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

By my rough count, there are around 116 federally registered organisations. The motivating force behind the Leader of the Opposition bringing this bill before the House today is supposed to be some wrongdoing within three organisations. There are 116 registered organisations: they have identified three, and that has moved them to bring these new provisions before the House today. If you listen to the speeches, you can understand the motivation has got nothing to do with these organisations and the goings-on; it has everything to do with political motivations.

Those opposite, whenever they point to members on this side of the House and say we are members of the union, expect us to shrink and say that we are somehow ashamed of this. I do no such thing. As a life member of my union, I am very proud of the fact that I have spent many years of my life dedicating my time and efforts, alongside many others, to advance and protect the rights and conditions of Australian working men and women at work.

It would make as much sense for us to visit upon every corporation in the country new and draconian provisions because of a bankruptcy, because of corruption in a company, because of some malfeasance in a company. We on this side of the House do not say that because of the shenanigans that saw the collapse of One-Tel or HIH we should have a radical overhaul of the Corporations Law. We knew there were some crooks and some wrongdoings going on in those organisations, but we do not use that as a justification to do some massive overhaul of the Corporations Law in this country.

I have some experience in this area and I know that the vast majority of men and women who go to work every day as union members or union officials do so with the very best intentions at heart in attempting to discharge their duties in protecting and advancing their members' wages and conditions and bringing about a fairer and more just workplace and society. They do that with the very best of intentions and they see these sorts of attacks that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as nothing more than an attack on the institution of unions as a whole.

There is strong regulation of unions under our existing law. That does not mean that there is not room—there always is—for improvement. Indeed, the Fair Work Act is probably one of the most contested statutes on the statute book of the federal parliament. Every single election since Federation has been fought around the issues of the Fair Work Act and its antecedents. So it does not surprise us on this side of the House at all that the Leader of the Opposition seeks to bring this matter into contest in the lead-up to this election.

However, I am surprised at one thing. In his contribution to this debate he sought to ridicule the Maritime Union of Australia and the Prime Minister's attendance at a Maritime Union of Australia event. He tried to paint them all as lawless thugs. Can I make this point: the single biggest scandal, the single biggest finding from the highest court in this land in relation to the maritime industry of this country was found against that side of the House when they were in government. It was the conspiracy by Patrick Stevedores and the then Minister for Workplace Relations against the men and women who worked for Patrick Stevedores and were members of the Maritime Union of Australia. So I was surprised indeed that the Leader of the Opposition would stand in this place and seek to ridicule and poke fun and suggest that there was lawlessness, when the biggest finding of lawlessness in this country's history was against those on the other side of the House. The Leader of the Opposition was a minister in that government and a champion for what they were doing. It really does beggar belief that he would have the hide to come into this place and move this bill given his background and form in this area. It should be rejected.

See this speech in context