Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government have a fundamental objection to the referral of the provisions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 to the Senate Education and Employment References Committee. The reason for our fundamental objection is that we have a system of two very separate and distinct types of standing committees in the Senate. We have legislation committees and we have references committees. The reason that legislation committees were established was—quite self-evidently from their title—to look at legislation. That is why we have those committees. But we are seeing a growing trend from the opposition of seeking to refer legislation to references committees. References committees, by their title, are there to have a reference, determined by the Senate, passed to them—not to have legislation passed to them for consideration but to have references on other matters that are topical and of community interest. We have resources allocated to references committees. We have resources allocated to legislation committees. They have two separate functions. They have two separate purposes.

We know why the opposition are increasingly seeking to send legislation to references committees. It is because the opposition chair those committees, because the nongovernment parties have a majority on those committees. That gives those committees, if they do not receive a reporting date far enough into the future, the opportunity to revisit that reporting date. So the whole purpose of referring legislation to references committees is not to ensure the appropriate examination for legislation; it is to seek to defer; it is to seek to delay; it is to seek to take a partisan and political approach to legislation.

One of the great strengths of the Senate is that, in legislation committees, there have been many occasions when the members of the committee put partisanship aside and actually look at the merits of the legislation, at the drafting of the legislation. In a previous incarnation there were some occasions, when my side of politics was in office and I was not a portfolio holder, that I did on occasion take a common position with members of other political parties that might have been at odds with that of the government of the day. That is one of the strengths of the legislation committees that we have here in the Senate. But it is disappointing that the opposition are seeking to, I think, abuse the processes of this place by referring legislation to references committees.

Obviously this particular piece of legislation that the opposition are seeking to refer to the Employment and Education References Committee is a contentious one in the eyes of those on the other side of the chamber. We understand well that senators from the Australian Labor Party, who more often than not—probably in almost every case—have come into this place by virtue of the patronage of a trade union, are protective and defensive of the unique and protected position, in many regards, of trade unions and trade union officials. We have held the view in the coalition for quite some time that it is appropriate for trade unions and, more particularly, for senior trade union officials to be subject to similar sorts of standards and requirements as company directors are subject to. There is well-established Corporations Law which applies to company directors in this country. Company directors have important responsibilities. There are fiduciary responsibilities that company directors have. There are standards that are expected of company directors. There are very significant penalties, very significant civil penalties, for company directors who do not uphold their duties as directors. We are very strongly of the view that there is absolutely no reason why the same sorts of standards should not apply to senior office bearers of trade unions. The reason for that is that trade unions survive and are run on money that comes from dues-paying members, from fees-paying members. Those dues- and fees-paying members have a right to expect that those whom they have elected, those who hold those senior offices, are acting in the best interests of the union and in the best interests of the membership. That is what the Registered Organisations Commission will seek to ensure.

There is a misconception on the other side of the chamber that we on this side are fundamentally opposed to trade unions. Nothing could be further from the truth. On this side of the chamber, we believe very strongly in freedom of association, with the emphasis on freedom: people should be free to associate or free not to associate. Our issue with the contemporary trade union movement, in recent Australian history, has been where there have been elements of compulsion in relation to membership, where there have been 'no ticket, no start' arrangements, whether they be legislated or whether they be informally enforced as is the case on construction sites. That is one of the reasons why we are bringing back the Australian Building and Construction Commission, because we want the rule of law to apply in all workplaces and we believe that there are particular characteristics and particular challenges in construction work sites. So we believe an organisation is needed to have a focus on that particular sector and to have particular powers in that particular area. We make no apology for that.

I come back to my point that we are not fundamentally opposed to trade unions. I will give my own family background. My paternal grandfather, Albert George Fifield, Bert Fifield, was a professional trade unionist. He was federal secretary of the Printing and Kindred Industries Union for about 30 years. He was New South Wales state president of the Printing and Kindred Industries Union for about 25 years. Former Labor senator Bruce Childs gave the eulogy at his funeral. So I do not want anyone to think for a second that I am against trade unions, against their right to exist, against the right of people to freely associate, to freely join and pay money to an organisation that they think will represent them well. That is something we would defend strongly on this side of the chamber. I want to make the point loudly and clearly that we are not anti trade union. There is an important role for trade unions. There is an important role for representative bodies in our community and in the economy. People should be strongly represented by the people that they elect to do so. They should be strongly represented by the people to whom they pay their membership fees to do so. There is an important role and always will be an important role for employee representative organisations. But I put emphasis on the word 'representative'. There has to be accountability of trade union officials to their members, and the registered organisations amendment bill will go a long way to seeing that that accountability is entrenched once and for all.

I do not think that could be any group of people who have been more embarrassed by the performances of trade union officials over recent times than trade union members themselves. Those people who strongly believe in a role for trade unions, those people who believe enough in trade unions and their role that they pay their membership dues to them, are the people who have been most outraged by the activities of some trade union officials. I will have the good grace not to go into some of the details of what we have witnessed; they have been well and truly canvassed in the press and in this place. I do not suggest that those activities, those behaviours, are representative of the majority of trade union officials. I do not suggest that for a second. I think the majority of trade union officials are good people who are doing their best to represent their members. I might disagree with the particular policy propositions they expound but, by and large, they are people of good faith and good values who are seeking to do the right thing by their membership. But that is not a reason not to make sure that there are appropriate accountability mechanisms in place for those who are not doing the right thing. It is the same with the company law: I think the majority of company directors do the right thing, are well-intentioned, are focused on creating value and wealth so that they can employ people, are focused on getting a return for shareholders where they are a for-profit entity. I think that is the attitude of the majority of company directors. But that does not mean that I do not think there should be appropriate corporations law. There should be appropriate corporations law and by the same token there should be in place an equivalent regime, an equivalent arrangement, for trade unions.

I think it is a pity that whenever we talk about the trade union movement in this place it is often characterised that if you are in the coalition you are against trade unions and if you are in the Labor Party you are for trade unions. I think that is far too simplistic. What the debate should be about is what are the appropriate regulatory arrangements for trade unions, what are the appropriate accountability arrangements for trade unions, what are the appropriate mechanisms to ensure that the will of individual trade union members is given effect in the organisations to which they belong. The reason we are having that debate is because there is a different set of arrangements for companies and more stringent requirements for companies, and there should be no less for trade unionists. I know, Mr Deputy President, that I transgressing a little bit in this debate, which is essentially a procedural one, by talking about some of the substance of the bill. Nevertheless, I thought it was important for context here.

I come back to where I started, that the references committees of this parliament are being used and abused by the opposition. Legislation committees are there to deal with legislation, references committees are there to deal with references from this place, and it is important that we take a stand against the abuse of the committee processes of the Senate. I fear that we will see more of these sorts of references come into the chamber and, when they do, we will oppose them. I know that Senator McKenzie, who is a very diligent National Party whip, did some research to see whether the coalition had sought to use the vehicle of references committees to examine legislation. In fact, she could not find any examples. For us on this side of the chamber, it is a matter of principle that references committees not be used for the purpose of examining legislation.

I encourage the opposition to show some imagination and to actually start to think of areas of public policy that could benefit from examination by the references committees. I guess that is part of the discipline of being in opposition. You have to sit down and think for yourself. You have to nut-out for yourself what the important public policy issues are. That is something that the opposition needs to do. The opposition needs to make sure that the references committees, which its senators chair, are fully occupied, but fully occupied by public policy matters that the references committees were established to examine. Leave the legislation committees for the purpose of examining legislation.

I urge opposition senators to refrain from this growing practice of using references committees in this way. They are there for a reason. As I said before, I think it is important to remember that these committees—references and legislation—are well resourced and that they are well resourced with taxpayers' money. So we have to make sure that we are deploying those taxpayer resources in the way that this Senate actually intended. That means references committees dealing with references from this chamber and legislation committees dealing with legislation.

It is important that we keep these committees occupied. It is important that opposition senators do the hard work of sitting down and mapping out, from their point of view, what the priorities of the nation are and what the public policy areas that need more extensive examination—the sort of examination that only a references committee can provide—are. These committees give senators the capacity to get around the country, to hold public hearings and to call for submissions. That is the purpose of the references committees. I know that some of my other colleagues are keen to contribute to this debate because they also feel very strongly about the appropriate use of the forums and committees of this place.

But let me start again, Madam Acting Deputy President Ruston, as you have just arrived in the chair. We are all for proper scrutiny and proper examination of legislation. That is something that did not happen enough in the last Senate because those on the other side of this chamber too often combined to deny that opportunity for appropriate scrutiny. We recall the carbon tax legislation that breached the hand-on-heart promise of former Prime Minister Gillard. We had barely a week for that particular legislation, and that was legislation seeking to break an election commitment. It is time for those on the other side to pause, to stop, to think and to desist from this pursuit of the abuse of process and the abuse of the forums of the Senate in the form of passing legislation to references committees.

Again, I restate that this legislation, which the opposition is seeking to refer to the references committee, is in no way an attack on trade unions. It is our belief that trade union should be subject to the same requirements, the same accountability and the same integrity that companies are and that union officials should be subject to the same accountability that company directors are. It is in no way anti-union; it is pro-union member. We think that their rights and views should be given effect to and that their dollars that they pay in dues should be well deployed. We believe that the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 would do just that.

I conclude by saying that legislation should not be abused and should not be passed to references committees. If you want to have a fair dinkum look at legislation, then you should refer it to a legislation committee.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kroger.

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

No, excuse me, I was on my feet.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I raise a point of order. When I first stood to get the call when this first came up, I was advised that I had already spoken on it and was not in continuation. In checking the Hansardand this came up for debate on Tuesday—I noted that I started to speak on this referral at 6.45 pm, but the time lapsed for the area and the Senate went to government documents at 6.50 pm. On that basis, I believe that I am in continuation.

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

My understanding of what happened on that day, Senator Kroger, is that you were not in the chamber when debate on the matter resumed, but Senator Ludwig was. Senator Ludwig took the call and spoke until government documents was brought on. Perhaps, Madam Acting Deputy President, you could seek clarification from the Clerk. If that was the case, then Senator Kroger's speech has been curtailed, as I understand it, and it is now time for another senator to have the call, and I am happy to take it.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If it helps the Acting Deputy President, I am happy for the Clerk to take guidance on that and to check whether that is in fact the case and whether, if the debate resumed, it commenced with Senator Ludwig.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been advised that you lost your right to speak when Senator Ludwig spoke. However, you are entitled to seek leave if you wish to continue your remarks.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that advice. I do seek leave to continue my remarks in this substantial debate.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is leave granted?

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

For how long?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fifteen minutes, Senator McEwan.

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

It is a highly unusual situation for a senator to give up the call to speak on a matter, and I am inclined to deny leave.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does 'inclined to deny leave' mean you are denying leave?

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

Yes.

Leave not granted.

I, too, would like to contribute to this debate about the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill and the reference to a committee of the Senate of it by Senator Moore, who moved a motion on behalf of Senator Wong.

We heard from Senator Fifield at length the reasons why this matter was referred to a committee, but what Senator Fifield failed to mention in his rambling speech about this matter was that the initial referral of the bill to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee was to an inquiry that sat on 26 November 2013 for a period from 1.30 pm to 4.20 pm, and that time was truncated even further by the fact that there was a tea-break for 10 minutes in the middle of that. In all, the Senate legislation committee has an opportunity to look at this bill for a period of less than three hours.

That is the fundamental reason why opposition senators have sought to refer this matter to a references committee—so that the Senate can have a proper opportunity to have a look at the complications, the implications and the potential of this bill. It is not an abuse of process to refer it to the references committee; in fact, it endorses the role of the Senate as the chamber that inquires into legislation fulsomely, and that is what will happen if the government ever lets this motion come to a conclusion and allows the bill to be referred to the references committee, where it can be comprehensively analysed.

We were never surprised when the government introduced this bill—purportedly to bring further regulation that unions and employers would have to abide by. Despite promises by now Prime Minister Mr Tony Abbott that the government would not revisit the whole issue of Work Choices, we know that government members, including the Prime Minister, harbour long-held desires to bring back Work Choices, and they will attempt to do it in whatever way they can. The reason they want to bring back Work Choices is because of a fundamental hatred of trade unions. Of course, in this they fail to mention that trade unions are actually organisations made up of members—ordinary working Australians who choose to join together in a collective to attempt to improve their working lives and their working conditions.

Trade unions in this country have a very, very proud and long history. For more than 100 years trade unions have worked to protect the interests of ordinary working Australians. It would be remiss of me not to revisit the successes of the trade union movement on behalf of ordinary working Australians. From the very beginning trade unions sought to ensure that Australian working people had a living wage. That was the basis of the strikes that trade unions engaged in in the previous century—that ordinary working Australians, including shearers and miners, had a decent living wage so that they could put food on the table for their families.

Trade unions are also to be thanked for prosecuting the case for things like annual leave—annual leave so that ordinary working people can have time away from the workplace to spend time with their families. We should also thank trade unions for things like paid parental leave, because it was trade unions who prosecuted the importance of ensuring that women would be able to return to their workplace after a period of time away when they were having children.

The other things that I distinctly remember working for as a trade union official, and an ordinary trade union member and as a delegate of the trade union in my workplace, were things like ensuring that casual workers—in particular, low-paid casual women workers—received entitlements to things like maternity leave as it was back then. I am very proud of my work with my trade union, the Australian Services Union and before that the Federated Clerks Union, to ensure that ordinary working Australian women, including casual workers, could get maternity leave—have leave to leave the workplace, have a child and come back to the job to which they were entitled.

I can also remember working as a trade union official to ensure that working women in the clerical sector—white-collar clerical workers—has a decent classification structure. While when I was a trade union official blue-collar workers, particularly in manufacturing industry, had managed to negotiate for themselves a decent classification structure so that they were appropriately awarded for the skills that they acquired on the job and in training, it had been for a long period of time that Australian women clerical workers did not have access to that kind of classification structure and that the skills they learnt on the job were not rewarded with wage increases. One of the proudest moments that we had in the Federated Clerks Union was to ensure that there was a proper skills based classification structure put in the Clerks Award and various other awards that had white-collar workers and, in particular, women.

Unions have achieved many great things. What the government does not want is for the unions to continue to achieve great things for working people. They want to dismantle the union system in Australia because they are fundamentally opposed to any notion of collectivism. They are fundamentally opposed to working people working together to secure better conditions for themselves. When they say to you that they are not hostile to trade unions all of the evidence is to the contrary.

I can distinctly remember in my early years in this Senate fighting against Work Choices, which was the single most belligerent hostile piece of legislation against working people that this parliament has ever seen. It was fundamentally about ripping out any baseline for conditions for working people so that there would be a free-for-all in the workplaces of Australia. Who would win out of a free-for-all? Not the ordinary working people—it would be employers. I am the first to acknowledge that there are decent employers in this country. I worked for a lot of them. But I am also the first person to say there are rogue employers out there and they do need to be controlled by legislation. That is why the Labor Party will always seek to have appropriate legislation in place to protect the conditions of working people because these need a legislative underpinning.

The matters raised in this Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill go to increasing the amount of regulation and red tape that unions have to put up with. I have been a trade union secretary and before that I worked in the private sector as a clerical worker in small business. I also worked in medium-sized businesses and the Public Service. I can tell you that the amount of red tape and regulation on trade unions is way above anything on any private-sector organisation that I ever worked with as an employee. It is much more significant with trade unions. I can well remember the compliance requirement on trade union secretaries, on trade union members and trade union delegates. It was a perpetual machine, if you like, to ensure that compliance with those requirements of the relevant act was undertaken appropriately.

The trade unions that I worked for and those union officials I worked with accepted that and they complied with those regulations. Nobody likes to see corruption or people doing the wrong thing, whether it is in trade unions or business or government or anywhere else. Where that is discovered, it should be weeded out and punished. But there are already numerous provisions in place in industrial law, civil law and criminal law to address those breaches and corruption if they are discovered.

We do not need another layer of regulation and red tape that would occur if the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill were to become law. That is my view. I think it is appropriate that the Senate as a whole has the amount of time that it needs to look at that issue, about whether this bill if it were enacted would bring an inordinate level of red tape bureaucracy on not just unions but also employer-registered organisations.

I understand from the inquiry—that very brief, three-hour inquiry that was held on this significant bill—that matters were raised about whether this bill would bring an inordinate amount of compliance requirements not just on unions but also on employers. It is passing strange that this government likes to talk about cutting red tape and green tape and cutting regulations but surprise, surprise: here is a bill that actually increases red tape and regulation. On one hand the government says it wants less of that and on the other hand, lo and behold, here is a bill that brings in more of that regulation and more of the burden not just on unions but employers as well.

We are used to this government saying one thing and doing another. We heard the Prime Minister commit before the election to 'no health cuts'. Today, in question time, we heard his Assistant Minister for Health being unable to commit to no health cuts: fudging and hiding behind commissions of audit and review and examinations. We just know what that is going to deliver. That will deliver more cuts to health. And, as well, we heard this government say that it was on a unity ticket with the Labor Party on education funding. Well, that did not last very long. Less than three months later, what do we have?—the government running away from education.

Senator Fifield and others on that side get up and say, 'Really, really, really, we don't dislike unions. We come from trade union families' et cetera. Well, I am sorry but we just cannot trust you on that.

Your record on trade unions leads us to that conclusion. Every time the coalition is in government what do they go for first? Trade unions. They do not tell the Australian people that is what they are going to do, of course. They do not tell the Australian people that is what they are going to do because, by and large, Australian people think trade unions do a good job. Ordinary Australians understand that trade unions do a good job. They understand that if we do not have trade unions then we run the risk of losing our penalty rates, basic entitlements to a decent wage for a decent day's work, annual leave, long service leave and sick leave—to all of those things that unions have fought for and struggled to hold on to throughout every coalition government.

I have to say there were some coalition governments that were not as hostile to unions as the previous Howard government and this current Abbott government. There were some coalition governments that understood that working people had the right to organise collectively in pursuit of the best possible conditions for themselves and their families. But in my experience, as the years have gone on you have seen the more fundamentalist conservatives come out of the woodwork. You see the really nasty conservatives come out of the woodwork. They have moved on from the days of Menzies and even Fraser. Those over there do not like him anymore. He was a bit too moderate. So we are seeing this increase in the kind of ultraconservative conservatives coming out. Of course, we are seeing evidence of it here this week. Certain senators are, if you like, attempting to subvert the processes of the Senate by putting in matters of public interest to suit their own personal needs. But I will not go too far into the lack of discipline over there on the government benches in the Senate.

What I am proud of in the Senate is how opposition senators are resolute in their determination to defeat any legislation that attacks trade unions. Yes, some of us come from a trade union background like myself. I am very proud of my trade union background, as is Senator Bilyk, who actually came from the same trade union as I did. We have nothing to be ashamed of and we are proud of it.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why are only 14 per cent of people in trade unions?

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

You can have a go as much as you like about trade unions and members of trade unions. Senator Bilyk, I and everybody else who has actually worked cooperatively with trade unions knows that at the very fundamental basis they are made up of ordinary working people who understand it is important to act collectively to protect their working conditions. They understand that we need to have decent legislation to protect them. This particular piece of legislation is nothing about protecting trade union members; it is about making it as difficult as possible for trade unions to operate. That is why we need to refer this bill to a Senate committee that will give it a decent going over, a thorough looking at. A Senate committee will have time to look at all of the implications of this bill for trade unions and employers.

You refuse to have a decent inquiry into this bill because you just want it done and dusted so you can recommence Work Choices, so you can recommence your attacks on trade unions to do what you did not promise to the Australian people before the election. You did not say to them, 'We are going to go after trade unions again.' You did not say to them, 'We are going to bring back Work Choices,' but, by gum, that is what you are going to do—and we know it. We know it on this side and we are going you stop you as much as we can.

In order to do that we do need to have a decent inquiry into this piece of legislation. That is why I am proud to support Senator Moore moving the motion on behalf of Senator Wong to refer this bill to a Senate committee for a decent inquiry. It is what the people of Australia would expect of us on this side and that is why we have moved this motion. That is why I ask the Senate to support it. I know you are going to get up and say that you are not going to support this motion, but I think all government senators should be ashamed of themselves and hang their heads in shame for the attacks that they continue to perpetrate on ordinary working Australians.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dearie dearie me, if we have not just heard 20 minutes of the old class warfare back from the 1950s and, indeed, the 1890s. We revert back to the days of the squattocracy and the early days of the AWU. I do not think there is a person in this chamber who would not agree that workers in those days had something to collect about and to take on the squattocracy and others.

Indeed, this is a little bit off the track of the debate that I was intending to have but, as Senator Fifield knows, my uncle, Mr Viv Daddow, was the General Secretary of the Australian Railways Union in Queensland. A lovely fellow! He was a communist but a lovely fellow. I have to say that in my own family history I have had another member of my family, my extended family, actually mentioned in the Hansards of this august parliament. That was when Mr Menzies referred to my dear uncle, Viv Daddow, as a fellow traveller when he visited Russia in 1949 at the request of the Communist Russian government at the height of the Cold War. I can understand why Mr Menzies and others at those times thought that my uncle was nothing short of a traitor. But I was not around in those days—well, not around in a way that I took notice of parliamentary debates—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy Speaker Ruston, I raise a point of order on relevance. I ask you to direct the senator to come back to the topic before the chamber and to keep his comments relevant.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Senator Macdonald is being directly relevant. He is providing important context to the subject of the motion that seeks to refer a bill to a committee. The bill relates to registered organisations and Senator Macdonald quite appropriately is talking about some registered organisations that members of his family were part of and I think that is important. Also, I am finding it extremely interesting and I think the chamber as a whole is.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am disappointed that the Labor Party with their union background are not interested in my family's union involvement. But I do want to continue on the motion before us which is the referral of the matter to yet another Senate committee, to do exactly the same job as the other Senate committee has done.

My dear uncle was a lovely fellow. I knew him later in life. He wrote some very good books, including one called The puffing pioneers and Queensland's railway builders. I do, however, point out he was a communist. Remember, the communist unions during the early part of World War II when Russia and Germany were together. The communist trade union movement in Australia combined with Nazi Germany and communist Russia to try to prevent the proper prosecution of the early days of the war. Whilst I am not suggesting at the moment that unions would have that sort of deleterious goal for the Australian economy, I think all of these things need to be taken in context.

Senator McEwen asked why we did not want the unions. I do not agree that we did not want the unions. But the answer to that question is about the general philosophical divide between Liberal and Labor. The Liberal Party believe in the individual. We believe that people should be allowed to work to their capacity and to earn the rewards. They do not always need big government and Big Brother looking over their shoulder, the collective overwhelming the individual. That is what the Labor Party's philosophy is. I know that is your philosophy. It is a philosophy that most Australians do not agree with, but it is your philosophy. Good on you; continue to have it.

I am told how great the unions are. I do not necessarily disagree. I look at Mr Thomson, Mr Williamson and the HSU and a few other outrageous scandals we have heard about. Talking about ordinary Australians—Mr Thomson and Mr Williamson, ordinary Australians? Not in my way of thinking. If the unions are doing the great job you say they are doing, I ask this of the next Labor Party speaker who gets up to speak: why is it that only 16 per cent of Australian workers in the private workforce think it is worthwhile joining a union? Does anyone have an answer to that? Am I wrong? Is it not 16 per cent? Perhaps it is 17 per cent or 15 per cent. There is deathly silence from the Labor benches for the first time in this debate. Perhaps my figures are correct, that just 16 per cent of workers in private industry who are eligible to join the trade union movement choose to do so. If my arithmetic is right, that is something like 80 per cent of workers who do not see any value in the unions. But for the 15 or 16 per cent who do see value, good on them. I am all in favour of them joining together and doing what they want. But I do not like people being forced into doing anything they do not want to do or things that are contrary to law. Regrettably, I have heard of experiences up in Queensland in the coalfields and elsewhere where people have been ostracised if they chose not to join a union. In fact, I could tell you a story about how the unions ostracised someone simply because a member of their family was an LNP member of parliament. But I will not go there and I will get back to the debate before the chamber.

The legislation under review is legislation which does not do the sorts of things Labor are pretending it might do. What it will do is put union officials in the same category as company directors. If it is good enough to send company directors to jail when they break the law, it is appropriate that anyone who breaks the law should go to jail. It is appropriate that they get very substantial fines. But why does the same not apply to a union director, someone who has the same duties, powers and obligations as a company director but happens to be a director of union? Why should they only be subject to a $10,200 fine when the company director is subject to a $340,000 fine? If a company director breaks the law, he could be subject to a term of imprisonment of up to five years. If a union organiser or a union director breaks the law, there is no possibility of a term in jail.

Any fair-minded person would say that crooks in the trade union movement—and we know there are at least a couple of them—should be subjected to the same penalties as crooks in the corporate world. If you are a crook, you are a crook and you deserve the same sort of punishment. Give me a decent reason why this should be any different. The opposition were very vocal a little while ago, but they seemed to have lost their tongues when I asked them why only 16 per cent of workers in private industry bother to join the trade union movement. That does not make me anti union. If you like, I will tell you the story about my uncle Viv, the communist trade union guy, but you are not interested in that.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would be.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You weren't here, Senator Edwards, so perhaps I can start again, but that would be repetitive.

The debate before the chamber is about whether this legislation should go to a legislation committee of this parliament or it should go to some completely foreign committee. I take some comfort from a 1996 report of the Senate Economics References Committee, chaired by none other than Senator Jacinta Collins, and Senator Mark Bishop was on the committee. They are the only two members of that committee who are still with us today. The committee indicated that a bill should have gone to a legislation committee and the government senators on that committee issued a report saying: 'Further it must be fully acknowledged that Senate parliamentary procedures dictate that the bill should have gone to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. Unfortunately, for short-term political gain the opposition Labor Party has again flouted the parliamentary process by sending this to a references committee where the Labor Party has a majority in its own right.'

This report was released in 1996. The Labor Party was newly in opposition and could not get over being suddenly out of power. It was at the end of 13 long years of the Hawke-Keating Labor government, the recession we had to have and the huge debts the government incurred. The way the Labor Party ran the economy had me paying interest on my housing loan at 17 per cent. This was Labor Party economic management. I tell my young staff about those interest rates and they cannot believe them and, quite frankly, neither can I. Under Labor Party administration of the economy all of us with housing loans were paying some 17 per cent. It is no wonder the last Labor government ran up bills of more than $300 billion and thought it was good financial management.

Back in 1996 the Labor Party could not work out they were no longer in government. They could not quite accept that the people of Australia had rejected them, so they were trying to flout the system. I understand that happened for a short time after the 1996 election, but eventually even the Labor Party worked out that you had to play by the rules that the parliament had set, more often than not when the Labor Party were in government. The rules are that when legislation is referred to a committee, that legislation is referred to the committee specifically set up to deal with legislation—that is, the legislation committee.

That is what legislation committees are for. They also do estimates, but if you are not going to get the legislation committees to do legislation references, as they are supposed to do, what is the point of having them? Perhaps we should look at getting rid of legislation committees if the opposition and the Greens are not going to send legislation committees any work. Why have legislation committees if we are not going to send anything to them? Perhaps we should have just one committee. Is that what the Labor Party are pushing for? Is that what the Greens want? Do they want just one committee, because the legislation committee is not getting any work? Why do we have legislation committees? Just to give the chairman a bit of extra salary? That can be the only reason if the opposition will not send any work which should go to legislation committees to legislation committees.

The other issue in this motion before us is that the work being wrongly sent to the references committee has already been dealt with by the legislation committee. It has been properly assessed by a committee of this parliament, the legislation committee. I understand that Labor Party members could have attended the committee deliberations, but a lot of Labor senators did not bother to turn up. That is how interested they were. The committee had eight days to conduct hearings and arrange for witnesses, I understand. A number of witnesses were called and the committee came to a conclusion.

This legislation refers to some workplace relations legislation. I remind this Senate that when this legislation was previously brought in a couple of years back under the Gillard government, the Senate was only given five days, not eight days, to conduct a hearing. Now, suddenly, five days was good when it was the Labor Party wanting the legislation through but eight days is all far too short when the Labor Party are in opposition. It just shows the absolute hypocrisy of the Labor Party on this particular issue.

You can always tell with the Labor Party when it is legislation or something that will affect their political masters—that is, the union movement—because, gee, do they fight hard. They never fight this hard about anything except issues affecting the good order, wealth and longevity of their bosses in the union movement. I do not say being an official of a trade union is necessarily an evil occupation. Those opposite used to try and hide the fact that nearly every senator in the Labor Party who sits in this chamber is a former trade union official. Nowadays I see it must be the new strategy to get up and say, 'I am unionist and I am proud of it.' Perhaps you should be.

Labor's political colleague, Mr Craig Thomson, made people stop and wonder just how deep the evils that we learnt about go within the union movement. You see every week in the paper different allegations, not from the bosses or the Liberal Party but from people within the union movement, of misuse of union members' funds. The hospital cleaners I heard someone talking about yesterday pay their union fees—I do not know what they pay, possibly $300 or $400 or $500 a year—and then find that their union officials are flying around the world on their money. You can understand then why only 15 per cent of workers in private industry choose to join the unions. Most of them will say, 'I am doing pretty well. Why should I give my hard-earned money to a union and then find the union officials flying around the world, flying around Australia, having lavish dinners, drinking expensive champagne on our money?' That is why I suggest less than 20 per cent of workers in private industry bother to join the union movement. Perhaps when someone in the Labor Party follows me in this debate they might just explain that to me. If the union movement does such a great job, why do people not join?

I have diverted myself slightly from the motion before the chair. This whole issue has been dealt with by a select committee, by the right committee, by the legislation committee of the Senate. Why now are we going to waste time and reduce our productivity by having the same thing done again by the wrong committee of this chamber to try come up with a different result? It is a farce, it makes a farce of the whole project and it makes a farce of any suggestion that the opposition is responsible.

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

I rise to take up the challenge to address some of the comments that Senator Macdonald has put on the table today. I suppose I too will get around to addressing the point at issue but I cannot let some of those comments go unanswered. I do not think being a trade union official is a profession that anybody should be shy about proclaiming their success or otherwise at. It is like every other job in Australia: if you go in in the morning and you do a hard day's work then you are entitled to take your pay at the end of the week.

As Senator Macdonald probably well knows, most trade union officials in this country both historically and currently are people with a sense of community and public spiritedness. They go out of their way to advance the cause of the least advantaged people in the economy, people who are—as he pointed out—cleaning hospitals, people who are collecting garbage, people who are sweeping the streets, people who are doing all levels of jobs in a very proficient and professional way. The only way of advancing their position in the economy is to become a collective force and bargain for it. That is why there are trade unions, and those trade unions have been around for a very long time. Trade unions are governed, as I can attest, by a very stringent set of rules. The reporting obligations of registered organisations are honoured, complied with and are very stringent.

I believe this piece of legislation would actually affect some registered organisations that are not involved in trade union activity. They do have always a core of people who come to the organisation in a voluntary capacity. I could tell you of organisations in South Australia that only have a couple of trustees. The trustees will look over the accounts of the organisation at the regular meetings, will ask questions about those accounts and on a number of occasions will actually sign the cheques for the organisation. Those people are ordinary workers. They are not paid officials of the organisation. They are ordinary workers who go to work every day and then after hours donate additional time to the betterment of their fellow workers in their industry. They are unpaid trustees, vice presidents, branch committee and management people—genuine salt of the earth working class people. The sole reason for their activity out of their normal working hours is the advancement of their fellow workers in various worksites and in various industries. And this is how it has been for a hundred-plus years. This is how it has always been. And it has always been very heavily scrutinised by the regulator, if you like, and the registrar and also by an independent auditor. Each organisation has an independent auditor who works not for the union but on behalf of the members to give an independent view of the authenticity of the accounts that are presented in the general operating report. The salaries of officials are contained in there and the salaries of staff are contained in there. Despite the best efforts of those on the other side, they have not been able to cast a slur over the whole union movement.

No-one condones the activity that is alleged at the HSU. That is a major issue which I think has been addressed appropriately by the ACTU—the peak council. They should face, if guilty, the full force of the law. No-one is arguing otherwise in any way, shape or form.

To return to the debate today, what we have is a new government that is carefully positioning itself to go from basically deriding and putting out a continual barrage of negativity to actually trying to govern. They figure, 'We'll put this in, we'll slam this in against the registered organisations, we'll try to get some more publicity out of that, try to impugn the reputation of all trade unions and all members of unions, maximise the capacity for bad news to travel fast—and, at the same time, we will whack it in to the legislation committee, have a very short, sharp inquiry and go back and do our business.' Unfortunately, it has been referred to a references committee, where a much more complete examination of the process will occur.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You didn't win the election, Alex, you didn't win.

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

I am well aware we did not win the election, Senator Edwards. The reality is that you are going to have to be patient before you use this chamber to ram through whatever you feel like. We are going to a references committee. In that references committee some of the dissenting report from the legislation committee will probably get a bit more discussion.

The bill is unnecessary and political in nature. Clearly those on the other side have no interest in anything other than denigrating the cause of working people represented by unions. They have seized on every opportunity to cast in a bad light the whole union movement, using the prism of one particular area of issue. They have used that area of issue and spread it like manure as widely as they could in order to impugn working people, members of trade unions and those who are, as I think Paul Keating said, on the side of the 'angels'—the 95 per cent of people who need a bit of a lift up in the economy, not the five per cent who are already there seeking to get away with the rest of their ill-gotten gains. We are on the side of working people who simply want a fair hearing.

Is it really necessary to put really severe penalties on the activities of unpaid honorary officials of trade unions? I have no problem whatsoever with taking responsibility for my actions as a paid official of a union. I would be appropriately cautioned, I would be appropriately trained and challenged. This legislation will affect people who volunteer their time not only for trade unions; I do not think this will apply only to trade unions. There will be other not-for-profit organisations that might face much more severe penalties than currently exist, and there is no proven evidence of any wrongdoing.

The fact that there are no criminal sanctions against not-for-profit and registered organisations is probably indicative of the history and the fact that there has not been a long history of transgressions—unlike in corporate Australia, where there is a very genuine need for severe sanctions for people who do the wrong thing. But I am not sure that the opposition has made the case that there is a demonstrated need for their bill to apply to registered organisations and not-for-profits. I am not sure that they have made that case at all. We say the bill is unnecessary. Show us the evidence. Okay, you have taken the HSU and you have spread that all across the papers, you have repeated that like a dog returning to vomit. Every time you have had the opportunity you have repeated that. But really, where is the history of it? A hundred years of history for registered organisations and not-for-profits and you cannot come up with too many occasions where there are improprieties.

Trade unions are not corporations. I am happy to get to the stage where trade unions are corporations, I suppose, but at the moment they are not. So why should they be regulated in the same way as corporations are? They comprise a number of people who are paid, elected by the membership. There are honorary people in that mix who are elected by the membership. For those on the other side who do not know, you generally have a president, a vice-president, two trustees, between three and 11 branch committee members, and a secretary/treasurer. They are all elected.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How many of them are paid?

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

I will take that interjection. A secretary/treasury would be paid, the branch committee of management would not be paid and there would be elected organisers. I used to run a small organisation. Five people were paid and 17 were in the mix. Twelve people came in off the job, to run the union as a branch committee of management, look at the accounts and approve the accounts and they were unpaid. The trustees—genuine long-term union members, not normally paid officials—would donate their time to scrutinise the accounts and to sign cheques.

You are trying to regulate organisations which are fundamentally democratic. You go to an election every four years. All of the positions are vacant every four years. There is appropriate scrutiny and independent elections and you win or lose on the vote. That is how they are structured. If those people have transgressed and not complied with their reporting requirements, they would quite quickly face sanction, including the removal of their positions.

We have this position where the coalition has seized an opportunity to keep on smashing the aspirations of working-class people and their unions. Senator Macdonald asked why the number of people in trade unions is so low. It is a democracy. You can choose either to join or not to join. He would well remember, I would imagine, the Howard government's expenditure of taxpayers' funds, some $3 million per annum, on a mantra which said: 'You don't have to join a union because you'll get everything that you are entitled to even if you're not a member.' I think that mantra was fairly successful. People could take the benefits negotiated by unions without being members. That is one reason why membership is low.

The local bowls club struggles for members and, if this legislation gets up, they might struggle for a treasurer. The local tennis association might struggle for an unpaid trustee to supervise the accounts if criminal sanctions are imposed on not-for-profit and registered organisations. The fact that people could be up for criminal sanctions could impact on the wherewithal of a vast number of not-for-profit organisations, which could be caught up in the scope of this attempt to further the coalition's vested political interest in destroying the aspirations of working people and their representatives.

The fact that we are now going to have a more complete examination of this bill is a very good thing. I do not think that those opposite have too much to fear from letting appropriate organisations come in and make submissions. Let there be a couple of hearings and let the evidence get on the table. They attempted to ram through what they saw was a political advantage. But let us face it, they were basically a one-trick pony in opposition. They simply rose at every opportunity. One would have imagined that the whole trade union movement was afflicted by what has transpired at the HSU. What has transpired at the HSU is appalling and I think the ACTU has made enough comment on that. Those things are in train and being resolved. We just do not think that you need to get a sledgehammer and crack the rest of the place open, looking for things that are not there.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's just governance; that's all.

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

Governance and due diligence are the lifeblood of registered organisations. If you have ever been a member of a bowls club, a footy club, a bingo club or a union, you will have found that those people in charge of the till are always meticulous. They volunteer their time, they bring their acumen and governance is complete. The registrar would take reports from any number of registered organisations every year. They scrutinise them in accordance with the legislation and they return a letter. You know you have been successful when they give you a letter which has one line in it: 'Documents have been filed.' That is the complete tick of approval from the registrar that documents have been filed. That means that your general purpose operation statement, your statement of profit and loss, and your balance sheet have all been independently audited by a completely separate auditing firm working on behalf of the members of the organisation. That is all placed in the appropriate statement that the branch committee of management has made and it all goes off to the registrar. If there is a comma out of place, a misspelt name, a paragraph or an answer to one of the questions in the wrong place, you get an immediate letter back, saying, 'Correct it.' As I say, success is: 'Documents have been filed.'

That happens for a great number of registered organisations in this country every year. I am sure that statistics are available for the number of registered organisations which do not get that letter, stating: 'Your document has been filed.' If there are an overwhelming number of organisations not getting that letter, stating, 'Your document has been filed,' there may need to be some examination of what is going wrong. But I can tell you that is not the case. Unions have been fulfilling their obligations in respect of auditing, governance and reporting back to their members for 100 years.

The government may well think that imposition of criminal penalties will make things better. Sadly, I do not think it will change anything. I do not think it is required. Life will just go on as normal. People may become a little more cautious. That rank-and-file member who volunteers his 2½ hours per month to help out his work mates, his industry and his union may think twice about whether he will put his name to being a trustee, because this government has decided to create significant penalties—penalties equivalent to those associated with corporate misbehaviour.

I would like to finish on that. Corporate misbehaviour is documented. There is plenty of evidence that there has been a whole lot of corporate misbehaviour and there is plenty of evidence going back 100 years that substantial penalties are required for that. You could reel them off. That body of evidence has created the need in law for substantial penalties. My position is that there is an absence of a body of evidence that creates the need in law for these substantial penalties to apply to unions. In addition, from the opposition's point of view they may have unintended consequences. You may have not-for-profits that do not get a contribution from people who do not get a salary. You may have a not-for-profit that cannot fill a position because there are penalties in place. You may in the trade union movement get genuine workers who do the right thing and want to do a bit extra for their industry and their work mates considering, 'Should I be a trustee or president? Do I need to get legal advice as to what could happen in the event of a misdemeanour?'

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is currently debating a motion to refer a matter to a committee. The motion before the Senate is that the provisions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 be referred to the Senate Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in March 2014.

The motion we are debating is unique for two reasons. The first is that it is highly unusual—in fact, the last time it occurred was in 1996, when a piece of legislation was referred not to the appropriate committee, being a legislation committee, but in fact to a references committee. Basic Senate 101 procedure, which is able to be downloaded from the internet, tells us the purposes of Senate committees. Those opposite clearly have not read Senate 101: basic Senate procedure. The role of Senate committees is very, very clear. A legislation committee has a very specific function, which is to inquire into and report on any bills or draft bills referred to it. The bill that we are currently debating the referral of was appropriately referred to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee. It was not referred to the references committee, as this motion is asking the Senate to do, for a very, very good reason: it is the wrong committee to refer the bill to.

Again, basic Senate procedure tells us the role of a references committee. The role of a references committee is to inquire into and report upon various general matters referred to it by the Senate—not legislation, which is very specific, but general matters referred to it. In the first instance, other than what can only be, as it was in 1996, purely political purposes that the opposition want to refer this legislation to a references committee, there is actually no ground upon which to refer it, according to general Senate practice.

The second reason that this motion is so unique is that, if one were merely to refer to the motion without any history of the legislation itself, one might think that the bill being referred, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013, had not yet been inquired into. For those who may draw that conclusion from reading the motion, unfortunately I have to inform you that you are completely incorrect. This piece of legislation has been referred to the appropriate committee. An inquiry has been held into the legislation. In fact, I have before me the report of the committee. I quote:

On 14 November 2013, the Senate referred the provisions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 to the Senate Education and Employment Committee (the committee) for inquiry and report by 2 December 2013.

An inquiry was then held, witnesses appeared before the committee and the committee has duly handed down a report.

In listening to the comments on the other side, one might be led to believe that there was not an appropriate inquiry into this bill. However, again, if you look at the submissions that were received, you will note that over half of them were from the trade union movement. So the trade unions have well and truly had their say in relation to this piece of legislation. In her contribution to the debate, Senator McEwen stated that other senators from the opposition wanted the ability to participate fully in an inquiry into this legislation, and that is why it had to be referred to the references committee. Again, though, those senators may want to ask themselves just why they did not avail themselves of the normal committee procedure and actually attend the inquiry—which was held, I understand, last Thursday in Melbourne—at which a number of witnesses appeared throughout the day and at which senators were given the opportunity to question the witnesses on what they say the impact of the bill would be, and then were given the opportunity to participate in the inquiry process by writing a report. In fact, Labor senators have written a report in relation to this legislation. And I do not think it is a surprise to anybody that the Labor senators have recommended that the bill not be passed.

But, again, if you go back to the motion that we are currently debating before the Senate, it is incorrect to say that this bill needs to go to the references committee on those two bases. Firstly, the references committee is not the correct committee to send the bill to. Secondly, this bill has been inquired into, and the committee has provided a report. One can only draw the conclusion that the only reasons those opposite now wish to send this piece of legislation to a references committee are politically motivated reasons—because they just do not like the legislation. They just do not like the fact that this government promised the people of Australia prior to the 2013 election:

The Coalition will take strong action to ensure registered organisations are more transparent and accountable.

We also said that if we were elected this would be one of the first election commitments that we acted on in this parliament. We also stated, in relation to our commitment:

Australians who join trade unions or employer associations deserve to have confidence in the conduct and administration of those organisations. Registered organisations are a central part of the Fair Work regime and they must operate to the highest of standards.

And we openly acknowledged:

The overwhelming majority of registered organisations already do the right thing.

So for those opposite who continue to stand in this place and say that those on this side of the chamber have a disregard for trade unions: that is just completely, totally and utterly untrue, and it is witnessed by the fact that in our coalition policy we clearly state that in our opinion the overwhelming majority of registered organisations do the right thing and act in the interests of their members—and, of course, those members are working people in Australia. The reason for this legislation, however—which was voted on by the Australian public at the election of 7 September, when they returned a coalition government to power—is not in relation to the majority of organisations who do the right thing; it is in relation to the clear evidence that the money paid by members to some registered organisations is being used for personal gain and inappropriate purposes. Just so people can be very clear as to why the coalition has brought this legislation to the parliament: there is clear evidence. And that evidence, as we know, is currently being played out on the TV stations at night when you see the allegations against Mr Thomson, who did inappropriately use moneys of the HSU workers. That is now being played out as we go home at night and see the full details of the extent of the abuse of union members' funds laid before the Australian public.

That is why we have brought this legislation to the Australian parliament. We said to the Australian people, prior to the election—and this was a coalition policy document that was available to the Australian public before they cast their vote on 7 September:

If elected, a Coalition government will:

I would have thought that was fair, and:

Corporations Act 2001 …

Trade union officials and company directors both have access to moneys that are not their own, so therefore one might think that both should be held to the same account. And, thirdly:

Let us actually look at the motion that is before the Senate. It states the reasons why this piece of legislation needs to go before the references committee and says that the references committee is to inquire into the legislation with particular reference to:

(a) the potential impact of the amendments to interfere with the ongoing operation of registered organisations in Australia; and

(b) the potential of the amendments to impede the ability of employees of registered organisations to carry out their duties.

Apart from the fact that, as I have stated, this bill has already been properly inquired into through the normal Senate procedures and a committee has already handed down a report in the process of which the Labor senators themselves participated, Labor senators themselves have also handed down a dissenting report in relation to this legislation. But there is nothing to fear from this legislation. It is not going to interfere with the ongoing operation of registered organisations in Australia—unless of course that organisation is doing something wrong, and then it well might, because that is actually the purpose of the legislation, if the registered organisation is doing something wrong: for example, inappropriately using the funds of the members of the organisation.

If the question is: 'Will it impede the ability of employees of registered organisations to carry out their duties?' then the answer is no, because the only people who need to be worried about this legislation are those people who are doing the wrong thing; that is it. As the coalition has acknowledged, in our speeches today and in our election policy, the majority of registered organisations do the right thing. Therefore, it is a little like the Corporations Act: if you are a company director and you are properly discharging your duties—as you should be by law, because you are dealing with someone else's money—then you have no fear of being in breach of the Corporations Act.

All those registered organisations and union officials that do the right thing by their members have absolutely nothing to fear from this legislation. But, as I have stated, if you are a rogue union; if you are a union that is abusing the moneys that are given to you by the workers; if you are, for example, someone like Craig Thomson, who was in a position of power in a union and who took moneys from the members and then abused the trust of the members by using those moneys inappropriately—for example, on prostitutes—then, yes, you have everything to fear from this legislation, because the reason this government has introduced the legislation is to protect vulnerable workers like those in the HSU. We on this side—we the government—do not want to see vulnerable workers, who hand over their money in good faith to registered organisations, abused because a person decides that they are above the law and, at the moment, quite frankly, there is little to no real consequence for that person in relation to the abuse. As I state, officers who are operating within the law, which is the overwhelming majority of them, will have no fear in relation to taking on additional responsibilities.

So when the motion before the Senate says that inquiry should be made:

… with particular reference to:

(a) the potential impact of the amendments to interfere with the ongoing operation of registered organisations …

the answer is quite simply: no, it will not. If you are doing the right thing, you have absolutely nothing to fear from this legislation. The Australian public know that, because, on 7 September, when the Australian public cast their vote, they cast their vote in the full knowledge of our policies and procedures, and this was one of the very clear policies that we set out prior to the 2013 election, and which the Australian public cast their vote on.

The only reason for which you would support a reference such as this is a politically motivated one: you do not want the unions to be held to account. (Quorum formed)

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash has the call, and I remind the chamber that Senator Cash has the right to be heard in silence.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, any party that supports this motion is clearly doing so only for politically motivated purposes. In other words, they do not want to see the passing of this legislation. They do not want to see legislation put in place that will protect the workers of Australia from abuse by rogue union officials. Any political party that refuses to support greater accountability and transparency for registered organisations is merely saying to the people of Australia, is saying to the workers, who have been abused by rogue union officials who have taken their money—money they have been given in good faith and spent inappropriately—'We condone that type of behaviour. We are giving the green light to that type of behaviour occurring again. We are giving the green light to the behaviour of Mr Thomson and Mr Williamson.'

All this legislation does is stand up for the Australian workers, stand up for those people who do not have the ability to stand up for themselves. If those on the other side do not want to stand up for the workers, that is their choice, but we on this side will. As I said, the Australian public, in casting their vote on 7 September, knew exactly what this government's position was in relation to accountability for registered organisations. The fact that we were elected with an overwhelming majority indicates to me that the Australian people, themselves, voted for transparency and accountability in relation to registered organisations.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to rise in the debate this afternoon to speak on this motion to refer the provisions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill to a Senate committee. In particular there are a number of areas and facts I need to cover off on. This afternoon in this chamber what has been described in many arguments is a fallacy. We heard the view from the previous speaker, Senator Cash, that people, whether they be in organisations or whether they be workers, had nothing to fear. I can speak from some authority after having been for nearly half my working life, 19 years, a union official for three distinguished unions. The first was the Transport Workers Union Queensland branch. The second was the Queensland Police Union where I was the industrial officer. Then I was with the National Union of Workers Queensland branch, initially as an organiser, subsequently moving on as a senior organiser, then becoming branch secretary and then the assistant vice-president of the federal branch of that union. To some degree, even at the age of 18, I was following industrial relations. It was a subject I was interested in and it was an area where I saw changes in regard to what happened to workers and what happened to industrial laws when government changed.

As an example, I will reflect back to 1996 when the then Howard government came into this place and made changes to industrial laws which was the Workplace Relations Act 1996. As a result of that act there were a whole host of changes to the right of entry requirements to workplaces for organisations. There were changes to introduce individual contracts, which were known as Australian workplace agreements or AWAs. The point I am getting to in relation to this particular bill is the consistency with my home state of Queensland. In that year, what followed—

Senator Mason interjecting—

Thank you, Senator Mason. No doubt you will know the history that I am coming to. In the following year the then Queensland industrial relations minister—or it might have been the workplace relations minister—Santo Santoro mirrored the federal Workplace Relations Act 1996. He mirrored it to the extent that he did not have the competence to make fundamental changes. All he did was turn it over and add a new title. There were only three changes: the title of the act became the Workplace Relations Act 1997; the right of entry became 48 hours instead of 24 hours; and the name for Australian workplace agreements changed to QWAs, Queensland workplace agreements. Subsequently, the minister moved on and became a senator. I think to some extent the senator, at the time, fell foul of the standards that Prime Minister John Howard put in place and, I understand, had to leave this chamber. I am sure those on the other side might correct me—

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You would welcome governance then, Mark.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you want to hear some history, you might get some knowledge. Do not be an oxygen thief all your life.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Through the chair please, Senator.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The senator was moved on and, as I recall, was replaced by Senator Boyce. That is not what we are in the chamber to talk about, but I am using it as an example of how there are consistencies in place in regard to federal and state legislation.

To some degree I see a similar stench to what is being proposed in this bill to what has been implemented in Queensland under their current LNP government. It is a similar stench as there are now requirements in Queensland for organisations and for organisations' branch committees and management—similar to their executive—on how they conduct their business and the impost placed upon them to do basic functions. We are talking about people in many circumstances who come off the job and put in their own time after work. In many cases they are shift workers and come from various backgrounds. I heard Senator Lines give examples the other day about her union with people like cleaners, cooks et cetera.

I have had the same experience where I have seen people come off the shop floor who are committed to making sure those unions are run appropriately, committed to making sure they are not falling foul of the laws that we have put in place, whether that is this government or previous governments, regarding the obligations of industrial organisations—trade unions, as I know them. They need to fulfil their obligations to report on the activities and the financial status of their organisation. Those reports are submitted, as you would probably know, on a yearly basis to the industrial commissions or, in this case, Fair Work Australia and audited by reputable auditors to make sure they are doing the right thing for their members. I remember when I was secretary of the NUW having that obligation. I took that on board as a responsible task that I was proud to be able to do, and in many cases I fulfilled better financial requirements for the union by investing moneys and looking at different avenues to make sure the union was kept in good stead.

I was an industrial officer with the Queensland Police Union. They refer to their body as the executive of the union. Sworn police officers—in my view, the most reputable pillars of our society—came off the job on a fortnightly basis, heard reports and were responsible for the finances of that union. The legislation in Queensland has put an impediment, an onerous task, upon those people to be accountable for things that really have nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of the union. Consistent with this legislation and that in Queensland, it is an impediment and an onerous impost that is being placed on people who are just trying to have some sort of accountability, some sort of responsibility and competence, in an organisation they love and respect.

Talking about police, we have just gone through a situation in Queensland where the government awarded a 2.2 per cent wage increase to the officers in Queensland. Conversely, the LNP parliamentarians in Queensland awarded themselves an $11,000-a-year increase. So you can see that there is a difference with what the LNP government do for themselves, lining their pockets with substantial wage increases on the back of people like hardworking police officers and providing them with only a 2.2 per cent increase. That is where the consistency sits in these sorts of arguments. If we had an equal playing field across the world, we would not see situations where this type of legislation would be put up. Everything would be fair and reasonable.

Going back to Senator Cash's comments about nothing to fear and trade unions having their say—in particular, in the hearing on this bill—I have a criticism as a senator. I am sure it is something that is recognised by most senators, and that is that, when you go into an inquiry, you are frustrated with the time you have to interview witnesses. In many cases, I have been to hearings where there might be six senators and time is divided up for about 30 to 45 minutes for each witness. That is no fault of the senators. That is a good example of senators showing an interest in attending those hearings. But, in the case of this particular bill, I understand that there was limited time for senators to delve deeply into the concerns that were raised by the trade unions that attended and the trade unions that put in submissions to this inquiry and limited time to look at examples and positions that were presented by some employer groups.

The employer organisation the Australian Industry Group, AiG, which I dealt with when I was an organiser with the Transport Workers Union in Queensland and also as secretary of the National Union of Workers, submitted concerns to the inquiry and said the proposed changes would operate unfairly with respect to officers or registered organisations due to the onerous disclosure regime. In many cases members think employer organisations are the enemy. They are not the enemy; they are organisations representing employers, and, as people who have worked through trade unions, we accept the position of representing members. Employer organisations equally have an obligation to represent the employers that they are entitled to represent. But here you have the AiG coming to an inquiry sounding like a trade union, expressing concerns that issues associated with this particular bill are too onerous. They also expressed concerns that the bill would impede the ability of officers to carry out administration of their organisations and could seriously affect their mostly volunteer membership.

Once again I go back to the argument I put about people who come off their jobs—sometimes shift workers, sometimes day workers—and go into union offices, generally at night, which is when I did my branch committee and management meetings, after doing a hard day's work, having to trawl through reports from officials, look at the finances of the union on a monthly basis and then, of course, at an annual general meeting go through the overall audit and also the annual report of the union. That is sometimes an onerous task and, in the circumstances of that time of the day, it is sometimes difficult for those people to have some sort of understanding of the issues.

Recommendation No. 1 of the committee reads:

The Committee recommends that, consistent with the Corporations Act 2001, material personal interest disclosures should only be required to be made to those officers whose duties relate to the financial management of the organisation. Such disclosures should be recorded in the minutes of the meetings of those officers and should be made available to members on request.

What we find with the LNP government in Queensland is that there was delving into the personal lives of those people on the branch committee of management or, in the case of the Police Union, the executive—going into whether they have share portfolios and what bank accounts they have. It is so invasive when that sort of position applies to legislation and when people that are not employed by the industrial organisation and are merely on the committee of management are scrutinised to that degree.

It is an absolute disgrace, and this is just another example of what is happening in Queensland. There are numerous examples I could use, but I do not have the time today. There is the bikies legislation, where people who are not even in a bike group are being pulled up alongside the road. Just the other day up in Townsville there was an incident involving a soldier, a member of the Patriots motorcycle club—a club that I have been out to on the north side on many occasions to lay wreaths at functions on Vietnam Veterans Day. A motorcycle rider who had no patch on his back but was a member of the Patriots motorcycle club and a serving Army private—I think with 1RAR in Townsville—was pulled up by the police and scrutinised for about 40 minutes and more or less interrogated because of laws like this that have the capacity to go beyond the reasonable intent that was legislated for.

These are the reasons why, when bills like this appear before committees, they need to be thoroughly examined, not given a five-minute exercise where the committee hears from a couple of witnesses and flicks the legislation through to be gazetted. We need to have time to examine this. That is the intent of the motion on the books today: to make sure that appropriate time is allocated for those witnesses—and there may be others that wish to have the opportunity to come along and provide evidence on behalf of their organisations or on behalf of employer organisations that may express similar concerns to those that have been expressed by AiG at this particular hearing.

When we were in government we introduced the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2012. Although I was not a member of the committee that examined that piece of legislation, I recall having a look at the legislation and hearing the debate in this chamber. I believed at that time that that was a fair and reasonable position to come to: to identify unscrupulous organisations and, if they are out there, to make sure they are doing the right thing. But I think it is a bit tough to come in here and paint with a broad brush, saying that unions are corrupt and are doing the wrong thing, and that is the general tone that I hear from some of those opposite. I think that is unfair to organisations that are doing the right thing. Having spent half my lifetime as a trade union official prior to coming to this place, I have never seen any examples where officials, branch committees of management or executives have done the wrong thing in regard to union members. It is such a privilege to be in a position where you are looking after workers who, in many cases, are on the bones of their backside trying to make a living. It is a privilege and an honour to represent those people and make sure you are looking after them. So why would you go out of your way to try to make it more difficult for those members? But when you listen to those opposite—'You've got nothing to fear; all trade unions are corrupt'—you would believe there is some reason to have this type of legislation presented so that the government can fix what all the officials of trade unions out there are perceived to be doing. This is where this type of legislation is wrong.

Before I get on another track, I have one other comment. The AiG suggested that the bill should be amended in accordance with the ILO Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, which specifies that 'laws regulating registered organisations must not inhibit the ability of workers and employers to join unions and employer organisations, nor restrict their right to elect representatives and organise the administration of their organisations'. If you examine what happened under those opposite last time they were in government, with Work Choices, there were many breaches of the ILO conventions. We are a signatory to those conventions, and it was probably always embarrassing for those people that travelled to Geneva and had to explain the reasons why those conventions were breached and why a government that was a signatory to the conventions would allow itself to be put in a position where people were denied the right to organise, to have laws on unreasonable and unfair dismissal, to organise and to be represented. Those are four of the ILO conventions that were breached by the previous Howard government when they had Work Choices.

Our concern is that this is just the thin end of the wedge and the start of another wave of Work Choices coming through under this LNP government. People will wise up to the government and realise, as they did in 2005 and 2006 leading up to the introduction of Work Choices, what this government is about. They will understand, when further legislation is presented to this chamber and to the House of Representatives, that this is another agenda of doing away with workers' rights and putting impediments on workers' organisations—and in some cases concerns have been expressed by employer organisations. It will stop, because people will not stand for this sort of legislation and there will be a groundswell of people seeking to make sure it is not implemented.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a disappointing day when I rise in the Senate to protect the integrity of what this place has come to know as appropriate protocols and behaviours. The Senate currently is debating a motion seeking to refer legislation to a references committee. It is unprecedented in my time here, and certainly if any of you have been around here since 1996 you would not have ever seen it—such is the desperation of the opposition since that not unexpected loss on 7 September. The Labor government was busy, knowing it was going to lose, leaving landmines not only economically but also in the industrial relations environment in Australia as well. We went to the election promising that we would reform governance in this sector and that is exactly what we did. The coalition said that right upfront to the Australian people, and the Australian people voted for the coalition government and not for the Labor-Green's coalition because they were hankering for change.

Despite the unprecedented nature of the reference since 1996—this sore-loser mentality which is still going on with you people in denial over there—I think the Australian public are really welcoming and are deserving in this day and age of governance which the Australian Securities and Investments Commission dishes out and certainly which the union movement should not shy away from. But as I look around the chamber and across the other side, we should not wonder that you are all wriggling with discomfort because none of you have come from outside the union movement. Each and every one of you that has made a contribution today to this debate has come from a trade union background. In fact, you all owe your patronage here to the trade union movement.

We are not anti-unions. In fact I have worked with a number of unions over the years and have seen a valuable contribution from them. Even in Senator Gallacher's old days with TAA when he was a Transport Workers Union rep, they were able to achieve some good reforms. Unfortunately, TAA is no longer around.

I watched the unions make contributions—some good and some bad. I sat in the inquiries when Qantas was shut down and I listened to them making their contributions. Obviously they genuinely feel that they are doing the right thing, but when I hear language like: 'I'll bake you slowly,' to the management of a major Australian company—indeed, what Australians like to call their 'national carrier'—I think they are not helpful. I remember the comments from Mr Purvinas. He said, 'I am going to sit on the bank and watch the bodies of my enemies float by'—quoting The Art of War. These things are not helpful, but unions persist with this kind of dialogue in these environments and so it is little wonder that they are reacting as they are.

I do not intend to take up 20 minutes with this. I am just going to let everybody listening out there to this broadcast know that Australians who join trade unions or employer associations have to have confidence in the conduct and administration of those organisations. Registered organisations are a central part of the Fair Work regime and they must operate to the highest standard. The overwhelming majority of registered organisations do the right thing, but there is clear evidence that the money paid by members to some registered organisations is being used for personal gain and inappropriate purposes.

We were elected on the basis that we were going to reform this, and we have done exactly what we said we were going to do when we outlined this policy. We introduced it to the parliament and it has been referred off. And to all of you out there listening to this, you would think that referral has not happened, but it has actually been referred to a legislative committee and has been reported. The hard copy is here for all of you on the other side to have a look at. But no, no, no, they want to keep this buried for a bit longer. Why is that? I guess you only have to pick up a copy of today's Australian to read about the antics of union heads to know why. There is Mr Thomson with his use of credit cards for nefarious purposes—32 alleged incidents. He happened to be in Sydney, allegedly, and his wallet made it to Melbourne. It got back to Sydney and got put back in his hotel room the same night and he did not know how.

We are looking to amend the law to ensure that registered organisations and their officials have to play by the same rules as companies and their directors. It is only fair: ensure that the penalties for breaking the rules are the same that apply to companies as set out in the Corporations Act; reform financial disclosure and reporting guidelines under the registered organisations law so that they align more closely with those applicable to companies.

In addition, a coalition government are looking to establish this body, the Registered Organisations Commission, to take on the role of registered organisations enforcer and investigator, a role which is currently held by the general manager of the Fair Work Commission. We are also seeking for the Registered Organisations Commission to provide information to members of registered organisations about their rights and to act as the body to receive complaints from their members. Who did the members of the HSU have to go to to see about where their money was being spent? I think it was Mrs Jackson who blew the whistle—and where is she? She is in the political wilderness. Also, the Registered Organisations Commission will educate registered organisations about the obligations that apply to them. So flitting off and taking escort services and downloading pornographic material will not be part of this. I am absolutely outraged that the Labor Party have used this instrument to try and circumvent publicity for this. I am not sure that they are trying to give Craig Thomson a Christmas present by keeping this all out, but I urge that this motion gets voted down.

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

The question is that the motion moved by Senate Moore be agreed to. A division having been called, I remind honourable senators that, when a division is called on Thursdays after 6 pm, the matter before the Senate must be adjourned until the next day of sitting, at a time to be fixed by the Senate.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Veterans’ Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the vote be taken after the discovery of formal business on the next sitting day.

Question agreed to.

Debate adjourned.