Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations, Senator Payne. Can the minister outline how the government is taking action to provide certainty and stability to small businesses, workers and subcontractors by ensuring registered organisations play by the rules?

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

I thank Senator Abetz for his very important question. Through multiple royal commissions we have seen the law-breaking culture that lies at the heart of some registered organisations that simply refuse to play by the rules. The CFMMEU, for example, an organisation very familiar to members opposite, has breached industrial laws alone three times per week, on average, over the course of the last 15 years.

Senator Watt interjecting—

Your glass jaw is showing, Senator Watt. It has racked up $16.4 million in court ordered penalties from more than 2,100 offences. Just last week, we heard Justice Mortimer of the Federal Court observe the following when imposing yet another fine on the CFMMEU. She said:

the CFMMEU appears undeterred by whatever penalties are fixed by this Court for its contraventions.

She also observed that continuing to impose fines on the CFMMEU in the hope it will have a deterrent effect 'appears to me to be engaging in something of a fiction.' It's clear that existing deterrents are not working, and that's why this government has introduced the ensuring integrity bill. This bill is designed to target organisations and individuals that fail to take seriously both the privileges and responsibilities arising out of registration or appointment as an officer and who continue to break the law with reckless abandon. The bill, which applies equally to all registered organisations, be they unions or employer organisations, introduces basic standards of behaviour for such organisations and their officials. It will assist in deterring repeated law breaking through the imposition of tougher penalties by the courts.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, a supplementary question?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the minister: is the minister aware whether the CFMEU was the former employer of the Leader of the Opposition in this place, but, more seriously, can the minister update the Senate on the sorts of conduct that gives rise to the government's action?

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

I can advise the Senate that in recent years the CFMMEU and its officials have been found by the courts to have: firstly, unlawfully pressured workers to join the union and give up their own wages in union fees; secondly, kicked workers off job sites for refusing to join the union; thirdly, engaged in costly, time consuming and unlawful industrial action that hinders the completion of vital construction projects and ultimately costs taxpayers; fourthly, made up safety complaints to unlawfully gain access to worksites and, finally, intimidated and harassed female public servants, including police. If that weren't enough, just this weekend we saw reports of Mr Setka making threatening remarks about sitting senators, about colleagues in this chamber. That sort of behaviour is totally inexcusable and beyond defensible. It doesn't matter whether they're construction workers or small businesses, senators or otherwise, no-one should be forced to do anything under the threat of retribution from a militant union or its officials.

Scott Ryan (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Abetz, a final supplementary question?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for her answer. Is the minister aware of any alternative views that risk the smirching of the good names and actions of our nations' many law-abiding registered organisations?

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

I can, in fact, because those views which are held by those opposite, who despite all the evidence—the court decisions, the comments by the judiciary, the repeated examples of outrageous unlawful behaviour—continue to see fit to defend law-breakers and to oppose this government's bill. They refuse to acknowledge that the problems run deeper than one man, however disgraceful his behaviours might be. They refuse to drop their policy to scrap the ABCC, something they committed to because they promised the CFMMEU even less oversight. They're engaging in a protection racket of repeat law-breakers in unions, like the CFMMEU, who continue to give the rest of the union movement a bad name. It leads you to wonder: why would those opposite be doing that? Is it because they support law breaking? Is it because they have personal links that they can't get past or is it because they receive millions of dollars from the coffers of law-breaking organisations like the CFMMEU into their accounts every single year? (Time expired)