Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, I could not let you go without thinking to myself, quietly, 'I hear the social agrarian that you in fact are when you talk about trade unions with such distaste.' I find the juxtaposition of where you sit in the social agrarian National Party and where I sit in trade unions somewhat novel to look at. But, nonetheless, you are entitled to have your views.

I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013. The Australian people were promised a mature, responsible government. We were promised a government that would be run by adults under the coalition. That promise has proved to be just one of the many broken promises that litter the corridors of the Ministerial Wing of this building today. The Abbott government's pre-election promises have all gone up in a puff of cigar smoke and the way this legislation has been handled, quite frankly, is no different. Just as Mr Tony Abbott's budget is a budget of broken promises, this legislation is completely full of hypocrisy. The legislation before the chamber can only be described as being politically motivated in the extreme. It is unnecessary, and I will not be supporting it or the way government has managed this bill in this place. It is in fact a piece of scrambled legislation that they have cobbled together as, you could only say, an extreme attack on trade unions per se. The legislation is a thinly-veiled attack on trade unions and, by extension, their members. Unions work incredibly hard to represent the best interests of their members. They have a role to play in the modern Australian economy and workforce, and I think that in itself is what the Liberal Party and the Liberals on the other side find almost impossible to accept.

The government has not properly explained the case for change for this legislation. They have failed to make the case that the existing legislation should be changed in this extreme way. Registered organisations should be responsibly regulated, and I do not think that anyone would cavil at that statement. Labor supports the act in its current state. Why? Because it gets the balance right. It strikes the right balance between good legislation, how you properly regulate registered organisations and how you should ensure that you do not take it to the extreme to punish registered organisations.

The law at present already does the following: registered organisations already prohibit members' money from being used to favour particular candidates in internal elections or campaigns; the Registered Organisations Act already allows for criminal proceedings being initiated where funds are stolen or are obtained by fraud; the Registered Organisations Act already ensures that the Fair Work Commission can share information with the police, as is appropriate; and the Registered Organisations Act already provides for statutory civil penalties where a party knowingly or recklessly contravenes an order or direction made by the Federal Court or the Fair Work Commission under the Registered Organisations Act or the Fair Work Act. The current legislation is pretty tough, can I say, in the way that it currently works.

Under the Fair Work Act officers of registered organisations already have a fiduciary duty akin to that for directors under the Corporations Law. The Registered Organisations Act already requires officers to disclose their personal interests. The Registered Organisations Act already requires officers to disclose when payments are made to related parties. And it does not stop there. The Registered Organisations Act already requires officers to exercise care and diligence and act with good faith. All of these put an incredible onus and responsibility on trade unions to act appropriately and conduct their affairs in an open and transparent way on behalf of their members.

As the dissenting report of the committee's inquiry into the bill noted, the current Registered Organisations Act already addresses the proposals of the bill to the appropriate extent. It prohibits money from being used to favour particular candidates in internal elections and gives priority to the determination of criminal proceedings, for example, where it is alleged that funds have been stolen or obtained by fraud, and ensures that the Fair Work Commission can share information with the police, as appropriate.

As has already been noted by the speakers on this side on this bill, these changes are aimed solely at hindering the efforts of trade unions to effectively represent their members in the workplace. When you look at the present legislation and at where these changes want to go, you can be left in no doubt that it is all about simply making it almost impossible for unions to operate effectively in the workplace and an unveiled attack on trade unions by this government. Why? Those on the other side have a long hatred of unions, and it manifests itself whenever they get their head. When they had the ability to pass legislation in this place from 2004 onwards, what did they do? They attacked unions and their members through Work Choices. Unfettered, they then went to the extreme, as is always the case. In this instance, they took a piece of legislation that was suitable and matched to fit registered organisations, and they have taken it to the extreme again. Why? As I said, the only reason left is their unbridled hatred of trade unions.

When you look at one particular aspect of the bill that represents significant overreach by a government full of twisted priorities and full of surprises, you can see it come through. The expansion of coercive investigatory powers is hidden within this bill. The legislation as it stands provides coercive powers in relation to current and former officers, employees or auditors of an organisation. The amendment legislation extends the powers in such a way as to reach any person the commission identifies as potentially holding information or evidence of relation. This will give the commissioner significant new powers to compel evidence, execute warrants and seize documents from any person. This can only be described as a significant overreach.

It was not something the coalition canvassed with the public before the last election. What they want to be able to do is give powers to the commissioners which are unprecedented in a broad sense—more than what you would expect for a body that is there to ensure registered organisations act within the law. Why? They want to have unfettered access to be able to attack trade unions using this piece of legislation shamelessly. Of course, the overreach is not hidden in that sense. They do put it in their legislation and they do encourage the commission to use all of the powers that are available to it to attack trade unions—and I suspect it would.

One of the novelties, if there is a novelty within this piece of legislation, is the extraordinary hypocrisy about red tape. We all know that this government is about removing red tape. They have set up—I do not know what they call it—a red tape task force to go around in departments, find red tape and destroy it where they can. This is one of the hypocritical issues that have come forward, which can also be described as a broken promise.

Mr Daniel Mammone, the workplace policy and legal affairs director of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, gave this evidence in the Senate inquiry in response to a searching question from Senator Tillem:

Senator TILLEM: Would you agree with the statement that, further, the requirements of this bill add another layer of red tape for those organisations that you deal with and got feedback from? Is that a fair statement?

Mr Mammone: There are elements that compound the existing problems, yes.

This is clear evidence that the government's only plans are for twisted priorities and broken promises, because in this instance they want to add red tape and ensure that they surround trade unions with a substantial amount of red tape. Why? Because of their unbridled hatred of the operation of trade unions, the way they look after their members and the way they operate within the industrial sphere. The government are willing, in this instance, to breach and break one of their promises of removing red tape for what can only be described as a political end. It is simply a twisted priority when you juxtapose it. As Senator Bilyk noted, they would happily sacrifice a business to put impediments on the operation of trade unions. They are even willing to go that little extra step and say: 'We won't worry too much about business in this instance. Businesses are in the way of our target. They might be called collateral damage—too bad, so sad. We are willing to sacrifice those principles and sacrifice small business to achieve our aim of attacking trade unions.'

The Liberals have proved themselves to be the poorest managers of this chamber since I have been here. I cannot speak for before then, but when you look at the way this bill has been dealt with, the incompetence has not been limited to the operation of government business and the programs of this place. It really has extended across the entirety of this government when you look at how they are managing this legislative program.

The budget is a betrayal of working people and it truly is a slap in the face to the people who voted for this government, because what are we dealing with today? We are dealing with one of their twisted priorities. We are dealing with registered industrial organisations. It is not about the budget, it is not about issues that go to the budget; what they really want to talk about are their twisted priorities around how to attack trade unions. The budget process to date has been farcical, and the extraordinary damage they are now inflicting on families is quite unbelievable. We witnessed the most chaotically mishandled and sieve-like budget since John Howard's 1980 budget, which was leaked in full to Laurie Oakes.

I suspect we have already got a government in revolt, with a backbench treated like mushrooms and a Prime Minister and Treasurer breaking election promise after election promise. Above all, I think this budget has been—as Dr Chalmers from the other place called it—an ambush on the Australian people, particularly on working people, and this piece of legislation is just another attack on working people. It attacks industrial organisations which represent their members—Australian working people—in the workplace. It highlights their priorities around who they have in their target: working people and trade unions who represent working people.

This is a budget written by the cigar chompers and borne by hardworking Australians. While lower- and middle-income earners are being sent to the wall, the big end of town are getting off scot-free. Their attack on working people contained in this bill is replicated in their attacks in the budget, and you do not have to go far into it to hear it. A GP tax, increasing the petrol tax, cuts to the pension, education, students with disabilities and young apprentice support—all broken promises, all attacks on hardworking Australians, and it is reflected here.

I would go so far as to say that this registered industrial organisation bill today has at its heart the way the Liberal Party addresses working people. They do not like trade unions, they do not like working people and they do not like those who need support in the electorate. Labor does not support a tax on working people or their representatives. Unions work hard for their members' interests in the workplace, and you do not have to go far to find how bad this piece of legislation is.

The Australian Council of Trade Unions, in its submission to the Senate committee inquiry, expressed the view that this bill is 'poorly conceived, badly motivated, entirely unnecessary and transparently political in an area where there is no extant public policy problem.' I think they have said it all in one sentence, quite frankly. The ACTU's analysis and conclusions about many of the requirements and penalties in this bill are similar to the AIG's.

In the workplace we have a confluence of interests—industrial organisations, trade unions and employer organisations—who all think this legislation is bad. It is atrocious in the extreme. It even goes to areas which I think make you wonder about their priorities. If you look at the coercive powers in the investigatory area, they have given greater powers and taken away use and derivative use immunity. You could juxtapose that with what a former senator of this place, Senator Cooney, said. I hope I have got this right; I am happy to correct it. He once said that what you are doing is giving more power to people to look into, in this instance, trade unions or registered industrial organisations, than you give to the police to look at people who have been murderers, people who have done some heinous deeds in the criminal sphere. Why is that? To be able to justify it you do need to put down quite clearly what those justifications are and why we should accept them. I do not think, in this instance, the case has been made for this extreme use of powers plus the removal of the privilege against self-incrimination for use and derivative use immunities. In fact, derivative use immunity is, as I understand it, gone.

Turning to other provisions in this legislation, of course they will have to fund it. I think it highlights their twisted priorities where they are going to fund an attack on registered industrial organisations whilst at the same time, for companies, it is quite interesting. The argument goes something like this: registered industrial organisations should be treated like companies. I think that is a poor argument and does not reflect the truth of how industrial organisations work and how they are comprised. But whilst you are strengthening these powers to attack trade unions, today we find out from the budget that you are removing approximately $120 million from ASIC so that they will not be able to perform their tasks in pursuing companies and the like for the work that they do—which has been and always is good work. But that is where you find their priorities. 'We'll ensure that ASIC cannot do its job. We'll take $120 million out of them over four years to make sure they cannot do their proper functions of keeping big corporations in check, making sure that companies do have a good investigative arm on their case. In this instance, though, we're going to support a tough piece of legislation to attack trade unions but ultimately we are going to say that companies and trade unions from your perspective should be treated the same.' How hypocritical. You are entirely hypocritical in that argument. It falls flat when you look at how you are going to pull the rug out from under ASIC and bolster your attack on trade unions. I commend the submission to the Senate. (Time expired)