John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

'Unassuming'—that is a good description of him. Thank you, Senator Ludwig, for the interjection. Unassuming Senator O'Sullivan. He actually sits here and hogs the bench pretty well too, I might add. He highlighted how just short of $100 million has been donated to the Labor Party in the last 21 years.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Perhaps I am being a bit cynical here—and the interjections might help me—but why isn't the trade union movement listed in this as well? There are probably 100 million reasons, Senator O'Sullivan, why they are not listed, because those same trade unions—such as the CFMEU—donate generously to the Labor Party. They donate to the Greens as well. Let's cut off the funding to the conservative side of politics and feed the money into the left side of politics so they can run all the advertising campaign and be flush with funds. That is actually misleading, isn't it, Senator O'Sullivan. It was $98,587,326.11—I remember the 11 cents. I might have figures wrong from memory.

We talk about influence in this place. Let's ask the question: are the Labor Party influenced by the trade union movement? It is a pretty simple question. I would say the answer is, 'Very much so,' because, when I look at the 25 Labor senators, I think Senator Dastyari, who was from the head office of New South Wales Labor, might not have worked for a union, but I do not think I can find any others. Are there any others? Hands up any others over that side who have not worked for a trade union. I would bet you to London to a brick that at least 20 of the 25 Labor senators come from union backgrounds. I think that would be a pretty safe bet with pretty big odds on that.

The organisations that we are talking about are the property developers, the tobacco industry, the liquor industry, the gambling industry, mineral resources and mining industry businesses. This is amazing: the mineral resources or mining industry have been stamped out from donating to the coalition, but the workers in the CFMEU in the mineral industry and the property developing industry and the building industry can donate to the Labor Party and perhaps to the Greens as well. This sounds a little unfair to me. These organisations employee hundreds of thousands of Australians who contribute billions of dollars in tax each year. That amount may have been reduced, sadly, from the crash in the iron ore price and, of course, the coal price. It is very pleasing to see that as a result of those prices there has been a great surge in agriculture prices. Our second to biggest export is now agriculture. It has taken over from coal in value—and it is an ongoing, sustainable industry.

Like anybody, these groups and the individuals working for these groups are not immune from public scrutiny or criticism, but they should not be shut out from the public debate. Interestingly, the bill goes to extreme lengths, suggesting that if an individual commits an offence—this is very important, Mr Acting Deputy President; you listen to this—they could be subject to a penalty of two years imprisonment in proposed section 314AL. I will give you an example, and this is scary stuff. An employee from the local Dan Murphy's grog shop pays $100 to go to a political fundraising event for his cousin, who is a candidate, and all of a sudden he is off to jail for two years because he works for Dan Murphy's. Give us a break. His cousin is running for the Liberal Party or the National Party as a candidate somewhere. He is just working in Dan Murphy's or the local Liquorland or whatever. He goes along to a $100 dinner—he is only getting a sausage and a couple of drinks; it is a pretty good, profitable night, because the profit is there to help fund the campaign—and he gets two years jail. I cannot go along with the that. A fly-in fly-out miner who works for BHP could also potentially be jailed as a prohibited donor. If a worker for BHP or Rio or whoever you want to name goes to a fundraising function—a barbecue or a night at the pub in a country town—they could get two years jail if this bill goes through. Freedom of speech is important, but no-one should be jailed for wanting to contribute to this political process. That is why I could never support this bill.

Let me just quote a few things. I mentioned the CFMEU. During question time we had questions to Minister Cash about the abuse and domestic violence of women. thought of the CFMEU and some of the questions that have been put to Minister Cash in this place and some of the disgraceful answers and the facts of what they have done. CFMEU members were being milked by their own union, according to the royal commission into trade union governance and corruption. There was an absence of proper disclosure around several welfare funds set up for its members. A media report has said:

"There is a real problem with this," said Justice John Dyson Heydon in his interim report to Parliament.

And vast sums remain unaccounted for.

It goes on to say:

The royal commission raised questions about the union's workers' redundancy fund, a welfare fund and a training fund. "The CFMEU receives many millions of dollars as a result of arrangements with these entities," …

Here is the problem. Say I was running this country and everything I said for just one day happened. If I cut off the sources of funding for the Australian Labor Party and you could not raise any money and we went to an election, yet on the side I am on we had money, the balance would simply not be there. You would be going in to fight a battle and on this side we would have plenty of weapons and bullets and rifles and on that side they would be unarmed. That is what this bill would do, because it would take the funding off this side of the parliament and leave that $100 million—or just short of it, Senator O'Sullivan, for the last 21 years—flowing into the coffers of those opposite to fund their campaign. That would be simply unfair.

Let me quote someone else while in this debate: Martin Ferguson, the former Labor minister and President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the ACTU. I think he was a very level-headed person. When he was in the other place he was deeply respected by those all around the chamber. He was a man of good ideas and balanced opinions. He has attacked the level of union influence in the Labor Party, saying that too many opposition MPs 'wait for the phone call from the trade union heavy to tell them what to do'. That is probably a pretty good point, because you are at the beck and call of the trade unions. Mr Ferguson said that opposition leader Bill Shorten did not have the power to curb union influence in the Labor caucus without the backing of the shadow ministry. 'But at the moment I don't think that's possible,' Mr Ferguson told Four Corners, 'because too many of that shadow ministry and the caucus are almost as if they're prisoners of the union movement'.

Most Labor senators in this place worked in the union movement. They got their ticket into this place; they got their funding from it. Mr Ferguson went on to say, 'It's almost as if they sit down now and divide the cake—you get that seat, we get that seat, Left and Right together, and they dole out the prizes to their faithful.' Mr Ferguson's attack came as the ACTU and other unions moved to shut down the trade union royal commission after it was revealed that Commissioner Dyson Heydon had accepted an invitation to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser. They wanted to shut it down, yet the royal commission revealed so many facts and so much evidence which many in this place would not like to hear.

I think it is so unfair that this bill cuts off the funding to one side of politics and keeps it pouring in to the other side. As I said when I started, there is an old saying in politics: no money, no mission. To run a campaign is hugely expensive. If you do not believe me, have a look at America at the moment. I wonder what they are spending on the campaign over there—billions. Thankfully, we do not spend that much in Australia. This bill seeks to scrub out donations from property developers, the tobacco industry and liquor businesses—that would be all the clubs. Senator Rhiannon referred to the clubs.

I have been to many clubs in country New South Wales and in other states as well. They do a magnificent job in our community. I live in Inverell, where I am very proud of the local Returned Services Memorial Club, which is a tremendous facility with a lovely motel on site which was built in recent years. That club donates so much in support to the community. It is not just a club. Yes, they do have poker machines. Believe it or not, they do sell alcohol, and they have meals. It is a place to hold functions, even political functions—we often hire the venue if they are going to have a big crowd. We do that many times a year.

I come back to the mineral resources and mining industries. This bill says, 'Don't let them donate.' I will repeat what I said earlier. You would have a situation where BHP would not be able to come to a National Party function—it would just be scrubbed out. If you were to run an expensive function, BHP could not attend. When workers, who could be members of the CFMEU, pay their union fees and perhaps donate some money, that ends up on the other side of the chamber to finance their campaign. But a business in the mining industry could not choose to donate to our side of politics.

I think this bill will just go nowhere, with respect. In relation to the alcohol industry, say someone works at a club and goes to a National Party function. One of the employees of the Inverell RSM Club might come to a function I were to hold in a few weeks time. Under this law, they could be jailed for two years because they showed up to a dinner with Senator Williams, 'Wacka' Williams. whatever they want to call me—