Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Ronaldson today relating to the inappropriate use of union members’ money.

Trade unions play a vital role in our community, but the members of many of those trade unions have been betrayed by the union bosses who are involved in a web of corruption, a web of self-enrichment and a web of self-aggrandisement. When the Craig Thomson issue and the Health Services Union matters came to light, we were promised it was an isolated incident. Over $500,000 had been ripped off from some of Australia's lowest paid workers. Then we had the exposure of former ALP president Michael Williamson's $20 million rip-off of Australia's lowest paid workers. Now we have the Electrical Trade Union scam, which goes back for some time.

In 2000 the ETU set up a fund known as Protect—what an ironic name—to provide income protection insurance for electrical industry employees. Mr Mighell told employers the insurance premium would be $14.50 per employee. The actual cost was in fact only $10.75. The balance was funnelled into the Electrical Trade Union trust funds, or slush funds, and the Electrical Trade Union simply kept the moneys. And who kept these moneys? None other than Tony Mokbel's accountant, Michael Heiner, with trustees including Mr Mighell and the now senator Gavin Marshall. And the field officer for the project, for Protect? The now member for Deakin, Mike Symon, was to sign up as many employers as possible with, of course, the inflated premium.

According to the Cole royal commission: 'Unknown to the employers who contributed to the premiums for the income protection insurance, and NECA, the employer organisation, a private arrangement was made whereby large sums of money were paid by a company to the ETU as commission either directly or through a trust. Over a little more than two years, a sum exceeding $2.5 million was paid or became payable in this way, yet producing no additional benefit in respect of income protection.' And guess what? The funds included purchasing a home in Tasmania for former ALP candidate Kevin Harkins whilst he was Tasmanian ETU secretary. And if that is not bad enough, having got away with the Tasmanian purchase, they then moved to the harbourside of Sydney and bought a mansion for over $1 million for an ETU official national assistant secretary. None other than Dean Mighell has alleged that there was an attempt to disguise this purchase of the mansion by using the New South Wales branch 'so they didn't have to do go through the books of the union nationally in order to get approval for it'.

So we have the Health Services Union. We have the Electrical Trades Union, And, of course, we have the Australian Workers Union, which, since 1989, has been engaged in the defrauding of its members, and that has now been well documented by the activities of Mr Wilson and Mr Ludwig and those that have brought it to the public's attention, including the former Attorney-General, which has shown that $672,925 from 13 separate bank accounts was taken away from the hard-working membership of that union. We ask: where is Paul Howes in all this? Where are the Australian Workers Union officials that are now in this parliament—what are they doing to represent the interests of the low-paid union members that they claim to protect?

Put simply, trade union members have nothing to fear from the coalition and everything to fear from trade union bosses. The coalition has a strong policy of rooting out the rorting, whereas Labor has a strong policy of protecting the perpetrators. To protect the role and reputation of true trade unionism, trade unionists can only rely on the coalition to clean up their once proud movement with penalties applicable to company directors. (Time expired)

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a surprise to have another debate on behalf of the coalition about the role of the trade union movement in our society.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Corrupt trade union officials.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection, Senator Brandis. I stand here as a very proud trade union official, having worked for the National Tertiary Education Union and the Australian Education Union for a number of years and having been a very proud and active member of my original union, which is the teachers union. There is a reason people belong to a trade union and need to belong to a trade union—because their rights at work need to be protected from the likes of the people opposite us, who want to have a debate about the trade union movement in this country because it assists their purposes to always attack workers' rights, to always attack the benefits people enjoy in their workplace, to drive their wages down, to drive the conditions of employment down, to make the places in which they work unsafe, to make the profits bigger and to make the outcomes for the workers much cheaper. Of course they do not like the trade union movement because we are there and will continue to be there to defend the rights of workers to get a decent day's pay for a decent day's work and to do it in an environment that is safe.

I know of nobody in the business—none of my trade union colleagues and no members of the trade union movement I have ever met, worked with or associated with—who supports or wants to see some of the activities we have seen happening in the trade union movement. None of us support that action at all. We will do and say whatever we need to to make sure that those who are misappropriating trade union funds and who are using their positions in the wrong way are brought to justice. I stand by my colleagues as a trade union member who wants to ensure that the membership fees that are paid are used appropriately. As a government we have done a number of things to ensure that the regulation of the trade union movement in this country is as good as it possibly can be. The regulation of registered organisations has never been stronger. Trade unions are accountable and will continue to be accountable. The financial accountability and the transparency standards for unions and employer organisations have never been higher.

I notice we never stand here in this chamber and debate employer organisations that might seek to not perform so well. It might be an opportune time for me to mention what is going on with the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce at this point in time. The Chamber of Commerce in the Northern Territory are struggling to pay their current workers at this point in time. Maybe we should turn the spotlight on what is actually happening with employer organisations, particularly in the Northern Territory at the moment.

Also Fair Work Australia's powers to investigate breaches, particularly in the trade union movement, have never been tougher. When I worked for the trade union movement I wanted to ensure that the members that I recruited and represented got best value for their dollar, that there were stringent negotiations and consultations on their behalf and that the dollars they invested in their union were actually expended to their benefit. Nobody on this side of this house or in the House of Representatives would support the misappropriation of funds and the misuse of those funds on behalf of their trade union members.

Every single chance you get you try to drive a wedge between the worker and the trade union movement. You try to make the trade union movement not an acceptable or important component in our society. Trade unions are there and they do a very valuable job. Trade union organisers do a very valuable job for workers who desperately need them, sometimes on a day-by-day basis.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are talking about the corrupt ones.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection, Senator Abetz. Nobody on this side of the chamber supports trade union officials who misuse trade union funds. There are courts to deal with that and Fair Work Australia deals with that, and that is where the matter should be dealt with, is being dealt with and will continue to be dealt with, particularly under this government.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition strongly support honest, well-governed unions, but we are deeply concerned at the culture of corruption which has emerged in a number of trade unions. I want to deal in the time available to me with the Australian Workers Union. It has been known for some time now that the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, in her former capacity as a lawyer at Slater & Gordon was responsible for documenting the incorporation of the AWU Workplace Reform Association, a vehicle that was used for the theft of members' funds, the funds owned by honest trade union members.

What has recently come to light, though, in particular in an article by Mark Baker in yesterday's Melbourne Age is the extent of Ms Gillard's involvement as a lawyer at Slater & Gordon in a property transaction at Kerr Street, Fitzroy, the beneficiary of which was her then partner Mr Bruce Wilson. The consideration for the conveyance of that property came from two sources: $67,722.20 came from the AWU Workplace Reform Association—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a point of order, Senator Wong?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that Senator Brandis wants to put this on the public record in here because he probably will not do it outside.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, what is your point of order?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is relevance, Mr President. There was no question that related to something which occurred decades ago in relation to the Prime Minister and on which she has answered questions on the public record for some time. If Senator Brandis wants to make a contribution, there are appropriate circumstances where he can do that. This is hardly relevant to anything in question time.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, I believe Senator Brandis is being relevant to the topic. The topic has covered the areas that Senator Brandis is touching upon, and I remind all senators in the chamber of the matter before the chair. Senator Brandis, you have the call.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I would invite you to have a look at Hansard from yesterday when you drew my attention to the relevancy of my contribution. On several occasions you were extremely tight in your assessment of what was relevant. This ruling goes completely opposite to that, and I would ask you to reconsider that ruling now.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, if you recall and if you go back to Hansard, you will find that I reminded you of the question, which is different from the response that I just gave to Senator Wong. Senator Brandis, you have the call.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. As I was saying, $67,722.20 of the consideration from that transaction came from the AWU Workplace Reform Association set up by Ms Gillard in her capacity as a solicitor. But we learned yesterday that the balance of the purchase price, $150,000, was funded by a mortgage with a Slater & Gordon loan and that the solicitor who documented the mortgage was none other than Julia Gillard. Furthermore, we learned from Mr Baker's article in yesterday's Melbourne Age that the property was bought in the name of a Mr Blewitt on behalf of Mr Bruce Wilson, under a power of attorney. Who do you think, Mr Deputy President, drew up the power of attorney? Well, none other than Ms Julia Gillard. We also learned yesterday that the Kerr Street, Fitzroy, property was bought by Mr Wilson, nominally on Mr Blewitt's behalf, under a power of attorney drawn up by Julia Gillard at an auction. Who accompanied Mr Wilson to that auction? None other than Ms Julia Gillard. We also learned that, when the conveyance was effected of that property, it was effected by a lawyer at Slater & Gordon. And who was the lawyer at Slater & Gordon who effected the conveyance of that property? Ms Julia Gillard.

We also know that Ms Julia Gillard left Slater & Gordon after these matters were revealed in unusual circumstances. We also know that Ms Julia Gillard did not create a file or otherwise disclose these transactions to her partners, which, as anyone who has worked in a law firm, as I have done, knows, is highly irregular and is only consistent with deliberate concealment.

I am not saying that Ms Gillard was a party to a fraud. What I am saying is this: every aspect of this transaction, whether the power of attorney, whether the securitisation of the transaction with the loan through Slater & Gordon, whether the conveyance of the property was documented and conducted as a solicitor by Ms Julia Gillard, it was done by Ms Julia Gillard on behalf of her then partner in circumstances in which the entire transaction was concealed from her partners.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brandis. Senator Brown. I beg your pardon, Senator Bilyk.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What did you say then, George? They all look alike? Charming.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are a charming man, Senator Brandis. And I say that with no sincerity.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Bilyk, you have the call and direct your comments to the chair.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As Senator Crossin stood and said that she was very proud to be an ex-union official, so do I. Having worked for a number of years for the Australian Services Union, I can say that nobody I know in the union movement or in this government condones any bad behaviour or any illegal activity, whether it be by a trade union, by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry or by business. I would like to make it very clear that nobody on this side condones that sort of behaviour.

But, having said that, I say as an ex-union official that I was involved in the anti Work Choices campaign. I suggest to anybody listening that, if they believe in any way, shape or form that those on the other side are friends of the workers, they are seriously mistaken. It is pretty apparent from the Work Choices campaign that was run and that we expect will be run again, even though we have heard that it is dead and buried, I think it will come back—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And cremated.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And cremated. I think it will come back like a phoenix. It will come back. It might come back under another name. I have yet to see any proof that those on the other side really care at all about working people. It is this side of the chamber that has planned to help families. When you are talking about working people generally, that is what you are talking about. So it is this side of the chamber that has the plan to help families with the cost of living. We have the plan, and we are putting it into action to build a strong economy. We intend to do that, and we have started doing that in a number of ways.

I have to say that I find the constant negativity about unions appalling.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, corrupt unions.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Senator Abetz. I will take that interjection. It is about all unions. You demonise all unions. You demonise all union members. By default, you demonise those working people who are members of unions. I remember recently that I did not hear one question on it in this chamber. I also remember that there was quite a lot of the media activity recently in Tasmania, my home state, about the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the $800,000 black hole that they seem to have developed.

I am not quite sure the question of what happened to that $800,000 was ever resolved.

For those on the other side to stand up and demonise unions as though they are the worst thing possible is just immoral, and it is not genuine—except that you dislike unions, and the coalition's previous activity in trying to get rid of unions proves that. You know that this government has appointed an administrator to the HSU issue, and we did that without the support of those opposite. You also know that this government has acted to improve the transparency and accountability of registered organisations, including trade unions and employee groups, and to improve the powers of Fair Work Australia to investigate.

This government has worked to improve the regulation of registered organisations, including unions. I am very proud to be part of the union movement, part of that group of people that does get out and do the hard yards for those who cannot necessarily even afford lawyers. I notice that the coalition side of the chamber has lots of ex-lawyers or people who still think they are acting in the High Court or the House of Lords, but on this side we are actual workers—workers who have been there and done that. I worked my way up through the ranks—as I think most people in the union movement have done, and they are very proud to stand tall and be members of the trade union body.

This government believes very strongly in a free and independent trade union movement, as opposed to those on the other side who would like to have no trade union movement whatsoever. This government believes in the advocacy of employer organisations on behalf of their members. I do not understand why the coalition constantly harp on and on and misrepresent facts by standing up for four minutes as the previous speaker did talking about alleged activities of the Prime Minister but then covering himself a bit by saying, 'I am not alleging fraud.' (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to refute resoundingly the comments of Senators Bilyk and Crossin. When it comes to questions about support for unions from this side, I stand very proudly as the grandson of a gentleman, Tom Back, who was the secretary of the Lumpers Union on the Fremantle wharves during the Depression years. So pleased were his members by the actions he took over that time that they paid for his tombstone.

More recently, when managing and directing my company in Tasmania, I was the person who had to stand up to the Australian Transport Union and go to the industrial court to protect the jobs of my fuel drivers. I negotiated what I believe was the first ever EBA for the fuel industry in south-eastern Australia. It was a Labor appointed industrial advocate who actually said to me, 'Dr Back, if you can't get agreement from the union, I will allow you to undertake a non-union EBA.' So I will not stand here and be lectured by Senator Bilyk, Senator Crossin or senator anybody else on our support for the role the unions play.

What I will stand here and condemn is the activity of those union officials who misuse and abuse the funds that are entrusted to them by union members. I speak particularly, as Senator Brandis has, in terms of the AWU. I go back to a 1989 flyer promoting none other than Mr Bruce Wilson, as general secretary of the Australian Workers Union, and Mr Bill Ludwig as its president. The promo said: 'Bruce Wilson and Bill Ludwig have had enough, enough of luxury homes purchased with $395,000 of your union fees for an executive mansion for the union hierarchy.' The same flyer said that the Sydney head office had been sold for $1.9 million to only be sold a week later for a figure of $2.8 million and then not long afterwards for $9.85 million. This is the same Bruce Wilson who in 1993 was associated with the formation in my home state of Western Australia of the AWU Workplace Reform Association. This was after the 1989 brochure promoting Mr Wilson and his apparent honesty.

Why do I have the link back to WA? It is because this was the era of the evil, perverted Labor WA Inc.—that shocking period under then Premier Brian Burke that led to such an incredible cost to the Western Australian community. In a subsequent royal commission—which then Labor Premier Carmen Lawrence was forced to call—it was revealed that there was a loss of at least $600 million of public moneys as a result of WA Inc. under then Premiers Brian Burke and Peter Dowding and others associated with them. It was in this era that Mr Wilson and his cronies were able to con some $673,000 out of businesses in WA.

I remember only too well the actions of those people. Nobody could get a government contract in WA in the late 1980s or the early 1990s unless they contributed to a slush fund. Even more disturbingly at that time, the lawyer for the group in setting up the AWU Workplace Reform Association advised the Western Australian department responsible for incorporating the organisation that its role was for the development of change to work to achieve safe workplaces. Who was the person who wrote that document allegedly? It was none other than the now Prime Minister of this country, Ms Gillard. It was in a discussion not long ago afterwards with her own associates at Slater and Gordon that she said to them that in fact it was ostensibly for workplace reform as a union election slush fund. She said she regretted that particular comment. I bet she regretted it, because the money was in fact to be used to fund election campaigns.

We want to see a removal of corruption in the union movement where it exists. We want to see penalties coming into line with those for company directors, not $6,600 but the same penalties that company directors face—$220,000 and five years in jail. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.