Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Hansard source

Well, there you go. What a memory—a memory like a steel trap; like the Bourbons: learn nothing but forget nothing.

Senator Payne interjecting—

My mum used to say that self-praise was no recommendation. But there was an element of self-deprecation in what I've just said. So you need to take that into account, Minister, in an assessment of the point I was trying to make. My recollection is that there is a difference between the state and federal unions, and I am just not sure these days exactly how those organisations might interact and, more particularly, how this legislation might apply to an organisation under state registration—which I'm assuming still exists for most of those public sector organisations in just about every state. So there might be different answers to that question.

In the few remaining minutes I have left to talk on this particular issue, I wanted to raise with the minister some issues regarding corporate equivalence. This was one of the great emotive issues that the government raised in its defence of this rather indefensible legislation and in seeking to draw comparisons between what obligations unions, union officials and volunteers in unions might have in respect of the legislation and similar obligations and responsibilities that might exist in the corporate sector, the people the unions are negotiating with. I think it is fair to say that, in respect of at least some of the crossbenchers, this issue seemed a determining factor in their decision to ultimately get behind the legislation—because they saw that there was some need for equivalence between what obligations you apply to a union official and what obligations you apply to a company director. But I would put to the minister that the suggestion that unions should be held to the same regulatory standard as corporations in these circumstances has an implication that the unions themselves are innately bad and need to be brought up to the same standard against which public companies are held.

But I would like to talk about the nature of unions. While the main obligation or the main purpose of companies is to carry out commercial activity with an aim to generate revenue and, of course, if they're successful hopefully make a profit, the nature of trade unions is quite a different concept in our community. It stems from quite a different philosophical basis in our society. They have a different purpose—and, might I say, a higher purpose. Rather than simply being vehicles for making money, their purpose, their obligation, is to protect the conditions, the wages and the entitlements of Australian workers. Shareholders in a company of course want to see that company make a profit so they can receive dividends and get a return on their investment. That's fair enough. That's our system. It's a capitalist system that we work in. Trade unions, on the other hand, are democratic organisations. Their work is concerned with improving—

Senator Payne interjecting—

No; they're democratic organisations. Every union that I know of, Minister, has to face, every so often, a ballot of their members to determine whether they think they are doing a sufficiently good job to be returned to their office. That is a requirement under the legislation. But more interestingly, thanks to, I think, legislation introduced by Clyde Cameron, those ballots, as least as they relate to federal organisations, are conducted by the Australian Electoral Commission to ensure the integrity of those ballots—Senator Ayres is nodding at me. It's still the situation that if the members of an organisation are up for their regular term of office—which I think is four years for most organisations—then, of course, they conduct a ballot.

Unions have a higher purpose in our community. They're not simply about getting a return on investments. They're not simply about making a profit for their shareholders. They're out there day in, day out trying to lift the wages and improve the conditions of the people they represent—and very often the conditions of people who are not members. One of the great aspects of the Australian trade union movement is that, by and large, unions don't just raise the terms and conditions of the people that pay fees to unions; nine times out of 10, they're also raising the conditions for those who are not union members. Historically in this country—and let's face it: we have very high wages and conditions in comparison to a lot of our immediate neighbours—the unions that have managed to achieve improvements in wages and conditions have done that not only for union members but also for nonmembers. I think that in itself is another distinguishing feature where this idea of corporate equivalence between unions and companies simply doesn't apply. As I said, unions are democratic organisations, and their sole purpose is to improve the wages and conditions of their members. They're not out there making a profit and making a return on their investments. They're out there day in, day out—very hardworking union officials, like Senator Sheldon was a few months ago—to improve the standard of living of their members.

I believe the government has made some very misleading statements about the way in which the bill brings the regulation of trade unions into line with the regulation of corporations. We hear a lot about fake news these days, and my concern is that the government's attempt to draw an equivalence between unions and corporations may have misled some of the crossbenchers into thinking that that's what this legislation actually does. It certainly does not do that.

We've seen only this week the circumstances in Westpac—one of our big four banks in this country. There were 23 million breaches of AUSTRAC obligations. I didn't get a chance to read the whole story this morning, but I understand that the figure may be significantly higher than 23 million breaches of the AUSTRAC obligations. What's happened to the person who oversaw those breaches? Have they been sacked or forced to stand down from their company? Has their company been forced out of business? Has it lost its licence? No. In fact, what happened to that particular CEO of that particular company is that he was allowed to resign, apparently with the consent of the board, and then get a $2.69 million payout—shocking!

There is this idea of some equivalence between how corporations are treated by this government and how unions who work day in, day out to try to improve the living standards of their members are treated—and, of course, we know that under this government living standards are falling. Why are they falling? Because wages are not increasing. Retail sales, as I mentioned when I spoke earlier today, are flatlining or falling in this country right as we speak.

I note that the minister seemed to draw some comparison with a boss who fails to give their employees a payslip and how that's a bad thing. Well, I agree it's a bad thing. Everybody is entitled to a payslip. But, of course, if that employer does fail to provide the payslip, they don't get the sack. They're not dismissed. The organisation that fails to provide the payslip is not then deregistered and forced out of business to stop doing what they are doing. So the idea that there's any sort of comparison between an employer who fails to provide an employee with a payslip and a union who takes certain actions or fails to provide certain details to the Registered Organisations Commission, the so-called ROC, is simply preposterous. We have these unions working in the interests of their members.

This is a question I've got for the minister on this subject of corporate equivalence: is it not correct that this bill allows for union officers to be disqualified for contravening industrial or work health and safety laws but that the Corporations Act does not allow company directors to be disqualified for contraventions of those same laws?