Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

I apologise for not being here earlier when the bill was moved in my absence by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I was attending a function in the Great Hall with the Prime Minister.

What a curious contribution we have just had from the member opposite. I would have thought the member opposite would have been better than that, better than making excuses for the Health Services Union and other unions which have embarrassed what was once the honourable name of unionism in this country—but apparently not. It was a very curious contribution, with almost every single word of it read. I wonder who wrote it for her. The fact of the matter is there are very decent people in the union movement, and they are just as concerned as I am to ensure that unions are governed properly.They are also concerned that the money, particularly of low-paid union members, is not abused the way it so obviously has been in some celebrated recent examples. There is a problem, and no amount of bluster from members opposite will make that problem go away. What we need is decent legislation, and that is what this private member's bill seeks to give us.

We had the Temby report, commissioned it has to be said by decent people in the Health Services Union, which revealed that some $20 million of low-paid union members' money had been misused. We have the former national President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Williamson, now facing criminal charges. Is it any wonder that members opposite want to make excuses? We have the member for Dobell, one of their own until very recently, facing criminal charges because of the misuse of union members' money at the Health Services Union.

Then, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has earlier pointed out, we have the terrible problems that emerged in the Australian Workers Union back in the mid-1990s. These are problems which have their echo today. They are problems which the member for Barton, an honourable man, said well deserved the attention of this House, problems which Fair Work Commissioner, Ian Cambridge, again an honourable man, said then and says now should attract a royal commission. But we know these problems are widespread because the Prime Minister has told us that every union has a slush fund. If the Prime Minister thinks that every union has a slush fund, that is all the more reason for members opposite to end the bluster, to end the self-justificatory defences and support this bill.

Members opposite, I am sure, will say, 'Where's the evidence?' Well, quite apart from the Prime Minister's own statement, quite apart from the testimony of Ian Tenby, the commentary of the member for Barton and the honest statements of Fair Work Commissioner Cambridge, there are eight separate Fair Work Commission inquiries going on right now into rorts, rackets and rip-offs by unions. We know why these have been covered up for so long. It is because there is a powerful mates network, only too well represented on the opposite side of this chamber, that for far too long has been protecting and covering up union officials involved in disgraceful conduct.

I say nothing against the individuals whom I am about to mention, but they are powerful former members of the union movement. The current minister, Mr Shorten, is a former member of the union movement. We have the current minister, the Assistant Treasurer, who in this chamber cited, as one of the people who had got him into this place, the self-same gentleman who used to head the Health Services Union and is now on criminal charges. This powerful mates network has been operating for too long. It still operates in this chamber to protect malefactors inside the union movement.

If justice is to be done for the low-paid workers of this country it is absolutely vital that this legislation be put in place. This private member's legislation is just one element of a range of measures by which the coalition seeks to ensure that there is justice in our workplaces. Under a coalition government there will be some careful, cautious and responsible changes to the Fair Work Act that will address real problems in our workplace and will not express ideology. We will fully restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission with full powers, full funding and full authority to act as a tough cop on the beat in what is increasingly, once more, a lawless industry.

Also, there will be a registered organisations commission to act as a kind of ASIC for the union movement. We will separate the arbitral from the regulatory function, because unions are too important for their members and for the smooth functioning of our economy not to be properly regulated. But at the heart of this is the need for comparable penalties and comparable offences. Whether the offenders are union officials or company officials, if they commit the same crime they will face the same punishment.

The government knows there is a problem, because the government has already increased penalties—only very slightly, but the fact that it saw the need to increase penalties in response to scandal after scandal on our front pages from the Health Services Union shows that the government knows it has a problem. The member who has just spoken knows that there is a problem, because she pointed out to this House in her script how so much of what happens in the registration, organisation and accountability of the union movement is similar to that of companies, except in this respect: the penalties hardly exist for union officials. They are only civil penalties. There are no criminal penalties and the maximum penalty is something like $33,000, as opposed to $340,000 for crooked company directors. I say: let there be a level playing field. I know members opposite—decent members opposite—know in their hearts that there should be a level playing field, and that is exactly what this legislation proposes.

Since this legislation was formally introduced into the parliament a few weeks back, there have been some interesting developments. I may detain the House for a little longer to outline some of these developments. It is amazing how many union conferences senior members of this government seem to be getting along to at the moment. I wonder why! I wonder why the Prime Minister seems to feel the need to go to every union conference that is going on at the moment.

But let's begin with a remarkable conference: the MUA conference held in Perth recently. The Western Australian secretary, Chris Cain, told delegates 'laws need to be broken, you're going to get locked up'. You would think, would you not, that a responsible minister of the Crown going to that self-same conference would at the very least say, 'Please, whatever you do don't break the law. Fight for your members by all means. By all means attack the employers where they deserve it. But don't break the law of the land.' Well, no, that is not what the minister for workplace relations said. He said it was a pretty impressive conference because you get a sense that there is something happening here. Criminal incitement: that is what was happening there. He said, 'You get the sense that you're a union who is determined to be true to its members and determined to stand up for its members … it is very, very palpable. I wish we could bottle a bit of the spirit here and spread it on perhaps some of the members in the Labor caucus …' The spirit of law-breaking. He wants to taint the Labor caucus itself. If that wasn't bad enough, the Prime Minister herself sent a message to that self-same MUA union conference:

… now comes the tough part—to defend what we have.

Let’s fight hard. Let’s fight together. Let’s fight to win.

An endorsement, a veritable endorsement of law-breaking.

This is the problem: members opposite are so much the captive of the union movement that they are incapable of doing what is obviously right for our nation right now, and that is to have a level playing field when it comes to malefaction—do the same crime, serve the same time, whether you are a company official or a union official.

Since my bill was first formally introduced into this House earlier this year, there have been a series of cave-ins by the Prime Minister and senior ministers to the union movement. The Prime Minister just last week announced that the Fair Work Act would be amended to enshrine additional protections for penalty rates. I am all in favour of ensuring that penalty rates are a matter for the Fair Work Commission. They are now, and that is where they should stay, but there was the Prime Minister saying, 'Oh, no, keep supporting me and this is what I'm going to do for you.'

Earlier last week, the government announced that there would be a legal right for unions to hold recruitment meetings in workplace lunch rooms. Not only are these union officials going to invade workers' lunch rooms; according to the changes that the government announced on 8 March, employers would be required to pay for the transport costs of these workplace invaders, these lunch room invaders. On 5 March, the minister for aged care announced a $1.2 billion boost to the salaries and wages of workers in the aged-care sector, provided there is a new enterprise bargaining agreement, which—surprise, surprise!—has to be negotiated by the Health Services Union. This is a $1.2 billion exercise to support a Health Services Union membership drive. Really and truly, is it any wonder that members opposite are refusing to support this legislation?

When it comes to the unions and to union officials, the attitude of this government is absolutely crystal clear: union officials have all rights and no responsibilities. Actually, I am not quite accurate there. Union officials do have one responsibility: to contribute to the re-election of members opposite. The one responsibility that union officials have, if members opposite are to be believed, is to pay and pay and pay for the re-election of a Labor government and to continue to support, through thick and thin, in defiance of all logic and all common sense, the leadership of the current Prime Minister.

I say to members opposite: look into your own consciences. Look at the decent people who for years you have said you represented—people earning less than $40,000 a year who are still putting $400, $500 and $600 a year of their hard-earned money into the pockets of the sorts of people we have seen running the Health Services Union lately. It is not right. It stinks to heaven for rectification. Just for once, look into your hearts and ensure that unions and their leaders must do the right thing, not the wrong thing, by the people they represent.

See this speech in context