Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the amendments on sheet RC114.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to use this time to make a contribution on one aspect of this bill that I don't think has had a huge amount of attention in this debate so far, but I think it is extremely important that it does, and that is the proposal in this bill to increase the powers of the Registered Organisations Commission in relation to the activities of trade unions. The Registered Organisations Commission, which we know was an organisation set up by Minister Cash when she held the Industrial Relations portfolio, before she was demoted after her disgrace over the AWU raid, was established with the express purpose of going after unions. And that is indeed what it has done since it was created by Minister Cash.

I'll come to what the Registered Organisations Commission has done since its inception shortly, but just so that people are clear: in essence, what this bill proposes to do is to increase the powers of the Registered Organisations Commission by granting it the power to bring applications which could result in the disqualification of union officials or the deregistration of unions on the basis that a particular union official, in the view of the Registered Organisations Commission, is not a fit-and-proper person to hold that role. That is obviously an important power to bestow on any public authority—the ability to make a decision to bring an application to disqualify an elected office-bearer of a union, or of any other organisation, from office. And it does bestow a lot of power on the Registered Organisations Commission to make that determination as to who, in its view, is a fit-and-proper person. Of course, these matters would have to go to the relevant tribunal and be tested, but it's the Registered Organisations Commission that will initially make that decision about whether it considers a particular union official to be a fit-and-proper person and therefore whether that person should be disqualified from holding office.

If such an important and broad power is to be granted to a particular organisation, you really want to have some confidence that that organisation is an impartial entity—a high-calibre entity with high-calibre staff who can be trusted to use that power properly and to not use those powers for political objectives of the government of the day. We, of course, opposed the creation of the Registered Organisations Commission because we could see through what the government was doing. They were seeking to establish yet another enforcement agency to take out trade unions, to back up the ABCC, their other attack dog that they created to go after trade unions, and the Registered Organisations Commission was set up for the same purpose, if broader, because it had the power to cover all unions rather than just unions in the construction industry. So from its very beginning the Registered Organisations Commission had no credibility whatsoever as to its claims to be an independent organisation, and the way it has conducted itself ever since has only confirmed that.

Only this week we have seen the Registered Organisations Commission's independence again called into question. I said in my contribution in the second reading debate that this government really has a knack when it comes to choosing the timing of debating legislation, because in the very week that we're debating a bill that they say is about ensuring integrity in the trade union movement, we've of course seen Minister Taylor caught up in the latest scandal involving ministers of this government, which has led to the Prime Minister making personal phone calls to the police commissioner whose police force is investigating one of his own ministers—no integrity there. And there have been a series of other things that the government have done this week which have demonstrated their complete lack of integrity, while they insist on setting a ridiculous bar for trade unions.

But this is another example of the poor timing that the government have in choosing to debate this legislation this week. In the very week that the government bring in legislation to grant more powers to the Registered Organisations Commission to go after trade unions, by giving them the power to determine who is a fit and proper person and who should be disqualified from holding office as a union official, we see the Registered Organisations Commission's investigation into the Australian Workers Union, the infamous investigation which led to a police raid, going down in what newspapers have referred to as a 'humiliating defeat'. It's a humiliating defeat, on only Tuesday this week, for the Registered Organisations Commission, as the Federal Court quashes its investigation into the Australian Workers Union.

For those who haven't followed it, this is the investigation that the Registered Organisations Commission conducted into trumped up claims that former Labor leader Bill Shorten had engaged in some kind of misconduct when he was in his role as the Australian Workers Union national secretary over 10 years ago, 12 years ago. That investigation was deemed so worthy of being pursued—12-year-old trumped up claims designed to denigrate and go after the then leader of the Labor Party—that it has now resulted in a humiliating defeat, being totally quashed by the Federal Court and found to be invalid. We've now got a fight on in the court about whether the documents that were seized by the Registered Organisations Commission and the Australian Federal Police should be returned to the union, who owned those documents in the first place.

The question really is: why would this government expect anyone in the public to have any confidence that its latest unions attack dog, the Registered Organisations Commission, could conduct itself in an appropriate, impartial, independent and fair manner, when just this week we've seen the Federal Court strike down its most celebrated investigation into a union, on the basis that they did not have reasonable grounds for pursuing that investigation in the first place. Not only do those opposite want to retain the Registered Organisations Commission, despite the fact it has been completely delegitimised and exposed as another police enforcer for the political ends of this government; with this bill they want to give it more power to go after unions. Again, this is another sign of the fact that this bill is really just designed as the latest piece of armoury for the government to take on the trade union movement and, ultimately, to come after working people.

I think it's also worth mentioning some of the comments of the Federal Court judge who heard this case, because he goes into some detail about the behaviour of one of the senior officers, essentially the second-in-command at the Registered Organisations Commission, Mr Chris Enright. There are a number of comments that were made by the judge in his earlier judgement in this case, in October, which can only demonstrate again to anyone who's approaching this debate with any degree of objectivity—and I'm particularly talking here about the crossbench—why the Registered Organisations Commission is a completely inappropriate body to be given even more powers.

Here are some of the comments from the Federal Court judge in his judgement in October on this matter. At paragraph 339 he refers to the fact that he had concerns about the reliability of evidence given by Mr Enright. He says that the evidence given 'involved inconsistency and was not plausible'. This is the guy who the government has empowered—and wants to now give more powers to—to come after unions. This is a guy who gives evidence in court that is not plausible and is inconsistent. The judge found that Mr Enright's evidence about one aspect of these proceedings involved him reconstructing events in a number of ways. The judge talks about the fact and considers that it was 'unwise' for the person about to embark upon an independent investigation, that being Mr Enright, in which he recognised that Minister Cash—and we'll come to her in a moment—had a political interest, to have had direct contact with the minister's office. So, he's conducting an independent investigation into the AWU, but feels that it's appropriate to talk to the minister's office in the context of that investigation. And the judge then goes on to describe, in extremely kind terms, aspects of Mr Enright's conduct which can be characterised as 'overly enthusiastic or exuberant'. I think that's what you'd call a euphemism.

So, we have a government that establishes another attack dog to go after unions. They've got the ABCC. That's not good enough for this government, so they set up the Registered Organisations Commission as the next attack dog to go after unions. They stack it with people who they know are going to carry out their political objectives. That organisation, just this week, goes down in a blaze of glory in the Federal Court, in a 'humiliating defeat', as newspapers have described it, and has its most high profile investigation quashed by the Federal Court because it didn't have reasonable grounds for pursuing it. And, rather than doing what they should do, which is to abolish the Registered Organisations Commission for its obvious partisanship and incompetence, they now want to give it more power to go after unions. So, again, I say to the crossbench: if you need any further proof that this bill is not about cleaning up workplaces, or all the other things that the government comes up with, but is actually just the next step in this government's ongoing war against trade unions and working people in this country, then just have a look at what's happened this week. I've got the press-clippings here if you want to have a look at them: '"Humiliating defeat" for ROC as court quashes AWU case'.

Of course, as you will recall, this investigation all stemmed from the infamous conduct of Minister Cash and her office, where Minister Cash initiated this investigation by the Registered Organisations Commission by referring trumped-up claims about the former Labor leader, Mr Shorten, to the Registered Organisations Commission, knowing full well that they would do her bidding, because that's what they were set up to do in the first place. They launched an investigation into these trumped-up charges, and of course her office then went on to leak the fact that the police were going to be raiding union offices to the media, so that the media could be there to film it. As we all remember, Minister Cash, on many, many occasions, denied that her office had leaked this information. And of course the truth all came tumbling out, which is why she had to be demoted to a more junior portfolio and stripped of the IR role that she used to have to prosecute unions herself.

We had the Registered Organisations Commission in at estimates recently, and it just so happened that it was shortly after the October decision of the Federal Court in this matter, where the judge made all those scathing comments about the behaviour and conduct of Mr Enright. I put a lot of that to Mr Enright at Senate estimates, and I've got to tell you: I was gobsmacked by his nonchalance and his inability to understand what damning comments had been made about him and his organisation by a Federal Court judge.

I actually offered Mr Enright the opportunity to apologise to the people of Australia for the way that he and his organisation had carried out this investigation—found by a Federal Court judge to have no reasonable grounds, resulting in a humiliating defeat for the Registered Organisations Commission, and with all sorts of scathing comments made by the judge about Mr Enright's own behaviour. I gave Mr Enright the opportunity to give an apology to the Australian people. And you know what he did? Not only did he not apologise but he actually demanded an apology from me and other Labor senators for pursuing this. I remember Senator Sheldon was in the room, and there were a number of other senators there as well. I don't know if I've ever been more shocked by evidence given at an estimates hearing by a public servant than I was that night. These people are deluded about their objectivity. They are completely set up for the partisan purpose of going after unions—and this government, rather than abolishing them, actually wants to give them more power. I'd just ask the crossbench to reflect on that before this debate is over.

In concluding, I want to ask the minister some questions. Why should the public have any confidence in the Registered Organisations Commission, given just this week they've suffered a humiliating defeat where they were found to not have reasonable grounds for their most high-profile investigation? What assurances has the minister given to the crossbench about the Registered Organisations Commission's conduct in the future? And what changes will the government make to the Registered Organisations Commission to ensure this won't be repeated again? (Time expired)

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

Let me start by clarifying for the Senate—because one could be forgiven for not realising this from Senator Watt's contribution—that investigations by the ROC focus on both employer organisations and unions. It's wrong to say that it is a body only responsible for unions. In fact, most recently, an employer body against whom the ROC took court action was the Queensland branch of the Australian Hotels Association, and the penalty was paid by that organisation.

Let me go to some of the other questions that Senator Watt has raised. It is very important, I think, to clarify for the record that the ROC is an independent statutory regulator. It brings cases in accordance with its compliance policy—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not what the courts found—not very independent!

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

I will come to that, Senator Pratt; thank you. The policy states that the ROC will have regard to matters such as the nature and the circumstances of the alleged contraventions; the number of contraventions; and the actual or potential consequences of the alleged contraventions, including harm to the organisation and its members. In fact, as the ROC testified during evidence to Senate committee hearings inquiring into this bill in particular, what they actually see in the course of their work is hundreds and hundreds of contraventions. But in the vast majority of cases they address them through other means, such as helping the organisations involved to rectify the issues and educating them on future compliance. Since its establishment on 1 May 2017—so over 2½ years now—the ROC have concluded five civil litigations and a further two remain before the court. Only three of those matters were commenced by the ROC; the others were commenced by the Fair Work Commission and transferred to the ROC.

So they see hundreds and hundreds of contraventions in the course of their business, but very few pieces of litigation. But the misconduct alleged in those cases included some very interesting facts. There was a failure by an organisation over more than a decade to lodge the prescribed information to enable the conduct of elections for officers, which—as I've been advised by senators in the chamber today—is a very important part of the work of registered organisations. There were failures to keep accurate lists of officers and a failure to notify changes to the list of officers. There was the artificial inflation of membership numbers over a five-year period by one organisation. There were contraventions of duties by officers, including through agreeing to accept payments for the organisation in exchange for failing to seek better terms and conditions for certain members, and through using organisation funds to pay for personal luxury vehicles. There was a failure by an organisation to lodge financial returns over a number of years. There was withholding the financial position of the organisation from members. There was a failure to keep proper financial records and the artificial inflation of membership numbers over a period of 12 years. These are exactly the sorts of issues that have brought this bill to this chamber, and it is exactly the sort of behaviour—in terms of basic accountability and transparency and in terms of the administration of an organisation, which belongs, rightly, to its members—that the government thinks should be addressed by this bill.

In relation to the observations that Senator Watt has made on the AWU v ROC matter, I think it is important to record that his statements are not an accurate representation of the circumstances. He is misleading the parliament about Senator Cash. The investigation was not initiated by Senator Cash, and the court did not make that finding. Let me talk about the role of the ROC and why it is appropriate for them to have standing to apply to the court, because Senator Watt has questioned that. It is the regulator of registered organisations. It is entirely appropriate for the Registered Organisations Commissioner to have standing to apply to the court for certain orders that concern the conduct of these organisations and their officials. To go back to the comparison that some in the opposition are trying to make around whether we are advancing the application of corporations law to equate with registered organisations or not—and I am still very confused by what those opposite really think on that matter—this is comparable to the standing that ASIC has in winding up a company or the disqualification of directors.

In this bill, however—let me be absolutely clear—the Registered Organisations Commissioner will have standing to apply for certain orders only when it believes that a relevant ground for disqualification, cancellation or alternative orders applies. It is only the Federal Court who can make a relevant order. That is actually distinct from Corporations Law, where ASIC itself can in some circumstances disqualify directors of a company or wind up a corporation without a requirement for any court action. With regard to the recent AWU v ROC matter—and I was at the most recent estimates, to which Senator Watt refers—I do want to correct some wilful falsehoods that have been advanced by those opposite. In the debate in this chamber this week some statements have been made which in my view are absolutely outrageous, particularly when they are made with the protection of parliamentary privilege. They are not supported by the facts of the matter or the judgement of the Federal Court.

The court found—and this is the finding—that the ROC's investigation was not commenced for an improper political purpose. It further found that there were entirely reasonable grounds for the Registered Organisations Commission to commence its investigation into whether the financial reporting obligations for loans and grants and donations had been contravened. In fact, to quote from the judgement, as Senator Watt did in his own remarks, Justice Bromberg stated at paragraph 127:

There is little doubt therefore, and the AWU did not contend to the contrary, that it was open for Mr Enright to come to the view … that there was a reasonable basis for suspecting contraventions of s 237(1) and that therefore, there were reasonable grounds for conducting an investigation as to whether s 237(1) was contravened by the AWU in the financial years ending 30 June 2006 and 30 June 2008.

Further, in recognising the potential for an appeal of the decision, which I note that the ROC has indicated that it intends to pursue, there is no operative order for the return of documents to the AWU, notwithstanding the fact that those opposite continue to insist that there is. Indeed, that order has been stayed, pending a hearing and determination of any appeal.

Let me add, in relation to this matter, that the court's finding was in fact that only part of the Registered Organisations Commission investigation was invalid, and that was on a technical ground concerning a provision that deems conduct that was against an organisation's rules to be in accordance with the rules if the conduct occurred more than four years ago. It is the effluxion of time that rendered that finding, one delivered by the court. While Justice Bromberg's order of 26 November this week declared the decision to investigate to be invalid, His Honour's substantive decision of 11 October 2019 found there were entirely reasonable grounds for the Registered Organisations Commission to commence its investigation into whether the financial reporting obligations for loans, grants and donations had been contravened. I am acutely aware that the ROC has publicly stated its intention to appeal this matter, and I do think further extensive comment would be inappropriate at this time. I remind the chamber that, no matter who the minister is—Minister Cash at the time or any other minister—they had no power to direct the ROC in their actions.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The comments and questions that I have for the minister relate particularly to the application of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019 to some groups that we seem to be being led to believe are not affected by the bill—in particular, women workers, migrant workers and low-paid workers. I ask these questions because I spent 17 years in the union movement representing many of those groups—representing many of Australia's women workers, migrant workers and low-paid workers. So far today, there's nothing that the minister has said that convinces me that these workers won't be targeted by this bill and by the government. So I seek clarity on some issues in relation to these groups, because I'm extremely concerned about the future that those workers will have under this government. I'm particularly concerned because, for these groups, unions are needed more than ever before. We have a persistent gender pay gap between women and men, we have rampant exploitation of migrant workers on farms, in cafes and in retail franchises, and today we have the lowest growth on record. Of course, that's hitting some of our lowest-paid workers hard. I'll give you, Minister, some examples that I'm concerned about and then some questions for your response.

On the issue of industrial action and unions receiving demerit points, I'm thinking of the early childhood educators that I've represented in my working life. The minister has said specifically that this bill won't affect childcare workers and described claims that the bill may affect childcare workers as 'outlandish'. These, of course, are workers who are dedicated and professional. Ninety-five per cent of early childhood educators are women, and they are some of the lowest-paid workers in the country. But it seems to me, from listening today, that this bill will impact anyone who decides that they can't win the respect and recognition that they deserve within the constraints of the Fair Work Act, and it will impact anyone who then decides to try to win that respect and recognition by taking direct protest action or unprotected industrial action.

Unprotected industrial action, as we've heard from other senators today, can occur in a variety of situations. It occurs when the Fair Work rules don't work for workers to have a say and make their case. Take those early childhood educators who have walked off the job six times over the last couple of years in a fight for equal pay. They did that because the Fair Work rules just don't help them. They really can't bargain workplace by workplace across the tens of thousands of individual workplaces that they're operating in: council centres, non-profit centres, for-profit centres and standalones. Because they don't have access to enterprise bargaining, they therefore don't have access to the protected industrial action system in order to make their wage claims effective, and they really have no mechanism to win a wage rise of the scale that they need other than engaging in direct protest action—and that's what they've resorted to. Walking off the job six times in the last two years, they've taken that direct protest action.

It could perhaps be argued that walking off the job might constitute unprotected industrial action in that sector, it could perhaps be argued that these employers are operating in the federal system and it could perhaps be argued that walking off the job in childcare centres could have a significant community impact. So, if that action had been deemed unprotected and obstructive, my understanding is that those union members could have had their union referred for disqualification of officials, to be put into administration or to be deregistered. Of course, that would hurt tens of thousands of educators, who are already so undervalued and underpaid. The union is their voice, and my concern is that this bill is trying to take their voice away. My concern is that early childhood educators could be affected by this bill, contrary to the minister's statements last night. I'll come to my question about that in a moment.

I'm also thinking today about the idea that this bill delivers equivalence between the corporate sector and unions on what we are calling paperwork breaches. I'm particularly thinking about that in relation to the wage theft that I've seen firsthand in the hospitality industry. We've already covered today that wage theft is rampant and out of control. We're still waiting for action from this government from the Migrant Workers Taskforce.

The Fair Work Ombudsman investigated hospitality last year and found something like 70 per cent of businesses to be non-compliant with the award. That noncompliance included breaches like not providing pay slips to workers, which was an example that the minister cited this morning. It's my understanding that there's no suggestion that those 70 per cent of businesses in hospitality who were found to be non-compliant with the award be deregistered or wound up. It's my understanding that there's no provision in this ensuring integrity bill to allow unions to apply to deregister companies that underpay workers or steal their wages. But it is my understanding that the very union that fights against wage theft now has to deal with this bill.

If a union racks up three paperwork breaches then it is in the firing line. Those breaches could be as minor as how the union keeps the credit card details of its members up to date or how the union submits paperwork in order to visit sites when investigating the wage theft that we're talking about. It's my understanding that, to make matters worse, it could be the very employers that the hospitality union is investigating who apply to the court for orders disqualifying a union official from office. It seems that there is no equivalence for unions in this. The union can't apply to have the directors of companies that steal wages disqualified, and there's no suggestion that the bill could be used in any way by unions to have companies that underpay their workers wound up.

The third area of concern I have in relation to the bill and the experience of some of Australia's lowest-paid workers relates to the recent merger of two of the largest unions in Australia—United Voice and the National Union of Workers, which merged to form the United Workers Union. I have concerns about what might have happened with that merger had this law been in place at the time. The merger was democratically decided. Thousands of union members voted in support of it. In fact, 45,000 union members chose to take the time to vote—in their own time they voluntarily voted in that union election. Over 90 per cent voted yes. That, of course, is exactly as it should be—union members deciding the future of their own union. They talked about it, debated it, thought about their future and voted.

Under this bill, employers can apply to block union mergers through the proposed public interest test if one of the unions meets a threshold of contraventions. It's an internationally accepted human right that union members get to freely decide what happens with their union, who it joins with and who leads it. We know from that United Workers Union case that union members are extremely engaged in their unions and have significant ownership of their unions. This bill denies those union members the ability to decide the future of their union. It allows them to be stood aside while employers and the courts decide the future of the union instead.

Again on the issue of corporate equivalence: I don't recall any union being asked whether they approve of the merger of two corporations. The government may claim that this bill is to bring the regulation of trade unions in line with that of corporations, but it seems like that is not true. Unions can't seek to have a company director disqualified when that company has been endangering people at work or stealing their wages, unions can't apply to have a corporation deregistered or wound up and unions can't apply to stop companies from merging. So, having listened to the debate today, it seems to me that this remains an extraordinary effort on the part of the government to hand over power to employers to shut down unions, and that includes unions of women, migrant workers and low-paid workers, who the government have been claiming will not be affected by this legislation.

My questions to the minister relate to those examples I just gave. The first question is in relation to early childhood educators. If those early childhood educators walking off the job six times, outside of any application for protected industrial action, was deemed unprotected action or obstructive industrial action, can you confirm that the union for early childhood educators could face deregistration proceedings under this bill?

The second question is about the example of wage theft in hospitality and the provisions of the bill in relation to that. Could you confirm whether it is the case that an employer being prosecuted by a union could apply to disqualify the official conducting that prosecution? Further to that, is there anything in this bill that would allow unions to apply to have companies that have been found to underpay workers wound up? If not, is the government proposing such legislation?

Finally, in the case of the merger of two unions that represent a lot of our lowest paid workers, migrant workers and women in this country, could the merger of United Voice and the NUW have been reversed, after being approved through a ballot of members, by application of the public interest test—on the application of a disaffected employer—if one of the unions had met the threshold of contraventions? So my question is: could the merger have been stopped after being approved by the democratic ballot of members? Also, Minister, in relation to the merger provisions, I am seeking clarification as to whether contraventions that occurred prior to the law being in place would be counted towards the threshold for any future mergers. I thank you for your answers.

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

I think I have most of the issues that Senator Walsh has raised there. Let me start by noting for the record that, in relation to migrant workers, it was this government that established the Migrant Workers' Taskforce, chaired by Allan Fels, in 2016 as part of our then election commitment to protect vulnerable workers. In March of this year, we accepted, in principle, all of the 22 recommendations of the taskforce, including the criminalisation of serious wage exploitation and the establishment of a national labour hire scheme. So that is an important step that has been taken by the government. But I will come back to that and other matters.

Senator Walsh asked about action by early childhood educators and what would be deemed obstructive behaviour. The answer that I will give to you is very similar to the answer that I gave to Senator Sheldon and to other senators. The ground in section 28G of the bill only captures industrial action that has 'prevented, hindered or interfered with the activities of a federal system employer or the provision of any public service' by a government authority; or 'had, or is having or is likely to have, a substantial adverse effect on the safety, health or welfare of the community or a part of the community'.

It's not a new ground, Senator Walsh. I would remind the chamber it's not a new ground. It is an existing ground in the legislation. It was included by your government in the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, and I'd point you to sections 28(1)(b) and (c). What I would assure the chamber, as I have in other responses to senators today, is that, although you may wish to assert otherwise, the fact is that, with the safeguards, which are additional safeguards, that are being introduced in this bill and with the amendments that we've moved here today, there will actually be a higher threshold for the court to make an order than is currently the case under the existing registered organisations act. And I think it is a very important note to make, Senator Walsh, and one which you and others have not acknowledged in your questions today.

If I could come to the question of underpayment of vulnerable workers and protecting vulnerable workers, and I have said this in the chamber before this week, this government has zero tolerance for the exploitation of workers by employers. That includes underpayment of wages or any other exploitation. In fact, what we have done—particularly in relation to the support for the Fair Work Ombudsman, as well as increasing penalties against employers who do break the law by up to tenfold—are very important steps.

In the last financial year, 2018-19, the Fair Work Ombudsman, with better resourcing, recovered 64 per cent more money for workers compared with the previous Labor government's last full year in office, 2012-13. We also secured more than double the amount of court-ordered penalties against employers. We see that those higher penalties that I referred to just a moment ago are also having an impact. We've seen the first decision taking into account our new protecting vulnerable workers legislation, handed down by the court in late August, and explicitly, clearly, awarding penalties of over $125,000 against the operators of two sushi outlets in Queensland.

Importantly, the Fair Work Ombudsman's strong stance is also delivering results. The latest data that we have confirms that we have seen double the amount of litigations filed. So they are on task. They are working very hard and getting results in terms of holding employers who would do the wrong thing to account. We have also seen a 60 per cent increase in this calendar year to date, compared with the last, in the amount of money actually recovered for workers by the Fair Work Ombudsman, and that has equated to 20 per cent more employees benefiting from Fair Work Ombudsman recovery action. So, notwithstanding the fact that those opposite say that nothing has been done, the facts—absolutely incontrovertible in this case—indicate otherwise.

We are also, as I have said in relation to the Migrant Workers Taskforce, drafting legislation to introduce criminal penalties for the first time for the worst forms of worker exploitation. I've referred before in the chamber, in question time and in other discussions and in the debate today, to the Attorney-General and Minister for Industrial Relations' discussion papers focused on identifying further improvements to the protection of employees' wages and entitlements, including stronger civil penalties, greater deterrence for sham contracting and closely examining the suitability of employers' liability where entities in their supply network also flout employment laws. We're going to release a further discussion paper, seeking feedback on the compliance and the enforcement framework, and that will include canvassing faster, more efficient remedies for workers to be able to recover unpaid wages, and empowering the Fair Work Ombudsman to pursue the banning and disqualification order applications against directors of underpaying companies. I have in previous discussions today directly quoted the Attorney-General on those matters, where he has agreed with the concerns that have been raised about these issues and indicated that they are matters also of concern to him and he wishes to see the law responsive to those matters.

Senator Walsh also said that there were specific workers—the categories of which she outlined—targeted by this bill and targeted by the government. There is nothing in this bill which targets specific workers, and I want to be very clear about that. There was also, I think, a statement—I was going to say an implication, but I think it was probably more express than that—in relation to the powers and rights of unions. I want to again clarify to the chamber that the bill doesn't remove any powers that the unions have under the Fair Work Act or the Registered Organisations Act, nor does it stop them from exercising their rights under the law. It does nothing to diminish the right to form a union or join a union. It doesn't limit the legal rights of unions to organise, to bargain, to take protected industrial action, to represent their members, to investigate safety or underpayment issues, or to exercise rights of entry. We continue to regard the performance of those functions by unions as a vital element of our industrial relations framework—and that will remain the case.

That leads me again to the question of obstructive industrial action, because that was the context in which Senator Walsh cast that point—and I want to go back to that. There have been a number of examples raised today, and Senator Walsh has added to those this afternoon. We've had raised the 1970s green bans; campaigns against asbestos companies; action by armoured car workers and transport workers; and now, in this case, action by early childhood educators. But those opposite have not been able to point to any relevant court orders or any designated findings which would actually engage, enliven, the provisions of this bill. It is not even clear to me that all of those examples constitute the sort of industrial action that the bill envisages. What that means, ultimately, is that the thresholds in the bill relating to disqualification on the obstructive industrial action ground would not actually apply. Even in the case that one of these hypothetical examples, or examples, could amount to unlawful industrial action, the bill then contains additional safeguards to ensure that important civic duty or public health campaigns would not be subject to a disqualification order.

I go back to the basic requirements of what the action would have to look like to be subject to a disqualification order and for it to be a ground for deregistration under the bill. That requires that it must have prevented, hindered or interfered with the activities of an employer or any relevant public service, or had a substantial adverse effect on the safety, health or welfare of the community. That is a significant threshold. Unlawful industrial action without these features will not give rise to a ground for deregistration under the bill. Under the bill and the amendments that we are talking about this afternoon there will be a higher threshold before the court can make an order than is currently the case under the existing Registered Organisations Act.

And, again, I remind those opposite that the threshold that is in the existing Registered Organisations Act is your threshold—your threshold, which has been in place for 10 years. This bill will provide a higher threshold, and those additional safeguards in that higher threshold include that the Registered Organisations Commissioner must satisfy the court that it would not be unjust to cancel the registration, taking into account the nature of the matters, the action taken in relation to those matters, the best interests of the members and any other matter, including the public health objectives of such actions. The court is prohibited from making the order unless it's satisfied that, having regard to the gravity of the matters constituting the ground, disqualification would not be unjust—and only the Registered Organisations Commissioner will have standing to bring that application.

Senator Walsh also raised matters in relation to paperwork, and I am happy to go back to that because a number of senators have done so. Let me again be very clear: it is simply not true that a union could be deregistered for merely submitting paperwork late. Accidentally lodging paperwork late will not mean a union is deregistered. There is no conduct that will automatically result in deregistration under the bill. It is all at the discretion of the court, which cannot deregister a union if it would be unjust to do so. In fact—and I know that facts are not what those opposite are dealing with—lodging paperwork late will not even in and of itself give rise to a possible ground for cancellation. I challenge those opposite to point to any provision in the deregistration schedule of the bill that provides for a specific ground for deregistration of an organisation for three minor paperwork breaches. I challenge them. They can't do it. They haven't done it all day and they are not able to do it now.

Briefly on mergers, we see in the government amendments a limitation of the circumstances in which a proposed amalgamation of registered organisations will be subject to a public interest test, as Senator Walsh asked about. Only some amalgamations will be subject to this test. Frankly, there will be mergers of organisations with a long history of breaking Australia's industrial relations law and the potential to spread law-breaking cultures to other organisations that should be subject to a public interest test. The amendments provide that a full bench of the Fair Work Commission will only apply the public interest test in circumstances where at least one of the organisations wishing to amalgamate has 20 or more compliance record events that have occurred in the last decade. That is only organisations that have a significant number of compliance record events during this time period. Only they will be subject to the additional oversight of the Fair Work Commission by way of the public interest test provided for in the bill.

As it stands, I'm advised there are only three organisations that clearly exceeded the requisite number of compliance record events in the preceding decade—one we spoke about earlier today, the CFMMEU, and the other two are the TWU and the Musicians Union of Australia. That means that approximately 96 per cent of registered organisations would not be subject to the public interest test as it stands, and even those four organisations that would currently be subject to it will eventually not be if they cease breaking the law, if they cease unlawful actions. Those points, I think, are important to place on the record.

The senator also asked me about the application of the public interest test in relation to corporate matters. We know that section 50 of the Competition and Consumer Act provides that in certain circumstances a merger can't go ahead if it would substantially lessen competition in any market unless the ACCC authorises it. The ACCC can only authorise a merger if it would not substantially lessen competition or the merger would benefit the public and this benefit would outweigh any detriment to the public. So there are public interest tests on both sides of this coin. I am happy to provide further information to the chamber.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens have made it very clear that we oppose this bill. We don't like this bill at all. That's because this bill is a clear attack on workers and on unions and their members. This bill is a political and ideological attack on unions and their members and also the ability for unions and their members to work for the good of working people and for a fair and just society for everyone. This bill is anti-democratic, and that's why the Greens strongly oppose this bill.

We also don't think that it can be amended in a way for us to support it. We agree with Labor on that point. That goes for the government amendments that we are discussing today. However, we have circulated amendments of our own which are very measured and will make the bill just a little bit fairer and more reasonable. It is hard to make this bill really fair and reasonable; it needs to just be put in the bin to do that. These amendments won't fundamentally change the bill in a way that we would like, and that's why I want to be upfront with senators and say that, even with minor tweaks, we'll still be opposing the bill. But we do hope our amendments are considered on merit.

I want to talk a little bit about the timing and the atmosphere in which this bill has been brought into parliament. We've now come to expect headlines of possible corruption by ministers and of interference in our democracy by lobbyists almost every single week. This has really eroded trust in our democracy to a historic low. We are in a time when trust in democracy, in politicians and in government is at an all-time low. The level of democratic satisfaction has plummeted steadily and pretty drastically, from 86 per cent in 2007 to just 41 per cent in 2018. That's less than half of the community that trust our democracy, and here we are putting a bill forward which is supposed to ensure integrity of unions and their members but does nothing to ensure the integrity of the politicians sitting in here. If we go according to the way trust in democracy has been plummeting, by 2025 fewer than 10 per cent of Australians will trust our politicians and political institutions. In effect, that sort of stuff makes a government illegitimate, and it really has a very negative effect on our social and economic wellbeing. So I think this should really be a wake-up call for this government, and parliament should not be able to force workers and unions to abide by these new so-called integrity standards while letting politicians continue to escape scrutiny all the time.

I have a couple of questions for the minister. One of those is on mergers. Minister, at the moment the process by which unions merge in Australia is a democratic vote of members overseen by the Australian Electoral Commission. The entire process is overseen by the Fair Work Commission, and there are already conditions that need to be met. So, from my perspective, this new test that has been put up, the public interest test, is undemocratic and open to corporate interference. I just want to see what justification you have for government to intervene and block unions from merging. From my perspective, the only people who should be able to make that decision are the members and the unions, because otherwise, with government and ministerial interference, it just becomes a political football.

My other question is around the review of this act. We have heard so many concerns about this bill. We've spent three days in this chamber sitting here, literally hearing one concern after another about how damaging this bill will be for unions, for members, for workers and for society at large if we undermine the great work that the unions in Australia have historically done and continue to do to protect workers and their interests, rights and wages. So why, given that there are so many concerns—concerns that organisations like the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights have raised and concerns that we heard during the committee inquiry on this bill itself—don't we have a period after which this act will be reviewed and considered with an eye to whether the commission, the ROC, is acting properly on this new legislation?

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

Let me go to the question of mergers. The government has considered, based on experience, that the amendments we propose today will limit the circumstances in which a proposed amalgamation of registered organisations will be subject to a public interest test, so that only some amalgamations will be subject to this test. Mergers of organisations, as I said in part to Senator Walsh, with a long history of breaking Australia's industrial relations law and the potential to spread those cultures to other organisations should, in the view of the government, be subject to a special interest test.

So what the amendments provide for is that a full bench of the Fair Work Commission will apply the public interest test only in circumstances where at least one of the organisations wishing to amalgamate has 20 or more compliance record events that have occurred in the last 10 years. Only organisations that have a significant number of compliance record events during this time period will be subject to the additional oversight of the Fair Work Commission by way of the public interest test provided for in this bill. What the Fair Work Commission is to have regard to, in determining whether the amalgamation is in the public interest, is any compliance record events that have occurred for each of the existing organisations. That serves to significantly narrow the potential amalgamations to which the public interest test will apply to only those with a sufficiently serious record of noncompliance. Even then, it's actually a threshold decision about whether the test applies, not the test itself. The amendments also require that decisions of the Fair Work Commission relating to the public interest test must be in writing, must include reasons and must be published on the commission's website. The amendments also require the Fair Work Commission to consider the gravity of compliance record events if applying the public interest test proper.

I would also add, specifically in relation to the question Senator Faruqi raised in terms of members, that it is our view that mergers of organisations with a long history of breaking industrial relations laws can not only affect the members of those organisations; it also has an impact, an effect, on other workers, employers and the economy more broadly. The changes in the bill will give others, including employees and employers, the opportunity to have a say and make a contribution. In any case the current law as it stands does not even allow all members to vote on a merger in some circumstances.

I'll give you an example. Under the current laws there are mergers which don't go to a ballot of members. Those that do require only 25 per cent of members on the organisation's roll of voters to actually vote in order for the ballot to be valid. Only 50 per cent plus one of those voting need to vote yes in order for the amalgamation to go ahead. Mathematically that means a merger can go ahead if just 12.5 per cent of the members vote for it. We saw this in the case of the merger of the then CFMEU, the MUA and the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union. The CFMEU, in this case, successfully applied for an exemption from a vote of its members on the merger. What it meant in that case is that the members of the largest union involved had no say in whether it went ahead. Less than six per cent of the total members of the CFMMEU, as it was formed, voted to approve that merger. That was 6,456 members out of over 110,000 members. That's despite the fact that we know certain senior officers of the CFMEU expressed opposition to the merger.

Senator Walsh in her questions raised the merger of the National Union of Workers in the United Voice merger. Only 29 per cent of the members of those unions actually voted in support of the amalgamation. In that case it was 42,860 members out of 148,434 members. In terms of whether public interest considerations apply, they're applied by the Fair Work Commission in 16 different contexts under the existing Fair Work Act. For example, the commission also has to consider the public interest before approving an enterprise agreement that would not pass the better off overall test. Additionally, until 2009, with the old Australian Industrial Relations Commission—familiar to those of us who have been canvassing these issues for some time—public interest test considerations were required to be taken into account by the commission in determining whether it exercises its powers under the registered organisations provisions. This is not an unusual step. The last iteration of the requirement was subsection 103(2) of the now repealed Workplace Relations Act 1996. That, relevantly at the time, required the AIRC to take account of the public interest when performing its functions under the registered organisations provisions. We also see public interest tests in state industrial legislation, including in Queensland, in New South Wales, in South Australia and in Western Australia.

I want to also make clear that, in terms of the public interest, the nature of the submissions or the nature of the bodies and persons by whom submissions can be made on that, the existing organisations themselves, along with other organisations representing employers or employees in the relevant industries that might be affected by a merger, will be able to make submissions on the public interest. A body is able to make submissions if it represents employers or employees in the relevant industries. Any person with a sufficient interest, as determined by the commission, will also be able to make submissions along with the Registered Organisations Commissioner and relevant ministers. The government believes that this is appropriate given the public interest nature of the test. It's similar to interested parties' ability to make submissions when the ACCC considers whether a merger would be in the public interest. Of course, it's also the case that the Fair Work Commission already has general discretion to hear from any person, and section 590 of the Fair Work Act covers that.

In the context of mergers, the Registered Organisations Act also provides specifically that the Fair Work Commission can inform any person who's likely to be interested in the matter and can receive submissions from them on certain matters, and that applies to section 54. There are also, as I pointed out to Senator Walsh, comparisons in relation to the public interest test for mergers of corporations. I won't go into those in relation to Senator Faruqi's questions, because they did not go to that. But that does give some background and outline of why we believe we do need a public interest test for mergers of registered organisations but, under the amendments that the government has moved today, in a very limited context.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the amendments and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019. The bill doesn't really ensure integrity, though, does it? So there's a bit of a misnomer in the title. I think we all know that the government doesn't really want to ensure integrity in any sphere, because, if it did, surely it would bring on a bill to set up an integrity commission—one that might cover the activities of politicians, public servants or business leaders that seek to influence decision-makers, much like the bill that this chamber actually passed a few months ago and that's now sitting on the House books and probably won't get a look-in, because this government doesn't really want to ensure integrity, does it? It just wants to kick its political opponents.

This whole bill is about demonising the bodies that represent workers, that stand up for all of our rights, that, in fact, delivered us a 30-hour work week and that gave us weekends. I'm a proud union member. I have been for a very long time. The Australian Services Union are the union to which I belong, and I'm grateful for the work that they've done to stick up for workers in that sector and I'm grateful for the fact that we have weekends and 38-hour work weeks. I know most of us in here often don't get to experience those things, but unions have worked for those outcomes.

What we've seen today and, in fact, what we've seen all week is the government messing with the Senate timetable to ram this bill through when what it actually, in my view, should be concerning itself with is not only restoring integrity and establishing an anticorruption body that actually stops corruption and genuinely restores integrity but also looking at workplace health and safety. I'm from Queensland, and we saw media reports in the last couple of days that found that not one, not two, but seven workers have been killed on mine sites or quarry sites in the last 18 months. We all know that workplace health and safety conditions aren't strong enough and we know they're not strongly enforced. That's exactly why we need strong unions: to protect workers' working conditions.

I am embarrassed that this government, rather than dealing with, say, national industrial manslaughter laws, is instead wanting to attack unions that are simply trying to protect workers and make sure they can go home safe at night. I had a motion to move today that noted those tragic, avoidable deaths and noting that this government, rather than demonising and attacking unions, maybe should turn its mind to national industrial manslaughter laws, but we didn't even get to motions today because this government is ramming through this particular bill. In fact, we haven't got to a lot of other business this week, again, because this government wants to ram through this bill and it just wants to attack it political opponents. I'm embarrassed and I think the people that are working on those sites and ordinary working people will be outraged.

This is a flagrant attack. If you really want to restore integrity then why are you attacking one particular sector—and a sector that represents workers, to boot? If you really want to ensure integrity, stop taking corporate donations from big business: $100 million since 2012. Policies for sale, access for sale and cushy jobs when you leave this parliament—that's the lack of integrity that this chamber should be addressing. That is exactly why we have managed to cobble together enough support not from this government but from the other people in the chamber to pass a bill to set up a national integrity commission, an anticorruption body, a federal ICAC or whatever you want to call it. We passed that bill a few months ago. As I said before, it hasn't seen the light of day in the House of Representatives, because this government does not want to ensure integrity. It actually just wants to demonise workers and crack down on unions. This is the government that brought us Work Choices. This is a government that has cut penalty rates. This is a government that turns a blind eye to underpayment of wages by its big business donors. This is not a level playing field, folks.

If you, the government, want to ensure integrity, why don't you start actually addressing those flagrant breaches of the law and why don't you crack down on that dodgy behaviour? I know those people give you money. It shouldn't actually determine your policy decisions. That's corruption. That's policy for sale. That's why we need an integrity commission—to regulate the activities of who can buy what in this place. We don't think that any of us should be for sale. We don't think that money should be having an influence on the decisions that get taken in this chamber or any other place. We think that the public interest—the interests of the community and the planet—should be what's driving the decisions that we all take collectively in these chambers.

But, no, money talks in this joint, and so we see massive corporate tax cuts and massive corporate donations. We see stagnant wages and we see wage theft. We see penalty rates cut. And we see an attack on unions in that context, where big employers and big corporates are getting to write their own rules, and this government is dancing to their tune. It's embarrassing, and it is actually making workplaces less safe.

There were seven people in Queensland on mine sites and quarries who did not deserve to not be able to return to their families one evening. This government is doing absolutely nothing about that. It is making workplaces less safe by attacking the very bodies that stand up for the rights of workers to be able to be treated fairly in workplaces, to be not discriminated against and to go home without losing a limb or losing their life. Just when you think this mob can't find a new low, they manage to find one. It is breaking the nation's collective heart.

So we will sit here late tonight. They have been doing their little deals with the crossbench to try to get this through. They have passed an hours motion so that in about 12 minutes time we will just go bam, bam, bam on the votes and we won't be able to debate this anymore. The rest of the nation is actually scratching its head, thinking, 'Why do we pay them to behave like this?'

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they're not!

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection from, I think, the newest senator in the room. I have been here for 10 years, mate, and I am afraid it's not getting any better. I just hope—

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're not scratching their heads.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are not scratching your head, perhaps, but the level of confidence in the community in the decisions taken in this place is at an all-time low. Not even you could deny that. It is actually factual. Instead we have a tax on working people and on the rights of ordinary Australians to go about their business, to be fairly paid, to be not ripped off at work and to go home safe. This government thinks that it is a real legend for cracking down on unions. Sorry, but you are really letting the country down.

We will be moving a series of amendments to this bill. My colleague Senator Faruqi will be doing that when the time comes. The time will be very soon, because we are being guillotined on this. One of the amendments we will be moving is to make sure that this bill does not go ahead until we have the level playing field of a national anticorruption body. You want integrity? Then don't be selective. Don't in fact just bully one sector. Why don't you actually bring in integrity across the board? That is the amendment we will be moving. We don't want this bill to pass at all. We think it stinks. We think it is an attack, we think it is politically motivated and we think it will hurt genuine, ordinary workers. But if it does go ahead—and it looks like you have sewn up the numbers for that to happen—then at the very least have the decency to be fair-minded and to ensure that the so-called integrity in your bill's name, in the biggest misnomer in the universe, is actually going to be across the board with a national integrity commission brought in. I will leave that to my colleague to introduce.

When we have the chance to be making decent policies that improve people's lives, protect workers and—hey!—even address climate change, address financial inequality and actually fix the real problems that are out there, we have a government just kicking unions because they think it is politically popular, they think it is a nice favour for their corporate donors and, frankly, they have nothing better to do.

Well, wake up. This is why the Australian public is so disenchanted with politics. It's why the vote for big parties is the lowest it has been in history, and it does not help social cohesion, let alone economic outcomes for communities or environmental outcomes for the planet, to be descending to this sort of debate.

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

There are a number of issues which Senator Waters raised to which I want to respond. It would be lax of me not to respond to Senator Waters's assertions about a lack of debate on these matters. We know that there have been 34 speakers on the second reading debate. We know that was a debate over 11 hours. I haven't done the quick maths, but it seems to me that we have been discussing for more than five hours today the amendments before the chamber. And the only amendments that have been moved, I might say, are those moved by the government.

But Senator Waters has raised a number of other issues. She has raised concerns around workplace deaths, which are a concern for all of us. Ensuring the health and safety of workers is a priority for the government, and nothing in this bill—nothing—hinders or prevents registered organisations from being able to advocate for the health, safety and welfare of their members and of employees more generally. Recognising that any workplace death is a tragedy, I do want to note that workplace fatalities have been reducing. In fact they've fallen by almost 50 per cent, from a very, very unhappy peak in 2007, and 2019 has seen the lowest rate ever recorded. But one is too many. We know that, and so we work with the ABCC. Since its re-establishment in 2016, we've seen a continued reduction in workplace fatalities in the construction industry, and, as I said, we have seen further falls in other numbers.

The senator has also raised issues around the bill itself and why it is actually necessary. What I don't understand in this debate is why the Australian Greens are prepared to tolerate the unlawfulness and the extraordinary behaviour of some registered organisations in this country and their leadership and why they apparently consider that it doesn't require addressing. It requires addressing because it involves the intimidation of young people, of apprentices, on worksites around this country. It requires addressing because it involves the vile abuse of women in workplaces in this country, which the Greens apparently think doesn't require addressing.

I don't know how those at that end of the chamber, who preach constantly about these issues, can think that about an organisation that, in the time that this bill has been before the parliament, since July, has been fined by the Federal Court. The CFMMEU and seven of its officers have been penalised almost $400,000 by the courts for more than 30 contraventions of the law since this bill came before the parliament. If you are so supportive of appropriate treatment of women and young people, if you are so supportive of the rule of law in this country, which you advocate for—as one would expect a senator to do—why do you support unlawfulness on a grand scale that sees 30 contraventions of the law since July of this year? Why do you support the ABCC needing to commence legal action against the same organisation for unlawful conduct? This allegedly included workers being spat at, being called dogs and scabs and being photographed and filmed, with images of them uploaded to the CFMMEU Facebook and then used to troll, harass, bully and intimidate people online. Why do you support that? I don't understand that. I've been sitting in this chamber listening to the Greens for a very long time. You have a mortgage on moral outrage, but not on these issues, because you don't care. You don't care about that sort of bullying and intimidation. Well, this government does.

You have also raised issues around wage theft, and I want to be really clear that registered organisations and their officers will not be prevented from continuing to advocate for wage increases as long as they're doing it in compliance with the law. In fact, we encourage them to do so. The bill does nothing, as I have said multiple times in the chamber today, to diminish the right to form a union or to join a union, nor does it limit the rights of unions to organise, to bargain, to take protected industrial action, to represent their members or to exercise rights of entry, including to investigate suspected underpayment issues, and this government has taken steps to address issues impacting vulnerable workers with our legislation in 2019.

We have taken steps to appropriately support the Fair Work Ombudsman in the work that they do, which has seen a step change in the amount of litigation and fines being applied to employers who are doing the wrong things. But, more importantly in fact, in some cases it has seen a step change in the amount of wages being returned to those vulnerable workers, over 60 per cent more in this calendar year than in the previous year. Those amendments to the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Act have increased penalties up to tenfold. We have seen—for example in your own state of Queensland, Senator Waters—sushi operators in this case fined $125,000 for their exploitation of workers and those workers appropriately recompensed for that.

The senator has also referred to a federal anticorruption body. This is another stunt by the Greens—clearly unsurprising, but another stunt. It's a delaying tactic. It's not much more than that, because this bill is very, very, very focused. It's addressing a specific issue through appropriate and focused provisions to implement recommendations of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, for example, and I do think that the introduction of the issues that Senator Waters made in relation to a federal anticorruption body shows that they are completely bereft on this matter, because apparently they don't care about blatant lawlessness in a registered organisation. They don't care about that. They don't support this bill, and they won't be supporting this bill.

The government knows that registered organisations in this country enjoy a very privileged position in the Australian industrial relations system and in the economy more broadly. And, quite frankly, there's no place in this system for those who breach the trust that is placed in them by the privilege that they hold as a registered organisation. Those who act in their own interests at the expense of their members, or those who show nothing but contempt for the law that otherwise applies equally to all Australians, won't be protected by this government. But the Greens appear to want to protect that sort of lawless behaviour. We know that the royal commission itself uncovered numerous examples of flagrant disregard for the law. We know that this is not a new culture of lawlessness. We know it's been exposed over the years. We know that, for some organisations, fines are just a cost of doing business, and we think that is absolutely unacceptable.

Where courts have penalised registered organisations for doing the wrong things, whether it is endangering workers' safety, harassing and intimidating public servants, including female police officers, throwing apprentices off job sites or trying to pocket workers' hard-earned wages in union dues, we know that that behaviour is continuing, and we know that nothing that has been done so far has curtailed that sort of behaviour. Well, it's not something that we're prepared to put up with. That's why we've reintroduced this bill. It's to ensure—and in some cases restore—integrity and to provide that, where an organisation, a division, a branch or an officer is doing the wrong thing, something can be done to stop that misconduct, to assure members that their organisations are acting with integrity and in their interests.

We have had a long discussion today across a whole range of issues, including the myths that have been perpetrated, particularly by those opposite, about this bill—the myths around paperwork, the myths around what constitutes obstructive action, the myths around why individuals should not be a fit-and-proper person and the myths around whether the corporate requirements meet the registered organisation requirements and others. But, most importantly, what this bill does is to address the numerous examples of organisations and their officers who repeatedly flout the law, misappropriate funds, put their own interests before those of their members and generally fail to meet basic standards of accountability and governance.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shame on your for guillotining this legislation!

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

I might take Senator Pratt's interjection, because we were all here on 23 June 2013—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for consideration of this bill has expired. I will now put the questions required to conclude consideration of the bill. I will deal first with the government amendments on sheet RC114 and the amendments to those amendments circulated by the Australian Greens, which can be found on sheet 8837 revised.

The CHAIR: The question is that the amendments to government amendments (9) and (11), circulated by the Australian Greens on sheet 8837 (revised), be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

(1) Amendment (9), item 11, paragraph 223(1)(a), omit "a designated finding within the meaning of paragraph 9C(1)(a) (criminal) is made", substitute "2 or more designated findings within the meaning of paragraph 9C(1)(a) (criminal) are made".

(2) Amendment (9), item 11, omit subparagraph 223(1)(b)(i), substitute:

     (i) 2 or more designated findings within the meaning of paragraph 9C(1)(b) (civil) have been made against any organisation within the last 7 years in relation to conduct engaged in while the person is an officer of the organisation; and

(3) Amendment (9), item 11, subparagraph 223(1)(b)(ii), omit "least 180 penalty units", substitute "least 210 penalty units".

(4) Amendment (11), item 11, omit paragraph 223(3A)(a), substitute:

  (a) 2 or more designated findings within the meaning of paragraph 9C(1)(b) (civil) have been made against any organisation within the last 7 years in relation to conduct engaged in while the person is an officer of the organisation; and

(5) Amendment (11), item 11, paragraph 223(3A)(b), omit "least 900 penalty units", substitute "least 1,100 penalty units".

(6) Amendment (11), item 11, after subsection 223(3A), insert:

  (3B) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(c) or (3A)(c), in determining whether a person failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the conduct mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) or (3A)(a), regard must be had to the office held by the person in the organisation when the conduct occurred.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now deal with the other amendments circulated by the Australian Greens.

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

In relation to those amendments, the government would seek to have the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 8844 voted on separately.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We indicate that we would like our amendment on sheet 8805 voted on separately as well.

The CHAIR: The question is that item 6 of schedule 3 stand as printed.

The Australian Greens opposed item 6 of schedule 3 in the following terms—

(14) Schedule 3, item 6, page 33 (lines 25 to 27), to be opposed.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendments on sheet 8842 revised, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 9), insert:

1A Section 6 (definition of serious contravention )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

serious contravention, in relation to a contravention of a civil penalty provision by an organisation, a branch of an organisation or a person who is, or was, an officer or employee of an organisation or branch of an organisation, means a contravention that:

(a) is serious or materially prejudices:

  (i) the interests of the organisation or branch, or members of the organisation or branch; or

  (ii) the ability of the organisation or branch to pay its creditors; and

(b) is committed knowingly by the organisation, branch or person; and

(c) is constituted by conduct that was part of a systematic pattern of conduct relating to one or more persons.

[serious contravention]

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 13 to 27), omit subsection 9C(1), substitute:

Designated findings

(1) A designated finding, in relation to a person, is:

(a) any conviction against the person for an offence against a designated law where a term of imprisonment is imposed on the person for the offence; or

(b) any order for the person to pay a pecuniary penalty for the serious contravention of a civil penalty provision if the pecuniary penalty ordered is 80% or more of the maximum penalty for that contravention.

[designated findings]

(3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (line 10) to page 9 (line 5), omit subsections 223(5) and (6).

[not fit and proper]

(4) Schedule 1, item 17, page 12 (line 21), omit "after commencement;", substitute "after commencement.".

[consequential—not fit and proper]

(5) Schedule 1, item 17, page 12 (lines 22 to 26), omit paragraph (2) (d).

[not fit and proper]

(6) Schedule 1, item 17, page 12 (lines 27 to 29), omit subitem (3), substitute:

(3) For the purposes of paragraph 222(2) (b) of the Act as amended by this Schedule, in considering whether it would be unjust to disqualify a person from holding office in an organisation, the Court may:

(a) if matters relate to convictions, injunctions, orders, or findings against the person in a criminal or civil proceeding—only have regard to matters occurring after commencement; or

(b) otherwise—have regard to matters occurring before or after commencement.

[disqualification orders]

(7) Schedule 2, item 4, page 17 (line 1), after "having a record", insert "within the last 3 years".

[ground for cancellation]

(8) Schedule 2, item 4, page 17 (lines 25 to 27), omit paragraph 28D(a), substitute:

(a) the organisation is convicted within the last 3 years of an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; and

[ground for cancellation]

(9) Schedule 2, item 4, page 18 (lines 3 and 4), omit "designated findings have been made", substitute "3 designated findings or more have been made, in separate proceedings within the last 3 years,".

[ground for cancellation]

(10) Schedule 2, item 11, page 25 (lines 20 to 22), omit subitem (2), substitute:

(2) For the purposes of subparagraph 28J(1) (b) (iv) and 28L(2) (b) (ii), and paragraph 28L(3) (b), of the Act, the Court may:

(a) if matters relate to:

  (i) convictions, injunctions, orders that relate to the organisation; or

  (ii) findings against the organisation in a criminal or civil proceeding; only have regard to such matters occurring after commencement; or

(b) otherwise—have regard to matters occurring before or after commencement.

[application of amendments]

(11) Schedule 3, item 4, page 27 (lines 17 to 26), omit subsection 323(1), substitute:

(1) The organisation, or a member of the organisation, may apply to the Federal Court for any one or more of the declarations set out in subsection (3), if the organisation or the member considers that circumstances mentioned in a paragraph of that subsection exist in relation to an organisation.

[dysfunctional]

(12) Schedule 3, item 4, page 28 (lines 14 to 20), omit paragraph 323(3)(d), substitute:

(d) that affairs of an organisation or a part of an organisation are being conducted in a manner that is contrary to the interests of the members of the organisation or part as a whole;

(13) Schedule 3, item 4, page 28 (lines 25 to 33), omit subsection 323(4).

(15) Schedule 3, page 33 (after line 27), at the end of the Schedule, add:

7 Application of amendments

[dysfunctional]

(1) In making a declaration under section 323 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the Act) as amended by this Schedule, the Federal Court may only have regard to circumstances that existed after commencement.

(2) Sections 323 of the Act, as in force immediately before commencement, continues in effect, after commencement and despite the amendments made by this Schedule, in relation to circumstances that existed before commencement.

(3) For the purposes of the operation of sections 323 of the Act as continued in effect by subitem (2), the amendments made by this Schedule are taken not to have been made.

(4) In this item:

commencement means the start of the day this item commences.

[dysfunctional]

(16) Schedule 4, item 7, page 36 (line 24), after paragraph 72C(1)(a), insert:

(aa) a member of the existing organisations.

[submissions]

(17) Schedule 4, item 7, page 36 (lines 33 to 36), omit paragraphs 72C(1)(e) and (f).

[submissions]

(18) Schedule 4, item 7, page 38 (lines 1 to 28), omit section 72E, substitute:

72E Compliance record events

A compliance record event occurs for an organisation if:

(a) a designated finding within the meaning of paragraph 9C(1) (a) (criminal) is made against the organisation; or

(b) the organisation is found to be in contempt of court in relation to an order or injunction made under a designated law; or

(c) a person is found to be in contempt of court in relation to an order or injunction made under any law of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory, if the person:

  (i) was an officer of the organisation at the time of the conduct to which the finding relates; and

  (ii) engaged in the conduct in the course of (or purportedly in the course of) performing functions in relation to the organisation.

[compliance record events]

(19) Schedule 4, item 13, page 40 (lines 13 to 15), omit subitem (3), substitute:

(3) To avoid doubt, a compliance record event (within the meaning of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009) is an event that occurred after this item commences.

[ retrospectivity ]

Question negatived.

The CHAIR: The next question is that the amendment on sheet 8844, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

(1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert:

4 Review of this Act

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the Registered Organisations Act ).

(2) The review must be commenced as soon as practicable after the end of 2 years after this Act commences.

(3) Without limiting the matters the review may examine, the review must examine the following:

  (a) the effectiveness of the amendments to the Registered Organisations Act made by this Act;

  (b) whether there is a need for further amendments to the Registered Organisations Act relating to the administration of dysfunctional organisations and a public interest test for amalgamations of organisations;

  (c) whether the Commissioner has acted as a model litigant in proceedings involving the Commissioner;

  (d) whether the Commissioner has, in carrying out the Commissioner's functions, focused on matters that relate to systematic patterns of conduct engaged in by organisations or officers of organisations.

(4) The Minister must ensure that the persons who conduct the review have the ability to seek independent legal advice in relation to the review.

(5) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

(6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

(7) An expression used in this section that is also used in the Registered Organisations Act has the same meaning as in that Act.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR: The question now is that the amendment on sheet 8805, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to.

Australian Greens' circulated amendment—

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute:

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The question is that the amendments on sheet 8975 revised (2), circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation, be agreed to.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 13 to 27), omit subsection 9C(1), substitute:

Designated findings

(1) A designated finding, in relation to a person, is:

(a) any conviction against the person for an offence against a designated law; or

(b) any order for the person to pay a pecuniary penalty for the contravention of:

  (i) a civil penalty provision of this Act; or

  (ii) a civil remedy provision of the Fair Work Act; or

  (iii) a civil remedy provision of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016; or

  (iv) a WHS civil penalty provision of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011; or

  (v) a provision of a State or Territory OHS law (within the meaning of the Fair Work Act), other than an offence.

(2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (line 26) to page 9 (line 5), omit paragraphs 223(6) (d) and (e), substitute:

(d) any conviction against the person for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory:

  (i) involving the intentional use of violence towards another person, the intentional causing of death or injury to another person or the intentional damaging or destruction of property; or

  (ii) involving fraud, dishonesty, misrepresentation, concealment of material facts or a breach of duty; or

  (iii) that is punishable by imprisonment for 2 years or more;

(e) in any civil proceeding against the person, an order is made that relates to conduct by the person that involved fraud, dishonesty, misrepresentation, concealment of material facts or a breach of duty.

(3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 10 (lines 32 to 35), omit subsection 226(4).

(4) Schedule 1, item 17, page 12 (lines 5 and 6), omit "a finding", substitute "a conviction, order or finding".

(5) Schedule 1, item 17, page 12 (line 11), omit "a finding", substitute "a conviction, order or finding".

(6) Schedule 1, item 17, page 12 (lines 24 to 26), omit subparagraph (2) (d) (ii), substitute:

  (ii) for an event mentioned in paragraph 223(6) (d) or (e)—a conviction or order made in relation to conduct engaged in after commencement.

(7) Schedule 2, item 4, page 17 (lines 3 to 7), omit subsection 28C(2), substitute:

(2) In working out whether there is a record for the purposes of paragraph (1) (c), the Court must only have regard to the following:

(a) any designated findings made against the organisation or part or officers or members of the organisation or part;

(b) any findings that the organisation or part, or officers or members of the organisation or part, are in contempt of court in relation to an order or injunction made under a designated law.

(8) Schedule 2, item 11, page 25 (line 13), omit "findings", substitute "convictions or orders".

(9) Schedule 3, item 4, page 31 (line 22), omit "of strict liability".

(10) Schedule 3, item 4, page 32 (lines 18 to 20), omit subsection 323H(5), substitute:

(5) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person is given a notice under subsection (3); and

(b) the person does not comply with the notice.

Penalty: 120 penalty units.

(11) Schedule 4, item 7, page 38 (line 18), omit "finding", substitute "designated finding".

Question agreed to.

The CHAIR: I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the Jacqui Lambie Network. The question is that item 9 of schedule 2, and schedules 3 and 4, as amended, be agreed to.

The Jacqui Lambie Network opposed item 9 of schedule 2, and schedules 3 and 4, in the following terms—

(27) Schedule 2, item 9, page 24 (lines 20 to 27), to be opposed.

[delegation by the Minister]

(31) Schedule 3, page 26 (line 1) to page 33 (line 27), to be opposed.

[administration of dysfunctional organisations]

(32) Schedule 4, page 34 (line 1) to page 40 (line 15), to be opposed.

[public interest test for amalgamations]

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the remaining amendments on sheet 8803, circulated by the Jacqui Lambie Network, be agreed to.

Jacqui Lambie Network's circulated amendments—

(1) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3 insert:

4 Review of this Act

(1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act.

(2) The review must be commenced as soon as practicable after the end of 12 months after this Act commences.

(3) The review must examine:

(a) the effectiveness of the amendments made by this Act; and

(b) whether there is a need for further amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 relating to the administration of dysfunctional organisations and a public interest test for amalgamations of organisations.

(4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.

(5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

[review]

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (after line 9), after the item, insert:

1A Section 6 (definition of serious contravention )

Repeal the definition, substitute:

serious contravention, in relation to a contravention of a civil penalty provision by an organisation, a branch of an organisation or a person who is, or was, an officer or employee of an organisation or a branch of an organisation, means a contravention that:

(a) either or both:

  (i) materially prejudices the interests of the organisation or branch, or the members of the organisation or branch; or

  (ii) materially prejudices the ability of the organisation or branch to pay its creditors; and

(b) is:

  (i) engaged in knowingly; and

  (ii) a part of a systematic pattern of conduct relating to one or more persons.

[serious contravention; designated finding]

(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 13 to 27), omit subsection 9C(1), substitute:

Designated findings

(1) A designated finding, in relation to a person, is:

(a) any conviction against the person for an offence against a designated law where a term of imprisonment is imposed on the person for the offence; or

(b) any order for the person to pay a pecuniary penalty for the serious contravention of a covered provision; or

(c) any order for the person to pay a pecuniary penalty for the contravention of a covered provision if the pecuniary penalty ordered is 60% or more of the maximum penalty for that contravention.

(1A) A covered provision is any of the following:

(a) a civil penalty provision of this Act;

(b) a civil remedy provision of the Fair Work Act;

(c) a civil remedy provision of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016;

(d) a WHS civil penalty provision of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011;

(e) a provision of a State or Territory OHS law (within the meaning of the Fair Work Act), other than an offence.

(1AA) However, designated finding does not include an order to pay a pecuniary penalty for a contravention of a civil penalty provision of the Fair Work Act if the conduct that constitutes the contravention consists solely of:

(a) a failure or refusal by the person to attend for work; or

(b) if the person attends work—a failure or refusal to perform any work at all while attending for work.

[designated finding; industrial action]

(4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 6 (lines 15 to 20), omit subsection 222(1), substitute:

(1) The Commissioner may apply to the Federal Court for an order under this section if the Commissioner considers that any of the grounds for disqualification set out in section 223 apply in relation to a person.

[standing]

(5) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (after line 3), after subsection 222(3), insert:

(3A) If, after an application is made for an order under subsection (2), the applicant and the person to whom the application relates to reach an agreement, the Court:

(a) must consider the agreement in making the order; and

(b) may make any other order the Court considers appropriate for the purposes of giving effect to the agreement.

(3B) In determining an appropriate period for a person to be disqualified from holding office in an organisation, if the person holds such an office and the term of that office has not expired at the time of the order, the Court must consider whether it is appropriate to disqualify the person for a period that exceeds the remainder of the person's term in the office.

[disqualification order]

(6) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (line 8), omit paragraph 223(1) (a), substitute:

(a) 3 or more designated findings have been made against the person within the last 3 years; or

[grounds for disqualification]

(7) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (lines 22 to 28), omit paragraph 223(3) (a), substitute:

(a) 3 or more designated findings have been made against any organisation within the last 3 years in relation to conduct engaged in while the person is an officer of the organisation; and

[grounds for disqualification]

(8) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (line 29), after "the person", insert ", having the authority to do so,".

[grounds for disqualification]

(9) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (before line 1), before subsection 223(4), insert:

(3B) For the purposes of paragraph (3) (b), in determining whether a person failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the conduct mentioned in paragraph (3) (a), regard must be had to the following:

(a) the office held by the person in the organisation when the conduct occurred;

(b) whether the conduct related to the branch of the organisation the person was a member of.

[grounds for disqualification]

(10) Schedule 1, item 11, page 8 (line 10) to page 9 (line 5), omit subsections 223(5) and (6), substitute:

Covered conduct and bringing organisation into disrepute

(5) A ground for disqualification applies in relation to a person who holds an office in an organisation if:

(a) the person engaged in covered conduct; and

(b) the person's covered conduct was part of a pattern of conduct by the person; and

(c) the person continuing to hold the office brings the organisation into disrepute.

(6) A person engaged in covered conduct if, in any criminal proceeding against the person:

(a) the person was found during the last 10 years to have committed an offence against a law (a relevant law) of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory that is punishable by a term of imprisonment of 4 years or more; or

(b) both of the following apply:

  (i) the person was found during the last 10 years to have committed 2 or more offences against one or more relevant laws and each offence was punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than 4 years;

  (ii) the sum of the terms of punishment is 4 years or more.

(7) A person engaged in covered conduct if, in any civil proceeding against the person:

(a) the person was found during the last 10 years to have contravened a law (a relevant law) of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory with a maximum pecuniary penalty of 600 penalty units or more; or

(b) both of the following apply:

  (i) the person was found during the last 10 years to have committed 2 or more contraventions of one or more relevant laws and the maximum pecuniary penalties for each contravention is less than 600 penalty units;

  (ii) the sum of the penalties is 600 penalty units or more.

(8) For the purpose of paragraph (5) (b), a pattern of conduct by a person may begin before the person became an officer of the organisation.

(9) To avoid doubt, a person continuing to hold an office in an organisation may bring the organisation into disrepute for reasons that do not relate to the person engaging in covered conduct.

[grounds for disqualification]

(11) Schedule 1, item 14, page 11 (lines 11 and 12), omit ", Minister, or a person with a sufficient interest".

[consequential—standing]

(12) Schedule 1, item 17, page 12 (lines 22 to 26), omit paragraph (2) (d), add:

(d) for the ground mentioned in subsection 223(5)—conduct engaged in, for paragraphs 223(5) (a) and (b), after commencement.

[grounds for disqualification]

(13) Schedule 1, item 17, page 12 (lines 27 to 29), omit subitem (3), substitute:

(3) For the purposes of paragraph 222(2) (b) of the Act as amended by this Schedule, in considering whether it would be unjust to disqualify a person from holding office in an organisation, the Court may:

(a) if matters relate to convictions, injunctions, orders, or findings against the person in a criminal or civil proceeding—only have regard to matters occurring after commencement; or

(b) otherwise—have regard to matters occurring before or after commencement.

[disqualification orders]

(14) Schedule 2, item 4, page 15 (lines 7 to 13), omit the paragraph beginning "An applicant can apply" in section 27A, substitute:

The Commissioner can apply to the Court for cancellation. If the Commissioner applies for cancellation and the Court finds that the ground for the application is established, the Court may consider making alternative orders instead of cancellation only if the organisation satisfies the Court that cancellation would be unjust.

[consequential—standing]

(15) Schedule 2, item 4, page 15 (line 23) to page 16 (line 14), omit sections 28 to 28B, substitute:

28 Application for cancellation of registration

The Commissioner may apply to the Federal Court for an order cancelling the registration of an organisation, if the Commissioner considers that any one or more of the grounds in Division 3 exist in relation to the organisation.

[standing]

(16) Schedule 2, item 4, page 16 (line 18), omit "or 28A".

[consequential—standing]

(17) Schedule 2, item 4, page 17 (after line 7), after subsection 28C(2), insert:

(2A) In working out whether there is a record for the purposes of paragraph (1) (c), the Court must not have regard to conduct that would constitute not complying with designated laws by officers or members of the organisation or part of the organisation if the conduct consisted solely of:

(a) a failure or refusal by the officers or members to attend for work; or

(b) if the officers or members attended work—a failure or refusal to perform any work at all while attending for work.

[industrial action]

(18) Schedule 2, item 4, page 17 (line 22) to page 18 (line 7), omit sections 28D and 28E, substitute:

28D Ground—serious offence committed by organisation

For the purposes of an application under section 28, a ground exists in relation to an organisation if:

(a) both:

  (i) the organisation is found, in criminal proceedings against the organisation in the last 3 years, to have committed an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory;

  (ii) the offence is punishable on conviction by a penalty for a body corporate of (or equivalent to) at least 1,500 penalty units; or

(b) 3 or more designated findings have been made in the last 3 years against a substantial number of the members of the organisation or of a section or class of members of the organisation.

[ground for disqualification]

(19) Schedule 2, item 4, page 18 (line 9), omit "or 28A".

[consequential—standing]

(20) Schedule 2, item 4, page 18 (line 23), omit "or 28A".

[consequential—standing]

(21) Schedule 2, item 4, page 19 (after line 10), after subsection 28G(2), insert:

(2A) However, subsection (2) does not cover industrial action if the action organised or engaged in by the organisation, or the members mentioned in paragraph (1) (b), consisted solely of a failure or refusal by employees to attend for work or a failure or refusal to perform any work at all by employees who attend for work.

[industrial action]

(22) Schedule 2, item 4, page 20 (lines 7 and 8), omit paragraph 28J(1) (a), substitute:

(a) the Court finds:

  (i) that a ground set out in the application is established; and

  (ii) the conduct establishing the ground is part of serious and systemic pattern of conduct; and

[disqualification order]

(23) Schedule 2, item 4, page 20 (lines 20 and 21), omit "The Court may do this whether or not an application for any of those orders has been made under section 28A.".

[consequential—standing]

(24) Schedule 2, item 4, page 21 (lines 5 to 12), omit subsection 28L(1), substitute:

(1) The Federal Court may make orders under this Division if:

(a) the Court finds that a ground set out in an application under section 28 in relation to an organisation is established; and

(b) the organisation satisfies the Court that it would be unjust to cancel the registration of the organisation.

[consequential—standing]

(25) Schedule 2, item 4, page 23 (line 30), omit "or 28A (or both)".

[consequential—standing]

(26) Schedule 2, item 4, page 24 (line 3), omit "or 28A".

[consequential—standing]

[delegation by the Minister]

(28) Schedule 2, item 10, page 25 (line 3), omit "or 28A".

[consequential—standing]

(29) Schedule 2, item 11, page 25 (line 6), omit "or 28A".

[consequential—standing]

(30) Schedule 2, item 11, page 25 (lines 13 and 14), omit paragraph (1) (c).

[ground for disqualification]

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill, as amended, be agreed to.