Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

) ( ): I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, which amends the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 to achieve greater accountability and transparency for registered organisations. It is a bill that I would have thought would have bipartisan support. What could be wrong with increased transparency in the way registered organisations operate? Sadly, the changes that we are proposing be made do not have bipartisan support.

I began to wonder why would it be that those opposite would not support a bill like this. It did not take long for me to begin to understand why there might be some sensitivities. We have seen that at first hand in Victoria through the evidence that has come up in the royal commission into the construction industry that is going on at the moment. We have seen some very concerning developments, especially when it comes to the CFMEU, which in Victoria has been accused of nepotism, blackmail, threats and cartel behaviour. I would have thought that, when there are accusations of that type, both sides of the political fence would seek to act. I would have thought that one would particularly seek to act if that behaviour was having a flow-on effect on how that industry operated in the state. Sadly, that has not been occurring.

It is problematic, to say the least, that we are not seeing action taken. In the previous parliament—this came up again, today—we saw issues regarding the Health Services Union. We had those opposite taking up the cause, or the supposed cause, of nurses today, yet in the previous parliament, when the Health Services Union was seen to have acted—or those in senior administrative positions were seen to have acted—in a way which was not befitting of how those in senior roles in organisations should operate, we heard nothing from the other side. These senior members of the HSU were operating in a way where it would seem that they were misusing union funds and that those union funds had been collected from some of the lowest paid workers in the union movement, yet nothing was done. It was as a result of that that, before the election, we on this side decided that some action needed to be taken, and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill will achieve greater accountability and transparency for registered organisations.

You might ask in particular, when it comes to some of these unions, why we might not have bipartisan support for this bill here today. Most disturbing of all is the connection in Victoria between the CFMEU and the Victorian Leader of the Opposition, Daniel Andrews. There have been calls for the Labor Party in Victoria to distance themselves from the CFMEU, to not accept the donations that they receive from the CFMEU and to ensure that, instead of the CFMEU being party to the Labor Party in Victoria, Labor should do the right thing and say, 'No, sorry. If you're going to behave like that, we won't have you as part of our organisation.' But that, sadly, has not happened.

I thought we might see federally, here in Canberra, some action along those lines as well. It seemed to me that the federal Leader of the Opposition, with his detailed knowledge of how the union movement should work in this situation, might step in and say to Daniel Andrews, the Leader of the Opposition in the Victorian state parliament, 'Sorry, the Labor Party cannot condone this type of behaviour. We need to distance ourselves from it. We have to come out strongly against this type of behaviour.' I thought we might see some real leadership from the Leader of the Opposition on this issue. I thought we might have seen him decide, 'Yes, we do need to see more transparency when it comes to registered organisations. We do need to see greater accountability and, therefore, we will support what the government is trying to do here. After all, everyone stands to benefit.' Yet we have not seen that.

What we instead have seen is the Labor Party remaining silent. This is despite the evidence being detailed at the commission. To get it on the record, counsel assisting the commission detailed the claims in his opening statement. At a meeting between Boral representatives and the CFMEU, Mr Setka, the state secretary, said words to the effect: 'We are at war with Grocon, and in a war you cut the supply lines. All wars end and, once peace is established, the CFMEU will be at the table to divide up the spoils. The CFMEU will decide who gets what and what market share Boral will get.' That is the way that the CFMEU seeks to operate.

I find it passing strange that the Labor Party are prepared to sit silently by and let a union which is affiliated to the Labor Party behave in this manner. I think it is time that they understood that real leadership requires, at some stage, for you to stand up for what you truly believe in—you stand up for what you think is right; you stand up and say, 'Enough is enough.' This is the situation that we have reached and this is why the government is acting. This type of behaviour must be stopped so that we can have a construction industry, in Victoria for instance, which can operate without fear, without intimidation and without blackmail. The only way you can do that is to ensure that there is transparency and accountability in the way that these organisations operate.

We have seen some other things come up. The Fair Work Building and Construction agency is taking the CFMEU's president, Ralph Edwards, to the Federal Court over claims he intimidated Red & Blue Scaffolding. The statement of claim said that Mr Edwards allegedly told the firm:

The rules of the union are, we choose who is shop steward—if you want to have a business and a working relationship with me.

According to media reports:

When the contractor refused, the union official allegedly said: 'Well done, you've sacked your own workforce. You will be out of business.'

That is the type of intimidation that we are, sadly, seeing in workplaces as a result of this particular organisation operating without the government being able to take the right type of action to deal with it.

How does this bill interact with the previous government's amendments? The previous government's amendments, contained in the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act, demonstrated that there is a need for increased financial accountability of registered organisations, strengthened investigation powers and increased penalties. However, these changes were not adequate. That is why this bill strengthens reporting and disclosure obligations to align more closely with the Corporations Act, moves obligations from the rules of registered organisations to the face of the legislation and gives the new commissioner greater scope to ensure that officers are complying with their obligations and greater powers to investigate when a member makes a complaint about a registered organisation. It is fairly straightforward, yet those opposite say that this is a bridge too far. Once again I ask why would they not want to take these extra necessary steps when we had evidence in the last parliament about the Health Services Union and the behaviour that went on there. Sadly, it was evidence which played out almost on a daily basis in this place. Now that the royal commission has moved to Victoria, we have further evidence of that occurring within the construction industry. The allegations detailed against the CFMEU involve behaviour taking place not just in the last 12 months—it dates back to the Westgate Bridge and the desal plant, and now it relates to Grocon and to Boral. This is why we need to introduce these amendments to the bill.

I would say to those opposite that you need to step back and think about what message your opposition is sending to the broader community. Daniel Andrews, the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, looks extremely weak. I know that people would be looking at his actions and saying, 'Is this the type of leader we want—one who will not stand up to threats of blackmail and intimidation?' When it comes to the Leader of the Opposition federally, they will be looking and saying the same thing, 'Is it proper leadership when you have people or associations affiliated to your party who are acting in this way, and you stand by and say and do nothing?' That sends a very powerful message. All we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition here in Canberra is that he wants the royal commission to run its course. He said that he does not want to provide a running commentary on it. He does not need to provide a running commentary on it; instead, he can take some action to ensure that this type of behaviour cannot continue. The best type of action he could take is come in here when we vote on this bill and support the government. The history and the examples that we have seen over the last five to six years and beyond clearly show that, in these rotten little burrows, we need to stamp out these types of activities. We have seen these activities in the HSU, and we see them in the examples relating to the CFMEU that are coming before the royal commission.

This amending legislation before us today deserves to be supported. I know that the Minister for Education, who will address us next, is very keen on ensuring that this legislation and the amendments in it see the light of day. As he illustrated very clearly in question time today, we have had enough of those opposite saying, 'We don't like this type of behaviour. We need to see some action.' This legislation provides action, because it means that we can hold these registered organisations accountable. We can make sure that there is proper transparency and ensure that those unions which are doing their jobs can continue to do that, and that rogues that are using practices like nepotism, blackmail, threats and cartel behaviour cannot continue to operate in this manner.

In summation, this is a mature government acting in a mature way and putting forward some sensible amendments to a piece of legislation which will ensure that all Australians benefit when it comes to how unions and others operate within our community.

See this speech in context