Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Like a freight train across the Nullarbor, you could have seen this particular piece of legislation coming for miles—for days, for weeks, for months, for nigh on a year. This was part of our agenda to ensure accountability and transparency with registered organisations. It is not an ideological attack on the union movement, as those opposite would like us to believe. It is actually for all of us—for the community—to be assured that employer organisations, workers' organisations and indeed any registered organisations ensure that the dues paid by the members to those organisations are used in a responsible matter and that the governing arrangements for those organisations give confidence to those members that they are being taken care of in an appropriate manner.

Briefly, the policy applies the same rules to unions and officials as for companies and their directors. Given the amount of money that some of these organisations are in charge of, and given the importance of a lot of the advocacy work that they are involved in, that should be the least of the regulations that they should be subject to. It ensures penalties for breaking the rules are the same for everyone, as are disclosure requirements. In addition, the policy calls for a new body, the Registered Organisations Commission, to take on the enforcement and investigation roles currently held by the Fair Work Commission. The new commission would also provide information and advice to registered organisations about their rights and obligations under the law.

We have a clear mandate for this legislation. Specifically, the bill responds to a number of outstanding recommendations from the June 2012 review into the operation of the Fair Work Act by the Fair Work Review Panel. I speak on this bill as a member—and, at the time of the inquiry, acting chair—of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which inquired into the bill and reported to the Senate in 2013. In the legislation committee report, the committee supported the bill subject to four minor amendments. Firstly:

The Committee recommends that, consistent with the Corporations Act 2001, material personal interest disclosures should only be required to be made to those officers whose duties relate to the financial management of the organisation. Such disclosures should be recorded in the minutes of the meetings of those officers and should be made available to members on request.

I am surprised that the opposition is not supporting this amendment, given that it ensures that the shareholdings of husbands and wives of union representatives are not open for disclosure. It ensures that only those who are dealing directly with the financial management of the organisation are subject to the same disclosure rules as under the Corporations Act. Secondly:

The Committee recommends that a list of exclusions from the obligations to disclose material personal interests based on section 191(2) of the Corporations Act 2001 be inserted into the bill. This would narrow the obligation to disclose material personal interests …

Thirdly:

The Committee recommends that the obligation placed on officers to disclose every payment should be reduced with certain exclusions …

Fourthly and finally:

The Committee recommends the bill be amended to allow the Commissioner to grant exemptions from the training requirements if an individual can demonstrate significant knowledge of the financial obligations specified in the bill.

This is because, despite the policies of various Labor state governments and the TAFE regime, there is no point training people for the sake of training people. I know the training obligations and the money they can raise from training their members are a great money-spinner for many of the registered organisations, but if you already have the training there is no reason for you to undergo that again.

Predictably for a bill which would make unions more accountable, Labor senators produced a dissenting report opposing the bill in its entirety. I think that was in December 2013. What was less predictable was Labor's decision to refer the bill to the Education and Employment References Committee, which of course they control.

Referring the bill for a second inquiry was a highly unusual tactic. In fact, it has not been used since August 1996 when, again, Labor referred another piece industrial relations legislation, the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 1996 to the Senate Economics Reference Committee. So much for the bleating about ideology. Politics is the battle of ideas; on this side, ideas centred around freedom, transparency and accountability. And on the other side, as Senator Cameron made reference to in his contribution on this piece of legislation yesterday: 'There is nothing wrong with it—leave it as it is. There is no problem.' Clearly, that is not what we found in our inquiry. That was not the evidence given to the committee and it was not the evidence given to the coalition during the construction of our policy around this matter. It just shows how desperate Labor is to appease its union mates and masters.

The reference committee essentially replicated the work of the legislative committee. The only difference is that this time it was a Labor majority report, with a dissenting report from coalition senators. Our dissenting report flatly rejected the need for a second inquiry. The new inquiry held just one hearing for which just three unions and one employer organisation turned up. What a waste of time, paper, energy, Senate resources and money! But how typical of Labor.

Senators on this side of the chamber firmly support the government taking strong action to ensure all registered organisations are accountable. Has Labor learnt nothing from the HSU scandal? The fact that it took Fair Work Australia four long years to complete its investigation into the HSU demonstrates the need for a separate Registered Organisations Commission, as set out in this bill.

It is now very clear that HSU was just the tip of the iceberg. The Fair Work Commission has recently launched proceedings against the Musicians Union of Australia, and currently has inquiries or investigations into the Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union, the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation, the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia, the Flight Attendants' Association of Australia, the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia, Australian Nursing Federation and the Australian Childcare Centres Association.

We have also just seen the start of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. I would encourage Labor Senators who think that all is well with the union movement and that this bit of legislation is not required to please log on to www.trade union royal commission.gov.au, and tor those Twitter aficionados amongst as it is #turc, if they want to follow what is actually going on at the royal commission into the trade union movement and governance. Find some evidence of why this bit of legislation is required now.

The bill before the Senate is not about union bashing. It is about protecting workers from union officials who do the wrong thing—and they do exist. Not all; not the majority. But they do exist. The majority of union officials are honest and dedicated to the welfare of their members, and thus have nothing to fear from this bill. In fact, by clearing up the governance issues in registered organisations unions should become stronger as they regain the lost trust of workers and, indeed, the wider Australian public about their important role in our civic life. It is hard to understand why any Labor senator would have a problem with tackling corruption.

While current Labor politicians are more than shy about criticising unions, Labor figures of the past have been much more forthcoming. Former Labor powerbroker, Graham Richardson, wrote a column in The Australian of 31 January 2014, titled, 'Labor needs to re-examine its ties with the unions'.

Labor must assert the primacy of its own position over the trade unions. If it is seen again to slavishly follow the union line, it will give an already well-endowed Prime Minister even more grist for his mill.

Unfortunately for Labor, for workers and for the union movement more generally, that message is not getting through to Labor in this building.

Labor Senators cited as their main reason to oppose the bill, disclosure requirements for officers of registered organisations. Yet these issues arise courtesy of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2012, introduced by the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten. When introducing the bill, Mr Shorten said:

Under the amendments proposed by the government—

the then government—

registered organisations will be required to amend their rules to provide for the disclosure of transactions between the organisation and related parties, which may include the family members of officials.

Labor was happy to support disclosure when it was in government, but now it is against it now it is in opposition. What hypocrisy. Labor senators should really be more supportive of their leader. Mr Shorten was very close to the top of the Gillard government. He not only helped install Ms Gillard, he was so close to her that he agreed with everything she said even when he had no idea what she had said. Mr Shorten had the Prime Minister's back—that is, until he stabbed her in the back.

Edmund Burke said:

Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.

Labor's hypocrisy on this bill is similar to Labor now voting against budget saving measures that Labor brought to parliament and took to the last election. Last year Labor proposed $2.3 billion of savings. These came from an efficiency dividend on universities, a cut to scholarships and other higher education changes. In February last year the Gillard government announced savings of $1.1 billion as a result of research and development tax changes. But now Labor is blocking both of these pieces of legislation—both previous Labor plans. Labor sees no conflict in voting against its own policies, none at all. Indeed, it expects us to vote against our own policies, policies that we were very, very clear on prior to the election, that were part of the mandate that Australian people gave the Abbott government.

So why are Labor senators so reluctant to hold trade unions to account? I think that is a very, very good question. I have done a bit of homework; I have a few stats I would like to share with the chamber. Maybe one of the reasons could be that 19 out of the 31 ALP senators are former union officials or union bosses. Nine of them were union bosses, 10 of them were union officials. Senator Bilyk, who we just heard from before, the Australian Services Union; Senator Bishop, Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees union boss; Senator Cameron, passionate defence of the union movement yesterday, AMWU union boss; Senator Collins, SDA union official; Senator Conroy, Transport Workers Union official; Senator Dastyari, ALP boss right there; Senator Farrell, another shoppie union boss; Senator Furner, the National Union of Workers union boss; Senator Gallagher, Transport Workers Union boss; Senator Hogg, our President, a Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees union official; Senator Lines, United Voice, and what a voice it is, union boss; Senator Ludwig, Australian Workers Union union official; Senator Lundy, CFMEU union official; Senator Marshall, the ETU union official; Senator McEwen, the Australian Services Union boss; Senator Moore, CPSU union boss; Senator Singh, Australian Education Union official; Senator Sterle, Transport Workers Union official; Senator Urquhart, Australian Manufacturing Workers Union boss; Senator Wong, CFMEU union official. But wait, there is more! Come 1 July these senators will be joined by Senator Joe Bullock, SDA union boss, and Senator Chris Ketter, SDA union boss.

And what do they all have to hide? The community expectation is that these unions must operate to the highest of standards. These organisations are given special legislated rights, and with rights come responsibilities. The Craig Thomson affair showed that these responsibilities are not being met under the current arrangements. Mr Thomson was arrested in respect of more than 154 fraud related criminal charges and is facing allegations that his 2007 federal election campaign was partly funded by siphoning union money without authorisation. The union that Mr Thomson was ripping off represents some of the lowest paid workers in Australia, and it is outrageous that the union contributions of these low-paid workers were used to fund the seedy high life of a man who was supposed to be fighting on their behalf. It is outrageous that it took four years for justice to be done. It is outrageous that Labor senators think it is okay to maintain the status quo.

To improve oversight of registered organisations, the bill will establish a dedicated independent watchdog, the registered organisations commission, and provide it with enhanced investigation and information-gathering powers to monitor and regulate registered organisations. The new commission will have the necessary independence and the powers it needs to regulate registered organisations effectively, efficiently and transparently. The commission will have stronger investigation and information-gathering powers than those that currently apply. They will be modelled on those available to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The commission will also educate, assist and advise registered organisations and their members in relation to the new obligations, and ensure members are aware of their rights. The activities of the commission will also be subject to the same oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman as Commonwealth agencies. This will ensure the appropriate level of transparency and public accountability.

As well as establishing a strong, independent regulator, the bill introduces reporting and disclosure requirements, and enhanced penalties for wrongdoing. Many unions control assets worth millions of dollars. In financial terms they operate in a similar way to a large business, so it is appropriate for them to have similar reporting requirements. And I note that in his contribution yesterday, Senator Cameron was very keen to use the word 'volunteer', as if somehow we were talking kindergarten committees or football/netball clubs in the way that unions were being run. But I am very, very confident about this, having actually presided over a student association many years ago which had a turnover of $17 million. I know that many of the people involved in that organisation were not solely volunteers, and I know that throughout the unions there are some very significant salaries within the government structure of the union movement. They should be subject to more stringent accountability measures. Than the local kindergarten committee is.

The only people who have anything to fear are those who are doing the wrong thing. The overwhelming number of officers who are already doing the right thing should be comforted in knowing that unlawful behaviour will be dealt with, thus ensuring ongoing member confidence in registered organisations as a whole. There should be no difference between the penalties levied against a company director who misuses shareholders' funds and a union boss who misuses members' money. I do not know why that is a point of contention.

Any political party that refuses to support this greater accountability and transparency for registered organisations is voting to give the green light to more of the same behaviour that we have seen from some executives of the HSU. It is time for Labor senators to choose which side they are on. Are you on the side of Craig Thomson or are you on the side of the workers? I think the misuse of the committee process by Labor, particularly around this and the other amendment to the Fair Work Act is a disgrace, because all they are doing is using the very limited resources of the Senate basically to prosecute what is an ideological argument.

It will ever be thus, and when Senator Bilyk wants to talk about 'ideological crusades', the Labor Party and Greens, their partners in crime, have been on an ideological crusade for six years. And whenever you want to call them out on their ideological crusade; whenever you actually want to inject some accountability and transparency into workplace relations; and whenever you want to talk about the reality of operating a small business in regional areas and of penalty rates for young people, they pull out the Work Choices wildcard. It is the 'press button in case of emergency/smash glass'; it is as if this spectre of Work Choices will actually make up for the negligence that those opposite have wreaked upon the Australian economy and upon the potential job prospects of young Australians and the stability of our budgetary position over coming decades.

I am very proud of our government in that whilst it was not of our making, we have actually taken strong steps this week to address the inherent issues of the Labor malaise.