Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

We have had four Senate inquiries into the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, and Labor's view has not changed. We do not support this bill. We have been responsible and we have put up a raft of amendments, but when it comes down to the bill it is unnecessary and duplicates changes that Labor made when we were in government.

Every time I have spoken on this bill I have made my views known, both here in the parliament and in the broader community. I do not support corruption either as a Labor senator, as a former trade union official or as a member of the public. If there is a hint of corruption or any kind of inappropriate behaviour which affects the proper running of an organisation or business then it must be investigated and those found guilty must face the full strength of the law. But unlike the Turnbull government I do not draw a distinction between whether it is a business, a trade union or a community organisation. I do not stand for corruption, full stop. I stand for transparency and openness.

This bill is unnecessary and duplicates the changes that we made as a Labor government when we acted on corruption and made changes to registered organisations. At that point I was still a trade union official, and those changes made by Labor affected the way that we operated the union. When this bill was first put forward, the changes that Labor made—which we had implemented and which created further accountability and transparency for not only unions but employer organisations—were still being worked through. Of course you will not hear about Labor's changes from the Turnbull government. They like to pretend that Labor did nothing. It is a shame—in fact, it is more than that; it is a missed opportunity—that no proper review has taken place of the changes Labor made to registered organisations.

Of course, Mr Acting Deputy President, if you just listen to the government you would think this bill was all about trade unions. Indeed, if you listen to a range of speakers from the crossbenches or the government you would still think this bill is simply about trade unions. Of course, it is not. It covers employer organisations—those employer organisations who choose to be registered under the Fair Work Act. The government's agenda is about demonising trade unions.

Since this bill was first put forward we have unfortunately seen the collapse of a number of construction companies. This has happened to large companies across the country, leaving employees, subcontractors and suppliers out of pocket and sending some of those smaller companies to the wall. What is the government doing about those crashes? Nothing. The most notable of those collapses is of former Senator Day's building companies. He has debts of at least $38 million, and yet the government's silence on this sad state of affairs is palpable. Australian families who signed up with the former senator's companies to build their dream homes were left stranded. Worse off are those families who in good faith signed up with the former senator for him to take out insurance policies against the building work in their name. He never took those policies out, so those families have been left absolutely high and dry, with nowhere to go. They have nothing—not even the insurance protection that they had paid for up-front. They do not have that protection to fall back on because the former senator did not take out the insurance these families had in good faith paid for. Again, what are the Turnbull government saying about the plight of these families? Nothing.

More recently I have heard about the many small company suppliers who, in good faith, supplied products to the former senator's companies and who are all out of pocket. Some are not just out of pocket but are wondering where, or, indeed, if they can make up that shortfall to their business to the tune of hundreds and thousands of dollars—money that they were relying on to in turn pay their employees and their suppliers. What about them? What action is the Turnbull government taking to ensure this does not happen again? What are they saying about the plight of these businesses? Nothing. And why? Because it does not suit their ideological agenda.

On the one hand the Turnbull government tell us that Australian small business is at the centre of our prosperity as a nation; yet, on the other hand, they ignore the hundreds of small businesses affected by this crash and the crash of many building companies across the country. They ignore those Australian families who will not have new homes at Christmas. Indeed, some of them—those for whom the former senator failed to take out insurance—have absolutely no answers at all.

Worse still are those government senators who, despite the failings of former Senator Day's companies, still extol his virtue, even moving a motion of support. Why is that? Because he was a guaranteed vote for them and their conservative legislation. Once again the Turnbull government are demonstrating that this is all about them—their own survival—more than the plight of Australian families or Australian small business.

The major registered organisation employer groups do not want this legislation either. They, too, believe it to be an imposition. Like unions, registered employer organisations rely on volunteers. In this case, they are people who are running their own business who give up their own time to ensure their employer organisation works and works effectively. It is these volunteers, in both registered organisations and in trade unions, that the government are seeking to penalise. That double standard is well on display again. Earlier this year we saw the government champion the rights of volunteers, but once again their partisan approach is on display: it is not the volunteers who give their time to make sure their employer organisations or their trade unions work who get the government's attention—not this time, not these volunteers.

Labor is once again leading the charge here. We have put up an amendment to this bill seeking to protect those volunteers, but, so far, it has failed to get the support of the government. Our amendment goes to increasing penalties but exempting volunteers. We just heard Senator Hinch talk about the cleaner who mopped the floor after a colostomy bag had broken. That is the sort of person who volunteers in their trade union, and that is the sort of person the Turnbull government want to penalise—make no mistake about that. On the employer side, it is, again, those people who are running the small businesses that are everywhere in our community who volunteer their time to make sure that their employer organisation works. They are the ones the Turnbull government are seeking to penalise.

We want to provide greater protection for whistleblowers. We want more accountability for auditors. We certainly want—and we are absolutely on the record on this one—to provide more accountability for electoral donations, and we want to reduce the disclosure limit amounts. Whether it is union elections or federal elections, we are very clear about making sure that, if you donate, it is out there for everyone to see. We also do not think it is necessary to create a new organisation to police legislation. We have proposed that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, properly resourced, is the appropriate body to make sure that there is good, solid, open and transparent accountability.

What of this new-found government desire to negotiate? We have seen this bill come before this parliament many times before. Despite the government making a big hue and cry about it being the reason that we had the double dissolution election this year, it was not mentioned anywhere during the election campaign—not one word did I hear the government speak in relation to registered organisations. Prior to then the government steadfastly refused to entertain any negotiations, yet suddenly the government has discovered that it needs to negotiate. What concerns me is that, if the government is successful in getting this bill passed in an amended form, it will become part 1. Then, further down the track, we will see part 2 of registered organisations, where some of the aspects of the legislation the government did not get in suddenly appear in a new bill. Then, further again down the track, we will see part 3.

This government's track record is not one of negotiation. They have stood there and said: 'We will not negotiate. We have got a mandate.' Yet now they are doing the exact opposite of that, and I question their motives. Is this just: 'We are going to wear people down. We are going to keep at this. We are going to keep coming back with what we really want, even if it takes us one, two, three or four amendments to legislation'? That is what I think is going on here.

This is not a government that readily negotiate, are used to compromise or are trying to find consensus. This is a government that either win or lose and then present the same bill over and over again. Yet, suddenly, here we are negotiating. I am sorry, but I see that for what it is. I see that there will be further amendments down the track to try and get through this unnecessary, burdensome, bureaucratic registered organisations bill which is absolutely designed to go after trade unions and nothing else.