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

The bill, as it was introduced, defined 'designated finding' by reference to whether the person was found to have committed a relevant criminal offence or found to have contravened a civil penalty provision in a designated law. What the amendment at item 1 on sheet 8975 revised 2 would provide is that only contraventions of core industrial laws which result in a conviction or a court-imposed pecuniary penalty are designated findings for the purposes of the bill; a finding alone will not be sufficient. This is an amendment which further ensures that the bill only targets serious contraventions of core industrial laws, and to accommodate the amendment of this definition, of course, there are consequential amendments made throughout schedules 1, 2 and 4 of the bill. But, ultimately, Senator Sheldon, the point is that the behaviour and actions that you describe don't reach the levels set out in the bill in terms of deregistration or disqualification.

You also raised paperwork breaches. I do think it's important to remind the chamber that it is not true—it is in fact an absolute untruth—that, under the bill, registered organisations could be deregistered and their officers disqualified for trivial paperwork breaches, which include submitting a form to the regulator a few days late. But what we've seen are significant breaches characterised as paperwork breaches by registered organisations and their officers, who have sought to downplay that conduct. And you're right; there was a penalty applied to the Transport Workers Union chair. The Federal Court applied a penalty to the Transport Workers Union for breaking the law that requires organisations to keep a proper register of their members. In this case, there were repeated and serious breaches, over 12 years, of record-keeping laws. The primary judge said in that matter:

It needs to be understood by registered organisations that this is a serious piece of legislation and the apparently mundane obligations it imposes are to be obeyed.

The judge also noted that these laws can go to the very 'democratic integrity' of an organisation.

We know that, where an organisation doesn't publish financial reports or disclose loans, grants or donations, that might also be characterised as a paperwork breach—but it can actually lead to corruption. It can lead to workers getting a very bad deal from the people who represent them. It might be the case that an organisation doesn't keep ballot papers or disclose conflicts of interest; it might want to dismiss those as paperwork as well. But those breaches are serious. They can cover up fraud. They can cover up a corrupt election. So there are a range of examples in this context. I suspect those opposite wouldn't think that, if an employer failed to provide a payslip, that should in all circumstances be characterised as a trivial paperwork breach for which there should be no consequences. That is why it is important that every contravention is looked at on its relevant merits and in context. The court is properly equipped to do that and to determine what the appropriate consequences are in particular circumstances.