Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I support the proposition advanced by the member for Wright that unions play an important role in this country. I support the proposition advanced by the member for Wright that, when working men and women in Australia pay their contributions voluntarily, as they do, to an association known as a trade union, those funds be used for the purposes for which they are contributed—that is, to advance their interests. These are interests like advancing wages and conditions, and legislation and other regulations that are often the subject of debate in this place. It is to ensure that they get the best deal from legislation and from government and the best deal when it comes to their wages and conditions. I support that proposition. In fact, it would be pretty hard to argue against it although, from time to time, I have heard members stand up in this place, particularly members of the coalition, and argue against those propositions. But it would be very difficult for right minded—no pun intended; a reasonably minded person—to advance that proposition.

Further, I support the proposition that a union official should be accountable to the members they are elected to serve. I say this with some authority on the matter, having spent some six years of my life as an elected representative of the trade union movement and it is something I am very proud to have done. I can honestly say that for six years of my life I went to work every day attempting to do something to advance the living conditions of the working men and women I represented. I am also very pleased to say that, in an overwhelming number of instances, I left that union—and those men and women—in a better state that when I found it. I do not say this because I think I am some exception; I say this because I think that the overwhelming number of men and women whose calling it is to represent union members in this country go to work with that aspiration. They attempt to do that.

I know I represent the views of the men and women on this side of the House when I say, and it was not said by the member for Wright, that the allegations that have been made in relation to the misuse of members' moneys by branches or parts of the Health Services Union of Australia, if found to be true, are nothing short of deplorable. They stand to be condemned by every union member in this country and those who hold and share the values of the union movement. If those allegations are proved to be true, then they stand to be condemned. In so much as the motion goes to the heart of those issues it is very difficult, and I would say that every right-thinking person in this country and in this place should support them.

But that is not really what this is about. This is about the coalition party having another go at the union movement in an attempt to use this place, this chamber, as an opportunity to rake the muck and make allegations against unions and unionists in this country. We know this because, in his address on the motion before the House, the member for Wright advanced that on the basis that it was in the interests of low-paid workers. The member for Wright is an honest man; I know him to be a man who approaches his job with integrity. But if he really had a concern for the plight of low-paid workers in this country, he would leave this chamber immediately and go to his leader's office and to the office of the opposition spokesperson on workplace relations and say: 'This year should we the last year that we have opposed a wage increase through the awards system for the lowest-paid workers in this country. I know that we have done it every year since Federation, but this year should be the last year that we do it.' I know the member for Wright to be an honest man with integrity and he believes in the things that he is advancing. If he wants to do something for the low-paid workers in this country he should make that march into his leader's office and say: 'This should be the last year that we do this. We cannot on the one hand advance a motion in support of low-paid workers in this country and on the other hand oppose wage increases going to the lowest-paid workers in this country.'

The second thing the member for Wright should do is move from this chamber to the nearest phone at his disposal and call the Premier of New South Wales. He should say, 'Dear Premier, I am concerned about the plight of working people in New South Wales and, for that reason, I ask you to withdraw the laws that you are ramming through the New South Wales parliament which are an attack on workers compensation in New South Wales.' That is the second thing that he can do.

I do not believe that that is going to happen and, even if the member for Wright does make that journey and that phone call, I do not think we are going to see that about-face. From that, and upon that evidence, we are entitled to form the conclusion that this is nothing short of a ruse. They are crocodile tears.

Let me contrast that to the very real actions that have been taken by the minister for industrial relations to address the issues. We have taken steps and the minister has announced that we intend to introduce legislation into parliament before the end of the year which is specifically designed to increase the transparency and accountability of registered organisations, both employer and trade union registered organisations. For instance, it will require the full disclosure of remuneration and board fees to be made to all members.

I interrupt my line of thought here for a moment. When I was running my union—and I am sure that the member for Chifley had a similar approach—we had a very simple rule: if you are a representative of the union and you are sitting on a board, you take one salary and not two. If you are receiving remuneration as a result of your being a nominee on a board, whether that be a superannuation board or any other board, you donate those fees back to the union because that is the right thing to do—you take one salary, not two. I think it would be a good thing in this country if many of the employers and corporations took the same approach instead of featherbedding their own remuneration. I think that is the right principle. But the proposition that will be advanced by the government is that all board fees and remuneration should be disclosed to members, and I think that is the right thing to do. It will require transactions with related parties, including family members or companies related to family members, to be disclosed to members as well so that we cannot have registered organisations taking advantage of union funds to send contracts to family members or other related entities where that would not otherwise pass a due diligence test. It will require officers to undertake training in financial accountability that is related to their duties. It will require organisations to develop policies in relation to financial accountability and management. It will recognise the important role played by trade unions and employer organisations in our federal workplace relations system.

I support bona fide reform in this area. Members should have full control over the affairs of their union, including the remuneration paid by their union. It was interesting to note that, when the executive remuneration legislation was before this House earlier this year, those opposite took an entirely different approach. They said that the shareholders should not have tools at their disposal to control the remuneration of board members of publicly listed companies. They want to impose an obligation on union officials that in many instances they are not willing to impose on employers. The whole thing is a ruse. We need reform, and members on this side will support genuine reform.

See this speech in context