Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to address this proposition directly. This government does not turn a blind eye to corruption—in unions, in corporations or anywhere else. The rule of law in this country does not depend on ministerial preference; it depends on independent regulators, independent prosecutors and independent courts. Where there is unlawful conduct, it should be investigated and prosecuted. That is the position of this government. It is clear. It is consistent. It is not selective. I did not realise when I came into this place as a sparky turned lawyer that I would have to become an amateur historian to remind those opposite of their collective amnesia and that history actually matters.

For nearly a decade, those opposite presided over systematic wage theft across multiple industries: hospitality, retail, construction and franchising. Underpayment was exposed repeatedly. Large corporations admitted to short-changing workers by millions of dollars, yet the penalty framework remained weak. Enforcement was under-resourced and criminalisation was resisted. That was the blind eye not to allegations but to structural exploitation. They resisted the federal Anti-Corruption Commission for years. They argued against it, they delayed it and then they diluted it. This government established the National Anti-Corruption Commission. We did so because integrity cannot be factional; it must be institutional.

The opposition's argument today implies that unions operate without oversight. That is demonstrably incorrect. Registered organisations are subject to strict financial reporting obligations, officer duties, audits and disclosure requirements under federal law. Breaches attract significant penalties. In many instances, penalties imposed on unions for industrial contraventions exceed those imposed on corporations for comparable regulatory breaches. That is not an argument for impunity; it is an argument about proportionality. The question is not whether misconduct should be sanctioned. It should. The question is whether one class of lawful organisation should be subject to extraordinary penalty settings while corporate misconduct that distorts markets and harms workers is treated as a compliance matter.

During the previous government, industrial relations policy was framed not as economic management but as a cultural contest. Legislation such as the so-called ensuring integrity bill sought to make deregistration of unions easier than the removal of corporate directors for serious misconduct. That was not a neutral integrity measure; it was targeted regulation.

This government does not defend unlawful conduct. We defend consistent application of the law. The same job, same pay legislation is to me one of the greatest pieces of legislation this government has passed. When I was on the tools, I was building on a construction site up in the hills in Perth. We were building a crushing plant and there were four rates of pay for different sparkies. Because of that people just quit. And they wonder why productivity was low under the previous regime.

We've criminalised deliberate wage theft, because honest small businesses were being undercut by competitors who avoided paying lawful entitlements. We strengthened the enforcement so that those who do the right thing are not commercially disadvantaged. That is not turning a blind eye; that is correcting imbalance.

The opposition's pattern is familiar: amplify allegations in the Labor movement while remaining comparatively subdued about misconduct in the boardrooms. Integrity should not operate on a partisan bias. If corruption is the concern, then all corruption should be pursued without favour, without political narrative and without selective outrage. This government supports independent regulators doing their job. We do not interfere in their investigations. We do not issue instructions about targets. That is precisely what integrity requires.

The Australian people expect fairness and consistency. They expect that laws apply equally. We do not accept the proposition that equates supporting the union movement with excusing illegality. That is a false dichotomy. Unions are lawful institutions representing millions of Australians. They are regulated. They are accountable. When individuals breach the law, they face consequences like anyone else. The opposition is entitled to prosecute political arguments but is not entitled to rewrite its own record.

See this speech in context