David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

This Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019 is designed to enforce the rule of law in the workplace. Privileged positions should be respected and the law should be respected. Unions and employer groups hold a special place in the Fair Work legislation and they need to respect that responsibility.

The problem, though, is that there are glaring occasions when registered organisations are not working in the best interests of their members or they are not complying with the law. We only have to look at what happened from depositions given at the Heydon royal commission: from abuse of the right-of-entry privileges, exhibiting coercion and secondary boycott conduct right through to extortion and blackmail. Unfortunately, this sort of behaviour hasn't finished. We only have to see what the Leader of the Opposition has been attempting to do to expel a member of a union. That just brought out all this bad behaviour again for everyone to see.

This legislation means that actions by unions which are unlawful will have major consequences. It's not just the royal commission that outlined a lot of these misbehaviours; there has been a lot of analysis of the consequences of this breaking the law and this militant industrial activity in infrastructure and new builds. Everyone knows about the money that we put into roads, schools and hospitals through the state governments and local government. The delays and extra costs as a result of militant behaviour that is unlawful means that there is less money because everything costs more. So there are fewer roads, fewer schools and fewer hospitals built.

The Master Builders Association estimates that this increasing cost is 30 per cent more due to unlawful industrial action and militancy. BCA and Infrastructure Australia estimate that infrastructure costs in Australia, as a result of this sort of activity, are 40 per cent more than similar projects in the USA. The McKellar Institute in 2016 analysed the costs for a standard two-lane non-divided road—and we have many of those in the Lyne electorate and we'd love to build more—and said that, because of the costs that are generated by these unlawful activities and militant behaviour, it costs 26 per cent more in Australia compared to in the UK, 42 per cent more than in the USA, 53 per cent more than in Canada and 78 per cent more than in the EU.

I would really love to be able to say to my local councils that the money that goes to fixing Clarence Town Road will go a whole lot further. But it's these big infrastructure projects where most of this behaviour is happening—big greenfield sites, not just local domestic building. Big projects that state governments and the federal government fund—sites that are funded by taxpayers—all cost more than they should. Privately funded infrastructure and privately funded construction projects all cost much more. Major real estate developments cost more. People buying property end up having to pay more because of the construction costs we've outlined. Everyone who has analysed it deems this is real, not just a confected allegation. Things do cost more in Australia because of some of the activities on these big sites.

How frequently is this happening? One only has to look at the figures that the ABCC, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, has just assembled in one of their reports: over 2,000 times in 15 years, and 200 times alone in 2018-19. Currently, there are 32 cases and 766 individuals contravening the law as it stands. That is the justification for these amendments. If there is unlawful behaviour of this extent across the length and breadth of the country, you can imagine how it's holding the nation back. The unlawful behaviour by the CFMMEU and their members just in this last calendar year, 2018-19, is $4 million. If you look at all the fines they've accumulated since 2004, including predecessor organisations to the ABCC, it's $16.4 million. That just gives you an idea of the extent and the breadth of this unlawful behaviour.

There are five schedules outlining what will be done, and they are sensible, reasonable amendments, which will allow the courts to adjudicate and ensure that officials that do demonstrate a disregard for the law or otherwise engage in misconduct will not be able to hold office in the registered organisation anymore. A person convicted of any offence that carries a penalty of five years imprisonment or more will now be automatically disqualified for the existing exclusion period of five years. This was recommended by the royal commission into trade union governance and corruption. There is justification for it, and it will ensure that individuals who commit serious criminal offences will not be able to hold office in a registered organisation.

It also expands the grounds on which the Federal Court can make an order disqualifying an individual from holding office for a period of time that it determines appropriate. Officers who deliberately flout the law who are found not to be fit and proper will risk losing the privilege of representing their members. The schedule also makes it an offence for anyone who has been disqualified to continue to act and interfere in the industrial scene. Even influencing the organisation that you've been dismissed from is captured by that amendment. It will improve the standards of integrity in registered organisations and it means that people who do break the law will face the consequences. The costs and the fines that have been imposed so far seem to be no barrier to this bad behaviour. Since 2017, they have looked at the earlier iteration, and it will bring these guidelines for actions by the courts in keeping with what corporations have to deal with under the Corporations Act. These are very sensible, measured changes.

The royal commission also heard evidence that a culture of lawlessness and disrespect continued in some of these organisations, and the bill will ensure that the Federal Court is appropriately empowered to deal with organisations or parts of an organisation that break the law or fail to act in their members' best interests. The vast majority of these organisations are operating within the law. This isn't a broad attack on the union movement; it's a very specific attack on bad behaviour, such as coercing people, abusing the right of entry, forcing people, extortion and blackmail, which are all there on the record. Dysfunctional organisations will be able to be directed so that their affairs are brought into order. You only have to look at what happened with the Health Services Union. There was a dysfunctional organisation there; all the parties involved agreed. But this bill means the courts can appoint an administrator to sort out the affairs, correct all the dysfunction and make sure substandard behaviour comes to an end. Whilst the organisation is under administration, the administrator will control the property and the affairs of the organisation and perform the functions and exercise the powers that their members need, and officers or employees of the organisation under administration must give the administrator all the relevant information, so anything that is reasonably required will be available. There will be new increased penalties. And the removal of a potential imprisonment term for failing to help an administrator and failing to provide an organisation's books on request is an appropriate change which responds to stakeholder concerns.

When corporations merge, they have to face a public interest test, and the ACCC assesses whether a merger is in the interests of the economy and whether competition is reduced as a result. Similarly, with the amendments in this bill, a proposed merger of registered organisations, including but not limited to those with significant economic influence, should be subject to a public interest consideration. I think this is a reasonable and a very wise move. When you look at the size of these mega unions, they have the capability to shut down vast parts of the Australian economy. In the corporate sphere, if similar mergers are on the cards, the ACCC has an ability to stop that merger happening. This bill will ensure that the Fair Work Commission applies a public interest test when any other mergers are brought forward. Under the bill, the Fair Work Commission will have an overarching discretion to determine whether this is a good merger or whether it should not proceed. While the bill outlines a number of matters for the commission to take into account, the ultimate decision is left to the commission itself. So there are many practical amendments in this bill which address the concerns that are evidenced in the commission and in the public press.

We want the rule of law to apply in the workplace. We want militant, unlawful action to cease and we want there to be consequences for repeated bad behaviour. All of the things that I've outlined shouldn't be a feature in the workplace or on major construction sites like the major highways that we're building. We've got $100 billion worth of construction and infrastructure planned over the next 10 years. Wouldn't it be great if lower costs meant that the infrastructure could be delivered 20, 30 per cent more efficiently? It would benefit the Australian taxpayer and the users of that infrastructure, and it would be a major benefit to the economy. And people who are borrowing for a home unit or a house would know that the construction costs haven't been put up because of militant action.

With all the home units being built, you've got to think: how much cheaper could those properties be for consumers? You've got to think of the consequences of increased construction costs for all the infrastructure that goes with new developments and major land releases. All of these things mean things cost more. We're trying to make housing more affordable, and we're trying to stamp out the militant, unlawful actions. I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context