Ms Julie Bishop (Curtin, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—On behalf the Leader of the Opposition, I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise to support the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Towards Transparency) Bill 2013. This bill has been proposed by the coalition in response to genuine community concern about the governance of Australia's trade unions, particularly by those in positions of power within the trade unions: the union bosses. In fact, it is not just a concern; in many cases it is a revulsion within the community with the number of scandalous trade union practices that have been revealed over recent years. For example, there have been reports of spectacular rorting that has been going on over a number of years at the Health Services Union. There are pending court cases after the arrest of the member for Dobell, the former National Secretary of the Health Services Union, and the arrest of Michael Williamson, the former National President of the Health Services Union—and, let us not forget, he is the immediate past President of the Australian Labor Party.

By the way, I note that much of the trade union rorting has been revealed by investigative journalists working for the Fairfax media at the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, which is somewhat of an irony given that the government's current unprecedented attack on the media and freedom of speech is principally motivated by their hatred of News Ltd.

As has been noted previously, that Fair Work Commission currently has eight major investigations underway into possible improper conduct in unions. At least four large unions are involved: the Communication Workers Union, the Community and Public Sector Union, the Nursing Federation and United Voice. There are 20 years of murky and unresolved fraud allegations related to the Australian Workers Union, a union that has delivered a number of Labor members into parliamentary seats in this House.

Under existing laws, unions have a remarkably soft time when it comes to legislative enforcement of good governance. For example, at the Health Services Union, there have been substantial allegations of fraud amounting to around $20 million and yet the potential penalty for individuals is a maximum of $6,600 and for organisations it is a maximum of $33,000. In addition, I note that these are only civil penalties, not criminal.

I note that the claims regarding the Health Services Union are not mere allegations whisked out of thin air. As the coalition notes in the explanatory memorandum, this bill will ensure that there is a strong deterrent in place to prevent a recurrence of the kinds of wrongdoing and malfeasance found by Fair Work Australia in its report Investigation into the Victoria No.1 Branch of the Health Services Union under section 331 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009and the further report Investigation into the National Office of the Health Services Union under section 331 of the. Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. Similar conduct was also identified in the report titled Final report on HSUeast by Ian Temby QC and Dennis Robertson FCA.

The bill before the House proposes to increase penalties to $340,000 and to provide for criminal as well as civil sanctions, including imprisonment of up to five years. As we have noted previously, this bill seeks to put exactly the same regime in place for unions and those running unions as applies to companies and those running companies. If a union official or a company official does the wrong thing, they should face the same penalty for the same wrongdoing. The members of registered organisations should have the same comfort to know that their money is spent in a proper manner and the conduct of officers is above board as shareholders of corporations.

This bill also makes it an offence to not lodge a full or concise report with the Fair Work Commission. These reports are required to be submitted under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. However, there are currently inadequate penalties for the lodgement of non-compliant reports.

Finally, the bill also makes it a criminal offence for officers of a registered organisation to not comply with orders of a state or Federal Court that applies to the organisation. More broadly, this bill would implement one of the three major elements of the coalition's policy to ensure that the rule of law operates in our workplaces. The first, to which this bill gives expression, is to ensure that we have reasonable requirements and appropriate penalties on union officials. The second is to establish a registered organisation commission. This will separate the conciliation and arbitration functions of the Fair Work Commission from its law enforcement functions. The third is the coalition's policy commitment to re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission with full power, full authority and full funding.

I would also like to note that the coalition has called for a judicial inquiry into the operations of the Australian Workers Union. Many listeners to this debate will know that I am talking about the fraudulent activities that occurred at the Australian Workers Union between 1992 and 1996. Hundreds of thousands of dollars from the bank accounts of the AWU disappeared, and to date no-one has been charged, amid allegations from within the union itself of a massive fraud. Many of the missing pieces rest within the knowledge of the Prime Minister and her former partner, Bruce Wilson—neither of whom, to our knowledge, have given testimony to police about their respective roles. Given that the Prime Minister refuses to answer questions in the parliament, the only way to get to the bottom of these allegations of fraud is for there to be a judicial inquiry.

In 1996 there was a formal request by former AWU official and current Fair Work Commissioner, Ian Cambridge, for a royal commission into this massive fraud. Former Western Australian AWU official Tim Daley also required a formal investigation, joined by former New South Wales Labor treasurer Michael Costa. An investigation is the only way that light could be shed on a dark and ugly chapter in the history of the Australian Workers Union.

It all began with the Prime Minister's legal advice—the instructions of her then partner, Bruce Wilson, on the incorporation of an association in the name of the Australian Workers Union. It was actually a slush fund for the use of individual union bosses, including the Prime Minister's former partner. It was a sham from the outset. Once the association was registered, it was alleged that Wilson fraudulently obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars from building companies who believed they were dealing with the AWU for workplace safety and training, but, as the Prime Minister herself described it, it was a slush fund for union officials. The fraudulent activities continued, with various devious twists and turns, but the existence of this slush fund was not detected until 1996.

The coalition contends that, in relation to the setting up of the association, Wilson, his AWU colleague Ralph Blewitt and the Prime Minister have a case to answer under section 43 of the WA Associations Incorporation Act 1987. It is an offence under section 43 of the act to knowingly make false or misleading statements. Section 170 of the Criminal Code is also relevant. It provides that a person is guilty of a crime if, being required to give information, they knowingly give information that is false in material particular. Section 409 of the Criminal Code sets out the elements of the criminal act of fraud.

'Where's the smoking gun?' was a familiar refrain in the years before an incriminating transcript came to light during the Watergate investigations that led to President Richard Nixon's resignation. In the case of the AWU fraud, the ground is already littered with spent cartridges. There are abundant reasons why the governance of trade unions needs to be cleaned up. It is apparent that the government would rather not have to answer legitimate questions about the Prime Minister's ethics, honesty and professionalism arising from this sordid affair that threatens to engulf her.

One can imagine what would happen to journalists and newspapers that dared to report on this matter if the government were to gets its way and have a hand-picked advocate to regulate the country's media. Mark Baker, writing in the Australian Financial Review, and Hedley Thomas, writing in the Australian, would be gagged by these draconian media regulation laws.

The AWU slush fund affair is a case in point. There are abundant reasons for the need for the governments of trade unions to be cleaned up. When in government, the coalition will make this a priority. However, there is no reason why the clean-up of trade unions and their governance cannot start right away. I urge the crossbenchers to support this important reform. I commend this bill to the House.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Michelle Rowland (Greenway, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the opposition's tenor could be summed up in one act, it would be this bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Towards Transparency) Bill 2013. That is because it completely ignores the policy debate, and fact, and focuses solely on the stunt. We could have a mature debate on productivity and industrial relations in this chamber, but not with this opposition. We could discuss industrial relations and the other drivers of productivity, like technological advancements, but we cannot even engage in a proper debate on this issue.

That is despite the far-from-secret desire of some on the Leader of the Opposition's back bench to reinstate draconian workplace measures on false premises, such as productivity improvements. There is none of the future-looking policy that—in the words of Google—recognises that Australia's future productivity, competitiveness and wealth creation relies on world-class infrastructure and that, in this global economy, no infrastructure is more crucial than advanced communications networks. There is no mention of driving wealth for all through investing in the biggest advanced communications network Australia has ever witnessed, in the form of the NBN. No: in this debate, productivity, competitiveness and wealth creation are not about such partnerships; they are about conflict and stunts, and that is all this bill is about.

The Leader of the Opposition would have us believe that this bill is necessary to improve how registered organisations operate. So urgent were the reforms being touted by the Leader of the Opposition that he made an announcement to this effect on 28 April 2012—nearly a year ago. Then, on 26 November 2012, he announced he would suspend standing orders and move his proposal urgently, but nothing happened. Let's be clear from the outset. This government does not condone officers of any regulated organisation, officers of corporations, for that matter, or anyone in a position of trust or fiduciary duty acting inappropriately and misusing funds they are entrusted to manage or taking benefits they are not entitled to.

We support appropriate regulation for registered organisations, including a properly empowered regulator, and consequences for those who do not follow the rules. That is why the amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 were moved and passed by this parliament under this government. The financial accountability standards under registered organisations have in fact never been higher, and the powers of the Fair Work Commission have never been stronger, nor the penalties tougher.

There are requirements in the legislation governing regulated registered organisations for officers to act with care and diligence, in good faith, and not to improperly use their position or improperly use information they have obtained through acting as an officer of an organisation. The registered organisations act already prohibits members' money from being used to favour particular candidates in internal elections or campaigns, and the government amended the registered organisations act last year to triple penalties for breaches of the legislation. And, importantly, there is nothing in the registered organisations act that prevents criminal proceedings being initiated where funds are stolen or someone engages in fraud.

An important point to note is that trade unions are not corporations. Again, we see the politics of simplicity and negativity clouding those opposite. There are many similarities between the regulations of corporations and the regulations of registered organisations. Officers of organisations, like those of corporations, are subject to serious duties and obligations. For example, they must exercise care and diligence, they must act with good faith and they must not improperly use their position for personal advantage. If they are engaged in fraud, they will be subject to criminal sanction.

The financial regulation of entities is also similar. They are required to undertake regular reporting of their financial accounts and auditors are required to sign off on their books in accordance with accounting standards. They are subject to regulatory oversight, and the general powers of Fair Work Australia and ASIC are similar. In addition, the registered organisations legislation and the amendments that were made last year by this government to improve transparency and accountability use corporation like concepts such as related party transactions.

In summary, the government has made significant amendments to registered organisations under the act to require officers to disclose personal interests and to require disclosure of payments made to related parties. There are new detailed rules about record keeping, there is the tripling of penalties for breaches of the Registered Organisations Act and giving the Fair Work Commission more powers and more resources to investigate breaches including: to compel more people to give information and documents; to require the commission to follow up on breaches after 12 months; to require investigations to be conducted soon as practicable; and powers to deal with state law enforcement agencies.

Changes including higher standards of accountability and the tripling of penalties were endorsed by unions and employer associations alike through the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council. The drafting of model rules was done through the National Workplace Relations Consultative Subcommittee and in consultation with the Fair Work Commission. Those rules have now been finalised and are publicly available.

I would now like to turn to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee's report into the bill, which recommended this bill not be passed. The committee received seven submissions, of which only two supported the bill: from the New South Wales Liberal government and the Institute of Public Affairs. In fact, even the employer groups including the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry believed this bill should not be supported.

What does it say about this attempt by the Leader of the Opposition when he cannot even get employer groups to support his bill? I give them credit for noting that, as stated in the Senate committee report, they would be supportive of further amendments to the registered organisations act only if it became apparent that the existing regulatory regime as amended was deficient, which they determined was not the case. I think it appropriate that we have a look at these two stakeholders who have supported this bill and their track records on this issue.

In my home state of New South Wales, we have seen the O'Farrell government destroy the rights of working people in some of the most sweeping changes to the industrial relations system ever seen. By amending the Industrial Relations Act, the O'Farrell government has passed disgraceful Work Choices style laws through the New South Wales parliament which will end the independent role of the New South Wales Industrial Commission, cut the pay and conditions of public sector workers in New South Wales, undermine the ability of public sector unions to represent their members and cut services to the community generally. This legislation is an affront to the hardworking people of New South Wales—the nurses, firefighters, bus drivers and train drivers who are committed to serving their community.

For over 100 years New South Wales public servants had access to an independent umpire. The disgraceful decision by the O'Farrell government overturned 110 years of precedent by removing the arbitration powers of the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission in relation to the setting of wages and conditions for all cases before the commission and all future cases before it. Now, the New South Wales IRC will no longer be an independent umpire protecting workers' rights in New South Wales.

Let me turn to the Institute of Public Affairs—the coalition's brains trust—the only other institution to support this bill. I think it is important that we look at the IPA's credibility on this issue. The IPA has long championed the return of Work Choices. They recently revealed some of the savage cuts the coalition is considering if they are ever elected. The list of possible cuts has been prepared in consultation with the Liberals. As Alan Moran from the IPA told The Australian on March 16, 2013:

Some items have been discussed with Coalition politicians, many of whom are in agreement with the principles against which the list has been developed.

Let us have a look at the list. The cuts being considered by the Liberals to make so-called savings of $23.5 billion include: cancelling the NDIS; abolishing Fair Work and Safe Work Australia; cutting the general research budget by 40 per cent; cutting all Commonwealth housing programs; cutting all non-emergency foreign aid; sacking 23,500 public servants; abolishing all agriculture, forestry and fisheries programs; and privatising the ABC and SBS. Savage cuts to health, education and welfare would clearly also be on the cards, as would be a planned return to Work Choices with the abolition of Fair Work Australia.

After all that, a few things are for certain. I will not take tutorials in workplace relations from a person who was a member of a government which brought balaclavas and alsatians to a worksite and called it 'reform', who in effect responded that stay-at-home mums who wanted to benefit from his version of a paid maternity leave scheme should 'get a job'; from someone who calls himself, 'the workers' friend' and is the same person who laid the foundation for Work Choices when he was the responsible minister and who on 13 August 2009 said in this place:

Let me begin my contribution to this debate by reminding members that workplace reform was one of the greatest achievements of the Howard government.

You have to ask, when has the Leader of the Opposition ever stood up for workers?

In August 2003, in the wake of the Ansett airlines collapse, when employees of the doomed airline faced losing hundreds of millions of dollars of their own entitlements, the Leader of the Opposition wrote an article which attacked the Ansett redundancy agreements as too generous and saying the award maximum of eight weeks was enough. It is no wonder, then, that recently in this parliament, those opposite voted against the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Bill, the legislation which helps workers recover entitlements including up to three months unpaid wages, long-service leave, annual leave, up to five weeks pay in lieu of notice and redundancy pay.

Against the backdrop where the opposition would have us believe that the industrial relations system in Australia today is broken, the latest data shows the opposite. Australia has recorded its lowest level of industrial disputation in almost two years, with working days lost to industrial disputes the lowest recorded since the March quarter 2011. Latest labour force figures released from the ABS show that seasonally adjusted employment surged by 71,500 in February, exceeding all market expectations, to stand at a record high of 11,628,300. This is the strongest monthly increase in jobs growth since July 2000. The unemployment rate in Australia remained steady at 5.4 per cent in February.

What about the wider economy and growth? This Leader of the Opposition is out there promising what he calls 'a return to economic growth'. The only problem is the fact that Australia has actually not stopped growing for the past two decades. There have been 21 years of consecutive growth under Labor's watch, under Labor's workplace relations framework.

When it comes to industrial relations policy, like most policy areas, it is very apparent that this opposition leader is completely lost. He knows he cannot reveal his plans for Australian workers, because he knows how hated Work Choices is by all Australians. We should not be in any doubt as to what an Abbott government would do with industrial relations. You do not have to take my word for it because, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, there are some on the opposition benches who do have the ticker to outline their industrial relations plans. As detailed in the Australian on 9 January 2013:

Tony Abbott is being urged by his allies to commit to major workplace reform and encourage the use of individual agreements, as the Coalition's internal debate on the key election issue escalates despite fears of a political backlash.

The article goes on to quote the member for Kooyong, who declared that 'now is the opportunity for the coalition to go on the front foot' on ways to lift productivity, and the article goes on:

Mr Frydenberg is also backing changes to limit unfair dismissal claims against the smallest employers.

The member for Kooyong continues and highlights all things that do not exist as his rationale to reintroduce Work Choices-style legislation, saying:

…the Coalition will be dealing with the 'militancy, flexibility and productivity' challenges facing Australian workplaces…

The member for Kooyong's foray into the industrial relations debate follows those of the member for Mayo and the member for Moncrieff and Senator Sinodinos's calls for industrial relations changes. The majority of these Liberal MPs share the common thread of being former Howard government advisers and their passion for Work Choices style laws in the main. Again, there is no understanding of how productivity and how benefits for both businesses and workers in the 21st century are driven by factors other than bashing the latter.

This bill should be rejected in its entirety. It is not a reflection on how Australians need to govern themselves. It is not a reflection on how this government should treat Australian workers. It is not a reflection on how the future of this country can only be driven by advances in productivity, by advances that are delivered by things other than simply conflict and other than confected militancy. This is not a bill which about improving Australia. This bill is nothing more than a stunt designed for the Leader of the Opposition to show his back bench that he actually agrees with all these proposals, that this is exactly what he is proposing to inflict on the workers of Australia if he ever gets the opportunity.

Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise for not being here earlier when the bill was moved in my absence by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I was attending a function in the Great Hall with the Prime Minister.

What a curious contribution we have just had from the member opposite. I would have thought the member opposite would have been better than that, better than making excuses for the Health Services Union and other unions which have embarrassed what was once the honourable name of unionism in this country—but apparently not. It was a very curious contribution, with almost every single word of it read. I wonder who wrote it for her. The fact of the matter is there are very decent people in the union movement, and they are just as concerned as I am to ensure that unions are governed properly.They are also concerned that the money, particularly of low-paid union members, is not abused the way it so obviously has been in some celebrated recent examples. There is a problem, and no amount of bluster from members opposite will make that problem go away. What we need is decent legislation, and that is what this private member's bill seeks to give us.

We had the Temby report, commissioned it has to be said by decent people in the Health Services Union, which revealed that some $20 million of low-paid union members' money had been misused. We have the former national President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Williamson, now facing criminal charges. Is it any wonder that members opposite want to make excuses? We have the member for Dobell, one of their own until very recently, facing criminal charges because of the misuse of union members' money at the Health Services Union.

Then, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has earlier pointed out, we have the terrible problems that emerged in the Australian Workers Union back in the mid-1990s. These are problems which have their echo today. They are problems which the member for Barton, an honourable man, said well deserved the attention of this House, problems which Fair Work Commissioner, Ian Cambridge, again an honourable man, said then and says now should attract a royal commission. But we know these problems are widespread because the Prime Minister has told us that every union has a slush fund. If the Prime Minister thinks that every union has a slush fund, that is all the more reason for members opposite to end the bluster, to end the self-justificatory defences and support this bill.

Members opposite, I am sure, will say, 'Where's the evidence?' Well, quite apart from the Prime Minister's own statement, quite apart from the testimony of Ian Tenby, the commentary of the member for Barton and the honest statements of Fair Work Commissioner Cambridge, there are eight separate Fair Work Commission inquiries going on right now into rorts, rackets and rip-offs by unions. We know why these have been covered up for so long. It is because there is a powerful mates network, only too well represented on the opposite side of this chamber, that for far too long has been protecting and covering up union officials involved in disgraceful conduct.

I say nothing against the individuals whom I am about to mention, but they are powerful former members of the union movement. The current minister, Mr Shorten, is a former member of the union movement. We have the current minister, the Assistant Treasurer, who in this chamber cited, as one of the people who had got him into this place, the self-same gentleman who used to head the Health Services Union and is now on criminal charges. This powerful mates network has been operating for too long. It still operates in this chamber to protect malefactors inside the union movement.

If justice is to be done for the low-paid workers of this country it is absolutely vital that this legislation be put in place. This private member's legislation is just one element of a range of measures by which the coalition seeks to ensure that there is justice in our workplaces. Under a coalition government there will be some careful, cautious and responsible changes to the Fair Work Act that will address real problems in our workplace and will not express ideology. We will fully restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission with full powers, full funding and full authority to act as a tough cop on the beat in what is increasingly, once more, a lawless industry.

Also, there will be a registered organisations commission to act as a kind of ASIC for the union movement. We will separate the arbitral from the regulatory function, because unions are too important for their members and for the smooth functioning of our economy not to be properly regulated. But at the heart of this is the need for comparable penalties and comparable offences. Whether the offenders are union officials or company officials, if they commit the same crime they will face the same punishment.

The government knows there is a problem, because the government has already increased penalties—only very slightly, but the fact that it saw the need to increase penalties in response to scandal after scandal on our front pages from the Health Services Union shows that the government knows it has a problem. The member who has just spoken knows that there is a problem, because she pointed out to this House in her script how so much of what happens in the registration, organisation and accountability of the union movement is similar to that of companies, except in this respect: the penalties hardly exist for union officials. They are only civil penalties. There are no criminal penalties and the maximum penalty is something like $33,000, as opposed to $340,000 for crooked company directors. I say: let there be a level playing field. I know members opposite—decent members opposite—know in their hearts that there should be a level playing field, and that is exactly what this legislation proposes.

Since this legislation was formally introduced into the parliament a few weeks back, there have been some interesting developments. I may detain the House for a little longer to outline some of these developments. It is amazing how many union conferences senior members of this government seem to be getting along to at the moment. I wonder why! I wonder why the Prime Minister seems to feel the need to go to every union conference that is going on at the moment.

But let's begin with a remarkable conference: the MUA conference held in Perth recently. The Western Australian secretary, Chris Cain, told delegates 'laws need to be broken, you're going to get locked up'. You would think, would you not, that a responsible minister of the Crown going to that self-same conference would at the very least say, 'Please, whatever you do don't break the law. Fight for your members by all means. By all means attack the employers where they deserve it. But don't break the law of the land.' Well, no, that is not what the minister for workplace relations said. He said it was a pretty impressive conference because you get a sense that there is something happening here. Criminal incitement: that is what was happening there. He said, 'You get the sense that you're a union who is determined to be true to its members and determined to stand up for its members … it is very, very palpable. I wish we could bottle a bit of the spirit here and spread it on perhaps some of the members in the Labor caucus …' The spirit of law-breaking. He wants to taint the Labor caucus itself. If that wasn't bad enough, the Prime Minister herself sent a message to that self-same MUA union conference:

… now comes the tough part—to defend what we have.

Let’s fight hard. Let’s fight together. Let’s fight to win.

An endorsement, a veritable endorsement of law-breaking.

This is the problem: members opposite are so much the captive of the union movement that they are incapable of doing what is obviously right for our nation right now, and that is to have a level playing field when it comes to malefaction—do the same crime, serve the same time, whether you are a company official or a union official.

Since my bill was first formally introduced into this House earlier this year, there have been a series of cave-ins by the Prime Minister and senior ministers to the union movement. The Prime Minister just last week announced that the Fair Work Act would be amended to enshrine additional protections for penalty rates. I am all in favour of ensuring that penalty rates are a matter for the Fair Work Commission. They are now, and that is where they should stay, but there was the Prime Minister saying, 'Oh, no, keep supporting me and this is what I'm going to do for you.'

Earlier last week, the government announced that there would be a legal right for unions to hold recruitment meetings in workplace lunch rooms. Not only are these union officials going to invade workers' lunch rooms; according to the changes that the government announced on 8 March, employers would be required to pay for the transport costs of these workplace invaders, these lunch room invaders. On 5 March, the minister for aged care announced a $1.2 billion boost to the salaries and wages of workers in the aged-care sector, provided there is a new enterprise bargaining agreement, which—surprise, surprise!—has to be negotiated by the Health Services Union. This is a $1.2 billion exercise to support a Health Services Union membership drive. Really and truly, is it any wonder that members opposite are refusing to support this legislation?

When it comes to the unions and to union officials, the attitude of this government is absolutely crystal clear: union officials have all rights and no responsibilities. Actually, I am not quite accurate there. Union officials do have one responsibility: to contribute to the re-election of members opposite. The one responsibility that union officials have, if members opposite are to be believed, is to pay and pay and pay for the re-election of a Labor government and to continue to support, through thick and thin, in defiance of all logic and all common sense, the leadership of the current Prime Minister.

I say to members opposite: look into your own consciences. Look at the decent people who for years you have said you represented—people earning less than $40,000 a year who are still putting $400, $500 and $600 a year of their hard-earned money into the pockets of the sorts of people we have seen running the Health Services Union lately. It is not right. It stinks to heaven for rectification. Just for once, look into your hearts and ensure that unions and their leaders must do the right thing, not the wrong thing, by the people they represent.

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

At three o'clock today, the Leader of the Opposition sought to suspend the normal operations of parliament to bring to this place a serious debate about what he described as the most grievous assault on democracy that this country had ever witnessed—more grievous, indeed, than the atrocities visited upon the populations of China and the Soviet Union by those well-known historical despots Mao and Stalin. Some of the greatest atrocities ever committed in this nation's history were being visited upon the Australian people by some bills to seek to regulate and bring a bit of sense to how we deal with media in this country. What were the bills aimed at? Quite simply, to ensure that organisations be subject to a self-regulatory code, to ensure—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order, on relevance. The member's contribution is not addressing the bill before the House and I ask you to bring him to the content of the bill before the House. This is not the media bill; this is a bill to make sure that union officials are held accountable as, indeed, company directors are.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order, I draw your attention to the fact that the issue of media regulation was raised in the contributions of both the mover and the seconder of the bill.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

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

We heard from speaker after speaker during that motion to suspend standing orders that grievous assaults were being visited upon the body democratic, the body politic, in this country by a simple proposition that we enact legislation that requires organisations—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, I ask him to address the content of this bill. He is not addressing the content of this bill; he is going into wide-ranging arguments about suspensions of standing orders that have nothing to do with the content of this bill. If he is too ashamed to stand up for honesty and integrity in the union movement, he should sit down.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the member for Throsby.

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

It is a simple proposition. I was looking forward because I was quite expecting the member for Wentworth to be in here during this debate on this side of the chamber, arguing against the assaults on democracy and freedom of association represented by the legislation before the House. Let's just have a look at some of the propositions that are included within the bill before the House this evening: tripling the penalties for an officer of an organisation for a breach of the new provisions from 60 penalty units to 200 penalty units, and creating new criminal offences, which include putting somebody in jail for up to five years or imposing 2,000 penalty units upon them, for a breach of these provisions. If there has been an assault on rights to freedom of association, it is by the sort of legislation that we see before the House today. When you look at the cant and hypocrisy—

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish—read it! It's about accountability!

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Paterson will desist from interjecting!

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

that we see from those opposite, particularly from the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Wentworth, they should be standing over at this side of the dispatch box, arguing against the proposition before the House today.

I have some background in these matters. I have had many jobs in my life before I came to work in this place. I worked as a community worker for many years. I worked with people with disabilities for many years. I worked in bars, clubs and restaurants. I was a lawyer for many years. I also had the great privilege of running a union for about five years. I was the national secretary of a union that employed some 200 people. I have some knowledge and background in these matters. What I can say is that the overwhelming majority of union officials in this country turn up to work every day attempting to do their very best to represent the men and women that they are in charge of representing and to do their best to ensure that they can protect and advance their wages and conditions and their rights at work.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish, you simply own five months out of every 12!

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Hume. The Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. You are testing my patience by repeatedly interrupting the member for Throsby. The member for Throsby has the call and will be heard in silence.

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

By my rough count, there are around 116 federally registered organisations. The motivating force behind the Leader of the Opposition bringing this bill before the House today is supposed to be some wrongdoing within three organisations. There are 116 registered organisations: they have identified three, and that has moved them to bring these new provisions before the House today. If you listen to the speeches, you can understand the motivation has got nothing to do with these organisations and the goings-on; it has everything to do with political motivations.

Those opposite, whenever they point to members on this side of the House and say we are members of the union, expect us to shrink and say that we are somehow ashamed of this. I do no such thing. As a life member of my union, I am very proud of the fact that I have spent many years of my life dedicating my time and efforts, alongside many others, to advance and protect the rights and conditions of Australian working men and women at work.

It would make as much sense for us to visit upon every corporation in the country new and draconian provisions because of a bankruptcy, because of corruption in a company, because of some malfeasance in a company. We on this side of the House do not say that because of the shenanigans that saw the collapse of One-Tel or HIH we should have a radical overhaul of the Corporations Law. We knew there were some crooks and some wrongdoings going on in those organisations, but we do not use that as a justification to do some massive overhaul of the Corporations Law in this country.

I have some experience in this area and I know that the vast majority of men and women who go to work every day as union members or union officials do so with the very best intentions at heart in attempting to discharge their duties in protecting and advancing their members' wages and conditions and bringing about a fairer and more just workplace and society. They do that with the very best of intentions and they see these sorts of attacks that have been made by the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition as nothing more than an attack on the institution of unions as a whole.

There is strong regulation of unions under our existing law. That does not mean that there is not room—there always is—for improvement. Indeed, the Fair Work Act is probably one of the most contested statutes on the statute book of the federal parliament. Every single election since Federation has been fought around the issues of the Fair Work Act and its antecedents. So it does not surprise us on this side of the House at all that the Leader of the Opposition seeks to bring this matter into contest in the lead-up to this election.

However, I am surprised at one thing. In his contribution to this debate he sought to ridicule the Maritime Union of Australia and the Prime Minister's attendance at a Maritime Union of Australia event. He tried to paint them all as lawless thugs. Can I make this point: the single biggest scandal, the single biggest finding from the highest court in this land in relation to the maritime industry of this country was found against that side of the House when they were in government. It was the conspiracy by Patrick Stevedores and the then Minister for Workplace Relations against the men and women who worked for Patrick Stevedores and were members of the Maritime Union of Australia. So I was surprised indeed that the Leader of the Opposition would stand in this place and seek to ridicule and poke fun and suggest that there was lawlessness, when the biggest finding of lawlessness in this country's history was against those on the other side of the House. The Leader of the Opposition was a minister in that government and a champion for what they were doing. It really does beggar belief that he would have the hide to come into this place and move this bill given his background and form in this area. It should be rejected.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak today in the debate on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Towards Transparency) Bill 2013. Those listening to the broadcast this evening and to the contributions by the member for Greenway and the member for Throsby would have no idea what this bill was about. They would have listened to a nasty series of personal attacks. That is fair enough—people make personal attacks in this place, but the personal attacks do not relate to the substance of what we are discussing here tonight, which is quite moderate and sensible. If I can just try to capture the absolute essence of what the bill moved by the Leader of the Opposition really means, it is about amending the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act to improve the standards of governance for registered organisations and insert new higher penalties to act as a genuine deterrent to organisational malfeasance.

We on this side have mentioned malfeasance several times; I do not think those opposite have. Malfeasance means acting with malicious intent. What this bill seeks to do is address organisations who by their actions demonstrate that malicious intent, and it does so by way of three major initiatives: (1) to ensure that financial reports are lodged on time and in compliance with the relevant provisions of the act by clarifying the circumstances where a report is not compliant, and by increasing the penalties; (2) to deter malfeasance by creating new penalties for organisations, their officers and employees who do not act in good faith or who use their position to directly or indirectly create a financial gain for themselves; and (3) to deter noncompliance with court orders by creating new penalties for organisations who do not comply with the order of a court. Those three provisions are quite moderate, they are quite modest and anybody who is listening would probably think, 'Well, that probably happens anyway'—and it does. It happens under the Corporations Act. So this is unremarkable in that it seeks to bring registered organisations, and of course that includes unions, in line with the Corporations Act.

At the very heart of this motion is an attempt to ensure that the hundreds of thousands of members of trade unions and employer groups can rest safe in the knowledge that their hard-earned dollars are being spent in a manner that directly benefits them. These workers have the right to know exactly how their dollars are being spent. This bill will seek to ensure that organisations lodge their financial reports on time, and that those reports are compliant with the requirements of the act—just what we all do every year with our tax returns. Failure to do so will see increased penalties for noncompliance. The penalties for noncompliance are now about $6,000; under the Corporations Act they are above $200,000—and that actually makes you change your behaviour. A penalty of $6,000 does not do that. With appropriate financial disclosure mechanisms in place, including ensuring timely reporting by unions and employer organisations, members will have that assurance that those responsible for managing the union are doing so—and are under scrutiny.

This is about ensuring a level playing field. We want to be certain that union members and members of employer organisations know that the framework under which their union operates is rigorous, has integrity and does the right thing by them. They want to know that their money cannot be misappropriated to fund private school fees for the management's children or to buy a new sports car for the partner of the union official. Regrettably, there have been far too many instances where those controlling the purse strings have used the funds at their disposal with gay abandon. Examples that spring to mind include the purchase by the Electrical Trades Union of a $1.25 million property in Oyster Bay for one of their officials; the purchase of a family vehicle by an official with the Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union; and the frequently cited blatant misuse of funds from the Health Services Union—funding escorts, the purchase of a warehouse for the son of an official, and inflated wages that could be deemed excessive by all accounts. This blatant and widespread rorting of funds gives proof as to why this action must be taken swiftly. Under this private member's bill, penalties will apply where a registered organisation, its officers or its employees do not act in good faith, or where a direct or indirect financial gain is derived to the detriment of the organisation.

We seek to provide union members with an assurance that their management will be subject to the same level of scrutiny as directors and boards of companies, instead of the current situation where union bosses are able to avert much of the oversight that applies to those running other organisations. By bringing the penalties for trade unions and employer groups in line with the penalty regime specified in the Corporations Act 2001, we are seeking to establish a more accountable, just system. In April last year, we announced the coalition's plan for better transparency and accountability of registered organisations in response to the report delivered by Fair Work Australia, which highlighted the misuse of union member funds, specifically citing the case of the Health Services Union in Victoria where there were clear, significant breaches with the misuse of funds for their union officials' gain. Members of the HSU Victorian branch were shocked—as they should have been—that the union officials they trusted to act in their best interests had abused this trust, financing their own lavish lifestyles while many of those they represented struggled on a minimum wage. The member for Greenway, in part of her hysterical contribution, talked about the O'Farrell government in New South Wales doing something terrible with industrial relations to train drivers and bus drivers. Well, I reckon the train drivers and bus drivers in New South Wales would like to know that the money that they put into their union every year is not misused by the organisers of that union.

The breaches that we have seen indicate there is a real need to improve the existing law and ensure that such misuse of funds cannot happen again. Our policy outlines our commitment to better align the rules for registered organisations and their officers with the laws that apply to companies and their directors. We recognise that many of these organisations have responsibility for tens of millions of dollars of assets. For example, the CFMEU Victoria has net assets of $42 million, with $7.3 million a year derived from their matured investments. The NSW branch of United Voice has net assets of $24½ million, with $9.8 million in membership fees each year.

This bill also seeks to enhance the standards of governance by raising the bar to one that would actually pass the public expectations test. We are standing up for union members, advocating on behalf of many low-paid workers, many of whom struggle to pay their union dues. Ironically, this Labor government seems entirely deaf to those concerned. If those opposite are truly serious about doing what is in the best interests of the hundreds of thousands of union members, then they really should heed our call to pass this legislation. We would ask the crossbenchers to very carefully consider the arguments that we make. But I suspect the focus of the government is on rewarding and protecting the union officials who ensure their preselections and who finance their campaigns, and in that case we can see the ALP rejecting our calls for greater transparency and serious deterrence measures for breaches of the law which would bring those measures in line with the measures in place for corporations. If this is the case—that those opposite will oppose this private member's bill—then it will once again prove that the ALP is condoning the widespread misuse of 70,000 HSU members' funds and ensuring that such practices may continue.

I make no overall criticism of unions or the union movement. I have been a member of three unions; I have been a member of the AWU in the shearing sheds, I have been a member of the air traffic controllers union when I was an air traffic controller, and I have been a member of the public service union when I was a public servant. In each case I paid my union dues and I looked to the union officials to manage my money wisely. I am not saying I always saw enormous results, particularly working in the shearing sheds, but I acknowledge the work the AWU did in the good old days in the formation of conditions in the shearing industry. I know what it is like to work at a shed with no power, no running water and no flushing toilets for three weeks, and I respect the union movement that improved those conditions. But my goodness, that is a long way from the union movement we are seeing today—a long, long way. There were some noble origins of the union movement in Australia. If you go bush you understand those origins. You see them, you see the good people, and you see the way the names of those good people have been dragged through the mud with the actions of the HSU.

The government has a chance to make some modest moves in the direction of ensuring that transparency and accountability—and they are the two key words. We are not talking about regulation, we are not talking about compliance, we are not talking about burdensome red tape; we are simply talking about saying, 'This group of organisations needs to come in line with the law as it stands for corporations in the honest management of its money.' I commend the bill to the House.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course the members of registered organisations should feel that the money they provide to registered organisations through membership fees is fairly used. We on this side of the House acted on that last year when we reviewed the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act and in fact tripled some penalties and increased transparency. We acted last year precisely because we do believe that there needs to be accountability and transparency across registered organisations. But the arguments made on the other side of the House tonight seem to indicate that their solution is the only solution that indicates any level of concern. One would have to question whether their solution is actually a good one. The underlying rationale behind their policy is that registered organisations should be treated just like corporations.

I chair the Economics Committee, and we quite often meet with members—with accountants, financial advisers and all sorts of people who work in various sectors across the country. The most common thing we are told is that when you are dealing with the not-for-profit sector in particular you actually need a completely different set of rules than you do for corporations. In fact, in the Senate committee inquiry into the changes to the registered organisations act last year, the employer organisations put it to the committee that if penalties were increased or criminal penalties imposed they would find it hard to get good people to volunteer to be officers and employees of their own organisations. So the employer organisations that gave evidence to that committee said completely the opposite of what the opposition is saying tonight.

It is difficult to see a rationale as to why different kinds of organisations would be treated exactly the same. We do not treat churches, large charities or people raising funds for local playgrounds in the same way. We have a whole range of rules and regulations that apply to different kinds of organisations, as we should. There simply is not sufficient rationale given for this proposed change. As I said earlier, the employer organisations themselves have said that this would cause some difficulties for them. This, I suspect, is more about politics and opportunism than governance. One has to wonder, if the opposition is so convinced that this is the right way to go, why they did not act on it for so long. Registered organisations are not new; they have been around for quite a while. When we came to government we found quite a few areas that needed to be strengthened, quite a number of flaws in the act, and we moved last year to make amendments to those. If the opposition believed that those amendments were not strong enough—and this was just last year—they had every opportunity to raise it then. Again, that is an indication that it is not so much about governance as about opportunism and politics.

The government introduced extensive amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act last year to fix a number of problems that had been left in the legislation by the previous government and to improve accountability of registered organisations, including unions. Evidence was given to the Senate committee inquiry into our changes to the registered organisations act last year by a range of bodies, including employer organisations, as I said, arguing that if penalties were increased or criminal penalties imposed they would find it difficult to get good people. Nevertheless, we did make amendments and we did increase penalties. We required officers to disclose material personal interests in a matter that relates to the affairs of their organisation or branch. That obligation extends to the officer or a relative of the officer. We required that organisations and branches disclose this information to members—again, an important change that improved the transparency. We required disclosure of payments made to related parties: companies controlled by the organisation or officers of the organisation, their spouses and their relatives; and companies controlled by a related party to the organisation—again, an important change relating to improved transparency. We required new detailed rules about record keeping, including about the organisation's transactions, financial management and audit requirements. We tripled penalties for breaches of the registered organisations act, and we gave the Fair Work Commission far more powers and more resources to investigate breaches, including to compel more people to give information and documents, to require the commission to follow up on breaches after 12 months and to require investigations to be conducted as soon as practicable, as well as powers to deal with the state law enforcement agencies. The changes were endorsed by both unions and employer associations alike through the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council. The drafting of model rules was done through a subcommittee of that council and will be in place by 1 July 2013.

So we have already moved to make substantial improvements in the regulations governing registered organisations. The opposition had an opportunity to engage fully with that process last year. If they felt these issues were of such incredible concern, they also, of course, had an opportunity to address them when they were in government. Bringing them up now, so soon after the major review last year, reeks of opportunism rather than policy. But that is what we have come to expect from this opposition. I think the parliament will give this bill the lack of support it deserves.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will start with an interesting quote—that unions should be held to a higher account than the corporate sector and there should be zero tolerance for corruption.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who said that?

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the member for Dawson ask, 'Who said that?' That was the national secretary of the Australian Workers' Union, Paul Howes.

Ms O'Dwyer interjecting—

Yes, that is right, Member for Higgins—Paul Howes. And good on him for saying it. I will just repeat it. Paul Howes said that unions should be held to a higher account than the corporate sector and there should be zero tolerance for corruption. He said that whilst addressing the Australian Workers' Union annual conference. This union leader has also been quoted as saying:

I actually believe there is a higher responsibility for us as guardians of workers' money to protect that money and to act diligently and honestly.

In the same interview, he went on to say:

The reality is I do not have any issue with increasing the level of requirements and penalties on trade unions for breaching basic ethics like misappropriation of funds.

I have to declare an interest here. I was actually a member of a union—and I understand the member for Farrer was a member of three unions—for 21 consecutive years. It might seem fairly odd for a National Party member of parliament to have been a loyal, dedicated, fee-paying unionist for 21 long years. I was a member of the Australian Journalists Association, which in 1992 became the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance—I do hope they act on media reform. I was a member of that union and I know that, during that time, my union fees were going to a good cause—to help better journalistic services, to help protect the sorts of things that journalists fight hard to preserve.

Unions need to be governed properly and this is what this private member's bill, put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, is intended to achieve. It is decent legislation. The Prime Minister has told us herself that every union has a slush fund—and that is a disgrace. It is time for every MP, particularly those on that side of the House, to end this. There are currently eight separate Fair Work Australia inquiries into rorts, rackets and rip-offs. If justice is to be done for low-paid workers across our great country, particularly those in the Health Services Union, this private member's bill has to pass this House.

The member for Greenway spoke of penalty increases, yet those penalties still do not go anywhere near the level of penalties that corporations are faced with. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for employment and workplace relations have previously announced a policy to ensure that the money paid to registered organisations, including trade unions and employer groups, is used for proper purposes—used for the purposes for which it was intended. This bill will be a real test for this government. This bill will be a real test for the crossbenchers. Will they stand up for workers? Will they stand up for transparency?

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the member for Higgins say, 'No.' I am a little more confident than that. I think they will. I think they will stand up for workers. Surely they will stand up for transparency. I hope you are wrong, Member for Higgins. I hope they have the courage of their convictions. I know why you are doubtful about that, but I hope they have the courage to stand up for decency and accountability. Or will they continue to run a protection racket for union bosses—a protected species in this country at present?

The list of allegations, scandals and unanswered questions grows longer each and every day. Each and every day this government is in power, they let unions get away with running the show. This is an opportunity for Labor and, importantly, for the Independents, the crossbenchers, to stand up and say, 'Enough is enough.' This is an opportunity for them to stand up and say that the community deserves better, far better—particularly the hundreds of thousands of union members Labor purports to represent. Those union members in the hospitality sector, the health sector and all the other sectors deserve to know that their union fees, their hard-earned dues, are going where they are intended to go and that they are properly accounted for. (Time expired)

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am against the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Towards Transparency) Bill 2013—the private member's bill brought on by the member for Curtin. I say 'the member for Curtin' because the Leader of the Opposition was so concerned and so keen to do this that he did not turn up on time for it. What an absolute joke! This has been sitting here for a while and nothing has been done.

This bill is nothing more than a publicity stunt designed to attack unions and curry favour with the billionaire interests that are seeking to destroy collective bargaining, organised representation of Australian workers and employer organisations that advocate for their industry's interests. That is at the heart of this bill put forward by the founder of the slush fund called 'Australians For Honest Politics'. That was the slush fund created by a minister of the Crown in 1998, now the Leader of the Opposition, to bankroll Terry Sharples, a disaffected One Nation member, to take legal action against Pauline Hanson. Less than two weeks later, he categorically denied to the ABC that he had done so—and 18 months later he repeated this false claim, this time to the Sydney Morning Herald's Deborah Snow. But when she confronted him with his signed personal guarantee, he said:

... misleading the ABC is not quite the same as misleading the Parliament as a political crime.

The same man said to Kerry O'Brien:

I had promised that he wouldn't be out of pocket, but there's a difference between telling someone he won't be out of pocket and telling someone that you're going to have to pay him money.

And that is why when the Leader of the Opposition speaks you need to very careful of his words because even he says you cannot trust what he says. And he would have you believe that he is genuine with this bill?

We on this side of the House agree that the activities of registered organisations should remain balanced and appropriate and that inappropriate or unlawful conduct within an organisation should not be tolerated, full stop. That is why the Gillard government introduced extensive amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act last year to fix a number of problems, which the Leader of the Opposition left in the legislation when he was a minister, to improve accountability of registered organisations, including unions.

But it is not just we on this side of the House who think that this bill is a joke. The Senate committee that considered the bill has recommended that the bill should not proceed. The coalition senators had a different view, but that is normal. You would expect that, because they have to toe the line.

The majority report notes that only seven submissions were received in relation to this bill—this is the most important bill, remember?—and of those only two supported the bill. The two organisations that made those submissions were the IPA—and they are about as balanced as a three-legged chair—which is not even a registered organisation, and the New South Wales government, whose own legislation does not even include penalties of the level proposed in this bill.

The other submissions to the inquiry and the majority report noted that it was premature to make further amendments to the act until the effectiveness of the amendments that the government made to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 had been assessed. We support the recommendation of the Senate committee that the bill not be passed.

We have heard tonight from those opposite, who have tried to fluff this up and say, 'It's just a little technical thing; it's just about making everything fair.' It shows the ignorance of those opposite when they cannot tell the difference between a registered organisation and a corporation. They are in fact different creatures, both in practice and in law. The aims of the two entities are different. Corporations are designed to generate wealth and advance the financial interests of their shareholders. Laws therefore seek to ensure that the company acts in the best interest of shareholders, pays off its debts, and treats its employees fairly. Organisations are established to represent the rights of their members, whether employers or employees, at work, amongst other things. Laws therefore seek to ensure that organisations advance the industrial interests of their members, get them fair pay and conditions and protect their rights at work It is a false debate, because many different types of entities in this country are covered by different regulatory regimes more appropriately suited to what they do and how they do it, whether they are charity organisations, not-for-profit organisations, unincorporated associations or partnerships, for example.

One thing that I noticed is that they were very shy over there, very quiet. They want to attack unions. But not one of them spoke about the regional community association in Moreton Bay. One of its buddies, Scottie Driscoll, the local state LNP member up there, has been found to be taking money out of that and paying his wife. It is an absolute joke for them to come in here and run a one-sided attack on unions, pretending that they are there for workers' rights. There is only one side in this parliament that stands up for workers. It is those opposite who try and stand on them. (Time expired)

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Towards Transparency) Bill 2013 and I am very proud to do so. Unlike those opposite, who I am quite confident will not be distributing their speeches among the membership of the union movement, I am more than happy to distribute my speech. What we are standing for tonight is a level playing field between those who are covered by the Corporations Act—companies—the union movement and employer organisations. We want to make sure that the penalties and sanctions that apply to each of them are the same. In so saying, it is important to state that this bill is not a witch hunt against the unions, as those opposite have tried to claim, but rather is a hunt against corruption and cronyism. It is a hunt for those who do the wrong thing and those who abuse their position of power to tip off and abuse those they are there to protect.

It is not as though there has been no evidence of this kind of behaviour. Over the past few years, we have witnessed scandal after scandal. The first were scandals within the HSU. We have heard allegations about slush funds to do with the AWU. We have seen the rot within New South Wales Labor and smelled the stench of corruption. We know that there are already eight major investigations into possible improper conduct being conducted by Fair Work Australia that involve the Communications Workers Union, the Community and Public Sector Union, the Nursing Federation and United Voice. We have seen the Temby report, which said that there might have been up to $20 million of members' money improperly used by the HSU.

Despite these events, the government has lacked any conviction in pursuing justice for those who have been wronged. It defies belief that former union bosses and now ministers—the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency or even the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations—would so voraciously pursue a business that has allegedly been in the wrong, yet when it comes to corruption in the union movement turn a blind eye. If a company director neglected his responsibility to an employee's detriment, imagine the outcry from those opposite, all the ex-union bosses that now sit on the front bench. Why doesn't the same level of concern apply to union members who have lost out because of dodgy union bosses? Could it be that the only difference is that they know these people by first name? Could it be that they are former ministers in ALP governments? Or could it be that they are former ALP party presidents?

Let us be crystal clear about this: the only people who have anything to fear from this legislation are those who have done the wrong thing. It begs the question what they have to hide? Is it because they are so inherently entrenched within the union movement that the government refuses to introduce transparency?

If this legislation was enacted, union bosses who have been found to have broken the law will face the same penalties as company directors—not different penalties, not increased penalties, but the same penalties—and those who have committed a commensurate crime. This is an extremely important bill. The penalties are no more and no less than those faced in the corporate world: one law for all Australians, unlike the current situation in which a crooked union boss faces less punishment for the same offence committed by a company director.

Under the current legislation, the misuse of members' funds by unions bosses attracts a fine of around $6,600 for an individual, and the organisation can be fined a civil penalty of up to $33,000. What this legislation commits to doing is ensuring not only that the civil penalties are the same—up to $340,000—but also that criminal sanctions apply.

This legislation introduces good governance and good practices into registered organisations. I know that it is a foreign concept to the government, but we are standing up for good governance in this place. The government likes to claim that it stands up for workers' rights. It has the opportunity to demonstrate this tonight by supporting this bill. I hope they have the courage to do so.

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak against the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Towards Transparency) Bill 2013, and I do so for very good reasons. I note that the Leader of the Opposition, whose name this bill was in, could not even be bothered attending the House to introduce the bill. It was left to the member for Curtin to do so, and to me that shows so much about what this bill is really about.

With this bill, the Liberal Party are seeking to treat registered organisations like corporations, a plainly ridiculous concept. Whilst a registered organisation exists to serve and advance the interests of its members, this is not the case for a corporation. The corporation exists to produce a profit for its shareholders. Shareholders like that concept; that is what it is there for. But a corporation does not act as a membership organisation.

Legislation is needed to provide the framework that ensures that the corporation pays its way, that it recognises employee rights and responsibilities and that it operates in the shareholders' interests. The registered organisation exists to represent its members whether they be employees or employers. Legislation is in place to ensure that organisations maintain and advance the industrial interests of their members—interests such as better pay and conditions for workers, occupational health and safety, and compensation for injuries received at work.

No reasonable person could confuse the differences in purpose and structure of the two. However, this confused view has prevailed in today's Liberal Party and has been laid in front of us here by the opposition leader Mr Abbott, the member for Curtin and the others on the other side of the chamber who have spoken in this debate. The two faces of the Liberal Party are plain to see when one looks at their reaction to breaches of corporate law by a company compared to their reaction when a union has to deal with an investigation under industrial law. In the 10 years from 2002-03 to 2011-12 I seem to remember hearing almost nothing from the Liberals in response to the 2,454 court proceedings undertaken by ASIC against companies and their office holders. This lack of concern is even more surprising in light of the 385 criminal convictions recorded in that period against directors. It is almost incredible that the Liberals have chosen to virtually ignore just about all of the 212 terms of imprisonment handed out to company directors in that time.

The federal Labor government has already introduced amendments that have changed the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act to set clear and strict obligations on registered organisations. We did this in 2012 to make sure that the act requires that officials act in good faith, with diligence and due care in their work. Other changes prohibited the use of members' money to favour candidates in campaigns or internal elections and allowed for criminal prosecutions where funds are stolen or fraudulently misappropriated. These amendments also allow Fair Work Australia to share information with the police as appropriate and provide significant penalties for breaches of the act.

This private member's bill is nothing more than an ideological rant by the Liberals—we have seen the same over many years—against the rights of working people to effectively organise to enhance their wages and conditions. The federal Labor government supports appropriate regulation for registered organisations. This includes empowering the regulator and tripling the penalties for breaches of the act. These will be in place very soon; the bill has been passed by this parliament. It is about time that we heard from the Liberals their plans to protect terms and conditions for working Australians, rather than see them serve up cheap stunts such as this private member's bill.

We have heard many on the other side of the chamber tonight talk about this at length, but when it comes down to it no-one should ever confuse the difference between a corporation and a registered organisation. I condemn this private member's bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Towards Transparency) Bill 2013, and will vote against it when the time comes in this House.

Debate adjourned.