My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate on what the Turnbull government is doing to ban corrupt practices in Australian workplaces?

Order! Order on both sides!

I thank Senator Smith for his question. I am pleased to report that last night the Senate passed the Turnbull government's changes to the Fair Work Act, which ban corrupt payments between employers and unions. It's over! We saw, during the royal commission, that there were numerous examples of employers paying sums to unions which had the effect of seeing the particular employer be given favourable treatment from the union. This favourable treatment was at the expense of the workers who they were supposedly representing. It was one of the recommendations of the royal commission that payments such as these should be banned in the sole interests of the workers.

Can I thank senators from Pauline Hanson's One Nation, the Nick Xenophon Team and Senators Gichuhi, Hinch, Bernardi and Leyonhjelm for their support in passing this fundamental piece of industrial relations reform and for clearly showing that they are pro-worker and anticorruption. Despite the rhetoric of Mr Shorten even but a few weeks ago when he said, 'Let me be very clear—the Labor Party has no time for corruption,' what we saw last night was that, when it comes to employers and unions doing deals that are to the disadvantage of the worker, Labor will back the deals every step of the way. Let's face it: under Labor, corrupt payments would resume. The construction industry would be handed back over to the CFMEU; the CFA volunteers would be handed over to the UFU; and owner-drivers would be handed over to the TWU. (Time expired)

Senator Smith, a supplementary question.

What risks are there to Australian workers when these corrupt practices are allowed to take place?

Does anyone seriously think that such payments could in any way be ethical or not create a serious conflict of interest? In fact most Australians, in the feedback that I've received for a very long time now, are actually staggered that such payments were able to occur. Employers and unions should at all times put the interests of the workers first. Anything that causes a conflict between the employer, the union and the workers should not be allowed. Anything that could suggest that a union is receiving money in return for compromising the interests of their workers should be made unlawful. Just remember: corrupt receipt means corrupt payment. That's why the bill targets both employers and unions. They will both be liable for these practices.

Senator Smith, a final supplementary question.

Is the minister aware of any alternative proposals to what passed through the Senate last night?

It is very clear: Labor stands for corrupt workplace deals between employers and unions; it does not stand for the workers. Let me tell you what Labor stands for, because this is what they argued for. Labor thinks it's alright for a union boss to accept a flight for an international holiday on the private jet of a billionaire employer who employs the union's members. That's okay. Labor thinks it's okay for an employer to secretly donate $30,000 to the political campaign for parliament of a union boss at the same time that that union is meant to be negotiating an agreement with the company. Labor thinks it's alright for a union to receive secret payments from an employer in return for keeping a workplace agreement that removes all penalty rates for the workers.

On my right. And on my left. Senator Cameron! And Senator Macdonald!