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

Labor opposes this bill. We do so on the basis of what we have just heard from Senator Brandis . The pomposity and hypocrisy of Senator Brandis talking about red tape, green tape and beige tape, talking about unnecessary burdensome laws and regulations when we have the coalition proposing the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill, which is a huge imposition of red tape on registered organisations in this country. It is a huge burden of red tape. The bill is a replica of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013, which was rejected by the Senate on 14 May 2014. The amendments circulated by the government replicate the amendments negatived by the Senate in May. The bill is unnecessary and imposes burdensome regulations on registered organisations that no-one wants. After listening to Senator Brandis, how can the coalition, with any credibility, push this bill into the Senate? Employee organisations do not want it. The trade union movement has said that this is a bad bill. Employer organisations do not want it. Every employer organisation that appeared at the Senate inquiry into this bill said they do not want it and that it is more burdensome red tape.

Senator Abetz, the proponent of this bill in the Senate, has done one thing: he has united both the employer and the employee organisations in opposition to this bill. The regulation of registered organisations in the context that this bill seeks to impose is totally unnecessary. The changes effected by Labor's Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2012 and the Fair Work Amendment Act 2013 have already strengthened legislative provisions and rules of organisations concerning disclosure and transparency of decision making.

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. It will, in fact, establish a more onerous regulatory regime on the volunteers who make up the committees of management of registered organisations than regulates the behaviour of highly paid executives on company boards. So volunteers who engage in employer organisations and employee organisations will be subject to more onerous regulation than company directors. What is this about? We just heard that pompous speech from Senator Brandis talking about getting rid of red tape and green tape, and now we have got beige tape. What a performance! Yet I am sure he did not realise that what was coming on next was the imposition of more red tape on voluntary organisations in this country.

There has been a Senate inquiry into this. The Maritime Union of Australia, when they made their submission, said:

But this is what strikes me about this legislation: most, if not all, practitioners in the field—from industrial officers through to solicitors, trade union officials and barristers—are slightly dumbfounded as to why this legislation has been introduced. The requirements are already there. They were put through in the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2012. We all took steps to comply with that. That was amended at the last minute on 29 June last year by the Fair Work Amendment Act 2013. We subsequently complied with the requirements of that Act, the deadline for which was 1 January. Now that we have all complied with that and there has been a change of government, it seems that the Commonwealth is now asking us to do a 360 and go through it all again.

That is an employee organisation's view. The employer organisation, the Master Plumbers and Mechanical Contractors Association of New South Wales said that the bill:

… will add significantly to the red tape requirements of Registered Organisations and will add significant cost pressures to the organisation related to such compliance. The inequity here is that this is not necessarily an impediment to the ability of employees of Registered Organisations to carry out their duties, but more than ever highlights the inequity in the status of Registered Organisations as compared to Recognised Organisations.

The Victorian Automobile Chamber of Commerce said:

It is fair to say, that the rights and privileges afforded to registered organisations have reduced significantly (particularly for employer organisations), while obligations imposed by the Act have increased.

The Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation said:

… the Parliament in 2012 enacted the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2012 that largely and adequately dealt with the same issues by introducing enhanced reporting and financial management standards.

Civil Air, the Australian air traffic control association said:

This is actually onerous and can only negatively impact upon the amount of time that we have available to actually undertake the objects of our registered organisation which is, principally, to promote the interests of our members.

So here we are, both employer organisations and employee organisations saying this is nothing more than unnecessary red tape. Senator Brandis in his arrogant contribution to the last bill was going on and on about unnecessary red tape, and yet the next bill that comes into this place is one that imposes more red tape on employer organisations and employee organisations. Is it any wonder that the Australian public see this government as one that is in absolute chaos and one that does not know whether they are coming or going? What a pathetic mob they are!

The penalties for maladministration of registered organisations had recently been tripled by the Labor government and there was an obligation for new disclosure requirements, and those are already adequate in addressing the deficiencies that have come to light in recent years. The changes brought about by the 2012 act should be fully implemented before any attempt is made to interfere with the governance of registered organisations. This bill is not about proper governance. It is a ham-fisted attempt on the part of the government to attack and punish people it sees as its enemies. That in attacking its enemies the government is prepared to cause collateral damage to its friends in employer organisations makes you wonder what this is all about. They are prepared to imposed significant red tape and significant compliance costs to attack registered organisations in this country.

The bill proposes to amend the act to restrict officers from taking part in decisions in relation to matters in which they have a material personal interest, require the preparation of officer and related party disclosure statements and require officers to undertake approved training in relation to their financial duties. Unlike the material personal interests of company directors, which only have to be disclosed to the board, the bill proposes that the personal interests of officers of registered organisations and their immediate families will be made public. The provisions that have been appropriated from the Corporations Act are not an appropriate model for registered organisations due to the innate difference between corporations and registered organisations.

Ai Group clearly stated their opposition to the proposed material personal interest requirements of the bill that:

The provisions of the Bill in this area will operate very unfairly on registered employer organisations and their officers, and it is essential that the Bill is amended. The Bill would impose a far more onerous regime for officers of registered organisations than what applies to directors of public companies.

It is not just the employee organisations that are saying this. This is the Australian Industry Group, one of the most respected employer organisations in the country. They go on to say that:

The regime, if enacted, would undoubtedly deter persons from standing for office in employer organisations. In practice the provisions of the Bill would seriously impede many organisations from carrying on their daily business operations.

That is how much red tape is being imposed by this bill—that one of the most respected employer organisations in the country said that this would seriously impede many organisations from carrying on their daily business operations.

The Australian Privacy Foundation has criticised the proposed disclosure regime, saying that the provisions of the bill are unnecessary, erode privacy protection and are inconsistent with the government's commitment to respecting traditional freedoms. The Privacy Foundation also said that the attempts by the government to justify the erosion of privacy in the bill as either legal or legitimate fail due to the unnecessary nature of the legislation. And I quote:

There has been no demonstration that existing law … is inadequate … that there is serious and pervasive corruption that is not being addressed because investigators and prosecutors lack authority.

So the Privacy Foundation is saying there is no need for this. They have looked at the existing legislation and they think it is sufficient to deal with any of the issues that this mass of red tape is seeking to impose on registered organisations.

There are at least three examples demonstrating how the proposed officers disclosure regime goes further than those of company directors disclosure. Directors disclosure obligations under the Corporations Act regarding material personal interests do not appear to extend to interests held separately by relatives. Disclosures of company directors are only required to be made to other directors as a mechanism for management of conflict of interest. They are not made public, and company directors are not obliged by the Corporations Act to disclose material personal interest relating to dealings that are subject to member approval.

Ai Group has also criticised the disclosure provisions because the interest covered by clause 293C are personal interests and because many officers would not be comfortable with their personal financial interests, as well as those of their relatives, being provided publicly. Ai Group noted:

In contrast, ss.293C and 293J would require the material personal interests of directors … to be distributed to all members of the organisations … as well as to the ROC—

the Regi stered Organisations Commission . In the case of the Ai Group, this would mean that they have to distribute the details of the personal interests of Ai Group directors to all members of Ai Group, and that would entail their distribution to thousands of other organisations who are Ai Group members. The proposed material personal interest disclosure regime is inappropriate and wholly unworkable because of the burden of obligations that it would place on registered organisations. The proposed disclosure regime is unfair, unnecessary and misguided, especially given that the purpose of registered organisations is to provide advocacy and support services for their membership. The effect of them would be to further dissuade and discourage members of registered organisation from nominating or participating as officers.

So the employee organisations and the employer organisations have pointed out the deficiencies in this bill. They queued up one after the other in the Senate inquiry to say that this bill is an overreaction, that it is unfair and that it is red tape of the highest burden on these voluntary organisations, and should not go ahead. And yet we have the pompous position put forward by Senator Brandis that this government—this government that is in abject chaos at the moment—does not want to impose red tape, green tape, beige tape, or whatever they call it, on organisations in this country. But when it comes to the employer organisations and the employee organisations, who come together collectively to represent their members, then the red tape is poured on—red tape after red tape in this bill. It is just not feasible to do this. It is the height of hypocrisy for Senator Brandis. Despite the personal attacks that he likes to launch into, I think he epitomises all that is wrong with this government: the pomposity, the hypocrisy and the ideological attacks on people who want to represent collectively either employees or employers—because that is what this bill does.

The Ai Group also expressed reservations as to how the proposed regime would manage the requirements placed on registered organisations. Specifically, the Ai Group raised the development and adoption of training rules required under the 2012 changes and their associated challenges, telling the education and employment committee inquiry:

For example, there are four organisations—us, the ACTU, the AWU and one other organisation which I cannot recall—that put huge resources into having their officer training programs developed and approved. There is nothing in this legislation that grants automatic approval for those training courses. We have got to again run the gauntlet with the Registered Organisations Commission. So there are some practical things like that that need to be dealt with.

Yet you get Senator Brandis coming in here saying, 'We don't support red tape; we are the great heroes for getting rid of red tape.' And yet the very next bill is simply about pouring more red tape on top of more red tape onto registered organisations in this country.

The former Labor government introduced increased regulation, increased training requirements, increased accountability for registered organisations. The registered organisations that appeared before the employment committee actually said: 'We are still trying to digest those changes. Don't make any more changes.'

The Motor Trade Association of South Australia submitted that it had already made substantial investments in board management training for its officers. The ACTU, employer organisations and individual employee organisations have made huge financial investments in complying with the 2012 bill. They were still in the process of implementing those in a practical way in their organisations when along came this government, the Abbott government, a government in chaos, a government with its ideological agenda against employer and employee organisations, trying to impose more red tape on employer and employee organisations in this country. The hypocrisy is just a bit too much to take. Senator Brandis comes in here and says, 'There will be no red tape,' and then the very next bill imposes more red tape.

This is an unfair bill. It is based on an ideological opposition to the trade union movement and even to employer organisations operating collectively. It is clear that this bill is not in the interests of employer or employee organisations. This bill is about ideology. This bill is about imposing more red tape. This bill epitomises everything that is wrong with this Abbott government. It is a chaotic bill that will not be implemented effectively. It is a bill full of red tape— (Time expired)

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too stand today to oppose this bill which is part of the government's attack on people's rights at work and reveals the government's true motives when it comes to industrial relations policy. Before the 2013 federal election, the government said that Work Choices was dead, buried and cremated. The current Prime Minister even signed a piece of paper with those very words on it—'dead, buried and cremated'.

But, just as the budget saw the beginning of the real agenda of this government beginning to shine through, we are seeing that agenda here with respect to people's rights at work. We hear repeated claims that the Prime Minister has learnt from his mistakes, that the era of good government is just starting. I think we are on day 3. Well, the Prime Minister and his government might have learnt one thing from the John Howard era of Work Choices, and that is that, if you come and attack people's rights at work, the people will fight back and turf you out. So, this time around, they are coming for Australians' rights at work in a way which is much more sly.

This bill works on one simple principle: 'We will come for the unions first so that there is no-one left to protect the workers when we come for them.' Through increased penalties and greater powers for the commissioner, it is claimed by the government and supporters of this bill that this bill will put corporations and unions on an even footing and that organisations of workers should be treated in the same way as organisations that exist to make profit. But this dismisses the clear differences between these organisations. Unions are required under the Fair Work Act and other legislation to be democratic organisations, but corporations are not. Unions are required to publish their accounts and financial returns online every year; proprietary limited companies are not. If the government were serious about putting unions and corporation on even footing, they could of course extend the current democratic and reporting requirements demanded of unions to corporations. But, no, they are not doing that. Instead, the government are saying to organisations that represent Australian workers, 'We reserve the right to micromanage you in a way that we would never dream of doing to a private company, but we will impose the same penalties on you that we might on a publicly listed company.'

The government fails to understand that organisations of workers do not exist for the same purposes as businesses. This is where the whole argument behind this legislation falls down. Businesses exist to make a profit. That is what they do and what they are judged on. Corporations law requires directors to act in the best interests of their shareholders and to continue to make a profit. Unions, on the other hand, exist to advance the interests of the people they represent. They advise Australian workers on what they are entitled to and enforce these entitlements. They stand up for Australian workers. They ensure that our lowest paid workers enjoy something approaching a decent income and quality of life. Unions fight for changes to our workplace laws not for their own benefit—and that is critical—but for the benefit of Australian workers. Unions fought for shorter working weeks. They brought us the weekend. Thanks to unions, we have penalty rates that mean that people working unsociable hours get a decent income. Unions got us annual leave. Corporations did not say, 'These are great ideas; let's give these to our workers'. Unions fought for them. In doing this, unions did not get a direct financial benefit. This is where unions and employer organisations are fundamentally different from profit-making companies—and it makes sense that they should be treated differently.

There is no need for this legislation. The current laws work. They prosecute union officials who get involved in union activity for their own personal benefit. The current laws are working. The motivation, in contrast, behind this legislation is clear. The government hopes to tie up workers and their unions in abundant amounts of red tape to stop them advancing the interests of the people they exist to look out for. There is no omnibus repeal day of red tape for unions from this government. The aim of this government, through this legislation, is to strangle our unions in red tape. This bill is a step towards the resurrection of Work Choices. The Greens will stand with unions and workers in opposing this bill.

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

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 and make the point that Senator Rice, in fact, has made the case mainly for the introduction of this bill. It is just so logical that we would serve and want to protect the very people that previous speakers have spoken about. Of course, this is part of the objective of the bill. It is also consistent with the policy that the coalition took to the 2013 election, which was based around better transparency and accountability for registered organisations. We said at the time leading up to the election—which, of course, the coalition won:

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

All of us know well the reasons why, over the last two or three years—as Senator Birmingham, who is in the chamber, is well aware, as are others who are taking note—it has become necessary for this to happen. I participated in Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee hearings, whilst the last government, the Labor government, was in power and, indeed, the minister was Mr Shorten, now the Leader of the Labor Party and the opposition in this parliament. Many of the amendments go towards undoing what were bad amendments and bad law that he introduced, which the committee at that time tried to identify. Representatives of unions and employer groups came before the committee to point out to the committee, and through the committee to Mr Shorten, just how short he was in his thinking. Contrary to the assertions of Senator Rice in the last few minutes, many of the amendments are actually aimed at undoing what was seen by union members, by representatives and, indeed, by others and the committee as being unnecessary and draconian. This bill, rightly, will reverse some of those measures.

What does the bill propose? Firstly, it will establish an independent Registered Organisations Commission to monitor and to regulate registered organisations with better investigation and information-gathering powers that will go on to the wider community, including union members. Secondly—and this is where I come to that hasty and ill-advised push by the then minister and now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten—it will amend the requirements on officers' disclosure of material personal interests and change the grounds for disqualification and ineligibility for office. We at all times said that the previous amendments were far too draconian. We thought they were unnecessary. They were not necessary; they were not wanted. Witnesses came forward to tell the committee they were not wanted. Certainly, the reports and recommendations, as I recall, of our committee pointed to that. Thirdly, the objective is to strengthen existing financial accounting disclosure and transparency obligations under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, making them enforceable as civil remedy provisions. Fourthly, the bill will increase civil penalties and introduce criminal offences for serious breaches of officers' duties as well as those new offences in relation to the conduct of investigations under the act. The bill provides for the formation of the commission and, of course, as an adjunct to that, the appointment of the independent commissioner.

It is lamentable to actually go back and reflect on what really was the laziness and the incompetence of the then minister. Basically, what happened was that the coalition announced its policy quite early prior to the 2013 election. Then Minister Shorten panicked. He in fact directed his department to try and short-circuit the whole process. He got it wrong; he did not give adequate time for consultation. He did not give adequate time for people whom he thought he was representing in this to consult and to participate. As I recall it—I think I am right—there was only a five-day period in which to examine the bill. Five days is not adequate, particularly when it was going to have the impact that it was on union officials and on others, some of them very, very well experienced already, who were going to have to be subjected to extensive training programs when already they themselves were quite expert in these areas. All that was ignored by Mr Shorten and so, therefore, it has become necessary for us in this place to bring this bill forward to give effect to sensible amendments.

In fact, at that time, as I recall, the then National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Mr Howes, was concerned for many of the elements that we are introducing into this place today. He spoke about the cancer of dishonesty and how it can corrupt an organisation. He spoke further at that time, as I recall, of the need for developing resistance to corruption at every level. The wider community agrees with this. I do not think anybody in this parliament would disagree with those points. Therefore, these amendments have a strong support, as I understand it, from members of the union movement, who do not want to see a repeat of certain events that we have seen played out over the last few years.

Mr Shorten, in his second reading speech, when speaking of levels of disclosure, made this comment:

This bill will require the rules of registered organisations to provide for the disclosure of remuneration, including board fees, of the five highest paid officials of the organisation as well as the two highest paid in each branch, to the members of the organisation.

That is not an unreasonable requirement, one would have thought.

Determining the five highest paid officials will be based upon monetary remuneration rather than non-cash benefits. However—

Mr Shorten said at the time—

where an official's remuneration is required to be disclosed, that disclosure will require non-cash benefits paid to the official to be identified.

These requirements came into effect, as we know, in the act as implemented by Mr Shorten.

I made an observation a few minutes ago about the requirements for extra training of existing officers, which had to be undertaken prior to 1 July. Today is a good opportunity to raise this. When you have a look at those training requirements and who would be the subject of these training requirements you see that, where a person has to meet certain criteria, there is no recognition of a situation where if in the opinion of the commission or the commissioner those people meet those criteria they can be exempted from a training program. But, no, so hastily were the original amendments and the original bill developed and implemented that in fact everybody, even a person with degrees in economics and commerce and accounting, would have to receive this training. We are attempting to change that with these amendments.

What is it that the coalition government is attempting to do with these amendments? The first amendment is to the disclosure requirements for officers of registered organisations to align them more closely with the Corporations Act so that the requirement to disclose material personal interests applies only to those officers whose duties relate. The second amendment, and the interesting thing, for which I would urge the support of all parties, will remove the more invasive disclosure requirements for officers of registered organisations, which were introduced by the Labor Party when it was in government. Indeed, officers are required to report even their family members' material personal interests. Therefore, contrary to the contribution by the previous speaker, this is not something that is trying to add an undue burden on an officer; it is removing the undue burden on that officer. It seeks to remove the invasive disclosure requirements associated with reporting family members' material personal interests. Anyone who opposes that really is saying that we do need to know all of the personal interests of family members. Who is a family member? Is it a spouse, dependent children, non-dependent children, brother-in-law? These requirements are not necessary. They should never have been in there. Witnesses from both sides of the equation—witnesses from employers and from unions, as I recall—appearing before the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee pointed this out to the committee. My recollection, through you Madam Acting Deputy President to Senator Fawcett, is that we also saw the stupidity of that. Anyhow, that is what we are seeking to do. I will be interested to see whether the Labor Party and their associates the Greens actually support us in that. Thirdly, we seek to align the material personal interest disclosure requirements for officers of registered organisations with the Corporations Act, so that disclosures need to be made only to the governing body and not to the entire membership. Once again, one would have thought that if we wanted to attract good people to represent their members that would be a plausible amendment to make.

When it comes to payments, we seek in these amendments to limit disclosures of related party payments to payments made above a certain prescribed threshold, and with certain other exceptions based on the exceptions in the Corporations Act, for members' approval of related party transactions. Surely, anybody who is a member of a registered organisation would want to know about, would want to have access to and would want to be able to comment on and see transparency in disclosures of related party payments made above a certain prescribed threshold—all independent, independent commissioner, independent commission.

The amendments also provide the Registered Organisations Commissioner with the discretion to waive the training requirement for officers of registered organisations if the committee is satisfied that they fully understand their financial duties because of their level of qualification. Imagine someone with the qualifications of Senator Whish-Wilson, who is in the chamber, with his wealth of experience in financial management and accounting, being subjected to some training regime. This amendment is entirely sensible and entirely reasonable. It should have been there if Mr Shorten had been doing his work and not trying to rush to gazump and pre-empt what the coalition was bringing to the 2013 election. The amendment aims to give the commissioner discretion. We see recognition of prior learning in the education space. It is something we all know well. All it is doing is saying that we want to give an independent commissioner the discretion to waive the training requirement, to allow people to submit to the commissioner where their qualifications lie and have the commissioner determine whether in the commissioner's view their qualifications, existing training and what they are doing at the moment are satisfactory to meet the statutory requirements.

In answer to the comments made earlier, it is not apparent to me that these amendments are harsh or that they are trying to take away the rights of people. It seems to me that what they are about is to return to a level of normality.

It is the case in today's world that we have the tools; that is a much more educated community of people—a community of people who are able to access the tools they may need to determine the eligibility, the viability and the integrity of organisations of which they are members. These organisations use funds provided by those members. Therefore it seems to me that the clauses contained within this amendment are entirely reasonable.

In discussions I have had with members of the community, they have commented, 'Why don't they already exist? Would we have had the problems that have occurred in several unions over the last three or four years if this legislation was already in place?' I think that is an interesting point for those on the other side of the chamber to reflect on. Nobody wants to see the reputation of any registered organisation or any union being dragged through the mud, as they have been; no-one wants to see the reputations of corporate organisations—companies et cetera—dragged through the mud. That does not do anybody any good; that does not do the economy any good; that does not build confidence in the Australian community. It seems to me that any legislation that is aimed at fairness and aimed at removing unnecessary and ridiculous restrictions—like having to declare family members' interests or like having to subject yourself to a level of training when you probably could have written the textbook in the first place—is reasonable. It seems to me that these are entirely sensible amendments, and I commend them to the chamber.

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

This is the third time in my recollection that I have risen to speak in opposition to a bill of this kind. The first time was March 2013 in response to a private senator's bill introduced by Senator Abetz while Labor was in government. Then the coalition tried with a government bill in May last year, which I am pleased to say the Senate defeated. Now we have the third iteration of this ideologically-driven nonsense. It is starting to feel a bit like Groundhog Day.

Each iteration of the bill has been different, but the fundamental purpose has been the same: drown trade unions in red tape and impose exorbitant penalties so that it becomes impossible for them to do the work that they are expected to do—which is to represent the working people of Australia. And this is from a government that promises to reduce red tape, except when it comes to trade unions. No, they pretend to stand up for the trade union members, saying they are trying to increase accountability and transparency, but is it in the interests of Australian workers who join a union to have the costs of their union membership driven up by unnecessary red tape? Is it in their interests for the fees they pay each year to be rendered worthless because the union they joined cannot effectively operate? What the Abbott government is really doing is standing up for their mates in big business by attempting to stifle unions.

Australia's trade unions do important work: they represent their members in courts and industrial commissions; they campaign for policies that improve the conditions of working Australians; and they engage in collective bargaining on behalf of their members. As much as those opposite would hate to admit it, the Australian trade union movement is the largest membership based social movement in this country. In fact, the great standard of living that most Australians enjoy is due, in large part, to over a century of hard work by Australian trade unions to ensure that our prosperity is shared by all. This does not sit well with the Abbott government, which would rather see Australia's economic gains go to their mates in big business than shared with the workers who helped to create it. The problems of corruption and malfeasance within some unions is a convenient excuse for those opposite to introduce legislative changes, which they know would effectively silence the union movement, including the overwhelming majority of officials who are doing the right thing by their members.

The government promised during the election that they would regulate registered organisations in the same way as corporations. But with this bill they are breaking that promise, because this bill imposes more onerous reporting requirements and tougher penalties on registered organisations than those imposed on company directors. Let me highlight a couple of areas where the bill is tougher and more onerous than the Corporations Act. In a number of sections the level of penalty could be seen as inappropriate and as going further than the Corporations Act. For example, there is a maximum penalty of $85,000 for failing to respond within 28 days to a member request for a statement of membership. The duties in sections 285, 286, 287 and 288 of the RO Act are based upon sections 180, 181, 182 and 183 of the Corporations Act. The maximum penalty for a 'serious contravention' of 180, 181, 182 or 183 of the company act is $200,000 for an individual and $1 million for a body corporate. This is less than the amount in the bill and, unlike the Corporations Act, the penalties in the bill would automatically increase as the value of a penalty unit increases.

Much higher penalties are applicable to breaches that are a 'serious contravention'. Defining a 'serious contravention' as a contravention that is 'serious' does little to clarify that meaning, despite a similar provision appearing in section 1317G of the Corporations Act. Given that the definition of serious contravention draws on section 1317G, there is a notable distinction in the Corporations Act: under certain conditions no pecuniary penalty may be awarded at all. It is apparently proposed that penalties be available irrespective of whether the conduct concerned meets the definition of a 'serious contravention'.

Before I explain what else I find so fundamentally wrong with this bill, let me outline a couple of things that I believe everyone in this place can agree upon. We agree that problems such as corruption and misappropriation of funds have taken place in some trade unions. We agree that it needs to be stopped and that those responsible need to be brought to account under the law. Where we on this side of the chamber disagree with the government is with their suggestions that corruption is somehow endemic to the union movement, or more widespread than other areas of society, such as business. We have had a multitude of examples in the financial industry of investors losing their money on the basis of misleading advice—collapses such as Westpoint, Timbercorp, Storm Financial—yet this government has sought to water down financial protections. On the other hand they sought to establish a royal commission into union corruption. It is just another example of the twisted priorities of this government. We know that those opposite will try to claim that Labor, in opposing this bill, is not serious about keeping trade unions accountable, but that is just their rhetoric.

Let us not forget that it was the Labor government which introduced laws to strengthen the accountability framework for registered organisations. In fact, the penalties we introduced in 2012 were tougher than those introduced by the current Prime Minister when he was the minister for workplace relations. Quite frankly, I find utterly offensive the suggestion that my Labor colleagues and I would condone corrupt behaviour. I am not convinced that those opposite think that this bill is the solution either. It is quite insulting to hardworking union officials and employer organisations to be told that their work is corrupt, and that they might condone that corrupt behaviour. The government are simply using this as a convenient vehicle to introduce a regime which they know would hobble the union movement. We already have an accountability framework for registered organisations that works well. Under the Fair Work Act, officers of registered organisations already have fiduciary duties similar to those of directors of corporations. The act requires officers to disclose their personal interests, and ensures officers disclose when payments are being made to related parties. The act also requires officers to exercise care and diligence, to act with good faith, and to not improperly use their position of political advantage. The act prohibits members' money from being used in internal elections. It allows for criminal proceedings to be initiated where funds are allegedly stolen or obtained by fraud, and the Fair Work Commissioner can share information with the police as appropriate. In the words of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in their submission to the Senate inquiry on the previous version of this bill: 'The bill creates a large volume of new regulation (without evidence of its necessity), and a new Commonwealth regulator (where one already exists).'

Mr Deputy President, the onerous provisions of this bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, would have the effect of dissuading people in both employer and employee organisations to take on official responsibilities in a voluntary capacity. Many registered organisations rely on their members to take on volunteer roles, but the penalties in this bill could make taking on these roles too much of a risk. Even if the bill did what the government claimed it did and regulated registered organisations in the same way as corporations—and I have already given a couple of examples of how that does not work—it should be recognised that registered organisations are not like corporations. Their officials and board members do not receive the sort of remuneration that corporate executives and board members receive. Unlike most corporations, many registered organisations have elected officials who work without remuneration in a voluntary capacity. The rights and interests that members of registered organisations have are fundamentally different to those that shareholders have in for-profit corporations. Registered organisations are established to provide advice and representation—not to generate wealth for shareholders, like for-profit corporations.

This government bill currently before us is just a solution looking for a problem. We know that this is in the line of introducing Work Choices, whether it be by another name or not. If the government is serious about not introducing Work Choices, I would suggest that they release the terms of reference of their review and that they immediately rule out cuts to penalty rates, allowances, the minimum wage and other working conditions. Before the election, Mr Abbott promised he would not touch workers' conditions. He promised he would not cut wages or penalty rates. If that is the case, why will the government not release the terms of reference for its proposed review of the Fair Work laws? They have already released the terms of reference for their review into the workplace relations system. The Abbott government must immediately rule out attacking Australian workers' penalty rates, their minimum wage and other working conditions; conditions which trade unions work day and night to make sure are available for those that need them. I also have to ask: if the coalition are intent on proceeding with this bill, why have established the royal commission? What is the point? If the government that promised to 'end the waste' is pouring millions of dollars into solving a problem they already claim to have the answer to, what is the point? Why are you doing it?

Just earlier, in debate on the previous bill, we heard Senator Brandis talk about reducing red tape—in fact, he waxed lyrical for about 20 minutes on the importance of removing commas. All I can say is, the government really need to focus on what is real, and to stop their ideological arguments. By bringing this bill forward before the royal commission is concluded, I wonder if the government is just trying to pre-empt the outcome. The fact that we are debating this bill today exposes the whole royal commission process as the expensive, political witch-hunt that we always said it was. This is a government which came to power on a promise of being an adult government—we have all seen how that has turned out! They came to power on a promise of ending waste and mismanagement. Yet this government wastes time and taxpayer dollars on fighting ideological battles. Maybe if they had spent the last 520 days—before 'good government' began—working, and focusing on issues that were important, and caring about the people of Australia rather than trying to attack the trade unions, they might have done a bit better.

We all know what the end game in all of this is. As much as the Abbott government tries to claim that Work Choices is 'dead, buried and cremated', we know that they cannot help themselves. We know that it will come back in some way, shape or form. Work Choices is in the coalition's DNA. It doesn't matter whether Tony Abbott, or Malcolm Turnbull or Julie Bishop is leading the government; they all support the removal of the rights and conditions that unions have fought for decades—cutting the minimum wage; stripping away penalty rates; undermining collective bargaining. The coalition really do not like that part about collective bargaining. The job of reintroducing Work Choices would be so much easier if they weakened the union movement, and we know that this is what this bill is designed to do.

We know the coalition is intent on destroying unions, but I am curious to know whether they have also considered the impact of this bill on other registered organisations—the ones that represent employers. The previous iteration of this bill—the 2013 bill—was referred to a Senate inquiry, which heard from a number of registered organisations, including employer representatives. I know that employer groups and unions are at odds on a lot of issues, but the registered organisations that submitted to the inquiry were united in their opposition to the bill. Let me remind you what one of those organisations, the Australian Industry Group, said in their submission:

The Bill would impose a far more onerous regime for officers of registered organisations than what applies to directors of public companies. The regime, if enacted, would undoubtedly deter persons from standing for office in employer organisations. In practice the provisions of the Bill would seriously impede many organisations from carrying on their daily business operations.

I doubt that the Abbott government would have ignored the concerns of employer groups when they introduced this bill, and I am sure the employer groups were banging on the door. But I presume that they just considered them to be collateral damage in their crusade against the union movement. We on this side are concerned for the viability of registered employer organisations, as we are for registered employee organisations. After all, they have an important role to play in our workplace relations system in helping employers to understand their rights and their obligations under the law. It is interesting to note that the employer representatives that support the bill, as they supported the previous versions of this bill, are not registered organisations—bodies such as the Australian Mines and Metals Association, for example. What might be more interesting is to see how these organisations might react if the government proposed to regulate them in the same way.

The claim that is often levelled at Labor members and senators by the coalition is that we do not care about business, we do not understand business, we have not run businesses. Let me tell you that I was self-employed for 10 years. I know what it is like, and I understand the challenges and pressures involved in that area. I grew up in a family where my mother ran small businesses for 35 years, and two of my brothers are currently in small businesses. So I do understand the concerns of small business, and I find it offensive that those on the other side, who think they are to the manor born, constantly run this line which is so inaccurate. The fact is that they just do not understand how to use public policy to grow the economy and to create jobs. When we were in government we faced the biggest downturn in the global economy since the Great Depression, yet we created almost one million jobs over a period of six years. Under this government, 40,000 Australians have joined the jobs queue and it is harder for young people to find work than it has been since the 1990s. Such is the frustration of the government at their lack of economic strategy being exposed that they are looking for scapegoats.

I have spoken in this place on various bills about how this government has tried to blame unemployed Australians. The government has suggested that job seekers are not serious about finding work, and all they need to do is to be punished a little harder. Now, with this bill, they have locked their sights on another old enemy—the Australian trade union movement. Everybody knows that the focus of this government is all wrong. We all know they should stop focusing on their internal leadership squabbles. They could at least talk to each other and get their lines right. Maybe they could show a little more tenderness. They should stop focusing on savage cuts and attacking the living standards of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in Australia. And they should stop fighting old ideological battles as they have been doing, and are continuing to do, with the reintroduction of this bill. Stop scapegoating. Get on with developing some serious solutions for the economy and stop wasting the Senate's time, as you did earlier, with 20-minute tirades on how important it is to take commas out of legislation.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to be supporting this bill today, and I do have to respond to some of what Senator Bilyk had to say.

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

Of course you do.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do, Senator Bilyk. I have to respond to some of it because, firstly, most of it did not make sense, and I want to go to where it did not make sense. It is important because I think the reason part of Senator Bilyk's response did not make sense is that the Labor Party do not really have anywhere to go on this. They are pretending that they are opposing it because it is just an attack on the union movement—in Senator Bilyk's words—or that it is an attempt to bring back WorkChoices. If you look at the bill, you will see it is absolutely nothing of the sort. It is actually doing what people such as Paul Howes agree with, which is to focus on those who do the wrong thing and to make sure there are strong safeguards and strong penalties. This is so we can have confidence that the majority who do the right thing are not labelled as wrongdoers, as fraudsters—like the minority of leaders, not just in unions but also in other groups ,who do the wrong thing, who rort members' money. If we are going to have a debate about this, let's talk about the facts of this bill. Do we actually agree—and this is the question at the heart of this bill—that people who deliberately rort members' money—

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

No, we do not. I just said that!

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, that is at the heart of this bill. The heart of this bill is to ensure that there is a robust regime to ensure that those types of people are brought to account. It is not against the average, hard-working union official who is doing the right thing. They would have absolutely nothing to fear from anything in this legislation. I agree with Senator Bilyk that the majority do their best and are not seeking to rip anyone off. They would have absolutely nothing to fear. But we have senior judges such as Federal Court Judge Anthony North saying that the penalties under the current act are 'beneficially low to wrongdoers'. Let's reflect on that for a moment. Federal Judge Anthony North has said the penalties you are supporting are beneficially low to wrongdoers.

Let's ignore the fig leaf that the Labor Party has tried to use to cover their opposition to this legislation. If the Craig Thomsons and the Michael Williamsons of the world do the wrong thing—and in some cases they can be criminally prosecuted—and if judges like Anthony North say that the current penalties are beneficially low to wrongdoers, then I think the Australian people would look at legislation and say, 'Why wouldn't you want to fix that situation?' Why wouldn't you want to say to the community, 'We have zero tolerance for this kind of thing?' Occasionally, and sometimes too occasionally, we see people doing absolutely the wrong thing, and we should condemn it, and there should be a robust regime and robust penalties that provide a very strong deterrent and bring those people to justice. Surely that is something we should be able to agree on here.

Senator Ronaldson interjecting—

Indeed. If you are voting against this, you can make all the arguments about things that it is actually not about, things that it does not do, but that is fundamentally what you have to answer. Paul Howes said:

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

The reality is I do not have any issue with increasing the level of requirements and penalties on trade unions for breaching basic ethics like misappropriation of funds.

And who would disagree with that? Who would reasonably disagree with that? Paul Howes, prominent union leader, has said he does not have any problem with having reasonable penalties.

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

Former!

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, at the time he said it, he was a prominent union leader. I do note the comments of Senator Polley that Paul Howes is no longer one of theirs.

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

Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that the good senator was misleading and was defaming the words that I said, so I want to correct the record.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is for me to decide, of course, and it is not a point of order, Senator Polley. Senator Seselja, you have the call.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy President, I do appreciate that. It is interesting that they would distance themselves now from Paul Howes and say that he is not one of theirs, that he is no longer a senior union official, so it does not matter what he thinks on the matter. Well, they were happy for him to help knife the Prime Minister and they were happy for him to be a factional leader who no doubt supported a number of their preselections in this place. But if he agrees that wrongdoers should be brought to justice, well, he is no longer one of theirs; he is no longer in the labour movement. That is interesting. I certainly would not agree with Paul Howes on many things, but I would have thought he does have some authority to speak as a senior representative—now a former senior representative—of the Australian union movement. People like Paul Howes and Justice Anthony North say that something needs to be done. Justice Anthony North says that the penalties are too low, and Paul Howes says, 'I've got no problem with having better penalties, reasonable penalties, penalties that are more reflective of the seriousness of some of these offences.' Let's be clear: while not all registered organisations are large, many are. Many manage significant funds. So the potential for wrongdoing is serious and therefore the responsibilities are high. I think this is an absolute fig leaf.

Senator Bilyk was saying, 'This is just about an attack on the unions,' but then she contradicted herself by saying that it also applies to employer groups. So, if it were actually about attacking unions, why would it also include employer groups? Again, your argument very clearly falls down. In fact, your argument fell down as you were delivering it, as you contradicted yourself: it is all about unions, except it is also about employer groups. Well, it is actually about wrongdoers. It is about saying, 'If we can say to company directors that there will be serious fines and, in some cases, criminal prosecutions for serious wrongdoing as company directors, then why can't we say that to registered organisations? In many cases, they are very large organisations with large membership groups and large amounts of funds at their disposal. I would have thought that a reasonable person would look at this and say that that is reasonable—that those who do the right thing have nothing to fear and that those who do the wrong thing should have something to fear, and we should ensure that penalties are commensurate with the wrongdoing in particular cases.

Unfortunately, we do see examples where some organisations are out of control. I will give some examples. We saw eight days of unlawful industrial action by AMWU and CFMEU on a WA site—the Woodside LNG project—in 2008. CFMEU officials threatened to stop work at a Lend Lease site in Adelaide if the union flag was not flown: 'If you don't put it up there—' the union flag on the crane—'we'll bring back 10 brothers tomorrow and stop the job.' There were alleged threats of retaliatory, disruptive industrial action if a Darwin building firm did not give in to CFMEU demands. A WA unionist unlawfully told CFMEU union members to stop work five times at the Probuild construction site in Perth and unlawfully coerced a subcontractor to enter an enterprise agreement with workers. Just this year we saw a Western Australian union boss fined 35½ thousand dollars for bullying workers and threatening to have one contractor's workers thrown off every construction site they were on in Perth if they did not participate in a strike. There are some things I agree with Senator Bilyk on, and one of those things is that the majority of union officials are not in that category. But, unfortunately, we have serious examples of officials who absolutely do the wrong thing.

This legislation is about ensuring that we have law and order in all aspects of our community. Law and order should not stop at the worksite. It should not not apply on building sites, as we have seen in some cases around the country. That holds business back. That holds back the ability of business to be profitable and to employ more people—and in the end that hurts workers; that absolutely hurts workers.

If you are genuinely pro worker, then you would want to have a regime in place that discouraged the Craig Thomsons of the world from rorting union members' funds. You would want to have a regime in place that made it harder for another Michael Williamson. Those are two examples that absolutely appalled all of us. HSU members—hardworking union members and, in many cases, low paid—expect that as a result of paying their union dues they will get fair representation. I am not anti union. I was a member of a union when I worked as an employee of Woolworths. I was a member of the STA. There is nothing wrong with unions, in my opinion. They have a place. They have an important place. But, if individuals in registered organisations, be they employer groups or unions, do the wrong thing, they need to be held accountable. We need to have a robust framework that holds them to account so we can restore balance and fairness to the system.

Let us go to what the bill actually does—

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

Finally! Finally, we get to the bill.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I have been responding to what Senator Bilyk said and talking about all the things that it does not do. It does not bring back Work Choices. It does not go after people who do the right thing. It goes after those who do the wrong thing.

The bill establishes an independent watchdog, the Registered Organisations Commission, to monitor and regulate registered organisations, with enhanced investigative and information-gathering powers. It amends the requirements for officers' disclosure of material personal interests—and related voting and decision-making rights—and changes the grounds for disqualification and ineligibility for office. It strengthens existing financial accounting, disclosure and transparency obligations under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act by putting certain rule obligations on the face of that act and making them enforceable as civil remedy provisions. It increases civil penalties and introduces criminal offences for serious breaches of officers' duties, as well as introducing new offences in relation to the conduct of investigations under the registered organisations act.

That is what the bill does. It does not do anything that Senator Bilyk claimed in her speech. I am not sure if she has read the legislation—

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

I have, actually.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

but it does not do any of that stuff. It does not bring back Work Choices. It does not go after those who do the right thing. It goes after those who do the wrong thing.

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

It's the way you want to bring back Work Choices.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk again says, 'This is the way you want to bring back Work Choices.' Under her theory, the secret, cunning plan to bring back Work Choices is to go after rotten officials! That would be the way to bring it back! I would have thought there would be bipartisan support for that. It is not a return to Work Choices or anything else. It means ensuring the public can have confidence that there is a proper regulatory regime in place so that those who do the wrong thing will be held to account, such as those who, in that minority of cases—that small number who put a stain on all other representatives—instead of doing their jobs diligently for the benefit of those that they represent, seek to enrich themselves through rorts. Surely, we should all be able to agree on that. But it appears, as we debate this legislation, that we cannot. We cannot agree on something that seems fairly straightforward to me.

The introduction of a registered organisations watchdog will ensure governance of these organisations is kept to a high standard, and a robust compliance scheme will deter wrongdoing and promote good practice. This watchdog will also have the capacity to lead better and more thorough investigations of misconduct. The new Registered Organisations Commission will have the necessary independence and the powers it needs to regulate registered organisations effectively, efficiently and transparently.

I have referenced the HSU scandals: the Fair Work Australia investigation into the Health Services Union took far too long, and the ensuing legal proceedings remain ongoing. A KPMG review of Fair Work Australia's investigations into the Health Services Union identified shortcomings in the conduct of those investigations. Again, surely we would all want to see little more efficiency in the way these things are investigated. That is fair to the accused and to those who have allegedly had wrong done to them, because when these things are not investigated properly and efficiently—if they stretch out for years—that is not fair to the accused. If you are innocent and you are being investigated and it takes years and years to resolve, that is unfair to you. It is certainly unfair in a case where wrongdoing is not proven. It is unfair to those who are seeking redress. It is unfair that it would take so long to get justice in those cases. I think that is another aspect of this legislation which is important.

The commission will have the power to commence legal proceedings and refer possible criminal offences to the Director of Public Prosecutions or law enforcement agencies, as is appropriate. The bill also ensures there are appropriate sanctions against efforts to hinder or mislead investigations. Again, I would think that any observer with common sense would look at that and say, 'That seems a reasonable safeguard to ensure that investigations can occur and that we don't have someone trying to block those investigations, so the commission can thoroughly investigate the alleged wrongdoing and get to the bottom of it.'

I do not know whether or not this legislation will have the numbers in the Senate today. I know that the Labor Party is going to oppose it; I know that the Greens are going to oppose it. I think that is unfortunate. If the Senate does block this legislation it will be a genuine case of obstructionism.

There are many things we disagree on; there are many contentious things. When we debate budget changes they are difficult and we all understand that. Presumably, we are trying to get to the same goal. But I understand the contentiousness of that. But I do not see why this legislation would be contentious to any reasonable person. I do not see what would be contentious to a reasonable person, in saying, 'Yes, we've had some problems. Are they isolated cases? We certainly do not believe they represent the majority, but we know of some very serious wrongdoing.'

Senior judges have identified the fact that the penalties are simply ridiculously low. They favour wrongdoers. So some people have absolutely done the wrong thing where the penalties, at least according to some senior judges, are too low. You have senior union leaders like Paul Howes, saying, 'I don't have any problem at all with there being proper penalties, proper oversight and a proper regime for the minority who do the wrong thing.'

I would say to those considering how they are going to vote on this bill: are you really doing the right thing by your community, by hardworking men and women in Australia, who, in some cases, have been ripped off, if you leave a regime which makes it easier for them to be ripped off? Are you really doing the job of representing your community? I would have thought that a common-sense look at this legislation would say that it is fair, it is reasonable and it absolutely deserves to be supported by the Senate today.

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

May I say at the outset that I am a very proud member of United Voice. Prior to coming into the Senate and, prior to being a proud senator for the state of Western Australia, I was an elected official of that union both at a state level and, in the latter part of my career with United Voice, as a national official. I can assure the Senate that I took my responsibilities as an elected official very, very seriously. I can vouch for many members of trade unions who take on elected positions that they take their responsibilities very seriously.

Let me also be very clear, because you will not hear it from those opposite, and I want to make this point at the very beginning of my comments today on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, make no mistake: the Labor Party has no tolerance for corruption by union officials or officers of employer bodies. We have said that over and over again. Not only have we said it but, when in government, we demonstrated that we were very serious about living up to that commitment.

When we had the Senate inquiry into this bill, before it was amended, all of the union officials who appeared before us made that same statement during the inquiry. Labor supports tough penalties for those who break the law. Not only do we support it but we have demonstrated it. We have demonstrated that appropriate regulation for registered organisations is a good and proper thing, including a properly empowered regulator and consequences for those who do not follow the rules. We support that.

Labor, both in government and in opposition, continues to be committed to ensuring financial accountability of unions and employer organisations. That is why, when we were in government in 2012, we put forward laws to toughen the existing financial transparency and disclosures by registered organisations.

What are those laws about, because you will not hear it from that chaotic, dysfunctional Abbott government opposite? You will just hear spin and mistruths. Currently, under Labor's legislation, the regulation of trade unions in Australia has never been stronger. Accountability has never been higher. The powers of the Fair Work Commission to investigate and prosecute for breaches have never been broader. And, as we heard from Senator Cameron this morning, Labor tripled the penalties, which means they have never been tougher.

Before I became a senator, when I worked as an elected official for United Voice, these laws impacted on United Voice. We had to get ourselves trained and had to change the way we did a whole range of things in order to comply with these laws. So I have direct firsthand experience, unlike anyone over there on the government side, that these laws work. They put in place absolute transparency and if that is not demonstrated then there are tougher laws. I lived under this legislation; I have direct experience of how tough it is.

We hear those opposite talk about the HSU matters. Let me say what the act already does. Registered organisations already prohibit money from being used to favour particular candidates in internal elections or campaigns. That has been a law for a very long time, but of course you will not hear that from the government because they want to put spin around it. Whenever the government are in trouble in this place, they come in here during question time and what do we hear with their dorothy dixers? We hear demonising of trade unions because they hate the way trade unions can talk to their members and can listen to their members' concerns about the harsh, cruel Abbott government. They hate that. Anything the Abbott government can do to demonise trade unions, to make life tough for trade unions, even at the expense of their business mates, they will do. Make no mistake. That is all spin on the other side.

We have in the act a law which says that you cannot use members' money to favour particular candidates in eternal elections or campaigns. The registered organisations act already allows for criminal proceedings being initiated where funds are stolen or are obtained by fraud. The registered organisations act already ensures the Fair Work Commission can share information with the police as appropriate, and the registered organisations act already provides for statutory civil penalties where a party knowingly or recklessly contravenes an order or direction made by the Federal Court or the Fair Work Commission under the registered organisations act or the Fair Work Act. Those penalties are already there and that toughness is already there, but of course you will not hear that from the Abbott government, because the bill before the Senate today is not about toughness and transparency; it is about making life tougher for trade unions. In doing that with their right-wing, Tea Party ideology, they have also hooked in their business mates. Their business mates are not happy either.

Under the Fair Work Act officers of registered organisations already have fiduciary duties akin to those for directors under the Corporations Law. We already have that. Make no mistake: government senators will try to stand in this place today and say that we somehow do not, but we do. Those are the facts. The act already requires officers to disclose their personal interests. The act already asks officers to disclose when payments are made to related parties. And the act already requires officers to exercise care and diligence, to act with good faith and not improperly use their position for political advantage. It is not surprising therefore that Labor senators should question the motives of the Abbott government and their reasons for introducing these reforms before the Senate today.

Labor will oppose the bill before the Senate today—and sensible senators will also oppose it—because it just goes too far. It demonstrates the ideology of the Abbott government: its right-wing, Tea Party agenda. The bill also highlights the chaotic and divisive nature of the government. It shows that it is not prepared to trust anyone. It just furthers the mistrust that community members have in the government. The dysfunction of the government is well and truly on display. The Abbott government has demonstrated time and time again that it does not like trade unions. And it does not much like Australian workers. It demonises shipbuilders, claiming—as the government did prior to Christmas—that you would not trust them to build a canoe. What a disgraceful statement that was and, rightfully, that minister has been thrown onto the backbench. Fancy pretending to be a government that supports Australian workers and making that claim, which will remain on the Hansard forever and a day in this place—saying to those shipbuilders: 'I wouldn't trust you to build a canoe.' No wonder the Abbott government's popularity and the Prime Minister's popularity are dropping in the polls, when they can so flippantly make that type of comment.

The government's agenda is to make life harder for workers and their representatives in whichever way they can. A demonstration of that is to point to this unnecessary bill, which Labor will not support. When in government we set very high benchmarks for trade unions and registered organisations. Let me talk for a moment about the registered organisations. If you listen to the Abbott government, you would think it is all about unions. You will not hear government senators talk very often about employer organisations. You will just hear them trying to demonise trade unions in this country. When they talk about ordinary Australians, it is almost as if they are drawing a distinction between ordinary Australians who are members of trade unions and another group of ordinary Australians who look upon trade unions as somehow evil or with horns growing out of their head. That is the sort of message you will get from the Abbott government.

Let me talk about who the government is seeking to demonise. Trade unions and employer groups both rely on volunteers. During the Senate inquiry, we heard evidence from employer groups and trade unions about their volunteers. What these two organisations have in common—trade unions and employers—is that, without volunteers, those organisations will simply cease to exist. When you look at United Voice, my trade union—and it is not much different to all the other trade unions in Australia in terms of the way it has been set up—you will see that most of the office bearers are volunteers, as they are in other unions, but you will not hear that from those opposite. We heard evidence from employer groups. I will certainly stand corrected on the record. I think it was AiG who told us that they rely on vast numbers of volunteers. Possibly 80 per cent of the people who run that organisation on behalf of small businesses in this country are volunteers.

The legislation that is before us today seeks to impose great barriers on volunteers. We heard employer groups during the Senate inquiry tell us that it would be very hard for them to attract volunteers when they would have to sit down and go through all of the requirements that volunteers have to undertake. I am not stepping back from the tough legislation that Labor put in place. But this legislation that the Abbott government has put in place that seeks to attack trade unions at the expense of their business mates will impose much tougher penalties and much greater responsibility in terms of disclosing transparency and so on.

As I go around the state of Western Australia I see that there are chambers of commerce in our small country towns which usually consist of one or two or three volunteers. Make no mistake, the Abbott government is seeking to penalise those small country employer associations by imposing much greater red tape. Of course, you will hear from the National Party senators today that that is a good thing. So I say to those out in the bush, to those employer associations in the small rural towns in Western Australia, it is the National Party, which actually does not represent the bush anymore, which has imposed this much greater level of responsibility on your organisation.

What we know about volunteers in our community, whether they are in the metropolitan area or the country, is that they usually volunteer to do other things. They might be volunteering to be an official and take up an official position on a trade union or on their local employer association, but those people will be active in the playgroups, in their football clubs, in their netball clubs and in a whole range of other areas. These are the ordinary Australians that the Abbott government is seeking to impose much greater responsibility on.

This morning in this place on another bill I heard Senator Brandis say that the Abbott government was absolutely determined to reduce red tape, green tape and beige tape, a new colour of tape that we heard about from Senator Brandis today. Perhaps Senator Cormann might tell us later on what beige tape is, but that has been added to the list. I am not sure who beige tape strangles—no doubt we will hear about that from the government—but there is a new colour of tape added. What Senator Brandis said is that Australian businesses yearn to be free of that red, green and beige tape. But the Abbott government, in pursuing this harsh, overburdensome legislation, is imposing greater red, green and beige tape. Perhaps it is just red and beige—I think I understand what green is. So it is attempting to impose red and beige tape on employer organisations.

We heard from another government senator who said that Australian businesses, employer organisations and unions did not want to be dragged into the mud. Yet what do we see from the Abbott government when it is in trouble, when its popularity rate is at the lowest level in our history? Every day in this place during question time, with its Dorothy Dixers, we see it demonising and dragging trade unions into the mud. We get the backbenchers asking Senator Abetz a question which seeks to drag a trade union into the mud.

These are just two very small examples where you cannot trust the Abbott government on anything it says. The mistrust the Australian people have of the Abbott government is at an all-time high, and ordinary Australians who are members of trade unions also mistrust the government. I can assure the Abbott government that the nurses, the cleaners, the teachers, the early childhood educators, the hospitality workers, the metal workers, the construction workers—ordinary Australians who turn up to vote—who volunteer for their trade unions in an elected capacity do not support this legislation.

Labor's legislation is still being bedded down. There has been no review or consultation of that legislation. Interestingly, in the time between when this bill was put forward and it finally got to this chamber to be debated, we had that great proclamation from Prime Minister Abbott Monday week ago. 'I'm going to listen,' he said. If he were really listening he would have gone back, looked at this Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill, looked at the evidence that we heard in our Senate inquiries and said, 'Hang on a bit. This is not supported by my employer mates, and it's not supported by trade unions.' Nobody gave evidence that they supported this current bill that is before us. Labor has said that is just weasel words from the Prime Minister. He has no intention of listening, because if he were really listening this bill would be taken back to the drawing board. In fact, if he were truly going to live up to his words that he was listening then this bill would be put on the scrap heap.

Monday must be the day the Prime Minister makes new proclamations because this Monday he promised good government. Now, I am not quite sure when good government is going to start. He did not give a time. Maybe it was Tuesday. But we are yet to see good government in this place. There is no good government. Quite frankly, what was he doing from September until this Monday, because we have not seen good government by his very own admission? Good government would not impose this ridiculous, right wing, Tea Party, antiunion legislation. It would not, because we have tough penalties in place. We have a judicial system which can prosecute people who are alleged to have undertaken criminal activity, which has a range of actions, and that is actually what has occurred in this place.

The government is not listening, the Prime Minister is not listening, and I think he is on his last legs. Mr Turnbull is still sniffing around, as is Ms Bishop. We have not yet seen good government in this place, and this bill will not be supported by Labor.

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

I am a little disappointed to yet again be standing on my feet, fighting for fairness for Australian workers and Australian businesses. Senator Lines, when you talk about fairness, I congratulate you for stating the fact that you think we have actually got it right when the unions and the employer organisations both think that we have not quite got it right. That is definitely not running a union-bashing exercise. It is actually a policy setting that is just about a sweet spot when you are very much mired down in the complex and partisan space of industrial relations.

I will go to the consultation that the minister, whilst he was the shadow minister in opposition, undertook in developing this particular policy initiative. Indeed, Senator Lines knows all too well the level of consultation we have had on this particular piece of legislation since she and I have been chair and deputy chair on the Senate committee that has been charged numerous times as Labor has subverted the process of the Senate and sent legislation off to the references committee, simply to stall and to hear once again the bald-faced rhetoric of the ACTU and co trotted out.

I really do think it is pretty rich for those opposite to stand up and talk about the benefits of a strong trade union culture in this country and the strong governance within trade unions. While Senator Lines was doing the right thing while she was an organiser and a governing member of United Voice, we know the reality is that that is not always the case. Union members across this country have not always been able to have that confidence in the governance structures of their unions. And it is not just union members; it is anybody that is part of a registered organisation. A member of a registered organisation that has paid fees to somebody else to advocate on their behalf should have complete confidence that those people are using that money to fight for the things which they were employed to do.

I commend the minister for bringing this forward. As we know, it is about industrial matters. Registered organisations represent views, and, as in industrial relations, these are usually polarised views. Every time we bring this forward we have a similar debate. I am really disappointed that the Labor Party cannot actually see that we have found the sweet spot. So when they look at registered organisations, they say, 'This is a union-bashing exercise.' Actually, as of 17 October 2013 there were 112 registered organisations listed with the Fair Work Commission, of which 67 were employer organisations and 45 were employee organisations. If anybody is being bashed with this legislation, it is actually the employer organisations. So I think that is actually quite a fallacy.

We have heard government senators here today provide a litany of examples of governance structures within a variety of unions misusing the trust of honest working Australians. When opposition senators—and I assume Green senators will follow in trot—stand up and actually critique our government as being antiworker, I say it is nothing of the sort. It is this government—and this minister—that is actually the best friend that the Australian worker has ever had. We are focused on making sure that our economy is strong enough to provide more jobs. It is all very well having a strong trade union movement and very well having fabulous OH&S laws, but if you ain't got a job you can't be safe at work. So we are actually really keen on ensuring that our economy provides those opportunities for the hardworking Australian worker to get on, get a job, buy a home, provide for their family, travel and live a full and prosperous life. That is exactly what our government is on about. I am sick to death of opposition senators, and members in the other place, painting us as anything other than the best friends of the Australian— (Quorum formed)

I just wanted to quote from the minister's second reading speech where he makes it clear that the legislation before us today is actually in line with community expectations. The community expects that those in positions of governance, those advocating and working for others—whether they be employee or employer organisations—have a duty and a responsibility to treat that relationship as sacrosanct. We make no apology for treating employer and employee registered organisations the same.

Senator Lines talked about there being no consultation. I do not know how we could have any greater example of consultation in policy development than in this particular piece of work. In constructing the policy, the then shadow minister went out and spoke to a range of stakeholders, not just the usual suspects but the public, states and territories, the union movement and employer groups, to come up with a response that built on the work of the former government and on Shorten's work, hoping for a bipartisan response so that workers and employer organisations could have confidence that both sides of politics would treat that relationship between member and registered organisation as sacrosanct and would be prepared to stand up and ensure that illegal behaviour was not welcome in that relationship. During the consultation, suggestions were made on how to improve the policy. Do you know what this government did? It listened. It did not start listening on Monday; it listened when it received that feedback. This policy was updated and the legislation was amended. I commend the minister for having an open ear and fair heart when he approached this matter.

We had public comments and Senate inquiries. We also had the Labor Party in the last iteration saying, 'We cannot actually send it back to the legislation committee. We will send it off to the references committee,' in a highly unorthodox operation. I want to read some of the coalition dissenting report to the Senate for those senators who have not read the completely partisan work of the Education and Employment References Committee into this piece of legislation. It makes comments around the waste of resources and states that the opposition and their Green partners are determined to obstruct this government's fair plan for workers in Australia by sending this legislation off to another Senate inquiry even though weeks previously we had finished an inquiry into the legislation. The dissenting report says:

The Green Labor Alliance’s decision to re-refer this legislation appears politically motivated and diminishes the standing of the Senate committee process.

They are working hard for 'the man' but they are not working hard for the men and women who pay the dues of that man. They are working hard for the men and women who control their various preselections.

It must be preselection season for them to be up here spouting which union they are proud to be an organiser or member of instead of focusing on what the good people of Australia have sent us all here to do, which is to focus on them and not on how to get preselected. While we are trotting out our union credentials, I was a proud member—indeed, the president—of a student association and had to come here and advocate on their behalf. I absolutely have seen some fabulous volunteer paid union officials and I have also seen some terrible ones. I can remember a trip to Canada by some Melbourne uni student officials that was taken on student funds. You would not have even known they had gone when they went off on their little Whistler skiing holiday. So I think it is very, very important that we have some rigor in the system and that we make the whole system transparent and accountable.

The only people who have something to worry about are not Senator Lines, United Voice and those who are the good, decent representatives of the hardworking Australian people but those who are not. None of those opposite can stand here before us today and defend that kind of behaviour. It is a tragedy, because it diminishes the role of the trade union movement in our society. It diminishes the capacity of trade unions to advocate and play their role in our civil society. By not supporting a transparent and accountable system, building on the work of the previous government, they are only doing themselves and their union mates a disservice. We need to ensure that bribery, intimidation and shady financial practices have no place in modern industrial relations. That is all we are seeking to do. It is a tragedy that those opposite will not assist us in that effort.

When we look at the appropriateness of policy development—and I have spoken briefly on that—I get very, very tired of being told that we are bashing business. We have got the balance right in this. This is a fair policy. I really would encourage Labor and the Greens to support fairness in the workplace, treating employer and employee organisations similarly.

When we look at the actual legislation before us, we can see that it is a hefty document. It has been amended, and it has been amended appropriately according to recommendations by others. But there are some key questions that we need to answer. What oversight will there be of the commission? When we are worried about the commission acting inappropriately, that will come back to the parliament. The commission will be required to report to the Minister for Employment annually on its activity. That report will be tabled in parliament. Members and senators will have an opportunity to examine and critique that work. As is common with statutory office holders, the minister will be able to give directions of a general nature to the commissioner. They must be in writing and will also need to be tabled in parliament. This is about transparency. It is about accountability. It is about shining a light on industrial relations practice and ensuring we can have confidence but, more importantly, ensuring that the hardworking men and women of Australia can have confidence.

When we look at the types of registered organisations that we are talking about, we have the usual suspects of the trade unions but we also have AiG, VECCI, Master Builders et cetera. The Victorian farmers federation is a registered organisation. I think when the hardworking and fabulous farmers across regional Victoria, whether they be dairying down south or growing fruit in the centre, elect men and women to be their commodity chairs, to represent them to Victorian politicians and, indeed, come knocking on my door—and, I hope, on your door, Senator Urquhart—advocating for their needs and interests, they should be able to have every confidence that they are not going to be ripped off and that those people who are representing their interests are going to be held to account similarly to how company directors are held to account. That is not an unusual request and, again, I cannot believe that you are actually going there. But, then, maybe I should not be surprised.

I am a Victorian senator and I do not want to get partisan in this debate—I really do not—because this is about finding that sweet spot in a policy-setting sense, which I think we have done. But we have seen trotted out trade union hack after trade union hack after trade union hack on the opposite side to talk about this. On the Greens side, I must say, they are not trade union hacks; they are fighting for the hearts and minds of the trade union hacks, and that is a very real battle going on in the back streets and trades hall bars of every capital city across our nation at the moment.

Joe Bullock (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The assertion that members on this side of the house are trade union hacks I find offensive.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator, for your contribution. It is not a point of order. The senator may continue her remarks.

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

After the recent election in my home state, when you say that you are actually not held to ransom by your pre-selectors and that you are not here only standing up for them but not the members they represent, I find it a little hard to believe. I wish it were otherwise, but when I look at the first order of business in my home state of the new state government, it is— (Quorum formed) They are so ashamed, and so they should be, of the newly elected CFMEU government in my home state of Victoria that they call a quorum and abuse this place before I can let the chamber know what the first order of business was for the CFMEU state government in Victoria. It was to repeal legislation that we put in place to ensure that those illegal protests, not legal protests but illegal protests, where people are actually threatened and businesses are prevented from being able to conduct themselves and employ people and grow the economy, can be asked to move on by police officers. That is the very first thing—of all the challenges facing my home state, that is the No. 1 order of business for the CFMEU Premier, Daniel Andrews, in my home state of Victoria.

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

What a disgrace!

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

What a disgrace! So, for those who are obstructing buildings or traffic and causing people to have a reasonable fear of violence, 'No problem,' says the new Premier, 'Bring it on. Even if it is illegal and you are threatening and intimidating people, carry on'—nothing to see here from the CFMEU Premier, Daniel Andrews, in my home state of Victoria. It is absolutely abhorrent.

So do not come in here and pretend that you are seriously advocating for the workers of Australia or that you are here on their behalf. You are not; you are here on behalf of your union masters and your pre-selectors, and it has always been thus and ever will be. If you were not, you would join us to support a piece of proposed legislation that puts employer and employee organisations in the same position—no discrimination; everyone gets the same deal. The left is unhappy; the right is unhappy. We have got this one right. We have consulted and amended. Do the right thing by the good people of Australia and get on board. If only you had the courage of your rhetoric, but you do not.

I made reference earlier to the Abbott government being the best friend the Australian workers ever had. At the moment we have upwards of 600 jobs a day being created. We got rid of the carbon tax, which in, say, the food-processing industry and the agricultural industries that I care about out in regional Victoria had a significant impact. The AMWU knows that. They know that at SPCA and they know that at Murray Goulburn, but they do not say it. So, if you really cared about the workers of Australia, you would get on and support this legislation.