Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion to provide for the consideration of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019.

Leave is not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice of motion, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent him moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to provide that a motion relating to the consideration of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019 may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate.

It is critically important that the government's ensuring integrity bill is passed by the Senate this week. We've now had about 10 hours worth of second reading debate. Every single Labor senator has had the opportunity to speak and express their views. This bill has been on the Notice Paper for some time. It was first introduced in July. There has been a very significant Senate inquiry with lots of submissions, lots of scrutiny and lots of opportunities for people to express their views, and today the government is proposing to make available to the Senate another five hours of committee debate. If we get cracking very swiftly, we can get into the meat of dealing with the amendments and dealing with the legislation in detail.

Let us remind ourselves why this legislation is so important. Court imposed fines of millions and millions of dollars for the most militant of unions around Australia clearly have not had any impact, and it's very important for our economy and for jobs that we can maintain the rule of law, in particular on construction sites across Australia. Clearly, some of the most militant unions across Australia consider court imposed fines nothing more than a cost of doing business. They factor it into their business model. But it's the taxpayer who ultimately pays the price for this ongoing lawlessness which the Master Builders Association has estimated adds up to 30 per cent to the cost of construction projects. That is money that clearly could be, and should be, used to build roads, schools and hospitals. It should not be used to pay for inflated costs of construction projects on the back of consistent and persistent lawless behaviour in the fines of court imposed orders.

Our bill provides a fair and transparent framework which sets out when organisations and their officers can be referred to a court for an order seeking disqualification or deregistration. It is a court that will make the decision. So this proposition that somehow there is something untoward here is completely false. And, despite some of the more hysterical claims that have been made, this bill does nothing to prevent organisations which respect the law from continuing to work in their members' interests. In fact, we support them to continue to work in their members' interests.

The amendments circulated late last week and agreed upon with Centre Alliance and One Nation are sensible, and of course we will be supporting them during the committee stage. These amendments include: making the independent regulator, the Registered Organisations Commission, the only body with power to refer organisations and officers to a court for deregistration or disqualification; a demerit points system effectively giving officials three strikes before they can be referred to the courts for disqualification; removing overseas convictions as a trigger for officials to be banned; making it clear that courts have complete discretion in making decisions and that they must take into account the gravity of matters when considering an order for disqualification or deregistration; and, indeed, a new public-interest-test trigger for amalgamations based on the compliance history of those organisations.

We are very grateful for the constructive engagement by the crossbench, and we look forward to the Senate considering this legislation in detail. In order to ensure that we can get on with it as fast as we can, I will leave my available additional minutes for the Senate.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What do we have today? We have a government with no integrity—a government whose integrity is in tatters—coming into this chamber and demanding that the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019 be passed in the name of ensuring integrity. This bill is actually about undermining the capacity of working people to organise. A government that has no integrity wants to push it through. We have a government in which a minister has doctored documents—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I have a point of order. Senator Wong is making an imputation against a member of the other place, and she should withdraw. Obviously, these sorts of imputations are inconsistent with the standing orders.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr President: I'm happy for us to look at the Hansard, but I think Mr Taylor himself has recognised that the documents were doctored. He has said that himself, has he not?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: I raised the point of order because Senator Wong specifically alleged and made the imputation that it was Minister Taylor who doctored the documents. That is an imputation that is inaccurate and it is inconsistent with the standing orders.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I invite Senator Wong to withdraw and rephrase.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw and rephrase. He has used doctored documents. Thank you for demonstrating precisely what I'm saying, Senator Cormann. He jumped to his feet to defend a minister of the Crown who is under criminal investigation—and who is refusing to stand aside—for using doctored documents on ministerial correspondence. He has the gall to stand here and tell the Senate that this is about integrity. He was defending the Prime Minister, who has had to correct the record in the House. That's what he had to do. The Prime Minister rang his mate to check out what's happening in a criminal investigation. And you come in here and ask the crossbench of the Senate to ram through legislation that you say is about ensuring integrity!

Senator Cormann says that this bill is critically important. Do you know what's critically important? That you find some integrity over there. That's what Australians would like. Do you know what's critically important? That the Prime Minister actually finds some integrity, because, I tell you what, there hasn't been much on display. I'm unsurprised that they're pretty quiet, because they're defending a cabinet minister who has used doctored documents on ministerial correspondence, who is under criminal investigation and who's refusing to stand aside. The Prime Minister rang up his mate to check on a criminal investigation. And you want to come in here and talk about integrity—seriously!

This bill is not about integrity. This bill is an attack on working people and their representatives. It is the same ideological agenda that I saw 14 years ago when I stood here as the shadow employment minister. Senator Abetz was over there. You got through Work Choices and you were all rejoicing. But do you know what? It showed the Australian people what you are really like. You are obsessed with smashing trade unions and you are obsessed with reducing the power of working people to organise and debate. That is in the Liberal Party's DNA, and that is what this bill is all about. So the government is now demanding that the Senate rush through this anti-worker legislation. This is the party that implemented Work Choices, voted against—

Senator Rennick interjecting—

Oh, tell us what you think! Why don't you stand up, Senator Rennick? You're always very tough on the back bench. Why don't you stand up and tell us what you really think about working people and trade unions? Come on: you stand up next in the debate and have the guts to actually put something on the record.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Wong. Please address your comments through the chair.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm taking the interjection. This is a government that says, 'We're for working people, but we're going to vote against penalty rates; we're going to vote to refuse to restore penalty rates'—for people who depend on penalty rates to pay their bills and put food on the table. It's an utter disgrace. You voted against the restoration of penalty rates.

Senator Payne interjecting—

You may never have had to struggle, Senator Payne, but people who are relying on penalty rates do, and the fact that you walked away from them says something about you. You're pushing this bill through with your own integrity in tatters: a minister under investigation by police, a special strike force for a criminal offence, a PM who is interfering in that police investigation and a Prime Minister who is loose with the truth and who shows nothing but contempt for parliament and the principles of ministerial integrity and accountability, and you can't even bring yourselves to say in the parliament that the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person. You can't even say that.

There has never been a government with less integrity than you lot. You are all about one standard for yourselves and your mates and another for Australian workers. Well, we on this side will not stand for it. We on this side will do what we did with Work Choices. We will fight this legislation in here and we will fight it between now and the next election and we will expose your hypocrisy and your anti-worker bias, which has always been the Liberal DNA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Payne wants to know what we are afraid off. Well, I know what we are afraid of, and I know what all Australian workers are afraid of, and that is that at some time today, with the support of the crossbenches, Work Choices mark 2 will be back on the Australian agenda. We have Work Choices back. That's what we, and the Australian people, are afraid of. Tony Abbott said that Work Choices was dead, buried and cremated. Well, it's not. Work Choices is right back here. How does a government with no integrity seek to introduce a piece of legislation that affects workers and their organisations that deal with integrity? How does a government with no integrity introduce a piece of integrity legislation? I see Senator Birmingham smiling there.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Shaking my head.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I'll give you some examples of no integrity.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Aren't you smiling, too?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am smiling, because I'm going to give some examples of a government with no integrity. Minister Taylor: whether he wrote the document or whether his office wrote the document, the fact of the matter is that a newspaper in New South Wales got a false and misleading document. When that was exposed, what did Minister Taylor do? What act of integrity could have been done in those circumstances? It would have been to stand down. Did Minister Taylor stand down? No, he stuck to his position.

What happened next? Well, the police started investigating the issue. Forget about where the proposal for the investigation started. New South Wales Police started investigating this minister. What would a government with integrity do in those circumstances? Well, they would do the honourable thing. They would stand down while this police investigation took place. Minister Taylor hasn't stood down. There is no integrity there.

The Prime Minister decided to ring his good mate, his next door neighbour, the police commissioner to find out whether he should sack Minister Taylor or keep him on. Again, that is not the appropriate thing to do. That is not a sign of integrity. That is not a government acting with integrity. So, again I ask: how does a government that says it wants to introduce so-called integrity into the trade union movement do that, when they themselves have no integrity?

I give you one other example: Minister McKenzie. We now discover that she overturned decisions of Sport Australia to award sports grants to well-deserving organisations in this country. We still haven't got any answers from her about what that involved and which organisations were affected. But we were expecting to have by today a report from the ANAO about that event. It's been delayed. It hasn't just been delayed for this month or next month; the best we know is that it will be sometime in January. If this is a government with integrity, why didn't they tell us about the sports rorts? Why haven't they released that document? Why is it being withheld from the Australian people? If this were a government concerned with integrity then they'd have done all the things I suggested that they should do.

This is all about the introduction of Work Choices at a time when we see that wages are either falling or stagnating, where retail sales are falling or stagnating and where unemployment is rising. The thing this government should be doing is promoting unions, giving them a bit of help. There's still time to withdraw this legislation, Leader. They can withdraw this legislation and they can start turning around the Australian economy.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The irony of debating a so-called integrity bill when this government is up to its neck in scandal and muck isn't lost on anyone. You see, ensuring integrity means behaving with integrity, and we've got a minister using doctored documents. We've got a Prime Minister who calls in favours from his mates and then has to go in and correct the record. What we have is a government that doesn't know what integrity means.

If the government were concerned about integrity, its first course of business would be to introduce a national anticorruption watchdog. Its first order of business would be to make sure it shines a spotlight not on the behaviour of unions that basically represent the rights of working people but on the institutions here that represent the Australian community. We need a national anticorruption body as a first order of business, and boy would they be busy. They would be looking at the actions of Minister Taylor and, indeed, the Prime Minister himself. His actions would come into question.

We heard a former commissioner in New South Wales describe the actions of the Prime Minister as suspect. What a shocking decision to pick up the phone and call a police commissioner when an active investigation is underway. How could the community think anything other than that undue influence is being exerted in an effort to do a favour for a political mate? What a disgrace.

The list goes on. A national anticorruption body would look at the corruption and mismanagement when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin. It would look at the half a billion dollars that was gifted to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation without any substance or due process. The government has shown of itself that, when it comes to integrity, what it needs is a mirror, not an attack on working people.

When you think of the issues that are confronting us right now as a nation, you see we've got wages that are flat and going nowhere fast, corporate profits at record highs and rife multinational tax avoidance. We've got the banks right now breaking the law after a royal commission which sounded a siren to the financial services industry. They haven't heard it, and we have CEOs getting golden handshakes at a time when they've effectively facilitated money laundering and paedophilia. And what's the government's response to this? 'We'll go after the unions.' We've got coal, oil and gas companies flaunting how they own this parliament and who are dictating lawmaking in this country. We've got 40 per cent of people trapped in insecure work, household debt at record levels and, let's not forget, the greatest challenge facing us collectively as a species: record pollution, runaway climate change, a climate crisis, with the people who are at the frontline of responding to that crisis, while half the country is on fire, our firefighters, urging the government to do something. And their calls are falling on deaf ears.

The government have no agenda, no plan for the future. All they can resort to is a tired ideological attack on the rights of working people. It's about time we started to understand that it's working people in this country who are being screwed over, and they need more representation, not less. The government say they can't intervene in the financial services industry—where a CEO has just been given a golden handshake of close to $3 million, following on from another CEO who got close to $8 million as a reward for shocking behaviour—and yet they can intervene in the actions of the union movement and their right to organise how they choose to best represent working people. It is a disgrace.

We say to the government: drop this legislation and start focusing on the real issues that confront Australian people: the climate crisis, flat wages, corporate tax evasion and insecure work. All of these are issues that the Australian community is begging for leadership on, and all you can do is go back to tired old ideological union bashing. It shows you are a government with no agenda, no vision for the future. When it comes to integrity, the government need a mirror.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Di Natale. Senator Birmingham.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've heard the arguments from those opposite on this motion, and those arguments have shown just what a pack of rank hypocrites they are. Firstly, they come in here claiming that they are caring for workers and for hardworking union members in their opposition to this legislation. But they ignore the fact that workers are the ones who pay the cost of the lawlessness of the CFMMEU. The CFMMEU has racked up $16½ million worth of fines and penalties as a result of thousands of different law breaches over the last few years. Who pays those fines, ultimately? The CFMMEU members are the ones who ultimately have to pay those fines, through their levies. They're the ones who pay the cost.

The Labor Party come in here and, perversely, they defend the law-breaking union leaders rather than standing up for the union leaders who don't break the law. Why do they want to continue a circumstance and a situation where union leaders face reputational damage across the board because of those who see breaking the law as a price of doing business, who see the current penalties as just a reasonable cost of doing business? That shouldn't be the case. Where we have laws, and penalties apply to those laws, those penalties are intended to be a deterrent to breaking the law. It is quite clear that the current legal frameworks do not deter the CFMMEU from breaking the law. They simply see it as the cost of doing business and they keep on going. How do we know that? There might have been thousands of breaches in the past, but there are still dozens of CFMMEU officials before the courts right now, so we know full well that the current deterrents are not working. That's why this legislation is here. It's here to create a deterrent regime that simply ensures people operate within the laws of the land.

It's not just the union members who pay the price of this lawlessness. All Australians pay the price of it, because the lawlessness of the CFMMEU drives up the cost of construction activity and the cost of building public infrastructure, and that means that we have a weaker economy and more expensive building projects, so ultimately taxpayers pay the price of that lawlessness, as does every single builder and investor right around the country.

Those opposite come in here claiming that they're standing up for workers, but in reality they're letting down workers, they're letting down taxpayers and they're letting down law-abiding union leaders in terms of the approach they're taking in opposing this legislation. Then they complain about the fact that the government is seeking to get the legislation through the Senate this week. It's legislation that has been on the books for months. It's legislation that we took to the last election. It's legislation that has now been subject to extended parliamentary sittings for the last two days and that the government's creating more time for today. Yet, of course, you'll hear howls of complaints from those opposite claiming that it is somehow being rammed through.

I remember sitting here on 23 June 2013. Do you know what happened that day? Fifty-three bills were guillotined in one day by the Labor Party. Fifty-three bills were guillotined by the Labor Party and the Greens. Do you know how much debate happened on most of those bills? None at all! Not one minute's worth of debate was accommodated. We gave you all of the time in the world. The Senate could have sat until midnight last night, but we ran out of speakers. We had all of the time in the world last night, but you ended up not needing all of the time. Today we're providing extra time for the committee stage so that you can debate the amendments.

These laws ought to pass because they will then provide for a circumstance where workers can have faith that their unions will actually operate in accordance with the law of the land and put their interests first and where we can have confidence that lawlessness won't drive up building costs. Your hypocrisy will be exposed when these laws work and change behaviour, as they should.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government aren't serious about integrity. If they were serious about integrity, they would apply a bit to their own frontbench. We wouldn't have this situation where we're in here debating laws about ensuring integrity and over there they're defending the indefensible—the chamber wrapped up, doing no work, as they defend the indefensible.

If they were serious about integrity, they would have done things about Minister Dutton's au pair affair. Remember that? They would have done things about the Gold Coast shopping for apartments affair. They would have done things about the $38,000 internet bill affair. They would most definitely have done something about a Prime Minister picking up the phone to a police commissioner to find out what's going on with one of his ministers under investigation. If they cared about integrity, they would be applying integrity standards to themselves. But they don't care about it. They only care about ensuring integrity against their political opponents.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Gallagher! The time for the debate has expired. The question is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.

I ask senators to remain in the chamber for imminent divisions.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That a motion to provide for the consideration of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019 may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate, namely:

That—

(1) the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019 be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business, except as follows:

(a) at 11.45 am:

  (i) the giving of notices of motion,

  (ii) tabling and consideration of the Selection of Bills Committee report, and

  (iii) placing of business;

(b) at 2 pm, questions, followed by

(c) consideration of the notices of motion proposing the disallowance of the Quality of Care Amendment (Minimising the Use of Restraints) Principles 2019 standing in the names of the Chair of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances (Senator Fierravanti-Wells) and Senator McKim, for not more than 30 minutes, and the question on the motions shall then be put.

(2) If consideration of the bill listed in paragraph (1) is not completed by 4.30 pm, the questions on all remaining stages shall then be put.

(3) Paragraph (2) shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.

(4) Divisions may take place after 4.30 pm for the purposes of the bill only and after conclusion of consideration of the bill, the Senate shall return to the routine of business.

And I move:

That the question be now put.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be now put.

I'll now put the procedural motion moved by Minister Cormann. The question is that that motion be agreed to.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That—

(1) the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019 be called on immediately and have precedence over all other business, except as follows:

(a) at 11.45 am:

  (i) the giving of notices of motion,

  (ii) tabling and consideration of the Selection of Bills Committee report, and

  (iii) placing of business;

(b) at 2 pm, questions, followed by

(c) consideration of the notices of motion proposing the disallowance of the Quality of Care Amendment (Minimising the Use of Restraints) Principles 2019 standing in the names of the Chair of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances (Senator Fierravanti-Wells) and Senator McKim, for not more than 30 minutes, and the question on the motions shall then be put.

(2) If consideration of the bill listed in paragraph (1) is not completed by 4.30 pm, the questions on all remaining stages shall then be put.

(3) Paragraph (2) shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142.

(4) Divisions may take place after 4.30 pm for the purposes of the bill only and after conclusion of consideration of the bill, the Senate shall return to the routine of business.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Cormann be agreed to.