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

Labor opposes this bill. We do so on the basis of what we have just heard from Senator Brandis . The pomposity and hypocrisy of Senator Brandis talking about red tape, green tape and beige tape, talking about unnecessary burdensome laws and regulations when we have the coalition proposing the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill, which is a huge imposition of red tape on registered organisations in this country. It is a huge burden of red tape. The bill is a replica of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013, which was rejected by the Senate on 14 May 2014. The amendments circulated by the government replicate the amendments negatived by the Senate in May. The bill is unnecessary and imposes burdensome regulations on registered organisations that no-one wants. After listening to Senator Brandis, how can the coalition, with any credibility, push this bill into the Senate? Employee organisations do not want it. The trade union movement has said that this is a bad bill. Employer organisations do not want it. Every employer organisation that appeared at the Senate inquiry into this bill said they do not want it and that it is more burdensome red tape.

Senator Abetz, the proponent of this bill in the Senate, has done one thing: he has united both the employer and the employee organisations in opposition to this bill. The regulation of registered organisations in the context that this bill seeks to impose is totally unnecessary. The changes effected by Labor's Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2012 and the Fair Work Amendment Act 2013 have already strengthened legislative provisions and rules of organisations concerning disclosure and transparency of decision making.

The government claims that this bill will place the regulation of registered organisations on the same footing as the regulation of corporations under the Corporations Act. It will, in fact, establish a more onerous regulatory regime on the volunteers who make up the committees of management of registered organisations than regulates the behaviour of highly paid executives on company boards. So volunteers who engage in employer organisations and employee organisations will be subject to more onerous regulation than company directors. What is this about? We just heard that pompous speech from Senator Brandis talking about getting rid of red tape and green tape, and now we have got beige tape. What a performance! Yet I am sure he did not realise that what was coming on next was the imposition of more red tape on voluntary organisations in this country.

There has been a Senate inquiry into this. The Maritime Union of Australia, when they made their submission, said:

But this is what strikes me about this legislation: most, if not all, practitioners in the field—from industrial officers through to solicitors, trade union officials and barristers—are slightly dumbfounded as to why this legislation has been introduced. The requirements are already there. They were put through in the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2012. We all took steps to comply with that. That was amended at the last minute on 29 June last year by the Fair Work Amendment Act 2013. We subsequently complied with the requirements of that Act, the deadline for which was 1 January. Now that we have all complied with that and there has been a change of government, it seems that the Commonwealth is now asking us to do a 360 and go through it all again.

That is an employee organisation's view. The employer organisation, the Master Plumbers and Mechanical Contractors Association of New South Wales said that the bill:

… will add significantly to the red tape requirements of Registered Organisations and will add significant cost pressures to the organisation related to such compliance. The inequity here is that this is not necessarily an impediment to the ability of employees of Registered Organisations to carry out their duties, but more than ever highlights the inequity in the status of Registered Organisations as compared to Recognised Organisations.

The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce said:

It is fair to say, that the rights and privileges afforded to registered organisations have reduced significantly (particularly for employer organisations), while obligations imposed by the Act have increased.

The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation said:

… the Parliament in 2012 enacted the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2012 that largely and adequately dealt with the same issues by introducing enhanced reporting and financial management standards.

Civil Air, the Australian air traffic control association said:

This is actually onerous and can only negatively impact upon the amount of time that we have available to actually undertake the objects of our registered organisation which is, principally, to promote the interests of our members.

So here we are, both employer organisations and employee organisations saying this is nothing more than unnecessary red tape. Senator Brandis in his arrogant contribution to the last bill was going on and on about unnecessary red tape, and yet the next bill that comes into this place is one that imposes more red tape on employer organisations and employee organisations. Is it any wonder that the Australian public see this government as one that is in absolute chaos and one that does not know whether they are coming or going? What a pathetic mob they are!

The penalties for maladministration of registered organisations had recently been tripled by the Labor government and there was an obligation for new disclosure requirements, and those are already adequate in addressing the deficiencies that have come to light in recent years. The changes brought about by the 2012 act should be fully implemented before any attempt is made to interfere with the governance of registered organisations. This bill is not about proper governance. It is a ham-fisted attempt on the part of the government to attack and punish people it sees as its enemies. That in attacking its enemies the government is prepared to cause collateral damage to its friends in employer organisations makes you wonder what this is all about. They are prepared to imposed significant red tape and significant compliance costs to attack registered organisations in this country.

The bill proposes to amend the act to restrict officers from taking part in decisions in relation to matters in which they have a material personal interest, require the preparation of officer and related party disclosure statements and require officers to undertake approved training in relation to their financial duties. Unlike the material personal interests of company directors, which only have to be disclosed to the board, the bill proposes that the personal interests of officers of registered organisations and their immediate families will be made public. The provisions that have been appropriated from the Corporations Act are not an appropriate model for registered organisations due to the innate difference between corporations and registered organisations.

Ai Group clearly stated their opposition to the proposed material personal interest requirements of the bill that:

The provisions of the Bill in this area will operate very unfairly on registered employer organisations and their officers, and it is essential that the Bill is amended. The Bill would impose a far more onerous regime for officers of registered organisations than what applies to directors of public companies.

It is not just the employee organisations that are saying this. This is the Australian Industry Group, one of the most respected employer organisations in the country. They go on to say that:

The regime, if enacted, would undoubtedly deter persons from standing for office in employer organisations. In practice the provisions of the Bill would seriously impede many organisations from carrying on their daily business operations.

That is how much red tape is being imposed by this bill—that one of the most respected employer organisations in the country said that this would seriously impede many organisations from carrying on their daily business operations.

The Australian Privacy Foundation has criticised the proposed disclosure regime, saying that the provisions of the bill are unnecessary, erode privacy protection and are inconsistent with the government's commitment to respecting traditional freedoms. The Privacy Foundation also said that the attempts by the government to justify the erosion of privacy in the bill as either legal or legitimate fail due to the unnecessary nature of the legislation. And I quote:

There has been no demonstration that existing law … is inadequate … that there is serious and pervasive corruption that is not being addressed because investigators and prosecutors lack authority.

So the Privacy Foundation is saying there is no need for this. They have looked at the existing legislation and they think it is sufficient to deal with any of the issues that this mass of red tape is seeking to impose on registered organisations.

There are at least three examples demonstrating how the proposed officers disclosure regime goes further than those of company directors disclosure. Directors disclosure obligations under the Corporations Act regarding material personal interests do not appear to extend to interests held separately by relatives. Disclosures of company directors are only required to be made to other directors as a mechanism for management of conflict of interest. They are not made public, and company directors are not obliged by the Corporations Act to disclose material personal interest relating to dealings that are subject to member approval.

Ai Group has also criticised the disclosure provisions because the interest covered by clause 293C are personal interests and because many officers would not be comfortable with their personal financial interests, as well as those of their relatives, being provided publicly. Ai Group noted:

In contrast, ss.293C and 293J would require the material personal interests of directors … to be distributed to all members of the organisations … as well as to the ROC—

the Regi stered Organisations Commission . In the case of the Ai Group, this would mean that they have to distribute the details of the personal interests of Ai Group directors to all members of Ai Group, and that would entail their distribution to thousands of other organisations who are Ai Group members. The proposed material personal interest disclosure regime is inappropriate and wholly unworkable because of the burden of obligations that it would place on registered organisations. The proposed disclosure regime is unfair, unnecessary and misguided, especially given that the purpose of registered organisations is to provide advocacy and support services for their membership. The effect of them would be to further dissuade and discourage members of registered organisation from nominating or participating as officers.

So the employee organisations and the employer organisations have pointed out the deficiencies in this bill. They queued up one after the other in the Senate inquiry to say that this bill is an overreaction, that it is unfair and that it is red tape of the highest burden on these voluntary organisations, and should not go ahead. And yet we have the pompous position put forward by Senator Brandis that this government—this government that is in abject chaos at the moment—does not want to impose red tape, green tape, beige tape, or whatever they call it, on organisations in this country. But when it comes to the employer organisations and the employee organisations, who come together collectively to represent their members, then the red tape is poured on—red tape after red tape in this bill. It is just not feasible to do this. It is the height of hypocrisy for Senator Brandis. Despite the personal attacks that he likes to launch into, I think he epitomises all that is wrong with this government: the pomposity, the hypocrisy and the ideological attacks on people who want to represent collectively either employees or employers—because that is what this bill does.

The Ai Group also expressed reservations as to how the proposed regime would manage the requirements placed on registered organisations. Specifically, the Ai Group raised the development and adoption of training rules required under the 2012 changes and their associated challenges, telling the education and employment committee inquiry:

For example, there are four organisations—us, the ACTU, the AWU and one other organisation which I cannot recall—that put huge resources into having their officer training programs developed and approved. There is nothing in this legislation that grants automatic approval for those training courses. We have got to again run the gauntlet with the Registered Organisations Commission. So there are some practical things like that that need to be dealt with.

Yet you get Senator Brandis coming in here saying, 'We don't support red tape; we are the great heroes for getting rid of red tape.' And yet the very next bill is simply about pouring more red tape on top of more red tape onto registered organisations in this country.

The former Labor government introduced increased regulation, increased training requirements, increased accountability for registered organisations. The registered organisations that appeared before the employment committee actually said: 'We are still trying to digest those changes. Don't make any more changes.'

The Motor Trade Association of South Australia submitted that it had already made substantial investments in board management training for its officers. The ACTU, employer organisations and individual employee organisations have made huge financial investments in complying with the 2012 bill. They were still in the process of implementing those in a practical way in their organisations when along came this government, the Abbott government, a government in chaos, a government with its ideological agenda against employer and employee organisations, trying to impose more red tape on employer and employee organisations in this country. The hypocrisy is just a bit too much to take. Senator Brandis comes in here and says, 'There will be no red tape,' and then the very next bill imposes more red tape.

This is an unfair bill. It is based on an ideological opposition to the trade union movement and even to employer organisations operating collectively. It is clear that this bill is not in the interests of employer or employee organisations. This bill is about ideology. This bill is about imposing more red tape. This bill epitomises everything that is wrong with this Abbott government. It is a chaotic bill that will not be implemented effectively. It is a bill full of red tape— (Time expired)