Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to join this debate on the government's Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, and I do so after Senator Xenophon's contribution. I have to say it is surprising to see Senator Xenophon, who has been in this place for some time, supporting a suspension of standing orders without notice in order to push this bill through tonight. For someone who has long argued in this place for sensible, considered debate and proper process, it was a surprising turn of events, but that is a matter for him and his party room to consider.

As the chamber knows, Labor opposes this bill in its current form, and we will be advancing a set of amendments to deal with its shortcomings, but I want to make some comments about the legislation. This bill is deeply flawed. It is not only deeply flawed as a piece of substantive legislation but also part of a deeply offensive ideological agenda on the part of this government. It represents the latest phase in the Liberal Party's continuing efforts to undermine and attack the role of trade unions in Australian society. These attacks on trade unions, in one way or another, have been ongoing since the formation of the Liberal Party. They are designed to undermine the role played by trade unions in representing employees and the legitimate role played by unions in bringing employees together to negotiate collectively with employers to secure better pay and better working conditions.

The fact is that those on the other side and their predecessors, the conservatives of Australian politics, have never accepted that trade unions play a legitimate and important role in our workplaces and in our society. From Stanley Bruce, who tried to scrap the federal arbitration system in the 1920s, to John Howard's Work Choices legislation, which cut pay and conditions for Australian working people, it is the same ideological agenda over decades: Liberals and their predecessors always want to attack trade unions, deregulate the labour market, cut wages and conditions, and reduce the fundamental rights and protections for working people. That is who they are, that is what they believe, and this bill is simply another instalment in that story.

The bill before the chamber deals with the regulation of registered organisations in Australia's industrial relations system. The system is an integral part of Australia's workplace relations system. Registered organisations, of course, are trade unions and also employer organisations which are registered to represent their members under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, which I will describe as the registered organisations act. Registrations under this act give unions and employer associations the ability to appear in industrial tribunals and to advocate on behalf of their members. It also gives these entities their legal status, in a similar fashion to the way in which incorporation under company law gives companies a separate legal personality. The registered organisations act regulates the rights, responsibilities and duties of organisations and their officers and the internal administration and governance of these entities.

What we are debating is a bill that seeks to make a number of changes to that act. These are changes which already have been rejected by the Senate three times and which are not about improving the welfare of members of registered organisations. In fact, they are about undermining the role of unions and therefore undermining the position of those who trade unions represent: millions of ordinary working Australians.

Labor regards the role of registered organisations as central to our system of workplace relations, and we regard the regulation of those organisations as important. Regulation of registered organisations should ensure that they are administered effectively, in accordance with the highest standards of governance, in the interests of, and subject to the democratic control of, their members. That is why Labor in government strengthened the laws regulating registered organisations in 2012, and it is why Labor in opposition has proposed further reforms to the regulation of registered organisations. In 2012, the Leader of the Opposition, then the Minister for Workplace Relations, significantly strengthened the regulation of registered organisations, and Mr Shorten's reforms improved the accountability of registered organisations to their members. The 2012 reforms tripled the penalties for breaches of the act; required officials of registered organisations to be provided with education and training about their obligations; and required the disclosure of officials' remuneration as well as their pecuniary and financial interests. These reforms also improved the investigative powers available to Fair Work Australia in ensuring compliance with the act. This included providing the Fair Work Australia general manager with the power to provide information to bodies such as federal or state police or other regulatory agencies, correcting a serious flaw in the previously existing regulatory regime. So Labor has a strong track record in this area, and we will not be lectured by those opposite.

The Senate, as I said, has rejected the government's bills three times already, and with each rejection those opposite have ramped up their hyperbole and their bluster. They are deeply misleading in their contributions on this policy. They seek to create the impression that trade unions are not subject to any accountability mechanisms, regulation, scrutiny or standards at all. In fact, before the bill that is before the chamber is passed, the act is some 580 pages long and, as a result of Labor's previous reforms which I have outlined, it provides strong regulation of registered organisations and high levels of accountability of the officers of these organisations. The powers of the Fair Work Commission have been both strengthened and broadened, and penalties for breaches of the act have been tripled. That means there are serious consequences for those who fail to uphold standards and to act in the interests of their members.

The government's rhetoric ignores the extensive regulation of registered organisations that already exists. The act already allows for criminal proceedings to be initiated where funds are stolen or obtained by fraud. The act already ensures that the Fair Work Commission can share information with the police as appropriate. The act already provides for statutory civil penalties where a party knowingly or recklessly contravenes an order or direction made by the Federal Court or the FWC under the act or the Fair Work Act. The act already requires officers to disclose their personal interests. The act already ensures officers disclose when payments have been made to related parties. It requires officers to exercise care and diligence, act in good faith and not improperly use their position for political advantage. The act prohibits members' funds from being used to favour particular candidates in internal elections or campaigns. This is an act which already heavily regulates trade unions.

Under the Fair Work Act, officers of registered organisations already have fiduciary duties akin to those of directors under the Corporations Law. Rather than strengthening regulation of registered organisations to ensure they operate in members' interests, the government's bill seeks to undermine these organisations. It imposes disproportionate and unfair sanctions on trade unionists who act in voluntary positions for their organisations. It singles out officers of registered organisations for more onerous treatment and penalties than apply to company office holders and executives under the Corporations Law.

The bill will establish a new bureaucracy in the form of the Registered Organisations Commission. In doing so it will increase red tape for registered organisations. It contains higher penalties for civil contraventions and introduces criminal offences in respect of officers' duties which exceed those found in the Corporations Act. Labor do not believe that a trade union member who acts on a voluntary basis as an honorary office holder should face more onerous penalties than the chief executives or directors of Australia's largest companies.

Labor support strong regulation of registered organisations, and—let's be clear—the vast majority of trade unions and employer associations are administered honestly by people who take their responsibilities seriously, who are committed to the welfare of their organisations and their members, and who are diligent, hardworking and professional. It is true that from time to time there are some who do not live up to these standards, and let me say that there is no-one more disgusted or angered by corruption in the trade union movement than those of us on this side of the parliament. That is because we understand the great civilising mission that the trade union movement has played in this country over decades, and we understand that corrupt behaviour by some rips off the very people that the union movement represents: the working people of this country.

Yes, there must be strong regulation and tough penalties for those who break the law. There must be financial accountability. Unlawful behaviour should be met with the full force of the law. That should be the case whether they are a corporate executive or a trade union official. Labor have made clear that we have no tolerance for those, whether they be corrupt union officials or unscrupulous employers, who steal from or exploit workers. The AFP and state and territory police agencies have the power to investigate criminal breaches. Fair Work Australia has the power to investigate and enforce registered organisations' compliance with the law. And the courts have the power to impose penalties on those who breach the law when it comes to the governance of registered organisations.

Labor's commitment to strong regulation of trade union behaviour was demonstrated by the announcement of the plan for better union governance last year. We will be moving amendments to this bill to implement the key elements of this plan. The amendments will provide for stronger penalties, greater protections for whistleblowers and greater regulation of the conduct of auditors in registered organisations. Rather than create yet another bureaucracy, yet another red tape element, Labor's amendments will mean that, where there are serious breaches of the law, registered organisations will be subject to the powers of the corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Our amendments empower ASIC to examine and investigate serious contraventions by registered organisations. This would provide experienced investigative resources without the bureaucracy of a new commission.

Like the government, Labor are also proposing an increase in civil penalties for serious transgressions by officers of registered organisations, but we have taken a more proportionate approach when it comes to volunteers. We will also increase penalties for wrongdoing by auditors, because we want to make sure that people charged with the responsibility of independently examining the finances of registered organisations do so in a professional and accountable manner. Under our amendments, auditors who fail to report malfeasance or criminal conduct in registered organisations could themselves be subject to imprisonment. This will ensure that auditors are not complicit through silence or inaction. Further, in relation to auditing we will require the rotation of auditors so that there is sufficient turnover to ensure that new parties are coming in to examine the books, resulting in greater scrutiny and greater independence. We also propose to extend public service whistleblower protections to registered organisations, including trade unions.

The amendments to the bill which will be moved by Labor are substantive and constructive. They build on the reforms we made in government to improve the governance and accountability of registered organisations. By contrast, the bill as presented by the government is not about improving standards, nor about improving governance. It is about one thing. It is about an ideologically motivated attack on the trade union movement. We all know why this government want to undermine trade unions. When they were last here, under the former Prime Minister John Howard, they introduced the notorious Work Choices legislation, a direct attack on workers' rights and workers' living standards. The stripping back and reduction of award entitlements for working people lay at the heart of the Work Choices legislation. It attacked workers' rights to organise themselves into trade unions and engage in collective bargaining. It provided unscrupulous employers the power to force vulnerable workers onto unfair individual contracts—remember Australian workplace agreements?—with the threat of dismissal for those unwilling to sign.

The campaign against the Howard-era Work Choices legislation was led by the trade union movement in this country. It did so because that legislation was deeply unfair and reduced the living standards and job security of employees in this country. The union campaign against Work Choices contributed to the defeat of the Howard government in 2007 and the election of a Labor government, which restored fairness to Australian workplaces. Here we are, nearly a decade later, and what we have is another Liberal government who would dearly like to repeat Work Choices. But this time around they have decided to launch an assault on the union movement first—through this bill, through their discredited royal commission, through their incessant propaganda and misleading rhetoric, and through their construction industry legislation. And if they succeed in undermining and incapacitating the Australian union movement with these measures, the next step, as night follows day, will be Work Choices style legislation. It will be a return to the classic Liberal agenda of hard-line industrial relations deregulation, because that is really what they want to do. This is just the entree. What they really want to do is try to diminish the power of the trade union movement and to try to silence the movement which stood against Work Choices and which campaigned so effectively against the Howard government legislation. This is the first step in the return of the classic Liberal agenda of hard-line industrial relations legislation, cuts to wages, cuts to penalty rates, cuts to basic entitlements and cuts to workers' rights.

I want to make one point about the context in which this debate is being undertaken. There has been a lot of discussion in this country in recent times, post Brexit and post the election in the United States and various other political events, about the rise of populism, the effects of globalisation and the advent of a range of political parties here in the Senate and elsewhere globally. There has been a lot of discussion about the economic gains from globalisation and trade as not having been fairly shared. There has been a discussion in this country about inequality as one of the drivers of the anger and frustration that we have seen on display both internationally and here in Australia. There has been a discussion about the anger and frustration of the Australians whose jobs are in industries that have not thrived over these last years.

Political leaders have been focussing on, or at least articulating, these questions: how do we better engage these Australians? How do we respond to their concerns? How do we make this nation fairer? How do we address inequality? Isn't it telling, then, that in the middle of this debate about how we better deal with the effects of economic inequality, how we better deal with economic inequality itself and how we make this nation a fairer place that the focus of those opposite is not on how we make Australia fairer, not on those Australians who are so angry at the economic inequality they experience and who are so angry at seeing the changes to their jobs and to their industries; the government's focus is on attacking the trade union movement. At a time when we are concerned about rising economic inequality, it says something about the ideological obsessions of those opposite that their focus is not on how to make this a fairer place but on attacking the institutions who stand for fairness.

If you look at the history of this country, the Australian trade union movement has contributed to this being a more decent society. It is the Australian trade union movement that has stood up over so many decades for decent wages and conditions, for safer workplaces, for Medicare, for superannuation and for a whole range of other social reforms such as maternity leave, paid parental leave, pay equity and so forth. Look at the list of conditions that the trade union movement, over its history, has won: a decent minimum wage, annual leave, penalty rates, equal pay for women, sick leave and unfair dismissal rights just to name a few. So, what does it say about this government that, when faced with some of the events that we have seen overseas and when faced with a debate in this country about the rise of populist views, their priority is to attack one of the very institutions that has contributed to making this Australia a more decent society? It really lays bare not only their ideological obsession but also the paucity of their economic agenda—the paucity of this government's agenda. What we are debating is a bill that has its origins not in Mr Turnbull's government; it has its origins in Mr Howard's government. It is an old, familiar, tired agenda that says nothing to Australians about the problems that the country really does face.