Justine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I concur wholeheartedly with the contribution of the member for Whitlam on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2017, and if I had time I would reiterate everything he just said. I'd like to share a story of a steward on a passenger vessel who, at the age of 49, died at sea, coming into port—a strong union man of the Federated Marine Stewards and Pantrymen's Association, which not long after his death amalgamated to form the Maritime Union of Australia. This man left behind a wife and two twin children. That wife was my mother, and those children were me and my brother. What I remember from that time was what the union did for us. The union was there from the beginning, from that tragic day, and for many, many months afterwards, supporting my family as we went through one of the most terrible times anyone could experience.

This bill is an attack on workers and on unions. It has no regard for the support unions provide workers and the ability for unions to step in when workers are facing some of their darkest days—the prospect of losing their jobs, their livelihoods and their families. We on this side hear it and see it all the time. If those opposite just went and spoke to the many, many workers who have lost their jobs through unscrupulous practices by companies, they would understand this, instead of attacking it. I suggest that they speak to the seafarers of the MV Portland. They lost not only their jobs but also their homes and their families. These are longlasting legacies of companies basically screwing them over. And this is also because of this government, which favours multinational companies over Australian workers. This bill makes false claims that will ensure equal footing for corporations and unions. This is nothing but a fallacy and a guise to deflect attention from this government's disdain for working Australians.

This is another way this government is ensuring that the balance of power in the labour market is skewed directly towards the interests of big business and big profits. By doing that, this bill imposes obligations on registered organisations and officers in excess of what is imposed on corporations and company directors. For example, schedule 2 imposes a framework for cancellation of registration of an organisation that is more expansive than that for winding up companies and corporations. In fact, there is nothing in the Corporations Act that would allow for a company that has a history of noncompliance with the law to be wound up, as is the case in this bill, which will give the ability to wind up a registered organisation such as a union for acting in this way.

But why doesn't this government concentrate its efforts and attention on ensuring that noncompliance in the labour market is dealt with? I hear about it and see it all the time—workers being screwed over by companies who are not complying with their legal obligations. What is this government doing to ensure workers are not being ripped off, or to stop companies and employers from stealing wages from their workers?

I'm going to tell another story, of a cleaner in Queensland who realised that she wasn't getting paid the penalty rates that legally she was entitled to receive. She went to her union because she thought, 'This is strange; why am I not getting penalty rates while other workers doing the same job as me, in the same building, are getting paid penalty rates?' What happened was she was penalised by her employer for raising this with the union. She was taken off many, many shifts and given a minimal shift one day a week. But what the union found was that it was not just this one worker that was getting ripped off; it was hundreds and hundreds of workers in the state of Queensland that were getting ripped off. What is this government doing to ensure that does not happen to any other worker? They are doing nothing—nothing. It is unions that are out there ensuring that our workplaces are compliant, and they only have small resources to do that. But this government doesn't seem to care.

If we put this example of noncompliance in the context of schedule 2 of this bill, that company should be dissolved. Yet it can continue to trade after a little fine, a slap on the wrist, and paying some back pay to those affected workers. But, if those workers took unprotected industrial action against that company for stealing their wages, this schedule would allow for that union's registration to be cancelled. This is not equal treatment under the law.

I go to schedule 1 of this bill, where the provisions say that orders to disqualify an officer can be applied for by the commissioner, the minister or 'a person with a sufficient interest'. This schedule does not provide for protections against vexatious claims, and goes far beyond the recommendations of the Heydon royal commission. If a person is facing disqualification, the schedule requires a reverse onus of proof, where the person must prove to the court why it would be unjust to make an order for disqualification. Yet, under the Corporations Act, there is no such onus on a director. Heydon made a recommendation, No. 38 in his report, that an application for disqualification be given to the registered organisations regulator, for which there is an equivalent provision in the Corporations Act. But, again, this government wishes to treat unions and their members very differently from corporations and directors.

This bill breaches international law. It breaches the International Labour Organization's Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87), which we, Australia, are signatories to. I want to read out article 2 of this convention. It says:

Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation.

Article 3 refers to the right of unions to draw up their own constitution and elect their representatives in full freedom, and organise their administration and activities and programs. Article 3.2 says:

The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof.

Article 4 says:

Workers' and employers' organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority.

Article 11 says:

Each Member of the International Labour Organisation for which this Convention is in force undertakes to take all necessary and appropriate measures to ensure that workers and employers may exercise freely the right to organise.

I make the point that a union is a collective of members and officials elected by its members, and what this bill proposes is that a third party be allowed to suspend or dissolve the rights of its members. Thus this bill is in breach of international law.

This bill also interferes in the rights of members to join an organisation which they may elect to amalgamate. The government claims that this bill ensures unions are treated the same as corporations. Yet does the government interfere in the corporate world of mergers and takeovers based on a pure public interest test, as proposed to be imposed on unions? No. There is no general public interest test for mergers; basically, it's competition only. And there is no test on whether corporations should merge based on previous wrongdoing or behaviour.

I just want to make a point about a former state secretary of the Liberal Party of Tasmania who then went on to become state secretary of the Liberal Party in Victoria who committed a number of fraudulent actions. Does that mean that the Liberal Party branches of Tasmania and Victoria should be dissolved? I think those opposite would say, 'That's a stretch.' But that is basically what this bill could apply to unions. If a company steals wages from employees or has a history of unfair dismissals or poor safety records, should they then not be able to merge because the coalition government says so? No. No-one on this side condones anyone in any sector of society breaching any law and they should be dealt with accordingly, as happens now. There have been a number of examples of that.

I also want to point out that the member for Sturt in his second reading of the bill proclaimed that unions and employer associations have a privileged position in the workplace relations system and the economy more broadly. I reject this statement. Unions and employer associations have a right to exist that is enshrined in international law and that is one of the pillars of the society of this country as it exists today. But this government is hell-bent on eroding this right in this place, day after day. It is day after day because this government feels the need to distract from its own dysfunction by attacking unions and thus attacking workers and everyday Australians.

This bill will do nothing but divide our society by skewing the balance of power in our labour market to favour big business. It is ideologically driven and will drive class warfare at a time of low wage growth and the cuts to penalty rates that the government support. There has been plenty of opportunity not to support it, but they are quite happy to cut the take-home pay of hundreds of thousands of Australian workers. There is increasing noncompliance by employers and companies. You just have to go and talk to a bunch of workers anywhere in this country to find that out, and it is growing and growing.

I want to make the point that the member for Whitlam made: companies across Australia are allowed under this government, who seem to like to turn a blind eye, to replace permanent workers with labour hire and contract labour. This is destabilising our society. These workers who are being hired by labour hire companies do not have the conditions that those of us who are in permanent employment enjoy. They cannot get a loan. They do not get sick pay. They do not get any annual leave. They do not get the things for which Australians have fought for decades. People such as my father fought to get better working conditions and better pay, and this government thinks it's okay to have a Labor market that is full of casualised work and insecure, unstable work. Communities, particularly in regional Australia, will have to face the impacts of what that actually means. This government is sitting by idly and watching it happen before its eyes, and it is happening more and more with every day that passes.

What we're also seeing is that companies are reducing the ability of workers to associate and organise. This government wants to make sure that unions don't exist. I'm sure that that is what it is planning to do if it is in government in this place for any longer than it has to be. Our union movement, our labour movement, has been an integral part of Australian society. This is what this country is built on. It is built on the fight that our forebears had fought for many decades, and this government wants to make sure that everything those people fought for is lost, gone forever, and that we can never, ever get it back. It's just that this government doesn't love our country in a way that ensures all Australians can have a fair go. This bill is an attack on the fair go. It is nothing short of that. It is nothing short of ensuring that workers in this country continue to get screwed over by companies that put profit before people. But, more than that, this government is never, ever going to stop while it is in a state of dysfunction. The thing that surprises me most about this government is it is prepared to breach international law. This will be a shameful day for this country if this bill passes. I implore those in the Senate to make sure it doesn't, because we cannot have a country that does not allow for the free rights of people to organise and be part of associations. We need to make sure that the relationship between employer and employee is a balanced relationship not one that is skewed in favour of big business and big profit.

See this speech in context