Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Boothby for her question. Once again Simon Benson at The Australian newspaper has written a story today about the practice of some unions to negotiate terms in enterprise agreements that identify a compulsory income protection, redundancy, training or similar fund that then pays kickbacks to the union. This is how unions have managed to grow substantially in terms of their assets over the years despite their membership dwindling. Members will know that their membership has now fallen to 10 per cent in the private sector, yet their funds keep increasing.

One example of this type of arrangement is a deal between the AWU Victoria and income protection fund RUS Holdings. Evidence to the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption shows that significant payments from various companies to the Victorian branch of the AWU between 2003 and 2007 went ahead. The Leader of the Opposition ran the union at this time. He was Victorian secretary until August 2006 and national secretary until November 2007. There were 20 separate payments resulting in $566,000 paid by IUS Holdings to the AWU Victorian branch in that period, and yet there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of what those payments were for, and they were not disclosed to the workers.

Coincidentally, over the same period that this $566,000, in 20 secret payments, was being paid, AWU Victoria signed 28 enterprise agreements that insisted that IUS Holdings be the income protection insurance provider for those workers paid by the businesses into the IUS Holdings fund. So, in return for those kickbacks that the union was paid while the Leader of the Opposition was the secretary, it was insisted that IUS be the income protection provider in 28 enterprise agreements—a very clear case of a conflict of interest and a very clear case of corrupting benefits payments being made to AWU Victoria during that period by IUS Holdings.

The Leader of the Opposition has never explained what these payments are for. He really needs to take the opportunity to do so. He needs to explain the purpose of the payments and to what purpose the payments were put within the union.

See this speech in context