Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2], and so here we go again. I do not know about you, but to me it is starting to feel a lot like industrial relations Groundhog Day. This is the fourth time that I have spoken in this place on this or a virtually indistinguishable clone of this bill. And, if common sense and rational minds prevail, this will be the fourth time that the Senate will say no to this part of the government's vindictive agenda to weaken unions that support Australian workers. This bill is identical to the one that was rejected by the Senate less than a year ago, and the amendments are identical to those that were voted out by the Senate in May 2014.

As I have addressed the specifics of this bill on three occasions so far in this place, I will not spend too much time on going over the same ground, just as the government did not spend too much time when they failed to amend this bad legislation before sending it back to the parliament. The measures in this bill have been consistently rejected by the Australian Senate and the Australian people. Let us be clear. This bill is not about improving productivity. It is not about fulfilling an election promise. It is about this government using every means at its disposal to weaken unions and, with that, weaken the Australian workers whom they represent. It is just one element of the government's agenda to decimate the power of workers and, in doing so, drive down working conditions and pay. The government wants us to believe that it is merely fulfilling a commitment made to the Australian people before the election. Of course, one glance at the government's form reveals this to be a laughable proposition, given the scant regard the Abbott government has shown for all the other firm commitments it made to the Australian people before they cast their votes in 2013.

Remember, this is the government that promised there would be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no changes to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS. And we all know what has happened since then. Not only is it a nonsense that this government cares one ounce for honouring its promises, but this bill does not even do that. The actual promise that was made was that it would be the same for registered organisations as for corporations. This bill goes much, much further. Despite the promise that the bill would align the penalties for registered organisations with those for corporations, that is not what this bill would do. In fact, there are a number of areas in the bill which are inappropriate and extend beyond the provisions in the Corporations Act. For example, the maximum penalty for a 'serious contravention' of particular sections of the company act is $200,000 for an individual and $1 million for a body corporate. This is less than the amount in this bill. And, unlike the Corporations Act, the penalties in the bill will automatically increase as the value of a penalty unit increases. Not only that but the bill is very vague on what exactly constitutes a 'serious' contravention, other than to say that it is a contravention that is 'serious'. For these reasons, the bill is yet another broken promise from a government so far in trust deficit that even its own leader in Victoria has referred to Mr Abbott and his supporters as 'poisoning the well of goodwill for all other elected officials in the country'.

The bill also fundamentally fails to understand that registered organisations are not like corporations and their office holders are not akin to corporate executives. The truth is that, in many cases, it is rank-and-file members of unions that are elected as delegates to governing bodies. They are not there for a salary; they are there as members of the community who believe in supporting workers' rights. This bill would mean that many dedicated, ethical individuals make the difficult choice not to participate in their union. But, of course, that was always the plan: by threatening onerous penalties and obligations, the Abbott government would scare off many hardworking and committed individuals, making it more difficult for registered organisations to advocate on behalf of Australian workers. Of course, diminishing the power of unions to advocate on behalf of workers is part of the Liberal Party's reason for being. This bill directly seeks to deny Australians their fundamental right to representation by diminishing rank-and-file participation.

At this point, I want to be clear that Labor absolutely rejects any sort of misconduct, whether it be from union officials, business executives or even politicians. We support robust legislative processes that will ensure appropriate punishment is levied on those who break the rules. We will continue to fight for accountability and transparency. But we will not indulge the government's vindictive agenda of attacking the pay and conditions of Australian workers on every front. The truth is that, by any objective measure, Australia's industrial relations system is working.

Recent releases from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on Australian industrial activity show that our dispute levels are at lows we have not seen in generations. Days lost to industrial activity in the year to March 2015 are the lowest they have been since recording began. Notably, the highest number of disputes was recorded under the bad old days of Work Choices under the Liberal government. And we must not forget that these are the days that this government would love to see return. In fact, let us cast our minds back to what Prime Minister Tony Abbott said of Work Choices in March 2008:

The Howard government's industrial legislation, it was good for wages, it was good for jobs and it was good for workers. And let's never forget that.

No, Mr Abbott, we will not forget you said that, I can assure you.

Those opposite like to point to the HSU case to suggest that there is something inherently wrong with our industrial relations framework. They want the Australian people to believe that there is something fundamentally, systemically wrong with how unions work and how they are treated under the law. But the truth of the matter is: it is the case at HSU that shows exactly what we have been doing right in industrial relations. In the case of HSU, the Fair Work Commission collected evidence and the courts made their verdict, as they should do. Due process was followed, a decision was made and appropriate punishment was levied. The system worked exactly as it should. We have got the balance right, and the avenues to address corruption and misconduct are robust.

The truth is that the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act already allows for criminal proceedings being initiated where funds are stolen or are obtained by fraud. It already ensures that the Fair Work Commission can share information with the police as appropriate. It 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 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act or the Fair Work Act. Under the Fair Work Act, officers of registered organisations already have fiduciary duties similar to those for directors under the Corporations Law. The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act already requires officers to disclose their personal interests. The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act already requires officers to disclose when payments are made to related parties. And the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act already requires officers to exercise care and diligence, act with good faith and not improperly use their position for political advantage. So clearly this bill is not about better governance and accountability. We already have that. And, despite what those opposite would have you think, there is nothing in the bill before us today that would stop people committing fraud.

The bill was recently put under the microscope by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. This committee reported on the bill in its Fifth report of 2015, drawing attention to a lack of detail on new offence provisions that the minister had failed to address in the explanatory memorandum to the bill—not once, not twice but three times.

Unsurprisingly, the committee noted its disappointment at the minister's absolute and ongoing failure to address these issues. Similarly, The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights reviewed the legislation and found that the new offence of concealing documents relevant to an investigation could be incompatible with the right to a fair trial and fair hearing because it imposes a reverse legal burden of proof on the defendant, limiting the defendant's right to the presumption of innocence. This is clearly a bill that will not address the problem that it seeks to confect. It is yet another attack from the Abbott government on the ability of unions to represent Australian workers.

Of course, this is not the only avenue the government has used to try to weaken the union movement. As I mentioned earlier, there have been four iterations of this malignant legislation. But it is far from an isolated example. In fact, we have seen a concerted campaign by this government using every option available to them to weaken unions. Just this morning we saw the government's bill to re-establish the repugnant Australian Building and Construction Commission. This toxic legislation will discriminate against construction workers and expose them to harsh laws that do not apply in any other industry. Then we have the most notable evidence of Mr Abbott's campaign of vengeance toward unions: the witch-hunt masquerading as a royal commission into union activity. Again, this is in the Liberal's DNA. In fact, there has not been a Liberal government for more than 40 years that has not held an inquiry of some sort into union activity.

The Abbott government's royal commission into trade unions is the most egregious use of public money for transparently political purposes that I have seen in a while. In fact, the government is spending $80 million of taxpayers' money on this charade; $25 million of this is going directly to lawyers employed to prosecute the government's case. The Attorney-General's own former employer, Minter Ellison, does particularly well out of it, getting $17 million. What a waste of scarce resources from a government that not so long ago could not stop screeching about Australia's debt and deficit problem. But that was until they doubled the deficit—but that is a whole other story of wanton waste. Not only did they set up a wasteful commission; they also extended the commission for no justifiable reason.

If we needed further evidence that the royal commission is a politically motivated sham, then it came last week with the revelation that the royal commissioner himself, Dyson Heydon AC, was also set to be the star keynote speaker at a Liberal Party fundraiser. Invitees were clearly told that the income from the event would go to the state branch of the party for the next election campaign. Even in his own email pulling out of the event last week, Mr Heydon said that he would still be willing to appear at future Liberal events. Clearly, this revelation casts a shadow over Mr Heydon's impartiality and, clearly, it makes a mockery of the impartiality of the whole commission process.

Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, was absolutely right when he called out this 'smoking gun of political bias'. When the government was faced with this undeniable truth last week, the response was unbelievable. The Prime Minister could not even maintain a consistent position, contradicting himself over whether the event was a fundraiser or not, giving two totally different definitions. Then, Attorney-General George Brandis went in another direction entirely, saying that it was not even a party political event at all. Mr Abbott relied on the words of Julian Burnside to bolster his argument that there is nothing to be concerned about. He failed to recognise Mr Burnside's full comment on the matter, which was:

Heydon is an honourable man. I give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is honourable enough to step down.

He further outlined his position to Fairfax newspapers:

I think an honourable person caught in that position would step aside.

Truly, you could not make this stuff up. Mr Burnside's perspective was reinforced by Monash University Professor Julian Teicher, who said:

I think the problem here is that to make the findings of this royal commission as credible as possible, Justice Heydon needs to appear—not just to be—absolutely independent.

In fact, in a similar circumstance, Mr Heydon put forward a very similar point of view when he discussed the importance of appearing to be fair in the case of British American Tobacco Australia Services v Laurie. On this matter, Mr Heydon wrote:

It is fundamental to the administration of justice that the judge be neutral.

It is for this reason that the appearance of departure from neutrality is a ground of disqualification ... because the rule is concerned with the appearance of bias, and not the actuality, it is the perception of the hypothetical observer that provides the yardstick.

Clearly, this proves that Mr Heydon's position is now untenable and reveals the royal commission for what it is—a very expensive, taxpayer-funded witch-hunt. While this is undoubtedly true, we need to be aware that the motivations behind the royal commission were not just an attack on political opponents. The reality is that whatever political pain this royal commission was intended to inflict, it betrays a wider and much more malignant agenda of driving down the pay and conditions of Australian workers. By attacking the groups that represent workers, the government is also directly attacking the power of the workers to secure fair pay and conditions.

The reality is that wage growth is at the lowest point it has been in decades. Economists will tell you that we need solid wage growth if we are to keep our economy moving. Increased wages lead to increased spending, which leads to a healthier economy. The greater the spending power of the workers, the more money flows through the economy, the more profitable are businesses and the more workers they can employ. In attacking unions, those opposite are seeking to cut this cycle and further entrench inequality. In doing so, they would encourage a trend for the financial resources of society to flow to the top.

Inequality is one of the greatest issues facing our economy. When the richest seven Australian individuals hold more wealth than more than 1½ million households in the bottom 20 per cent, something has gone seriously wrong. When senior executive pays are 100 times average weekly earnings then something needs to change. But the Abbott government's union bashing agenda will only serve to further entrench inequality and to further divide our society into the haves and the have-nots.

Recent research by the International Monetary Fund found that unions are a force for greater equality. Research undertaken by IMF economists Florence Jaumotte and Carolina Osorio Buitron found strong evidence that a decline in unionisation is directly related to the rise in incomes for the richest 10 percent of peoples. They saw that a drop in union membership is correlated with steep increases in income at the top and a growing gap between those with wealth and the working poor. Of course, it makes perfect sense.

In many industries, it is only through banding together that workers can overcome inherent power imbalances and negotiate fair outcomes. Lower union membership reduces workers' bargaining power, which means that executives and shareholders can get higher returns if workers do not have the power to secure fair pay. This lack of bargaining power also feeds into a growing inability to influence corporate decisions, which can further entrench benefits for those at the top of the company hierarchy at the expense of workers.

The working poor are an increasing and shameful reality in this country. The minimum wage is failing to keep pace with inflation while executive salaries continue to rise. But those opposite are doing everything they can to attack Australian workers. In fact, from the time they got the keys to the ministerial wing, those opposite have done everything they can to achieve just this. They took away pay rises for childcare workers. They axed pay rises for aged care workers. They announced the sacking of 16,500 public sector workers despite promising only 12,000 job losses before the election. They brought in draconian offers for the remaining public servants which would strip rights out of enterprise bargaining agreements, cut conditions and drive pay rises to below inflation.

They have failed to negotiate a single public sector agreement, 12 months after 116 of them have expired. They goaded Holden to move offshore and lied about Toyota's reasons for pulling out of Australian by trying to blame it on workers and unions. They set out to sabotage the shipbuilding industry by breaking their election promise to build submarines in South Australia. They virtually froze investment and job creation in the renewables industry by breaking their pre-election promise that there would be no changes to the renewable energy target.

They reopened a 457 visa loophole, which the former Labor government closed up, to allow employers to hire an unlimited number of workers without scrutiny. They signed a free trade agreement with China, which allows companies with large projects to bring in foreign workforces with none of the requirements to consider local labour firsts.

They oversaw a Productivity Commission inquiry which has recommended cutting penalty rates, lowering minimum wages and expansion of individual contracts. They put forward coastal shipping legislation, which would see the wholesale foreign flagging of Australian ships and opens the door to massive foreign work forces taking over these ships. And when Australian jobs are on the line, as in the case of Caterpillar in Burnie and the Alexander Spirit, which was docked in Devonport, they have not lifted a finger to fight for these jobs at all.

As I have outlined, the legislation before us today is yet another example in a long list of Mr Abbott's anti-worker agenda, and I urge senators in this place to stand strong against it and vote it down.