimited political powers to an elected minister without constraint by the courts or constraint by this place, we will not apologise for looking at it in incredible detail. I will deal with some of the specific concerns about that ministerial overreach further in this legislation.

Can I also say this: we know that a strong construction union keeps people alive and it keeps construction workers alive. And I've seen that. In a former life as a solicitor, I've been onto multilevel construction sites where there has been union representation and I've seen the detail about safety, the concern about safety and the respect about safety. I've been onto sites where there wasn't the union, and it was on sites where there wasn't a union that young workers' lives were lost. It was on sites where there wasn't a union where people's pay was not respected; they were paid cash, and they were treated like second-class citizens.

While in no way ignoring what I said earlier in this contribution about our very real concerns—and they are largely located in the Victoria branch, but they extend to the NSW branch—we will not forget that it has been the construction union that has saved the lives of countless workers and also ensured that construction workers in this country have a wage they can live on and have a wage and conditions that respect them for the work they do. I have heard repeated comments from the coalition that the fact that the union stands up for safety and the fact that the union stands up for workers' wages and the fact that the union stands up for workers' entitlements are 'inflating construction costs'. Another way of characterising that is, because of the union, construction workers who put their lives on the line, their bodies on the line in the work that they do, get a fair days pay for a fair days work, and that's an important principle in this legislation too. And that is a fundamentally important principle for us.

When we're looking at the potential precedent value of this legislation, there hasn't been legislation like this in the federal parliament before. To give such extraordinary powers, literally to take over an organisation, to rewrite its rules, to summarily terminate any and everybody without regard to natural justice—there has never been legislation like this brought to the federal parliament. Should it require scrutiny? Of course it does.

Just yesterday we saw a very clear statement from the NSW Council for Civil Liberties. The NSW Council for Civil Liberties are a rigorously apolitical organisation. Their concern is civil liberties, and they have raised serious concerns with the federal government's Fair Work (Registered Organisation) Amendment (Administration) Bill and the government's accompanying amendments. Very briefly, I'll read from their statement:

While any allegation of criminality is serious and must be addressed, the powers set out in this bill are far-reaching and establish a dangerous precedent for the trade union movement, membership-based organisations, and the rights of individuals to natural justice and procedural fairness.

The rushed nature of this legislation which is designed to override a process begun by the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court threatens the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. We note that the proposed legislation would set a precedent where membership-based organisations can have democratic control externally removed on the basis of untested allegations. This is of concern to all Unions, registered Clubs, and Australian membership-based organisations.

The Bill violates Australia's obligations under the International Labour Organisation, namely Articles 3 and 4 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948.

The NSWCCL has long held that everyone has the right to natural justice and procedural fairness, regardless of the allegations they face. If this legislation is passed next week, it threatens this fundamental right. The right to freedom of association and the nature of membership-based organisations across Australia must be protected.

We agree with them, and we have said to the government that we are willing to work with you to address those concerns but also to come up with a scheme that will address those other concerns that I raised. We've put detailed amendments to the government, and we've had meetings with the government, but the government's response has been to say no, and the government 's response has been to say: 'Don't you worry. We'll cover it in a scheme.' I say now: table the draft scheme. We say to the minister: table the draft scheme so we know what is in the mind of the minister when the minister is going to be given these unprecedented powers. Table the draft scheme. Show us what's in your mind.

We've raised concerns about giving the minister unlimited power over the rules of an organisation through the scheme. It does by means of multiple provisions in this bill: the bill creates a scheme that can summarily terminate anyone in the union, rewrite the rules or appoint whatever administrator they like. Our concern is that, when you give that power to this minister, you give it to every future minister. If there is a future Minister Cash—and I'll do what I can in my political work to prevent that happening—we have asked: is Labor comfortable with giving Minister Cash that power over the CFMEU? And, if Minister Cash—or Minister X, Y or Z—gets used to exercising that power over the CFMEU, what other organisations would Minister Cash seek to exercise that power over, without any constraint and with no referral back to this parliament?

The answer from the government has been to come up with some amendments that say that the scheme can't be changed by the minister unless there's concurrence from the administrator. Those are the amendments we've received. I say now to the government, as we said in negotiations: 'But the minister can sack the administrator.' And, if the current administrator won't agree to the amendments to the scheme, then future Minister Cash will sack that administrator and appoint their own administrator—maybe Administrator Dutton—