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

If ever there was any remaining doubt within the community about the need for registered organisations to be subject to equivalent standards of governance and financial accountability as companies under corporations law it was completely and utterly dispelled by the excruciatingly inept performance by the Prime Minister over her personal involvement in the Australian Workers Union slush fund scandal. Her press conference today highlighted that, in the event that there was any remaining doubt within the community.

We were told that the Australian Workers Union slush fund was a one-off—only one rotten apple in the barrel. But that is what we are told about Craig Thomson and the Health Services Union. That is what we were told about Michael Williamson and the Health Services Union. That is what we were told about the Electrical Trades Union harbour-side mansion bought for a trade union official. That is what we are now being told about the CFMEU fund, which was ostensibly to assist workers with drug and alcohol issues, having funds taken from it for trade union bosses to use as their own plaything.

So this argument that there is just a one-off is no longer sustainable. The problem is, in fact, regrettably endemic. And the assertion, on the revelation of each scandal, that it is just a one-off—just a single bad apple in the barrel—has been blown out of the water by no other authority than the Prime Minister herself, when she, in her own words, in her exiting interview—to put it politely—with Slater and Gordon, acknowledged that 'every single union has a slush fund'. Those are not my words and they are not the words of the coalition; they form an acknowledgement by the highest person in this current government—namely, the Prime Minister herself.

So, let's not have any of this nonsense anymore, that slush funds either do not exist or that the slush funds are a one-off. Ms Gillard herself has now acknowledged—it is public; it is on the record—that every union has a slush fund. Can I say that I actually do not believe that every union has a slush fund, but there are so many of them that have been identified that it requires tough legislation. The reason is that hard-working genuine trade union members are entitled to have their fees protected from the likes of Michael Williamson, Craig Thomson and Bruce Wilson—I do not know what it is about names ending in 'son' but there does seem to be a trend there—and the harbour-side mansion of the Electrical Trades Union, just to mention four.

It is because of our concern for the genuine members of the trade union movement that the coalition has put forward a private member's bill to protect union members. Labor's approach to this bill will be a test of their moral fibre. The slush funds are endemic, and not according to me but according to the Prime Minister herself. So what Labor need to do is ask themselves a number of questions. What they have to do is ask themselves whether or not they can assure trade union members around Australia that slush funds like the Australian Workers' Union Workplace Reform Association, that the Prime Minister herself helped to set up for Mr Bruce Wilson in the 1990s, no longer exist. Do these slush funds still exist? Well, we know it happened in the HSU, in the ETU and in the CFMEU, and of course they are only the ones we actually know about.

If those opposite cannot give a guarantee, as they surely cannot, to the hardworking and long-suffering members of the trade union movement that these slush funds no longer exist, what is their argument against heavy penalties to stop those slush funds? Those opposite need to come clean as to their own knowledge of and involvement in any such slush funds. Regrettably, the slush funds have, it would appear, been part and parcel of the culture within the union movement and the ALP for a long, long time.

Those opposite need to explain and provide a logical reason why companies would voluntarily give tens of thousands of dollars to unauthorised trade union slush funds like the Australian Workers' Union Workplace Reform Association set up by the Prime Minister. Why would companies give money to such slush funds? Would it be, perchance, as a result of the implicit or actual threat of industrial unrest if they do not—in other words, as a result of extortion? This is part of the culture that this behaviour breeds. It is dishonest; it is ugly; it is unacceptable. Hence, the coalition has moved its legislation—because we treat these issues seriously. Those opposite seek to make light of the issue because, as ex trade union bosses, chances are they may well have been involved in such slush funds themselves.

The coalition proposition is straightforward. There is no moral or material difference between a company director misusing, misappropriating, shareholders' funds for his or her own personal benefit and a trade union boss using members' membership fees for his or her own personal benefit. Nobody has made out the argument as to why there should be a difference in the penalty regimes. If a company director had behaved in the manner that Fair Work Australia found Mr Craig Thomson to have behaved in, that company director would be subject to severe penalties, including the possibility of a five-year jail term. The Labor Party, to this point at least, have said, 'Oh, no; company directors should somehow get a different tariff for that sort of dishonest behaviour because trade union bosses are deserving of a lesser penalty.' The intellectual or moral argument has never been made out as to why that different standard ought to apply.

You can always rely on the Greens, however, to try to provide some argument. You have to give it to the workplace relations spokesman of the Australian Greens, Mr Adam Bandt. Today he came out with this gem: 'Until every small business makes full disclosure of all its financials, why should there be these heftier penalties for trade union bosses?' The answer is very simple: the vast majority of small businesses deal with their own personal money; they do not deal with public money collected by membership fees or by people buying shares in their small business. That is a substantial and material difference that, if I might say, somebody with Mr Bandt's intellect would know. It was a try-on. It was another attempted snow job by the Australian Greens.

I say to the Australian Greens and to the Australian Labor Party that this huge flow of information that has now come to public light of union slush funds has done the trade union movement untold damage. To those who suggest that a penalty of $6,600 might be a disincentive to the likes of Michael Williamson, who is reported to have siphoned off millions of dollars—those suggest that a $6,600 fine might act as a disincentive to buying a $1 million-plus executive mansion on the waterfront of Sydney—good luck. If you think a $6,600 fine might act as a disincentive for Mr Craig Thomson, with all his shenanigans, good luck. You do not live in the real world.

The question then is why— (Time expired)

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are all very well aware of this smear campaign being waged by the coalition against the Prime Minister. She has, again, today emphatically and categorically denied any wrongdoing. But that is not enough for Senator Abetz or his colleagues, who, in a relentless pursuit of the Prime Minister are happy enough to ignore the facts or to selectively quote and report out of context. Media coverage is their primary information source.

First of all, Senator Abetz, you asked the question, and I can tell you categorically that I have no knowledge of funds being used inappropriately in the Labor Party and I have had no involvement in any funds in the Labor Party—

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

But you are not an ex-trade union boss.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not an ex-trade union official, but I have been a member of the executive of the New South Wales Labor Party for several years and I can deny categorically having any knowledge of slush funds of the kind you suggest.

Senator Abetz has been talking today about registered organisations in this matter of public importance. He, most emphatically, means trade unions and employer organisations, as referred to in the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. This legislation, introduced by the Labor government, requires organisations and, again, both employer and employee organisations, to keep and provide access to specified records. These records are outlined in detail in the regulations associated with the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act. They are created and registered for the purposes of representing Australian employers and employees at work. They already have particular statutory obligations in relation to their operation, conduct and disclosure. These organisations are required to provide audited financial statements to members, to be presented at a meeting and lodged with Fair Work Australia within a specified time frame.

These requirements and time frames are consistent with the general requirements of the Corporations Act and were specifically designed to be so, to honour commitments to Australia's business sector on reducing the regulatory burden for businesses, known as the Better Business Regulation initiative, as part of the Council of Australian Governments' Seamless National Economy program of reforms.

Many industry and employer bodies have been active participants in this reform process. The Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Minerals Council of Australia are all keen to support the reform of business regulation across Commonwealth, state and territory jurisdictions.

While this debate has been introduced in an attempt to smear and undermine the trade union movement, using the continuing allegations about so-called slush funds, we actually need to be careful about the pot calling the kettle black here.

Those of us who were here in 2004 will well remember the Australians for Honest Politics Trust—a euphemistic title if ever there was one, established by the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Tony Abbott; Peter Costello's father-in-law, Mr Coleman; and John Wheeldon to stop the Pauline Hanson political juggernaut. The single object of this trust was:

… to support actions to challenge the activities of a political party or association within Australia which is alleged to conduct its affairs in breach of the laws of Australia.

Mr Abbott acknowledged in the Sydney Morning Herald that he had raised almost $100,000 in an attempt to fund actions against One Nation.

In 2006, in a publication of the ANU entitled Political finance in Australia: a skewed and secret system, which followed the inquiry of the Senate Finance and Public Administration References Committee in 2004, the authors wrote:

Money plays a controversial role in Australian politics. Political donations often spark claims of secret contributions leading to corruption. These claims are occasionally accompanied by allegations that corporations or trade unions have undue influence over political parties through the funds they provide.

Many allegations are never found to be true. It is guilt by innuendo, because of course mud sticks. Unfortunately, some allegations are found to be true. We have certainly seen that played out in the activities of the crime and corruption bodies around the country. It certainly gives me no pleasure to read the daily reports of evidence to the Independent Commission Against Corruption in my own state. But I am very glad that this body exists, because representatives who are members of parliament and ministers of state not only are chosen by the people but exercise their legislative and executive powers as representatives of the people. And, in the exercise of these powers, the representatives are accountable to the people for what they do and have a responsibility to take account of the views of the people on whose behalf they act.

As many of you will know, I am not an adversarial lawyer, but I have an expectation that those of us elected to represent the people of Australia need to honour that pledge, which of course is why I support standards of regulation, good governance and transparency, especially in organisations that rely on public trust and confidence for donations.

This of course includes political parties. There have been many debates in this chamber about the need for improved disclosure of political donations, concern about the toxicity that is the sale of political access, the role of lobbyists and the lack of transparency around political donations.

Let me remind colleagues that it was the coalition and former Senator Steve Fielding who blocked reforms proposed by Senator John Faulkner during the Rudd government that would have reduced the reporting threshold to $1,000, rather than the current $11,500 threshold created by the Howard government, and that have significantly accelerated the reporting cycle for donations.

This debate today is about registered organisations. There are sound principles that underpin good regulation: consistency, proportionality, efficiency, effectiveness, timeliness, transparency and accountability. These are sound principles, which I am sure the opposition support—principles that have been agreed by the ACTU, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group.

This year the government introduced amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act, to improve financial transparency and disclosure for registered organisations as well as accountability and compliance. These amendments improve how investigations into breaches of registered organisation provisions are conducted by the general manager of Fair Work Australia. And, as Senator Abetz so rightly said, they increase the civil penalties threefold for contraventions of the act. That is, the penalties of $11,000 for an organisation and $2,200 for an individual—which Mr Abbott thought were appropriate—have now been tripled to a maximum of $33,000 for an organisation and $6,600 for an individual. Of course, that does not mean that that is the only penalty that is open to people who are found to have breached those regulations. It is disheartening to think that this would be all that Senator Abetz imagines would be happening. These registered organisations are actually quite different to corporations. First of all, they are voluntary and autonomous. Their role is different, despite what Senator Abetz would have to say. Corporations are designed to generate wealth and protect the financial interests of shareholders. Registered organisations have special obligations and rights under the Fair Work Act, including collective bargaining. Regardless of what Senator Abetz might like to argue, officials and officers of organisations are not the same as company directors—many hold their positions voluntarily.

When I saw this matter was coming up for debate today, it reminded me that Mr Gary Johns, in a paper to the HR Nicholls Society, described trade unions quite interestingly when he said:

Trade unions—along with friendly societies and mutual cooperatives—are among our earliest manifestations of activist civil society; they are original NGOs.

He went on to say 'trade unions are not of a piece, their behaviour and rhetoric varies enormously'—and that is exactly the point.

We are hearing in the media about the rogues, whose actions demean the work of good union activists in good faith bargaining, in strengthening workplaces, in supporting industry reform and restructuring and in working to maintain our economic advantage in the world. That is the shame, that these are all discounted by the actions of a few. So let us call this debate for exactly what it is. It is a demeaning debate that is aimed squarely at diminishing the public confidence in the Prime Minister of Australia. It is here today because the government does not have to continue to answer claims and misapprehensions of the opposition. The fact of the matter is that it is time now that the opposition put up or shut up.

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

I listened to the contribution of Senator Ursula Stephens in this matter of public importance debate. I always think Senator Ursula Stephens's contributions are well worth listening to because Senator Stephens is one of the Labor Party's most talented senators. Why she languishes on the back bench when frontbench Labor senators of much more modest competence and ability occupy positions in the executive government under Julia Gillard remains one of the mysteries of the age. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the honeyed words I heard from Senator Ursula Stephens about the imposition of stricter governance standards on registered organisations in this period of Labor government, the reverse is true.

The history of this Labor government has been the history of a government bound hand and foot to the trade union movement, absorbed entirely and sunk in the culture of the trade union movement and, because of the political debts the members of its parliamentary wing have to the trade union preselectors, unable to deal effectively with the problem of corruption in the trade union movement. We have seen time beyond number in this and the previous parliament, but particularly in this parliament, debate about and exposure of the endemic culture of corruption in areas of the trade union movement. In the Health Services Union, there is the involvement of the member for Dobell, Mr Craig Thomson, and Mr Michael Williamson, who at the time he was engaged in corrupt activities of the Health Services Union was in fact the federal president of the Australian Labor Party, so deep do the roots go, so closely does the corruption of the trade union movement spill over into the affairs of the Australian Labor Party. More recently, as we have seen this week and we will see no doubt throughout the week, there is the exposure of yet further revelations about the role of the Prime Minister, Ms Gillard, in corrupt activities within the Australian Workers Union in the 1990s.

So Senator Stephens, for all your reasonableness, for all your honeyed words, you will not be able to conceal from the Australian public the fact that the Australian Labor Party is tainted by the culture which taints the trade union movement. Not every member of it, of course; certainly not Senator Ursula Stephens, certainly not most of my Labor Senate colleagues. But the fact is too much of the trade union movement in Australia is corrupt, there are too many corrupt officials and too often that corruption spills over to taint the parliamentary wing of the Australian Labor Party.

I think most Australians would regard it as fair enough that the senior officials and office bearers of the trade union movement should be subject to the same obligations as company directors and senior officers of companies. I think most people would regard it as reasonable that the senior officials of the trade union movement, if they are in breach of those obligations, should be subject to the same penalties and liabilities as officers of companies if they breach kindred obligations. Senator Stephens asserts there is no comparison between trade union officials and company directors, but I do not think that that is a rationally maintainable position, nor do I think that the Australian people would accept it.

Trade unions like public companies have vast funds of members or shareholders' funds under governance. Both of them are subject to fiduciary duties in the discharge of their obligations and the handling of their members' money. Both of them have duties not only to their members but to the broader public who are affected by the decisions they will make. As anybody would know who was a student of John Kenneth Galbraith, an economist who is a great darling of the Left, he made the point in his book The New Industrial State that, at the commanding heights of capitalism, the trade union movement and the corporate sector are, in effect, a mirror image of one another. And so it is: they are both the loci of vast economic power: the power of capital and the power of labour.

So why should those who govern those powerful industrial institutions—trade unions and companies—not have the same obligations? Why shouldn't they suffer the same consequences if those obligations are breached? Tomorrow Senator Abetz will introduce into this chamber a bill in furtherance of the coalition's policy which will uphold that principle, and we know that that bill will be opposed tooth and nail by members of the Australian Labor Party.

If you wanted the clearest proof that trade union officials are held to a lower standard of compliance and to a lower standard of conduct than company directors and officers, you only have to compare the provisions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act with the equivalent provisions of the Corporations Act. As I said before, both of those statutes impose obligations on respectively the officials who conduct the affairs of trade unions and the directors and officers who conduct the affairs of companies, and yet in the event of the breach of those obligations by a director or an officer of a company, for example, a breach of the prohibition against reckless or intentionally dishonest behaviour, the Corporations Act provides for a maximum penalty of five years in prison or a fine of up to $220,000, or both. Those are the provisions of section 184 of the Corporations Act. But a breach of the equivalent provision of the Registered Organisations Act carries no jail term at all and a much more modest fine. Why should a person who engages in the same misconduct as the director or officer of a company be subject to a different penalty and a higher penalty than a person who engages in that selfsame conduct as an official or a member of the management of a trade union? Yet, so it is. That is the law the Australian Labor Party seeks to defend.

One of the basic rules of the criminal law is that like conduct should be treated alike when it comes to penalties and sentences. But in the industrial arena there is not a symmetry between trade unions and companies. There is a total asymmetry. If you are a trade union official and you do the selfsame thing, engage in the selfsame default as a company director or a company officer engages in, the sanction against you is significantly lighter. That is wrong. It defies common sense, and the coalition under Tony Abbott is determined in government to reverse that to ensure that the cancer of corruption within the trade union movement is tackled, to ensure that trade union officials are accountable to their members and to ensure that there is a symmetry that the public would expect to see between the obligations of union officials and the obligations of company directors and officers.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Bereft of the depth of legal knowledge of Senator Brandis, I can probably only surmise that the difference in penalties has probably risen from the actual performance of the two respective organisations which he talks about. The facts are, I suppose, that registered organisations looking after industrial interests have probably got a 100-year history and have probably got good probity and prudent fiscal behaviour. Whereas, it is clear that those who have made the laws in Australia over the last 100 years have sought out people who run companies as perhaps being a high risk, and therein lies the answer, if you like, of the $220,000 and the five years of jail. I think that Senator Stephens hit the nail on the head: this is a never-ending smear campaign particularly against the Prime Minister. But I suppose it is a double-edged smear campaign because Senator Brandis and Senator Eric Abetz can smear the whole trade union movement at will.

I take that fairly personally. I have been a trade union member for over 35 years, have spent some 20-odd years as an official of a trade union, have lodged about 15 financial reports and have looked after the financial and industrial interests of a number of people throughout South Australia and the Northern Territory. I came into the union through an election as a committee of management person.

The committee of management is the guts of the organisation. That is where the rank-and-file people meet monthly or bimonthly or according to the schedule agreed in the union rules, and they actually scrutinise the business of the union. They scrutinise the industrial outcomes, the industrial pursuits and campaigns and, very importantly, they scrutinise the financial reports. Throughout the 16 years that I was a secretary-treasurer, at every committee of management meeting, tabled at that meeting would be a general ledger, a profit and loss and a balance sheet. The meetings would go for at least two hours. All committee of management and all rank-and-file people were encouraged to go through the general ledger which, as everybody knows, is the record of every payment in and out of the union in the time frame from the last meeting. Then you have got your profit and loss which is basically the summation of the general ledger, and the balance sheet brings in the fixed assets of the organisation. A union is governed by a president, a vice-president, two trustees, between seven and 11 committee members and a secretary-treasurer.

I think it was remiss of Senator Brandis and Senator Abetz to cast aspersions on the probity of organisations which have represented industrial interests for over 100 years in this country. We have unfortunate allegations. As yet, I am not sure that any of them have actually been proven, but they have certainly been out there in the court of public opinion and the opposition see a great opportunity to smear the Prime Minister and to smear all registered organisations.

The reality is that unions are not corrupt, dysfunctional organisations. They collect union fees, more often than not weekly, off hardworking Australians. They voluntarily give that money to their union. There is a reporting cycle. The committee of management signs a certificate. An auditor comes in and the auditor has total access to all of the union's accounts. They sign a certificate saying they got all of the information they needed to make a true and fair judgement about the value of the union and the income of the union and they got an answer to all the questions that they asked. That report is then signed off by the committee of management. It then goes to a special branch committee of management and an AGM. I ran a lot of AGMs and at those AGMs I would do a PowerPoint from go to whoa—income and expenditure. Every line item was presented to members at the AGM and, to my satisfaction, it was generally carried by acclamation.

But that is not the end of it. Then it is sent to every member of the organisation. It is published in the journal of the union and goes to every member of the organisation. Any member of the organisation then has a period of time to raise inquiries either with the branch of the union or with the reporting organisation. I can safely say that with the 15 or 16 reports that I did we never had any of those inquiries. During my time as a secretary-treasurer there were a number of elections. Just like Labor, coalition, Greens and Nationals elections they were fairly robust elections, so all manner of impropriety in the robust electoral system that we have was suggested. I would have what is euphemistically called an s-sheet about me, alleging all sorts of fiscal impropriety, but I would put out the facts.

More importantly, those people who vote in union elections gain the confidence that you are doing the right thing. You gain their confidence because you have demonstrated it. You are clear and unequivocal. When income comes in it is reported and when expenditure goes out it is authorised and reported. It is transparent and clear. There is no opaque system. The reporting obligations on the unions are very stringent, and rightly so. They were made perhaps more stringent under the Howard government. At the same time he had his WorkChoices campaign, which was designed to destroy unions, and spent a lot of money advertising to people that they do not need to join unions because they can get all the rights and benefits without joining, we simply went about our business, talking to workers, encouraging them to join, rewarding them with increased wages and conditions and having a totally transparent fiscal position.

Unions got a lot smarter in how they reported their obligations during the Howard years because it was brutally clear that lack of transparency was probably death. We became extremely vigilant, if not more transparent than was practically necessary. Members could come into our organisation at any time and ask a question, get a copy of the rulebook and look at the finances of the union. Fortunately for the union I was involved in our finances were always on the up, so to speak, with surpluses and prudent decisions made. We disclosed how much our organisers were paid and that was in line with our transport industry standards.

A truck driver can make a respectable living in our industry. We are very happy with that. In fact, from talking to people now it seems it is getting harder to attract people into the union because of the fact that people can make extremely good money in the industry and they do not have necessarily the problems with the hours and the difficulties associated with being a union organiser.

I followed a long series of secretaries. I can go back to Jack Nolan. In his day the finances of the union were done with the old trial ledger. In fact, one of the bookkeepers I inherited had started with Jack Nolan and was the most prudent and rigorous checker of receipts and outgoings. Once I was 10c short in a pay in and I was reprimanded for that. I tried to give her 50c and say it would be an over-and-under system and she said, 'Don't be flippant.' People do not take union members' money for granted. There is a wealth of evidence that 99 per cent of trade unions in Australia are doing the right thing.

I want to go back to the criminal offences. Maybe it is the case that over the last 100 years there has needed to be higher sanctions for company directors who have committed the offence of reckless or intentional dishonesty or if they used their position with intentional dishonesty or recklessly in order to directly benefit or directly gain an advantage for themselves. I contend to the Senate that there is no history of that with industrial organisations. In clear and unequivocal terms I would like to state that the case is exactly the opposite—that there is no 100-year history of malfeasance.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to Senator Gallacher: not everybody got the memo that you got on slush funds. Quite frankly, the fallacy in your argument is that they do not appear on the books. That is the whole purpose of a slush fund.

As a former lawyer with the Australian Government Solicitor, I did my fair share of winding up companies that did not pay their tax. At that time union officials were the first to ring me up—justly and justifiably so—to complain about workers' funds, most usually group tax, and super guarantee obligations that had not been met. They were very happy to ring me baying for corporate scalps, so today I ask this: why should it be any different when union officials, knowingly and fraudulently, misappropriate union funds? Why should they be treated differently?

It is time that dodgy union officials are treated in the same way as dodgy company directors. Why should they remain a protected species? The time has come for union officials who rip off their members to be appropriately punished, not just punished when they finally get caught because somebody rats on them, as appears to have happened in these circumstances. Those opposite cannot continue to make excuses for dodgy behaviour in the union movement. It is vitally important that standards of governance and financial accountability be improved and the rules that exist for companies under the Corporations Act be aligned for registered organisations.

We have seen the spectacle this year of the Health Services Union and the 70,000 low-paid workers that had their hard-earned union dues misspent by union officials such as Mr Williamson and Mr Thomson on political campaigns, escort agencies and a whole range of other things that we are now seeing in relation to Mr Williamson's proceedings. And we saw, through the Fair Work Australia report, how these moneys had been abused. Senator Abetz, as part of his portfolio, has gone through not just the HSU but the other unions where this has been happening and I suspect that we are going to see more and more. Therefore it is vitally important that the private member's bill be supported but, of course, those opposite will be fighting tooth and nail against this legislation. Why? Because their union masters will dictate to them what they have to do. So I would not be very surprised if we see those opposite going down the path of saying, 'No, we're not going to support this legislation,' because their political masters tell them so.

As I said, we are witnessing the HSU unravel and the spectacle of a former ALP president and the union's former president, Mr Williamson, so I say to those opposite: if your federal president were up to his neck in this sort of corruption then, of course, the fish smells from the head. This fish is really stinky. We are seeing it now with Mr Williamson's proceedings. We may well see it with Mr Thomson. The reality is this: if your president was prepared to indulge in this sort of behaviour it is little wonder that corruption is endemic throughout the union movement, so don't come into this place and, holier than thou, talk about the union movement. If your president was prepared to go and do what he did, it is little wonder that people like Mr Thomson and other people were involved in activities such as that.

Since August last year I have placed on the record, in a series of speeches, assertions in relation to Mr Williamson, Mr Thomson and other ALP figures and I look forward to seeing those assertions proven through these proceedings. As the investigating officer in New South Wales has indicated, these are the first charges:

"These are the first charges of what I believe will be a series of charges in respect of allegations of fraud committed upon the Health Services Union," Detective Superintendent Colin Dyson said.

Interestingly enough, I note the reaction of Mr Williamson, with his son, trying to spirit away a suitcase of documents during a police raid at the HSU. It is very typical, isn't it? When you know there is incriminating evidence, you try and get rid of it. Interestingly enough too, files have gone missing as part of the AWU scandal—but more on that at another time. And, of course, we have seen that defrauding a union carries up to 10 years jail and that the money laundering of $400,000 matter for Mr Williamson, if that is proven, carries a 15-year sentence. As for the two-way protection racket matter with Mr Thomson, which is still ongoing, I have talked about the documents which form part of the attachments to the Fair Work Australia report. Yes, the report is available but those eight folders of documents have not been made available. As I have repeatedly said, they will never see the light of day. That goes to show how systematically the HSU did it, so that does indicate, I am sure, that this will be replicated in other unions—time will tell—and that goes to show why those opposite will protect those documents for as long as they possibly can and they will never see the light of day.

So whilst the administrator starts to move to recoup the HSU funds, Mr Thomson's solicitor has the audacity to threaten to issue defamation threats against people who even suggest that his client used union funds to pay for prostitutes. Therefore what does that say about people who may want to report corruption? Unless there is a proper piece of legislation and a proper legislative framework to give protection to those people so that they know that something is going to happen, we are going to continue to see this. After everything that Mr Thomson has been up to the audacity of the man to try and threaten people with defamation because they say, as I quote:

"Craig Thomson, you are a liar, you paid for prostitutes with my money and the money of every other HSU member. You [took] $100,000 from us. I dare you to sue me," said Ms Hart, in The Daily Telegraph last week.

Then we come to the AWU scandal, and it is actually good to see Mr Howes finally coming out about the corruption in his union. He says:

… there is a higher responsibility for us as guardians of workers' money to protect that money and to act diligently ...

It is a pity that it has taken him so long to come out into the public arena. We have the Prime Minister stonewalling. Ms Gillard, you can stonewall all you like. You can argue that you were young and naive—I hardly think that 32 is young or naive—but the reality is that, eventually, Prime Minister, the truth will out. You can try and stonewall and you can use weasel words but you should be going into that place and making a statement, but you will not do that because you know that if you mislead parliament there are grave consequences for you. So I am sure that you will continue to stonewall and you will continue to give these little doorstops where you say absolutely nothing, but you fear going into that place and making a statement because you know that if you lie to the parliament there will be consequences.

No debate about corruption, and certainly the union movement, can go without some mention of New South Wales—the home of ALP corruption. I am looking forward to hearing what Senator Thistlethwaite has to say on this and the daily dealings that we are seeing coming out through the ICAC inquiry. I do not normally quote Brian Toohey but, on this occasion, he talked about 'Labor's own rum corps'. He said about Bob Carr that he had long suspected that Obeid would end up before the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption. Minister Carr, if you knew that, why did you promote him as a minister? He became a minister under your watch, and what is happening goes to the very heart of Mr Obeid's suitability to have remained in parliament, let alone to have been promoted to the ministry. (Time expired)

Matt Thistlethwaite (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This motion is a ruse. I have not had one email, one representation, one phone call, one conversation with any of my constituents, any of the people of New South Wales regarding this motion or this matter or, in the words of Senator Fifield, 'The need for registered organisations to be subject to equivalent standards of governance and financial accountability as companies under Corporations Law.' In fact, you would be hard-pressed to find any representatives of employer associations, unions or other organisations who support this change. Do not believe me. Look at the Senate inquiry that looked into this matter. The Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee investigated this issue thoroughly in respect of the reforms that the government has made to strengthen transparency and accountability provisions in relation to registered organisations. When this matter was before that Senate committee on Friday, 22 June 2012, and in particular when the employer representatives were appearing, Senator Abetz did his best to try to elicit from those witnesses an agreement with the coalition position that officers of registered organisations should face the same penalties and financial accountability standards as corporations. He tried his best to get his friends in many of these employer associations to agree with him. But, guess what? They did not. They said, 'No'. I refer to page 6 of the transcript, where we can read that Mr Greg Smith from the Australian Industry Group was asked whether or not it was appropriate for the parliament to pass laws which place corporate obligations on an organisation such as the AiG, or any other registered organisation. Mr Smith, the head of the Australian Industry Group, had this answer to what Senator Fifield has moved in this parliament today:

No, we think that registered organisations have had a long history and they have a special place not only in Australia but globally. We are a representative body for employers, as a union is for employees. There is a specific exemption under the corporations legislation for the industrial relations system, and it would not be appropriate to suddenly deem all registered organisations as corporations. They are a completely different type of organisation. Some industry groups have chosen to become corporations, but they have never been registered organisations. We do have a special role and special responsibilities.

That is the view of Australian industry. That is the view of Australian employer associations. They do not want this motion to succeed. They do not want the laws to be changed in any way. So it begs the question: why are the opposition doing this? Why are they moving this motion when representatives and stakeholders in the industry do not want the government to do it, do not want the opposition to do it and do not want that change to be implemented? Rightfully, they recognise that there are distinct differences between corporations and registered associations in this economy. The real reason why this motion has been moved is that, again, it is part of this smear campaign to try to pin the Prime Minister to what is going on on the sidelines, smearing the role of trade unions and diverting from the fact that they are not willing to come into this place and debate true policy. They are not willing to put their money where their mouth is in terms of policy development.

There are differences between corporations and employer and employee associations for good reasons, and there is a century of difference when it comes to the roles of representative industrial associations and corporations. Companies were established to create limited liability for directors in respect of their financial obligations and their legal obligations. They were established to provide the notion of the corporate veil—that is, that directors, acting on behalf of shareholders, could not be sued personally for their financial dealings or legal obligations.

Now for the last century we have had a different system in respect of the regulation of the actions, financial arrangements, conduct of officers and legal affairs of trade unions and employer associations, and they have served our nation well. International businesses have faith in the integrity of the Australian legal system, particularly as it relates to the regulation of industrial organisations. In fact, our system of regulation of industrial organisations is much studied, copied and implemented in other nations throughout the world, so we have a hallmark system when it comes to integrity and delivering a fair and reasonable system of regulation of industrial organisations. When Tony Abbott was the minister, he established a new system in 2002 when Work Choices came into being. When they had those massive reforms to our industrial relations system in the late 1980s, they did not touch the registered organisation provisions. They did not change those provisions.

The other reason that this motion is irresponsible is quite simply the fact that registered organisations do not fit within the definition of a corporation under section 51(xx) of our Constitution. They are not 'foreign', 'trading' or 'financial' corporations. And that is why there have been distinct and different regulations associated with registered organisations. However, the government did recognise that there was an issue associated with what has occurred in one particular union. And in the wake of that, we did what all good governments do: we acted quickly and decisively to strengthen those regulations, and we now have some of the strongest provisions that regulate industrial organisations—stronger than they have ever been before. Our financial accountability and transparency standards for unions and employer associations have never been higher. Fair Work Australia's powers to investigate breaches of these professions have never been tougher.

So the government have acted in the wake of what occurred in a particular union, and we have done it in a manner that is consistent with the regulation of industrial associations in this country. We have done it in a manner that is consultative, taking on board the views of those I mentioned earlier—in particular employer associations in this country—and we have done it in a manner that ensures we will get trust, confidence and integrity in our system of industrial relations for employers who are members of employer associations and workers who are members of unions.

In respect of that, once again this motion needs to be seen in the light in which it is brought into this Senate—that is, it is a ruse. It is hiding the fact that the coalition do not want to debate policy, they do not want to enter into the contest of ideas about what is in the best interests of our nation when it comes to the issues that affect the livelihoods of Australians. As I said, I have had no representations from constituents about this issue, and I imagine that many senators would be in the same or similar positions. But we do get a lot of representations about our education system, about our health system, about our dental health system. Let us look at those issues, let us talk about the plan that Labor have to ensure that we are pricing carbon in our community and reducing our emissions, and the differences between our parties on policies and issues that really affect Australians.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has expired.