Thursday, 27 August 2026

 Jade BENHAM (Mildura) (14:48): To begin this contribution, I will make it very clear that the Nationals and the Liberals oppose this bill. To make another thing clear, there are two parts to this bill, one which involves incorporated associations that have an industrial relations purpose and a second which involves incorporated associations that are listed as terrorist organisations or prohibited hate groups. It is preposterous that those two are featured in the same bill, which is why we oppose this bill. But I do want to make another thing very clear: the Nationals and the Liberals have no interest whatsoever in protecting those in the second part of the bill – neo-Nazis, terrorist organisations and organisations engaged in unlawful hate actions or actions that serve that kind of terrible purpose – none whatsoever. If the government identifies a genuine gap in Victorian law which then allows a terrorist organisation or prohibited neo-Nazi organisation to obtain legal protections or legitimacy through incorporation, then it should bring a clean bill to the Parliament – separate it, split it – which is what we intend to do in the upper house.

We will then look at that. We will consider the evidence, and where there is a genuine problem obviously requiring legislation we will fix it, but I do not for a minute believe that these types of groups are sitting around doing administration and paperwork for Consumer Affairs Victoria. If there was a legitimate need and there was evidence shown to legislate against these types of organisations, we would have looked at it, but instead this government has taken the politically convenient issue of these neo-Nazi terrorist organisations and hate groups and bundled it into a bill containing a completely separate industrial relations agenda. That should make every member of this place, every member of the community and every member of some of these alternative associated incorporations ask: why? Why are we debating neo-Nazis and retail workers in the same bill? Why are we debating terrorist organisations and paramedics in the same bill? Why are hate groups and railway workers being debated in the same bill? Why are organisations that engage in unlawful extremism being legitimately bundled with perfectly lawful associations of Victorian workers? They have absolutely nothing to do with one another, and yet this government would have Victorians believe that somehow they belong together when they do not.

The government’s sales pitch has been remarkably simple and misleading, and its own media release is headed ‘Stopping workers being scammed and stamping out hate’. The government says that so-called Red Unions – and I should not even say that, because they are legitimate organisations representing thousands of Victorian workers across all manner of sectors: nurses, paramedics, police and teachers – are registering as ordinary incorporated associations instead of federally registered unions. Well, we know what happens when they try to register as federally registered unions. It happened to the Victorian Ambulance Union, and I will get to that very, very shortly, because there is an interesting little carve-out to make sure that the VAU are not captured by this particular bill. The minister says:

If you’re calling yourself a union, you should have to act like one.

Then the government says it is going to stop hate groups incorporating and obtaining what it calls the legitimacy and financial structuring benefits of incorporation. That sounds simple, but again, I do not think they are that concerned with their legal protections and how their organisation is structured. These are not law-abiding citizens in the first place, so it is ridiculous.

The bill is decidedly more complicated than that original press release suggests when you actually look at who may be affected. The government’s neat little storyline about fake unions starts to really unravel. Let us talk about what an incorporated association is, and it is worth explaining, considering that is what this whole bill is about. The government’s language has deliberately blurred the distinctions. An incorporated association is a legal entity. It can hold assets, it can enter contracts, it can employ people, it can have insurance, it can sue and be sued, and its existence continues independently of individual members. Thousands upon thousands of Victorian sporting clubs, charities, community organisations, professional bodies and other associations use this structure. Some of them have to to be able to gain any sort of government funding. But an incorporated association, as we know, is not automatically a federally registered union. We know that, and nobody is suggesting otherwise.

I might also point out that federally registered employee organisations operate under the Commonwealth legislation framework, and they receive statutory rights and privileges. They are the ones that have the right of entry. Incorporated associations can do all those other things, but they do not carry that right of entry – and they also do not profess to. It is pointed out everywhere on their websites. And it is not just the Red Unions. They have been named in the government’s media release, but it is not just them. It is things like RAFFWU, the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union. They also point out that because they are an incorporated association they do not have those rights of entry, but they have all of the other mechanisms to be able to represent those workers in that sector. Registered union officials also may obtain rights of entry, and we have covered that. That distinction does matter for incorporated associations.

There is a little bit of rhetoric too that Labor seem to keep skipping over. An organisation does not need to be a federally registered union to lawfully represent workers in every circumstance – we know that – which is how these competitive unions have operated for so long and why it is upsetting so many people within the SDA, for example, because they are bleeding members to RAFFWU, and we know that. An industrial association can represent its members, we know that. A worker can appoint a bargaining representative and an organisation can participate in enterprise bargaining, which they have done, and it can appear in industrial processes, it can advocate and it can organise. And we know that because these organisations are doing that.

Let us talk about the Independent Transport Union. I have engaged with members of the ITU during consideration of this bill, and it is not a federally registered union either, we know that, and it also makes it clear. But it does represent transport workers, largely V/Line workers. It participates in those bargaining negotiations, it participates in industrial processes, and in 2025 the Fair Work Commission dealt with an application involving the Independent Transport Union for a protected action ballot covering employees across Victorian transport employers. This is not some imaginary organisation sitting in a suburban garage somewhere just dreaming up these things and printing membership cards on a printer and pretending to be a union. There are workers legitimately choosing an organisation to represent them, and that is one of the key points here. This bill is incredibly undemocratic, it is anti freedom of association and it stinks.

Choice matters. Apparently, though, that choice has become a very large problem for the Labor government, because if those workers understand exactly what the ITU or any of these independent associations or unions can do and what they cannot do, if they understand it is not a federally registered union or a registered employee organisation, why does the government then care which organisations they can choose from? And they do care. Is this a factional favour to the SDA to get rid of RAFFWU? Why won’t the government provide us with the organisations that will and will not be affected? We have asked for those. We have also asked for the level of consultation that was involved in the writing of this bill, which we have not received.

Let us talk about RAFFWU – again, the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union. This is where the government’s political narrative really starts to fall apart. RAFFWU is an incorporated industrial association, as I have said, and if you do a little bit of research on RAFFWU, it is pretty obvious that you would not describe them as sort of a conservative front organisation at all. They are very much an organisation that is built of the political left; we know that. In fact there are plenty of opinions that come from RAFFWU that many members on this side of the house would not agree with. RAFFWU has also politically defended the CFMEU. I do not think there is a member on this side that would agree with that at all. They have defended the CFMEU during the controversy surrounding the administration of the construction division and expressed their solidarity. Their industrial philosophy certainly does not align with mine, but this is precisely the point. Freedom of association means very little if we only defend it for organisations whose politics we like.

RAFFWU represents retail and fast-food workers. It competes directly with the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association, the SDA, and RAFFWU says this legislation threatens its ability to continue operating under its current incorporated structure. Commentators from the left have made precisely the same criticism of this legislation as organisations from the other side: that the federal registration system can present substantial barriers where an existing registered organisation already covers the relevant workers, which creates a very strange situation. The Victorian government says, ‘You shouldn’t be an incorporated association. Go and become federally registered.’ Well, it is not that easy. The federal system can effectively say, ‘No, we’ve already got a union that represents those workers and also donates to the Labor Party, so we’re not going to let you be a federally registered union. You can’t do that,’ which is why they have to be an incorporated association in the first place. They are trying to get rid of freedom of association and freedom of choice so that workers can only choose a state-sanctioned union that donates to the Labor Party – that is the crux of this. If a worker does not like how they are being represented by the federally registered organisation covering those workers, and workers are left asking where they are supposed to go if they do not want to pay those membership fees, then where are they supposed to go? You go to an incorporated association. But this will then outlaw those associations. Workers need to have choice.

There is also another element which Labor might find slightly uncomfortable. That is the elephant in the Kmart aisle. The Premier himself has spoken about his early years working at Kmart Airport West, where he started working as a young man. It is wonderful working in retail. I have worked in retail; I have worked in fast food as well. While working at Kmart the Premier joined the SDA. Obviously there is nothing wrong with that. I want to be clear about this as well: there is nothing improper about being a member of the SDA or joining that union when you are working at Kmart. But when the Premier’s own government introduces legislation which potentially threatens the incorporated structure of the SDA’s direct competitor in retail and fast food, then surely this Parliament is not only entitled to ask questions but is bound to. We are bound to ask questions, and there are some very simple ones that we would like asked. Was the SDA consulted on this bill? I said earlier that we have not received a list of stakeholder consultations that took place. Did the SDA advocate for these changes? Victorians will probably make up their minds. Transparency is not a strong point. Did the SDA ask the government to deal with incorporated industrial associations? Probably. Was RAFFWU consulted? I can answer that one, because I know the answer is no. We could ask when they were if the government still spins around the answer to that one. Was Trades Hall consulted? Probably. Which federally registered unions were consulted? Again, I have asked for any consultation that took place on this bill, and I am yet to be provided with that.

We come back to that question again: why won’t the government simply table the complete list of associations it believes will be affected by this legislation, and who exactly was consulted? Was the Jewish community consulted? I know that neither the Australian Jewish Association nor the Jewish Community Council of Victoria (JCCV) were consulted, and they are very disgruntled, I will put it, for not being consulted at all and being left feeling like they are being used for political gain with zero consultation whatsoever. I am not alleging any sort of conspiracy here. I do not need to; the facts speak for themselves. The circumstances themselves demand transparency, because if government legislation removes or disadvantages a competitor to an organisation with longstanding links to the Labor Party, the government should be bending over backwards to demonstrate that the process was independent, transparent and justified. Present the problems that are being solved here.

I said earlier in my contribution that I would bring up the VAU, the Victorian Ambulance Union. The Victorian Ambulance Union and the Police Association Victoria were the first two I thought of that could be hit by this type of legislation. The police association operate under a different federal framework, so effectively they are a federal union, but not under that registration. It is a long and complicated process that I have learned a lot about in the last couple of weeks. They are okay. The VAU are not federally registered. They have been operating as an industrial association. However, they tried to become federally registered, and like that caricature that I tried to illustrate earlier, there has been some pushback. There are other organisations that represent ambulance workers, but the Victorian Ambulance Union obviously represents Victorian ambulance workers. It did lodge an application federally in 2024. What happened, I hear you ask. Its application ran into those complex federal industrial laws. It was objected to by the existing registered organisations. Questions arose about whether the VAU fell within the Commonwealth definition of ‘enterprise association’ because a majority of its members worked for Ambulance Victoria – state based.

The VAU have fought the issue. It was pursued through the Fair Work Commission process. Here we have an organisation that effectively said it was trying to enter the federal registered system and the federal legal architecture presented barriers to doing exactly that, which is what a lot of the other incorporated associations have run into as well. However, the VAU – and I spoke to Danny Hill whilst considering this bill – continued representing Victorian paramedics. I want to thank them, while I have the opportunity, for the job they do. It bargained with AV, Ambulance Victoria, and participated in that Fair Work Commission process.

Ambulance Victoria has itself dealt with the VAU as an industrial representative. Is the Victorian Ambulance Union a fake union like the others have been called? There would not be a paramedic in the state that would say no. Of course they are. But if it is not, then explain that principle. There is a nice little carve-out in this bill, though. Again, you do not want to allege any conspiracies here, but anyone that has applied to be federally registered before 1 July is exempt from this process. When was this presented to the house? Two weeks ago, well after that exemption date. Who else was consulted or notified that they needed to have a federal registration in to be exempt? I can tell you exactly how many independents were consulted: zero, absolutely none. That is a nice little carve-out for the VAU. They are still not federally registered as a union, but they are working through that process. Hopefully that will happen for them, because they do a very, very good job. Again, with the VAU there were objections. I cannot remember who from off the top of my head; I did not include the list of objectors because it is not really relevant. But given that there were those objections – 2024 is when they originally applied and it is now near the end of 2026 – it has been a long process.

Let us talk about unions for workers. If workers are unhappy, like I said earlier, with the organisation that is representing their industry, why shouldn’t they be able to establish an alternative? Why shouldn’t they? Why shouldn’t another organisation compete for their membership? Why shouldn’t another organisation offer lower fees? Why shouldn’t it offer a different service? Why shouldn’t it take a different approach to bargaining? Why shouldn’t it be politically independent? That is an important question, I would suggest. And why shouldn’t workers be allowed to decide who represents them? If the established union provides better representation, terrific, workers will choose it. That is competition. That is the competitive landscape. That is the free market. To do something like this, to outlaw any form of competition, is removing choice and removing freedom of association, which is a direct attack on democracy. It really is. But are we surprised? Not in the slightest.

If workers are being misled, then deal with that misleading conduct. But like I have illustrated, the associations and the unions that I have dealt with in consideration of this bill all have what their abilities are and are not illustrated on their websites and communications. The strongest argument this government has got is that these are fake unions and they are scams. That does not stack up, because they are very transparent about what is going on and what they can and they cannot do. If an organisation tells someone it is federally registered and it is not, that is a problem. No-one is denying that. But none of these associations are doing that. If workers are paying membership fees because they have been deliberately deceived about what they are purchasing, that is a problem. Consumer protection always should be the priority. If that is an issue for some – certainly not any of the ones that I have consulted with – then let us deal with that. There is legislation that can deal with that already. The solution here is not to remove competition. You cannot just go around removing the competitor to make it so that workers have no choice other than a state-sanctioned union that donates directly to the Labor Party and is well documented for doing so. This is Soviet-style legislation coming quietly through this place, and it stinks and Victorians know it. Like I said, there have been unions and associations on both sides of the political spectrum that have illustrated and have been very vocal in their opposition to this bill and in how they feel about it. It is freedom of association. To be honest, if people are not happy with the organisation that is currently representing them, then freedom of association literally means they are free to move off and organise and come together and associate to form a group for better representation. That is exactly what freedom of association is, and isn’t that fundamentally the basis of the union movement in the first place?

There are two parts to this bill that do not belong together in the first place. There is the part relating to associations with an industrial relations purpose, and there is the second part, which is dealing with those terrorist organisations and hate groups. As it stands right now, we have no choice but to stand up for Victorian workers in this place and for the communities that have not been consulted with regard to this bill; we have to oppose it because it is a direct attack on freedom of association and democracy.

There is another question. I have gone through a few questions that the government need to ask, but I think there is another question that the government should be asking themselves. If they were on this side of the house, would they want us having this kind of power? I do not think so. I do not think any government should have the power to remove competition from any sort of landscape, particularly competitive unions or associations – anything. Competition is a good thing.

I just want to quickly get to the public interest test. There is another reason for concern. I mean, there are plenty, but the other reason for concern is that this bill introduces a very broad public interest consideration into decisions concerning incorporation. That should concern every member who understands the importance of civil society. An incorporated association might be unpopular. It might be annoying – I am not suggesting that any of the ones that I have consulted with are at all. It might campaign against the government, but it might campaign against the opposition. It might say things that make everyone uncomfortable, but that does not mean that the government should have an expansive ability to decide that its continued incorporation is contrary to the public interest, where industrial associations are concerned. Once Parliament gives government powers over unpopular organisations and to decide if their continued incorporation is contrary to the public interest, that is a slippery slope. That is why good legislation is written for the government you fear, not merely the government that is currently governing. So that question really needs to be asked: would members opposite be comfortable giving precisely the same power to the opposition? I do not think so.

I am going to cut it short, even though I have a few pages left of my notes and a few other things I want to express. But in the interests of time, because we are getting away with the afternoon, which is unfortunate, I want to cover off the part of the bill that has no business being part of this bill. Let me go to part 2 – the other half of the government’s political construction of this – the neo-Nazis, the terrorist organisations and the hate groups. They say that these organisations should not be able to incorporate. I agree, but again, these organisations are not sitting down doing Consumer Affairs Victoria paperwork on the weekend, are they? Let us be honest, they are not lawful organisations. They do not want to gain legitimacy and the financial structuring advantages that incorporation provides. We know that. Fine, but let us put it in context. These are not organisations, again, going about their lawful due diligence in their paperwork and filing their taxes and things like that – come on. Victoria already has substantial laws, too, dealing with Nazi symbols, Nazi gestures, serious vilification and unlawful extremist conduct. And terrorist organisations are, unsurprisingly, already subject to extensive Commonwealth criminal law.

During the briefing I did ask for the proscribed organisations that this would affect, and the department did come back to me with that list. On that list there are two. One is an Islamic extremist group. The other one is the White Australia Party. There are two. We know that they are federally proscribed terrorist organisations and hate groups. So again, why are we bundling these issues together? It is a really, really important question that needs to be asked by Victorians. I know for a fact that the Jewish community have asked that question, and they feel like they are being used as political fodder for this debate. Just wrap it all up, tie it in a red bow and let the government then talk about how we have opposed these bills and we are protecting those sorts of organisations, which I am not even going to name any more. It is absolute rot. The whole premise of this bill being bundled together – associations with an industrial purpose and these terrorist organisations and hate groups – is preposterous. There is a word for you. It is preposterous, and it should never be allowed to happen.

Like I said earlier, I was going to cut this short so a few other of our members could get up to speak, but I am quite passionate about this bill, which is why we will be opposing it in this place. We will be attempting to split the bill in the other place when it eventually gets there, but a lot of questions need to be asked. This will be a very, very slippery slope.

With my last moment, I do want to thank every industrial association that I spoke with – the guys from the Red Union, the guys from the RAFFWU, the guys from the ITU, Danny Hill from the VAU, Wayne Gatt from the police association, the Apprentices Group Australia and the JCCV – for all of these bits of information. Everyone that I spoke to within industrial associations was very forthcoming with their opinion of this. In fact some of them did not even know it was happening until I called them. What does that say about government consultation? Like I said, we are vehemently opposed to this bill. We are vehemently opposed to the removal of freedom of association. It is an attack on democracy, it is an attack on the free market and it is an attack on competitive unions, and we are absolutely opposed to it.

 Lauren KATHAGE (Yan Yean) (15:18): What a story from the member for Mildura. I think if you were walking through the library, you would have to find that in the conspiracy aisle. But I noticed some key characters missing from that story, and they were workers – and workers rights. The whole focus of her time on her feet – I think that was half an hour – was the organisations themselves. But we should not be surprised, because we know that the Liberal–National–One Nation party coalition is not a group that is going to be supporting workers. The track record is there – opposing penalty rates, opposing minimum wage rises, not believing that people should have childcare subsidies and being fundamentally anti-worker – and here we are bringing amendment legislation to make sure that workers get the utmost protection from those who seek to say that they do represent them but at the end of the day cannot properly and fully protect their workers’ rights. We are trying to fix that, and those opposite are turning it into a conspiracy theory. I say shame on them for that. We heard talk of the free market and competition and everything to do with the right of the organisation and nothing to do with the right of the worker. Well, we on this side are not surprised.

I will go into that in a little bit more detail soon, but can I just take a moment to note the most egregious part of the member for Mildura’s speech. When we were talking about hate organisations being deregistered she named them as, I think, the White Australia Party and she referred to a terrorist organisation, and she said, ‘There are only two.’ So two is okay? Is three okay? Is four okay? One is not okay. One is one too many. Two is double one. I will give you that one for free. We are not going to dilly-dally or not make efforts to protect our community if there are ‘only two’ terrorist or hate groups. One hate group is more than enough. On the slippery slope that the member for Mildura speaks of, I am afraid she is already at the bottom of the slide. And who she is sitting there with is a disgrace. Those opposite need to reflect on who they seek to partner up with in this place and what it will do to the fine state of Victoria, because we can see it. We can see it so clearly.

Even in the language of an attack on democracy this is just tapping into all that classic far-right language, when clearly this has nothing to do with freedom of association. People are absolutely free to associate. They are free to form organisations. Nobody is being stopped from associating. But this is stopping organisations from pretending to be federally registered unions.

Jade Benham interjected.

Lauren KATHAGE: People can associate as they like. Nobody is stopping that. There is no attack on democracy. This is about supporting workers. If the way the member for Mildura and those opposite want to see our community governed is by putting the rights of workers to the bottom, well, we just will not accept it. We absolutely will not. You know what, I was in this chamber just yesterday and I remember those opposite on their feet talking about the Police Association Victoria. Do you remember that? Just yesterday they were in here claiming that they were subject to this, and then today they come in and suddenly they have done a whole 180 and are saying the opposite. We can see that they will just say whatever suits the time they are in. We see that in our own community. To one group of people they will say, ‘We’re on your side. We’re for you,’ then to the next group of people, out of the other side of their mouth, ‘Oh no, we’re on your side. Don’t you worry about that.’

Well, let us have a listen to the people they are on the side of. Let us have a listen to the Red Union Support Hub, that collective of associated organisations, and what their managing director had to say. We are talking about protecting workers rights, right? This is what their managing director had to say:

Schemes like superannuation and workers’ compensation insurance are a result of an overbloated bureaucracy, and are just unnecessary taxes we all have to pay.

They are representing workers? They say superannuation and workers compensation are ‘unnecessary taxes we all have to pay’. Well, I do not think that is the view of workers. I think if the people they said they represent heard that, they would park their membership elsewhere. That is at the heart of what this is about. It is about workers and their hard-earned money. It is a sacrifice; it is money that you are paying to the union because they have your back. You are making an investment in your protection and in your wellbeing. To think that there are groups who seek to tell workers they are for them but have views like this, who take their money and then do not represent them and in fact cannot represent them – I mean, it is terrible, and that is why we are seeking to fix it.

A further notion of conspiracy that the member for Mildura brought into this place is a conflation somehow of hate groups and groups that are associations incorporated representing workers. It is the same piece of legislation that we are amending. This is what you do; when you are amending a piece of legislation, you make all the amendments to the legislation. We are not going to do it once for one topic, put it all the way through, and do it another time for the next topic. You can see the nonsensical nature of that. They are just looking for ways to oppose this because fundamentally, at core, they do not support workers, and their new best mates, the One Nation party, who they wish to rely on, absolutely will not want them doing that. I see this as a dress rehearsal by those opposite to demonstrate to their future bedfellows, ‘Oh, don’t worry, we too can bash workers. We too can put workers last.’ Well, it is all out in the open now, and I am really keen to hear what the following speakers for those opposite have to say, because I bet you we are not going to hear about workers rights. We are not going to hear about protections for workers. We are not going to hear about safer conditions, better conditions and ensuring that workers and their families have a decent life. That is not what we are going to hear. We are going to hear the phrases of the member for Mildura. We are going to hear ‘slippery slopes’. We are going to hear ‘free market’. We are going to hear ‘competition’. We are going to hear conjecture about existing unions, those institutions that stand up and fight for workers, woven by those opposite into some sort of second-rate conspiracy novel. Well, the only ones that are second-rate are those opposite. I hope that all workers hear what those opposite have in store for them if they ever have the good luck of being on the government benches.

 Michael O’BRIEN (Malvern) (15:28): There are a few members on the other side who should be practising their valedictories, and I think the member we just heard from is one of them.

A member interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: You will be hearing mine next week. In 20 years I do not think I have ever quoted a communist leader, but it was Mao Zedong who said:

Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend.

And of course he lied about it, but that was his intention – to pretend that the communists actually like to have different views and competition. I do care about workers rights. I care about the workers right to join an organisation of their choosing, to actually exercise the acknowledged human right of freedom of association. That is one of the human rights those members opposite never like to talk about too much. They never like to talk about freedom of association too much, because it means that workers may choose to join a union that does not donate to the Labor Party – imagine that. And why would you ever want to question the veracity of a Labor Party government, state-sanctioned union? Well, I can give you one example. I read this headline from the Australian newspaper of yesterday:

Five men arrested as police raid construction union headquarters in fraud and drugs probe

Apparently the CFMEU in Victoria is such a paragon of virtue, such a paragon of protection for workers rights, that this government is passing legislation to prevent any union being set up in competition to it. Because why wouldn’t you want to force someone in the construction industry who wants to join an employee association to join the CFMEU? I mean, who does not want to engage in a bit of fraud and drugs, because that is what the –

Juliana Addison interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: We do not want to engage in fraud and drugs, member for Wendouree, unlike the Labor Party and their affiliated unions. Let us be really clear about what this bill is about. This bill is about saying if you want to create a union, a real union to represent construction workers that is not tainted by fraud, that is not tainted by corruption, that is not tainted by standover tactics and gangsterism – if you want to create a union that is not tainted by drugs and associations with outlaw motorcycle gangs – this Labor government and this bill say no, you cannot. You are forced to join the CFMEU. That is what this is. It is just another protection racket for dodgy unions who support the Labor Party. Let us not forget how many millions of dollars the CFMEU donated to the Labor Party before the 2022 election. Was it one? Was it two? How many millions was it? Gone very quiet on the other side all of a sudden. They were very chirpy 30 seconds ago. The cat has got their tongue. They have had a sudden memory blank when it comes to how many millions of dollars the corrupt CFMEU. Here comes their chief defender. Here comes John Setka’s mate.

Luba Grigorovitch: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, on relevance, I would ask the member to come back to the bill, not talk about things outside of its width.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): The member is being relevant to the bill, and the member will continue.

Michael O’BRIEN: A lot of defensiveness from the minister at the table when I start talking about the CFMEU and her mates like John Setka. I can see that. It is an absolutely corrupt organisation with corrupt people in it at the leadership.

Luba Grigorovitch: On a point of order, Acting Speaker –

Michael O’BRIEN: I feel sorry for the workers who have had their union membership fees ripped off them by shocking, corrupt people like Setka over all these years.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Malvern, when someone stands on a point of order you, will cease.

Luba Grigorovitch: I actually have a lot of respect for the member on his feet, but he is completely missing the point of the bill that is being debated at the moment.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): What is your point of order?

Luba Grigorovitch: Relevance again.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): The member is being relevant to the bill. I will allow him to continue.

Michael O’BRIEN: I thank you for your ruling, Acting Speaker. The reason I am being relevant is this government is trying to say that if you are a worker in the construction industry, there is only one union you can join, and that is the CFMEU. Because if you want to set up a different union, one that is not infected and tainted by corruption and links to drugs and outlaw motorcycle gangs and standover tactics, you cannot do it. That is what this bill does.

We have already heard from the member for Mildura in her very sensible contribution that this is also a bill designed to try and kill off left wing alternatives to existing unions. The Premier might have his relationship with the shoppies union. We understand that. But there is a more perhaps some would say left wing, some would say activist union, the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union and that is a competitor to the SDA. That is exactly the type of organisation that this bill is designed to kill off.

There is a lot of work that unions can do that does not involve being a federally registered union. You do not have to go to Fair Work in relation to what federally registered unions do. There are many ways in which a union can stand up for its members without necessarily having to do that level of service as well. As long as a professional association is not misleading people or deceiving people over what they do and do not do, why shouldn’t they be allowed to operate? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to exist? Why shouldn’t we have freedom of association in this state?

I remember when I was a bit younger going past worksites in Melbourne and seeing that horrible sign ‘No ticket, no start’. It was an extortion racket. If you did not join the union, you could not get a job. And disgraceful unions and, I should say, some disgraceful employers signed up to that, and they absolutely destroyed the individual rights of workers to choose to join or not join a union. This also goes back to Bill Kelty and the deals done between him and Keating and Hawke in the 1980s, when they decided to create superunions, and they had the big union merger process. One of the things that came out of that was that only one union would be recognised by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, as it was back then. So this was the deal – it is basically a state-sanctioned monopoly: if you want to be a member of a union, there is only one you can join, and it is the one the government says you can join. Does that sound like a Western liberal democracy or does that sound like a communist dictatorship? The only union you are allowed to join is the one the state says you can join, because that is what this bill is about, and that is why we oppose it.

There is other stuff in there which is not objectionable. Of course we are quite happy to outlaw some of the horrible hatemongering groups, but the heart of this bill is about running a protection racket for big unions, and usually big unions affiliated to the Labor Party. They provide members opposite, members of the government, with political muscle, with financial support, and it is a protection racket for them. We are standing up for the rights of workers – the rights of workers to choose who represents them. Every worker should have the right to choose who represents them, and if they do not like the CFMEU representing them, because they are a corrupt organisation run by a bunch of thugs, they should have the right to choose a different organisation to represent them. If they do not want the shoppies to represent them and they want a more activist or a more left-wing union, they should have the right to do that. If they do not want the Australian Education Union to represent them because they think they are too political, they should have the right to join an organisation of their choosing.

Our position is the one that is most pro-union, because pro-union should be about giving workers the choice to join an organisation to represent their interests. The government’s position is about saying, ‘We will support your right to join only if it’s the one state-sanctioned union we’ve approved,’ who, by the way, just happens –

Steve McGhie interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: Registered by an organisation of the state, member for Melton. If you want to split hairs, you can split hairs, but it is state-sanctioned unions. That is what this is all about. I probably cut my political teeth at university when I was fighting for voluntary student unionism, and I did that. I did that having been elected a number of times by my constituents at the University of Melbourne to the student union –

Juliana Addison interjected.

Michael O’BRIEN: I had a year as activities officer, member for Wendouree. We put on the best beer and bands you have ever seen. It shows you that Liberals are better at running unions than lefties are. We had a great year. Voluntary unionism is good for me, it is good for you and it is good for workers. They should have not just the choice to choose whether they join or not join a union but also the choice as to what type of union they join, and that is why we oppose this bill. This bill is about taking choice away from workers. This side of the house stands for choice for workers and workers rights, unlike the mealy-mouthed people opposite.

 Nina TAYLOR (Albert Park) (15:38): I want to take a leaf out of the book of the member for Yan Yean. I think starting from the premise of thinking about workers first is very important when we are having this discussion about making sure that there is transparency about what the particular organisation can offer to that worker in terms of the protections they are entitled to. That is really, I think, a premise from which it is good to start. We know that all workers deserve to have access to a safe, fair workplace and they deserve to have real support when their workplace does not meet those standards. Trade unions registered under the federal Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (FWRO act) have statutory rights to represent their members’ interests in industrial relations matters. There are some organisations in Victoria that state they are trade unions but are registered under our Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012, not the federal Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act. And what is the problem with this? It leaves members without the protections they need and deserve, and I think that is the fundamental premise here, just being absolutely transparent about what the organisation is actually offering or not offering for that worker so that, heaven forbid, they are caught in a particular situation or matter and they suddenly go for help and find that that particular organisation actually does not have the authority to deliver the protection and help that they need and deserve. That is what I think we are talking about here, fundamentally.

Further to that point, and thinking about adequate protections for workers and being up-front with them about what that particular organisation can do, trade unions who are registered under the federal Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act have access to certain rights to help them best represent their workers. These include being able to apply for entry permits to enter an employer’s premises to meet with employees and investigate suspected contraventions of workplace laws. Registered trade unions can also represent their members at the Fair Work Commission, act as a representative in enterprise agreements, provide delegates who advise on and help resolve workplace issues and more. They are also subject to strict disclosure rules. They have to provide financial statements, and they are listed as a body that can sue or be sued.

These rights are important. They keep employers accountable for doing the wrong thing and make sure employees feel supported and safe at work. State incorporation under the Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012 does not and cannot confer these federal industrial rights. I think that clarifies exactly the premise from which we are working here today. Organisations under the state act cannot enter workplaces to investigate alleged wrongdoing or enable delegates to resolve workplace issues and cannot engage as effectively in enterprise bargaining as registered unions. I think it is only fair and reasonable that workers know exactly what they are entering into, so to speak, when they join X or Y organisation. Currently certain entities incorporated under the AIRA pursue an industrial relations purpose without holding registration under the FWRO act. And what is the problem with this? I think leading into that statement, we can already anticipate what some of the problems might be.

This opens up considerable risk to workers. We just keep coming back to that central purpose: what is in the best interests of workers? Individuals might join these state incorporated bodies believing they have access to full industrial protection and support in workplace disputes, but they do not. That does not seem very fair to the workers themselves, and they might not find that out until it is too late. So even whilst the worker is joining that organisation in earnest and in good faith and anticipating certain types of protections, that is not necessarily what they receive at the end of the day. That is certainly the premise upon which we are debating this bill here and now and seeking to bring forward these reforms.

The Associations Incorporation Reform Amendment Bill 2026 will introduce a definition of ‘industrial relations purpose’ within the act to mean a registrable body with the purpose of furthering, protecting or representing the industrial relations interests of members. We know that there are a lot of organisations that may have some industrial relations purposes but are not purporting to provide full industrial relations protections under the federal act, and that would seem to be an unacceptable contradiction. I just want to quote a headline from the Australian: ‘Red Union bosses accused of Fair Work Act breaches’. If we are going to be really honest here in this conversation, Red Union Support Hub, RUSH, are:

… accused of breaching employment law after allegedly pressuring a worker to become an independent contractor rather than an employee and promising him more pay without the “overbloated bureaucracy” of superannuation and workers’ compensation.

We are starting to see that perhaps there was a little bit of excessive gloss and glow and fluff about those organisations, which are not authentic unions and are not providing the legitimate protections that the workers deserve.

Another point that I do want to take up is concern about freedom of association. That is an important point to raise. I am glad it is raised. The bill does not prevent freedom of association. These organisations can still exist, but we will not let them pretend to be registered federal unions with appropriate powers. Again what we are talking about here is transparency, about being really up-front about what the organisation is offering or not offering in terms of protections to those workers. I think that is really important. When we are looking at this whole debate, we need to look at it from a holistic perspective and not say, ‘Unions bad and these Red Unions all good.’ I think that is certainly masking the truth, and it is also blurring the purpose or the impetus for these particular reforms, which is really about being up-front about whether you actually have the authority federally to be able to transact certain matters, whether it is enterprise bargaining or otherwise, fully and with a purpose that is actually to the betterment of that worker and that is authorised and fit and proper.

Another aspect of this bill looks at the issue of the rise in extremist behaviour, hate groups et cetera, which obviously do not operate in the interests of any Victorian. Just to offer some calm, I should say in terms of concerns that have been raised about how disruptive this particular legislation might be to incorporated associations more broadly, there are around 45,000 incorporated associations in Victoria under the Associations Incorporation Reform Act, most of which are genuine community organisations that are doing the right thing by their members and by their community, and may they continue to do so. No-one here in any way wants to undermine these in-the-main fantastic organisations that deliver good things for the community. There are plenty of benefits to being incorporated. You can buy and sell property, enter into contracts, invest or borrow money, open a bank account et cetera. It provides groups with legitimacy, and the Associations Incorporation Reform Act is intended to provide the framework to make sure appropriate groups gain that legitimacy.

However, with increasing reports of vilification, hate crimes and extremist violence around the country, it is important we ensure that groups who are promoting this are not able to game the current framework from our Associations and Corporations Reform Act and gain that same legitimacy provided to other community groups. Hate groups do not deserve to access those benefits, and we cannot stand by and just let it happen. That is not appropriate; that is not right and proper. But we are not fundamentally undermining the majority of community organisations, who are doing great deeds in our community and upon whom many of us probably rely; our communities would not function the same way without them. That is not the purpose of this bill, and I think to smear the purpose or to try and blur the fundamental rationale for these reforms is not helpful, to say the least, and is probably causing unnecessary fear in certain organisations. The White Australia Party is a classic example. It has been listed as a prohibited hate group under the Criminal Code Act 1995 of the Commonwealth, and under the current framework, the registrar has limited powers under the Associations Incorporation Reform Act to refuse registration. This of course needs to change. That is a classic example of where having these controls is good for our community.

 David SOUTHWICK (Caulfield) (15:48): I rise to make some comments about the Associations Incorporation Reform Amendment Bill 2026. Just when you think it cannot get any crazier, we have a government, literally just before an election, bring a bill before the Parliament to limit people’s involvement in unions except their own. We have had probably one of the biggest corruption scandals in Victoria with the CFMEU – $15 billion gone missing under this government – and now we have a monopoly on unions and an attempt to eliminate competition from any other union or association that happens to exist. There is nothing more simple than what this government wants to do. The question that needs to be asked is: why now, and what is this government trying to actually do as part of this bill that is before us?

I will tell you why now. We have it now because there is a new Premier that is looking for support from Trades Hall to man the polling booths, to fundraise rivers-of-gold money into the Labor Party, to try and once again steal this election from defeat. Even that will not happen with this government, because the people have walked away from the Labor Party. Even the backbenchers know that with a new Premier it is the same brand, same face, same lousy decisions, incompetence after incompetence. And now they want to eliminate the competition and take more dough and say to Trades Hall, ‘You know what, we’re looking after you, so would you help us man the polling booths? Roll out some more money. Help try and save a couple of backbenchers from also being eliminated.’ Instead of eliminating the competition, they should help eliminate the rest of the Labor Party because of incompetence. We have seen corruption. We have seen bullying and intimidation by a government that is absolutely beyond belief.

Let me just explain how bad this is. This government claim that they are full of consultation and that they were so strong in introducing new hate laws in Victoria. And just in the final throes of this government, if you want an example of a government that is all about a headline, all about a press release and nothing about substance, have a look at this bill. This bill is meant to ensure that we strengthen our hate laws and ensure that those like the National Socialist Network do not get a guernsey, are not allowed bank accounts, are not allowed to rent premises – a whole lot of things. Well, that is great and I sign up fully for that, but why is it in this bill? What has it got to do with the unions? Why are you lumping hate groups in with teachers, with professionals, with doctors and with other unions? Why is this government doing that?

The ACTING SPEAKER (Wayne Farnham): Member for Caulfield, please do not beat up the furniture.

David SOUTHWICK: I am very passionate, Acting Speaker, as you can imagine. For this government, in trying to do something to stop the Nazis, who are the first people that you would think they would actually contact? The Jewish community. The Jewish Community Council of Victoria have not been consulted at all about this bill.

Steve McGhie interjected.

David SOUTHWICK: The member for Melton interjects and says the Jewish community do not want it. Well, the Jewish community did not know about this bill until last week, when I called the Jewish community and said, ‘What do you think about this bill?’ And the peak body said, ‘What bill?’ What a disgrace that this government want to bring a bill dealing with hate laws to banish the Nazis, yet they do not talk to the Jewish community. Whether it is the Australian Jewish Association or the Jewish Community Council, neither of them has been consulted. Do you know what the Jewish community have said since they have been informed by the opposition? Not by the government – this is the government’s work; we are doing the work for them. The Jewish Community Council have written to the government, and they have said, ‘Separate the bill.’ If you really believe in what you are trying to do, let us deal with the hate, let us deal with the intimidation, let us deal with the Nazis and the far extremists that we have, and let us go for it.

Also, they have asked for further strengthening because this particular form of hate does not stop the Nazis from registering themselves as a political party and running in November. If they are serious about banishing the Nazis and the extremists altogether, 92 days or thereabouts out from an election, where is that? It is not there, because this is just nothing but spin. It is spin, just to be able to say, ‘We’re doing a great thing. We’re standing up against hate.’ This government is not standing up against anything. The are just trying to save their own backs and get their union mates helping them. Do not forget the CFMEU has been donating millions of dollars to the Labor Party. Despite $15 billion worth of corruption which has been seen on the Big Build, now they want to give them a further free kick with what we are seeing. It just continues again and again and again. If the government had integrity, they would split the bill. Let us talk about the hate laws, and we will stand together on that. We will support that together – proudly. But do not turn this into a political football on hate. The Jewish community want the bill split.

The government has stood by the Jewish community over the last four years and said, ‘We’re standing up against hate in Victoria.’ We have seen since 7 October the horrific attacks on the Jewish community – antisemitism like we have never seen before. I plead with the government to not play politics with this. Do not try and tie this up with unions and banishing unions and your own internal politics. Do not do that. I think that is wrong, by the way. I absolutely think that is wrong, and I will not be supporting it, because we like competition. You know what, people should be able to choose what union they stand for and what they want to associate with. Freedom of association should be a number one thing that we hold loudly and proudly as Victorians and Australians. Freedom of association should be part of every Victorian’s and Australian’s DNA. That is what we should hold up. Have the competition with unions. I will be very, very strongly opposing that part of the bill. But when it comes to the hate side of this bill, separate it off and I will stand with the Labor Party and support that part of the bill. But if you play politics with our community, with the Jewish community, which has been through hell and back, then you stand condemned. You, the Labor Party, stand condemned for playing politics with what we have seen.

We have got a royal commission happening at the moment – which has been probably one of the biggest royal commissions in terms of the amount of contributions that have been made – established by the Albanese Labor government to stamp out hate and antisemitism. That is happening right as we speak. If this government has any gumption at all, it should do the right thing and split this bill. Show us that you are not just about spin. Show us that you have got some integrity. This is another chance for the Premier to stand up and do something, because what we see in here is a joke. You do not put things like this forward when a community are being harmed and targeted the way that they are and you do not even talk to them. What a disgrace. I would hope the government would do something about it. That is my plea.

I know others want to speak, so I am going to finish there. I know I have been very passionate, and I am sorry for being passionate, but I am really angry. We have been through hell and back. We do not need another game and a stunt here trying to put the thing together so when we vote against it you turn around and say, ‘Oh, you’re voting for hate.’ That is a whole lot of crap. We are not doing that. We want to vote against hate. We want to be with you. Do not turn this into a political football. Let us stand against the Nazis together, and then let us have the vote on who should be part of what union. We will stand with choice and with freedom of association, and the government can stand with the CFMEU. Let us have that fight. We know that you love the CFMEU and the corrupt $15 billion. Let the government have that. We know the government is big on that. But on the hate, please, let us stand together.

 Daniela DE MARTINO (Monbulk) (15:57): That was quite an interesting contribution. To commence, I will take up the member for Caulfield’s concerns about why the two items are in the same bill. The answer, I am afraid, is much more mundane than the theory posited there, this conspiracy theory. The answer is because it deals with the same legislation, so it makes sense. It is prudent to actually take the two different elements together and put them in the same bill, because we are seeking to amend the same piece of legislation. That is why the two sit together, looking at terrorist organisations, prohibited hate groups, and also looking at Red Unions. As I say, it is a much more mundane reason.

What I will really tackle is the conspiracy theory that was just used by the member for Caulfield in here, which I find incredibly disturbing – very, very disturbing. I have never heard the language used here before from anyone in this Parliament, so to hear someone positing the theory that we are trying to steal the election has actually sent a shiver down my spine. That is language I genuinely never thought I would hear in this chamber or the other chamber, but to hear it today just now has me very, very concerned, because that is the language of Trump, that is the language of the hard far right in the US and it is the language of the hard far right in the UK and any other place on the planet at the moment where we see incredibly dangerous actors from the far right trying to take over and actually destroy democracy and the pillars of democracy as we know and hold them dear. I am an incredible fan of our democratic system here in Australia. I think we have one of the best ones in the world. Part of that is the understanding amongst all of us that conspiracy theories should not play any part in undermining the faith and confidence of people across this land and here in our state of Victoria.

People in Victoria need to understand that we have a robust electoral system, we have a strong democracy and there is no-one trying to steal an election. It just makes me wonder why on earth that language has been introduced into this place. I have said so many times in my nearly four years here that words matter. They really, really do. I know that you would understand that, Acting Speaker Farnham. Most of us here really do understand that. What I am wondering is: if the member for Caulfield is claiming that we are trying to steal the election, is it an audition for a future One Nation coalition government? It sounds like it would be music to the ears of Gina Rinehart and Pauline Hanson. To hear that language here must be sending thrills up their spines. For me, it is a chill down mine. There is so much I have to say on this bill, but I could not let that go. I am absolutely flabbergasted at what we have heard in this chamber today, and I hope I never hear it again, because those words are incredibly dangerous.

I will get to the crux of this bill. As I said, the reason we have two elements put forward today is because they seek to address the same legislation. This bill is about making sure that when Victorians deal with an incorporated association, the legal status attached to that organisation actually means something. It is about making sure workers are not led to believe they have protections that simply do not exist. It is about making clear that organisations built on hatred, terror and division should not receive the legitimacy and practical benefits that incorporation provides.

Incorporated associations across Victoria are part of the fabric of our state. There are about 45,000 of them. They include wonderful sporting clubs, cultural associations, neighbourhood houses, charities, volunteer groups and so many other organisations that bring people together and make our communities stronger. In Monbulk I see that contribution every day. Our local associations create places where people belong. They support people doing it tough. They run community sport, celebrate culture and look after neighbours. Much of that work, the vast, vast majority of it, is carried out by generous volunteers who give up their time and their energy for no reason other than to just leave this place better than they found it. Those organisations deserve a regulatory system with integrity. Incorporation brings real benefits: limited liability for members and volunteers, a recognised governance structure, the ability to hold property and enter contracts and greater confidence when fundraising. It also carries an important signal of legitimacy. The public is entitled to trust that this status is being used for the purpose for which it was designed.

This bill protects trust in some very important ways. As I said just before, it prevents listed terrorist organisations and prohibited hate groups from becoming or remaining incorporated associations in Victoria. These are groups formally listed under Commonwealth law after the relevant safeguards and legal processes have run their course. It is not on a whim. The bill requires the registrar of incorporated associations to refuse their registration or direct an existing association to wind up. It is a clear and principled position. A hate group should not be allowed to dress itself up as an ordinary community organisation. A terrorist organisation should not receive the legal, financial and reputational advantages that incorporation offers. Incorporation is not a badge of respectability to be claimed by organisations that seek to intimidate, vilify or harm others. It does not prevent lawful political, cultural or religious expression and it does not stop people from holding or debating views.

I will take up the point that has been made by those opposite as well, that somehow this bill is about denying freedom of association. What an absolute furphy, a scare tactic straight out of the coalition playbook. It is about removing the cloak of legitimacy that these entities try to cover themselves with, be they terrorist organisations or hate groups or Red Unions who go around purporting to represent people but take their money and actually have no right of entry and no way of truly protecting those workers.

This takes me to the second major reform, where we come to industrial relations. Workers deserve clarity. If an organisation is presenting itself as able to protect or represent people at work, a person joining it should understand exactly what it is, what it can do and what protections come with that membership. For a worker facing underpayment, unfair treatment or a dispute with a powerful employer, that is not a technical distinction – it can determine whether or not they receive effective representation when they need it most.

As many would be aware, and as you yourself would be aware, Acting Speaker Lambert, I have firsthand experience of working for a registered union, the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association. I heard some crackpot theories about that earlier too. There have been some wild conspiracy theories in this debate today. I have to say I was not entertaining that notion, but we have gone down many, many rabbit holes today. I am sure there will be others following me who will want to take up the argument on this as well. But every day for well over a century the SDA has turned up to fight for decent pay, for decent work, for all of its members, the overwhelming majority of whom are female and young and therefore much more vulnerable. Just this year the SDA won the groundbreaking adult rates at 18 case and through their successful advocacy strengthened laws protecting retail workers from violence in their workplace. I have been reliably informed by my dear friend and colleague in the other place Mr Michael Galea that legislation creating workplace protection orders has just passed that house. It will be on its way to the Governor imminently. That has come through the strong advocacy of the SDA as well.

Strong, accountable and properly regulated worker representation makes a significant difference to conditions for workers. It can mean recovering wages that were never paid, having safer conditions and having the confidence to speak up without standing alone. It can mean dignity at work and security for a family at home. But an organisation out there calling itself a union does not give it the legal capacity of a federally registered organisation, and there are plenty of those out there. I will tell you what the ACTU says about them. They have encapsulated the problem with Red Unions best, stating they have been set up by bad-faith actors to rip workers off. They do not have full powers to represent workers under workplace laws. They are not legally entitled to represent workers in unfair dismissal proceedings or in the Federal Court as a matter of right. They cannot legally enter a workplace to assist members, hold discussions with employees or inspect records relating to workplace contravention. They do not even treat their own employees right, and they should never be allowed to misrepresent themselves to workers as unions. If you are purporting to be a union and you go and tell people that schemes like superannuation and workers compensation insurance are the results of an overbloated bureaucracy and are just unnecessary taxes we all have to pay, then you should have no legitimacy whatsoever.

My time has run down having to deal with the threats that we are somehow stealing an election. Again, I shake my head at that. It is one of the worst things I have heard in this chamber. I commend this bill to the house.

 Gabrielle DE VIETRI (Richmond) (16:07): I rise today to speak on the Associations Incorporation Reform Amendment Bill 2026. This bill is what happens when a new Premier wants to thank his factional mates and help them by shutting down their competition. The Retail and Fast Food Workers Union, or RAFFWU, was formed in 2016 to fight for the rights of retail and fast-food workers, who are often young, who are often low paid and who are often marginalised. RAFFWU presents a direct threat to the SDA, and they want to shut them down. The SDA is a powerful, conservative, right-wing union at the core of the Labor right faction of the ALP.

This bill sets up the provisions that will see RAFFWU and other independent, legitimate unions disbanded if they are not registered through the federal system. Realistically they cannot be, not because they are not conducting valuable workers representation but because the federal system is set up to condense powers and rights to the existing, often Labor-aligned, unions. Many of these unions are brilliant. They do important, excellent work to represent their workers. They are fierce, and the Greens are staunch allies of many of these unions. But some workers do not feel represented well by their unions and do not feel that they have a place to go to when they need support, and that is why unions like RAFFWU have been formed. The conservative, right-wing SDA has been complicit in workplace agreements that sold out supermarket and fast-food workers and saw them underpaid hundreds of millions of dollars. They have used predatory tactics to trick young workers into joining on their first day, and they have historically opposed same-sex marriage, abortion and queer rights. It is no wonder that workers looked elsewhere for representation. It is no wonder that RAFFWU was formed in response.

I know that workers are more powerful together. We all know that. They are stronger as a large collective, and so I do not want to see every disenfranchised worker trying to set up a new organisation. Our big, established unions play a vital role, but there must be a place for alternative legitimate options too. Not only is this bill a threat to independent activist unions, but it has significant implications for workers in the future who want to organise and unionise outside of their current union. This bill in its current form represents a dangerous precedent against freedom of association and the democratic rights of workers, rights which should not be curtailed by the state.

This bill also seeks to have sham unions and hate groups deregistered. The Greens absolutely support this. We do not want to see right-wing anti-vaxxers parading as legitimate unions. Hate and terror groups should be shut down by any means possible. I support the government working to shut down scam outfits and hate groups, but let us be honest, in this bill those functions are just providing cover to shut down the legitimate independent unions who threaten the Premier’s factional mates. I welcome the government introducing standalone legislation to shut down scam unions and hate groups.

Again, I want workers to have a natural home in many of the existing unions. Most of them do a great job fighting for their members, but so do RAFFWU and the other legitimate independent unions. The Greens will not stand by and have them shut down because that is what suits the SDA. The Greens will always stand with workers and will always stand against union busting, and we oppose this bill.

 Danny PEARSON (Essendon) (16:11): I rise in support of this bill. I think this bill plays a really important role in protecting the freedoms of this state. I fear that where we find ourselves now as a Western liberal democracy is a place that we have not seen since the 1930s. The fact that we are trying to now prevent these terrorist organisations and hate groups from registering is really important. Why do I feel so strongly about this? I want to talk about the American Civil War briefly, if you will indulge me. The city of Vicksburg in Mississippi was the subject of a 47-day siege. On the Fourth of July 1863 Confederate Lieutenant-General John C Pemberton surrendered. He was asked, ‘Why are you surrendering on this day?’ He said:

I know my people; I know their peculiar weaknesses and their national vanity; I know we can get better terms from them on July 4 than any other day of the year.

Why is that important? It is important because in Vicksburg, Mississippi, they did not celebrate the Fourth of July for the next 75 years – three generations. In the same way, when the Western Roman Empire fell it was about three generations before that whole system of government and way in which the artisans crafted their trade broke down – three generations.

Currently there is due to be an election in Saxony-Anhalt, which is a state in Germany. Alternative für Deutschland, AFD, is on 41 per cent in that state. The CDU, whose positions and policies I do not share but who is a responsible centre-right party, are on 24 per cent. What does the AFD want to do? The AFD, for example, have talked about how they want to lift EU sanctions on Russia. They oppose aid to Ukraine. They are against the EU. Can you think for a moment what will happen if Germany pulls out of the European Union? Can you think about what that will do for the plight of Western liberal democracy? It is somewhat confronting. I am not dead yet, but the hour beckons, and I fear that Western liberal democracy is in far worse shape as I leave this place than when I arrived. It concerns me that we are starting to see these groups emerge.

I was raised to believe very clearly in the 1970s and the 80s, ‘Never again.’ So I have always supported the State of Israel. That does not mean I have always supported the actions of the Israeli government at all times, but I have always supported the right of Israel to exist as a state. And again, I think that some of the language that has been used, some of the normalisation of extreme rhetoric, has become far too commonplace for my liking. When you think about the pressures and the fissures that have been brought to bear on what I would regard as being a tolerant, pluralistic, Western liberal democracy, it is deeply concerning. It is deeply concerning where we find ourselves in 2026. I fear that, because with the passage of time people forget. People do not study history, people do not inquire, people do not criticise or they do not critically think about what is being put to them.

Historically, I remember going to Melbourne University in the early 1990s. You would get on an old Comeng train at Mitcham station. Everyone was reading the Herald Sun. Everyone would listen to 3AW. Now of course we might, particularly on the progressive side of politics, have views about having only 3AW or the Herald Sun as your primary form of information. I hasten to add that Ross Stevenson is the funniest bloke on Melbourne radio and an absolute legend. But what that meant was those news outlets had to be broadly responsible. They had to broadly adhere to standards. You might not always agree with elements that they would put up. You might have some concerns about a particular angle. I know certainly in about 1991 there was a very strong campaign against Piers Akerman saying bias is bad, because of some of the reporting of the Kirner government. But broadly speaking those outlets were responsible outlets, and they had a social responsibility to provide fairly reliable and accurate reporting.

What we are seeing now is the fraying and the fragmentation of society, where people are going down these Facebook or TikTok rabbit holes where more and more extreme views are being reinforced. There is no counterpoint, there is no anchor by which to draw them back. You are seeing a confluence of events with the fraying of responsible journalism at a time when we are getting further away from these horrific actions that occurred in the Second World War. I really did not think in 2014, when I arrived, that in 2026 we would be seeing this sort of rise of far-right movements. I did not think that you would see fascists and extremists storming Camp Sovereignty. I did not think you would have a set of circumstances or an event where a Welcome to Country is being booed. I just would not have thought this was where we would be in 2026.

Maybe I am the outlier. Maybe I am the one that is stuck in the past and maybe what is happening around me is passing me by. But some of the core principles of decency, of respect, of having these respectful disagreements or having a different outlook on life are entirely legitimate. That is entirely fair and appropriate. Again, for those in this place, this great colosseum of ideas where we come into this place and we have different views of the state and the way in which the state should be administered and run, we fundamentally agree that we are aiming to be on this side of the house. We are aiming to get a majority of the seats in this place to form a government. That has been understood. But what we are seeing now with the change with these groups that are arriving and are forming is they are articulating a view that is completely at odds with this place. What happens if some of these groups get together and they start having deep fake AIs? What happens if they start to produce the voice of the Leader of the Opposition as part of a deep fake AI saying something completely vile and offensive, or the Premier for that matter? What happens then? I think that as a Parliament – I can appreciate there has been a wide range of views on this legislation and a wide range of views expressed ‍– ‍fundamentally we have to think about, and I hope the 61st Parliament turns its mind to these matters, how we try to ensure the integrity of this institution. Not since the 1930s, when we saw Western liberal democracy threatened in such a way, has the very notion of parliamentary representative democracy being the best form of government for our nation, or indeed most Western nations, been under such a level of siege. And that is concerning.

I do want to make one observation. I heard some commentary about the SDA. The SDA is the responsible union for bargaining on behalf of the employees of Bunnings. I remember, just before the global financial crisis, there was a guy who had been on the tools at Sunshine. He had started in 1994 and he retired. Bunnings rang him up and they said, ‘Look, you’ve got these shares. What do you want to do?’ He said, ‘What shares?’ They said, ‘Well, as part of your employment agreement, you’ve been getting shares allocated to you every year of your employment.’ He said, ‘I’ll just sell them. Just sell them.’ Six weeks later, he rang them up in tears, because he had received a cheque for $160,000. Now, $160,000 in 2026 might not seem like much, but I can tell you one thing: $160,000 before the GFC probably would have bought you half a house. In today’s money, that is about half a million dollars.

I would have thought that a trade union that advocates on behalf of its members, making sure that its members get a piece of the action through equity, would be a good thing. It would be a desirable thing. It would be a positive thing. And that was delivered because of the SDA – no-one else. The SDA negotiated in good faith for their members, and they gave equity to their members. Through having that level of equity and support, workers are better off. I would have thought that was a good thing.

 Chris CREWTHER (Mornington) (16:21): I rise to speak on the Associations Incorporation Reform Amendment Bill 2026. I will be clear to start with: I support firm action against listed terrorist organisations and prohibited hate groups. Neo-Nazi organisations, terrorist fronts and groups that promote hatred or violence should not be able to use incorporated status as a shield of legitimacy. But Parliament should not accept an omnibus bill simply because one part carries a worthy label. Every power in this bill must be shown to be necessary and proportionate. That case has not been made.

Commonwealth law already provides listing regimes for terrorist organisations and prohibited hate groups, with serious offences for membership, recruitment, funding and support. Victoria criminalises serious vilification. Section 127 of the act already allows an association to be wound up if it exists for an illegal purpose or if the public interest requires it. If a gap remains, identify it and bring in a focused bill. Instead, a legitimate community safety objective is being used as a political cover for a scheme aimed at worker associations that compete with Labor-aligned unions. Why are teachers, nurses, retail workers and transport workers being swept into the same legislative package as terrorists and neo-Nazis?

The new Premier promised a new direction, yet this bill raises questions that Labor has not answered. The Premier joined the SDA at Kmart. I note that even I was a member of the SDA when I worked at Franklins many years ago, when it was compulsory. The SDA remains Kmart’s federally registered union, while the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union is its direct retail industry competitor. This bill could strip RAFFWU of Victorian incorporation. I am not alleging a secret deal, but Parliament is entitled to know: did the SDA seek or help shape these provisions? Was it consulted? Was RAFFWU? Refusing to identify all affected and exempt bodies only feeds suspicion of a factional favour. Do we have a new Premier but with the same old Labor instincts?

About 45,000 incorporated associations support community life across Victoria. In the Mornington electorate, sporting clubs, neighbourhood groups, service organisations and cultural bodies rely on clear and fair associations law. This bill does not endanger all of them, but a framework of this scale demands precision and proper safeguards.

This bill bundles three propositions. It creates mandatory consequences for listed terrorist and hate groups. It bars and can wind up an association with an industrial relations purpose where the registrar believes it can seek federal registration unless exempt. It also adds a broad public interest refusal power and guides the registrar’s existing public interest winding-up power. These propositions should not be forced through as one package. Conflating community safety with industrial competition allows this Labor government to paint anyone who objects to its union policy as soft on extremism. The Australian Jewish Association has rejected that approach, saying it was not genuinely consulted and that the Jewish community should not be used as a political wedge. The member for Caulfield in his speech before noted that when he consulted and talked to Jewish groups, they said, ‘What bill?’ That says they were not properly consulted at all.

The industrial definition as well is extraordinarily broad. An association is caught if it has a purpose of furthering, protecting or representing industrial interests of members. It need not be its sole, dominant or even substantive purpose. The government’s charter statement admits the test may capture organisations whose industrial role is not their main purpose. The supposed safeguard is an exemption to be prescribed later. The second-reading speech mentions union choirs and professional associations focused on education or networking, but the regulations are not before us. We are being asked to pass the prohibition now and discover the safeguards later. Labor says that affected associations can simply register federally. The word ‘simply’ is doing a lot of work here. An employee association or organisation generally needs at least 50 members, and the Fair Work Commission must consider whether they could more conveniently belong to or be more effectively represented by an existing registered organisation. That ‘conveniently belong’ test protects incumbents and can make registration practically impossible.

The federal framework has existed since 2009. Why is this suddenly urgent without a complete impact list or proper consultation? Also, some bodies will not qualify. The charter statement admits an ineligible body may be left unincorporated, exposing members and office-holders to greater liability and limiting its ability to sue, hold property and act in its own name. Most tellingly, the government’s own human rights analysis says that it is not clear that one limitation on freedom of expression is reasonably necessary and that there is some question whether the limitation on freedom of association is justified. Those are serious warnings.

The review provisions make matters worse. An industrial purpose body refused registration loses VCAT review and must go to the Supreme Court within 28 days, a costly path for a small member organisation. The registrar can demand information within 14 days. The bill starts the day after royal assent, and the promised regulations remain unseen. The narrow transition protects only associations that applied for federal registration before 1 July 2026. That cut-off was two months before the bill was announced, so affected groups had no chance to apply in response. It may preserve the position of the Victorian Ambulance Union, which applied in 2024, but it leaves the Independent Transport Union, ITU, exposed. The ITU shows this is not abstract. It says it represents well over 1000 Victorian transport workers, including in major regional centres. It employs professional staff and solicitors. It complies with its legal obligations and, after taking barristers’ advice, it believes this bill captures it. It says that federal registration is unrealistic because the ‘conveniently belong’ test gives incumbent unions a virtual veto.

The minister calls these organisations fake and says that workers are being scammed, yet incorporated industrial associations can lawfully represent workers, participate in bargaining and undertake industrial activity. Lacking every statutory privilege of a registered union is not the same as providing no service. TheRAFFWU has led national strikes at Coles, Woolworths and Apple and backed underpayment actions against major fast-food employers. It emerged after exposing hundreds of millions of dollars in underpayments at Woolworths and Coles under SDA agreements. Red Union as well says that its Victorian bodies support about 6000 members here and 26,000 nationally. Winding them up in Victoria could have national consequences. Red Union associations are competitors to politicised Labor-aligned unions, with Red Union often having cheaper fees by at least 30 per cent. Their fees do not go to any political party, such as the Labor Party, and they can focus solely on workers rights over politics.

This is not occurring in isolation. Federal Labor has also moved through its national platform to restrict unregistered unions’ participation in industrial matters. That change was moved by the workplace relations minister and former SDA organiser Amanda Rishworth. If an association misleads workers about its status, require plain language disclosure and enforce false claims. Apply proper financial reporting, governance and membership protections. Tell members which rights are available and which are not. That is proportionate consumer protection; compulsory winding up is not.

I need not endorse the ITU, Red Union or RAFFWU to defend worker choice. The ITU put it plainly: established unions should not need the rules rewritten so they cannot lose. They should win members by proving they are better. Opposition to this bill crosses ordinary political lines. The Greens, the Australian Jewish Association, left-wing RAFFWU, the ITU, the Red Union network, Liberal conservative and left-wing and right-wing voices have all objected. This is not a routine left- versus right-wing argument. It is about freedom of association and the proper limits of state power.

Only weeks ago Operation Richmond showed the danger when union influence and government power become too close. IBAC made no finding of corrupt conduct, and that must be said, but it found serious and concerning conduct, privileged access and extraordinary influence in firefighter bargaining. The lesson should be independence and transparency, not allowing the state to determine or decide which worker associations remain incorporated. Robert Menzies said freedom of association is of the first order of importance in the world of liberty. That includes the right to join together, to choose between organisations and to not be forced into a government-favoured structure. This is a situation where workers should have a choice. They should not be forced to join the CFMEU, whose corrupt use of taxpayer money has been seen. They should have full worker choice and association.

 Iwan WALTERS (Greenvale) (16:32): This has just been absolutely wild. From the first words of the member for Mildura, the lead speaker for the opposition, to the member for Mornington, this has just been the most arrant tissue of nonsense I have ever had the – let us use the word – ‘privilege’ to listen to in this place. We have gone from Menzies to Mao Zedong in the member for Malvern’s contribution. But before I commence, and I know it is not proper to acknowledge those in the gallery, I want to make sure that the member for Lowan has not brought in the state secretary of the United Firefighters Union. No, we are clear, and I will continue.

It is fascinating to see their perspectives on trade unionism morph in a week from invoking Michael Donovan and the state secretariat of the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association (SDA) to now being the best friends of the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union (RAFFWU). It is a broad church over there, as the member for Mornington has just articulated – a grab bag of those on the conspiracist right to those in the Greens, all of whom are united in their opposition to this worthy bill. I think that tells you all you need to know. It is a worthy piece of legislation. Bringing human rights into this, as some have sought to do, is preposterous. There is no limitation on freedom of expression within this bill. The organisations that have been invoked can still exist; they just cannot purport to be things that they are not, which is to say, registered trade unions with the Fair Work Commission, with powers to represent workers at the Fair Work Commission, rather than being industrial associations under this state’s Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012, which they should not be allowed to do. This bill merely clarifies that point. The organisations mentioned can still retain registration as federally incorporated associations through ASIC. They can still access similar benefits as they do under state incorporation. There is going to be little practical impact on their capacity to operate.

Moreover – and I pick up another point of the member for Mornington – this is not an omnibus bill. It is one bill which amends one piece of legislation to uphold the integrity of our state-based incorporations legislative framework, which supports the important work of community organisations across all of our electorates – sporting clubs and the like.

As I say, this debate has been wild, but let us be very clear what the opposition and what the Greens are doing in their opposition to this bill. They are voting to undermine workers rights and representation, and they are voting to make it harder to confront and to dismantle hate groups. That is their choice, but that is the implication of their decision. Invoking Mao Zedong, using spurious arguments about freedom of association as a smokescreen is just that – a tactic and a smokescreen that we can see through and Victorians can see through.

I want to begin by rebutting the lead speaker, the member for Mildura, who demonstrated complete ignorance of Australia’s industrial relations laws. It was just another attempt to unpick the rights, the dignity and the collective solidarity of workers in this state. It is entirely in keeping with every single statement that Pauline Hanson has ever uttered in the context of industrial relations. It is entirely in keeping with the parties’ opposite endeavours to unpick rights, dignity, pay and conditions and the circumstances in which workers can seek representation and dignity at work. It is in keeping with WorkChoices. It is in keeping with the Kennett government’s unpicking of state-based industrial rights. It is entirely consistent with their approach to politics and with their approach to economics and will have the effect of undermining the rights, the pay, the dignity and the conditions of Victorian workers. That is what I contend is on the ballot paper this November, and this bill, this debate and the decision of those opposite to oppose this bill emphasise that. They do not want Victorian workers to have strong representation, because giving them that strong representation, ensuring that those who have relatively limited economic agency can collectively come together to seek better pay and conditions, is anathema to them. It is not in their DNA. They know that in undermining those things, they diminish the rights of workers. That is what will be on the ballot paper in November.

I also want to turn to the comments of the member for Malvern. He is not somebody who is ignorant of Australian industrial relations laws, but it is very funny to hear him as a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of RAFFWU. It is very amusing to see the unity ticket that exists between the member for Malvern on the one hand and the Greens on the other hand. The member for Malvern and his colleagues in the Liberal Party should at least be honest. Their opposition to this bill is entirely in keeping with their economic tradition, with the H.R. Nicholls Society, with the Institute of Public Affairs, with groups which have consistently sought complete labour market deregulation and the erosion of the capacity of legitimate, pragmatic unions to advocate for decent pay and conditions and the dignity and safety of employees at work. The member for Essendon spoke powerfully about the practical effect of that pragmatic representation for workers with a really powerful example of how that benefited a member of the SDA, an employee of Wesfarmers, in his electorate. He also talked about the risks of the extremes taking hold in this place. Some of the tortured logic and extreme language that has been used by those opposing this bill I think frays the collective common good and undermines trust in institutions.

Fundamentally, I believe that it is a cornerstone of the Australian economic and social tradition to ensure that those who have limited agency have the capacity to work together in concert with others to give them greater agency and market power than they would otherwise have. It has been a cornerstone of our industrial relations system since the Harvester judgement that those who are at work should have fair pay and conditions that enable them to live a decent life. Opposition to bills like this undermines the capacity of Australians and Victorians to have decent pay and conditions and to live decent lives. There are a number of furphies that have been put about by those opposite suggesting that this trammels freedom of association – it does nothing of the sort. Organisations that this bill impacts from the industrial perspective can still exist, but they can exist under ASIC frameworks. They should not be able to use state-based association incorporation legislation to hide what they truly are. As many members have said, these are not registered trade unions. The member for Mornington suggested that they are delivering value and that they have a solicitor employed. Well, that is terrific, but that solicitor cannot advocate for any member of RAFFWU at the Fair Work Commission. They cannot provide them with legal representation in that forum.

Let us be really clear about this: these organisations do not do what they say on the tin. They should not be allowed to use state-based incorporated associations legislation to purport that. That is why this bill is important. It also, as I said at the outset, cracks down upon hate groups and those who seek to divide our society, those who seek to inflict harm upon others.

I want to turn, in the time that is remaining to me, just to reflect upon the impact of strong, constructive, pragmatic trade unions on modern Australia. The member for Malvern talked about the Accord in his contribution but only saw it in a negative light, only saw it as some kind of conspiracy against workers and a conspiracy against the Australian economy to agglomerate trade unions. On the other hand, I would suggest that the work of Ralph Willis, of Bill Kelty and of Paul Keating in the early 1980s set up modern Australia for success. It ensured that we grew the pie and that all had the opportunity to enjoy a slice of that pie. They were focused on the common good. They were focused on the collective prosperity of this country and ensuring that it was distributed fairly, that hard work was rewarded, that there was an incentive for private enterprise but also that workers who were part of that had a stake in the collective success of their company and the collective success of the economy. The member for Malvern’s criticism completely dodges that.

Let us look at the impact of the Prices and Incomes Accord more broadly. We saw lower inflation. We saw greater economic stability through the 1980s and 1990s. We saw improved employment and lower unemployment and lower underemployment. We saw productivity improvements year on year on year that enabled real wage growth. We became the envy of the world as a consequence of trade unions working together with government to secure a high minimum wage and to secure superannuation that ensured that Australians have dignity in their retirement. We saw these things as a consequence of pragmatic unions working on behalf of their members. We have seen it today in the upper house as workplace protection orders have become law in this state. That is what is at risk in November. That is what is on the ballot paper. That is what the opposition and the Greens, in coalition with One Nation, wish to see undermined and unpicked in Victoria. Their opposition to this bill is entirely indicative of that.

In this country we have some of the highest paid retail workers in the world as a consequence of the sustained and pragmatic representation of the SDA that has led to a high retail award, that has secured penalty rates and that has secured more public holidays for workers across Australia, including Easter Sunday in Tasmania just last week. These are the practical things that make a difference to people’s lives in our state, in the communities that I represent. It is why I support this bill. I would suggest, Acting Speaker, that the clock has stopped, and I am happy to continue until it resumes. Notwithstanding that, others may wish to speak on the bill. But I could talk about the accord for hours, and I will, because it was a defining moment in the economic history of this country, and it is what those opposite are seeking to undermine. They have always done so, and the member for Malvern and his colleagues should just be honest that this is part of their opposition to effective, pragmatic trade unionism. It has always been there. It has been there since the days of Costello, and the H.R. Nicholls Society endures. I support this bill.

 Tim McCURDY (Ovens Valley) (16:42): I rise to support the member for Mildura, as we oppose this bill, the Associations Incorporation Reform Amendment Bill 2026. At the outset, can I say that we support strong action against neo-Nazis, terrorist organisations and violent extremists, and we support organisations that seek to outlaw legitimate hatred. We also support protecting workers from organisations that deliberately misrepresent what they are and what they can do with the legal protections they can provide.

Some of the contributions I have heard from the other side just say that we are anti-union, and that is not the case. But what we are finding in this bill is the government are certainly trying to make life a little bit smoother for them to make sure that they do not have competition in certain areas, and this is what we have to protect ourselves against. But those legitimate objectives certainly do not give the government a blank cheque to roll all the issues into one bill and justify legislation that potentially restricts legitimate freedom of association. They do not just give government the power to decide which organisations workers can establish and which organisations can continue to operate, and they certainly do not remove the obligation of this government to explain the political circumstances around the bill. The government says this legislation is about stopping what it calls fake unions. The government claims workers are being misled. But when we look beyond the government’s slogans, some serious questions emerge.

The bill establishes an industrial relations purpose test. It potentially captures associations involved in furthering, protecting or representing the industrial interests of their members, which is a massively important change, because we are not simply talking about scammers; we are talking about the organisations established by workers themselves, and we are talking about independent organisations that may compete with the established registered unions. The self-interest of Labor always floats to the top, and we see that here in this bill.

One of the organisations that is affected is the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union, and that is where this legislation becomes particularly interesting. They certainly compete for members in the retail and fast-food sector. Which is the major established registered union representing workers in those industries? It turns out it is the shoppies, the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association, the SDA. And who has got a longstanding association with the SDA? The current Premier, Premier Carroll. The Premier’s connection with the SDA is not speculation; it is part of his political history. When Premier Carroll worked at Kmart, he joined the union as a young man. That was an introduction to trade unionism. Decades later he is the Premier and his government is bringing legislation into the Parliament that could have the effect of restricting organisations that compete with established registered unions. I would have thought that that deserves some scrutiny as we go through this bill. Surely the Parliament should not just wave this legislation through without examining who benefits from it.

I am not standing here claiming that the Premier personally drafted this bill to benefit the SDA, but I am saying the government has a responsibility to explain why this legislation and these consequences are necessary and why less restrictive alternatives are inadequate, because of the perceptions. The perceptions do matter, and so does transparency. When government legislation potentially affects competitors of an organisation with longstanding connections to the labour movement, the government should expect questions to be asked. We heard those questions asked by the member for Malvern, the member for Mildura and others in this place, and that is why we are challenging this legislation, because those questions still need to be answered. We have seen enough rorts go through this government to understand that you cannot just take on face value what the government puts up. It has to be challenged, and questions need to be asked.

Under the Commonwealth registered organisation system simply wanting to become a registered union does not guarantee that an organisation can become one. We know that an applicant can face significant barriers where an existing registered organisation already covers workers in that industry. Considering the position in which the organisation can find itself, they have industrial relations purposes so they should not operate as an incorporated association. The organisations then attempt to enter the federal registered organisation system and they can be told there is already an organisation that covers those workers. Where does that leave the workers? Again, they do not get the opportunities. It is more of a catch 22: rather than having choices, you will be told who you can belong to rather than being able to start another union.

It raises fundamental questions about freedom of association, as was mentioned earlier today. If workers voluntarily decide that an existing union does not represent them adequately, they should be able to establish an alternative organisation. This is what we are saying. Under this bill that will not be possible in some circumstances. Competition is apparently important to everybody else in the union movement except when it might affect a union that exists today. Why should unions be different? In terms of that, if the SDA provides outstanding representation to retail workers, then it should have nothing to fear from the competition. Workers will choose it. And if another organisation provides better representation, workers should be entitled to choose that organisation. That decision should belong to the workers and certainly not to the government of the day and the Labor Party to decide in this place. It should be open for others to do it and create other opportunities.

We need to consider this on its merits. As we said earlier on and other speakers on this side also said, we do not support this legislation. It needs to be fair. There needs to be more security, because, as I said earlier, the Premier belongs to the SDA or has in the past, and we will establish this –

John Mullahy: On a point of order, Acting Speaker, the member on his feet has to be factual, and he is not being factual.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Nathan Lambert): I do not uphold the point of order, but I would remind the member for Ovens Valley about imputations against members.

Tim McCURDY: As the member for Mildura said, we should separate the genuine measures dealing with hate and extremism out of this bill. It is highly contentious, and we should move them out and certainly go back to the drawing board, consult properly and consult with other industries as well. Above all, it should respect the right of Victorian workers to decide for themselves who they want representing them. For those reasons I cannot support the Associations Incorporation Reform Amendment Bill, as has been said by the members for Mildura and Malvern and others in this place.

 John LISTER (Werribee) (16:50): It is my honour to speak on a bill on this matter, particularly as someone who more recently than a lot of others in this chamber was working in a lot of the industries that have been mentioned by those opposite, particularly the retail industry, and was a member of the Shop, Distributive & Allied Employees’ Association (SDA). However, I am not a member anymore. There were some very interesting attempts and some very long bows drawn by those opposite over there.

In doing a little bit of reading into this bill late last week, I was particularly concerned at the representations being made by these associations that purport to be of a trade union ilk. I looked particularly at the Teachers’ Professional Association of Australia (TPAA), which has a very, very interesting website where basically every second line says, ‘But we’re not associated with the Labor Party.’ That is very interesting, because neither is the Australian Education Union, which is the key union responsible for teachers across all of Australia but particularly here in Victoria. A shout-out to a lot of my fellow members in the AEU as well. But I think this goes to a particularly important point. They accuse these unions of being political, yet everything written on their websites is about how they are not the Labor Party. It is just wild looking at these so-called Red Union websites and some of the things that they purport.

There has been a lot mentioned by those opposite, the interesting combination of Greens and Liberal speakers over there, about the Retail and Fast Food Workers Union (RAFFWU), another one of those interesting associations. They are registered as an incorporated association under ASIC and enjoy those same benefits as any other incorporated association under ASIC. There is going to be little impact on their rights as an incorporated association. But what this bill will do is make sure that it is clear that they cannot represent you in the same way as a registered organisation can under the Fair Work Act 2009, and I think that is only reasonable. They have no right of entry. They have no right to enter into an agreement with a workplace through the Fair Work Commission. It is quite clear that the people behind these particular so-called Red Unions, or what have you, are doing it because they want to be political rather than in the interests of the workers that they purport to represent. When it comes to the freedom of association, there is no prevention of freedom of association in this bill. They can still exist, but we will not let them pretend that they can do something that they quite clearly cannot. I do note, too, that the Fair Work Commission itself has raised a lot of concerns about some of these unions in their deliberations around different agreements, particularly one around a particular laundry clause in the previous Woolworths agreement. There were a few other different things that they raised as being quite contrary to the interests of the workers that they purport to represent. They say that these organisations are somehow being attacked. No, we are making it clear to workers all across Victoria that the people who can represent them are those registered unions.

I will return back to one of the topics that I am particularly adept in, which is teaching. The Teachers’ Professional Association of Australia purport to represent teachers here in Victoria, when we have seen quite clearly that the Australian Education Union represent teachers here in Victoria, and they were the organisation that we worked closely with across the whole enterprise bargaining period we had over this previous year. They are the ones that could actually take that protected industrial action. If you were a member of the TPAA, you were sitting back at school just like anyone else who was not a member of the AEU.

Having that clarity means that we do not have people sucked into these circles and paying for something that they cannot get. I even noted, too, that with some of these professional associations purporting to be unions, they do not always have an opportunity to sit in meetings with a workplace where there may be a formal representation required. So they are paying their subscription essentially to this organisation, yet they cannot even sit in there with a boss and have those discussions about what might be a very serious matter. Even with the legal advice in some of these organisations, they say that they can provide legal advice but you end up getting a bill for it, whereas when you are with a union most of the time you will not get a bill for that. That is part of your dues.

I think it is particularly important for younger workers as well. I noted that organisations like RAFFWU are quite good on Instagram, quite good on Reddit; they are always out there trying to recruit people to their cause, as is their wont. But for a lot of young people out there it is important that the information is clear that if you start a job at Kmart or you start a job at Woolworths or Coles, the only people who can truly make sure that you are getting your rights protected at work are organisations like the SDA, that registered organisation.

Keeping employers accountable for doing the wrong thing is so important. That is why this side has always championed the rights of workers to be able to do that. But we will not let these organisations use state acts or state legislation to somehow cover the fact that they purport they can do things that they cannot. There is a huge risk to workers. If they join these incorporated bodies, if they believe they have that access to industrial protection, they might not find out until very late that they have no right to have their representation in those workplace disputes.

There has been a lot of conversation from the champions of trade unionism across the way there about the purpose of this bill, but it is quite clear that we do not want people being sucked into organisations that purport to do something that they quite clearly cannot do. So this bill introduces a definition of ‘industrial relations purpose’ within the act, which means that it is clearer to people when they go to look up, say, the details online of those different incorporations, that it is what it says on the tin. If an organisation is registered under the state Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012 and has made an application to be registered under Fair Work prior to 1 July 2026, there will be no action taken by the registrar overseeing this particular associations incorporation legislation. There will not be any action taken towards them until we understand what Fair Work’s outcome is.

There are a lot of organisations that have some industrial relations purposes but are not purporting to provide full industrial relations protections under that federal act, and I think that federal act is particularly important. I would like to note that despite being the champions of trade unionism on that side, it was their mates in Canberra that brought in WorkChoices, which tried to take away ordinary people’s rights. They try and make out as if they are trying to protect people’s right of association, but it was their mates in Canberra that tried to water this down. It is shameful that they now come into this place and somehow make out as if they are the champions of workers when the Liberal Party, if you ask anyone out on the street, has a history of undermining the rights of workers in this country. In fact it is what Menzies set out to do. He did not like the fact that the Labor Party represented unions in Parliament, so he set out to create a party directly to challenge that. In concluding, I think it is important for any young people who take the time to watch Parliament to look at this debate very closely and understand that we need to make sure that we have these protections.

The SPEAKER: The time set down for consideration of items on the government business program has arrived, and I am required to interrupt business.

Assembly divided on motion:

The SPEAKER: The bill will now be sent to the Legislative Council and their agreement requested.