Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise for the third time in an attempt to complete this speech on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, which only goes to show my commitment. I begin where I finished by saying that the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act already provides for statutory civil penalties where a party knowingly or recklessly contravenes 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 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. It already requires officers to disclose when payments are made to related parties. It already requires officers to exercise care and diligence, act with good faith and not improperly use their position for political advantage. It is, therefore, not surprising that we should question the motives of this government and the reasons for the introduction of these proposed reforms.

The government promised to regulate registered organisations in the same way as corporations. However, they have broken that promise. This bill places higher penalties and a more onerous regime on officers of registered organisations than those that are imposed on company directors. There are still recommendations to come from the various inquiries this government has established. Wouldn't it make more sense to wait for those outcomes and recommendations? This bill is pre-emptive and ill-conceived and it is also a broken promise.

Why is this government rushing to impose this onerous regime and penalties that exceed those in the Corporations Act? As always, we need to question the motivation of the government. Is this just a political attack on unions. I will remind members of the impact on workers when Work Choices was introduced in 2006, to help them think about and determine whether this legislation is just an attack on unions. Three workers at a cabinet installation company in the west of Melbourne were sacked on the day Work Choices came into effect and then offered casual positions at a lower rate of pay. Seventy Optus workers received letters from the company directing them to a seminar to teach them how to set themselves up as contractors. As contractors they would be up to $300 a week worse off and would have to pay $12,000 for their own van, as well as workers compensation, superannuation and other overheads. A woman employee of 15 years was sacked while she was on sick leave, just days after the Work Choices laws came into effect. A clerical employee was dismissed via email for requesting her pay, which was six weeks in arrears. A university student was working in a medium sized business which dismissed all permanent employees on the day the new legislation came into effect. They were offered AWAs with lower levels of pay and worse conditions. A young worker lost her job in a cafe after refusing to sign an AWA which included a hefty pay cut. A hairdressing apprentice was offered a contract which included an unpaid trial as a condition of employment and no overtime or penalty rates.

Workplace laws are about balance between the workers and the employers. They are about balance between unions and big business. They are about balance between law breaking and good governance. Is this legislation about balance or is it just an ideological attack? We have 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 and AWAs. In 2005, they told the Australian people their pay and conditions were protected by law, when they were not. In 2008, Tony Abbott 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 his book Battlelines, Tony Abbott said, 'Work Choices wasn't all bad.' Labor will not support a politically motivated witch-hunt designed to kill off unions just because the government seeks to reward its friends in big business.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( ): I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, which amends the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 to achieve greater accountability and transparency for registered organisations. It is a bill that I would have thought would have bipartisan support. What could be wrong with increased transparency in the way registered organisations operate? Sadly, the changes that we are proposing be made do not have bipartisan support.

I began to wonder why would it be that those opposite would not support a bill like this. It did not take long for me to begin to understand why there might be some sensitivities. We have seen that at first hand in Victoria through the evidence that has come up in the royal commission into the construction industry that is going on at the moment. We have seen some very concerning developments, especially when it comes to the CFMEU, which in Victoria has been accused of nepotism, blackmail, threats and cartel behaviour. I would have thought that, when there are accusations of that type, both sides of the political fence would seek to act. I would have thought that one would particularly seek to act if that behaviour was having a flow-on effect on how that industry operated in the state. Sadly, that has not been occurring.

It is problematic, to say the least, that we are not seeing action taken. In the previous parliament—this came up again, today—we saw issues regarding the Health Services Union. We had those opposite taking up the cause, or the supposed cause, of nurses today, yet in the previous parliament, when the Health Services Union was seen to have acted—or those in senior administrative positions were seen to have acted—in a way which was not befitting of how those in senior roles in organisations should operate, we heard nothing from the other side. These senior members of the HSU were operating in a way where it would seem that they were misusing union funds and that those union funds had been collected from some of the lowest paid workers in the union movement, yet nothing was done. It was as a result of that that, before the election, we on this side decided that some action needed to be taken, and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill will achieve greater accountability and transparency for registered organisations.

You might ask in particular, when it comes to some of these unions, why we might not have bipartisan support for this bill here today. Most disturbing of all is the connection in Victoria between the CFMEU and the Victorian Leader of the Opposition, Daniel Andrews. There have been calls for the Labor Party in Victoria to distance themselves from the CFMEU, to not accept the donations that they receive from the CFMEU and to ensure that, instead of the CFMEU being party to the Labor Party in Victoria, Labor should do the right thing and say, 'No, sorry. If you're going to behave like that, we won't have you as part of our organisation.' But that, sadly, has not happened.

I thought we might see federally, here in Canberra, some action along those lines as well. It seemed to me that the federal Leader of the Opposition, with his detailed knowledge of how the union movement should work in this situation, might step in and say to Daniel Andrews, the Leader of the Opposition in the Victorian state parliament, 'Sorry, the Labor Party cannot condone this type of behaviour. We need to distance ourselves from it. We have to come out strongly against this type of behaviour.' I thought we might see some real leadership from the Leader of the Opposition on this issue. I thought we might have seen him decide, 'Yes, we do need to see more transparency when it comes to registered organisations. We do need to see greater accountability and, therefore, we will support what the government is trying to do here. After all, everyone stands to benefit.' Yet we have not seen that.

What we instead have seen is the Labor Party remaining silent. This is despite the evidence being detailed at the commission. To get it on the record, counsel assisting the commission detailed the claims in his opening statement. At a meeting between Boral representatives and the CFMEU, Mr Setka, the state secretary, said words to the effect: 'We are at war with Grocon, and in a war you cut the supply lines. All wars end and, once peace is established, the CFMEU will be at the table to divide up the spoils. The CFMEU will decide who gets what and what market share Boral will get.' That is the way that the CFMEU seeks to operate.

I find it passing strange that the Labor Party are prepared to sit silently by and let a union which is affiliated to the Labor Party behave in this manner. I think it is time that they understood that real leadership requires, at some stage, for you to stand up for what you truly believe in—you stand up for what you think is right; you stand up and say, 'Enough is enough.' This is the situation that we have reached and this is why the government is acting. This type of behaviour must be stopped so that we can have a construction industry, in Victoria for instance, which can operate without fear, without intimidation and without blackmail. The only way you can do that is to ensure that there is transparency and accountability in the way that these organisations operate.

We have seen some other things come up. The Fair Work Building and Construction agency is taking the CFMEU's president, Ralph Edwards, to the Federal Court over claims he intimidated Red & Blue Scaffolding. The statement of claim said that Mr Edwards allegedly told the firm:

The rules of the union are, we choose who is shop steward—if you want to have a business and a working relationship with me.

According to media reports:

When the contractor refused, the union official allegedly said: 'Well done, you've sacked your own workforce. You will be out of business.'

That is the type of intimidation that we are, sadly, seeing in workplaces as a result of this particular organisation operating without the government being able to take the right type of action to deal with it.

How does this bill interact with the previous government's amendments? The previous government's amendments, contained in the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act, demonstrated that there is a need for increased financial accountability of registered organisations, strengthened investigation powers and increased penalties. However, these changes were not adequate. That is why this bill strengthens reporting and disclosure obligations to align more closely with the Corporations Act, moves obligations from the rules of registered organisations to the face of the legislation and gives the new commissioner greater scope to ensure that officers are complying with their obligations and greater powers to investigate when a member makes a complaint about a registered organisation. It is fairly straightforward, yet those opposite say that this is a bridge too far. Once again I ask why would they not want to take these extra necessary steps when we had evidence in the last parliament about the Health Services Union and the behaviour that went on there. Sadly, it was evidence which played out almost on a daily basis in this place. Now that the royal commission has moved to Victoria, we have further evidence of that occurring within the construction industry. The allegations detailed against the CFMEU involve behaviour taking place not just in the last 12 months—it dates back to the Westgate Bridge and the desal plant, and now it relates to Grocon and to Boral. This is why we need to introduce these amendments to the bill.

I would say to those opposite that you need to step back and think about what message your opposition is sending to the broader community. Daniel Andrews, the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, looks extremely weak. I know that people would be looking at his actions and saying, 'Is this the type of leader we want—one who will not stand up to threats of blackmail and intimidation?' When it comes to the Leader of the Opposition federally, they will be looking and saying the same thing, 'Is it proper leadership when you have people or associations affiliated to your party who are acting in this way, and you stand by and say and do nothing?' That sends a very powerful message. All we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition here in Canberra is that he wants the royal commission to run its course. He said that he does not want to provide a running commentary on it. He does not need to provide a running commentary on it; instead, he can take some action to ensure that this type of behaviour cannot continue. The best type of action he could take is come in here when we vote on this bill and support the government. The history and the examples that we have seen over the last five to six years and beyond clearly show that, in these rotten little burrows, we need to stamp out these types of activities. We have seen these activities in the HSU, and we see them in the examples relating to the CFMEU that are coming before the royal commission.

This amending legislation before us today deserves to be supported. I know that the Minister for Education, who will address us next, is very keen on ensuring that this legislation and the amendments in it see the light of day. As he illustrated very clearly in question time today, we have had enough of those opposite saying, 'We don't like this type of behaviour. We need to see some action.' This legislation provides action, because it means that we can hold these registered organisations accountable. We can make sure that there is proper transparency and ensure that those unions which are doing their jobs can continue to do that, and that rogues that are using practices like nepotism, blackmail, threats and cartel behaviour cannot continue to operate in this manner.

In summation, this is a mature government acting in a mature way and putting forward some sensible amendments to a piece of legislation which will ensure that all Australians benefit when it comes to how unions and others operate within our community.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to rise to close the debate on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014. Given that the bill is being debated by this House for a second time, I will not seek to take the House's time in covering, again, the same issues I spoke on before. That said, I would like to thank all of the members for their contribution to this debate and take the opportunity to clarify the operation of this bill, following the contributions made by some of the members of the opposition.

The Registered Organisations Commission, when established, will have an important education function in assisting registered organisations and their officials to understand and work with these laws. To be clear, officials and registered organisations will be able to get advice and assistance to help them in their duties and to understand the framework. Should this bill pass the parliament, the Registered Organisations Commission will be there to help and assist but, if there is illegality or continued and deliberate noncompliance with the laws, they will have the powers available to prosecute and allow the court to decide on penalties. In almost all cases, these are set at maximum penalties and can be issued at the court's discretion. Consistent with longstanding practice, the courts will have the ability to determine the penalty within the framework provided within this legislation. The seriousness test is drawn from the Corporations Act and, again, will be at the discretion of the courts to use. The courts will be able to exercise discretion in the same way as under that act.

Some members have expressed concern about the new provisions, which are also modelled on the Corporations Act, that make it a criminal offence to breach the duties of a registered organisation's office holder. Let me be very clear: these provisions are in the Corporations Act today, and many voluntary officeholders and community groups are held to a similar standard. The only people who have anything to fear from these provisions are those who do the wrong thing and, importantly, are found by a court of law to have done so. The government would ask the Registered Organisations Commissioner to create fact sheets to assist officials within registered organisations to understand these provisions. It is also expected that the training required under this bill will adequately equip any office holder to understand their responsibilities under these provisions.

This House has now dealt with amendments that seek to fix the law as it currently stands. Unless these amendments pass this parliament as a whole, officials of registered organisations will run the very real risk of being in breach of the laws as they stand today in relation to the issues identified by the opposition that I mentioned earlier.

In closing, I would encourage all members of this place to seriously look at this bill and today support the honest and hardworking members of registered organisations who want peace of mind that their fees and dues are going to an open and transparent organisation. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.