Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

) ( ): I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017. We are fortunate to live in a country where we are all afforded representation, whether it is through parliament, association or union, and we have many things to be grateful for in a society where we are free to unite and negotiate as one. That is, traditionally, what a trade union should be for: a fair go where there is minimal communication or representation where there is none. There was a period when having representation could literally mean the difference between life and death, where workers were deprived of their rights and overworked, but no longer.

We have passed beyond the era of necessity. Trade unions have become politicised and have their own agendas. Once upon a time, trade unions represented their workers' needs and agenda. Now, in so many cases, it is the reverse. We see these problems emerge when trade unions stop being solely about the rights of their workers and become their own entities. We see these problems emerge when trade unions start to work for things that differ from the needs and safety of their members. We see these problems when trade unions begin to advocate for themselves at the expense of their members.

That is where this legislation comes in. This bill bans secret and corrupting payments from businesses to unions which may influence the outcome of any enterprise bargaining agreements and potentially tempt trade unions to forget the interests of their members, on whose behalf they are meant to be negotiating. Money is a funny thing and can seemingly cause even the most vigilant trade union to neglect their duties.

The second part of this legislation requires disclosure of any legitimate payments that arise as a result of an enterprise agreement. Just like any businessperson—or, indeed, a politician—trade union members have a right to know the interests of those who have so much influence over the outcome of something that has so much of an effect over their lives. We regularly update our own register of interests—information that is publicly available—so that our constituents, whom we represent, know exactly what our interests are and so that we can demonstrate that we are not privately influenced by one business, one membership or one donor over work that we do on behalf of our electorates. Trade unions must be compelled to do the same. If the payments they receive from firms are legitimate and do not compromise their members' interests, they have nothing to hide. If the opposition are indeed for workers, as they insist so regularly and earnestly, they should have no concerns or hesitation about supporting this legislation.

We have seen multiple examples of this kind of behaviour by trade unions in recent times. One of the most remarkable examples to me is the instance where the Building Trades Group of Unions Drug & Alcohol Committee, an entity controlled by the CFMEU, received a payment of $100,000 from Thiess-Hochtief during construction of the Epping-Chatswood rail link in Sydney, supposedly for industrial peace. One would think this would be bad enough, but what happened? That $100,000 was invoiced as being for drug and alcohol safety training and siphoned off into the CFMEU's general account. I am sure that we all can see the inherent problems with this, and it is certainly not the only example of these secret payments occurring.

The Heydon Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption found that these payments were commonplace between businesses and trade unions to secure favourable treatment and prevent hostilities. Perhaps they are private kickbacks used for personal gain, such as with former CFMEU official Dave Hanna using free building materials and labour to renovate his home. Perhaps the payments are made in response to threats to boost the union's coffers, such as the NSW CFMEU demanding donations of employers to a rehabilitation fund. Or perhaps the payments are used to—and fancy this—increase an official's own status and power within the Labor Party! It is a wonder that there are not more speakers from those opposite. You would have thought that many would be able to offer us insights from having first-hand experience of these 'corrupting benefits'. Those opposite talk about things like penalty rates for the average employee but support unions who make deals that mean employees of the generally larger businesses get much lower penalty rates than those of small businesses. Those opposite support big business over small business while hypocritically opposing our own tax cuts.

As the Prime Minister said when addressing the House on this bill last week:

The role of union leaders is to put their members first. They are paid by members to represent their interests, which members rightly trust will be the first priority of their union.

This behaviour and these deals are an absolute betrayal of workers' and members' trust. Any honest union leader or business should have no problem with this legislation; after all, it is only targeting unions which are not faithful to their members and which place their own agenda above the needs of the members. The sole motivating factor for union officials should be the welfare of their members, certainly not their house renovations, their political agenda or their status within a political organisation.

Union members pay their union dues to their unions to represent them and it is their right to know exactly what their enterprise agreement entails and what was involved in the negotiation. If any payments were involved in the formation of those agreements, workers have a right to know what and why. They are paying for a service and paying for that service to be conducted without risking the integrity of the agreement being compromised by payments amounting to something close to bribery or extortion. Imagine the response when, having just signed up to a new enterprise agreement, workers should find out that the people that they were counting on—that they were trusting to have their best interests at heart when negotiating the agreement—were receiving payments on the side from the very organisations that were meant to be standing by their side. I ask those in the House at the moment, regardless of their roles prior to being elected to this place, to just imagine themselves in that situation. You would feel the betrayal, the disappointment, the distrust and be wondering what demands were relented upon with the agreement to the payment. You would worry about what aspects were sacrificed in an agreement to line the pockets of trade union officials at the expense of benefits, or which paved the way for cheaper employee pay or conditions.

Let's discuss another example, something a little closer to home. Thiess and John Holland, 'engineering, contracting and service providers to the infrastructure, energy, resources and transport services sectors', were found to have paid the Australian Workers' Union $300,000 plus GST to ensure minimal industrial disruption while EastLink was completed. This payment was disguised in false invoices for 'training', 'back strain research', 'AWU magazine advertisements', 'forum tickets' and 'conference sponsorships', none of which were ever provided and the payments were never disclosed to members of the AWU or to employees.

Now EastLink is one of Melbourne's primary freeways. It is critical to traffic flow and to easing congestion between the eastern and south-eastern suburbs. EastLink finishes—or starts, depending on the way you look at it—at the northern tip of my electorate and connects my constituents and other commuters with the Monash Freeway, the Eastern Freeway, Peninsula Link, Princes Freeway, Burwood Highway and Maroondah Highway, to name a few. This road is a tolled road and is predicted to be for many years to come. One would certainly hope that my constituents have not had to subsidise this secret payment to the AWU.

Some of the worst instances of these secret payments have been used to entice unions to sell out their members to benefit their own interests. What kind of representation is this? These are the people who trust and rely on these officials who have let them down. We need to make sure that corrupt trade union officials cannot betray their members any more.

These kinds of payments have been found in successive royal commissions over the past 30 years. The Heydon Royal Commission recommended banning the practice of secret payments, and that is precisely what this government will do. By making it a criminal offence to give, receive, offer or solicit such payments, the coalition government is demonstrating its commitment to restoring integrity and fairness in the workplace. These secret payments are dubious at best and criminal at worst. It is especially concerning when members are not being told what their union is doing or not doing on their behalf.

This legislation is in defence of workers—ordinary people who rely on their union to represent them and advocate for their interests. Criminal penalties for making, receiving, offering and requesting secret payments will apply equally to both the employer and to the trade union, ensuring that to do so is in no-one's interest. Penalties for secret, illegitimate payments will include up to two years in prison or $90,000 for an individual or $450,000 for companies. Penalties for payments with the intent to corrupt will include up to 10 years in prison or $900,000 for an individual or $4.5 million for companies. These figures are significant enough that they should deter even the wealthiest of employers and unions from doing the wrong thing by their members and employees.

Over the past few decades, millions of dollars have flown freely into the coffers of unions with absolutely no extra assistance or support for members being forthcoming. Whatever the purpose of the payments—be they for personal advantage, professional advancement, political advocacy or other—members are paying a fee for which they should rightly expect advocacy and nothing but advocacy for their workers' rights by their union. Same as any other service provider—a bank, a referral service—consumers should always be told if people or an organisation receive a commission for advocating on their behalf. If an outcome has been compromised, members should know about it. If their trade union has stopped short of the best outcome, members should know about it.

This legislation has the hallmark of the coalition government taking action on this matter. We are a government that strive to protect the individual and to ensure transparency in trade union activity. With the passage of this bill, even legitimate payments will be made known to members and employees prior to enterprise agreements being voted on. It is their right to know.

There have been a number of high-profile bills that are part of a broader view to reform relations in the workplace to be respectful, transparent and fair to workers, union members and employees alike. This is one of them. Banning secret and corrupting payments from businesses to unions, and requiring disclosure of any legitimate payments and financial benefits will restore integrity to the workplace. This is why this bill should be supported by the Leader of the Opposition, those opposite and everyone in parliament. I welcome their support for this important reform to outlaw corrupting benefits. (Time expired)

See this speech in context