Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to order, I present the report of the Education and Employment References Committee on the provisions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Further to that, I would like to make some comments as the chair of the references committee. I have to say that the government really has no friends with this bill—no friends at all. We heard from a range of submitters from both business organisations and trade unions and we heard from very reputable and highly regarded business organisations such as the Australian Industry Group, the Motor Vehicle Traders' Association, the South Australian Wine Industry, to name a few.

We heard from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the ACTU. We heard from the Maritime Union of Australia. We heard from the Queensland Nurses Association. We heard from the United Services Union and a range of other unions. All of those groups, surprising as it may seem, are absolutely on a unity ticket about how unnecessary this registered organisations bill is.

I want to put on the record: it is not because those registered organisations, be they businesses or trade unions, do not want to be accountable and transparent; they clearly do. They absolutely want to be transparent and accountable. They believe under the amendments that Labor brought in in the last government that they are already now being much more accountable and being held to a much higher standard.

Most of the submitters said that those regulations are still working their way through the system and indeed have not been fully tested, have not been fully implemented, but all of them commented that the amount of paperwork, the red tape, that we hear from the government has increased substantially. They do not walk away from the fact they need to be open and accountable with members' money, whether it is a business member or a trade union. They do not walk away from that at all, but they see the requirements that this government, through Prime Minister Abbott and Minister Abetz, wants to put on them to be much too onerous. As I said, we heard that from every single submitter. The government has no friends, and here we have business and trade unions on an absolute unity ticket in their wholehearted rejection of this bill. The committee could not have reported any other way than to reject the bill in our recommendation.

If we look at the terms of reference of the references committee, we looked at the potential impact of the amendments. I would refer senators in this chamber who are interested to have a look at the submission of the Australian Industry Group. They have really put a lot of effort into it; it is a very good submission. It goes through all of the issues and explains in very simple terms the onerous nature of the proposed bill—and indeed the Australian Council of Trade Unions likewise. Both of those organisations produced very substantial arguments as to why this new registered organisations bill is completely unnecessary.

Anther area we were to look at as a reference committee was the potential of the amendments to impede the ability of employees of registered organisations to carry out their duties. What we heard from the AiG and from trade unions is that their committees of management are largely made up of volunteers—volunteers who give their time in a voluntary capacity, obviously, to serve as executive and ordinary members of registered organisations. It is fair to say that they will get a small stipend that covers off perhaps their meal money and mileage, if they are using their car or travel allowance, but they are not paid officials. All of the organisations reported that the majority of their committees of management were voluntary organisations. One of the things the government was quick to point out in the new bill and what came out in evidence is that this bill treats registered organisations like shareholders. All of the registered organisations which gave evidence to us really took issue with that. We know that corporations return profits to shareholders. That is what they do. There is an obligation for those corporations to return as big a profit as they can to shareholders. That is clearly not the role of registered organisations; it is not their role at all. They have constitutions and they have objects, which set out very clearly what they are seeking to do. None of them have objects which are about making profits and returning them to corporations. It is a completely different set of businesses and trade unions, and it just seems to be lost on the government. Indeed, the department led in evidence that one of the intentions of the bill was, in fact, to seek to regulate registered organisations in the same way that corporations are registered. Yet their outcomes and what they are set up to achieve are poles apart. They could not be any further apart.

We heard from the South Australian Wine Industry Association that there was no rationale. They did not think there was any rationale at all for making changes and introducing a new bill covering registered organisations. I quote from the South Australian Wine Industry Association, which acknowledge:

… that review and reform of the law governing registered organisations is both necessary and justified from time to time …

As I said in my opening remarks, there was not a submitter we heard evidence from who did not state the importance of being open, transparent and accountable. The South Australian Wine Industry Association went on to say:

However the unlawful conduct of some officers within one registered organisation does not justify imposing excessive compliance and disproportionate monetary penalties on all registered organisations in a manner contemplated by some of the provisions in—

this amending bill—

the Fair Work (Registered Organisations)Amendment Bill 2013.

So here we have the South Australian Wine Industry Association saying that the penalties and the response in this bill are over the top. Just because one organisation does not do the right thing—clearly they did not; there is no resiling from that—that is not a signal for government to then hammer down on all other registered organisations.

All of the submitters made comments around the increased penalties. Again, the Ai Group, the ACTU, the MUA and the South Australian Wine Industry Association all criticised the proposed increased penalties. What they were at pains to point out is that that will limit our volunteers' ability to put themselves forward as an officer. They become aware of the potential penalties if some mistake is made. So all of those organisations will say, 'We will be less rich because we simply will not have the encouragement of our members to come on board to take on executive positions.'

That is clearly an outcome of this bill; it will restrict volunteers. I am sure that is the last thing that any of us in this chamber want to see happen, but it is clearly the view of all of the submitters. They said that those increased penalties will really make volunteers think, 'Is this really where I want to put my time?' Again, we look at the difference between a voluntary organisation and a shareholder organisation. The Australian Industry Group, in particular, said:

If the proposed criminal penalties and proposed massive financial penalties for breaches of duties are included in the RO Act—

that is, the registered organisations act—

this would operate as a major disincentive to existing voluntary officers of registered organisations continuing in their roles …

Again, that is from the Australian Industry Group. There is a breach of human rights in the proposed bill and it has been looked at by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. They have written to the minister. I am not aware as to whether they have got a response at this point, but there are concerns about that.

As I said in my opening remarks, the committee had no other option than to side with all of our submitters and reject the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 out of hand.

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

This report and this inquiry by the Education and Employment References Committee show the high farce that this Senate chamber has turned into. It is the practice of the Senate that, when bills are brought into this chamber, they are referred to a committee of the Senate to look at. That is what happened in this case. The bill was referred to the appropriate committee, which is the Education and Employment Legislation Committee. That committee looked into the report, it looked into the bill and it recommended that the bill be passed.

That is the procedure. But because the Greens and the Labor Party control the numbers in the Senate, the Greens and the Labor Party realised that the legislation committee would look at it thoroughly, would come to a balanced and unbiased decision on the legislation and would accept the need for unions to be honest and to use their members' money honestly.

But the Labor Party and the Greens did not want to attack the groups that sponsor all of the Labor senators in this place. So they referred the same bill to another committee of the Senate, on which the Labor Party and the Greens have a majority. They did this so that they could bring in a report saying that this bill should not be passed. That is my first objection.

The second inquiry was a complete waste of the Senate's time and resources because it was an inquiry into exactly the same subject that another committee of the Senate had already spent time and money appropriately looking into. If we go to the substantive issue—what this is all about—it is saying to the union movement: 'You should have the same standards of accountability to your members, to the people who contribute money to you, as public companies have.' Who could possibly argue with that? I just heard a spurious argument that I am still trying to understand: public companies use the money of shareholders, contributors, to make a profit so that makes them different to a group of people who contribute money to a union that is supposed to be looking after their affairs but may not be doing so. If it is good enough for shareholders' money to be looked after by having certain standards, certain procedures and certain requirements in place for the honest operation of those public companies, why does it not apply to the unions?

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

It does.

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

I am told it does. So how come the Health Services Union is in the mess that it is in? It is almost bankrupt because a couple of its leaders were fiddling the books and using the moneys contributed to the union by some of the lowest paid workers in Australia. This money was being criminally misspent.

Senator Gallacher interjecting—

I hear a Labor member saying, 'Yes, well, we don't agree with HSU either.' Thanks for coming on board, but it is a bit late. Remember how you all defended Mr Thomson and the way he acted as a representative of the Health Services Union? Remember every time you objected to any proper inquiry into it? Remember that? You cannot forget that.

This is not just about the Health Services Union. Senators will be aware that the Fair Work Commission has recently launched proceedings against the Musicians Union of Australia and that it currently has inquiries or investigations into the Australian Rail Tram and Bus Industry Union; the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation; the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia; the Flight Attendants Association of Australia; the Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia; the Australian Nursing Federation; and the Australian Childcare Centres Association. So it is not confined to the Health Services Union. You cannot tell me that what Mr Williamson, the former president of the Australian Labor Party, and Mr Craig Thomson did to the HSU is a one-off event. You cannot tell me that in the whole union movement, across the spectrum, that is a one-off event. Clearly, there has been no accountability in the union movement.

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

Rubbish!

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

I am told that this is rubbish. What happened with the HSU? If it were not for a whistleblower, those people would still be there ripping off members. There are other inquiries being held by the Fair Work Commission. If it is good enough for public companies—and it is good enough for public companies—why wouldn't you do this for the unions? Me thinks all those opposite—and I do not mean this pejoratively—are here because of the union movement's assistance with voting numbers and campaign funds. If that is the way they want to run it, that is fine—but there must be accountability. Just because these people put you here does not mean to say that you can give them a green card to use the money on prostitutes, porn videos or whatever, as happened in the HSU case.

I am not saying that this has happened in the other union cases under investigation—but they are under investigation. Why shouldn't they be under investigation if there is any suggestion of corruption, foul play or dishonest use of members' money? Why wouldn't you want that looked into? I certainly do not for a moment suggest that any of my colleagues opposite, of whom most were officers in various unions, did anything improper in their day; I am not saying that for a moment. But why wouldn't you support this bill, which could prove that, which could take away any suggestion that there is impropriety? I agree with you that it is appropriate for public companies; it is essential for public companies—but why is it not essential for another group who are using other people's money? We know from recent events that in least one case this has not happened.

As I say, you cannot convince me that that was a one-off incident. In fact, coming from the state of Queensland and knowing of the long and colourful history of the AWU—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Joh, Russ Hinze—

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

Well, include them in it. I am on your side in relation to the two gentlemen you mention. But the AWU in Queensland has, let me say, a very colourful history, and you cannot tell me that it has been squeaky clean. I think Mr Howes supports greater accountability for the union movement—and well he should. I think any decent unionist would say: 'We've got nothing to hide, so have whatever inquiries you like, have what rules and regulations you like. We don't care. We would like the opportunity of being able to say "We've been investigated and we've been found to be clean".' This is why I find it just incredible that the Labor Party and their mates in the Greens have again had a Senate committee trawl over evidence and deliberations that have already been made into this very same bill by another Senate committee.

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

I also rise to speak about the report of the Education and Employment References Committee on the provisions of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013. I do so as a proxy for Senator Back, who participated in this inquiry, who is tied up chairing another committee right now. In his conversations with me throughout this inquiry, he felt quite aggrieved that we had actually been drawn into this, because, as we have just been told by Senator Macdonald, this is just a frolic on the part of the Labor and Greens alliance on the other side. They are just hanging on to that last little bit of their power in here until 30 June. They exercised that, and I do not know—I have no idea—how much this inquiry cost.

An inquiry was conducted and the report tabled in December last year by the legislation committee. It made recommendations, and quite rightly so. This was an opportunity for the Labor Party to reform themselves and say to the Australian people, after the thumping that they got on 7 September last year, 'Yes, we understand that you reject what we are and what we stand for.' The Australian people said, 'We don't want any organisations to be corrupt or corruptible.' These are the recommendations—

Opposition Senator:

An opposition senator interjecting—

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

I would be very careful, Senator. This bill on registered organisations is about empowering people with the ability to ensure that their organisations remain free of corruption the like of which we saw with the HSU. If I had my way, I would not allow anybody with a criminal conviction to serve on any of these registered organisations. Let us—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I ask that Senator Edwards return to the matter at hand. That statement about criminal convictions is already contained in other legislation. You cannot serve on a registered organisation with certain criminal convictions.

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

Senator Gallacher, that is a debating point.

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

Yes. Anyway, you are probably a bit sensitive to that, Senator Gallacher, because of the CFMEU. There are a lot of allegations about what goes on there. In fact, recently, this week—

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Can I just ask you to draw the good senator's attention to the fact that his comments should be made through the chair, not targeting individual senators with his comments.

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

There is no point of order. I will decide when I direct them.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, I am sure that Senator Gallacher has brought that up because he is a bit sensitive. As I say, there are many allegations. In Western Australia, there are many allegations against the CFMEU about how they control workplace sites and how they conduct their financial affairs and, indeed, the issues that we have seen.

This is an attempt by the coalition to tidy up what has been corrupted by others. Contained in the dissenting report, which I have from Senator Back, there are references to the former—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are struggling. This is just—

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

I will read it for the benefit of Senator Sterle. I will reacquaint him with—

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

On a point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: there are several reports that we are trying to get tabled today, and this is just obfuscation. I would ask that you ask Senator Edwards to finalise his remarks so that the rest of us can get on with our work.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Madam Acting Deputy President: the only time wasting that is taking place in this place is these spurious and consistent points of order coming from those opposite. This is the third or fourth in a matter of minutes. If they had let Senator Edwards get on with his remarks, he would have just about finished by now.

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

Madam Acting Deputy President, in relation to the points of order that have been taken—

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

One moment, Senator Polley. The interjections are disorderly. Senator Polley is entitled to be able to put her point of order in silence. Thank you.

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

The point of order that I raised was a justifiable point of order under the standing orders that all comments are to be made through the chair. I did not query or question your decision over that, but I do want to make it quite clear that the point of order that I made was within the standing orders.

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

Senator Polley, the point of order before the chair is not your point of order; it is the point of order of Senator Stephens. There is no point of order.

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

Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. I will make my point, if Senator Sterle would like to listen. The coalition senators firmly agreed in the report with the Australian Workers Union national secretary—until, I think, Wednesday; I am not sure whether he is standing down immediately—who recently said in relation to union corruption:

… if we ignore any pocket of dishonesty, it will grow like a cancer.

Why won't you take heed of your wonder boy? He is the one that you have looked to over the years for inspiration. He has actually led a number of leadership coups from outside this place. It is a pity that opposition senators, in your petulant desire to prosecute old arguments, from all I can gather, were unable to add any new arguments to the legislation.

Senator Sterle interjecting—

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

Senator Edwards, continue with your remarks.

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

Further, the Fair Work Commission has recently launched proceedings against the Musicians Union of Australia and has inquiries or investigations into: the Australian Rail, Tram & Bus Industry Union; the Australian Salaried Medical Officers Federation; the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia; the Flight Attendants' Association of Australia; the Textile Clothing & Footwear Union of Australia; the Australian nursing federation; and the Australian Childcare Centres Association. But I hear, 'No, everything's fine; everything's dandy.' The majority recommendation of the report is that they ignore the bill and do not pass the bill. But, despite all of that, you want to reject this bill.

This is a bill about sanitising what should have been sanitised a long time ago on your watch. Quite frankly, if you over there want to reinvent yourselves—as Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, has gone out in the last 24 hours and indicated that he wants to do—then this would be a very good place to start.

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

Order! Senator Edwards, your time has expired.

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

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted. Debate adjourned.

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

I understand that it would suit the convenience of the chamber to allow consideration of committee reports to continue beyond 4.30. Is leave granted for that course of action?

Leave granted.