Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

No, I didn't actually. In fact, there was not much I liked about it at all.

We have a divided federal government where, remarkably, the chief whip is attacking the Prime Minister of this country. And even in relation to the responsibilities of the trade union movement, we have division. I referred to Mr Paul Howes before. I want to read a quote from Mr Howes. He has stood up and actually backed moves for tougher penalties for union bosses who misuse members' funds, stating:

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

The reality is I do not have any issue—

I will repeat that—

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

Interestingly, it is reported that at the AWU annual conference, Mr Howes said:

Unions should be held to a higher account than the corporate sector and there should be 'zero tolerance' for corruption.

As we know, this bill will increase penalties for breaches of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act. It will provide additional duties for officers of registered organisations. It will improve standards of governance. It will provide higher penalties for failing to lodge proper financial statements with Fair Work Australia. It will provide new penalties for those who breach those laws.

What we need to do in the debate on this bill is to see who is talking the talk and see who is walking the walk. This bill, introduced by my colleague Senator Abetz, is walking the walk in relation to protection of workers from union officials who seek to deprive them and misappropriate their funds. Those opposite, and we have heard the speeches today, are talking the talk but will not walk the walk. I go back and look at the disgraceful behaviour of Mr Thomson from the other place and the behaviour of Mr Michael Williamson, who, from recollection, was a national president or deputy national president—one or the other. And those opposite have the gall to come in here and talk the talk but will they walk the walk on behalf of the union members who have been exploited by Mr Thomson and others?

When you have a political party such as the Australian Labor Party, of whom virtually all are former union officials or staffers, how can you possibly come in here and oppose a bill such as this? I invite those opposite to reflect on Mr Thomson's behaviour and I invite those opposite to reflect on the alleged misappropriation of funds by Mr Thomson that has led to some 142 charges, from recollection.

When you come in here and talk the talk, how about you start walking the walk in relation to some of the lowest paid people in this country—people who are cleaning hospitals, cleaning toilets, cleaning bathrooms, cleaning bedpans? They are some of the lowest paid people in this country, and you are walking away from them. You walk away from them in relation to Mr Thomson. You walked away from them with your protection of him until it became completely untenable for you to continue that. I will give you some quotes from the Prime Minister soon. You know, I know and the Australian community knows that you should have walked away well before then. And we know that what was being done during that period of time was the reinforcement of the greatest protection racket we have ever seen in this country—a protection racket protecting those who are ripping off the lowest paid workers in this country. How can those opposite, as union officials, stand by and watch that sort of behaviour? How could you possibly let down the people you ostensibly represent in that way? How could you possibly do it to them?

Those opposite have a choice to make today. You stop the likes of Mr Thomson—and I do not think the two Labor senators opposite, whom I will not name, support treatment of workers like that. If indeed that is correct—I will not embarrass you by mentioning your names—then how can you possibly vote against this bill?