Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

The government, as I have already articulated, will not be supporting these amendments. The government worked constructively with the crossbench and the shadow minister in relation to a number of amendments that we were pleased to accept to enhance the clarity of the bill. But, these particular amendments—(14) and (15) go exactly to the heart of what the bill is doing.

The bill is unashamedly anticorruption and pro worker. Any payment being made between an employer and a union should only ever be for the benefit of the worker. That is why we have set out clearly in the bill those legitimate payments. For example, employers will be able to provide a payment to a union, if the payment is for membership fees or a legitimate wages deduction authorised by the employee. If the payment is intended to benefit the employers' employees, unlike what Senator Cameron has said, the bill clearly states that a legitimate payment is a genuine gift made to a deductible gift recipient. I think what Senator Cameron refuses in his comments is, under our bill, the payment must be a genuine gift; for goods and services supplied at market value, and supplied in the ordinary course of the organisation's business and the defendant's business; a payment made in accordance with Australian law; a payment made in accordance with a court or tribunal order, judgement or reward; or a non-corrupting payment provided in accordance with the regulations.

We will also accept the majority committee's recommendations that this list be updated, and I understand we have agreed to update those benefits. But let us be very, very clear here. This is why Labor does not support the bill as drafted and has proposed these amendments. Most of the corrupting benefits uncovered by the royal commission involved secret payments from employers to unions in return for industrial peace or, worse, conditions for workers. Let me be very, very clear: these payments and these deals do not involve dishonesty. That is the fundamental difference. These payments are made quite honestly between the employer and the union, but they are not for the benefit of the worker. In no way, if you are anti-corruption or pro-worker, can you ever say that they should fall within the legitimate payment exceptions.

I am going to now give the Senate some examples of payments that would be legitimised if these two amendments, because this is just what employers and unions do. They make honest payments between each other that do not benefit their workers. For example, $100,000 from Toll to TEACHO, a TWU entity, to secure an enterprise agreement with a promise to pay a further $50,000 for information about Toll's competitors—a secret payment made between the employer and the union that, under Labor's amendments, is absolutely legitimate. It is not. Those payments should never be allowed to be made. They are secret payments. They are corrupting payments, and both the employer and the union should face a penalty.

Then there is the example of $1 million from Saipem to the Maritime Employees Training Fund, an MUA entity. At the time Saipem was negotiating the use of foreign crude boats on a gas project in Darwin. Under Labor's amendments, this payment is a legitimate payment. The nearly $1 million from Dredging International to the MUA, apparently to secure an enterprise agreement, is, under Labor's amendments, a legitimate payment. Over $1 million from the employer Van Oord to the MUA to avoid industrial disputation is, under Labor's amendments, a legitimate payment. Over $210,000 from construction companies to a CFMEU ACT organiser in exchange for work in Canberra—'Let's break that cartel'—is, under Labor's amendments, a legitimate payment. Then there's over $400,000 from Thiess contractors to the AWU Workplace Reform Association—ironically or, should I say, not ironically, unfortunately controlled by then firm Bruce Wilson—in return for a good relationship with the union. The payments were siphoned into a slush fund controlled by Wilson who then used the money for his personal benefit. Under Labor's amendments, this is a legitimate payment.

The thousands of dollars from Ausreo to AWU Victoria, again, in return for a good relationship with the union, is a legitimate payment if these amendments pass. Thousands of dollars from Potters Industries to the AWU in Victoria, again in return for good relations with the union, is, under Labor's amendments, a legitimate payment. One that I think all Australians are aware of—and I would hope they hang their heads in shame at what occurred—is the $75,000 from the employer Cleanevent to the AWU in Victoria. Let's remind ourselves as to why the employer happily handed over the money to the AWU. Why? It was to maintain an enterprise agreement that paid cleaning workers well below award rates and stripped them of penalty rates, overtime and shift loadings. Entry-level casuals working at events were entitled to 176 per cent more per hour under the award than under the agreement that was negotiated by the employer and the union, who was meant to be acting in their best interests.

Unibilt gave $32,000 to Bill Shorten to fund his 2007 campaign for federal parliament. Chiquita Mushrooms gave $24,000 to the AWU Victoria to avoid industrial unrest while it was transitioning its mushroom-picking workforce to labour hire. What is worse in this case is the AWU falsely invoiced the payments as 'paid education leave' and never disclosed the payments to Chiquita employees. Employer Winslow Constructors gave $200,000 to the AWU Victoria for multiple benefits—including advanced notice of the terms of their competitor's enterprise agreement—and good relations with the AWU. Winslow also provided lists of employee names that were secretly signed up to the union. BMD construction gave $30,000 to the AWU Victoria—again, to secure industrial peace, but the employer also provided lists of employee names that were secretly signed up to the union.

The list of payments goes on and on and on. These payments were absolutely not made known to the employees. They were made quite honestly. There was an intention to provide the payment. There was nothing dishonest in making these payments, except for the fact that none of these payments, in any way, benefited the workers.

The government does oppose these amendments because they go to the heart of exactly what this bill is seeking to do: stop the corrupt payments between employers and unions, and ensure that any payment that is made between an employer and a union is a legitimate payment made for the benefit of the worker.