Wilson, Tim, MP

Mr TIM WILSON (Goldstein) (11:27): It's a great pleasure to be able to rise in this place on behalf of the people of Goldstein and in particular in support of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019. I don't doubt for a second that the people of Goldstein have a basic expectation that those who seek to represent others in a union might be law-abiding citizens in their task and duties and as a consequence would support this bill. We have just heard one of, and we always enjoy, the—how would you put it?—I'll be charitable and say 'speeches' of the shadow Attorney-General. What we saw alive, and what we have been seeing since the election—I don't say this with any sense of joy; it's a sadness—is the opposition's enlivenment of the seven stages of grief. Immediately after the election we had shock and disbelief at their defeat and that they wouldn't be able to go on and do the opposite of what this bill seeks to achieve, to enlarge the space for their mates and paymasters in the unions to do as they wish on any industrial worksite around the country. Then we had denial about the basis on which they lost the election and what that was driven by. Their solution to this denial was to select the current Leader of the Opposition to lead them rather than reflect on their dilemma and why they did not attract the votes of the Australian people. Then we had guilt. We saw that yesterday from the former Leader of the Opposition, who talked about his very great disappointment that he wasn't serving on this side of the chamber and able to lead his team to victory in order to do the exact opposite of what this legislation seeks to achieve. We then have seen things like anger and bargaining. We saw that particularly with the allocation of the shadow ministry, where people were included or excluded proportionately based on the rage over who was responsible for what, the chief victims of that being not only the former Leader of the Opposition but also the former shadow Treasurer. We've seen depression, loneliness and reflection. We saw that specifically through their complete incapacity to deal with basic issues like tax cuts, where prior to the election they opposed $387 billion in tax cuts and today they say that apparently we're not doing enough. Then, of course, we've just seen, in the shadow Attorney-General's speech on this bill, the reconstruction and working through of the issues, and trying to understand and to find a meandering narrative— Mr Simmonds interjecting— Mr TIM WILSON: and it meandered, as the good member for Ryan has reminded me—about why they can rationalise turning a blind eye to the illegality of union officials while concurrently lecturing others in this place about integrity! At some point, I'm sure, the opposition will reach a moment of acceptance, having gone through those stages. And we are about to come up to a five-week break in the parliamentary schedule where they may just do that. It's entirely possible, of course, that they will go in the reverse direction and go back to things like denial and guilt, certainly anger and bargaining, and perhaps a reconstruction, working through the issues that they face. Mr Simmonds: Blaming the voters! Mr TIM WILSON: 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.