Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this morning to speak on the Fair Work Commission (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017, but I do so with a heavy heart—as we all will today—for obviously we have just heard the news in the last few hours of another most appalling terrorist atrocity conducted at a concert in Manchester, where 19 people are known to have died and 50 more are injured. We know that many of these people are young, innocent children and teenagers. In this parliament during all of our speeches today we will be sending our prayers to those injured, to the nurses and doctors fighting to save lives as we speak and to the families trying to find and make contact with their loved ones. We send our prayers and our strength to our law enforcement officials who continue the fight against terrorism.

Back to the corrupting benefits bill. In his classic work, Free Market Economics, Professor Steven Kates has written:

An economy works best where the population at large is disgusted by corrupt practices and refuses to accept dishonesty at any level. Those who act in a dishonest way need to be culled from the normal activities of economic life.

…                                     …   …

Where dishonest practices become the norm, especially where dishonest and corrupt government practices are common, no economy can expect to succeed. Corruption regularly drains away the potential profits of a successful business. It bleeds business dry and vastly reduces the incentives for productive economic behaviour while limiting the ability of business to finance innovation and internal growth.

An ethical honest population is a necessary part of any successful economy. Whether it is in employer-employee relations, in the dealings between one business and another, or where it is governments involved with business, honest and fair dealing is essential. Acceptance of corrupt practice as just one of those things that no one can do anything about may be facing the inevitable, but it will condemn a society to economic stagnation.

That is why this bill is important, because we have seen examples of corrupt practices uncovered by the Heydon royal commission that have simply become standard practice. These practices were where there have been a raft of payments between unions and employers that were simply designed to ensure companies got favourable treatment from the unions. The royal commissioner himself called these payments 'corrupting benefits'. These payments are often disguised by false invoices, marked as payments for training or similar. They are made as part of a deal in enterprise agreement negotiations or accompanied by a list of employee names who are secretly joined to a union.

Some officials, the royal commission found, were paid private kickbacks for their personal gain. One CFMEU official used free building materials and labour to renovate his home in Brisbane. An AWU official used funds to buy an investment property and to renovate a house. Some officials used threats to pressure employers to pay the money in order to bolster union coffers. We know of a CFMEU official, documented at the trade union inquiry, who demanded cash for working in Canberra. A New South Wales CFMEU official demanded that employers pay 'donations' to drug and alcohol rehabilitation funds which were secretly siphoning money to the union. Others extracted payments to bolster their status and power—particularly, sadly, within the Labor Party. We must rule these practices as corrupt and unacceptable.

Let's just have a look in further detail at some of these corrupt practices that were uncovered by the Heydon royal commission. Thiess John Holland paid the Australian Workers Union $300,000 plus GST while they built the EastLink freeway extension to Melbourne's eastern suburbs. The Australian Workers Union issued false invoices, disguising payments as training, back strain research, Australian Workers Union magazine advertisements, forum tickets and conference sponsorships. But none of these actual so-called benefits were actually paid or provided. The payments were never disclosed to the Australian Workers Union members or their employers.

A second example: ACI Operations paid the Australian Workers Union around $500,000—half a million dollars—while they laid off workers at their Spotswood glass factory. The Australian Workers Union invoiced these payments as 'paid education leave'. But the payments were not used for that purpose; they were used, predominantly, to offset a loan to renovate the union's Victorian office and other general union costs.

Another example: the infamous Clean Event, which paid the AWU in Victoria $75,000 to maintain an enterprise agreement that paid cleaning workers well below award rates and stripped them of their penalty rates. That is right, Mr Deputy Speaker, the union stripped them of their penalty rates and at the same time were taking a backhander of $75,000 from the company knocking off the penalty rates for workers, without letting them know. The payments were detailed in a secret letter between the Australian Workers Union and Clean Event. As I said, this was never disclosed to the workers. Level 1 casuals working at Clean Event were entitled to 176 per cent more per hour under the award than under the agreement sealed by these payments.

Another case: Unibuilt paid one union official $32,000, and that money went to fund an election campaign. And that was paid while the company was negotiating an enterprise agreement with the AWU. I see the member for Bendigo at the bench, and the member for Bendigo said words during this debate—and I hope I quote her correctly—that the Labor Party is against all forms of corruption; they are against all forms of union corruption and they will not tolerate it. The question for the member for Bendigo is: if a union official is in negotiations with a company, negotiating on behalf of the workers, and that union official receives a payment of $32,000, which they put in their pocket and they use for their own personal benefit to run their own personal election campaign without telling the workers, is that a corrupt practice? This is the question that the Labor Party have to answer.

Those opposite can stand up in this parliament and say, 'Oh, we're against all these corrupt practices,' but they have to say whether they consider that that practice is acceptable. Of course, we will hear nothing from the Labor Party on that. Then we have another example. Chiquita Mushrooms paid the AWU in Victoria $24,000 while it was casualising its workforce. The Australian Workers Union falsely invoiced the payments as paid educational leave and never disclosed it to the Chiquita employees. These examples go on and on and on. We have to say that these examples show that the current regulations are not working.

If I am paying a lawyer to negotiate a contract on my behalf, I expect him to be working exclusively for my benefit. If he is copping a backhander from the person he is negotiating with, trying to get the best deal for me, that is a combination of a secret commission, a bribe and extortion. That is illegal—and so it should be. If a union is negotiating on behalf of hardworking Australians and they are getting backhanders or kickbacks, for whatever purpose, they should fully disclose that to those workers. That is what this bill is trying to do. The Labor Party come in here and say that they are against all these practices, but not one single member of the opposition has stood up and said that a union official getting $32,000 from a company he is negotiating with on behalf of the workers and using that to fund his election campaign is a corrupt practice. Well, shame on the Australian Labor Party.

But the coalition is getting on and fixing this. In this bill we are responding to recommendations 40, 41 and 48 of the royal commission into trade unions. By amending the act, we will make it a criminal offence to give a registered organisation or a person associated with a registered organisation a corrupting benefit. We will make it a criminal offence to receive or solicit a corrupting benefit. We will make it a criminal offence for a national system employer, other than an employee organisation, to provide, offer or promise to provide any cash or in-kind payments, other than certain legitimate payments, to an employee organisation or its prohibited beneficiaries. We will make it a criminal offence to solicit, receive, obtain or agree to obtain such a prohibited payment. We will require bargaining representatives for proposed enterprise agreements—employers, employer organisations and unions—to disclose all financial benefits that the bargaining representative or a person or body reasonably connected with it could, or could reasonably expect to, derive because of a term proposed in the agreement. Failure to comply with these agreements will give rise to civil remedies but will not preclude agreement approval in the enterprise agreement.

We have seen many examples recently where unions have agreed to slash the penalty rates of workers. We hear the Labor Party complaining about penalty rates being cut, but no-one has cut penalty rates in this country more than the unions. So it is only fair, if union officials are going to agree to cut penalty rates of workers, that those workers know that that union official is not copping a backhander; that they are not getting some form of secret commission; that they are not getting $32,000 to fund their election campaign to run here in federal parliament; that they are not being paid to have their house renovated.

Workers deserve every cent that they get. It should not be siphoned off by corrupt trade union officials. That is what we need to address and we are addressing in this bill. The criminal penalties for payments with the intent to corrupt under this legislation will be a maximum of 10 years in prison and a fine of $900,000 for an individual or $4.5 million for companies. Maximum penalties for other illegitimate payments will be two years in prison or $90,000 for an individual or $450,000 for companies.

Most importantly, if those on the Labor Party side think these payments are legitimate, let us have full disclosure. Let us have the disclosure, so that if you are working for a union and your union representative is out negotiating on your behalf, and he gets paid $32,000, that should be disclosed to the union members. Ultimately, that money has to come from somewhere. It either comes from the company or, more likely, it comes from the union workers themselves. It comes from the workers' pockets. It is money that could have otherwise gone to those workers to give them more pay. We have seen too many examples where that money has ended up in the pockets of corrupt union officials. This is a fair bill. This is a needed bill. I commend it to the House.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017. I move, as an amendment to the amendment proposed by the member for Gorton:

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

'the bill contains some improvements to the existing law, they are not enough and the House declines to give the bill a second reading and calls on the Government to establish a National Independent Commission Against Corruption'.

If this government was serious about tackling corruption, we would have a national anticorruption commission—a national ICAC, a national corruption watchdog like they have in New South Wales. This government thinks that the only place that wrongdoing happens is on one side of the fence, in the industrial arena. They are kidding themselves. People across the country do not believe that either. Anyone who thinks that there is not corruption taking place amongst Australia's biggest corporations can only be turning a blind eye, which is what this government does. Under this government's watch we have had report after report of some of Australia's biggest companies bribing overseas regimes like Saddam Hussein's—bribing Saddam Hussein's regime in order to get a contract. We have had reports over a long period of time that subsidiaries in the Reserve Bank paid money to individuals overseas in order to secure deals; all of that happening under the federal government's watch. And, as everyone knows, at the state level in New South Wales, when broad-based national anticorruption commissions have the power to go and look under every rock, not just on one particular side of the political fence, but across the board, they find that there are Liberal MPs and Labor MPs who have not just had their snouts in the trough, but have actually been on the take. Some of them have rightly been prosecuted. That is what you get when you have a proper national anticorruption commission. That is why I am moving an amendment that all the words after 'whilst' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

The bill contains some improvements to the existing law, they are not enough and the House declines to give the bill a second reading and calls on the government to establish a national independent commission against corruption.

We have an opportunity here in this parliament to do what they have done in New South Wales and what the Australian people want: that is, establish a national anticorruption commission—a body that has the power to go and look under every rock at the federal level in the same way that they do at the New South Wales level. That body would have the power to investigate what the government says is its motivation for this bill, which is finding out if there is wrongdoing in the union movement—and if there is wrongdoing in the union movement, if there is corruption, then of course it does not matter where it happens, it should be rooted out and people should be brought before the courts and prosecuted and if they are found guilty they do their time or pay the penalty.

The point is that in Australia we are meant to have equality before the law; we are meant to have a system of laws in Australia where no-one is exempt from the law no matter how high an office they hold, and if you are on the take and receiving corrupting benefits it does not matter what position in society you hold you should be brought to account. What they have found in New South Wales is that when you start looking you find things. An argument put by some says that we do not need a national anticorruption commission at the federal level because there has been no suggestion of corruption by federal MPs or federal public servants or others who have dealings with the Commonwealth. In some ways that is the point—you do not know what is there unless you have a body that has the power to look. If you have a body that has the power to look, that is when the public starts to know exactly what is going on behind closed doors.

We have heard that within subsidiaries of federal government, bodies like the Reserve Bank, there have been longstanding accusations of improper payments being made—the kind of payments you would think that this government would be concerned about given this bill. There have been some limited attempts to investigate that, and I for one have been a member of parliamentary committees that have tried to get to the bottom of it. What you find when you start investigating is that a parliamentary committee is no substitute for a well-resourced watchdog that has the power to go in, get the documents, ask the tough questions and do the investigation that can then come up with the evidence that can be handed over to prosecutors.

What is the justification for saying that corrupting benefits have to be outlawed for one particular group in society but it is apparently okay everywhere else—it is bad if you are a union but it is all right if you are one of Australia's largest corporations or is all right if you are a subsidiary of the Reserve Bank or it is all right if you are a senior official with the Commonwealth? There can be no justification for saying that. So, here is a challenge to the government: if everything that you have said is what you genuinely believe, then expand this bill so that it becomes the start of a proper national commission against corruption—a national anticorruption watchdog. What I suspect is that the government does not actually care about corruption at all—the government turns a blind eye to it. If you have a blue collar, this government throws the book at you but, if you have a white collar, it turns a blind eye. We have accusation after accusation of wrongdoing at the top levels of the corporate sector and this government does nothing about it. When you delve into the provisions of this bill, it shows that this is nothing more than a political stunt. The provisions of this bill are strict liability provisions and they make it very easy to prosecute, and they come with very harsh penalties, of jail time, but the provisions are so incredibly broad that the likes of the Law Council have said they do not have a place in a country governed by the rule of law.

I know there are not many on the government side of the House who have ever spent a day standing up for Australian workers in their life, so how you actually do it might come as news to them, but what would happen if a union has been involved in a big industrial dispute with an employer and then says, at the conclusion of the dispute or part way through the dispute that has involved going to court, involved the expenditure of a huge amount of legal fees, 'We'll settle this dispute and we'll put it all behind us but we want you to pay our legal fees as part of that'?

Is that caught by this law? Maybe. Maybe that is caught by this law. Who knows? The provisions of this law are so broad that the legitimate day-to-day activity that takes place between employers and employees and their representatives is now all under a cloud. But that is probably not surprising, because that is exactly the government's intent. The government's intent has nothing to do with increasing the application of the rule of law in Australia and everything to do with using the power of this place to pick a political fight—to pick certain sides of the political fence and say: 'Well, we don't like what you're doing because sometimes you come and campaign against us in elections, when we try to take the rights of Australian workers away. We don't like that, so we're going to put restrictions on you that we would never dream of putting on our friends at the top end of town in the corporate sector.'

That is what this is about, and make no mistake. It is for that reason, because this bill is drafted so broadly and makes it so difficult for people to conduct what would otherwise be lawful activity, that I will not be supporting it. And it is also because it is crystal clear that the government is passing up the opportunity to establish a national anticorruption watchdog that is broad based, that this cannot be supported.

So here is an invitation to the government: take this bill away, start again and come back with a bill that is applied to everyone in society—including all of us here in parliament. Come back with a bill that is a national anticorruption commission and a watchdog so that every one of us here in parliament is put under the same level of scrutiny and obligation as you want to apply to unions. Come back with a bill that puts companies and the biggest corporations in this country under the same level of scrutiny; that puts our top public servants—people who work in the tax office—under the same level of obligation and scrutiny as you want to apply here to unions.

I bet the government will not do it, but I hope they do. And there is an opportunity now, here, with this amendment that I am moving, for people of goodwill in this chamber to say: 'Well, enough is enough. We need to establish that national anticorruption commission.' By supporting this amendment and telling the government to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that applies the rule of law, but that applies it as equally to politicians and boardroom directors as it does to union officials, they will be able to get some of these changes through. They might be able to get some of these changes through to deal with some of the concerns they have raised. As can be seen from the second reading amendment, we make the point that not only should people be held to account if they have done something that is wrong but that it is actually the Greens who have been leading the charge—not only for a national anticorruption commission but also for inquiry into why there are tens of thousands of people across the country who are young workers at Hungry Jacks, at McDonald's, at Coles and at Woolworths who are getting paid less than their award rates of pay. This is a good question. This is a very good question. Why is an 18-year-old who works Saturdays or Sundays at McDonald's, or nightshifts at Hungry Jacks, or at Coles or at Woolies, getting paid less than what is in the award? That is a very good question.

But we can fix that with a bill, and we have a bill in parliament to fix that—to stop the legal minimum conditions in this country from being undercut. If that is what they are really concerned about—and I have heard a few government members refer to that in their speeches—then let's fix it. Let us pass laws that make sure that young workers in this country are not done over. Let us make sure that every young worker in this country is entitled to be paid properly on weekends and at nights. If you are serious about that, if that is your motivation for this bill, then get behind the Greens paid protection bill. Then every parent who encourages their kids to go off and work at McDonald's, Coles or Woolies will know that they are getting paid properly and every young person who works there will get paid their penalty rates for having to work those hours that are convenient for us when we all turn up on Sundays at the supermarket but that are very inconvenient for the people who have to do it. We could fix that; let us fix it. If that is really your concern then pass our bill in the Senate. But I suspect it is not. I suspect this government does not care one jot about the tens of thousands of underpaid retail and fast food workers around this country. I suspect all the government cares about is using legislation for political points to try and beat up the Labor Party. If you do not support our bill in the Senate to protect young workers then everything that you have said here counts for nothing. You do not actually care about young workers and you do not actually care about people getting their penalty rates; you just want to use it as a political excuse. The test is now very clear: if the government supports this amendment then this bill will be off the table and we can come back and have a discussion about what the Australian people want and what this place needs, which is a national anticorruption watchdog. I commend the amendment to the House.

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

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise with great gusto and enjoyment to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017. It is unfortunate that the member for Melbourne has left the chamber because I was hoping to be able to set him straight on a couple of things. Unfortunately, and perhaps understandably, he totally misunderstands the intent and the effect of this bill. He talked about why it is that, in his opinion, this government is not applying the same strict standards across the board. Of course, he is fundamentally wrong on that, because on this side of the chamber we believe in the rule of law and we believe that no-one is above the law.

In my short time in this place I have spoken about union corruption very often. I speak with some degree of authority, having worked in the building industry as a carpenter and joiner, as a builder, as an adjudicator, as a mediator and as a barrister for 30 years. There is not too much in the building industry that I have not seen or that has not come across my desk. I can tell the chamber without a shadow of a doubt that the building industry in this country is absolutely wracked with corruption. That is why, on this side of the House, we have been so forceful in trying to clean up the industry: because it impacts upon every single citizen. Every single taxpayer in this country is paying a cost, a margin, for union malfeasance.

When you look at the budget announced just two weeks ago, over the next 10 years this country is about to embark on its largest infrastructure expenditure at some $75 billion. We, on this side of the House, are very proud to be part of a government that is putting its money where its mouth is. It is putting its money where its mouth is by putting important money into vital infrastructure projects like the $10 billion for the national rail project, which will impact on my electorate of Fisher. This federal government is making $10 billion available for state governments and territory governments to bid for rail projects. Once again, I call on the Palaszczuk Labor government to bid for the duplication of the North Coast railway line between Beerburrum and Nambour. It is an absolute no-brainer. I will be writing to the Deputy Premier of Queensland later this week, calling upon her to take advantage of that $10 billion.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about funding Cross River Rail?

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not all live in the cities, mate. That is what is wrong with you lot over there. There are a lot more people who live in the bush in the regions than live in the cities. We do not all live in the city. It is not all about city folk, and on this side of the House we believe that people who live in the bush and people who live in the regions should be given the opportunity to have world-class infrastructure. That is what we are trying to do. Equally, this federal government has allocated $650 million to the Bruce Highway upgrades south of Caloundra. That is on top of the $743 million we have already contributed. I am talking about this because, for every dollar that this government spends and for every dollar that a state government spends on infrastructure, my sums and my investigations over the last 30 years tell me that, particularly now, somewhere between 60c and another dollar is being spent on union corruption.

Mr Dick interjecting—

I hear my colleague over on the other side of the fence arguing with me.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm just saying you're wrong.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He says I am wrong, but that is fine—you would expect him to stick up for his union mates. But for every dollar spent there is union corruption in this country and in the state of Queensland, in particular. I will go back to other states shortly. What we are trying to do in this place is clean up infrastructure and building. We want to ensure that every dollar we spend goes to the project at hand—whether it is building rail or roads. Let us have a look at some of the problems we have in this country. If you look at the Commonwealth Games and some of the sites that are being built on the Gold Coast, on 9 May The Australian reported:

The construction union could be fined as little as $40,000 for holding 'coercive' twice-daily two-hour stop work meetings that halted construction at the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games site and cost the head contractor $700,000.

They have gone very quiet over on the other side of the chamber. The article continues:

For 19 days last year, Queensland's Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union held two meetings every day at the $126 million Carrara Sports and Recreation project in an attempt to force contractor Hansen ­Yuncken into an enterprise agreement.

Federal Court judge John Reeves has already ruled the action was unlawful, but construction watchdog the Australian Building and Construction Commission—

that this government put back on the beat—

yesterday asked for the union to be fined up to $162,000.

The Commonwealth Games sites were brought, effectively, to a halt by this coercive conduct undertaken by the CFMEU. But it does not stop there.

The Federal Circuit Court, on 15 December, handed down penalties totalling $37,500 against the CFMEU and its former Queensland president Dave Hanna for threatening ongoing industrial action at a Brisbane construction site unless a construction firm agreed to sign a secret deal with the union. Six working days were impacted by unprotected industrial action at the Brooklyn on Brookes apartment project in Brisbane in April 2014, prompting the issue of a return to work order by the Fair Work Commission. But these sorts of activities are not just going on in Queensland.

In Western Australia the CFMEU and its most senior national leader, Dave Noonan, and top Western Australian officials were fined $277,000 over unlawful blockades at the $1.2 billion children's hospital in Perth. That is the same thing they did at the Lady Cilento Children's Hospital in Brisbane.

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

Where they found asbestos.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party and the CFMEU have no shame. You will grind projects to a halt, even if it is hospitals. Let us listen to what it was about rather than talk about asbestos or whatever it was that was shouted out on the other side. Mr Noonan admitted he organised a protest of 400 people to blockade the children's hospital site on 18 July 2013, forcing John Holland to abandon a critical concrete pour involving up to 45 truckloads of concrete and slurry. As a builder, I can tell you that that would have cost millions of dollars. The WA branch secretary, Mick Buchan, and then assistant secretary, Joe McDonald, admitted they incited the blockade—oh, because John Holland would not sign a whole-of-site CFMEU agreement that paid subbies at least the same as employees. They refused to do it.

Ms Lamb interjecting—

That is because they are subcontractors—

Ms Lamb interjecting—

Because they incited the blockade of a building site. They admitted it. Unbelievable. But wait, we go on. The CFMEU was slugged $540,000 for Fair Work breaches in Adelaide. Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide—the whole world is against the CFMEU! The construction union will have to pay more than $540,000 in penalties for unlawful conduct. Are you supporting that unlawful conduct?

Ms Chesters interjecting—

In South Australia, after losing an appeal—

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

Order! I remind the member for Fisher to direct his remarks through the chair. I will ask those listening here to keep their voices down.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could go on.

Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Go on—extension, more!

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

The member for Bowman is not listening.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But it is important we understand why the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill is so important. It is because of the coercive conduct of unions. Unions try to muscle and strong-arm builders. Some builders kowtow and buckle to that sort of conduct, and that is very unfortunate. But on this side of the chamber we believe that no-one is above the law. For every corrupt payment that is received by the union, someone had to write the cheque, and we on this side of the House want to ensure that we disincentivise, as much as possible, companies from writing those cheques. So we have introduced the ABCC; we have introduced the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act; we have introduced the new building code; and we have stopped, and are committed to preventing, corporate tax evasion.

Mr Dick interjecting—

He laughs. You still want to talk some more, do you?—through you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We want to ensure that, as much as humanly possible, we try to prevent corrupt payments being made to unions. If you take the sugar off the table, if you disincentivise the person from writing the cheque in the first place with very significant fines and jail terms, we are confident that the CFMEU will no longer be able to muscle and strong-arm these building companies from simply doing their job. That is what they are trying to do; building companies are trying to do their job. But the CFMEU and other unions are holding them to ransom. Unfortunately, we have to come in with strong legislation to prevent that sort of conduct from happening.

We on this side of the House are going after both unions that break the law and companies that break the law. We on this side of the House are not anti-union. I have said this many times before: we are not anti-union; we are anti-union corruption and we are anti-business corruption. That is why we are introducing these very strong penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment or a $900,000 fine for an individual, or a $4½ million fine for a company, who enters into these corrupt payments. We on this side of the House, unlike those opposite, do not look after unions that break the law; and we set heavy penalties for businesses that break the law. To any business in the building industry that is considering writing a cheque for hush money to get the job on the go, to keep the unions off their back, I want to talk to those directors right here, right now: is it worth facing a $900,000 personal fine? Is it worth your company being fined $4½ million? Is it worth you, Mr or Mrs Director, going to jail for 10 years if you write that cheque to keep the union off your back? I commend the bill to the House.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to enter the debate today following on from the member for Fisher, who had a lot to say about last week's budget and the Commonwealth Games but did not talk about the intent of this bill and what it will mean. In this year's budget, compared to years past, GDP growth is down, employment growth is down, wages growth is down and 100,000 jobs have simply been washed away. I will take the member for Fisher up on a point about infrastructure. For the largest infrastructure project for Queensland, the No. 1 Infrastructure Australia project, Cross River Rail, not one dollar has been allocated for the people of Queensland. So there are massive amounts of 'pork' going out across Australia but not where it is needed. The member for Fisher, like the bloated LNP in Queensland, is not interested in delivering infrastructure. They want a pat on the back for delivering $7.5 billion worth of infrastructure this year. 'Well done'—said no-one!—because we know that there is a cut in infrastructure spending in Australia.

The member for Fisher, in his prepared notes written by either the minister or the IPA, ran the true lines about what this government thinks of workers in Australia, collective agreements and workers' pay. I will come back to that in a moment. Let us be absolutely clear from the outset: Labor will not stand for corruption in any form and we will support legislation that is properly drafted and applies to both companies and registered organisations. But this bill provides a different test for union officials and employers who work with unions than for politicians and public servants and corrupt activities between businesses.

What I find really interesting is that even though this is part of the Heydon recommendations that were made more than 12 months ago, no action was taken by the government until after the penalty rates decision, without any proper consultation. So, you have to be skeptical about this government's motivations. Let me say that again. The Heydon recommendations were made more than 12 months ago. Despite the urgency, the nonsense we heard from the member for Fisher and his rant to this chamber, nothing has happened under this government's watch. They took no action to respond to any of Dyson Heydon's recommendations—not before the double dissolution election and not after it, not even when this parliament was debating the two antiworker pieces of legislation. That was the justification for the election we had to have. And the Turnbull government did nothing—sat on their hands and did nothing—until they realised that they were on the wrong side entirely when it comes to penalty rates. That is when the action really kicked in. That is why I am very keen to support the amendment moved by the member for Gorton today to the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill.

While the government is happy to see wages of Australians cut—and that is what every single member opposite wants to see happen in Australia, while their priorities are of course now to deliver a $64 billion tax cut to big business, whilst at the same time cutting payments to families, parents, pensioners and job seekers—you have to understand the political motivation by a Prime Minister. When he is faced with the Leader of the Opposition 's private member's bill to preserve the take-home pay and conditions and to protect penalty rates, all of a sudden the urgency comes out that we have to introduce this bill. So, an unpopular penalty rates decision comes down, which, let's face it, everyone on that side of the chamber wants to see happen and has been encouraging, ensuring that we see a real pay cut. Never has it been clearer that when the government has its priorities—laser like, fixated on delivering multimillionaires a tax cut, making sure that big business is looked after—the penalty rates issue is really biting in the community. I am not sure whether those opposite walk in the same shopping aisles and go to the same pubs and clubs as members, say, on this side of the chamber do.

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Probably not.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Probably not; they just said it: probably not. That is right. They are their own words. I will take that interjection. They do not go into the same shopping aisles and cafes and newsagents that we all go into. I did a listening post in the suburb of Gailes on Saturday.

A government member: Do you live in Gailes?

Well, I will not take that interjection. And isn't it funny: they laugh about a suburb in Australia. Somehow a suburb that is doing it a bit tough should be ridiculed and laughed at. That is absolutely pathetic. Actually, I will take the interjection. There is a reason the member for Bowman has had a long and distinguished career on the backbench: 14 years going strong. We never have to worry about the transfer from the member for Bowman moving forward to the frontbench. We can put that one in the bank; that is for sure.

I do live in the electorate of Oxley, and, for the member's benefit, I live in a suburb called Durack—probably a suburb the member for Bowman has never been to. I talked to workers in Gailes on the weekend, a hospitality worker and a retail worker who were fearful that their pay was going to be cut. One worker told me that they have to get up at a quarter to three on a Sunday and go to work at a hotel, and they are looking at a $64 pay cut for that one day's work. It is not a lot of money for those opposite; I concede that. But taking $240 out of someone's pay packet in a month is a huge difference. You may want to have a laugh at people who live at Gailes. I take their concerns very seriously.

So, on behalf of the 10,500 retail, food and accommodation workers in my electorate who are looking down the barrel of cuts to their take-home pay, I am supporting this amendment today—because those people, right across Australia, not just in my community but in every electorate in Australia, deserve to have this parliament fighting for their salaries and fighting for their pay and conditions. Extraordinarily, this bill was introduced and brought on for debate one week after the decision to slash penalty rates—which we know that the government clearly supports If we ever needed any more confirmation that this government is more concerned with saving its own political skin than standing up for vulnerable and low-paid workers, we have it here in lights. Be under no illusion that the timing of the introduction of this bill is all about a sad attempt to distract and divert away from this side of the chamber's proud defence for the protection of penalty rates and that it has absolutely nothing to do with any urgent need to address corruption. As I said, there are over 10,500 workers in my electorate who are looking down the barrel of a pay cut. But does the government stand by these workers? Will it stand shoulder to shoulder and lift a finger to help them? No. This government again shifts the blame for this disastrous decision. We know there has been a concerted campaign by the Prime Minister, the LNP and big business for that side of the chamber to cut the take-home pay of some of Australia's most vulnerable and insecure low-paid workers.

Taking a closer look at the terms of the new offences, they differ from the model legislation recommended by Heydon and they differ from the existing bribery and corruption offences in the Criminal Code. We cannot have any confidence that this legislation does not unfairly target workers. The so-called 'corrupting benefits' offences are broadly similar to the existing Criminal Code offences of bribery of a public official, bribery of a foreign official and corrupting benefits given to or received by a public official—although there are key differences that raise many questions. The bill prohibits employers from giving cash or in-kind payment to a union or to a person nominated by a union, and it prohibits the union from requesting or receiving cash in-kind payments. The bill expressly excludes membership fees, wage deductions; benefit provided for employees—but possibly covers the provision of union training services; tax deductible donations; payments for services or in accordance with the law or a judgement. But the regulations can remove or add other payments, including the ones excluded in the bill. It is facts like these which show this government's lack of consultation and that it is rushing this bill through parliament in the face of this side of the chamber and the Leader of the Opposition's private member's bill to preserve take-home pay and protect penalty rates.

We know that penalty rates put food on the table and books on school desks and go some way to compensating hardworking Australians who forgo family and leisure time to work on Sundays. We only need to look at what happened last week when we saw wages continuing to flatline in this country. We are not seeing the uptick in wage growth that we need to see in this nation. The latest figures show that wages are now falling in real terms and that the decline in real wages is coming at a time when cost-of-living pressures are rising. We know, and certainly when I speak to residents in my electorate, that they are finding it tougher and tougher to make ends meet. So the government's plans in response to this at a time of record low wages is to increase taxes on 10 million working Australians, while giving a tax cut to millionaires.

I am really pleased that the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated to Australia in his reply speech that this side of the chamber is in touch with working Australians, that we know people on, say, $60,000 or $65,000 a year and living in the wonderful suburb of Gailes—which the member for Bowman wanted to have a laugh at—should not have to pay for extra health services. They should not have to pay for increased taxes to simply pay for those tax cuts at the other end of the scale. I do not think that is fair. I do not think it is fair that a millionaire gets a $16,400 tax cut but someone who is living in the suburbs that I represent and who is on a low income has to pay $352 a year more. How on earth is that possibly fair?

This is the party that spent $200,000 on research to ask, 'How should the budget be framed?' Crosby Textor, for its $200,000 bill, came up with: 'Australians don't think that this government is fair.' This is a government that had to pay for research to find out what to say in a budget. Doesn't that say it all—that you have to write a cheque to a polling company because you do not know how to frame a budget. So they turn around and go: 'You know what the government needs to do? People said: "We don't think it's on our side." So, guys, make sure you use the word "fairness".' I can tell you what—

An honourable member interjecting—

That is right, whoever the interjector was: they do not walk in the same shopping centres as we do and they do not go to the same shops and worksites as we do, because, if they did, they would not have to ask: 'How should we frame the budget? What are the key buzzwords we should use?' They should come out to the suburbs in the south-west of Brisbane and talk to people about their pay and conditions and about how important penalty rates are for their wages and their families, and then they would not need to waste $200,000 on paying Crosby Textor to ask what they should frame their budget around.

We on this side of the chamber know, and that is why the amendment has been moved by the member for Gorton: to ensure that we can protect penalty rates, and that we legislate to prevent the decision from taking effect, to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut. Every single member on this side of the chamber supports this, and I would go so far as to say that a majority of Australians support this as well, because we know, from listening to the community, that we need to ensure that we do everything we can, with the privilege we have of serving in this place, to protect their pay and conditions, and that is what we on this side will continue to do. But, sadly, this government refuses to heed that as well.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017. This bill will make it unlawful for unions to take payments from companies who sell out their workers. In my past life, I was a lawyer—I would say that I am still a lawyer; I still pay my fees. When you pay a lawyer to represent you, you trust that they will represent you fairly. You trust that they will not take payments from both parties in a dispute during negotiations, because you have paid your money to them to represent you. This is not a difficult concept to understand. It is, in fact, very, very simple. Yet somehow those members opposite and their union bosses still appear to have difficulty wrapping their heads around this very simple concept.

Research agency Roy Morgan released a report at the start of the year that estimated that some 15 to 17 per cent of the Australian workforce is a member of a union. This is a record low. And yet at least 50 per cent of the Labor Party's candidates are chosen by the unions. This defies belief. How can you run 50 per cent of your candidates in an election with ties to a movement that represents only 15 per cent of the population? The maths of that equation do not stand up to scrutiny.

We must ask ourselves: 'Why is it that the Australian public, as educated and hardworking—some entrepreneurial, some not—as they are, have abandoned the union movement?' I think it is simple. The Australian people do not enjoy being lectured to by hypocrites—and that is exactly what the modern union movement and its political arm in the Labor Party seek to do.

Time and time again, unions have eroded the trust that workers have placed in them because of the secret payments, the militant behaviour and the perception that they no longer care about the average Australian worker. This does stand up to scrutiny. Unions do not represent the lowest paid workers in this country—not anymore. In fact, they are barely representative of the construction sector. They no longer enjoy the support of public opinion and they are overly represented by bureaucrats in the public sector.

The largest percentage of union membership is made up of workers earning somewhere between $80,000 and $100,000, well above the national average. These are hardly the struggling battlers the unions fraudulently claim to represent. This is the great falsehood of the union movement, and the Labor Party by its very extension. They claim to be representing the lowest-paid workers in our country. They claim to be fighting for a fairer deal for Australia's most disadvantaged, but they are routinely selling out their own members. And this is what this bill that we are debating today is all about. It is theft from the most vulnerable people in this country—exploitation of their hopes and fears. It is theft from Australians who can least afford to pay union fees. In fact, many have no choice as to whether they pay these fees or not. Such is the nature of the modern day union movement, and it is shameful.

It is truly sickening that the Labor Party have the gall to stand in this House and pretend to stand up for the lowest-paid workers in this country. They criticise this government, when they have long ago abandoned any credibility on this issue. The Heydon royal commission uncovered a raft of payments between unions and employers that were designed to ensure that some companies—not all companies, but just some really special companies—were given special treatment to ensure that they did not become a target for militant union industrial action. This is blatant, gun-to-the-head-type negotiations. The flow-on effects of this to the Australian economy are real and they are measurable. A good example of this, according to the Master Builders Association of Queensland, is that union activity can add up to an extra 30 per cent on the cost of building a house.

I think that one of the most disturbing developments from the Heydon royal commission was the payments made to the AWU Victoria—the member for Maribyrnong and Leader of the Opposition's very own union. This is the man who is styling himself as the alternative leader of the country and leading those opposite. He is styling himself as the man who will represent Australia on the world stage. This is the man who has orchestrated the taking of secret payments from organisations like Clean Event and sold out the workers he claims to represent. These are people who are very hard working, and their working conditions are extreme.

Thankfully, we have introduced this legislation to ban these secret payments between business and unions, and to require disclosure of any legitimate payments. This is a simple and efficient measure, as recommended by the Heydon royal commission, to make unions more accountable and more accessible.

It is truly disturbing that these corrupting benefits, as the Heydon commission called them, have been identified in successive royal commissions into union activity since 1982.

Mr Dick interjecting—

I will take that interjection from the previous speaker. Yes, perhaps we should have done something earlier. I accept that. But, thankfully, we are doing something now and it is good to see the Labor Party are considering joining forces with us.

This simply reinforces the fact that unions are out of touch and no longer represent the members who pay their fees. They have long ago abandoned these workers and are looking out solely to feather their own nests. As we have heard time and time again more recently in this House, they have more in common with the big end of town than what we do and more in common with the big employers. In fact, we may actually be doing those opposite a favour with respect to this legislation, because as the doors are flung open this could very well restore some faith in the union movement. Let's hope the cobwebs are swept out.

Clearly, as we have heard from members opposite, included in their talking points for this particular debate has been the discussion about targeting workers and the lowest paid in our society with cuts to penalty rates. I mean, if they really cared about the lowest-paid workers in this country they would have done something themselves about what we are discussing here today.

It is truly amazing, the length and breadth of the hypocrisy of those opposite on workplace relations. It really is stunning. The Leader of the Opposition sets up a Fair Work Commission and puts his mates on it to investigate penalty rates in this country. He says time and time again, together with other leaders on the other side, that he will respect its decision. The problem was it was the wrong decision. So, therefore, it could not be supported. Come on! Give us a break! It hands down its decision, and suddenly it is the coalition attacking workers. The hypocrisy is just unbelievable.

I do have some news for those opposite. You do not represent workers anymore. I see it time and time again. You do not represent the public of Australia anymore. You are out of touch and bordering on irrelevancy. My dear grandad, a man called David Dellar, was a WA state Labor politician in the 1960s. He was a very good man who worked hard. He represented the people who really needed good representation. He would be ashamed of what the Labor Party has become today.

To avoid accusations of attacking workers from those opposite, let me assure you that in this bill the measures apply equal punishment to the companies and employers who agree to a backroom deal with the union as the union boss who makes the deal. As we know, it does take two to tango. We plan on ensuring that corruption is stamped out at all levels because we know that corruption, productivity and performance cannot coexist. On this side, we know that the Australian public deserves no less, and that is why we are introducing this bill.

This measure will help instil some faith back into the union movement, which has been shaken by scandal after scandal and has hopelessly lost its way. We know that 50 per cent of those opposite will agree and, possibly, 50 per cent of those opposite will not agree. But I do encourage those members opposite to support this bill and support those lowest-paid workers who they claim to represent. They have not done so in many years, but it is never too late to start.

I commend this bill to the House.

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 restores and defends the rule of law in Australian workplaces. This bill bans corrupt and secret payments made between employers and trade unions. It also requires disclosure by both employers and unions of financial benefits that they stand to gain as a result of an enterprise agreement before employees have to vote on that agreement.

The penalties for secret and dodgy deals will be substantial—and so they should be. Criminal penalties for payments with the intent to corrupt will be a maximum of 10 years in prison and $900,000 for an individual or $4.5 million for companies. Maximum penalties for other illegitimate payments will be two years in prison, $90,000 for individuals and $450,000 for companies. They are big penalties because those officials who rip off workers deserve to be punished.

The role of unions and their leaders must be to put their members first. We have seen through the Heydon royal commission into trade unions that unions have let their members down and have traded away their rights in return for cash and kickbacks. The Heydon royal commission uncovered a raft of payments between employers and unions for favourable treatment and peace in the workplace. It also highlighted the lack of transparency relating to financial benefits obtained by representatives who were supposed to be bargaining in the best interests of their workers. These corrupting benefits are nothing to do with unions' first and only purpose of getting workers a better deal or more take-home pay. They are about lining the pockets of union officials and building union war chests to blindside and mislead union members and the general public on a whole raft of issues.

We have read in the media about numerous eastern state cases where millions of dollars of payments have secretly transferred between employers and unions, and employers making payments to unions, accompanied by a lists of employee names which have been used to secretly sign employees up to the unions, including the Australian Workers' Union in Victoria. In WA, my home state, we have also experienced unions acting without integrity or fairness, including the Australian Workers' Union in Western Australia. These contractors paid the AWU Workplace Reform Association more than $400,000 in return for good relations with the union. These payments were fraudulently siphoned into a slush fund controlled by the then secretary of the AWU WA, Mr Bruce Wilson, who used the money for his personal benefit.

SapuraKencana paid more than $350,000 at the request of the MUA at the same time it was planning to use foreign-crewed tugs for pipeline installation works at the Gorgon project in Western Australia. Dredging International paid almost a million dollars at the request of the MUA, apparently as part of a deal to finalise an enterprise agreement, including $200,000 for sponsorship of the MUA WA state conference. But, in reality, it was to secure an enterprise agreement with the MUA. Van Oord paid over a million dollars at the request of the MUA to avoid industrial disruption, including over $100,000 to the WA Special Purpose Fighting Fund, established by the MUA WA. I wonder what special purposes the unions fight for.

Melissa Price (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fighting the coalition!

Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps. And there was $70,000 in sponsorship for MUA WA conferences and over $50,000 to an MUA WA training fund.

Then we go to the CFMEU.    Thiess—again—paid $100,000 to the Building Trades Group of Unions Drug and Alcohol Committee while it was constructing the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link in Sydney. Apparently that payment was for industrial peace. The payment was falsely invoiced as being for 'drug and alcohol safety training' but was siphoned into the CFMEU's general account. Underworld figure George Alex made regular cash payments of $2,500 to an official of the CFMEU NSW to ensure favourable treatment of Mr Alex's companies that were repeatedly involved in phoenixing, leaving workers with unpaid wages and entitlements. Mirvac executives provided around $150,000 worth of free building work on CFMEU Queensland President David Hanna's house in order to secure industrial peace and favourable treatment by the CFMEU. Mirvac disguised the work by inflating invoices from subcontractors on their existing Orion Shopping Centre project. A number of Canberra construction companies paid a CFMEU ACT organiser more than $210,000 to win construction work here in Canberra. The CFMEU denied knowledge of the payments but did not report these allegations to any authority and paid the organiser a very generous redundancy payment when he quietly resigned from the union.

I was due to speak on this bill on another day in this place and, on the day I was due to speak on this bill, it was revealed that the militant construction union, the CFMEU, had been hit with fines of almost $250,000 after the Federal Court found it had engaged in 'industrial bullying' and deliberately flouted the law during a blockade at the $80 million Perth Airport expansion project. In a scathing appeal judgment today, the court's full bench found the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union had shown it preferred to pay civil penalties rather than obey the law. This may come as an absolute shock and surprise, but it really should not—not when you have got ACTU secretary Sally McManus out there saying that unions should break the law when they believe it to be unjust.

Mr Hammond interjecting—

Isn't it interesting that I get interjections from the member for Perth when I talk about the CFMEU! I like to take note of things that happen in this chamber, Member for Perth, and I remember the member for Perth was ejected from this chamber during question time. On the first occasion he was ejected because the matter of the CFMEU was being raised in this parliament. And here he goes again! I wonder if the member for Perth has come into this chamber because he heard those letters C-F-M-E-U being rung out across this chamber.

Mr Hammond interjecting—

So he has come in here to interject once more. Perhaps today he will find himself ejected again, absolutely defending his union bosses, the CFMEU. Maybe the member for Perth and the member for Brand could interject and help me with the pronunciation of the name 'Mick Buchan'. I am not sure if I have the pronunciation right. He is not known as well to me as he is to those opposite. This is somebody who, along with the CFMEU's Joe McDonald, has committed 53 prior contraventions of the law.

We need to do all we can to support and protect workers from union bosses who corruptly take benefits for their own personal gain and for their own organisations. These secret deals and kickbacks of corrupt union leaders and corrupt employers seriously disadvantage workers. They need to be outlawed, and this is exactly what this bill will do. This bill amends the Fair Work Act 2009 to respond to the recommendations of the final report of the royal commission and will help to restore the confidence of workers—confidence that the management of their union is accountable, transparent, fair and ethical. This bill, of course, still allows legitimate payments, like the payments of genuine union membership fees consented to by employees or safety training programs provided by unions at market rates—what a surprise! It will also require unions to disclose to all employees all financial benefits that they would derive from an enterprise agreement before the employees vote on that agreement.

There is nothing wrong with transparency. On this side of the House we stand on the side of transparency. We have seen that very clearly this week. What do those opposite want to do? They want to hide behind their union bosses and they want to protect their corrupting benefits and payments. These are all fair and reasonable conditions. Perhaps most union members would think their delegates and officials would naturally act with the interests of workers first, but we know that is not the case.

This is a real test for those opposite; they need to admit that. They say they believe in the worker. They stand in this place and tell us black and blue that they are the party of the worker. They want to say that they are the best for every Australian, but time and time again it is proven they are about big unions and big deals with big business.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Tangney for his excellent contribution to the debate. Indeed, I thank all honourable members for their contribution to this debate on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017.

This bill will help to restore integrity to Australian workplaces. It will end the secrecy that has marked dealings between employers and unions for decades. It will ensure the corrupt payments between a business, employee, union or union official are banned, with significant criminal penalties for anyone who flouts the law. Penalties will apply equally to employers and unions who are both implicated by a secret payment.

The Heydon royal commission uncovered more than 20 separate examples of payments secretly changing hands between employers and unions. One of the worst offenders, as revealed by the royal commission, was the Leader of the Opposition's own union, the Australian Workers Union in Victoria. The royal commission revealed hundreds of thousands of dollars of payments flying from companies to the union, including Thiess John Holland, ACI Operations, Winslow Constructors, Chiquita Mushrooms and, of course, Cleanevent. In return, companies had the assurance that the AWU would not agitate for better conditions or better pay for workers—the very workers they are supposed to represent. Commissioner Heydon also observed that these practices were not new but had been carrying on for the past 30 years.

He also found that what he uncovered was just the small tip of an enormous iceberg. The royal commission found that not even existing laws on bribery, extortion, blackmail and secret commissions were enough to outlaw these arrangements. Those laws are not easily applied to payments involving unions and their officials. Even in cases where they can be applied, they have failed to deter the regular practice of such payments being made. Commissioner Heydon recommended that new provisions be introduced into the Fair Work Act to criminalise such payments. That is exactly what this bill does. This bill brings an end to the secretive, corruptive practice that has marked dealings between employers and unions for decades. The bill will rightly ensure that the true beneficiaries of workplace deals are the workers.

I turn now to some of the matters raised in the debate. There has been some discussion about whether this bill will apply equally to employers and to unions. I can assure all members that this bill has been carefully drafted to capture both sides of a corrupting benefits transaction. As the final report of the royal commission stated, corrupt receipt implies corrupt payment. An employer who offers or provides a secret financial benefit to a union is as heavily implicated as a union who solicits or accepts such payment. The penalties for both parties are the same and both parties can be held equally liable for the one transaction.

Similarly, each of the employers, unions and any employer association will have to disclose to employees most financial benefits they stand to gain under an enterprise agreement before employees vote on the agreement. Whether benefits are flowing to employers or to unions, workers deserve to know what they are being asked to approve in a deal that sets their wages and conditions.

There has also been some discussion about whether this bill is fair for workers. This bill has been designed for workers. They are the ones being kept in the dark over these deals, and they are the ones who stand to lose because of them. By banning corrupting and illegitimate payments and requiring disclosure of benefits arising from enterprise agreements, workers will be protected from secret deals that conflict with their interests. They will also be told what deals have been negotiated into enterprise agreements they are asked to support.

For example: in the case of Clean Event and a deal done by the AWU in Victoria, the royal commission found that in exchange for payments of $25,000 per year, the Victorian branch of the AWU in substance agreed not to seek better terms and conditions for three years for those of its members employed by Clean Event. For the workers employed by Clean Event the outcome was appalling. All involved benefited from the deal except for the people who the union was supposed to be representing. That is what the royal commission found. This is not why unions exist. Our bill will help to ensure that workers receive the benefit of honest employers and honest union officials who represent their interests.

There has also been some discussion about consultation on the bill. I would simply refer to the two-year-long royal commission, which had 189 hearing days, heard from 505 witnesses, conducted public hearings all over the country and received and reviewed thousands of documents. This royal commission recommended the changes in this bill, which the government is adopting.

I would like to thank the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for their inquiry into this bill, and all those individuals and organisations who contributed by preparing written submissions and giving evidence at the public hearings. The government is considering the committee's report. I commend the bill to the House.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In accordance with standing order 43, the debate is interrupted. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.