Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I oppose the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013. I acknowledge the fundamental role registered organisations play in Australia's workplace relations system. They are created and registered for the purpose of representing Australian employers and employees in workplaces across the nation. Registered organisations also represent their members before industrial tribunals and courts and work with government on policy matters ranging from employment issues to economic and social policy.

At the outset, let me be very clear that the opposition has no tolerance for corruption—none whatsoever—whether it be by union officials or officers of employer bodies. We support tough penalties for those who break the law. We support appropriate regulation for registered organisations, including a properly empowered regulator and consequences for those who do not follow the rules. After all, it was the Labor government that last year introduced increased penalties for misconduct and made unions and employer groups more accountable in the wake of serious allegations of misconduct and criminal behaviour within the Health Services Union. Indeed, we strengthened the laws that the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, now the Prime Minister, enacted in 2002.

As a result of the changes we brought about in this place last year, the regulation of trade unions and registered employer bodies in Australia has never been stronger, accountability has never been higher and the powers of the Fair Work Commission to investigate and prosecute for breaches have never been broader—and we tripled penalties, which means they have never been tougher. In light of these recent reforms, which arose out of genuine consultation with peak employer and union bodies, it is for the government to explain where the current system is not working. The opposition is not convinced that the government has made their case for change.

As the Leader of the House said in his second reading speech:

The majority of registered organisations do the right thing and, in many cases, maintain higher standards than those currently required.

I concur. The Labor opposition is of the view that the vast majority of unions, employer groups and other registered organisations conduct themselves professionally and honestly. Given the government's contention that the majority do the right thing, we must ask whether the bill is a proportionate response. The government also says it is clearly inconsistent with community expectations for registered organisations to operate to lower standards than those that apply to multimillion dollar, for-profit corporations. Yet it is important to note that there are provisions in this bill that require registered organisations to provide more information than multimillion dollar companies do pursuant to the Corporations Act 2001.

As the Australian Community Services Employer Association states:

A number of the provisions contained within the proposed Bill place a higher/more extreme onus than those prescribed under the Corporations Act 2001 for Company Directors.

Furthermore, is it fair that all registered organisations are subject to these proposed new onerous obligations? Should unions and other registered organisations be regulated in the same way as corporations, noting that the nature of the rights and interests of employees are not the same as the economic interests shareholders have in companies? Corporations are designed to generate wealth and advance the financial interests of their shareholders. Organisations are established to represent the rights of their members, whether they be employees or employers.

The government has completely failed to recognise the difference between corporations and registered organisations. Unions are different from corporations which are different from charities and clubs. Australia rightly regulates each type of entity differently. As we know, many different entities in this country are covered by different regulatory regimes that are more appropriately suited to what they do and how they do it.

By playing politics and seeking to treat registered organisations as if they were for-profit corporations, the government is going far beyond what is customary in this area. Indeed, it is a radical departure from the regulation of such bodies and is not, as the Prime Minister has said, shifting the IR debate towards 'the sensible centre'. Would these provisions, if enacted, mean that registered organisations, employer bodies and unions would have difficulty in persuading people, often in a voluntary capacity, to take on official responsibilities?

The Australian Industry Group certainly thinks it will. Let me refer to the Ai Group's submission in relation to the disclosure of material personal interest:

The provisions of this Bill in this area will operate very unfairly on registered employer organisations and their officers, and it is essential that the Bill is amended. The Bill would impose a far more onerous regime for officers of registered organisations than what applies to directors of public companies. The regime, if enacted, would undoubtedly deter persons from standing for office in employer organisations. In practice the provisions of the Bill would seriously impede many organisations from carrying on their daily business operations.

What about non-registered organisations? Is it any wonder that non-registered organisations seem more relaxed about this bill than those who are subject to it? Why is the government not seeking to impose these measures upon them? Will those organisations manage to avoid the strongarm tactics of this government if the change occurs? These questions I am posing, and it is not an exhaustive list, all require appropriate consideration.

The Leader of the House said in his contribution that the government consulted with a subcommittee of the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council, and admitted that some members suggested that consideration of the bill should at the very least be delayed. We had a spokesperson for Minister Abetz admit that concerns by employer groups had been raised with the government. Here are some of the concerns. We have had the Ai Group say the legislation has to be carefully considered. I have spoken with employer bodies who have admitted to me that they have not had time to digest the government's proposed changes and that their members have raised serious issues of compliance, particularly in relation to the resources available to many employer groups. Indeed, the Ai Group said when Labor was in government that our changes would not impose an unreasonable red tape burden on registered organisations.

It is not just the Ai Group that has concerns and does not support the change. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia says the proposed bill creates confusion and requires further clarification. Master Builders Australia has said it wants more time to consider the financial implications of the bill and wants the salary of appointed officers exempt from disclosure. Master Builders Australia is 'concerned that the full impact of the Bill on the Associations is not yet known.' Its submission goes on to say:

… of particular concern is the impact the Bill may have on smaller employer organisations as the relative cost associated with complying with the new obligations imposed by the Bill may have a much more drastic impact on these smaller organisations than it would on larger organisations. Master Builders therefore strongly submits the passage of this Bill be postponed …

The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce is also concerned with the pace with which the bill is being progressed. Importantly it notes that it is still implementing Labor's changes. It is the view of the Timber Merchants Association that 'the establishment of an independent authority to monitor and regulate registered organisations is unnecessary.' Furthermore the TMA says that registered organisations have had to undertake significant changes in compliance requirements and, while a number of registered organisations are large enough to devote significant resources to compliance, many employer organisations are significantly smaller and simply do not have the resources to devote to complex compliance regulations. Here is what the Master Plumbers Association had to say on the proposed legislation:

We submit that due to the extremely limited timeframe and the limited resources of a small organisation, the Master Plumbers' has had insufficient time to properly consider the technical detail, implementation or impact. We urge the Committee to delay the progress of this Bill …

The position of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry—the peak council for Australian business associations—is a little curious. ACCI has said, importantly, that 'within the time available, ACCI has attempted to review the Bill.' Clearly, from this admission, it has not had the chance to consult fully with its members, who are both registered and non-registered organisations. Yet on 8 February this year, when Senator Abetz, in opposition, introduced the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Towards Transparency) Bill 2012, ACCI said:

ACCI does not support further changes to the RO Act at this stage.

With the coalition now in government, it seems ACCI supports the policy principles. What has changed? Surely not the merits of the argument. Interestingly, in the interests of their members even the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry notes that parts of this bill should be ameliorated and issues addressed, noting that it is particularly germane given that many registered organisations are, in good faith, attempting to be fully compliant with the requirements of the most recent changes. Is ACCI straddling the fence because it is trying to represent the interests of both its registered and nonregistered organisations at the same time?

As I alluded to earlier, it is no coincidence that you do not hear criticism of these proposed reforms by non-registered organisations like the Australian Mines and Metals Association. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I wonder whether that would change if the government were seeking to regulate non-registered organisations in the same manner as is proposed for registered organisations in this bill. There is an important distinction to be made between non-registered organisations that are not legally bound by measures such as those contained in the current bill and registered organisations that would be legally bound.

It begs the question then: why should non-registered organisations not be bound under law rather than simply being able to self-regulate? As always, we need to question the motivation of the government. Regardless, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has joined other employer groups I have referred to in criticising the government's proposed legislation. Unions have also raised quite legitimate concerns with me about the impact of the proposed laws. Indeed, the Australian Council of Trade Unions notes in in its submission:

The timeline adopted by the Government for the development and proposed passage of this Bill is entirely unsatisfactory.

When the minister referred in his speech to consultation what he did not say was that the policy underlying the legislation was not open for discussion. Rather, the consultation was limited to technical expression of the stated policy.

Compare the difference when Labor made its changes to the Registered Organisations Act in 2012 to 'toughen Tony's laws' as it was then put. We did so with the genuine support of employer organisations and trade unions after real consultation. We consulted with peak employee bodies, including the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Master Builders Australia, Ai Group, the National Farmers' Federation, and the ACTU and its affiliates, through the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council. The communique issued by the participants on 25 May last year read:

…the changes proposed by the Minister will significantly improve the financial reporting framework, governance and accountability for registered organisations…

The opposition believes that the impact of this legislation needs to be carefully considered, not rammed through the parliament. That is why we have sought to refer this bill to the Senate references committee for proper and genuine examination.

The minister consistently referred to previous allegations, often inappropriately commenting upon matters currently before the courts, to justify the government's changes. But what the Liberals did not tell you is that the Registered Organisations Act already prohibits members' money from being used to favour particular candidates in internal elections or campaigns. The Registered Organisations Act already allows for criminal proceedings being initiated where funds are stolen or are obtained by fraud. The Registered Organisations Act already ensures that the Fair Work Commission can share information with the police as appropriate, and the Registered Organisations Act already provides for statutory civil penalties where parties knowingly or recklessly contravene an order or direction made by the Federal Court or the Fair Work Commission under the Registered Organisations Act or the Fair Work Act. Under the Fair Work Act, officers of the registered organisations already have fiduciary duties akin to those of directors under the corporations law. The Registered Organisations Act already requires officers to disclose their personal interests. The same act already requires officers to disclose when payments are made to related parties, and the same act already requires officers to exercise care and diligence, act with good faith and not improperly use their position for political advantage. The Leader of the House will not tell you that the KPMG review into Fair Work Australia's investigations into the HSU that he referred to in his second reading speech, and which he relies upon to suggest there are shortcomings in the current system, did not recommend any legislative amendments—not one.

Our changes to the Registered Organisations Act addressed a number of concerns, including interaction between the Fair Work Commission and the police. That is a comprehensive suite of measures that are already dealing with alleged corruption inside registered organisations. The government say they want corporate law standards for registered organisations but you do not hear boo out of them, of course, when ASIC prosecute company directors. It is, therefore, not surprising that we should question the motives of this government and the reasons for the introduction of these proposed reforms. Is this just a political attack upon unions? Is this about law breaking and good governance, or is this just an ideological attack? After all, in his second reading speech on the Workplace Relations (Registration and Accountability of Organisations) Bill 2002, the then Workplace Relations Minister, the now Prime Minister, said:

Generally speaking, what the government has sought to do with these bills is to ensure that the same standards of conduct and behaviour which the law imposes on company directors and on corporations should be imposed and expected of registered organisations and the officers of those organisations.

So what you have here is a Prime Minister, who, back in 2002, presumably having given reasoned and appropriate thought to his legislation, believed he had addressed the issue. Back then he had satisfied himself that the conduct of officials in registered organisations would be sufficient if they complied with his legislation. And, as I have already outlined, we have improved on those laws, so why the change now?

Is the government using this, and the proposed reinstatement of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, to erode the capacity of unions before attacking workers' rights and conditions? We have, of course, reason not to trust the coalition when it comes to workplace relations. They have form. In 2004 they did not tell the Australian people about their plans to introduce Work Choices or Australian workplace agreements. In 2005 they told the Australian people their pay and conditions were protected—

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have the author of the Work Choices legislation across the table from me who wants to interject. He is very defensive because he is responsible, along with some others, of helping bring down a government in 2007—his own government. In 2005 they told the Australian people their pay and conditions were protected by law when they were not. In 2008 the now Prime Minister said Work Choices was:

… good for wages, it was good for jobs and it was good for workers. And let’s never forget that.

In the Prime Minister's own book, Battlelines, he said, 'WorkChoices wasn't all bad.'

The government continues to beat its chest about its deregulation agenda; yet it intends with this bill and the reinstatement of the Australian Building and Construction Commission to add more layers of bureaucracy. You need look no further than the Australian Industry Group's submission to the inquiry on this bill. There, the AIG says that the disclosure regime imposes 'a significant regulatory burden'.

Contrast the coalition's hypocrisy, secrecy, uncertainty and mendacity on industrial relations with Labor's positive policies and record when we were in government. During our term in government Labor created 960,000 jobs. Productivity was up, employment was up—as I say, almost 1,000,000 jobs were created—and, indeed, industrial disputes were down. All these factors lead to improved job security and job opportunities for Australians. This is all at risk with a coalition government, which has a track record of axing workers' rights, entitlements, pay and conditions—it is in the coalition's DNA.

This bill contains too many proposed changes which require proper examination. The opposition therefore shares the reservations of others, including employee and employer organisations, and will not support this bill. Usually, when industry bodies and unions—employers and employee organisations—line up on a unity ticket against a proposition, there is something very wrong with it. This case is no different.

The opposition will not support a politically motivated witch-hunt designed to kill off unions just because this government seeks to reward its friends in big business. We want, and the public deserves, time to appropriately consider the measures in the government's bill. It is for these reasons and other reasons I have already outlined that Labor opposes the bill.

Finally, I move as a second reading amendment the following proposition:

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading because it would be ill advised to continue having regard to:

1. the adverse impact of the creation of the Registered Organisations Commission on registered organisations, including unions, employer and employee groups; and

2. the fact that last year the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the Act) was amended to improve disclosure requirements, transparency, accountability and amended to also triple civil penalties for breaches of the Act."

It is for these reasons that the opposition oppose this bill.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gorton has moved an amendment that all words after 'that' be deleted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill. It is vital for our country that we have accountable and honestly-run unions. Unlike the previous Labor government, the coalition will follow through on our election commitments. This bill does exactly that: it is one of the steps we are taking to fulfil our election promise to ensure better transparency and accountability of registered organisations.

I note that the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, when in opposition introduced a fair work (registered organisations) amendment bill similar to the one that we speak on today. Indeed there has been plenty of time to take into consideration all the issues raised. However, the then Labor government refused to put the ordinary working people of Australia first. On this side of the chamber we believe that it is about time we put the interests of workers ahead of the interests of union officials.

The coalition is acting to increase the confidence of the public and of members of registered organisations by requiring these organisations and their officers to observe broadly the same fiduciary and statutory duties as do companies and their directors, as set out in the Corporations Act. This bill will harmonise general rules, duties and obligations, including penalties for noncompliance. Financial reporting obligations will reflect the obligations in the Corporations Act.

Many of my constituents have voiced their concerns about the low standards currently set for registered organisations. Many of these constituents have campaigned against the ease with which registered organisations are able to misappropriate funds. They want greater transparency and accountability for these organisations. They want to know how and why their money is being spent. They ask to be given an assurance that their union is using their money in ways that benefit the members and not for other activities. The coalition is making a strong start in methodically and purposefully delivering on our election promises.

The best public argument for this bill was brought about by the charges and allegations against the former member for Dobell, Craig Thomson, and former ALP national president Michael Williamson in their capacity as officers of the Health Services Union. These charges were brought about because of their behaviour and actions, which were totally unacceptable. Members of unions—particularly those of the Health Services Union—were left asking how such a breach of trust could have occurred.

This bill will provide the required certainty and high standards of operation across the board. A more thorough compliance regime will deter wrongdoing and promote first-class governance of registered organisations. The HSU scandal showed that the laws governing the registration and behaviour of trade unions in Australia are completely inadequate. They fail to ensure that members are properly informed and that the conduct of officials is open to scrutiny. It appears that many trade unions have become personal playthings of long-serving officials who use the organisations to promote and fund various causes which are not necessarily aligned with the interests of their members.

Unions are protected by the so-called conveniently-belonging-to rule, which in effect prevents the registration of rival organisations. This law turns the existing trade union into an effective monopoly—with potentially damaging consequences.

To show how inept the union system is at regulating itself we only need to look a little closer at the Thomson scandal. For years the Australian Industrial Registry had written to Thomson, as the then national secretary, simply rapping him over the knuckles with a damp lettuce leaf for years of failure to meet the most basic regulatory requirements. Furthermore, instead of presenting the financial documents to a general meeting of the members, the documents were presented to the committee of management, where the documents were not lodged within 14 days of the meeting and some were left undated. This is truly a scene of inadequate financial controls and complete management incompetence. Accounts were provided to Fair Work Australia four years late. The lack of action taken by Fair Work Australia and their complete mishandling and disregard for the requirements by the union are deplorable. For years it was almost impossible to make head or tail of the union's financial statements.

While the HSU is not your average union and while other unions seem to be up to date with their filings and accounts, the fact that such an organisation, which should have been accountable to its members, was capable of getting so grossly out of hand clearly shows that action must be taken. If anything, Craig Thomson has done a favour to the community and to ordinary working Australians by highlighting the inadequacy of the current regulation of trade unions. Discussion on the need to increase unions' transparency, brought about by the Thomson scandal, has given light to this bill and will allow us to stand up for the rights of real workers. Members of the union and the community have called for a strong regulatory regime to be put in place to give them confidence in their registered organisations. The coalition promised and is now delivering a robust regulator with the appropriate powers and resources, together with meaningful sanctions that can be applied when wrongdoing is revealed.

This bill establishes an independent watchdog, the Registered Organisations Commission, to monitor and regulate registered organisations and provide it with enhanced investigation and information-gathering powers. The commissioner, appointed by the minister, will have stronger investigation and information-gathering powers than those currently in place. These new provisions, which will further enhance the ability of the commissioner to provide strong and efficient regulation of unions and employer associations, are based on those available to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The commission will have the power to commence legal proceedings and refer possible criminal offences to the Director of Public Prosecutions or to law enforcement agencies.

This bill guards against efforts to hinder or mislead investigations and ensures that a person convicted of particular offences will not be eligible to be an officer of an organisation or to stand for election to office. Education, assistance and advice will all be provided to registered organisations and their members in relation to the new obligations by the commission to ensure that members are aware of their rights. The commission will be accountable to the people. The commissioner will be required to report to the Minister for Employment annually on its activities, and that report will be tabled in parliament. The commissioner will appear at Senate estimates, and, to ensure the appropriate level of transparency and public accountability, the activities of the commission will also be subject to the same oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman as Commonwealth agencies.

It has been made clear that the minister will have no powers to give directions as to a particular matter or investigation. The minister, however, is able to give directions of a general nature to the commissioner and these directions must be in writing and are disallowable instruments. Several administrative tasks relating to registered organisations will continue to be the responsibility of the general manager of the Fair Work Commission. For this reason the bill provides for the Fair Work Commission and the Registered Organisations committee to engage in information sharing in order for both organisations to perform their jobs effectively and efficiently. To further this culture of cooperation between the two organisations, arrangements have been included in the bill to ensure that any ongoing matters being dealt with by the Fair Work Commission relating to registered organisations can be dealt with by the Registered Organisations Commission. Many registered organisations control assets with millions of dollars, and this means they are effectively dealing with a cash flow and investments similar to those of a large business.

Australians have every right to expect a high standard of financial reporting from our registered organisations, given the trust members place in their unions and employer associations to operate honestly. Funds derived from members should be used to represent the interests of the members, rather than for any other inappropriate purposes. Quite clearly, it is inconsistent with community expectations for registered organisations, with substantial economic, legal and political influence, to operate to lower standards than those that apply to corporations or other comparable bodies. Measures are included in this bill to prevent individuals from improperly benefiting from their role in the organisations. Directors will be required to disclose remuneration paid to their top five officers in the head office and any branches, and officers will be required to disclose their material, personal interests to all members. While directors are required by the Corporations Law to only disclose conflicts of interests to their fellow directors, the coalition government believes that officers of registered organisations should be required to disclose such matters to members, as they are elected by members to represent their interests. Members deserve to know who is in control of their money and where conflicts may arise. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by Mr Thomson and Mr Williamson, existing regulations do not sufficiently protect members' interests. In the face of behaviour by individuals who seek to take advantage of their positions, where standards of accountability and the risk of getting caught are low, a strong message must be sent to rebuild the confidence of members and the community.

This government knows that enhanced reporting and disclosure requirements and a strong and efficient regulator will have little impact if the penalties for wrongdoing are not high enough to act as a deterrent. The government is introducing significantly higher civil penalties, and a range of criminal penalties, for those registered organisations and officials doing the wrong thing. This bill brings penalties for registered organisations and officers into line with the same consequences faced by companies and directors for wrongdoing. Where an officer does not comply with the commissioner's new investigation powers, criminal sanctions will also apply. These sanctions align with the penalties that apply to noncompliance with an ASIC investigation and will ensure that officers of a registered organisation take their obligations seriously. These new laws target only those who are doing the wrong thing. Some registered organisations have expressed concern that the new penalties will mean that they will have difficulty persuading people to take on official responsibilities. The coalition does not agree. These laws and the formation of the commission will comfort the majority of officers, who are already doing the right thing. The coalition government has the firm opinion that there should be no difference between the penalties levied against a company director who misuses shareholders' funds and a registered organisation's boss who misuses their members' money.

Based on the correspondence I have received from constituents in my electorate of Ryan, I recognise the broad community consensus for the amendments proposed in this bill. Mr Paul Howes of the Australian Workers' Union added his support for the amendments, in November 2012, when he told the ABC that he believes there is a higher responsibility for union officials, as guardians of workers' money, to protect that money and to act diligently and honestly. He then added that he did not have any issue with increasing the level of requirements and penalties on trade unions for breaching basic ethics like misappropriation of funds.

The government intends to see the Registered Organisations Commission begin operation from early 2014, with new disclosure and reporting obligations, higher civil penalties and new criminal sanctions coming into effect from 1 July 2014. There is no time to lose in implementing these important safeguards for the operation of registered organisations and their members. Anyone in this place who wishes to act in the best interest of the members of registered organisations and their finances will support this bill. It cannot be made clear enough: the only people who should fear these amendments are those who are engaging in misconduct. Anyone choosing not to support this bill—for greater accountability—is choosing to sanction the despicable behaviour we have seen from Mr Michael Williamson and Mr Craig Thomson. The current scheme is simply inadequate to deal with or discourage that kind of behaviour. Any suggestion otherwise is a delusion.

I have received countless inquiries from my constituents asking how it can be that unions are not made accountable in the same way as corporations. This bill responds to the legitimate concerns of members of registered organisations and the community as a result of the shocking behaviour of certain Health Services Union officials. Suitably high standards will be in place to ensure that registered organisations act in accordance with the interest of their members. The coalition is acting in the interest of members of registered organisations and the community. I call on the House to support this bill.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in opposition to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013. This bill, once again, demonstrates that the government's rhetorical commitment to deregulation is just that—rhetorical only—wherever it conflicts with their ideological aversion to unionism. This is fundamentally unnecessary legislation. Regulation of registered organisations has, as the member for Gorton has just informed the House, never been stronger. We have heard much sensationalism in this debate from members opposite, with very little grounding in the substance of the bill which is before us.

It was last year that this parliament considered the substantive issues the subject of this bill and enacted into law the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2012. That act, I will go on to say, does all the work required to achieve the stated purposes of this bill—or rather, it will do so; I note that several provisions are not yet operative. So it is proposed that we discard one regime before it has had a chance to do its work. In respect of those provisions that are now operative, I do note, as the member for Gorton has as well, that some registered organisations are still working to achieve full compliance.

That we are having this unnecessary debate speaks volumes both as to the depth of the antipathy on the part of members opposite to trade unionism and as to the poverty of this government's vision for Australia. All we get is reaction and deja vu all over again. The government is proceeding with this bill in undue haste to remedy a problem that it has been unable to properly articulate. Where is the evidence that these present arrangements have not worked? What specific aspect can the government point to that is not working? If there is something specific that is not working as best it can, then why not take the time to work with the existing system to ameliorate any perceived problems? Why not take the cooperative path to the sensible centre the Prime Minister has been talking about as his goal for industrial relations regulation? The government simply has not made the case. Indeed, the government has helped make the case against its own bill by conceding, quite properly, that most registered organisations do the right thing and 'in many cases maintain higher standards than those currently required'.

That registered organisations are fundamentally different from for-profit corporations seems lost on those opposite. Unions in particular are different in structure, ethos and purpose than for-profit companies. And the very nature of union members' rights and interests, which have been talked a little about by members opposite, is clearly distinct from the economic interests of shareholders. It is axiomatic but often lost on members opposite that regulation must be fit for purpose.

Whilst all organisations afforded legal privileges by the state require regulation and checks and balances, each exists for different purposes and is run and structured differently to match such purposes. The minister stated:

Many registered organisations control assets worth millions of dollars—they are effectively dealing with the cash flow and investments similar to those of large businesses.

This is a misleading and deceptive representation. Usually, the biggest asset that a trade union has is its premises, so to compare this to the investment of large business is, at best, disingenuous.

I also note that the proposed increased penalties are vastly disproportionate to the assets of most registered organisations, certainly in comparison to the multibillion-dollar businesses who are currently subject to ASIC's scrutiny. And do not just take my word for this. The concerns of a prominent employer organisation that is, at least presently, a registered organisation, the Australian Industry Group, are worth noting on this point: 'It is unfair to subject non-profit organisations to the same disclosure rules applying to listed company executives.' Much less, of course, more onerous obligations.

The Australian Industry Group has gone on to most effectively draw out what I hope is an unintended consequence of this bill as it is drafted—the potential for the bill to drive a democratic deficit in organisations representing the concerns of workers and employers. And so it is unhelpful for the minister to assert that 'the only people who have anything to fear by these amendments are those who are doing the wrong thing'. Such a statement is, of course, on its face, absurd—particularly from a supposed keen advocate of small government.

But it is also just plain wrong. It creates a real disincentive against office-holding and a powerful incentive for those registered organisations that can—that is, employer organisations—cease their registration. Surely, a relevant consideration here should be to encourage democratic participation in the governance of registered organisations, if we are sincere in our concern for their members. But instead we see a commitment—indeed, an 'unfair' commitment, in the words of those radicals at the AiG—to push members away from involvement in governance.

As the member for Gorton set out, the current regulatory regime for registered organisations already provides for obligations and duties very similar to those applying to corporate directors. In government, Labor legislated to improve financial disclosure and transparency rules for registered organisations and provided targeted training in financial management, which is currently improving the operation and accountability of registered organisations.

Labor legislated to require the rules of registered organisations to provide for the disclosure of remuneration, including board fees, of the five highest paid officials of organisation as well as the two highest paid in each branch, to the members of the organisation. This disclosure must be made at least every 12 months—for example, to align with the usual reporting periods for annual reports and the filing of financial returns.

Labor increased penalties, recognising the seriousness of complying with workplace laws, but importantly kept these penalties proportional to the distinct nature of registered organisations. Whilst Labor recognised there were areas for improvement, the changes made maintained the responsiveness to the unique character of registered organisations in the Australian system of industrial relations. It was fit-for-purpose regulation, made in response to circumstances and enacted following appropriate consultation with stakeholders across the whole spectrum—employers, employees, registered organisations and unregistered organisations. This was a stark contrast to this bill which is before the House.

I draw the attention of members to the consultative approach of the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, who consulted with the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council in its entirety, the peak representatives of this nation's employer and employee organisations. I take this opportunity to remind the House of the words of the then minister, who stated:

Fair Work Australia is an agency independent of the executive. It must retain its independence, particularly in the face of partisan politicking. These amendments are proposed by the government for the sole purpose of improving the operation of Fair Work Australia's investigative function. They are supported by the government and the members of the NWRCC.

The current laws governing registered organisations have the support of both employer and employee groups.

In contrast, this bill does not have the full support of the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council. Some members of the council have already suggested that this bill be delayed, which is understandable as this government tries to ram it through parliament. The opposition's position is simply that this matter needs to be referred to the Senate references committee, where it can receive more and appropriate scrutiny. The ACTU and employer groups—including the Ai Group, the ACCI, Master Builders and the Pharmacy Guild, to name but a few—have raised concerns about the legislation in its present form and all would like to see it delayed or substantially amended.

But this legislation is not concerned with giving due consideration to the views of stakeholders or the Australian community at large. It is not concerned with putting in place an effective governance regime for registered organisations, which play such a fundamental role in Australia's industrial relations system. It is quite simply an attack on trade unionism masked with a feigned concern for the interests of union members. The matters that are the subject of this bill are, however, very important. They deserve due consideration and proper examination. So I oppose this bill and support the amendment moved by the member for Gorton.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013. This is a good day. In the 43rd Parliament I brought before the House a private member's motion circulated in my name to achieve this very thing. Unfortunately, I was unsuccessful in getting the then Labor government's support for the bill. So this is a good day.

I want to pick up on a couple of points made by the opening speaker. He indicated that this bill is a political witch-hunt designed to kill off unions. It is not. The sincerity of this bill goes to the very heart of trying to improve union governance. No-one in this nation would be able to put their hand on their heart and say without any doubt whatsoever that every union is 100 per cent squeaky clean. There is too much bad press surrounding unions. You only need to look at the membership of unions over the last 25 years or 30 years. It has been a downward trajectory. Are people refusing to join unions because they believe they are corrupt? No. I am not suggesting that. Are they choosing not to join unions because it is no longer mandatory? Possibly. Mostly I believe they are choosing not to because they do not perceive that they get a benefit from being part of that association. If people are members of unions, I am interested to know how many of those union memberships are voluntary and how many are compulsory.

This bill does not intend to be a witch-hunt to kill off unions. I took comfort from the fact that the opposition indicated that they have no tolerance for bad behaviour—but, unfortunately, it is present. The bad behaviour of some unions is intolerable. I join with the opposition in suggesting that it needs to be tidied up. This bill goes towards doing that. The restructure of the Fair Work registered organisations in this bill seeks to predominantly shift us away from having one rule for the union mates and another rule for the business sector. The opposition spoke about the recent number of changes being as high as they have ever been. That is a correct statement. The regulations that were rushed through last year are as high as they have ever been but still fall way short of the penalties we inflict on the corporate sector and business sector. No-one yet in this debate has been able to argue the reasons for having two grades of penalty. The same crime should do the same time. No-one from the Labor ranks or from the union ranks has been able to come to this place and demonstrate why there should be inequity between the treatment of a union boss who commits a crime and a member of a business who commits the same crime.

Those opposite spoke about not having long to work on this bill; they say it has been rammed through. I will give you a little bit of history: the complaints they make go back beyond the Corporations Act. They should have raised those complaints in 2012, before they rushed the bill through parliament. Labor says this bill is expedited; their bill, introduced by Bill Shorten, was referred to a Senate committee for just five days. When that bill came before the parliament last time the Senate had only five days with it. The Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which reported last night, made a number of recommendations to tidy up this bill. It is Shorten's rush job that has led to the problem that MPs in this place are complaining about. It is a bit rich to be saying that we have rushed this through.

Many of the amendments in this bill were drafted in response to the recent Health Services Union scandal, which involved nearly $1 million of members' funds—that is an awful amount of money—by its former president and a former member of this House. Members of the HSU were left asking how that gross breach of trust could have happened; members of other unions were asking whether or not it could happen to their organisation. The coalition believes that this bill will provide certainty of high standards, first-class governance, a robust compliance regime and increased accountability. Increased accountability is not a new benchmark; it is the same accountability that we ask the corporate sector to abide by.

The bill also seeks to improve the oversight of registered organisations. The bill aims to establish a dedicated independent watchdog, known as the Registered Organisations Commission. The commission will monitor and regulate registered organisations and will have enhanced investigation and information-gathering powers from those that currently apply. The commission will have similar investigation and information-gathering powers to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, which is a good thing. The commission will have the power to commence legal proceedings and refer possible criminal offences to the Director of Public Prosecutions and law enforcement agencies. This comes in response to the HSU debacle, with Fair Work Australia investigations into the HSU and legal proceedings taking far too long. They are still going. In addition, appropriate sanctions against efforts to hinder or mislead investigations are included in this bill to ensure that action on any complaint made about a registered organisation must comply with the requirements of the investigation.

Most importantly, the bill introduces financial and operational reporting disclosure requirements. Many organisations control financial assets worth millions of dollars and hold significant assets. They are effectively dealing with cash flows and investments similar to those of large businesses. The proposed financial and operational reporting requirements are aligned with those outlined in the Corporations Law to strengthen existing financial reporting disclosure and transparency obligations. It is entirely appropriate to expect a high standard of financial reporting from registered organisations, given the trust that members place in their unions and associated employees that funds diverted from membership fees will be used to represent members' interests rather than for alternative motives. It is clearly inconsistent with the community's expectations for such organisations to be able to operate at a lower standard than those that apply to corporations and other comparable bodies.

Under the proposed reporting and disclosure changes, registered organisations will need to disclose remuneration paid to their top five officers. That is a good thing. Officers will be required to disclose to all members their material and personal interests as well as any conflicts of interest. This measure is being put forward to prevent individuals from benefiting from their role in the organisation. Members deserve to know who is in control of their money and whether conflicts exist.

All of the proposed changes I have mentioned will have little or no effect if the penalties for wrongdoing are not high enough. I believe that, at the moment, they are not high enough. That is why we are looking to bring in some type of centralised penalty regime. Currently, registered organisations and their officers do not face the same consequences for wrongdoing as company directors do. For this reason, we propose significantly higher civil penalties and a range of criminal penalties for those registered organisations and officials who do the wrong thing. These penalties are in line with those facing companies and directors. Under the act, civil penalties apply to officers and employees of registered organisations who fail to exercise their powers or discharge their duties in good faith and for a proper purpose. Some organisations have expressed the opinion that these penalties are much too harsh and will deter employees from taking up official responsibilities. We disagree that it will be a disadvantage. The only people who will have anything to fear from taking up office will be those who break the law. There is no argument that the penalties will deter employees from taking up office. A rigorous structure and process will be in place for investigations and prosecutions of alleged wrongdoing. Officers who are operating within the law, which is the overwhelming majority of them, will have no reason to fear taking up official office. The overwhelming number of officers who are already doing the right thing should be comforted in knowing that unlawful behaviour will be dealt with, thus ensuring members' ongoing confidence in registered organisations. The coalition government believes that there should be no difference between the penalties levied against a company director who misuses shareholders funds and a registered organisation boss who misuses membership funds.

We heard from some speakers earlier that support from all this bill has come from a wide and varied range of sources. In 2012, prominent union boss Paul Howes, of the AWU, said:

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 ... The reality is I do not have any issue with increasing the level of requirements and penalties …

That was said around the time the HSU scandal was at its height. He was trying to bring some credibility to the union movement by saying that he did not have a problem with what the coalition was trying to bring about.

Kathy Jackson also made some comments around the same time, which were published in an article in the Australian Financial Review. She said:

Reform brought in by a Coalition government and resisted by many unionists actually served for the better governance of unions.

As I start to wind up, I go back to my opening comments, which are of the same ilk as Kathy Jackson’s comments. This legislation seeks to return confidence and credibility to the union movement. It is not a political witch­hunt designed to kill off unions—it is not. It is about trying to raise the bar and to return credibility to the union movement. For too long the union movement has been susceptible to criticism because the bar has been set too low.

I understand why members on the other side need to come to this place and defend the position that there must not be transparency, because a lot of their political career relies on an association with the union. To see this, one only needs to look at when I put up my private member’s motion and who spoke against it. There was the member for Throsby. Let us have a look at his dossier: National Secretary, Community and Public Sector Union. The member for Chifley spoke against it. He was the National President and Divisional Secretary, Communications Division, Communications, Electrical and Plumbing Union. Every single person who spoke against the introduction of my private member’s motion had some relationship to a union—every single one of them. So they come in here to do the union’s bidding. I suggest that through this process we will see more members come into this place who are reliant on the unions in some way or the other—but if only they could see the good that we are trying to achieve through this bill! The good of this bill is about trying to return transparency, honesty and integrity, because there is a place on the Australian landscape for the union movement.

Long should the union movement prosper here in Australia, but it should do it within the same confines as those we ask of our business sector. There should not be one rule for them and a different one for others. If someone conducts a crime or misappropriates millions of dollars of funds, the penalty for someone doing it in the corporate sector must be the same as someone in the union. Unions will flourish and prosper—that might a bridge too far for the introduction of this bill!—but it is a good bill. It does speak to the return of credibility to the union movement. I support this bill.

Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, let me congratulate the member for Wright for having the strength of character to bring his private member’s bill forward in the last parliament. I was a little reluctant to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 because I did not want to bring my ideology into it. I am a strong supporter of the unions, and being such a strong supporter of the unions I see this bill as probably being the strongest tool that any union boss or rep could possibly have when going to a workplace. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me put it to you this way: you turn up to a workplace and say to a worker such as a nurse, a construction worker or a policeman, 'Listen, from now on, I would like to take $20, $30, $40, $50 out of your pay.' They say, 'Well, I'm not so sure that's a great idea. What about that Thomson affair? What about what happened with the HSU?' And you say, 'Let me just put it straight to you: anybody that plays around with your money is going to get whacked with a massive stick. They're going to be thrown in jail. They're going to be investigated and they're going to be investigated quickly.' And he or she says: 'Oh, that sounds a bit better. That's not the way it used to be.'

So you can give them confidence. You can give the workers of Australia confidence that when they take money out of their back pocket and put it into a union they can be assured it is not going to be misappropriated, misused, given to someone who does not deserve it or, worse still, knocked off. Surely, all of those who sit opposite who acquaint themselves with union delegates are pushing this argument on them every day, saying: 'Let's embrace this piece of legislation. Let's take it and build the union numbers.'

In this debate so far we have had a lot of talk about unions, so I took the opportunity to go back to Fair Work Australia and look at their registered organisations, because they are not just union organisations—far from it. We have the Australian Aircrew Officers Association, the Agribusiness Employers Federation, the Australian Education Union. That is just the 'A's for you. There is the Building Services Contractors Association, the Confederation of ACT Industry, Clubs Australia—the list goes on. It gives you a bit of a feel that there are unions but there are also employer associations.

As I have been listening to the debate, I have noted some of the issues that have been raised so far. Some people would say I need to be certified to listen to some of the debates in here, but we come to this place to try and share ideas. I was hoping that the member for Melbourne would be speaking before me, as he was scheduled, because I listened to his contribution yesterday on another workplace relations bill, where he talked about human rights. I was hoping that he would repeat his statements today so that I could rebut him. You see, it is all well and good to talk about human rights and about making sure that the rule of law is being applied equally, but it seems that it only applies to one side of the ledger in the Greens' lexicon. My view is that we need to be evenly balanced and to give people confidence, because confidence is the imperative that we all need before we invest in anything or anyone. It is people that we are talking about here.

The member for Wright talked about being above reproach. When I go back to 1996 and the standards that applied then in this place to the disclosure of your pecuniary interests, I can see that they have now changed markedly, because that has been the expectation of the public. By increasing the disclosure laws in this bill means that we are meeting the expectation of the public.

Now, because I was not in this place for the last six years—and because of that I spent more time with the public—I can tell you about the dismay that was there with this ongoing saga of the HSU. Let us be frank, there were comments made to me almost daily, such as: 'Surely, there's political interference here. Maybe that's what this is all about. Maybe they're stalling with all of this and using Fair Work Australia as a political pawn.' These were comments coming back from our fellow Australians who had lost confidence in Fair Work Australia and even in this parliament and the people who are involved with it.

This bill goes some way towards addressing those concerns that so many people had. I would challenge those opposite to tell me they did not hear the same thing, not only from non-union members but also from their own union bases and their membership. People were dismayed and they felt let down. They thought it was dirty, and they were right. It does not have to be that way. This bill is about, as the member for Wright said, lifting the high-jump bar. It is about putting in standards. When you set low standards and then fail to achieve them, you see what happens. Today, we have the consequences of that being played out in the courts.

As I said, this is not about unions; this is about all registered organisations. I took the opportunity today to ring one of the newest and smallest registered organisations to see whether they would have an issue with this. I did that because we are now hearing all the time that—and I will use these words—this will be 'a disincentive' to being involved, that this is an attack on trade unions, that this should go to more consultation, that this is an overreach and that people will not be involved. Let me tell this place that the private teachers' professional association in Queensland—which is a union by any other name and one of the smallest ones; it is just getting started—says, 'We fully embrace this.' It gives them another tool.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Incredible.

Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Wright says, it is incredible. These are teachers who need to be part of the union to have protection in case of litigation—in the same way that nurses and police often join unions for that one purpose. But I tell you what, it makes them awfully angry when they see what has occurred over the last two years, and they must wonder what is happening to their money. We just had the Sunshine Coast University Private Hospital open. I will be delighted to be able to go back to them and the Sunshine Coast Public University Hospital, when it opens in 2016, and to say to them, 'You will be able to have confidence as health workers, because the legislation is in the parliament.' Mind you, there is only one thing standing in the way of giving them certainty and confidence. It is the Labor Party.

Why does the Labor Party come in here and say, 'We don't want to lift the high-jump bar, we do not want to improve and increase standards, and we do not want to occupy the realm the public expects of us.' What is it that those opposite are afraid of? What is it that they are protecting? It is simply not good enough to say that this is going to be too burdensome.

Let us just have a quick look at the bill at a glance. This bill provides for a registered organisations commissioner. It also provides for the organisation itself—I will get there in a moment. It requires increased disclosure. So think about this for a moment: what does that actually mean? You may be an employee of a registered organisation. Let us go through a few of those organisations again: the Australian and International Pilots Association, the Australian Meat Industry Council and the AMWU. There is a bit of variation for you. Take yourselves out of the parliament for a moment and put yourselves in the meatworks as a paid union employee. Isn't it reasonable that a worker can turn up to you—you have been paid through the worker's contributions, union fees or affiliation fees—and get to know whether there is some sort of a conflict between what you are doing in your paid job and the associations you have outside, or that the association that you are part of is giving money to a third entity, which is again a conflict? Is that not a reasonable thing for people to be able to do? I would say to you that if you are going to stand in this place and argue that it is not, then you are out of sync with community expectations today.

This is about a separate body. This bill provides for a supervised registered organisation to be a separate body. It explicitly did not consider registered organisations in the 2012 act under the previous parliament. You have got to ask yourself why. The final report of that review mentioned that it would be appropriate, however, to consider changes to the law to make clear separation between Fair Work Australia's functions as a tribunal and as an administrator overseeing registered organisations.

That is exactly what we are doing here. We are providing for additional penalties, an independent body, an independent commissioner and stronger disclosure laws. All of those should be tools that the union representatives and the associations of employers go out to their members and use as benefits and reasons you can have confidence to invest in them. Yet every speaker on the other side will get up here and say that this should not occur.

Let us go into the increased disclosure in a little bit more detail. First of all, the top executives' remuneration will have to be disclosed, as has recently been disclosed by the ABC. I do not think that did anybody any harm. I think the public were probably quite delighted to learn what some of the ABC personnel are earning. Maybe some of the union representatives, and the rank and file, will be interested to know what their representatives are earning. Surely there cannot be anything wrong with that.

So, the remuneration of an officer of an organisation has to be disclosed. Those nominated for a position on a board, branch or peak council must in addition also disclosure remuneration paid to them by related parties. There is an important one: the remuneration paid to them 'by related parties' will be disclosed. It is a bit like the NRL, really. You have players and you have salary caps. They get their wages from the club, but there is a bit of a backhand deal to try and sweeten the deal.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mum might be employed as a cleaner and pick up $100,000.

Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There you go! Mum might be one of the highest paid cleaners and get $100,000. Do we really want that? Do we want to lose the trust of workers? The union movement has been in freefall and maybe it is because of the attitude of those sitting opposite. Today, they could have come into this place and said, 'Look, we are going to disagree on some of the finer points—we think you have properly gone too far—but we recognise that the public's trust in many of our public institutions, and in particular our registered organisations, has come to such a low that we need to raise the bar.' It is not that challenging, really. But they do not seem to be too perturbed about it.

The last issue that I wish to raise here is about coercive investigative powers, and we raised this yesterday in the debate on the building and construction industry bills. The reality is that you want people who know about dishonest behaviour, fraudulent behaviour or behaviour against the interests of workers to feel that they have the confidence to be able to deliver and to know that they can be required to deliver that data, material or evidence. In doing so, they are actually protecting the workers' interests, and we are supporting them in doing that. The policy commitment was reaffirmed by the Minister for Education, Christopher Pyne, when he said:

The commission will have stronger investigation and information-gathering powers than those that currently apply. These will be modelled on those available to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission …

That is totally appropriate. We are setting the standards. We are pitching them against an already existing body. It is about money; but, above all, it is about trust in people.

I say to those opposite: it is time to get on board. It is time to listen to your constituents, not your union mates. Yes, there is a cost to this. We acknowledge that. But it is a cost worth bearing to ensure that people can have faith in our institutions and, most importantly, that we can have faith in the people who front up to us and ask us for our hard-earned money to be part of their association.

I commend the bill not only to the House but to the Labor Party—to have a rethink. This is an opportunity lost to you. Take up that opportunity. Grab it with both hands. Perhaps the member for Moreton, who is to speak next, will have had a change of heart after this contribution and will stand before us today and say, 'I'm a changed man and I'm going back up to the southern suburbs of Brisbane and I'm going to say, "I never realised, but the member for Fisher put me straight'.'

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hell will freeze over!

Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And, when he has done that, I am sure that he will be a better man for it and the parliament will be better for it. I now look forward to the contribution from the member for Moreton!

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

I wouldn't hold your breath on that! The question before the House is that the amendment be agreed to.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That sort of introduction does put a bit of pressure on me! It is a great opportunity to speak on this legislation, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 and, particularly, to follow two Queensland speakers. I also acknowledge the contribution of the member for Wright, who is in the chamber, in the 43rd Parliament to this debate; I know that he feels strongly about it. I feel equally strongly. I spoke against his private member's motion then and I have not changed my views—sorry to disappoint the member for Fisher! I do so again by giving first some broad information and then some empirical data.

First off, I have always seen the Labor Party, this side of the chamber, as being the political arm of the trade union movement. That is my position. In fact, just for the member for Wright's edification, if you stand for election in the Labor Party, it is actually a requirement that you be a member of your relevant union, or organisation if you are a business person. That is why it is no surprise to look through our CVs and see that we are members of unions and that many of us have worked for unions. It is actually a requirement.

I am a member of three unions. I used to work for the Independent Education Union, the union that looks after Catholic schools—Trinity Grammar and all sorts of private schools; little Christian schools; schools in my electorate like the Murri School, which focuses on Indigenous education; or Southside Education Centre, which has a creche because they mainly educate young girls who have babies, which certainly makes for an interesting year 12 graduation. So the Independent Education Union covers a range of schools, from the wealthiest to the poorest, in the non-government sector. I am also a member of two other unions, United Voice and the AMWU. So I do know a little bit about unions, and I did work for one for about four or five years.

I had a yarn, before I came in to speak today, with my former boss, Terry Burke, the Queensland general secretary of the Independent Education Union because, as the two Queensland members here know, Campbell Newman has brought in not dissimilar legislation in Queensland already. So I wanted to hear about the union's lived experience of such legislation—and they talk to employer groups, who have similar requirements—to find out just what this will mean.

I will tell you what it does mean. It means greater costs to individual union members and organisation members for a start. In fact, I can tell you how much it cost my union, the Independent Education Union: it meant a two per cent increase in fees to meet the compliance costs. I know, if you look at the Bills Digest or this legislation itself, there is a complete minimisation of the regulatory impost—but it will cost money. There will be more forms to fill out. Looking at the Independent Education Union, the people that make up the executive are teachers, cleaners and teacher aides, but primarily teachers, who work in non-government schools. They do not get remunerated for being on the executive. They go to seven meetings a year, and I think they get a cup of tea and a meal at that meeting. But, for that, they and their family members have to fill out a form that details all of their interests, all of their personal interests and related voting and decision-making rights—family members. So let us look at what that would mean under this legislation. If I were an executive member of the Independent Education Union, my eight-year-old son's Dollarmite account would have to go on the register of interests. My four-year-old son's Dollarmite account would have to go on the register of interests. If he opened another one, I would have to trot off and let them know that there had been a change. All the members of the Queensland Independent Education Union's executive have had to fill out these forms—that is part of the onerous legislation before us—and all of those employer groups.

It is interesting to hear the language of those opposite, and both Queensland members who spoke before me were guilty of it. They talked about 'union bosses' and 'business leaders'. Now, I was an English teacher; I know how powerful language is. The fundamental philosophy of those opposite is that there is something wrong with unions. Why don't you give me a big, long list of all the outcomes for workers that have come from that side of the chamber or spontaneously from employers over the last 110 years? I can give you a list now, if you want. It will look like a blank sheet of paper. It will be a blank sheet of paper, because the reality is—

Mal Brough (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, I seek to intervene and ask a question.

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

Is the member for Moreton—

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would rather keep going. This is a speech to be sent out to my people, not your people. No voters in Fisher that I need to worry about!

The reality is that this is unpacking the remuneration paid to officers and the material and personal interests of officers and their relatives. You can put up arguments for some of them but let us be realistic about this: most unions are completely different from BHP and other corporations. I know there are millions of corporations in Australia and that they are not all BHP, Xstrata or something similar; there are much smaller organisations. But those large corporations have a completely different focus. They say, 'We will take your money and we will comply with ASIC obligations, with Corporations Law.' It is completely different if you are listed on the stock exchange. The example I gave, the Independent Education Union, is a largish union but still the majority of the officials are effectively volunteers—they do not get paid; they do get a cup of tea and lunch at seven meetings throughout the year. For those officers to be potentially facing a $330,000 fine or—heaven forbid!—five years prison for not reading their documents as carefully as they should, is taking a sledgehammer to break a walnut. It is a completely wrong approach.

There is a unity ticket on both sides of the chamber in terms of stamping out any corruption in corporations, in registered organisations, whatever. But look at the submissions from the employer groups on this. They have indicated concern about the financial implications. And I believe that this will have ramifications for the quality of people who put their names forward for these employer or employee organisations. For a start, if you are an employer organisation and you are a stockbroker, every time you change your material interests—and that is not uncommon for stockbrokers who are in employer organisations—it will be like me going to the clerks every time I change my register of interests. You would need a procession of runners to let people know what you are doing. It is not realistic for employer organisations or employee organisations.

Let's be fair dinkum about this. For my union it meant a two per cent increase in compliance costs and now the federal government is going to put more red tape onto unions and other employer groups. I have no problem with oversight if it is going to achieve a purpose, but why should the good people of Australia know about the wife of a schoolteacher or the husband of a schoolteacher, what property they own, what shares they own or, heaven forbid, what their kids own? This is not a Coles or Woollies shareholder meeting; we are talking about small organisations which do good things. Unions have a history of looking after their members' interests. They are voluntary organisations. I know the member for Wright suggested otherwise, but that is not the case.

Union membership has been going down since the 1970s, when it peaked at nearly 60 per cent. We are now not of that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven. That which we are, we are—that is the reality of modern Australia. There are many reasons people do not join unions but I can tell you this: for all the language used by officers talking about union bosses as if they are somehow doing something nefarious, the reality is unions turn up every day and save lives. Talk to someone in the construction industry, which is where the roots and the motivation for this legislation lie.

Why create an extra oversight body when you can look at the empirical data flowing out of the last six years? Labor was in power. We changed the Work Choices legislation. What happened? Did disputes increase? There was no mention, by the member for Sturt, of the fact that dispute days went down. What about productivity? Did productivity go down in the last six years in the building industry? Surely, with Labor in control, and bringing in this legislation, productivity went down. No, it increased. I am loath to make this connection but let us look at fatalities, the most horrible piece of empirical data in workplace relations. Did fatalities increase or decrease? They decreased under our legislation. So why bring in extra red tape and extra costs? It can only be because of a political agenda. This is 'union busting 101'—create red tape for unions. I do recognise that it also creates red tape for employer organisations, but they are a little bit more muzzled in terms of speaking up. Those opposite think the National Farmers Federation is like a union; it is not. There are a range of unions out there and a range of employer organisations.

We are passionate about the role of unions. I unashamedly support the role of unions in our society. They do good things. They are leaders in so many ways. They were involved in the environmental campaigns of the 1970s, which were a precursor to the green movement. They led the Labor Party into having a much stronger policy on the environment. This piece of legislation, with increased disclosure requirements, will be cloaked over and over in the HSU scandal. Let us be realistic about the HSU scandal. The prosecutions taking place now are taking place under current law. There are always provisions, both in the criminal code and in industrial legislation, when there is wrongdoing.

If you steal from members, if you steal from the lowest paid workers in Australia when they pay you your union money, you are the lowest of the low. It is bad when you steal from a multinational corporation, but when you steal from the lowest paid Australians who, on a voluntary basis, pay union fees, I think that is absolutely disgusting and that the full force of the law should come down on you.

But why is the Liberal Party—the party of small 'l' liberals, supposedly—now suggesting that we should have more red tape for organisations, more forms to be filled out? Reading these forms will not be like reading the member for Fairfax's disclosure statements. They will be boring. Members of these unions lead pretty simple, uncomplicated lives. They are simply people who are prepared to volunteer to help other people. The HSU example is an anomaly and, as I said at the start, the people involved should be stomped on, as should anyone who is stealing from union members.

This bill is rushed, unclear and onerous for the registered organisations. The main thing I emphasise is the lack of consultation. I understand that those opposite are not interested in talking to unions, but they should look at the submissions of the employer groups. That is the most telling comment of all on the legislation—that the employer groups are saying that they are unhappy with the penalties, that there needs to be more consultation and that the wording needs to be changed. When they are saying that and when they are worried about the quality of officers who will come forward in the future—because the level of disclosure required of office holders is too onerous—then you know that this legislation is wrong. It is part of a union-busting witch-hunt and should be reconsidered. Given the existing legislation and the existing criminal codes, it is hard to see any good reason why anyone would want to go down this road and bring in extra burdens—unless it is part of a political agenda.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013. When people join registered organisations and pay their fees, there should be accountability. There should be openness and clarity about the purpose of the fees—what they will be used for—and accountability for where the money goes. That is why I absolutely support this bill. Things need to change. There is quite a deal of history behind this legislation, with many examples of why it is needed. I will go into some of those examples.

I will start by agreeing with the member for Moreton about something. He said that the Labor Party is the party of the trade unions. That is absolutely true. On other occasions I have heard people suggest that they are the party of the workers, but now we hear very clearly from the member for Moreton that they are the party of the trade unions. I will go into why that is the case. There is no doubt about it; it is very true.

In 2012, a former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Mark Latham, wrote:

Unions have become more like 'virtual' bodies, poor in membership numbers but rich in resources leveraged from super financing, training funds and contractor extortion.

Very clearly Mark Latham, a former Leader of the Labor Party, knew that these registered organisations, in so many cases, are not nickel-and-dime outfits. There is a lot of money involved with them. This is the point—there is money, there are resources and there is influence. That is what influences those on the other side and that is what it has always been about. I will go into more detail about that.

I support this bill because it involves higher penalties for breaches of current civil penalty provisions and even criminal penalties in some cases—and that is right. It involves stricter reporting and disclosure obligations to align with the Corporations Act of 2001. It also involves the establishment of a Registered Organisations Commission with a Registered Organisations Commissioner. That commissioner and that commission will have independent investigative and enforcement capacity. There needs to be a cop on the beat. There needs to be someone looking over shoulders in order to look after the interests and the contributions of members of registered organisations, including trade unions.

I can understand why there is widespread opposition to this bill, to the accountability the government wants to put in place. Those over on that side have received calls. There is no doubt about it. They have been told what they should be doing and to oppose this bill. As we know, and as Mark Latham said, the unions are highly influential. As was said by the member for Moreton: if you are going to be a Labor member of parliament, you need to be a member of one of the unions—or, in his case, of three. If you want to stand for preselection for the Labor Party, you need to have friends. You need to get the cooperation of union bosses, union leaders, union secretaries—whatever you choose to call them, you need to have their cooperation. That does not of course come free, because there is no shortage of people on that side lining up for safe seats.

Once a person has received preselection, particularly for a safe Labor seat, they can expect the favours to be called in—that the friends who put them in that position will call on them to do certain things. It might be to vote against a bill like this. Once you are preselected, you also need some financial capacity, some financial backing. So if the union does not want to help with your election bid, obviously the preselection has only gone so far. In either case we know preselection is heavily determined by the union movement. Obviously favours will result from that, and the financial capital to run an election campaign will involve the calling in of favours in the future. There is no doubt that the Labor Party is the party of the trade unions, and that is where the influence is.

We also know that the Greens will oppose this legislation. It was widely reported that in the last election campaign, and I think in the campaign before that, the member for Melbourne was heavily supported by the unions. Again, we know where his bread is buttered and there is no doubt that he also will be against this bill. All the Greens in the Senate will also see benefit from opposing the legislation and doing the bidding of those who are not elected to this place. This bill seeks to impose accountability in the same way that those who serve on directorships of corporations are accountable. It is the same form of accountability, on behalf of the membership, for registered organisations, unions et cetera. All those on the other side, and the Greens, are opposed to that and this is the payback for the support I have mentioned.

The member for Moreton talked about one of the unions he was a part of and how it was a very small operation—as he said, a bit of a nickel-and-dime outfit, with meal money seven evenings a year and things like that. There are two articles about this issue—one from the Age and one from the Sydney Morning Herald. It is a change for someone on our side to be looking at articles from those two great newspapers. There is a reference to an internal election of the Queensland branch of the Transport Workers Union towards the end of 2010. The incumbent to the secretary's position was left-wing union organiser Hughie Williams. He had been the secretary of that union for over 20 years, and in that time he had put together a bit of an empire—assets of some $11 million. That $11 million was obviously used for certain purposes, and under Hughie Williams at that time it was a left-wing union. There was an orchestrated bid to unseat him and replace him with someone who was linked to the right of the Labor Party—the right of the union movement. It has been reported by Fairfax in the last week or so that $500,000 was put together by the federal leadership of the TWU in Sydney with the support of the Health Services Union leader at the time, Michael Williamson—a man with a reputation that has been tested in the courts—and a team of young ALP operatives, apparently including staffers from the offices of Labor senators David Feeney and Stephen Hutchins. So says Fairfax Media, anyway.

The member for Moreton said it was a nickel-and-dime outfit—a meal a month or something like that—and yet the reality is that it was so important that people were prepared to spend $500,000 to change the leadership, and to change the Queensland branch of the TWU from the left over to the right. We know who else is involved with the right of the Labor Party. That is one example of what is taking place in registered organisations. These are big organisations, there are assets, and, in the case of the Queensland branch of the TWU, when that union moves from one faction to another faction it results in votes for preselections, seats in parliament and the other influence peddling that is all part of this.

The article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 30 November talked extensively about Mr Cesar Melhem, who was the union secretary of the AWU. Mr Melhem was apparently one of the directors of a fund called Industry 2020. It has been revealed through this article that Mr Melhem was in fact the only director of Industry 2020 and that basically he had run it over a number of years and his position as the union secretary of the Victorian branch of the AWU had never been challenged. He had accumulated quite an amount of money within this Industry 2020 fund. Now, the article describes Industry 2020 as one of myriad slush funds, training schemes and tricks for diverting union and parliamentary resources—it is quite interesting that part—that generate millions of dollars in 'funny money' currently sloshing around the Australian labour movement.

It certainly seems, according to the Sydney Morning Herald and, before that, the Age, that there is quite a bit of money involved. There is quite a bit of influence, and there are reasons for people to be involved with these sorts of organisations. The reality is that, through all this, no-one is benefiting at the lowest levels. This is all about people at the top. This is all about the influence on the other side. Sometimes it is about how many seats they get over there. Sometimes it is about assets and resources and funds, and some of them can be quite shady. So it is important that we do actually have bills like this which truly address the needs and the interests of the people at the grassroots of these registered organisations. I think it is outrageous that those that seek to oppose and get in the way of this, those who are obviously influenced by those who are the principal pre-selectors, should try to get in the way of what is in the best interests of the normal grassroots members of these sorts of registered organisations.

I think that there is no doubt that you do not need to look back too far, just to 2010, and more recently in the case of Industry 2020. These are big organisations. There is a lot of money involved. There is a lot of influence involved. It is really important that someone acts now in the best interests of the members of these registered organisations. I know it is not those at the top of the organisations that others might be trying to defend, but we have to act in this place on behalf of those at the grassroots, those that can barely afford their fees anyway. We should make sure that those fees go to the right places and for the right causes. So I commend this bill to the House.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I wish to talk about two aspects that have been raised so far in this debate. The first is the outrageous and laughable claim that this government is the friend of hardworking people. This is just simply not true. The second aspect that I wish to raise in relation to this debate is that this bill is poorly conceived, badly motivated and entirely unnecessary because it was dealt with in the last government, the 43rd Parliament.

I may be a new member of this House, but I am already over members of the government claiming to be the friend of hardworking people. Their actions and previous words are simply not demonstrating that they are the friend of working people. When the Prime Minister was the workplace relations minister he displayed on regular occasions casual disregard for workers and their rights and a lack of sympathy towards working Australians. In his own words on the Howard government's IR legacy, the Prime Minister, who was the former minister for workplace relations, said:

WorkChoices was a political mistake, but it may not have been an economic one.

This comes from Tony Abbott's Battlelines, published byMelbourne University Press in 2009. He went further, saying:

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

This is from Hansard of 13 August 2009 for the House of Representatives.

Let me take this opportunity to remind the House that Work Choices and the Howard government IR legacy was not kind to working people. Basic working conditions were eroded, basic conditions were cut, and working people were left worse off. Penalty rates were gone. Employers had the opportunity to impose on new employees individual contracts that saw penalty rates ripped out of them. And let's not forget the changes to unfair dismissal where you could turn up one day, say that your child was sick and that you had to go home and, rather than leniency from your employer, you could be sacked on the spot. You could be sacked without recourse to unfair dismissal. This is the legacy of Work Choices. This is the legacy of the former Howard government. This is not the words or actions of a government that claims to be the friend of working people.

Let me go further to highlight the claims from the government so far in this debate that they are the friend of working people. Let us also remember the Prime Minister's comments on paid maternity leave:

Compulsory paid maternity leave? Over this Government's dead body…

This is from a speech that was made to the Liberal Party conference on 22 July 2002 and quoted in the ABC's 7.30 Report. Just because you say you are somebody's friend does not make it so. Let's also not forget some of the actions of this former government when it comes to low paid workers. We have seen it often repeatedly opposing the claims of unions, members and workers to increase the minimum wage. Commonwealth submissions for the three years when the Prime Minister was in charge of workplace relations would have left low paid workers up to $25 a week worse off compared to the actual outcomes of national wage decisions. Again, this is not friendly behaviour towards working people.

This bill, as I have already said, is poorly conceived, badly motivated and entirely unnecessary. It should be rejected in its entirety. This bill creates a large volume of new regulation without evidence that it is necessary. It also creates a new Commonwealth regulator where one already exists. This claims to be the government that is going to get rid of red tape, yet it is introducing more. This bill creates a large volume of new regulation that will not just be for registered union organisations to deal with but for registered employer organisations to deal with. The government is failing to acknowledge this as the casualty of this bill that is before us.

The opposition believes that this bill will ensure that registered organisations including unions will be regulated like corporations. I have a problem with the rhetoric of regulating unions in the same way as corporations are regulated. Unions and registered organisations are very different to corporations, and each of these is different to charities or clubs. In Australia we have a tradition of regulating each of these different entities differently. But it appears that the government fails to understand the difference, so I will explain it. A corporation regulation is directed towards protecting the economic interests of investors and creditors—and, to that extent, consumers. It serves a different purpose to protecting the interests of union members or members of employer organisations.

Perhaps we need to remind the House what a union is. I will not use the words of the Australian Labor Party or the ACTU or any other labour organisation. The Australian Bureau of Statistics defines a trade union as an organisation made up of employees or workers:

… the principal activities of which include the negotiation of rates of pay and conditions of employment for its members.

Union members are united by their belief in the dignity of workers and their right to fair and just treatment at work. Such actions and beliefs are not the actions and beliefs of corporations. Therefore, it is not appropriate that registered organisations—whether they be unions or employee organisations or employer organisations—be regulated in the same way as corporations. The natural rights and interests that members have in their union and their activities is different to the economic interests of shareholders in companies. Further, the extra regulation in this bill will fall not just on the responsibilities of the full-time, salaried leadership of unions but also on those of the many rank-and-file delegates and elected representatives to governing bodies.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Hindmarsh is rising on an intervention?

Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the member for Bendigo take an intervention?

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sure.

Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am just wondering if the member for Bendigo endorses the actions of Craig Thomson and the other union representatives which this bill is trying to address.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I address that question in the rest of my speech, and I will first go back to where I was in my speech to address the interjection that was just made. The burden of this extra regulation will fall not just on the full-time, salaried union leadership but also on the rank-and-file members who are elected to governing bodies. If criminal activity occurs in any organisation, it should be dealt with by the appropriate body, criminal code and criminal act. Nobody is excusing the behaviour of one or two individuals, but you cannot punish the entire institution of registered organisations for the actions of one or two individuals.

I go back to talking about the rank-and-file people I was discussing before. The government has wrongly claimed that the reforms in this bill will protect members' interests and give greater democracy to union members. However, this bill will actually achieve the opposite. Rank-and-file members will be reluctant to participate in governing bodies if they are exposed to the large fines proposed in this bill. Almost all unions at a branch and national level have large, democratic governing bodies and are not composed of the Craig Thomson types you refer to but of delegates who are rank-and-file members and who are directed to deal with the business of the union.

Who are these rank-and-file members? I will highlight two workers who are part of their union and who are rank-and-file delegates responsible for making sure that our unions are the democratic structures they seek to be. There is the president of United Voice in Victoria, Marie Angrilli, who works for Spotless as a part-time school cleaner. She is not one of the union heavies that the other side would make her out to be; she is the proud president of an organisation and a volunteer, and the wage she draws is not from the union members' resources but from her paid job. She is not, as the government would suggest, one of the high-salaried union heavies who are trying to gobble up all the union's resources for their own purposes. She is not just a person cleaning on the shop floor; she is the president of an organisation, and her job will become harder under the rules in the bill. Another rank-and-file member in a leadership position in a union is the president of the rail operations division of the RTBU, Bob Bassett, who is a full-time conductor on V/Line. Both are hardworking, ordinary people being demonised by the government, which suggests that they are the ones who are sucking up all the resources of union members. These are the sort of people who are in charge of our unions. They are not the sort of people the government would claim they are.

It is not only the trade unions who are opposed to this bill; a number of employer organisations are also opposed not just to the contents of the bill but also to the speed with which it is being forced through. I note the submission of the Australian Industry Group to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. I never thought that I would be on the same side as the Australian Industry Group on a matter of workplace relations debated in this House, but I am. Just as our union delegates come from the rank and file, the Australian Industry Group has 85 volunteer counsellors who are elected from their incorporated members in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland. Like many of our union delegates who are responsible for running their unions, these officers are volunteers: they give up their own time with no payment for their role. This bill seeks to make their job harder. It imposes new regulations on the volunteers who make sure their organisation is run properly. At the AIG, volunteer officers are responsible for determining policies and for ensuring that high standards of financial management and accountability are maintained. Yet the government's bill would introduce new regulation which would make their voluntary job harder. This would mean that they would have to either spend less time in their business or give up their role as a volunteer in a registered organisation.

It is important that legislation governing registered organisations remains balanced and appropriate. I quote from the Australian Industry Group's submission to the to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee inquiry on this bill. It says:

Unlawful conduct within one organisation must not be used as an excuse to impose unfair laws or an excessive compliance burden upon all registered organisations.

With this quote I have addressed the concerns raised by the member for Hindmarsh. I also note that AIG said Australia is a signatory to the ILO's Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948.

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43.