Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014. As senators in this place know, registered organisations play a critical role in Australia's workplace relations system. Most registered organisations do the right thing. They are there to represent their members and their industries. This should be recognised. Most unions, employer groups and other registered organisations conduct themselves, in the main, with dignity and integrity, providing vital services to employees and employers. That means that we in this place should value and support their work. They provide critical representation and advocacy for employees and employers alike. In particular, trade unions are of significant importance to the working people of this country, playing a pivotal role in protecting the rights of working people, providing essential advocacy and policy work and representation in tribunals and courts. It is representation that many workers would not be able to afford if it were not for the work of their unions.

In the legislation before us today we see coming yet again from those opposite an attempt to hamstring unions from representing the working people of Australia. The government's proposed registered organisations bill does nothing to improve the lives of working people. They claim it is about transparency, regulation and accountability, but it does not contribute to these matters. It simply makes it harder for unions to represent working people. It does this by requiring unions to comply with onerous and unnecessary requirements which are more about tying them up in bureaucracy than improving regulation or increasing the transparency which these organisations should naturally be subject to.

The sanctions in the bill are significantly disproportionate and unfair. So do not be fooled: this legislation is not about better unions or better workplaces. It is not even about better regulation. The registered organisations act already provides for regulation, and it does this very well. The Liberal government is trying to tell us otherwise; however, the act functions well and according to its purpose. For example, the act prohibits members' money from being used improperly to support candidates at internal elections. It allows for criminal proceedings being initiated where funds are stolen or obtained by fraud. We have seen significant examples of that and the way it is effectively prosecuted. The act already ensures that Fair Work Commission can share information with our police forces. The act 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 act, registered organisations have significant fiduciary duties akin to those of directors under corporations law. So what we have here in this legislation is a duplication of those responsibilities.

The registered organisations act requires officers to disclose their personal interests. The act already ensures that officers need to disclose when payments are being paid to related parties. The act already requires officers to exercise care and diligence in their work, to act in good faith and not improperly use their position for political advantage.

Why is the act already strong? Because Labor made it strong. As we have said again and again, we have no tolerance for corruption, wherever it occurs. Criminal acts in registered organisations should be treated with the full force of the law, just as they should in corporations and in the community. Labor has always been committed to this and we always will be. It is why we strengthened the regulation and accountability requirements of the act, increased the powers of the Fair Work Commission to investigate and prosecute breaches, and tripled penalties for offenders. On this side of the chamber we in Labor believe in better unions, higher standards and tougher penalties for people and organisations who do the wrong thing.

But that is not what the bill before us today is actually about. This bill is simply about more bureaucracy and more red tape. It is about duplicating regulation where there is already regulation. In effect it is about making the work of unions harder.

In this place Labor will only support this bill if the government agrees to amendments which will be true to the principles that we have outlined in this place and in the other place. Our amendments will ensure that the bill actually achieves the stated purpose that the government has put forward—better governance of registered organisations. Our proposed amendments address the issues raised in the submissions by both unions and employer groups alike, who have put forward significant concerns. Submissions to the Senate inquiry made it clear that it is not only unions opposed to many of the measures in this bill, but also there is opposition coming from employer groups. The government should be proactively supporting and considering our amendments and accepting them if it is serious about transparency and accountability.

The first amendment we put forward relates to ASIC. That is about extending the powers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission rather than introducing this new regulatory body. Here in Australia we do not need yet another government bureaucracy with the establishment of the Registered Organisations Commission under this bill. More layers of bureaucracy, as the government has so often liked to point out to us, do not achieve better outcomes for our nation. We are advocating that the powers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission should be extended to investigate serious breaches of the fair work, rather than the creation of a new body. As our Prime Minister has said, ASIC has the standing powers of a royal commission. Their regulatory powers to investigate matters are similar to those of a royal commission. So why would we not want the body that we are supporting to have those powers?

Our next amendment is about increasing penalties but excluding volunteers from those penalties. Here we do need to see penalties increased for deceitful behaviour. We on this side of the chamber support this. But volunteers must be excluded from these penalties. Under the government's bill, volunteers, workers, union members and supporters will be expected to act like directors of publicly listed companies. This, I think, is incredibly unfair. They are expected to uphold these standards without the pay, conditions and expertise expected of these positions. The proposition that the government has put forward in this sense is absurd. It will deter people from participating in these kinds of organisations. The kind of participation that we are talking about includes workplace delegates, who need to be able to talk to their union and bring forward to their union issues from their workplace; they are elected delegates within their organisation. We are talking here about significant criminal penalties for people who might be a delegate or be on the board of their union.

Similarly, you can see that small businesses are affected by these kinds of clauses, where they might want to participate in their industry association. What this legislation means is that teachers, nurses, plumbers, electricians, small business owners and employees—ordinary hard working Australians—would be subject to hefty, unfair fines and criminal penalties. It is simply not fair. Even the Australian Industry Group has said:

If the proposed criminal penalties and proposed massive financial penalties for breaches of duties are included in the RO Act, this would operate as a major disincentive to existing voluntary officers of registered organisations continuing in their roles, and would deter other people from holding office.

While the Australian Industry Group now, oddly, supports this legislation, its views on this matter are still very clear. This, indeed, is Labor's view: only paid union officials and paid office holders should be subject to penalties.

The other thing we want to see is greater protection for whistleblowers. We agree that whistleblowers should be protected and encouraged. Our amendment goes further and improves protection for whistleblowers. This amendment is critical to ensuring that corruption is stopped and reported. Currently, the penalties for those taking adverse action against whistleblowers are $4,500, six months imprisonment or both. Indeed, whistleblower protections should be extended to those in the private and not-for-profit sectors. That would mean that anyone who intimidates or silences whistleblowers would be subject to a fine of up to $18,000 and two years imprisonment. These are appropriate penalties, considering the gravity of trying to stop someone from blowing the whistle on corruption. Our amendment would also allow whistleblowers to take civil action themselves. If the government is indeed serious about ensuring transparency and protection for those who come forward, these amendments should be supported.

We also have a further amendment on accountability for auditors. We seek to increase audit requirements and penalties for auditors. Those who are charged with the responsibility of examining the finances of registered organisations should do so in an honest and professional manner. They should be held to account if they do not do this. It is critical that auditors are required to disclose criminal misconduct should they come across it; we cannot let auditors be complicit in their silence—otherwise they are simply not doing their job. Labor's amendment also provides for the rotation of auditors to ensure greater independence and security, so that you do not get auditors in the pocket of anyone who is dodgy with the books of their organisation.

We have further amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act so that registered organisations are treated in the same way as members of parliament and other people making donations. We are asking here for amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act which decrease the threshold for disclosures of donations. While the government continues to talk about unions, disclosure thresholds and transparency, so far those opposite have refused to apply these very same standards to themselves! Those opposite want to see these standards imposed on unions but do not want to see these standards imposed on the donations that they receive themselves. We on this side have advocated for a long time for the lowering of the disclosure thresholds in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. All elections managed by the Australian Electoral Commission should be subject to the same electoral funding laws. Why should unions have a higher standard of donations disclosure than this government? Whether in unions or federal elections, accountability in electoral donations must be taken seriously. We have proposed that the disclosure amount be reduced from $13,200 to $1,000, and we have argued this for a long time. If you opposite were serious about increasing transparency around donations, then you would accept those amendments to this legislation.

Indeed, our amendments are not unreasonable. These amendments would make this bill achieve what the Liberals say they want to achieve: accountability. I implore the government to consider and adopt these changes. But, significantly, I am concerned that this bill is not just the start but the middle of an ongoing antiworker agenda. Those opposite are not serious about tidying up corruption—otherwise they would have put forward the kind of bill that I have just outlined. Instead we see vicious attacks on workers, time and time again, from this government and indeed every Liberal government before it. I fear that we will continue to see such attacks because you do not care about workers. Jobs growth under Malcolm Turnbull has halved to 0.9 per cent over the year, down from 1.9 per cent. There are almost 1.8 million Australians who cannot find a job or cannot get enough hours to cover their basic needs. This is being felt most harshly in my home state of Western Australia, where unemployment is the highest in the country. And today the ABC is reporting that Rio Tinto is set to axe 500 iron ore jobs, adding more uncertainty to our already struggling WA economy.

What is the government doing about this? Nothing. Where are the Liberals when unemployment is rising? Nowhere to be seen. Where are the Liberals when unions uncover gross violations of workplace health and safety? You are nowhere to be seen. Where are you when unions uncover workers being paid below the minimum wage? Again, you are nowhere to be seen. Where are you when Australian jobs are going offshore? Nowhere to be seen. Instead of doing anything to actually improve the lives of working people, the government is back to the same old dirty tricks of union bashing. Those opposite me in this place and indeed the other place continue to seek to destroy unions and undermine the rights of workers in this country. Why? Because you fundamentally do not believe that workers are entitled to representation by their unions. You want to make it more difficult for union officials to do their jobs and, in turn, you allow large companies to slash wages and conditions. I, like millions of workers across this country, am tired of it, sick to death of it. I encourage the government to accept Labor's amendments if you are serious about holding organisations to account. That way you can still allows unions to represent their members effectively.

It is thanks to unions that the working people in our country have the living standards that we enjoy today. Without this work we would not have sick leave, annual leave, an eight-hour working day or penalty rates for working on the weekend. Without unions this country would not have occupational health and safety standards and workers compensation. Indeed, without unions this country would not have Medicare or superannuation. These are the most basic but important rights that every worker in our country should enjoy every single day—and I pay tribute to the unions of our nation for delivering this to us. I can only imagine the country we would be living in today if it were not for their hard work. The active participation of workers in the union movement is fundamental to the future of our nation—and this includes our delegates and volunteers, who are targeted unjustly by this legislation. We need our unions to be able to protect the rights of workers and to do this effectively.

The Senate has rejected this bill multiple times. This bill is of course one of the bills you put forward that prompted the double dissolution election earlier this year, yet you barely mentioned it in the election campaign. Why? Because you know it is a vote loser. You know it is flawed legislation. It is tied to the same agenda that we saw with Work Choices under the Howard government, which is one you tried to hide from the electorate. That is why you did not talk about it during the election campaign. We know that this bill is only a small part of the government's anti-worker, anti-union agenda. We have seen it with your flawed royal commission. In this legislation, yet again, we have an attempt to rip off the working people of our country. You should know by now that the working people of this country will not fall for your tired, dirty union-bashing tricks. Workers in this country will continue to stand up and fight against the conservative views that you put forward and we will not be silenced. (Time expired)