Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to second the motion moved yesterday in the House by the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah, concerning the Fair Work Australia investigation into the Member for Dobell and activities of the Health Services Union. This investigation into the Health Services Union and the member for Dobell has been the responsibility of Fair Work Australia since June 2009. In total it has taken nearly four years so far. The taxpayer is now up for close to $1 million for this inquiry plus further costs with the bringing in of external legal counsel and, as I understand it, accounting consultants as well. Unfortunately there is no end in sight. Despite declaring on 19 October 2011 that the investigation was on track to be completed by the end of that year, acting general manager of Fair Work Australia Bernadette O'Neill has failed to deliver. There has also been a failure to provide a real reason for this remarkable delay, bearing in mind it has far surpassed the Watergate investigation and the Cole royal commission. It is almost a fifth of the time it took to build the Snowy Mountain scheme. The length of time that this investigation has been continuing has been quite plainly ridiculous.

It is about the misuse of funds from some of the lowest paid workers in this country and these are the people who deserve answers as to where their money really went. If indeed it is true that their hard-earned union subscriptions went into the financing of prostitutes, then they should be more than just angry. These people pay their union dues for the union, in turn, to use this for their direct benefit. Certainly no-one would expect that benefit to be the procurement of call girls for the sole entertainment of the union executive or to help mount election campaigns for the aforementioned member for Dobell. I have been a member of the Australian Workers Union in the shearing sheds and I know how much it hurts as a low-paid worker to contribute a substantial slice of your uncertain income to the union. I sometimes did wonder when the union representative pulled up at a remote shearing shed in western Queensland in a very large, white, well-sprung car just how comfortable their life really was compared to mine. At the time I did not mind because I thought they were acting in my interests.

In the context of this debate, Fair Work Australia persists in dragging its heels in this investigation. They are letting down the 70,000 members of the Health Services Union. Fair Work Australia was established by the Rudd-Gillard-Gillard government, and it is meant to be an independent umpire. Yet this so-called 'independent umpire' is unwilling to make the call on the investigation into the member for Dobell. Quite frankly, the only people that this institutional go-slow or blundering administrative competence—you make your pick—benefits is the federal Labor party, enabling them to maintain their wafer-thin hold on power. This is a government that is willing to condone appalling behaviour by all and sundry. It reeks of sheer desperation and even gives the appearance of quite untoward behaviour. If there has not been any interference, perhaps all that this proves is yet another debacle at the hands of our Prime Minister. Fair Work Australia was her personal baby, remember, but it cannot even conduct an investigation in a timely manner. The Gillard government must be held accountable on this matter. As a body established at the request of this government, it bears responsibility. These are incredibly serious allegations and the government needs to provide the Australian public with answers immediately.

They have also been made aware of these allegations into Mr Thomson, as reported in the media. Former industrial registrar Doug Williams confirmed to Sydney's Daily Telegraph that he was telephoned by the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ben Hubbard, in early 2009 about inquiries into the Health Services Union and Mr Thomson. Quite clearly, the release of emails under freedom of information demonstrates that there was an exchange between Rhys Davies, the press secretary of former Workplace Relations Minister, Chris Evans, and the Fair Work Australia Communications Manager, Judy Hughes, concerning the Thomson investigation. In the exchange of emails Ms Hughes was asked if claims made by the Seven Network that the Labor MP Craig Thomson 'lied to Fair Work Australia' were true. In one of her replies, Ms Hughes sent Mr Davies a draft media statement issued to journalists that said there was no new inquiry into Mr Thomson, and Mr Davies replied, 'Thanks, that's awesome. That should minimise any run it gets in the morning.' We are determined to ensure that the government comes clean, that it releases all the details of all the contact between ministers, Prime Ministers and their officers and Fair Work Australia.

Clearly, the government is reluctant to act. We have seen bullying tactics preventing the Fair Work investigators from answering questions in October estimates. Acting general manager, Bernadette O'Neill, has stated that she did not plan to make public the already finished report, which has found extensive rule breaking in the Health Service Union's Victoria number 1 branch. That is one of the branch investigations. There is also a national investigation. The branch investigation has been completed and we are not to know what information it contains. As far as findings go, we know that an employee of the Australian Government Solicitor received a letter advising of proposed findings back in December 2010. Why then is Fair Work Australia continuing to stall? The coalition's freedom of information request regarding those emails indicated a degree of complicity and that is the reason for the motion and the debate today: because the government has involved itself in an organisation that it claims it has left alone to make an independent decision.

Fair Work Australia has finally conceded that it is considering recommending legal action in relation to its inquiry into the Health Services Union and the allegations that the union's former national secretary and now federal Labor MP, Craig Thompson, misused a credit card provided to him by the owner of a graphic design and printing business—a business, I might add, that receives $680,000 a year to produce ten issues of the Health Services Union newsletter. I produce a number of issues of my electorate newsletter and I have a printing allowance but it beggars belief that $680,000 could be provided to provide ten issues of the Health Services Union newsletter. I do not think its 40-page glossy brochure could possibly attract this sort of real funding. That leads to suggestions that the money is being misused. Whether the provision of credit cards to the member for Dobell and the health service union boss were intended as an inducement in return for this printing business does require investigation. I am not making a statement here that that was the case but it does require investigation.

The recent Senate estimates process saw Fair Work Australia confirm that they had identified 25 possible breaches within the Victorian branch of the Health Services Union alone and nationally the figure would surely be higher. But, despite identifying a plethora of breaches which may in fact constitute criminal offences, Fair Work Australia has refused to meet with the New South Wales police to discuss the investigation. What we need are assurances that the integrity of Fair Work Australia remains intact. This is a body overloaded with former union officials and tightly bound to the Gillard government. It is clear to all and sundry as to why they are reluctant to hand down a verdict. If anyone witnessed this, I did in the painful performance of acting general manager Bernadette O'Neil's in Senate estimates. I had to feel sorry for her while she was delivering the answers that she was forced to deliver in that inquiry.

What is the public supposed to make of the fact that now Fair Work Australia has admitted that it is taking a long time and has invited KPMG to undertake an independent review of its inquiries? The cost of this will be extraordinary. If Fair Work Australia was doing its job it would not need to investigate itself via KPMG. And Ms O' Neil indicated that the KPMG inquiry would be made public but not the Fair Work Australia report into the union and the member for Dobell for fears that the material may be considered defamatory. Since when has the risk of exposing defamatory material stopped us getting at the truth? And that is what the opposition is seeking to do with this debate and this motion: to get at the truth.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an extraordinary debate being brought before the parliament today. It is a sorry episode in which the opposition seeks to appoint itself as the prosecution, the judge, the jury and—if they get it their way—probably the hangman as well. There are some countries where the legal systems—if you can call them legal systems—afford the government of the day the right to be the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the hangman. Commonly, we refer to them as dictatorships. In this country we have and respect some things known as the separation of powers and the rule of law. One of the great things about the separation of powers is that we have specialist courts and tribunals whose job it is to hear and test evidence and hand down a verdict. We have specialist prosecuting agencies whose job it is to weigh up whether allegations made against an individual or organisation are worthy of bringing to court and having those allegations tested in court. We have specialist agencies whose job it is to deal with somebody if and when they are convicted of a crime. What we have in this whole passage of events from the opposition is an attempt to use the processes of parliament to afford themselves the right to override those separation of powers to somehow enter into a trial of a person and an organisation by media and by parliament and to completely circumvent the proper role of the tribunals and courts. Deputy Speaker Windsor, I know that from your long history in this House and in the New South Wales parliament you are very familiar with instances where the parliament and the media have been used to usurp the role of courts, to have tried somebody and to have had them sent to their fate only to have, in a short period thereafter, that person or those people completely vindicated by a proper investigation and testing of evidence and of law by a court—in that case, the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Let us not go down that sorry path. Let us not go down the path of those opposite using and abusing the processes and privileges of this place to afford themselves the rights and privileges of the prosecutor, judge and jury. Some of the great things about Australia which sets us apart from many other countries in the world is that we believe in the separation of powers, in the right of somebody to be determined to be innocent until proven guilty and in the rights and responsibilities of courts and tribunals to fulfil their statutory duty to properly test allegations when they are made.

The reason that we know that this is nothing more than a political stunt is that those opposite have had contradictory positions when it comes to the investigations of the Health Services Union of Australia. In item six of this motion they are calling on the government to provide an assurance that there has been no political interference in the Fair Work investigation. That statement is one that I am sure all members of this House would be willing to agree to but when you put it alongside statements and the whole process of events that has led to this motion being brought to the House you know that they do not mean what they say. Only a few months ago, we saw those opposite calling on the government to actually actively intervene in the investigation that has been conducted by Fair Work Australia and to do that for nothing more than political reasons. We know that this is a stunt. We know that those opposite see this as an opportunity to use the processes of this place to conduct a trial by media, coming very close to defaming an individual while using the processes and privileges of this place to do and say things that they could not say or do outside the chamber. And that is nothing short of a disgrace.

I suspect that there is another reason why this motion has been brought before the House today and we saw it in the contribution made by the member immediately before me. This is nothing short of a campaign against the institution of Fair Work Australia. The contribution made by the honourable member just now sheds a light on this. The member for Farrer does not believe that Fair Work Australia is an independent institution, despite the fact that the vast majority of its members were actually appointed by the former government when it was in power. They believe that it is somehow a tainted political institution. I can tell you that it is not. It is independent and as long as there is breath in our bodies we will ensure that it remains independent. We will not be part of a long-running campaign by the industrial warriors on those opposite to try and taint, smear and dirty up Fair Work Australia for political reasons. Those opposite are like political moths to the industrial lamp. They cannot help themselves. Whenever they get the opportunity to rush out as proud Work Choices warriors, they are there with their spears in hand attacking all of those institutions. Many of them have spent 15 years attempting to tear them down. We have reinstated them and put some fair dinkum laws in place to protect the rights of workers. Those opposite are now reinstating their campaign to dirty up the institution to pave the way for a reintroduction of their Work Choices style laws and all that they stand for. We on this side of the House stand for an independent tribunal which is able to freely and fairly adjudicate based on a fair treatment of the evidence the disputes and matters that are bought before it, without interference from any of us in this place.

We reject the campaign that is being run by those opposite. We are incredibly suspicious about their motives. As I have said, the clear intent is to ensure that they are able to run a campaign to reintroduce Work Choices style laws. Everything that they can do to dirty up the institutions that have been put in place by the Fair Work Act, they will do and they will use the privileges and processes of this place to do so. We will not be hoodwinked by it.

I say once again—and I will conclude on this point—that there are countries around the world that do not believe in the separation of powers. There are countries in the world that will allow a trial by media. There have been some unfortunate passages of history in this country in which individuals have had their reputations torn down by a trial by media only for it to be found subsequently in a court of law that there was no basis for the allegations. Let us not have this happen again. Let us use the proper authorities. Let us courts and tribunals, exercising their proper rights and fulfilling their proper responsibilities, test the allegations that have been made in the proper way. Let us not go down a path on which we disrespect the importance of the separation of power, the importance of natural justice and the importance of parliament and the tribunals of this country playing their roles without the interference of one in the affairs of the other. Thank you.

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a truly remarkable performance from the member for Throsby. When faced with the allegations that have been put to the member for Dobell on a sustained basis over many years in this place, outside of this place and in the media, the response of the member for Throsby was to come in and make some inane comments about the separations of powers and then, astonishingly, a return to Work Choices. Let us just go back and recap the reasons we are discussing the behaviour of the member for Dobell. We are discussing the behaviour of the member for Dobell because very serious allegations have been made about him misusing the funds of the union that he was the secretary of, the Health Services Union, which represents 70,000 of the most disadvantaged workers in Australia. Very serious allegations have been made that he abused credit cards issued by the union by using them to pay for electoral and personal expenses. Over $100,000 of cash advances were not accounted for. Perhaps most celebrated of all was the allegation that sexual services were paid for using those credit cards.

These allegations have been denied by the member for Dobell, but never once has he come into this chamber to defend himself from these allegations. The member for Throsby rather astonishingly said that we could not repeat these allegations outside of the chamber. I am very happy to table about 10 or 20 media interviews where all of these allegations have been made outside of the chamber. The member for Dobell has done absolutely nothing to defend himself from those allegations. What he did was take defamation action against Fairfax Press, which was publishing these allegations. He was forced to withdraw that action and incurred significant costs, which were then met by the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party. What we all know—what every single member of this House knows—is that the member for Dobell has not been able to defend himself because he is guilty of these allegations. If he was not then he would come into this House and he would defend himself against them—something he has refused to do on every given occasion, even though the Prime Minister said the he was going to be required to—

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. In accordance with the standing orders, I find that that is a personal reflection on a member of this House and I would ask the member to withdraw.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the member withdraw?

Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. The point is, if the member for Dobell had nothing to hide in these matters he would walk into this chamber today and he would explain himself. He has been accused of very serious things. There is no better place in Australia to be able to explain yourself than as a member of the House of Representatives. You do not get a better bully pulpit than this to come in and explain your actions. By his refusal to do so I think the Australian people are entitled to draw their own conclusions about what that means.

We do have bodies that are investigating these matters: the Victorian Police and the New South Wales Police. We rightly support their independence to pursue these allegations. What does concern me though is in relation to Fair Work Australia, a body that was tasked with investigating these claims back in 2009. We are now in 2012. I think the Australian people are entitled to ask: why is it taking so long for Fair Work Australia to reach conclusions about these matters? Extraordinarily, Fair Work Australia appearing before this parliament has said that they are at a loss to explain why it has taken so long as well. Until we get that explanation, until Fair Work Australia is able to explain to the Australian people why it is taking well over three years—in fact, this investigation is now into its fourth year—to investigate these claims, then we are entitled to ask what the genesis of this institutional go-slow has been.

Why is it that Fair Work Australia cannot conclude this investigation when I think most of the Australian people would understand that it is a pretty open-and-shut case of malfeasance? If it were not then, as I said, the people who have been accused would be able to defend themselves—and they have been completely unable to do that.

What we do know is that the Fair Work Australia investigation has been ongoing since 2009. It was actually an investigation that was started by the industrial registrar in January 2009. They have repeatedly said at Fair Work Australia that this investigation was going to be concluded, yet, we find that it still remains ongoing. These are very legitimate questions raised in this motion about why it has taken Fair Work Australia so long, and I would urge them to explain to the Australian people why that is. (Time expired)

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have only been here for four years, but that was the most disgraceful and disgusting performance I have ever seen by a member in this place. The right to silence is a cherished institution in this place. He has a right to silence. The member opposite has made, in cowards castle, an allegation that a member of this place is guilty of malfeasance. That is exactly what he said in this place, and he also completely denies the separation of powers. Then he wails and whines over there, but the truth is that everyone is entitled to the right to silence in this country and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. We do not have kangaroo courts in this country. I know that the member for Throsby talked about authoritarian regimes but the truth is that that is the case. I remember very well when I was a practicing lawyer in the Brisbane CBD at the height of the Fitzgerald inquiry. I remember distinctly a former National Party Premier of Queensland being asked a question about the separation of powers under cross-examination, and him fumbling and stumbling around, but still in all the separation of powers is absolutely critical.

This motion before this place, shows the depths to which the coalition will plummet. There is the self-righteousness, the sanctimony and the unctuous activity from those opposite, when they know very well that Fair Work Australia has been established properly and that they are undertaking an independent investigation in relation to this matter, and it is the hypocrisy of what they are doing. For example, the inconsistency: one day they say to us that we should be hurrying along Fair Work Australia in their investigation—that we should be giving them a prod along—saying, in effect, that we should interfere. The next day they are saying that we should not be doing that. This motion here in this place talks about wanting an assurance there has been no political interference in Fair Work Australia. They simply cannot have it both ways. They cannot criticise us one day on one thing and another on the next. They cannot come into this place and besmirch members of this House who have been elected by the people.

I remember back in 2007 when former Prime Minister John Howard was questioned about three MPs and on ABC radio on 7 March, 2007—and he was absolutely right about the three members under investigation—he said:

But a lot of people who are under investigation end up having nothing to answer for …It's a police investigation and the appropriate thing for me to do is to let the police investigation run its course and then if it is appropriate I will have something to say.

That is absolutely correct. I wish that those opposite who claim that they are standing in the footsteps of John Howard and are following him—treating him as their mentor, their guide and their apostle almost—would follow what he has to say here. I wish they would show some discretion, some integrity and some honesty about this.

This motion really is a terrible distraction from the business of this government and from the business of this place. We have better things to do in this House. We have education reforms and health reforms to talk about. We have infrastructure, road and rail. We have important things that we could do in this place and important things that those opposite should hold us to account.

Labor has not always been in government; Labor is often in opposition and those opposite are often in government and now they are in opposition. It behoves them—it behoves either side of politics—to hold the government to account, not to engage in gutter tactics in relation to these types of matters. What they are trying to do here is undermine the integrity of Fair Work Australia regardless of the outcome. Why are they trying to do that? Because they are trying to distract from the complete absence, the complete policy vacuum that those opposite have. The Member for Throsby is absolutely right—besmirch a member of this place, besmirch Fair Work Australia and bring back an industrial relations system that they always wanted. They are the architects, apostles and devotees of Work Choices. That is what this is about. It is about the biggest dummy spit you have ever seen in political history, as the Leader of the House has said. On many occasions they have done it. They should hang their heads in shame about this particular matter. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.