House debates

Tuesday, 23 May 2017

Bills

Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017; Second Reading

12:32 pm

Photo of Andrew WallaceAndrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

But it is important we understand why the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill is so important. It is because of the coercive conduct of unions. Unions try to muscle and strong-arm builders. Some builders kowtow and buckle to that sort of conduct, and that is very unfortunate. But on this side of the chamber we believe that no-one is above the law. For every corrupt payment that is received by the union, someone had to write the cheque, and we on this side of the House want to ensure that we disincentivise, as much as possible, companies from writing those cheques. So we have introduced the ABCC; we have introduced the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act; we have introduced the new building code; and we have stopped, and are committed to preventing, corporate tax evasion.

Mr Dick interjecting

He laughs. You still want to talk some more, do you?—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We want to ensure that, as much as humanly possible, we try to prevent corrupt payments being made to unions. If you take the sugar off the table, if you disincentivise the person from writing the cheque in the first place with very significant fines and jail terms, we are confident that the CFMEU will no longer be able to muscle and strong-arm these building companies from simply doing their job. That is what they are trying to do; building companies are trying to do their job. But the CFMEU and other unions are holding them to ransom. Unfortunately, we have to come in with strong legislation to prevent that sort of conduct from happening.

We on this side of the House are going after both unions that break the law and companies that break the law. We on this side of the House are not anti-union. I have said this many times before: we are not anti-union; we are anti-union corruption and we are anti-business corruption. That is why we are introducing these very strong penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment or a $900,000 fine for an individual, or a $4½ million fine for a company, who enters into these corrupt payments. We on this side of the House, unlike those opposite, do not look after unions that break the law; and we set heavy penalties for businesses that break the law. To any business in the building industry that is considering writing a cheque for hush money to get the job on the go, to keep the unions off their back, I want to talk to those directors right here, right now: is it worth facing a $900,000 personal fine? Is it worth your company being fined $4½ million? Is it worth you, Mr or Mrs Director, going to jail for 10 years if you write that cheque to keep the union off your back? I commend the bill to the House.

Comments

No comments