Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Hansard source

The second very important bill before this House today is a bill that deals with workers' entitlement funds. It is meant to put a proper regulatory system around those workers' entitlement funds. Those funds are designed to keep safe and secure workers' money that may be needed in the future for things and events such as long service leave, sick leave or, very importantly, severance and redundancy payments.

There are nine large workers' entitlement funds in operation. Unfortunately, at present, they are the subject of very little proper regulation in terms of governance or transparency. The result of that absence of governance and transparency has not been in the best interests of workers and has involved the misappropriation of their wages. The financial statements, for instance, of the Electrical Trades Union of Victoria make note of one of the largest funds, which is known as Protect. Protect is a fund meant to hold the money of workers specifically to pay for future severance entitlement of workers. In the Electrical Trades Union of Victoria's financial year accounts ending 31 December 2017, under 'Other items' there is a heading that says 'Significant changes in the financial affairs' and there is listed a transfer of capital from Protect to the Electrical Trades Union. On page 2 of that report, it lists the amount of that capital transfer as $32 million—$32 million of workers' money put aside to pay for severance benefits sent to the Electrical Trades Union. That report describes the reason for this as that the ETU is a sponsor organisation of Protect. Thirty-two million dollars; that is some sponsorship deal. Cristiano Ronaldo was the biggest sponsorship deal in soccer history, and that was $31 million!

There was $32 million worth of workers' money sent to the ETU. The written financial expenditure policies in this bill would stop that from happening. What on earth could that money be for? What is most fascinating about this racket—and that is exactly what it is—is that when you look at the same ETU document it notes that some proportion of that $32 million has been set back as a loan facility—listen to this:

… to loan back the capital distributed to the ETU if Protect needs to recall the distribution to meet ongoing expenses.

If there were an event where Protect needed to pay severance payments but didn't have enough money because it gave $32 million to the ETU, it could always ask for a loan. Why would you not support legislation to make that no longer able to happen? (Time expired)

See this speech in context