Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

And yes, as the member for Ryan says, part of it will be, I'm sure, about blaming the voters—'Don't they understand how good they could have had it if only there had been a change of government'—because, apparently, $387 billion of new taxes and ripping off the restrictions on those who seek to break the laws would somehow end up in a better outcome for the people of Australia.

But the matter before us right now is a relatively simple piece of legislation in its objective, its ambition, and its concurrence with the values of most of the people of this country. The simple proposition is that, if you are a union official seeking to represent others in an industrial capacity, you may be expected to adhere to the law, and that, if you do not adhere to the law, there is a pathway to disqualification—in exactly the same way as we look at it for people like company directors who are custodians of other people's money in pursuit of opportunity. We want people to meet basic standards in the workplace.

We all know horrific stories—and, tragically, they're coming out far too frequently these days—where we have registered organisations, whether they be business organisations or those in the trade union movement, where people breached the trust of the people that they are there to represent, where they use the weight and authority that they have and throw their weight around to do the wrong thing. Of course, a critical part of that is also around sometimes overstepping the mark on behalf of the people they represent in their engagement with employers, in breaking the law, in misallocating money and in seeking to advance their own interests at the expense of those they're representing.

When those things occur, it is not just an issue of integrity—though it is that. It is also a fundamental breach of trust. And the expectation that we have as a government is that, whether you are in business or in a representative body or a union, you have a basic obligation to those you represent to honour their trust, and that, if you don't, there should be penalties. It goes to the heart of your character and, therefore, your capacity to play your role.

That's why we, on this side of the House, support this piece of legislation. It's to elevate the basic expectation that's adhered to by so many others to the paymasters of the Australian Labor Party. And that's precisely why they oppose it, because sitting behind the modern Labor Party is a patronage network and, once a bright light is shone upon it and people are held to account and questions about conduct are asked in courts of law, a light is turned not just on the trade union movement—though that's critically important—but on themselves. They say sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. But there is a lot to disinfect on that side of the chamber. There is a lot to disinfect in the trade union movement. And what they do, in pursuit of that, is, of course, to trade on the trust of good, decent, hardworking Australians who empower them to represent their interests. And if those on the other side had any skerrick of integrity, they would support this piece of legislation.

I fully accept that many of them have traded their way through the system of the trade union movement to sit in this place and carry the trust of the Australian people and their communities in the parliament. They absolutely have. I realise the uncomfortableness that must sit with many of them, including those who have their backs turned to us now, to shine that light. That relationship does not end once you enter this place, because those people who sit atop the union movement and do the wrong thing continue to pull the purse strings, the membership strings and the factional strings. But at some point leadership is actually about standing up and turning to your colleagues and saying, 'We may have got here, but our responsibility is to now do what is right.' That is the test that they are failing in their opposition to this bill.

As a basic benchmark of what will happen if this bill passes, will workers be worse off? No, they will be better off. Will the institutions of our democracy be worse off? No, they'll be better off. The only people who will be worse off are the people sitting on that side of this chamber and the trade union leaders who break the law. If that is the basis of their opposition to this legislation and they are trying to conflate other issues with the concerns about criminal law-breaking that occurs in this country, then it is no wonder the Australian people kept them on that side of this chamber.

See this speech in context