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

I rise with pleasure to support the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013. This bill honours a commitment which the coalition took to the September 2013 election—and I quote from the coalition's policy document—for 'better transparency and accountability of registered organisations'. The Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, said at the time of the election: 'The coalition will take strong action to ensure registered organisations are more transparent and accountable. We will act on this in the first week of the new parliament'—and indeed he did. He went on to say that Australians who join trade unions or employer associations deserve to have confidence in the conduct and administration of these organisations, that registered organisations are a central part of the fair work regime and they must operate to the high standards. In government we have honoured that commitment, and we stand here today in support of the bill.

I will go to the four premises of the bill—and they were spelt out in the Senate Education and Employment References Committee report to this place in 2014. The bill proposes to: firstly, establish an independent registered organisations commission to monitor and regulate registered organisations, with enhanced investigation and information gathering powers; secondly, amend the requirements on officers' disclosure of material personal interests and change grounds for disqualification and ineligibility for office; thirdly, strengthen existing financial accounting disclosure and transparency obligations under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, making them enforceable as civil remedy provisions; and, fourthly, increase civil penalties and introduce criminal offences for serious breaches of officers' duties as well as new offences in relation to the conduct of investigations under the Fair Work Registered Organisations Act 2009.

It is interesting to reflect on the background and the reasons for the need for these amendments to come into place—and I intend to speak to them in some detail—but it is equally interesting that in December 2013 the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee reported to the Senate on the outcome of that legislation committee report. Immediately the legislation committee report was in, we then had the opposition—the Labor and the Greens—joining forces to call for an Education and Employment References Committee inquiry into exactly the same issue. It is disappointing that, with all of the hard work that befalls us in the Senate, we had to have the chiefly political exercise of effectively going through exactly the same matters again. At that time, the coalition senators noted that the Senate committee was charged with looking at Labor's amendments to the registered organisations regime in 2012. And at that time—and I think this is very important from the viewpoint of accountability—as a result of a direction by the then Minister Bill Shorten, the committee had only five days in which to examine what was then the 'Shorten bill'. I contrast that with the four weeks this committee was given by our coalition government.

So all of this goes back to the laziness and incompetence of the then Minister Shorten. He saw what the coalition was bringing as a policy to the 2013 election, he panicked and he directed his department to try and short-circuit the whole process. As would be expected from a person of this limited capacity, he obviously got it wrong. To make sure that it was not given adequate opportunity for scrutiny, this place had only five days to examine the bill. It is interesting that the now opposition, then in government, failed to consult, failed their opportunity to speak to their own constituency and actually get that legislation right in the first place.

For example, in support of what I am saying, the coalition senators firmly agreed with the then Australian Workers Union National Secretary Mr Paul Howes who said at the time in relation to union corruption, 'If we ignore any pocket of dishonesty—it will grow like a cancer.' He spoke further about the need for developing corruption resistance at every level. So in fact this legislation and these amendments from the government have the strong support of those members of the union movement who share the same discouragement, the same disappointment. Indeed, in some instances, the same shame was actually visited upon the Australian community, particularly upon well-meaning and honourable members of the union movement. What we require in this legislation and these amendments is a circumstance in which those responsible for moneys of members' registered organisations, be they employer, trade union or whatever form, should be the subject of the same rigors and the same civil or criminal penalties for very serious offences. It would bring it into line and in the minds of the Australian community it would create a sense of fairness, a sense of transparency and a return to a sense of honour. Surely, that is a matter which is of tremendous interest and concern to the Australian people.

There were five recommendations that came forward from the legislation committee to the Senate. I am very pleased to be able to record the recommendations and those that are now found in these amendments which we are debating today. One would only hope that the Labor Party and the Greens senators will see the sense of them. One hopes that they will see that the ill-considered and improperly constructed legislation then presented by Mr Shorten will be redressed and will return to a level of comparability between the registered organisations representing employer groups as well as trade unions. For example, the first recommendation was:

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.

As it is now, this is potentially required by everybody. Only those with responsibility for the purse strings, those with some level of financial accountability, should be the people who have who are called to account under the new legislation. The first amendment, then, reads:

Limit the obligation to disclose material personal interests to officers whose duties include duties that relate to financial management of the organisation or branch.

So in your capacity as the acting chair of the committee, Senator McKenzie, isn't it tremendous to see that these recommendations, as moved and as presented to this place, have indeed found their way into the actual amendments that are before us today?

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

The second recommendation was that a list of exclusions from the obligations to disclose material personal interests based on section 191(2) of the Corporations Act be inserted into the bill, thus narrowing the obligation to disclose material personal interest of officers' relatives. The legislation at the moment encompasses the possibility of somebody's spouse, children or whoever. Indeed, we see the amendments coming through before us today removing the express obligation on officers and organisations to disclose details of any material personal interest an officers' relatives has or acquires in a matter that relates to the affairs of an organisation. So once again, we see common sense prevailing from this side. We see a recommendation that has come before this chamber finding its way into the amendments, which are the subject of our debate.

The third recommendation was that, with certain exclusions, the obligation placed on officers to disclose every payment should be reduced, including limiting disclosures to payments made above a certain threshold. Following that recommendation we see the provision of a civil penalty for an organisation's or branch's failure to provide minutes of meetings of the committee of management to members. Any member of a registered organisation should have the right to examine the minutes of meetings of the committee of management. This is a circumstance that should have been dealt with in the original legislation, if it had not been pushed through in such a panicked fashion by the then minister, now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten.

Another of those amendments that we will consider in this place is aligning the obligation on officers to disclose material personal interests with section 191(2). This will be done by inserting into the bill similar exclusions to the obligations to disclose material as is applicable to directors of companies. In the evidence that came before us in the Senate inquiry process, these points were raised by witnesses—by employer representatives and by union representatives. It is interesting to see that they have been picked up, that the coalition in government has listened to both sides and has acted.

We are also considering the expansion of exclusions that apply to the disclosure of payments made by an organisation or branch to related parties, including the exclusion of payments that are less than a prescribed amount. Once again the commissioner will have the authority to be able to set a figure below which these sorts of disclosures are not necessary to be made. To bring all this together, the amendments before us enable the Registered Organisations Commissioner to grant exemptions from the training requirements if an organisation can demonstrate that an officer has a proper understanding of their financial duties within the organisation or the branch. This naturally again goes to a level of common sense. It goes to submissions that were placed before the committee. It goes to representations by witnesses. There are training requirements and skills required of people involved in financial management of registered organisations. If, indeed, there are people who already have those financial skills and can demonstrate to the commissioner that they have them, then what is the purpose or the reason for the cost associated with having to go through and undertake those activities once again?

In the time that is left available to me it gives me no pleasure to reflect on the background and some of the reasons that we find ourselves in these circumstances. Naturally enough, although not exclusive to the amendments, we had the circumstances associated with Mr Craig Thomson—once a member of parliament in this place—and the former ALP national president, Mr Michael Williamson, both acting in their capacities as officers of the Health Services Union. We spent far too much time in this parliament over the last three to four years distracted by the actions and activities of both those men, both of whom have now been dealt with by the courts and, of course, found guilty of the activities with which they were associated. In the case of Mr Thomson they were activities which he emphatically denied even on the floor of the other house in this place. These are people who were found guilty of misusing Health Services Union members' funds—in the case of Mr Williamson, almost $1 million. At the time all of this was taking place my mother was a high-care patient in a nursing home in Perth, and I remember reflecting on the excellence of the care that was given to her and to the other elderly patients, including those with Alzheimer's and other conditions. The people who were providing that care had paid their union fees for many years only to see those funds going to the purposes for which it has now been established both Mr Thomson and Mr Williamson have either admitted or been found guilty. I recall an interview with an elderly Eastern European lady who had worked her entire life. Somebody had done the figures and had said to her, 'With those funds you could have had a trip back to Europe to visit your family.' She said, 'No, I would have used those funds towards the education of my grandchildren.' How those people can reflect on their behaviour, one can only imagine.

The important thing is that if we had had this legislation and amendments in place prior to the time those people carried on with those behaviours, one would hope that we would not have seen that abhorrent behaviour which was the subject of so much scrutiny, discord and disappointment to the Australian community. Yet we see it playing out again with respect to the ex-secretary of that same union, Ms Kathy Jackson, who was very much involved in the processes associated with those other gentlemen. In the last couple of days we have seen in the Federal Court an allegation that Ms Jackson siphoned off almost $250,000 of members' funds into a bank account of which she was the beneficiary. That is the allegation that was presented by lawyers for the Health Services Union in only the last two or three days, so no doubt we are going to see that play out as well. Surely members of unions, particularly those who do not have the opportunity to be represented at meetings, have the right to see the minutes of meetings and to understand the activities of their unions. One can only speculate on what they must think when they hear about behaviour like that and when they see where their funds have gone. I urge strong support from the other side in this place to ensure that these amendments go through in the way in which they are intended.

In different circumstances, but relating particularly to my own home state of Western Australia, we see being played out in the royal commission the activities of the Australian Workers Union and their former leadership, Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt assisted by their former lawyer, Ms Gillard. When I was in Kalgoorlie late last year discussing this question with some members of the AWU, one of them told me in a very distressed fashion of an incident which occurred—

Senator Cameron interjecting—

I know Senator Cameron will be interested in this story, which was told by this gentleman who was an official of the union. He said that they had a million dollars on account in the goldfields. It was a big sum of money at the time, in the 1990s. There was huge pressure on them to release those funds and make them available to the management of the organisation in the city, and they opposed it vehemently. But a very smart young female lawyer turned up from Melbourne and they reluctantly made the decision and the million dollars disappeared. The gentleman said, 'I'll always remember the next day when a fellow that I never knew, but I knew of, came to the Kalgoorlie office, grabbed all the files pertaining to that matter, took them out to the Kalgoorlie tip and burnt them.' I think that is what stuck in their craw more than anything else. It was not the fact that the funds all disappeared—although that really worried them. It was not so much the fact that $1 million, which they no doubt had imminent use for given the nature of the industry that we see in the goldfields of WA, but it was the fact that any possible trail of accountability or audit literally went up in smoke. I have no doubt that we are going to see that game played out even more.

The last matter which I will draw senators' attention to is very current in Western Australia, and it is associated with the MUA. I have in front of me the declaration of results from the Australian Electoral Commission, and 41 members of the union have voted to put themselves in a circumstance where they can strike under a protected action ballot for 24 hours. That was question 1 that was asked of those who were eligible. All 45 out of 45 voted for a 24-hour strike to be undertaken. The next question related to whether there could be an unlimited number of stoppages for a period of 48 hours. We are talking about $100 million a day. Out of 45 members, 44 supported that one; one did not. The third question was whether or not they would have unlimited stoppages for seven days. That is $700 million to $1 billion of direct costs in that period of time without considering the workers at the mines, on the trains, in the trucks and, of course, the rest of the industry which is so vital to this country. That is where we are being held, and I come back to the point which is simply this. There should be unanimous support right around this chamber for the amendments contained in the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always good to follow Senator Back. He is always interesting, if nothing else, and I do not think there was much else in that speech this afternoon. I rise on behalf of the Labor Party to oppose the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013. This bill is unnecessary. It imposes massive regulatory burdens on voluntary organisations based on the coalition's ideological opposition to collective organisations acting in the interests of their members. That is fundamentally what this is about. The bill is not about accountability; it is about the coalition's obsession with destroying collective bargaining in this country. The bill is about the government introducing over-the-top regulation and red tape on the trade union movement while at the same time railing against regulation and red tape in every other area of the economy. This is hypocrisy on a grand scale, but it is something we have to get used to with the Abbott government.

After failing to reduce workers' rights with Work Choices, the coalition have now embarked on an attack on the organisations that support employers and workers. The ideology and strategy is clear: destroy effective unions and you destroy workers' capacity to protect their wages and conditions. The bill is designed to make it extremely difficult for unions and employer organisations to operate as they have over the last 150 years—that is, with volunteer rank and file membership on their governing bodies. Rank and file members would be faced with huge obligations and penalties far outweighing and inconsistent with the role they play on their unions' governing bodies.

The bill is an attempt to treat all employer organisations and unions as if the default driver is criminality and personal greed. When criminality and greed is exposed in the business sector, the usual argument from business and the coalition is that laws should not be enacted based on the behaviour of individuals which is inconsistent with the general behaviour in business and industry. I have heard this argument several times from the opposite side. For ideological reasons, this approach is not applicable when it comes to the trade union movement. Labor is appalled by the behaviour of a small number of individuals who deceitfully and criminally stole the funds of the union and its members for their own personal gain. Those individuals have faced proper processes, and one is in jail and another one looks like going to jail.

Labor moved decisively with this issue and, after consultation with employer organisations and unions, we effected the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2012 and the Fair Work Amendment Act 2013. These laws are rigorous, balanced and appropriate. Labor's laws strengthened the legislative provisions concerning disclosure and transparency of decision making. This was done while understanding and recognising the difference between voluntary organisations and for-profit businesses.

The government claims that this bill will place the regulation of registered organisations on the same footing as the regulation of corporations under the Corporations Act. There is absolutely no logic to this approach. Voluntary organisations are significantly different from corporations, are subject to significant regulatory overview and have regulatory requirements that ensure compliance with appropriate standards for voluntary organisations. The coalition bill, by design, will establish a more onerous regulatory regime on volunteers who make up the committees of management of registered organisations than that which applies to highly paid executives on company boards. So you have an ordinary worker who says: 'I will help with my union. I want to engage with my union.' They go on the board and they are subject to more scrutiny and harder laws than those affecting other business people earning $150,000 a year to sit on a board. And these workers get not a cent. These volunteers get not a cent to do the work that they do.

The legislation has more to do with an ideological attack on the trade union movement than it has with any genuine desire to ensure standards for voluntary organisations. A range of submissions was provided to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee during its inquiry into the bill. It is clear that the coalition have managed to do one thing. They have managed to do something that is unheard of in the industrial history of Australia. They have united employer organisations and the trade union movement against this overt attack on collective organisation in this country. I would have thought, given the explosive revelations in New South Wales in ICAC, that the coalition would be more concerned about cleaning up their own act than attacking, for purely ideological reasons, unions of employers and employees.

Senator Back used some highly provocative language in his submission, something that is the stock and trade of the coalition in this country. He spoke about shame. He spoke about honour. He spoke about transparency. And he spoke about the need for rigorous penalties. Let me tell you, I agree that those principles should apply to the New South Wales Liberal Party and the federal Liberal Party in their operations, with all their slush funds and all their trusts that are hiding money from the proper organisations in this country—and I will come to that in some detail.

I would have thought that the coalition would have been keen to do some internal analysis of the promises that they made to the Australian public prior to the election, prior to the reality that the public will have to face tonight with an austerity budget that will hand money back to big business—hundreds of millions of dollars will go back to Twiggy Forrest, Gina Rinehart, BHP and Rio Tinto—while people will have to wait longer to get a pension, while the value of the pension will decline, while people will have to pay more for petrol every time they get in a car and while people will have to hand over more money every time they go to the doctor. I would have thought that these would be the issues that the Liberal Party would be discussing. I know that some like Senator Macdonald are discussing these not only within the party but in the public arena. So the hypocrisy of the coalition knows no bounds—taking money out of the pockets of ordinary Australians and putting money back into the pockets of the billionaire mining companies and billionaire miners.

No amount of dissembling as to what is a tax and what is not a tax and no amount of rhetorical ballet dancing in relation to lowering the overall tax burden will hide the reality of the broken promises of the coalition. Remember your leader Tony Abbott's statement: 'No new taxes, no surprises, no broken promises, no cuts to health and no cuts to education.' Remember those words tonight when he puts his hand in the pocket of every ordinary Australian on the basis of some unreal fiscal crisis, some unreal budgetary crisis, some unreal budgetary emergency. It is all a nonsense.

The issues of lies, deceit and broken promises should be addressed internally in the coalition. Workers and employer organisations should be allowed to operate under the various international conventions that we are legally obliged to uphold. Attacking the trade union movement and working people in this country with penal provisions and trumped-up royal commissions should stop, and the coalition should set about cleaning up their own act by announcing a royal commission into Liberal and National party slush funds. That is what they should be doing. The public in New South Wales and across Australia have been watching in horror as the rogues' gallery of Liberal Party members and politicians parade at ICAC, exposing the unfair and illegal approach that is taken by the Liberal Party to undermine democracy in this country. That is something that I think they should be looking at, instead of attacking employer organisations and the trade union movement in this country.

The public are watching in fascination as Liberal politician after Liberal politician is exposed for corrupt and illegal practices—practices designed to corrupt democracy and corrupt the democratic processes in New South Wales, practices designed to illegally avoid the exposure of cash for influence in the coalition. That should be the focus of a royal commission, not the trumped-up, biased royal commission into the trade union movement.

Ray Carter, an adviser to Chris Hartcher, one of the leading Liberals in New South Wales, said that they all knowingly and deliberately were running donations from prohibited donors and they were running those donations through the Free Enterprise Foundation, which is a foundation associated with the federal Liberal Party. So we have Senator Back coming in here trying to smear the whole trade union movement because of the illegal activities of a few people, activities that are reprehensible, and force legislation on the whole trade union movement because of the illegal activities of a few people but not being prepared to do anything about the illegal activities of the Liberal Party. Trying to undermine democracy in Australia, in my view, is one of the most reprehensible things you can do.

The Liberal Party in New South Wales, and it looks like they have been aided and abetted by the Liberal Party in Canberra, have been laundering slush funds from illegal donors in New South Wales into Canberra and back into New South Wales. That is being exposed day in and day out. Yet what is the priority for the Liberal Party? It is to attack the trade union movement and turn a blind eye to the corruption and illegality in the Liberal Party. They attack the trade union movement because they do not want workers to collectively bargain. I just think it is outrageous. For Senator Back, and for any of the Liberals, to come in here and fail to mention this issue is pure hypocrisy. Senator Back comes in here and tells these stories about being out in the bush talking to a union member and the union member says this and the union member says that. If Senator Back has got any evidence of corruption or illegal activity, he should take that to the police. He should take that to the authorities. I challenge Senator Back to come back in here and explain to the parliament what he did with that allegation, whether he advised the appropriate authorities that, as a senator, he has been advised of illegal activity in Western Australia. What did he do about it? My bet is he did nothing. My bet is that it is probably a made-up story anyway to embellish his pretty boring speech in here on this issue. I challenge Senator Back: 'Come back in here, tell us when you went to the police, tell us what you have told the police and let's get the thing dealt with by the authorities. Don't come in here trying to smear the trade union movement with unsubstantiated allegations.' That is stock-in-trade for the coalition in this country.

The issues relating to compliance under the Workplace Relations Act are confined to isolated criminality by a small number of corrupt individuals. The issues of coalition corruption, influenced heavily by greed and stupidity, are now the hallmark of this coalition and seem to be a systemic part of the culture of the Liberal Party. The isolated problems of the trade union movement have been addressed by the Labor Party, the ACTU and the police. No attempt has been made by the coalition, and especially the Liberal Party, to deal with corruption of the democratic processes in New South Wales.

We now see these links back to Canberra, with the corrupt money flow from New South Wales laundered in Canberra and used by Liberal Party politicians in New South Wales. Never in the history of Australian politics have we seen the systemic undermining of the democratic processes and the laws of the land as we are watching in New South Wales. Never in the history of Australian politics have we seen a Liberal premier having to stand down because he misled the corruption watchdog. Never in the history of Australian politics have we witnessed a senator—Senator Sinodinos—a frontbencher, recently sitting across this chamber, attempting to justify a payment of $200,000 for 40 hours work and to justify a $4,000-an-hour payment to drive from the CBD of Sydney to Castle Hill. $4,000 an hour! Never in the history of Australian politics have we seen Liberal politician after Liberal politician appear before a corruption inquiry and, one after the other, fall on their swords. Never in the history of Australian politics has the web of influence peddling for cash been exposed as it has with the Liberal Party.

And never in the history of politics has a political party with so many internal corrupt activities tried to divert attention from their own illegal activities by attacking the trade union movement in such a systematic way. Why is the coalition attacking the trade union movement when the real issue for democracy in this country is the operation of Liberal Party slush funds? Let us have a royal commission into Eightbyfive, the Millennium Forum, the Forward Brisbane Leadership Fund, the Cormack Foundation, the Free Enterprise Foundation, the Greenfields Foundation, Bunori Pty Ltd—an organisation that Senator Sinodinos failed to disclose that he had an interest in when he became a senator—Vapold Pty Ltd, the North Sydney Forum and Vaughan Constructions—a company that went bust, but which weeks before it went bust, leaving workers with no pay and subcontractors with no payments, gave $400,000 to the Liberal Party.

Those of the type of people we have sitting over there; trying to lecture Labor and the trade union movement about honesty, about shame and about honour. I welcome these debates in this place, and I call on the Liberal Party to actually form a royal commission into the dishonest operation of the Liberal Party both at the federal level and in New South Wales. And while we are at it, let's spread it up to Brisbane and let's get it over in Perth because I am sure the same peddling of influence for money is underway in the Liberal Party right around this country. There will be Nick Di Girolamo's equivalents everywhere in the Liberal Party.

So instead of attacking the trade union movement, which is out there battling to get workers a fair go, they should be investigating their own internals. They should be setting up a royal commission to look at the corruption and the deceit and the dishonesty in the Liberal Party. Leave the trade union movement alone, leave the employer organisations alone; start looking at your own backyard, that is where the corruption is. (Time expired)

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013, and I say, on behalf of the Australian Greens, that the Senate should reject this bill.

The Abbott government's hypocrisy is evident in this bill: on one hand pledging to remove red tape while on the other doubling the layer of regulation on employer associations and unions is utterly shameless. If we needed any further evidence of hypocrisy it is here in this bill as well in that the government states that it is committed to protecting so-called 'traditional' rights, yet this bill would see overreaching intrusions into the lives of those people who are involved with unions and other registered organisations. These are rights which I think anyone would agree are traditional rights, like freedom of association, the presumption of innocence and the right to privacy and reputation. It is hard to think about how much more traditional you could get than those rights.

The bill's compliance burden alone is enough to make this bill unworthy. It will inflate organisations' training costs and it will submit them to a regulatory burden which is so unrealistic that it just makes no sense. This is what the Senate Education and Employment References Committee found in recommending that the bill be rejected, and I call on the Senate today to heed those recommendations.

Just so we can be very clear about what the government is proposing to do here, let us look at what the bill does. Registered organisations are unions and employer associations that are registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. That act was already amended in 2012 to enhance registered organisations' financial accountability as well as that of their office holders. Those amendments included rules for disclosure of remuneration and pecuniary and financial interests, increased civil penalties, strengthened investigative powers for Fair Work Australia and requirements for education and training to be provided to the officials of registered organisations about their governance and accounting obligations. Many of those amendments only took effect from 1 January this year—less than six months ago and after this current bill was introduced. So the government did not even wait to see the efficacy of those previous amendments.

This bill proposes to go even further. It will establish a new stand-alone agency called the Registered Organisations Commission, which will have powers to monitor and regulate registered organisations, enforced by extensive investigative and information-gathering powers. So here we are today, standing on the brink of a budget which, all the indications suggest, will see the abolition of many long-standing and respected cultural and environmental agencies—just to mention one sector—in the name of so-called efficiency, deregulation and removal of red tape, yet if this bill is to be passed we will see the creation of a new government agency to oversee, essentially, unions. That shows the real ideological agenda that is at play here.

What will this commission—and this bill—do? It will increase reporting obligations, including by amending requirements about material personal interests. I will come back to that. As well, the bill proposes to increase civil penalties, create offences relating to investigations, and introduce criminal offences for breaches of officers' duties.

The Australian Greens say that this bill should be rejected. It has significant unintended consequences, which were revealed in the course of the Senate Education and Employment References Committee inquiry, and it imposes major training and financial burdens on organisations. In this, it contrasts with the government's posturing about reducing red tape and protecting traditional rights. It will establish an onerous regulatory regime, on top of regulation already present under the Corporations Act.

A good case study can be taken from the submission and the evidence that came before the Senate Education and Employment References Commission from an organisation in my own home state of South Australia—the South Australian Wine Industry Association. In their submission that association said that this bill will impose 'excessive compliance and disproportionate monetary penalties on all registered organisations'. They make the point that they are a not-for-profit incorporated association. They have board members who provide a great deal of unpaid time each year, which is a fundamental aspect of the effective work of that association. They attend meetings across regional South Australia, which involves not only the meeting time but the travelling time. They read board papers, meet with the government and consult with their members. All this is fundamental to conducting the meaningful activities of SAWIA, the South Australian Wine Industry Association. The association points out that the role of these board members cannot be directly compared to listed public companies, which are commercial operations with well remunerated directors. Yet, in many cases, the proposed amendments under this bill will result in far greater penalties and requirements being imposed. It makes no sense.

The hypocrisy of this government in pledging to remove red tape, while doubling the layer of regulation on registered organisations, is not lost on the Australian Greens, and it was not lost on the stakeholders who made submissions against it in the two Senate inquiries since its introduction. Stakeholders who made submissions to the Senate committee inquiry supported the need for good governance, but not in the form proposed by this bill. The Australian Council of Trade Unions noted it supported the passage of the 2012 legislation because it supports a legislative regime promoting the operation of accountable, democratic and effective trade unions which are member governed. However, it described the provisions of this bill as 'poorly conceived, badly motivated, and entirely unnecessary'. That was the tenor of most of the submissions before the inquiry.

Other submitters said that this bill would interfere with and impede registered organisations' abilities to carry out duties on behalf of their members. Maybe that is where we get to the essence of this legislation. Maybe that is the government's intended purpose—to make it more difficult for trade unions to service the needs of their members in a pluralist society.

The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation said the bill was 'unnecessary, poorly structured and excessive'. The Australian Air Traffic Control Association suggested that the establishment of a commission effectively disregards all of the processes that organisations had implemented to comply with legislation changes in 2012. This goes to the heart of this legislation: it is not based on necessity; it is based on ideology. The Senate Education and Employment References Committee concluded that these 2012 legislative changes need to be implemented fully, before further interference with registered organisations' governance is considered.

Fair Work Australia gave evidence that its updated approach to regulation since 2012 has delivered a marked increase in registered organisations' compliance levels. And that is what we are looking for here. For example, it stated that there was a lodgement rate for annual returns of 96.2 per cent in the 2012-13 financial year, which by May of 2013 had increased to 99.5 per cent. Fair Work Australia also stated that a proactive election audit that it conducted with respect to all registered organisations required to lodge election information with the Fair Work Commission has, for the first time, shown a comprehensive compliance picture across 503 election entities. All this has occurred before the legislation has been enacted.

The Australian Privacy Foundation criticised the proposed disclosure regime in this bill, saying that it is unnecessary, it erodes privacy protection and it is out of step with the government's stated commitment to traditional freedoms. So they were calling the government on their hypocrisy.

Submitters also said that the compliance burden proposed by the bill would impose significant training costs. The committee agreed that the regulatory burden proposed by the bill is excessive and inappropriate. It also agreed that the proposed disclosure regime for material personal interests is not only inappropriate; it is wholly unworkable. It is impractical. The committee concluded that the bill poses a great threat to the ability of registered organisations to provide services for the advancement of their membership if it means they will be occupied with the degree of extra regulation and red tape it proposes. It does lead one to wonder if this is the government's intention when it comes to the important work of unions in defending and promoting the rights of their members.

There is a broader picture here, though. The Australian Greens are not only concerned about the impractical compliance burden associated with this bill, in contradiction to the purported intention of this government. We are also seriously concerned about its encroachment on traditional rights and liberties and the fact that it is totally inconsistent with the government's purported commitment to these. Do not judge a government by what it says; judge it by what it does.

In relation to the new criminal offences that this bill would establish, the committee concluded that these duplicate existing crime legislation. The committee also shared the concerns of submitters regarding the fact that the proposed structure and powers of the commissioner are inappropriate. The commission's proposed investigative powers are too extreme and go far beyond what is appropriate to ensure adequate regulation of registered organisations. It is clear that the regulatory framework which was enacted by the 2012 legislative changes is sufficient to empower the current regulator to do its duties.

The Australian Greens are very clear that the proposed powers of the Registered Organisations Commission are excessive, draconian and completely unnecessary. The Australian Greens condemn the government for introducing this legislation before the amendments under the 2012 act have had a chance to operate effectively. It discloses an ideological agenda operating here. This is bad legislation because it increases registered organisations' compliance burden far out of proportion to any necessity and it undermines the very traditional rights and freedoms which the government claims to be committed to.

This legislation was not introduced in good faith but rather to undermine unions, their members and their ability to achieve outcomes. Let's be clear about that. The Australian Greens are committed to free, independent and democratic unions as an essential pillar of civil society. We believe that the present legislation for registered organisations is appropriately rigorous, without denying unions the ability to achieve important outcomes for their members.

This would be the creation of a new commission when we are standing on the brink of the government abolishing many other longstanding and respected organisations, commissions and agencies, such as the National Library, the National Gallery and the National Museum. They are all in the crosshairs of the budget. We will wait to see whether that occurs, but there will certainly be some that will be dismantled or merged on the basis of efficiency and reducing red tape, regulation and duplication. Despite that, we have this bill proposing to create a brand new commission to make sure that the government can sufficiently intrude into the unions and the way they operate on behalf of their members to reduce their effectiveness. That is what will happen if the government has its way. So I call on the Senate to reject this bill and affirm the rights of registered organisations to get on with the job.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to begin today by actually agreeing with Senator Doug Cameron on one point. He said that trying to undermine democracy is one of the most reprehensible things you can do. I absolutely agree with him on that point. Our point with this legislation is to improve and enhance democracy by improving transparency and accountability. There was no argument about whether there needed to be reform in this area because, in fact, the initial bills to reform the area were put through by Mr Shorten when he was in government last year. The only problem, of course, was that they followed the usual pattern of Labor legislation, which is that the bills were ineptly drafted, hastily developed and, mostly, completely incompetently implemented. So most of the changes we are talking about this morning relate to trying to fix some of the problems that were so evident in the legislation that Mr Shorten put through.

It is probably worth just making a point about what we are looking at in the amendment bill today. It limits the obligation of officers in registered organisations to disclose material personal interests when they do not relate in any way to their duties. It removes the express obligation on officers and organisations to disclose details of any material personal interests in a matter that relates to the affairs of an organisation that an officer's relative has or acquires. It requires officers to make disclosures of material personal interests to the committee of management and for such disclosures to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting and be available upon request to members. It provides for a civil penalty for organisations or branches that fail to provide minutes of the committee of management meetings to their members. It aligns the obligations on officers to disclose material personal interests with the Corporations Act by putting in exclusions about what obligations and material personal interests are applicable and which are not. It provides that an officer is not restricted from taking part in a decision where they have a material interest if that interest is not such that it needs to be disclosed. It expands the exclusions that apply to the disclosure of payments made where they are less than the prescribed amount or where member approval for that transaction is not necessary under the current Corporations Act.

It enables the Registered Organisations Commissioner to grant exemptions from training requirements if an organisation can demonstrate that an officer has a proper understanding of their financial duties within the organisation or branch. It is a bit bizarre when you consider that the legislation as the former Minister Shorten had it drafted, given the way it read, would have required qualified accountants to go and do a one-day financial training course so that they knew how to behave when they were on the board. These are common-sense amendments to give better transparency and better accountability for registered organisations.

Certainly the coalition welcomed in principle the fact that then Minister Shorten did recognise that there was something very, very wrong within the union movement when he put his initial legislation up, but of course we had the situation where a former union boss was relying on the goodwill of other unionists for that legislation to go through. I am somewhat bemused by some of the arguments around how poor little unions run by volunteers should have the same sorts of requirements put on them as you might put on a kindergarten committee or such and that they should not face the same requirements as a corporation. I am afraid that that is not a view that works on this side of the House, and it was not a view that worked with the Australian people. We made it very clear at the last election that it was our intention that people who ran unions should have the same qualifications and the same responsibilities as people who ran corporations because, after all, it is not their money that they are playing with. It is someone else's. It is their members' money. You only have to go back to the major problems that caused then Minister Shorten to put his flawed legislation through last year—that is, the Health Services Union's problems and the resulting court cases out of that—to see one aspect of the problems that need to be so significantly addressed in this area.

One of the key components of that legislation and what happened with the Health Services Union was the inordinate delay—in fact, it was later described as such by PricewaterhouseCoopers when they reviewed it—in the hearing of that case by Fair Work Australia. It is not impossible—and certainly many people have suggested it—that the fact that the government required the vote of the alleged 'Independent' Labor member, Mr Thomson, could explain part of the reason for why that delay happened, although many other apparently cogent reasons were put up by Fair Work Australia as to why it took them years and years to go through material, which of course has since led to both civil and criminal charges. If we were looking at the Health Services Union as a one-off issue, there would not be the same need for legislation as has been required. But it is clear that there has grown up in some elements of the union movement a systemic corruption, a systemic sense of being entitled to do what they damn well like with members' fees. Certainly in some areas there was a view that the political support of the then Labor government was so much more important than meeting the needs of members.

I would like to add there that the vast majority of executives of unions are people trying to do their best for their membership and working hard at that. But to suggest that they are poor little volunteers akin to someone on a kinder committee is nonsense; it has always been nonsense. As we will now discover, many of these union executives are paid the sorts of money that would, in other circumstances, lead Labor members to talk about 'rich fat cats'. They receive the sorts of payments that senior executives receive; they receive larger pay packets in fact than members of parliament receive.

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

No! Do you know how much a union official earns? What are you talking about? You're atrocious!

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we will just continue on, Senator Bilyk. I do not—

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

Order! Senator Boyce, please direct your comments through the chair.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we all know that there are extremely highly paid union officials around, and to try to suggest that somehow we would compare unions—

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not as well paid as Arthur Sinodinos!

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to kindergarten committees is a complete nonsense.

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

Senator Boyce, please direct your address through the chair.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was addressing my remarks to the chair. I did not in any way refer to members opposite by their names or anything, Mr Acting Deputy President, so I would have thought it was perhaps more the interjectors who may have been causing the issues here, rather than my speech.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

I think Senator Cameron was listened to in silence more because people were bored by hearing the same message over and over.

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

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

Interjections are disorderly!

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The complete denial from the other side that corruption happens in any way within the union movement is just very sad. As I said earlier, I support Senator Cameron's view that democracy requires transparency, but it also requires accountability and members of many unions have not had that. We have had it in minute detail as to how that has not happened for the Health Services Union. And of course there are other unions involved, and I have just run through a small list that, coincidentally, was published in TheWest Australian today. We have the Ai Group urging the Heydon royal commission to investigate claims that unions are receiving generous and undisclosed kickbacks from income protection insurers to sign up members. We have the Master Builders wanting all payments made by employers for training by unions to be investigated. We have the fact that there are training groups set up by the CFMEU, the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, and that they lent some money to a training organisation—in fact training has been a nice little earner for unions. That is fine if what is happening is genuine training for genuine reasons. But that is not what has been happening. It is being used as a way to milk employers yet again in an apparently honest way. But of course it is not honest; it is the usual overkill and attempts at bribery.

We go on to look at the AWU slush fund scandal, which is the whole reason that the royal commission was established. We even have reports of one union official saying that many of the members of the AWU had secret TAB accounts where they could hide $1,000 or so from the missus. Now of course they were not just hiding the money from the missus; they were hiding the money from their members, from the tax office, and from any efforts that could be made to try to bring criminal charges for fraud against them.

I have mentioned already, of course, Mr Thomson and the HSU. Even more serious, and certainly a matter of great concern in my home state of Queensland, have been the apparent links between the CFMEU and organised crime. On the east coast of Australia we have recorded conversations, bank records and police files that demonstrate that major crime, bikie gangs and the CFMEU have all been working together very nicely within the construction industry. I would hope that the members opposite would agree with me that these matters need to be exposed. They have no place in Australia and they have no place within a union movement that is trying very hard to—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The senator is making allegations that have got no basis in fact. The Crime Commission appeared before the Senate inquiry. The Crime Commission, the Federal Police and the Victoria Police have indicated that there was no basis to allege this type of activity.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order. The senator is debating the issue. He has had his opportunity. He squandered it and now he has got to sit and listen.

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

There is no point of order.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is somewhat sad that Senator Cameron, who I think is a great proponent of democracy in Australia and would be a proponent of democracy within the union movement, is making what appear to be excuses for behaviour that I would have thought he would condemn. I would have thought that he would be one of the people foremost in saying, 'I want an organisation that I can be proud of,' and I very much hope that that is where we will end up with some of the inquiries that go on. But I would contend that there has been in some unions and at some levels systemic corruption, a systemic lack of interest in the rights of members, systemic indifference to the needs of members and systemic featherbedding going on. Wherever that happens, this Senate has a duty to attempt its very best to ensure that it is exposed.

I would like to look at articles out of today's paper that demonstrate that in other areas there is action taken and there is the availability of criminal and civil penalties against those who behave wrongly. We have a headline about fears that a $7 million insider trading deal involving the ABS and others is in fact simply the tip of the iceberg. That is terrible. That should not happen. But ASIC and others have the responsibility under the legislation to ensure that it does not happen. Here we have a case where it has actually come out, where the alleged offenders will be taken through the courts and forced to come up with a solution. This involved the ABS and it was found out through the auditing that went on between the ABS and other areas.

We have ASIC, the ANAO and numerous other bodies oversighting the way government departments and agencies and corporations function. But the minute you suggest that there be a similar body to oversight the way unions behave we have the most bizarre and ridiculous nonsense coming out of the opposition about the fact that these are tiny little groups involving volunteers with scarcely a cent to their name. It is just nonsense. The opposition know it is nonsense and they know that work has to be done to improve the transparency of unions.

If Fair Work Australia had demonstrated the ability to deal with these matters when they had the chance with Craig Thomson and the HSU, if we could have said, 'My goodness, that was shocking, but it is a one-off issue; it has got nothing to do with any other unions or the way any other unions function,' then that would be fine. We could say, 'Okay. Fair Work Australia should just get its act together and do better next time.'

But that is not what happened and that is not where the problems lie. I would love to be able to stand here in a few years time and say we probably do not need a Registered Organisations Commissioner anymore; the job is done. But certainly the job has not even begun yet. I would hope that the majority of members of the Labor Party, the majority of union members and the majority of members of this place would want to see the union movement cleaned up. They would want to see the same amount of accountability and transparency in the way these organisations are run as you would expect to see in any other organisation of the size.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the Liberal Party and Arthur Sinodinos!

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would suggest that we are not talking simply about whether anyone ever committed some sort of corrupt act; we are talking about the ability for the public to know and perceive that this has occurred. I think we have had some rather good examples from both sides of parliament in New South Wales of what happens when you get transparency. But I think we also need to take into account that the Independent Commission Against Corruption is not a court; it is simply an investigative body, and out of that investigation one imagines some charges may well be laid against numerous people. But simply appearing as a witness in a court, tribunal or commission is not a suggestion that one has committed a crime.

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

Neither is belonging to a union.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a crime to take 40 grand an hour!

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that, when we look at some of the other matters that have gone on—

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

Order!

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I recommend these amendments to the House. I am saddened by the fact that people who allegedly care about democracy on the other side of this chamber do not think that putting through the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 will assist the people that I understood they are here to represent. I think they need to take some advice from the people at the bottom who put them here and who support their policies. They need to genuinely behave like representatives of workers. (Time expired)

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in the debate on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013. In March last year I spoke against the private senator's bill from Senator Abetz. It was almost a mirror proposal of the one before us today. In March last year I stressed that officers of registered organisations or anyone in a position of trust misusing the funds of members or acting inappropriately, taking benefits where they are not entitled, must never be condoned. In the HSU case that sparked this debate and reactionary bill, the Fair Work Commission collected evidence and the courts have made their verdict. These trials show that there is no need for this new commissioner, that the current system is working. This legislation will not stop people committing fraud, as Senator Back alleged earlier today. The current system has found these people guilty. This legislation is simply a witch hunt, simply another way to smear working people and their unions.

It is one thing for the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, as Senator Abetz was at the time, to propose a private senator's bill that no-one supports. He wanted to make a point. He wanted to propose an idea. But there is so little support for the idea and so little policy merit one has to wonder why it is being brought back here. On the whole, employer groups and trade unions do not support these reforms. It is an idealistic approach that actually defies their own deregulation ideals.

I am a former state secretary of a trade union: the Tasmanian branch of the AMWU. I am pleased to stand up here in this place and put on record my background as a union member, as an organiser and as secretary. I do so with a strong sense of purpose; I know where I came from and I know who I represented. I know the clear intent of this bill that we debate today is not to strengthen union governance. It is not to make unions more appealing to the community in an effective way to grow membership. No, the sole purpose of this bill is to strike at the heart of registered organisations and sever the ability of honest volunteers to play their part in the governance of their union or organisation. This bill wants to make volunteering on the decision-making body of a union or employer organisation so unappealing that no-one will do it. This bill wants to destroy one of the most basic principles of volunteer organisations. The bill wants to use the improper and fraudulent actions of a handful of officials to materially weaken trade unions into the future.

On this side we want to talk about fairness in employment and industrial relations. We want to spend time promoting positive reforms, not tarring over two million Australians and their families with a brush because they want to collectively organise and negotiate for decent conditions at work.

When I spoke on the bill last year I highlighted a story of the importance of a union and the importance of acceptance of unions for a group of female workers at a factory in George Town, Tasmania a number of years ago. It was such an important story that I felt I needed to share it again. It was a small fishery and processing facility. I as an organiser was approached by some of the staff to come along and speak to the whole team. When we in the old Food Preservers' Union approached the management to come along, they were very helpful. They invited us in, they got the workers together in the lunchroom and they made us feel welcome.

The workers at the processing facility were predominantly women, all of them employed on a casual basis. The few men around were all permanent. With permanency came security but also a sense of superiority. We spoke to the staff about joining the union, and people seemed positive. We left them some information and told them we would come back the next week to talk again to those who wanted to join.

We thought that we had had a good hearing and that we would be able to offer these people the support that they needed. Unfortunately, when we left, the boss got everyone in the lunchroom and said that, if they joined the union, they would lose their jobs. Plain and simple: they would lose their job. Two women who were silent members of the union called and told us what had happened. They were worried about their jobs. A week later we went back to the factory and talked to the people again. This time, publicly no-one was interested; however, the silent members called again and arranged for us to meet with a group of the workers, and we met with the women at one of their homes. They told us of the shenanigans that went on in their workplace—one-way shenanigans towards the female workers by the men and actions that many people might not think of as wrong but as larrikinism, but there were a lot of acts that any reasonable person would frame as assault and dangerous.

The workers would be hosing down at the end of the day. One day, one of the men was cleaning down in his underwear—I do not know why. He repeatedly turned the hose on the women, who were just going about their job, and sprayed them with a high-powered hose. It was harassment. It could be viewed as assault, but it was definitely dangerous. At the factory there were only shared toilets—that is, a number of cubicles in a room. On more than one occasion some of the men would force themselves into the bathroom cubicle while one of the women was in there. It was a sick and twisted game to intimidate the female workers.

One day, it got out of hand. One of the men forced his way into the cubicle, and the woman was able to fight him off but was injured with visible bruising on her arms. She told me that she spoke to her husband when she got home that night. His first reaction was: 'Who is this bloke? I'm going to go and rip his head off.' This was a desperate reaction from someone without the means to resolve disputes through negotiation. The second reaction was: 'But you have to go to work tomorrow because we need the money.' This woman, this family and all of their workers felt they had no choice but to put up with this behaviour. We asked them, 'Why didn't you raise these matters with the supervisor?' Their simple replies were, 'We couldn't; he was one of the men involved.'

They had no recourse on their own, but they wanted to join the union. They wanted to join the union so that together they could make a change at their workplace. So we set up a picket outside the factory. We went to the Industrial Relations Commission, where we were able to run an argument for these women and lay down the facts. The commissioner found that there was clear evidence that the workers wanted to join a union, that they had been discriminated against and that they should be protected. The commissioner enforced a code of conduct for the factory management and gave the female workers in particular comfort that there were avenues for recourse if they needed to go down that path in the future.

Clearly, power structures exist across a range of situations, across a range of worksites and across a range of organisations. It was untrue in this situation in George Town that there was a mentality or a value set whereby anyone could walk into their boss's office, raise issues of concern and be treated fairly. And it is untrue for many millions of Australians today.

Unions are the staff; they are the workers joining together to give themselves some bargaining power to give themselves some cover. If there had been a union at this factory providing a mechanism for the workers to raise issues and to be listened to fairly, some of the incidents might not have happened the second, third or 10th time. In fact, they might not have happened at all.

So what will this bill do for these people? It will do nothing. It is not designed to help them. It is designed to demonise working Australians. It is designed to put doubt into the minds of non-union workers about joining a union. It is designed to continue the campaign of fear and misinformation. When workers like these women need a union and are faced with a power imbalance at work they should feel comfortable in approaching their respective union for assistance.

As coalition senators speak in favour of this bill they ignore these stories. They continue to carry the torch of yesteryear in their battle of employers versus unions. In seeking to stoke the fires of the past, the Liberal government does not seek a conciliatory outcome. The Liberal government does not seek a middle ground or their so-called sensible centre. The Liberal government does not even care about the collateral damage to their own side—that is, the potential fall in membership of employer groups—in their blind pursuit to rid the country of organised labour and to throw the corporate veil across every aspect of our lives.

There have always been different regulations and legislation for registered organisations and corporations to reflect the differences in purpose and motivation of unions, employer groups and corporations. The facts are that under Labor the financial accountability standards applied to registered organisations, trade unions and employer groups had never been higher. The powers of the Fair Work Commission had never been stronger, and penalties had never been tougher.

There are already requirements in the legislation governing registered organisations for officers to act with care and diligence, to act in good faith, not to improperly use their position and not to improperly use information they have obtained through acting as a member of an organisation. As I have mentioned, as the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Mr Shorten introduced significant reforms to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act in 2012. These reforms tripled penalties for breaches of the legislation; required that the rules of all registered organisations deal with disclosure of remuneration and pecuniary and financial interests; required that education and training be provided to officials of registered organisations about their governance and accounting obligations; and enhanced the investigative powers available to Fair Work Australia.

Without allowing time to test their effectiveness, those opposite simply seek to create fear in the community. Instead of allowing time for these changes to be bedded down, those opposite have mounted a weak argument for further change. In reality, this bill is a cruel backhanded attack on Australia's workers' rights to organise and to collectively bargain. Importantly, many of the changes introduced by Labor's reforms in our last term of government only came into effect at the start of this year. So this Liberal government, who dedicated so much energy in opposition to attacking sensible regulations, who promised repeatedly to cut the waste and who, upon coming to government, dedicated a whole day in the House of Representatives to ridding the country of regulations from before any of us were born, actually want to significantly increase the regulatory burden, leading to alleged increased costs and poorer services to members of employer groups and trade unions.

I participated in the Senate Education and Employment References Committee inquiry into this bill. The references committee really scrutinised the bill after significant flaws were highlighted during the legislation committee's inquiry. Of course, the Liberal government opposed the inquiry, and I note with interest the final three sentences of their dissenting report. The first states:

Coalition Senators are not surprised that union and employer organisation bosses aren't emphatically in support of this legislation.

This sentence highlights and concedes that the majority of submissions from trade unions and employer groups do not support the bill. However, the second and third sentences highlight the true intent of the bill and the collateral damage to the coalition's own base—employer groups. The sentences state:

That said, it is very clear that this reform is in the national interest and in the interests of honest union members who want to ensure that their money is being spent properly.

The only people that have anything to fear from this legislation are dodgy union bosses who do the wrong thing.

It is quite remarkable really. It reads as though there are many, many unions acting improperly with members' funds, but not one employer group.

Debate interrupted.