Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Corrupting Benefits) Bill and in favour of the second reading amendment in relation to protecting take-home pay.

What a load of sanctimonious, self-righteous claptrap we just heard from the member opposite! It is just ridiculous to think that. They come in here and give us lectures all the time. They never send in a piece of legislation that promotes workers' rights that they will not vote against—again and again! This is the party of Work Choices, and they presume to give us a lecture about workers' rights. When it comes to workplace health and safety they never stand up for workplace health and safety. And look what is happening on 1 July this year, when 700,000 Australians are going to lose up to $77 a week. These people will not lift a muscle or move an inch—they will not lift a finger, they will not legislate and they will not do anything—to help the lowest-paid workers in this country. And then they give us this nonsense from over there that they are standing up for workers' rights. Honestly! It is the party of the ideologues—the Right-wing ideologues over there who cannot see what they really are or what they stand for. The Australian public will work them out. They work them out from time to time and they vote them out. I have confidence that they will do that next time at the federal election.

This particular piece of legislation is a cover, a smokescreen. It is a smokescreen in relation to what is happening and their failure to protect the take-home pay of vulnerable workers. At the same time we hear the Treasurer getting up at the dispatch box and giving literally tens of thousands of dollars to the highest-paid income earners in this country and they think it is fair. They have the audacity—the arrogance—to call it a fair budget, and to use 'fairness' in the title of their budget. It is ridiculous. This piece of legislation is once again a smokescreen—a cover, a mirage—to actually protect their position.

The Heydon royal commission was an attack on the trade union movement and the workers' representatives who are standing up for working men and women every day in the workplaces of this country. It took them about 12 months or so to do anything about it. Where was this legislation earlier? It came about and was rushed into this parliament, ill-conceived and poorly drafted, because the Prime Minister wanted a cover. He wanted a cover and to be seen to be doing something. We just debated it, the vulnerable workers legislation before this chamber. It is a half-baked, half-hearted and lukewarm response, not doing anything about resourcing Fair Work Australia or the Fair Work Ombudsman properly and not doing anything in relation to protecting workers. We have seen the egregious examples of exploitation by 7-Eleven, Caltex, you name it, and they will not do anything about it.

Again, migrant workers are the most vulnerable people in this country. How many more reports are there going to be from the Fair Work Ombudsman? How many more Senate reports do we want to see? But they come in and produce this sort of legislation before the chamber.

We are against corruption and criminality in any form. It should be stamped out, whether it is in business or in unions or in any part of the economy, any part of our community or any part of our society. But they come in here and lecture us about this stuff, as if somehow they are the great mates of the workers. They will never see a pay rise that they will not oppose.

At the moment, we are seeing damage to the budget. Why? Because wages are at an historic low. We have had very high unemployment in this country and high underemployment. One of the facts in this country is that wages are too low, so budget revenues are not getting up there. That is the impact on the budget. We see it in the budget papers that were handed down on Tuesday night. The trouble in this country is that those opposite do not see what they really are—the ideologues opposite. Often those people—Liberal and National Party members—who have been elected and who come into this chamber get captured by the ideologues, the hard, Right-wing conservatives, and so pieces of legislation get passed in this place, whether under John Howard, under the member for Warringah or, in fact, under the member for Wentworth. Or they attempt to pass legislation that is not in the best interest of the economy, of the community or of workers' rights.

This timing of this particular legislation is so political. It is clearly the case. Where was the urgency in the last 12 months? Where was it? It did not happen. The mentality of this government in terms of this antiworker legislation is so clear. Even when antiworker legislation was the justification for dragging this debate onwards, the government cannot see what they really stand for. They just cannot see it. Their priorities are out of touch—constantly out of touch.

In the last few months and in the last budget we have seen the disconnect this government has with the working people of this country. Those opposite cannot admit the fact that they cannot understand that working people are going to suffer from 1 July in this country. That means that they will be struggling to pay their rent, struggling to pay their mortgages, struggling to pay their school fees and struggling to pay the education costs for their kids. Instead of devoting their attention to the needs of working people, the government seem desperate to stop fighting amongst themselves and to pass legislation that might pick them up in the polls—even to pass a budget that might help them in a Newspoll every fortnight. That is what they are on about.

At the same time, we have this legislation before the chamber. We have seen legislation giving big tax cuts for big business, for multinational tax corporations. In fact, we have seen tax cuts for the banks that they claim they are supporting. They are taxing them $6.2 billion but they are giving them tax breaks of about $8.4 billion. The government say, 'We are so tough on the banks,' but they are giving them big tax cuts in the legislation that the Treasurer introduced today. That this bill has been rushed into this place after such a prolonged stretch of irresponsible and ineffective governance is beyond belief. It is not simply a coincidence. The government are hell-bent on wasting the parliament's time. They are rushing in legislation and not tackling the problems that actually affect workers and their families. If they devoted more time to governing than to attacking the Labor Party and the labour movement, they would actually be able to address the challenges facing this country and do something about them. We would see some progress in the economic debate and on the economy of this country.

Instead, we have a missed opportunity by the government to develop lasting and considered legislation to improve the situation in this country and to tackle corruption. If they were serious about tackling corrupt behaviour they would not try to force legislation through the chamber without any consultation and without any review at all. If they were serious about tackling corruption, they would consult employers, unions, industrial experts and experts on criminality and criminal behaviour, and then they would achieve longstanding and lasting reform that might endure. In the space of a matter of weeks we have seen this legislation announced and introduced, and today it is on for debate. Their legislation is compromised, effectively. This is all about another attack on the union movement.

Let us be clear, we will never stand for corruption in any shape or form nor for any criminal behaviour at all. We are simply against it. We will never oppose properly considered legislation that takes concrete steps to crack down on underhand behaviour and criminal activity, wherever and whenever it occurs. Whether this legislation achieves what it hopes to is open for real, serious debate. The consequences of the government's hurried approach are obvious in the legislation. It is so poorly drafted it is unlikely to strike a blow against corrupt companies and organisations. It is likely to make life more difficult for those people who are trying to do the right thing. The so-called corrupting benefits offences are largely similar to the existing Criminal Code offences of bribery of a public official, of bribery of a foreign official and of corrupting benefits given to or received by a public official. There are very important differences in the circumstances.

First, the bill establishes a different test of intention for the act of making or receiving a bribe, making it easier for a union official to be targeted. This bill is all about targeting union officials while protecting the employer, as they always do. For an offence to be registered against the company, it must be proved that the company that is paying a bribe intends to influence a union official or act improperly. In contrast, officials of registered organisations need only ask for a bribe intending that the company believes that the official will tend to be influenced to act improperly, regardless of what the official's actual intentions are, for that person to be convicted. By direct comparison, in the equivalent corrupting benefits Commonwealth officials offences in the Criminal Code, the test of intending to influence applies equally to both the party giving the corrupt benefit and the party receiving it.

The bill makes it an offence for employers to provide cash or in-kind payments to either a union or a person nominated by the union, while also preventing unions from requesting or receiving such payments. The offences created under this bill do not even require the person making or receiving a bribe to be acting dishonestly. That is a real flaw in this legislation. Unlike the equivalent Commonwealth Criminal Code offence, which requires evidence of dishonesty, it is unclear that this element would have to be proved in offences under this bill. I do not think it will. Therefore, it lowers the burden of proof for the prosecution of union officials, which is what this legislation is all about.

What is particularly concerning in relation to this is the issue of dishonesty. It is entirely possible under this legislation that a union official who approaches an employer on behalf of a worker that he or she represents, a worker who has just been made redundant and might be seeking a payment of a lawfully owed entitlement under, say, an enterprise bargaining agreement or an award, could be guilty of an offence under this legislation. That is simply astonishing. A union representative going about his or her work—seeking to assist a worker, a member of their union, lawfully seeking a redundancy payment as part of their entitlements in an EBA or an award—may find themselves in a position where they could be prosecuted. I think the absence of dishonesty in relation to it is a really serious problem in relation to the legislation. This is ridiculous. It is outrageous. It is unnecessary. It is an overreach of government power. It prevents union officials doing their most basic duty.

Those opposite say they want union officials to go about and do what they need to do—that is, honestly, appropriately and regularly representing their workers, their members—but they make it hard for a union official to actually do his or her job. The bill mandates that unions and employers disclose any benefits that they or related entities may receive following the outcome of an enterprise agreement. If the government spent less time focusing on the ideological attacks and more time listening to the people, then they would know that these types of disclosures are already made by unions to their members throughout the enterprise bargaining process.

I just think those opposite do not get that enterprise bargaining process. We hear it at question time, we hear it in speeches made by those opposite. I repeat: we have no patience with and we have no time for anyone who tries to subvert the system to cheat workers and union members. We know, through hard experience in the Labor Party and the labour movement, that the offences created by this particular piece of legislation are, at best, confusing—they are clearly unclear—and, at worst, they create an uneven system that penalises union representatives and helps employer representatives. It means that for union officials, representing their workers, the power imbalance is tilted against them even more as they negotiate with large companies. Really, it is preventing them from carrying out the core duties that they do. It is breathtakingly hypocritical of those opposite to attempt to frame this bill as being for the benefit of workers and their representatives in the trade union movement.

We know that people are doing it tough at the moment. We fought hard to protect family tax benefits and pensions. We fought hard to stop what have been described in the media and across this parliament as the zombie measures in legislation. If the government is about genuinely tackling corruption in Australia, why is there no mention of corrupt payments between companies? And why aren't they doing something about that, when the corruption perceptions index reported that corruption in Australia was on the rise, placing us on the international watchlist? Why aren't they doing anything about that? We have had report after report detailing individuals associated with some of Australia's largest and most well-known companies making corrupt payments to facilitate dodgy business arrangements. And thanks to a recent Deloitte investigation into business practices, we know that while corrupt practices in businesses are widespread, instances of self-reporting are dangerously low. Corruption hurts consumers, it undermines market forces, it reduces trust in Australian businesses. That is why we need proper legislation in relation to this, not this half-baked form of legislation before the chamber.

The government should stand up for workers. They should stand up and stop people who are working in the retail, hospitality and fast food industries from losing their penalty rates from 1 July. They should work with the Labor opposition to get forward serious, real, bona fide legislation that deals with corruption. They should stop these ideological attacks. They should stand up for the people that they claim they represent, not just small business but also the workers in our economy.

See this speech in context