Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak on this extremely important motion, which goes to a central question: what is it that the leaders of unions in Australia are doing with their members' money? Is there a reason to be concerned or should we be satisfied that everything is fine and that there is no need for further action on this front? I am sorry to say that the evidence suggests that we need to be very concerned about the governance occurring in unions around Australia. There has been, quite properly, very detailed focus on what has been happening in the Health Services Union, but the problem appears to be significantly more widespread.

What is it that union leaders are doing with their members' money? The first thing they are evidently doing is paying themselves very generous salaries. Michael Williamson of the Health Services Union is reported to earn a salary of $330,000 a year. Mr Bernie Riordan was until recently the head of the Electrical Trades Union in New South Wales and, according to the Sunday Telegraph, last year he earned nearly $400,000 from a combination of his union job and directorships of three superannuation funds and businesses. Kathy Jackson has admitted to earning $270,000 in her role at the Health Services Union. This exchange occurred on 7.30 on 21 May:

CHRIS UHLMANN: Doesn't that seem a little excessive...

KATHY JACKSON: Yes, it does.

CHRIS UHLMANN: ... for someone who represents some. Poorest workers in Australia?

KATHY JACKSON: I agree with you but let's look at the history of this. As I said previously this was rammed through the council, by Michael Williamson and his people. We objected to it.

The role of union members and union officials in relation to their members in enriching themselves is seen not only in the basic salaries that union officials are earning but also in the way they have used the industrial arrangements to direct a stream of payments into superannuation funds which are associated with those unions. It appears that union officials regard those superannuation funds with which the union is associated as offering them nice little earners for positions on the boards of those superannuation funds. As I have already mentioned, both Michael Williamson and Bernie Riordan top up their union salaries with additional director's fees from the boards of the superannuation funds on which they sit and to which they were appointed by the unions of which they are officials. Let us remind ourselves what the current member for Dobell has had to say about the appointment of Kathy Jackson as a director of HESTA, one of the big industry superannuation funds. In the parliament recently he said:

She sat on the board of HESTA, collecting board fees for many years, rarely attending meetings. But when the union decided the board fee should go to the union, she left the board.

I do not know whether that precise allegation is correct, but it is an interesting insight into the mindset of one particular former union official, the current member for Dobell, who is himself a former union-appointed director of an industry superannuation fund.

Alternatively, we could look at the Meat Industry Employees Superannuation Fund, in which Mr Wally Curran, who was recently described in the Australian as 'a legendary unionist, former long-time secretary of the Meatworkers Union and a long-serving trustee director of the Meat Industry Employees Superannuation Fund', was a major figure. The Meat Industry Employees Superannuation Fund invested some $30 million in a property company called Austcorp before the company collapsed losing almost all of the $30 million.

These extravagant salaries and some of the other arrangements operate to put these union leaders in a very different class to the often poorly paid workers they represent. I note that Mr Kevin Morgan in a recent article in the Australian argues that this stems from the Hawke government's amalgamations of the union movement and that a new breed of careerist union officials has emerged. This is an important motion before the House. Union governance needs clear scrutiny and action.

See this speech in context