Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

No, I am not an ex-trade union official, but I have been a member of the executive of the New South Wales Labor Party for several years and I can deny categorically having any knowledge of slush funds of the kind you suggest.

Senator Abetz has been talking today about registered organisations in this matter of public importance. He, most emphatically, means trade unions and employer organisations, as referred to in the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. This legislation, introduced by the Labor government, requires organisations and, again, both employer and employee organisations, to keep and provide access to specified records. These records are outlined in detail in the regulations associated with the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act. They are created and registered for the purposes of representing Australian employers and employees at work. They already have particular statutory obligations in relation to their operation, conduct and disclosure. These organisations are required to provide audited financial statements to members, to be presented at a meeting and lodged with Fair Work Australia within a specified time frame.

These requirements and time frames are consistent with the general requirements of the Corporations Act and were specifically designed to be so, to honour commitments to Australia's business sector on reducing the regulatory burden for businesses, known as the Better Business Regulation initiative, as part of the Council of Australian Governments' Seamless National Economy program of reforms.

Many industry and employer bodies have been active participants in this reform process. The Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Minerals Council of Australia are all keen to support the reform of business regulation across Commonwealth, state and territory jurisdictions.

While this debate has been introduced in an attempt to smear and undermine the trade union movement, using the continuing allegations about so-called slush funds, we actually need to be careful about the pot calling the kettle black here.

Those of us who were here in 2004 will well remember the Australians for Honest Politics Trust—a euphemistic title if ever there was one, established by the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott; Peter Costello's father-in-law, Mr Coleman; and John Wheeldon to stop the Pauline Hanson political juggernaut. The single object of this trust was:

… to support actions to challenge the activities of a political party or association within Australia which is alleged to conduct its affairs in breach of the laws of Australia.

Mr Abbott acknowledged in the Sydney Morning Herald that he had raised almost $100,000 in an attempt to fund actions against One Nation.

In 2006, in a publication of the ANU entitled Political finance in Australia: a skewed and secret system, which followed the inquiry of the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee in 2004, the authors wrote:

Money plays a controversial role in Australian politics. Political donations often spark claims of secret contributions leading to corruption. These claims are occasionally accompanied by allegations that corporations or trade unions have undue influence over political parties through the funds they provide.

Many allegations are never found to be true. It is guilt by innuendo, because of course mud sticks. Unfortunately, some allegations are found to be true. We have certainly seen that played out in the activities of the crime and corruption bodies around the country. It certainly gives me no pleasure to read the daily reports of evidence to the Independent Commission Against Corruption in my own state. But I am very glad that this body exists, because representatives who are members of parliament and ministers of state not only are chosen by the people but exercise their legislative and executive powers as representatives of the people. And, in the exercise of these powers, the representatives are accountable to the people for what they do and have a responsibility to take account of the views of the people on whose behalf they act.

As many of you will know, I am not an adversarial lawyer, but I have an expectation that those of us elected to represent the people of Australia need to honour that pledge, which of course is why I support standards of regulation, good governance and transparency, especially in organisations that rely on public trust and confidence for donations.

This of course includes political parties. There have been many debates in this chamber about the need for improved disclosure of political donations, concern about the toxicity that is the sale of political access, the role of lobbyists and the lack of transparency around political donations.

Let me remind colleagues that it was the coalition and former Senator Steve Fielding who blocked reforms proposed by Senator John Faulkner during the Rudd government that would have reduced the reporting threshold to $1,000, rather than the current $11,500 threshold created by the Howard government, and that have significantly accelerated the reporting cycle for donations.

This debate today is about registered organisations. There are sound principles that underpin good regulation: consistency, proportionality, efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness, transparency and accountability. These are sound principles, which I am sure the opposition support—principles that have been agreed by the ACTU, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group.

This year the government introduced amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act, to improve financial transparency and disclosure for registered organisations as well as accountability and compliance. These amendments improve how investigations into breaches of registered organisation provisions are conducted by the general manager of Fair Work Australia. And, as Senator Abetz so rightly said, they increase the civil penalties threefold for contraventions of the act. That is, the penalties of $11,000 for an organisation and $2,200 for an individual—which Mr Abbott thought were appropriate—have now been tripled to a maximum of $33,000 for an organisation and $6,600 for an individual. Of course, that does not mean that that is the only penalty that is open to people who are found to have breached those regulations. It is disheartening to think that this would be all that Senator Abetz imagines would be happening. These registered organisations are actually quite different to corporations. First of all, they are voluntary and autonomous. Their role is different, despite what Senator Abetz would have to say. Corporations are designed to generate wealth and protect the financial interests of shareholders. Registered organisations have special obligations and rights under the Fair Work Act, including collective bargaining. Regardless of what Senator Abetz might like to argue, officials and officers of organisations are not the same as company directors—many hold their positions voluntarily.

When I saw this matter was coming up for debate today, it reminded me that Mr Gary Johns, in a paper to the HR Nicholls Society, described trade unions quite interestingly when he said:

Trade unions—along with friendly societies and mutual cooperatives—are among our earliest manifestations of activist civil society; they are original NGOs.

He went on to say 'trade unions are not of a piece, their behaviour and rhetoric varies enormously'—and that is exactly the point.

We are hearing in the media about the rogues, whose actions demean the work of good union activists in good faith bargaining, in strengthening workplaces, in supporting industry reform and restructuring and in working to maintain our economic advantage in the world. That is the shame, that these are all discounted by the actions of a few. So let us call this debate for exactly what it is. It is a demeaning debate that is aimed squarely at diminishing the public confidence in the Prime Minister of Australia. It is here today because the government does not have to continue to answer claims and misapprehensions of the opposition. The fact of the matter is that it is time now that the opposition put up or shut up.