Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Chris Evans) and the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (Senator Conroy) to questions without notice asked by Senators Ronaldson and McGauran today relating to the Transport Workers Union.

In particular I would point out that Senator Conroy would have us believe that the withdrawal this morning of Mr Tony Sheldon from a position on the Transport Commission was some accident—it just happened to occur last night. It was totally unrelated to the Sunday program yesterday. It was a pure coincidence that he took his name off last night after the Sunday program aired yesterday morning. Senator Conroy, you must believe in the tooth fairy, I suspect, if you believe that story. It is simply not true.

I want to go through a number matters in relation to this. I want to start by saying that this government got here on the basis of openness and transparency. In 110 days we have seen none of that at all—not one piece of it. We have seen the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, talk about openness and transparency and his desire to address the issue of political donations. He refused last week to accept a motion supported by everyone else in this chamber. Part of that was to address the appalling revelation we had yesterday morning about the activities of the Transport Workers Union. This was a slush fund for the ALP, taken by the ALP with no questions asked and knowing full well that it would never be disclosed to where it should have been disclosed. Have we heard a word from the Prime Minister in relation to this? Have we heard the Prime Minister say, ‘I will repay that money to the TWU’? No, we have not. What Mr Rudd has said is, ‘I’m prepared to accept slush funds from the TWU, but any other donations are going to be subject to some new rules.’ Let us see whether Mr Rudd is serious about this, and let us see him support the coalition, the Greens, Family First and the Democrats in having this matter addressed by the joint standing committee, which I hope it will do.

I want to refer to some comments from someone from the TWU—I think he is from the TWU; I know Mr Pat Murray, who is a whistleblower along with Mr Tony O’Donnell, is actually being sued by the TWU for $250,000 for allegedly giving the Sunday program documents relating to this rort, to this slush fund, to this illegal activity. An article in the Australian this morning stated:

Among serving and former union officials interviewed by the program—

that is, the Sunday program—

TWU organiser Tony O’Donnell claimed union members were not aware of the fund’s existence and he disputed that funds were used for training.

“There is evidence here of secret commissions, possibly corrupt commissions under the NSW Crimes Act,” Mr O’Donnell said.

Mr Sheldon strongly defended his union yesterday, describing the non-disclosure of political donations as an “administrative error” ...

An administrative error? A slush fund that was used to make donations directly to Labor candidates was an administrative error?

Kay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patterson interjecting—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think so and, as Senator Patterson said, nor will the Australian public.

The other issue I want to address—and I know that some of my colleagues will probably talk about it as well—is the extortion and bullying of companies that took place to fund the slush fund. If the Prime Minister is prepared to sit back and accept that it is appropriate for funds to be taken from companies via threats, then put into a slush fund and then paid to his candidates and state Labor candidates in New South Wales, he will be judged accordingly. I would like to go through some of the companies that have been in this position: Dairy Farmers, Linfox, Toll, Qantas, Australia Post, Action James, Allied Express, Star Track Express and Manpower. Dairy Farmers, I understand, were required to put—(Time expired)

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst we have heard Senator Ronaldson here feigning concern about supposed impropriety in electoral funding, let’s look at the history.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What, you’re not concerned about it? Aren’t you concerned about it?

Michael Forshaw (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am concerned and I am going to come to my concerns in a moment, Senator Ronaldson. Let us look at the history. These allegations that were aired on the Sunday program yesterday actually were raised well over a year ago. At the time, Mr Hockey, the then minister, established some eight inquiries into these same allegations. There were inquiries through the Taxation Office, through ASIC and through the New South Wales police. There were inquiries in respect of possible breaches of New South Wales electoral laws, inquiries in respect of activities regarding safety and inquiries through the Industrial Registry and the Workplace Authority. A whole gamut of authorities were looking at these allegations. To date those inquiries have not found anything that would warrant any prosecution. There have been no findings of any illegal conduct. But those inquiries are ongoing.

What we have, however, today, following the Sunday program rerunning this same issue, is Senator Ronaldson getting up in question time and asking the minister the question: ‘Why won’t the government set up a judicial enquiry into illegal activities?’ Senator Ronaldson should know better. I understand that he has got legal qualifications. He is asking the government to set up a judicial inquiry, but at the same time he has already found the persons guilty. He said, ‘These are illegal activities’. Senator Ronaldson knows—as every senator on the opposite side and in this parliament knows—that if you have any specific allegations of criminal activity, you take them to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. As has been indicated by the ministers in responding to these questions today, the government’s approach is entirely appropriate. The Australian Electoral Commission has the capacity to look at whether or not there have been any breaches of electoral laws. I challenge Senator Ronaldson and Senator McGauran: if you have allegations, take them to the appropriate authorities. But of course you do not. You come in here and you raise them in here. That is what you do. You already find people guilty—in this parliament, where you are protected by parliamentary privilege—but you do not have the courage to go outside and approach the appropriate law enforcement authorities and raise the issues with them.

Let us look at the performance of the now opposition when they were in government, when it comes to electoral funding. This is the party that established the Millennium Forum in the home state of Senator McGauran and in the home state of Senator Ronaldson. The Millennium Forum was simply a ruse to hide millions of dollars of donations to the Liberal Party for electoral funding. You could not possibly disclose who those donors were. Not only that: when last in government—after the previous election, when you finally got the numbers in your own right in the Senate—you changed the electoral laws to raise the limit for nondisclosure of donors for electoral donations from $1,500 to $10,000. This meant that an individual or a company could donate up to or $90,000 by donating $10,000 to every state branch, every territory division and the national body of a political party. That is what you could do, without having to disclose who the donors were. It went from $1,500 to $10,000. That was your legacy for electoral donations. So do not come in here and lecture us about proprietary. Fair dinkum! You should be ashamed of yourselves for even having the hide to raise the issue.

I finish on this note. Do you remember the Australian Wheat Board? You stand up there with this pious, unctuous concern about supposed illegalities, bribes, under-the-table payments and so on. When you were in government, you were responsible for $300 million of donations to Saddam Hussein’s regime. You knew about it and you sat back. Under your administration, ministers and officials of the Wheat Board knew about these disgraceful payments and did nothing. (Time expired)

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also want to take note of answers to questions to Senator Evans in relation to the Transport Workers Union and disclosure issues. When Prime Minister Rudd and his team were campaigning for office, they loudly declared that Labor would set and meet new and higher standards of probity and integrity. Mr Rudd declared a new ministerial code of conduct and a lobbyist register would be established by the first sitting day of this year. It did not happen.

Senator Faulkner promised new arrangements for transparency in appointments to government. This process has failed its first test. The test came in the form of a cabinet submission to appoint Tony Sheldon, New South Wales state secretary of the Transport Workers Union, to the National Transport Commission. This is troubling on two counts. Firstly, it is a sign that the government is returning to the old habit of giving the unions a seat at every table—in this case the National Transport Commission. It is pretty funny that the government wanted to appoint a representative of the Transport Workers Union to the NTC, because the NTC has, as its stated objective, to improve transport productivity, efficiency and safety. Imagine that: the head of the TWU having expertise in transport productivity and efficiencies! On the contrary, they are the enemy of transport productivity and efficiency.

It is also troubling because we see that Labor are going to be appointing their mates to every body. We have seen the reintroduction of the Australian Labour Advisory Council, and we should look very carefully at the Reserve Bank board. Once upon a time, we had Bill Kelty on the board of the Reserve Bank. We need to watch very carefully to see if Labor moves to put an ACTU representative back on that body.

Secondly, this is very concerning because Senator Faulkner’s board appointment vetting committee has failed, and is now seen for what it is: a fig leaf, a cover to pretend that Labor mates are appointed on the basis of merit rather than partisanship. Senator Conroy admitted as much today when he declared, in reference to Tony Sheldon, ‘He wouldn’t rat on a mate.’ That is what Tony Sheldon is—a Labor mate. That was the sole reason for consideration of him for appointment to the NTC board. Senator Faulkner made great play about the new integrity regime for senior government appointments, but there is a ‘get out of jail clause’ in this new appointments regime. Senator Faulkner listed all the bodies which would be subject to this appointment regime. It includes the National Transport Commission—the CEO, yes, but not the board members. So there is a ‘get out of jail’ card there for Labor mates who wish to be appointed to these bodies.

Over recent days we have seen emerge in the media further reasons why it would be inappropriate to have the head of the TWU appointed to the NTC. The media have made allegations in relation to the TWU that involve corruption, slush funds and extortion. Last year it emerged that the TWU required its members to pay a special fee that went into a fund for which there were no governance arrangements. That is worrying enough, but now it emerges in the media that there are new allegations that union funds from the slush fund were being used to bankroll the campaigns of Labor parliamentary candidates. This is very concerning. These funds have been appropriated from union members and channelled into parliamentary elections, with a failure to declare to the Electoral Commission.

We can have no confidence at all that the New South Wales branch of the ALP will take any steps to examine these matters. Why can we have no confidence that the New South Wales ALP will not examine its own house? The reason is that a Mr Tony Sheldon heads the party’s disciplinary body, the administrative and disputes committee. I do not think we can expect a fair and unbiased hearing in that body. The only solution is an independent judicial inquiry. We need to know what else the TWU have done. Who else have they donated to? Have they donated to federal candidates as well? The only way we can determine this is with an independent judicial inquiry. I hope Senator Faulkner will be a voice of reason on this issue in the government. He has great concern about electoral integrity and I hope that Senator Faulkner would be arguing for an independent commission.

In concluding, when looking at the Sheldon appointment, let us look at the values of the National Transport Commission. They state their values to be ‘integrity, excellence and discernment’. There is certainly excellence in establishing slush funds. Whether there is integrity and discernment only an independent judicial inquiry can determine.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is typical of this opposition: when they do not have any arguments to mount they make a slur on an organisation that has been subjected to a repeat of allegations made many months ago, which their then minister, Mr Hockey, referred to eight inquiries—not to a judicial inquiry, as the opposition is now suggesting, but to eight separate inquiries: inquiries by the ATO, inquiries by ASIC, inquiries by the New South Wales police, inquiries through the New South Wales electoral laws, New South Wales occupational health and safety inquiries, inquiries by the Industrial Registrar and inquiries by the Workplace Authority. Those inquiries have not been shut down by this government; they are ongoing. But, as Senator Forshaw reminded the Senate, to date nothing has been discovered which would be illegal, as far as I am aware, or in any way require or justify the sort of inquiry which the opposition now proposes. Of course, they had to have something to raise in the debate to take note of answers today. They decided, ‘Here we go: it’s a union and we don’t like unions, and it’s someone who’s involved in a commission and they’ve withdrawn.’ As Mr Sheldon said:

I have reached this conclusion—

that is, to withdraw from the National Transport Commission—

so the community can focus on the real safety challenges in the heavy vehicle industry, free from the distractions caused by a political campaign being waged against the TWU’s efforts to clean up long-distance transport.

It is important to touch again upon the point Mr Sheldon refers to in his statement—that is, the question of safety. Senator Fifield talked about the aims of the National Transport Commission. At first he mentioned safety, but then he conveniently ceased every mention of it because Mr Sheldon’s role in trucking safety exceeds that of any other in this community. That is clearly his job. On his public statements, you must come to the conclusion that he regards it as the primary concern for his organisation. He has said: ‘In the financial year 2006-07, 228 people needlessly died in heavy vehicle incidents on Australian roads. This is an important reason, among fairness at work and client transport company accountability, to keep fighting.’ Good on Mr Sheldon for fighting for trucking safety.

There are a great many Australians who drive the rigs that keep our economy moving, that transport goods to and from market, that supply cities with the goods they need to continue to operate and to feed people. He is representing thousands of truck drivers in that very onerous task who are engaged in a dangerous occupation, evidenced by the number of fatalities that occur in that occupation. Why would he not have a concern about safety? Why would that not be a very valuable skill to put on the National Transport Commission? There has been no real reason to justify him not being there other than unproven allegations aired again over the weekend and aired in the past. I say again, these are allegations that were referred to eight inquiries by the previous coalition minister, Mr Hockey, and to date nothing has come of them.

It is easy to come into this place and make allegations. I note from the language of Senator Fifield that he does not consider them allegations; he considers them proven. Judge, jury and executioner—that is how we should view the statements of Senator Fifield. There was no presumption of innocence on the part of Senator Fifield or by the rest of the coalition in the contribution they made here. Frankly, everyone is entitled to that presumption.

What has Mr Sheldon done in relation to his appointment? He has, of his own accord, offered his resignation and that resignation has been accepted. If there is any substance to the allegation, if Senator Ronaldson, Senator Fifield, Senator McGauran or any other senator has any information in relation to electoral matters, they should take them to the Australian Electoral Commission. If they have any information in relation to matters of illegality they should take them to the New South Wales police or to the Federal Police and they should do that now. If they propose to make allegations which are not based on such fact, then I challenge them to make those allegations outside because they know they are not protected out there. (Time expired)

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to Senator O’Brien and to previous speakers from the government, you get the sense there is nothing more sensitive to Labor Party members than being questioned on their seedy relationship with the TWU. You always know, because the volume rises, the abuse rises. We heard that in question time today when I asked my question of Senator Conroy, a former member of the TWU. Up went the noise, up went the abuse. Even Senator Robert Ray over in the corner awoke and threw in his pathetic, outdated barbs—like the man himself, I should add. The truth of the matter is we are seeing the seedy side of the relationship between the union and the government because the Labor Party went in to bat holus-bolus in defence of the union during question time today and during this debate to take note of answers. You can duck, you can weave, you can slip and you can slide, but today you have defended the most serious allegations of misappropriation in regard to electoral funding.

In fact, Senator Conroy gave it away today in a moment of truth. He told the truth when he said, ‘I will not rat on a mate.’ Forget about the circumstances of ratting on the mate, he is not going to rat on his mate and that is the truth of the matter. That is the core of the issue here today. If you boast about and trumpet, as you do, your new government’s integrity and transparency, you would move to set up a judicial inquiry into this particular matter.

When put to the test, you fail miserably as you always have in the past. Why are we so surprised? You always defend the unions regardless of the serious allegations. You defended the maritime workers against allegations of corruption and extortion. You defended the building and construction union against the Cole royal commission’s own findings. Here you are again defending the TWU against the most serious allegations of corruption and misappropriation of electoral funds which you were beneficiaries of.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you got any facts?

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let us go through the allegations and the facts. Prima facie, they look like facts to me.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, do they?

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O’Brien, you will cease interjecting. Senator McGauran is entitled to be heard in silence. Senator McGauran, your comments should be addressed to the chair.

Julian McGauran (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is then worthy to look at the gravity of this issue as those on the other side are calling for. It warrants repeating that the union and the union’s national secretary have basically been caught red-handed. Firstly, there is strong prima facie evidence and serious allegations of breaching the law by nondisclosure of secret donations to the ALP candidates. It should not surprise you, Mr Deputy President, that those on the other side are standing up vigorously defending the actions of this union which are an offence against the New South Wales Crimes Act. Secondly, there is evidence for extortions of very large sums from companies that they deal with in return for industrial peace. Most likely that extorted money has gone to the ALP in regard to candidate funding, and we have Tony O’Donnell, a former official of the Transport Workers Union, saying:

There is evidence here of secret commissions, possibly corrupt commissions under the NSW Crimes Act.

What was the lame defence of Mr Sheldon? It was notoriously famous cover-up words, ‘It is all an administrative error.’ We will see about that because it is under serious investigation. We will see how far that cover-up line of Mr Sheldon goes. As previous speakers, Senator Ronaldson and Senator Mitch Fifield, from this side have said, this matter does go to the heart of the integrity of the government and their close relationship with the union.

Already, as we know, the wagons are circling around Mr Sheldon and the union itself. This union has form. This union has a record. A lack of transparency of millions of dollars has already been reported in an audit report by Deloitte. The union has past form and, on that ground alone, these allegations cannot be overlooked. Yet what is the government’s reaction? They, knowing the form of this particular union, were still willing to appoint Mr Sheldon to the transport advisory committee. He did not step down; he was pushed down under the pressure of the allegations. An inquiry is required or this government’s seedy relationship with respect to the debt they owe the union for the election to the tune of $50 million looks like it has been paid off.

Question agreed to.