Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

Through the chair, for Senator McKenzie's information, I have basically been following through the points that were made by Senator Abetz in his speech, so, if I am not being relevant, you could have showed an even hand and interrupted Senator Abetz in his contribution. So I will continue on with Senator Abetz's contribution, if that is okay, Senator McKenzie.

Senator Abetz spoke of people rising above being trade union officials. I think one of the highest things you can be in this country is a trade union official, looking after workers' rights against some terrible bosses in this country, working with decent bosses in this country to improve productivity, doing the right thing day in, day out, protecting workers rights and entitlements and making sure they get their penalty rates. I think rising above that is a big rise. You have to rise a long way to be above trying to ensure the rights of workers.

Then Senator Abetz spoke of the AWU, the HSU, the TWU and the CFMEU without any evidence of any corruption or criminal activity. I remind the Senate that the current coalition government spent over $60 million on a royal commission into the building industry—and what was the outcome of that? Not one trade union official was charged with a criminal activity. Sixty-odd million dollars of public money was spent to try and prove some corrupt activity in the building industry and not one union official was charged with any corruption.

The other interesting point that Senator Abetz raised was abuse of the process of the Senate. Well, hasn't Senator Abetz got a short memory! If you listened to his contribution, you would have thought that they actually really believe in the processes of the Senate and did not abuse the power or processes of the Senate. He gave us a little lecture about the difference between legislation committees and references committees. We got a little homily from Senator Abetz about references committees versus legislation committees and how important it was to respect the different roles of the legislation committees and the references committees. But what Senator Abetz forgot to say is that, when they were in power last time and had complete control in the Senate, they got rid of references committees. They abandoned the references committee approach because it might just have been a little problem for them in their complete and utter control of the Senate. So they got rid of them. I am not sure if I was listening carefully enough, but I do not think Senator Abetz mentioned that huge abuse of process of the Senate when he was telling us how the coalition respect the processes, functions and history of the Senate. Senator Abetz might come back and explain that little abuse of process—or not so little; a huge abuse, actually.

I want to go to this issue of the criminal versus the civil approach. Registered organisations, whether they are employers or employees—the AiG, the ACCI, the ACTU, the MUA and the CFMEU—have all said: if there is criminal activity in any form, then deal with it through criminal laws and make sure it is dealt with expeditiously. No-one in the trade union movement is covering up, as Senator Abetz would have it, any alleged criminal activity in the trade union movement.

Senator Abetz continually raised the suggestion that this was the trade union movement trying to protect itself from laws that would bring about better behaviour and expose criminal activity. Well, I did not see one submission from any employer organisation to the inquiry that took place that actually said they agreed with that analysis. I will come back to the AiG position because they go through in some detail the weaknesses and problems with this bill. Actually, Senator Abetz did alert us to the fact that this was done very quickly, that it was only through the hard work of the department that this was put together. So what he is foreshadowing in my view is that this is quick and dirty legislation. When you see the analysis from both the trade union movement and, more importantly, the employer organisations on this issue, you will see that it was quick and dirty legislation. The drafting is incomplete, the drafting is vague, the drafting has massive amounts of consequences that have not been thought through by the government.

The ACCI, certainly no friend of the trade union movement, said:

As the impact of the recent changes to the Registered Organisations Act cannot yet be assessed—

and remember, there have been significant changes made with significant increases in penalties—

ACCI does not support further changes to the Registered Organisations Act at this stage.

They do not support this bill. The ACCI, the allies of the coalition on so many issues, do not support this legislation. They are saying basically that they would welcome the opportunity to participate in a review, should it occur, and will consider proposals which would amend the registered organisations act within that context. Well, what we are arguing for is an inquiry that would give them the opportunity to do that in a considered and timely way. So, the ACCI agree with us; they do not agree with the coalition.

The Master Plumbers have requested a further period of consultation. They have done that because they know there are problems with this bill. So, the Labor Party agrees with the ACCI and the Master Plumbers, but the coalition do not and they want to rush this through.

The Pharmacy Guild of Australia—you would not think they would be arguing in support of a proposition that is not about accountability and doing the right thing—are saying there are more detailed examples of the ambiguity and confusion with aspects of the bill. And then they lay them out—all the ambiguities and confusion. 'This bill is full of ambiguities and confusion'—that is not from the ACTU, the union movement. The Labor Party agrees with the Pharmacy Guild that there are ambiguities and confusion in this bill.

We should be fair dinkum about this and not make holier-than-thou speeches, as Senator Abetz just did. We should be clear that you are making laws in this place and they should not be based on ambiguity and confusion or about targeting individuals because there are some criminal activities that are being dealt with in the courts. The registered organisations act has been longstanding in this country.

I now want to go to what the AiG are saying—the AiG I have had fights with all of my industrial life as a union official. What they say is that 'overwhelmingly the officials and staff of registered organisations of employers and employees are dedicated and ethical people who work very hard for the benefit of their members'. Let me say that again: 'overwhelmingly the officials and staff of registered organisations of employers and employees are dedicated and ethical people who work very hard for the benefit of their members'. So, they have got no doubts. They are actually in the area of industrial relations doing the business on behalf of their members, on behalf of employers. They play it hard, they play it tough, they have got a reputation of taking every chance they can get to make it tough for the union movement if that is to the benefit of their members. But they do not do that here. They say there are huge problems with this bill and it is unfair.

I do not have time to go through every point they raise, but they make point after point. They say, 'What is the definition of "serious contravention"? What is the definition of "serious"?' There are no definitions in this bill as to those issues. They go on and basically say the penalties are over the top and that you cannot compare the operation of a voluntary organisation, such as an employer organisation or a union, with a corporation. They are two completely different things, and the history of this country has always treated them differently. They go on to point out a number of provisions of the bill that are a real problem. There is a clause in the bill that says if an organisation—an employer organisation or a union—does not respond within 28 days to a member request for a statement of membership they can be fined $80,000. They accept that that is over the top.

So that is the AiG, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the ACCI and the Master Plumbers. Let me tell you, when we have a further hearing into this the employer organisations will be queuing up to say you cannot and should not treat these registered organisations as criminal organisations, you should not treat them as organisations that do not do the right thing—because they can see that, overwhelmingly, the employee organisations in this country, the union movement, are made up of people who do the right thing. This is an ideological agenda and we should support this proposition.