Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

It is disappointing to hear from the minister that the government will not entertain reducing the disclosure thresholds for candidates. The government commissioned a royal commission, one of the recommendations of which was to create a threshold of $1,000 for candidates in elections of registered organisations. Whilst the government has been praising the work of its former royal commissioner and has continually referred to the royal commission's work in dealing with corruption and other potential offences within registered organisations, it would appear the government wants to apply one set of laws for candidates in some elections and another set of laws for candidates in federal elections.

How can there possibly be a higher standard for candidates of registered organisations when, say, someone wants to run a union compared with candidates of federal elections when they want to run the country? It would appear inconsistent at best, if not hypocritical, to argue that we want to tighten threshold disclosures for those candidates under this bill for registered organisations and yet not apply such a principle to candidates. Whilst I have heard the comments of the minister, we would implore him and his government to reconsider that position. We know that the crossbench understands the merits behind the proposition and I think the government might find that many crossbench senators would support the view that if we are to have a law about threshold disclosure for registered organisations it should also apply to candidates in federal elections.

Let's make sure that all elections conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission do have similar laws. Let's not pretend that somehow there should be a different standard—a lower standard—for candidates who want to be in this place, if they are successful at an election, than for those who are seeking to be officers of registered organisations and go through an election to do so. We think that is highly inconsistent and unfair and, I would argue, hypocritical in relation to the government's current position.

We are happy to negotiate the amendments. We have seriously considered this bill. In fact, I would contend that we have announced policies that, if you look at the amendments in combination, would strengthen the bill. I think there is an opportunity here for the government and for the opposition to come together on a set of changes to the current bill which will match the rhetoric of the government. It would mean that companies and registered organisations would be regulated by the same regulator. It would mean that whistleblowers would be protected, that auditors would have to comply with a higher standard and that transparency in elections would be improved. How could that possibly be a worse situation?

I think the government should reconsider their position in relation to the disclosures. I certainly believe that the crossbench senators like what they hear in relation to the opposition's recommendations. I will not give up. I think the minister at the table, the Minister for Defence Industry, the most senior Defence minister in the government, acting on behalf of the Minister for Employment, should reconsider his earlier answer in relation to that. We think it is important that we get these regulations right. We will never be apologists for corrupt unions officials. We are ashamed when we see a corrupt union official. We should be ashamed when we seek corrupt corporate people too. That is why there has been hypocrisy in relation to the banks and the unions—they are not looking at misconduct in the banks in the same way they are looking at any misconduct in unions.

These are important amendments. I am glad I have had some opportunity to question the minister in relation to them, given that we were gagged in the parliament earlier today. I can assure the minister and this place that we will continue to pursue them with the crossbenchers.

See this speech in context