Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Abetz. Can the minister update the Senate on the government's moves to bring transparency to the governance of trade unions and so-called slush funds? Can the minister also explain any opposition to introducing this greater transparency?

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

The government believes that honest union members have the right to know what union bosses are doing with both their own membership money and any money acquired from other sources. That is why the government has introduced the registered organisations bill. I simply ask: is the reason for previous opposition to the government's reforms in this area that two-thirds of Labor senators are former union officials and that slush funds are rife in the union movement?

In Victoria this year alone we have seen revelations concerning no less than six Victorian Labor candidates who are beneficiaries of union slush funds. Labor's member Melham set up a clandestine slush fund that ripped off honest AWU members and bankrolled his political career and lifestyle. According to The Age, Mr Melham squandered $40,000 on swish international and local restaurants, hotels, alcohol and electronics. On 14 May 2013 Industry 2020 made a $20,000 donation to an organisation operated by Labor MP Marlene Kairouz and Kirsten Psaila, a Labor candidate. On 16 December $1,550 was made available to Natalie Hutchins, Labor's shadow minister for industrial relations. And so the list goes on. Labor's shadow Attorney-General, Martin Pakula, received at least $15,000 from a secret slush fund—what has been described as a significant cost to the honest members of the National Union of Workers.

Why is it that Labor senators have opposed reforms that would introduce greater accountability to union affairs and slush funds? The Australian people are waiting for the answer. (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister further inform the Senate of the extent of any activities by union slush funds in my home state of Victoria?

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

Indeed it could be said that Victoria is the slush fund capital of Australia. In 2006 the National Union of Workers' slush fund known as IR 21 paid $10,762 to the campaign of Labor's Martin Pakula, a former NUW official. On 11 April 2013 it made a $1,500 donation to Mr Pakula's Lyndhurst SEC. When questioned about these shady transactions Mr Pakula claimed:

Any donations made to me by IR 21 or anyone else were properly disclosed …

The problem is that the $3,400 donation made to his campaign on 9 August 2006 was not in fact disclosed. The submissions of counsel assisting the royal commission noted that there is no explanation as to why this amount was not recorded in the donations part of the ledger. This is the legacy that we need to clean up. (Time expired)

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Will the minister advise the Senate on the current level of disclosure and transparency that applies to such slush funds?

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

The levels of transparency and disclosure that apply to slush funds are dangerously low. Unlike unions, such funds are not required to publish annual financial returns. They are not required to report to union members on their activities or explain where they get their money from.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

You can hear the chorus of the ex-union officials. Chances are all of whom operated a slush fund. But they exist in the shadows with no scrutiny or accountability.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Pause the clock. Minister!

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

I ask Labor senators: what is it that Labor senators have against scrutiny and accountability of large sums of money?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Continue the clock.

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

Why do they wish to shout me down? What are they wish to keep all this money in the dark? With the government's legislation, senators will finally have the opportunity to put the interests of honest union members ahead of the interests of union bosses and Labor candidates who have ridden into parliament on the slush fund gravy train. I simply ask honourable senators: instead of interjecting, accept the will of the Australian people and the union members to clean up this mess.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pause the clock. Point of order, Senator Macdonald?

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order on disrespect to the chair. It is certainly better having Senator Wong with her back to you than shouting all the time, but she has shown complete disrespect to you with her back to you most of the time during those questions, organising some stunt to take place now, I assume. I would ask you to bring her to order.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order, Senator Macdonald. Minister, I believe you have concluded your answer.