Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (14:46): I thank the member for his question. As the member is aware, the ensuring integrity bill before this place simply sets out appropriate standards for someone to hold the important position as an official of a registered organisation. The bill would allow a court to determine, at its discretion, whether it's appropriate for someone to maintain office as a public official in, for instance, a union when they had committed an offence against the law of the Commonwealth or a state that carries a term of imprisonment of two years or more. Why is that necessary? There are multiple examples of individuals holding these important public offices who have offended against that rule. There was one reported, which will be of great interest to all members assembled, in The Australian Financial Review today of two CFMMEU organisers: Mr Nicholas Rekes and Mr Simon Gutierrez. Mr Rekes pleaded guilty to supplying an indictable quantity of a prohibited drug, an offence that carries a penalty of more than two years imprisonment. Mr Gutierrez pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited drug. The supply charge for these offences related to an earlier conviction of Mr Michael Greenfield, another CFMMEU official, for possessing a prohibited drug. All three are still employed at the CFMMEU. Interestingly, it's reported that Mr Gutierrez was previously convicted to 18 months, serving a non-parole period of seven months in prison, for supplying a prohibited drug in a commercial quantity on an ongoing basis. I have managed to get the transcript. Opposition members interjecting— Mr PORTER: I think that members opposite will be very interested in it. This is the application of Mr Gutierrez for an entry permit to building sites. This is after the first conviction but before the second conviction. There was a submission brought as to why this person should have an entry permit as a union official. I've heard a lot in the years in the courts but I've never heard this before. The submission after the first conviction and before the second conviction as to why he should have a public official entry permit was: working for the CFMMEU had given him the opportunity to change his life for the better. It would seem that the only problem with the CFMMEU's drug rehabilitation program is the spate of later drug convictions after someone has been in the CFMMEU's drug rehabilitation program. Just the other day—and now the silence is deafening—we had John Setka, who is obviously in charge of their anger management programs, say about crossbenchers who might vote in favour of a bill that says you shouldn't have a drug conviction and be a public official: 'We're going to make it so that in 20 years time when they're walking down the street someone is going to point the finger. They're aware of the damage that we can do.' (Time expired)