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

I am sorry. Through you: how can those two senators opposite, whom I will not name and who I believe are decent, genuine people, possibly vote against this bill in light of what has happened? It is utterly beyond me. I think it shows that the protection racket that has been run by this government to protect senior union officials is clear evidence that there is an unholy alliance between the trade union movement and the Australian Labor Party. It has now meant that the rights of workers in this country and the obligation of those opposite to protect them have been completely abrogated. They have abrogated their responsibility to those men and women whom they say they represent. If they are serious about wiping out the behaviour of the likes of Mr Thomson then they will indeed support this bill.

Senator Bilyk made some comments about the comments of the coalition members and the comments in the dissenting report. I have already said Mr Howes believes that there is even greater obligation on unions than there is on the corporate sector. I will repeat his quote. Mr Howes told the AWU annual conference:

… unions should be held to a higher account than the corporate sector and there should be "zero tolerance" for corruption.

I do not for one minute think that the Australian community believes that Mr Thomson's behaviour was anything other than corrupt. I would find it hard to believe that those opposite would think that the misappropriation of those funds as alleged was anything other than corrupt. Mr Howes believes there is a greater obligation on the union movement even than there is on the corporate sector.

The coalition said:

… in relation to the discharge of duties – that the same responsibilities should apply to a union boss as to a company boss. At present this is not the case, for example:

Mr Smith is the CEO of The Book Corporation and is found to have misused $50,000 of shareholders' money in contravention of his duties to the Corporation and its membership in an intentionally dishonest manner under the Corporations Act 2001.

I note that was introduced by the coalition, so so much for this notion that we do not believe the corporate world has the same obligations as unions and others. We are the ones who introduced this legislation. As for this notion that we are there to protect the corporate sector while attacking the union sector—'beating up' as Senator Bilyk said—maybe the corporate sector thought we were beating up on them when we introduced this bill in 2001, when we introduced a bill which imposed significant penalties on people who were not doing the right thing, where we imposed significant penalties on those who were misusing company and shareholder funds. They may well have thought we were beating up on them. We were not. We were requiring of them a level of responsibility and an obligation to use the funds that they hold appropriately. This bill is doing exactly the same thing. So, rather than beating up on the unions, over 10 years ago we actually introduced legislation in relation to the corporate sector to ensure that they did the right thing.

I will go on with this report:

Under section 184 of the Corporations Act 2001, Mr Smith could be subject to a maximum fine of 2,000 penalty units and five years' imprisonment as well as further civil and criminal offences i.e. fraud.

I read on from the dissenting report:

If Mr Smith is the Secretary of the Bookkeepers Union and is found to have misused $50,000 of union members' money in contravention of his duties to that union and its membership in an intentionally dishonest manner under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, Mr Smith would not be liable for any criminal penalty but may be liable for further civil and criminal offences i.e. fraud.

So we have two people doing exactly the same thing, misusing funds, and one will face up to five years imprisonment and the other is not liable for any criminal penalty.

When you have the likes of Mr Michael Williamson, Mr Craig Thomson and Mr Eddie Obeid who believe the law is beneath them, that they are indeed above the law, is it not the obligation of this parliament to ensure that similar penalties apply to everyone who is misusing funds, whether they be shareholder funds or members' funds? If this were the only bill in relation to the misuse of funds then I would have some sympathy for the comments of those opposite. This bill comes 12 years after the introduction of penalties under the Corporations Act. Some would quite rightly say it should have been brought in before then.

What actually motivated this bill? What motivated it was the protection of union members' rights to have their funds protected. It was driven by the need to protect people such as some of the lowest paid workers in this country who are cleaning hospital toilets, cleaning hospital laundries, cleaning hospital floors and cleaning hospital bathrooms. They are the people who deserve protection from union officials who seek to misappropriate their funds. That union member is no different from a shareholder in a corporation who needs to be protected from those who would seek to remove their— (Time expired)