Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Governance and due diligence are the lifeblood of registered organisations. If you have ever been a member of a bowls club, a footy club, a bingo club or a union, you will have found that those people in charge of the till are always meticulous. They volunteer their time, they bring their acumen and governance is complete. The registrar would take reports from any number of registered organisations every year. They scrutinise them in accordance with the legislation and they return a letter. You know you have been successful when they give you a letter which has one line in it: 'Documents have been filed.' That is the complete tick of approval from the registrar that documents have been filed. That means that your general purpose operation statement, your statement of profit and loss, and your balance sheet have all been independently audited by a completely separate auditing firm working on behalf of the members of the organisation. That is all placed in the appropriate statement that the branch committee of management has made and it all goes off to the registrar. If there is a comma out of place, a misspelt name, a paragraph or an answer to one of the questions in the wrong place, you get an immediate letter back, saying, 'Correct it.' As I say, success is: 'Documents have been filed.'

That happens for a great number of registered organisations in this country every year. I am sure that statistics are available for the number of registered organisations which do not get that letter, stating: 'Your document has been filed.' If there are an overwhelming number of organisations not getting that letter, stating, 'Your document has been filed,' there may need to be some examination of what is going wrong. But I can tell you that is not the case. Unions have been fulfilling their obligations in respect of auditing, governance and reporting back to their members for 100 years.

The government may well think that imposition of criminal penalties will make things better. Sadly, I do not think it will change anything. I do not think it is required. Life will just go on as normal. People may become a little more cautious. That rank-and-file member who volunteers his 2½ hours per month to help out his work mates, his industry and his union may think twice about whether he will put his name to being a trustee, because this government has decided to create significant penalties—penalties equivalent to those associated with corporate misbehaviour.

I would like to finish on that. Corporate misbehaviour is documented. There is plenty of evidence that there has been a whole lot of corporate misbehaviour and there is plenty of evidence going back 100 years that substantial penalties are required for that. You could reel them off. That body of evidence has created the need in law for substantial penalties. My position is that there is an absence of a body of evidence that creates the need in law for these substantial penalties to apply to unions. In addition, from the opposition's point of view they may have unintended consequences. You may have not-for-profits that do not get a contribution from people who do not get a salary. You may have a not-for-profit that cannot fill a position because there are penalties in place. You may in the trade union movement get genuine workers who do the right thing and want to do a bit extra for their industry and their work mates considering, 'Should I be a trustee or president? Do I need to get legal advice as to what could happen in the event of a misdemeanour?'