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

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted

The speech read as follows—

I rise to reintroduce the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 because this Government stands on the side of the honest worker and is absolutely committed to ensure that we never again have a situation, like occurred in the Health Services Union, where union bosses can rip off union members.

The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill implements the Government's election commitment outlined in the 'Policy for Better Transparency and Accountability of Registered Organisations'. It will enhance the accountability and transparency of registered organisations by broadly aligning the obligations of office holders, penalties and powers of the regulator with the Corporations Act 2001.

The bill increases civil penalties and introduces criminal offences for serious breaches of officers' duties similar to those applicable under the Corporations Act. The bill also establishes the Registered Organisations Commission as independent but within the Office of the Fair Work Ombudsman.

Most importantly, especially for those opposite who claim this to be a partisan venture, the policy principles behind this bill are supported by Simon Crean, Martin Ferguson, Robert McClelland, Paul Howes, Ian Cambridge and Steve Purvinas—all doyens of the labour movement. The bill also addresses concerns raised in the Federal Court by Justice Anthony North who said that the penalties under the existing legislation are 'beneficially low to wrong doers'.

This legislation will bring penalties in line with the Corporations Act because we believe that there is no difference between a dodgy company director ripping off shareholders and a dodgy union boss ripping off members.

I want to absolutely stress, that the only people who have anything to fear from this bill are those who are doing the wrong thing. I also want to re-affirm that the Government firmly believes that the vast majority of officers of registered organisations do the right thing.

I note that the Senate earlier this week defeated this bill, but it is important to recognise that the debate was quite bizarre in that the primary reasons that the Opposition opposed the bill are in fact actually issues already enshrined in the legislation as it currently stands today and is in full force. The onerous disclosure obligations that currently exist were in fact imposed by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Minister for Workplace Relations and will be removed under the Government's bill.

For example, the Government moved amendments to remove unnecessary disclosure requirements on officers and organisations that were first included by the previous Government's 2012 amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009.

They align disclosure requirements more closely with long standing governance and accountability provisions under the Corporations Act 2001.

We have moved amendments to section 293C, which relate to disclosure of material personal interests of officers. This will significantly reduce the number of officers who will be required to make disclosures. The amendments ensure that:

-arise because they are a member of a registered organisation and the interest is held in common with other members;

-arise in relation to their remuneration as an officer;

-relate to a contract the organisation is proposing to enter into that needs to be approved by members and will only impose obligations if approved by members; or

-if the interest is in a contract with a related party and arises merely because the officer is on the Board of the related party; or if the officer has given standing notice of their interest.

These are all issues that were identified by Labor as problems. They are problems that exist in the law as it stands today. They are problems created by Labor and we will fix them with this bill.

As my colleague the Minister for Employment has said previously, there is only one major party in this place that supports a clean and honest union movement. And it is not the party of the unions. In opposing this bill in the other place, the Opposition demonstrated that it has learned nothing, that its first instinct is to protect crooked union bosses rather than honest union members. This bill, had it been in place, would have protected union members from the likes of Craig Thomson and Michael Williamson. By not supporting the bill, the Opposition is leaving union members at the mercy of future Craig Thomsons and Michael Williamsons.

I won't seek to cover the bill in further detail given that this is a reintroduction. I simply call on all Members to support honest union members and honest union bosses by supporting this bill.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

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

Labor opposes the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2]. This bill is a virtual replica of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 which was rejected by the Senate on 14 May 2014. It is also a virtual replica of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, which was rejected by the Senate on to March 2015. The only difference is that this bill includes government amendments to the previous 2014 bill that were agreed to in the House of Representatives. This bill is unnecessary and imposes burdensome regulation on registered organisations that no-one wants—employee organisations do not want it and employer are organisations do not want it.

This bill epitomises the government's determination to destroy effective collective bargaining and effective trade unionism in this country. It demonstrates clearly that the extremists are in control in the coalition. We have Senator Abetz, a work choice warrior, pursuing this bill to try to stop workers having access to effective trade unions in this country. We saw what happened when this government had control of the Senate. They attacked workers' penalty rates, they attacked their annual leave loadings, they attacked their conditions. We only have to see what they are doing at the moment without the control of the Senate, they are proposing to increase the working hours of public servants in this country. They want to remove conditions from the Public Service in this country. They want to weaken bargaining and union representation of workers in this country. They want to change the higher duties qualification for public servants in this parliament. They want to change personal and carers leave for public servants. They want to attack the trade union movement and workers every opportunity they get. Nothing could epitomise that more than this bill and the actions that the cleaners in this parliament are having to take this week to protect their wages and conditions against attacks on the cleaners of this parliament. These are some of the weakest people in the parliament, with the weakest bargaining capacity. They are some of the people who need support to get decent wages and conditions. Some of the cleaners are working two to three jobs to keep food on their family's table, and yet this government attacks them by cutting their wages.

Look at Hutchison ports where, until Senator Abetz was forced into an embarrassing reversal, he basically indicated that sacking a worker by email or text message was okay. He had to retract that and move away from that, basically after providing what his real position was.

These people are extremists. These people do not care about workers' rights in this country. These people do everything they possibly can to diminish workers' capacity to balance up their bargaining power against the boss. That is what it is all about.

Look at this royal commission that they have established—a royal commission that is clearly exposed as a political attack on the trade union movement and their political opponents. That is what this government are about; they are about a naked attack on their political opponents. They use a royal commission and put their mate in as royal commissioner. Their mates go down and sit in that commission, attacking the Leader of the Opposition and attacking trade unionists on the floor of the royal commission. This is the same royal commissioner who accepted an invitation to go to a Liberal Party fundraiser. That is the type of behaviour that this government undertakes, and this legislation is part of that general attack on workers' rights to bargain in this country.

If you look at the ABCC: thankfully, this Senate has again stopped the attack on workers' rights in the building and construction industry. They have set up a Fair Work Building Commissioner who is biased, who is incompetent and who attacks the workers in the industry at every opportunity. This is a government which have absolutely no understanding of fairness and no understanding of the need for collective bargaining in this country.

They have established a Productivity Commission review to try to give them cover in order to cut the penalty rates of workers in the hospitality and retail industries. The Productivity Commission was cover—nothing more than cover!—to come out and say, 'Cut the penalty rates of workers in retail and other areas! Cut the penalty rates of some of the lowest-paid workers in the country!' And we know that is what this government want to do.

They think this country can become more productive by forcing workers into servitude. They think this country can become more productive by cutting wages to the lowest they possibly can. They think this country can become more productive by forcing workers to rely on tips, as workers in the United States of America do! This is a government that is completely out of touch with ordinary Australians—absolutely no idea what it means to struggle to put food on the table, to buy their kids schoolbooks, to put the kids into school uniforms and to send them off to school. They have absolutely no idea. All they want to do is act on behalf of their big business mates and act on behalf of their mates who do the brown paper bags in front of their Bentleys in Newcastle, to get their support for re-election. That is what this government are all about. No-one should have any misunderstanding about what this attack and this legislation are about.

They scrapped the low-income superannuation benefit for some of the lowest-paid in the country. Everybody knows that the lowest paid will need more support and more help to get a decent retirement—a retirement with dignity. But what do this mob do? They cut away at their capacity to get a decent retirement.

They have made a submission to the national minimum wage review, which basically said to give them nothing—give the lowest-paid in this country nothing! They are a government completely at odds with fairness and equity. They are a government which cannot be trusted. They cannot be trusted. If you look at what they said before the election in terms of industrial relations, in terms of taxation, in terms of funding for the ABC and in terms of pensions, then what have they done? They have gone back on every promise they made to the Australian electorate before the last election.

And then they brought about a budget that has been universally condemned—a budget that was about looking after their mates with their fat wallets at the big end of town and coming after workers and pensioners in this country. Well, this bill is another part of the push by this government to suppress workers' rights and to suppress workers' capacity to be able to bargain effectively against employers that want to reduce their wages and conditions. It has nothing to do with productivity; it has nothing to do with oversight of the trade union movement and it has nothing to do with decency for workers in this country.

Ten coalition MPs are on the public record in calling for cuts to penalty rates. I remember when I was on the job as a fitter in the power industry and in the shipbuilding industry. I needed my penalty rates to pay my bills, to pay my rent and, eventually, when I got a house, to pay my mortgage. The penalty rates were important!

This bill will weaken the organisations that will help workers maintain and improve their wages and conditions and protect their penalty rates in this country. This is another example of a coalition government that has no care for ordinary workers in this country, a coalition that will simply deliver for its big business mates whenever it possibly can.

And yet on this bill Senator Abetz has done something that I did not think would be possible in this term of government. He has actually united the trade union movement and employer organisations to say that this bill is unfair, that this bill is not appropriate. I was a member of one of the governing bodies of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union; I was a fitter; I was on the governing body of the union. The coalition is saying that I should have been treated and workers should be treated the same as high-paid executives on the boards of companies. It is an absolute nonsense.

Not one union who made a submission to the inquiry on this accepted the proposition that a worker, a volunteer, on a governing body of a union was the same as some high-flying executive on the board of a company—not one. Not only didn't the unions accept that position; the employer organisations would not accept that position either. The employer organisations drew attention to the fact that they had many volunteers on their governing bodies who were not being paid and should not be subject to the same checks and balances that are on high-flying well-paid professional people on the boards of companies. It just does not make sense. It is not what should happen. But this is about the political ideology, the extreme ideology, of the coalition, who will not even accept a bit of fairness about workers are represented.

The AIG have said they oppose this bill. They say:

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. 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.

This is the AIG, the Australian Industry Group, one of the biggest, most respected, most influential employer organisations in the country, and they say: 'This is crazy. This is not what should happen. You will stop people volunteering to come on the governing bodies of the Australian Industry Group and employer organisations.'

That is exactly the same submission we received from unions and their representatives. Unions were saying: if you start to take penalty provisions against ordinary workers—who could be cleaners in Parliament House but on the board of a governing body like United Voice, the union—then they would be subject to the same penalties as a very wealthy, professional, former executive who happens to be on the board of a company. They do not match up. It just does not make sense. That is why the Australian Industry Group is saying: 'Nonsense! This is nonsense. It should not be done.'

The Australian Privacy Foundation in their submission says:

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

Except for extremists such as Senator Abetz on the government side—those on the government side that want to destroy effective trade unionism in this county, those on the other side that want to diminish the wages and conditions of ordinary workers—no-one believes that this bill is an appropriate bill. The employers do not believe it; the employer organisations do not believe it; the trade union movement does not believe it; the ACTU does not believe it. the Australian Privacy Foundation in their analysis say that it is flawed. This is a bad bill from a bad government. That is the bottom line. It is about their ideology.

And it is not just the Australian Industry Group who oppose this. The Motor Trade Association of South Australia—I do not think you would call them some kind of communist group undermining the country—say this is not on, that you need amendments to this bill, and that the bill as it stands should be opposed. The Motor Trade Association of South Australia go through all of their problems with the bill.

This is a bad bill. The South Australian Wine Industry Association—I think Senator Edwards might be on that board or might be involved with them—criticised the alignment of directors' responsibilities. And they basically say they are a not-for-profit incorporated association and that the role of their board members cannot be directly compared to listed public companies.

So you cannot compare the work of a volunteer—a cleaner on the board of their union, a fitter on the governing body of the AMWU or an electrician on the governing body of the CEPU—with the professional people like ex-directors and ex-managing directors of companies, who are on boards of companies who are there for a profit. One is a voluntary organisation and the other is an organisation for profit. And to try to compare them is nothing more than an attempt to destroy effective organisation in this country.

Let me tell you that without an effective trade union movement in this country workers would end up like workers in America in the retail sector, where they have to depend on tips to get a decent living wage. That is what would happen. You would see workers not be in a position, as eminent economists have said, to have some countervailing force against the employers in this country. There would be no countervailing force because you would not be able to have effective organisations, and workers' wages and conditions, penalty rates, shift allowances and annual leave loadings would disappear. That is what this mob is about. Make no bones about it: it hates the trade union movement and it hates workers getting decent rights. That is what it is about. This bill must be opposed. (Time expired)

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

The Australian Greens oppose the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2] in its entirety. Here we are again defending Australian workers from the ideological attacks of the besieged Abbott government. We are hot on the heels of the debate this morning over the building and construction industry which, it was very pleasing to see, got rejected.

The ideological attack on workers and unions by this government is clear to see. It fits in with the union-attacking agenda of the trade union royal commission, that politically motivated witch-hunt that has been laid clear over the last week. With the royal commissioner, Dyson Heydon, having accepted an invitation to speak at a Liberal-fundraising event, the political motivation of the attacks of the Abbott government on the trade union movement and on ordinary workers is very clear.

The legislation that we are discussing today is essentially the same legislation that we were debating earlier this year and that got rejected. It got sent back. The Senate said that this legislation is unwanted and unnecessary. This bill works on a simple principle and that is, 'We'll come for the unions first so that there is no-one left to protect the workers when we come for them.' And this government is attempting to dump a mountain of red tape, unnecessary red tape, on unions to prevent them from advancing the interests of the people that they exist to protect.

From a government that claims to want to reduce red tape, the hypocrisy is appalling. Supporters of this bill claim that it puts corporations and registered organisations on an even footing, wrongly suggesting that unions and other registered organisations ought to be treated in the same way as corporations because they are fundamentally the same. This notion is completely false. It completely dismisses the clear differences between these organisations.

The government fails or refuses to understand that employee organisations do not exist for the same reason as businesses. Unions are required under the Fair Work Act and other legislation to be democratic organisations; corporations are not. Unions are required to publish their accounts and financial returns online every year; corporations are not.

If the government were serious about putting unions and corporations on an even footing they could extend the current democratic and reporting requirements demanded of unions to corporations. But, 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'll impose the same penalties on you that we might on a publicly-listed company.'

But it goes further than that. The differences go to the very heart of why these organisations exist in the first place. Businesses exist to make a profit; that is what they do and what they are judged on. And Corporations Law requires directors to act in the best interests of their shareholders and to continue to make a profit. But unions exist to advance the interests of their members and, in so doing, to help all workers.

Unions advise people of their rights and entitlements at work and ensure that those entitlements are honoured. Unions ensure that the lowest paid workers enjoy something that we and others take for granted—a decent income and a quality of life. Thanks to unions we have got penalty rates that mean that people working unsociable hours get a decent income. Unions fought for shorter working weeks. Unions are responsible for the existence of the weekend. And it is thanks to unions that workers are entitled to annual leave and penalty rates. These things were not granted to workers by benevolent corporations; unions fought for every single one, and these are the things that are under attack by this government.

This legislation, by tying unions up in red tape, will reduce their ability to continue to work for the interests of their workers in the best way possible. Workers who are on very low pay and conditions and are represented by unions need their unions to be fighting at every opportunity they have for every benefit.

Childcare workers, aged-care workers, the cleaners at Parliament House—who are obviously in the news this week—and seafarers work on very low wages and conditions and are under attack, and the unions need to stand up for them to the best of their ability.

The continual attacks of this government, the undercutting of wages and conditions and the attacks on penalty rates basically will end us up with a system like the US or even worse, where conditions and pay are so bad that a worker working not just a 40-hour week but a 50-hour week, 60-hour week, working two, three, four jobs is still struggling to actually have enough money to survive, to put food on the table and to pay for their housing. We are better than that in Australia. We pride ourselves on being the land of the fair go. And side-by-side in the land of the fair go means that a decent day's work is rewarded by a decent day's pay.

The impact on our society of workers having to survive on unfair conditions and not enough pay means that their whole lives are just based around trying to survive, trying to just scrabble together enough money to be able to put the food on the table. It leaves them no ability to contribute anything else in society, no ability to be out there supporting their kids at sporting events on the weekend, no ability to contribute to community organisations; it is just a matter of survival, a matter of just struggling and scrabbling together to be able to continue living a life where they can pay the rent and put the food on the table. We are better than that. Attacking the ability of unions to fight for the rights of workers means that the very way of life of Australian society is under attack. Unions have fought for all of the conditions our workers are currently enjoying. 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.

The bill before us today is unnecessary. Current laws prevent officers of registered organisations from using their positions for their own personal benefit and those that do are prosecuted. But rather than extend the current requirements demanded of unions to corporations, the bill allows the government to micromanage unions in a way that would be unthinkable for private companies while still imposing the same penalties on unions as apply to publicly listed companies.

The motivation behind this legislation is clear: the government hopes to tie up workers and unions in an abundant amount of red tape to stop them advancing the interests of the people that they exist to look out for. And the bill is simply another stage of the government's attack on workers' rights. Just as successive budgets have revealed the true callousness of this government, this bill reveals the government's anti-worker agenda. The government may insist that Workchoices is dead, buried and cremated but it has simply learned that such blatant attacks have real electoral consequences. There is a reason that this government is in trouble because of these real electoral consequences. Its position in the polls reflects the entire anti-worker agenda; it is not in line with what the general population wants. This government is in trouble because it refuses to listen and is putting the big end of town ahead of the interests of Australians. The Greens will always stand up for the rights of workers and so will be secure in our position of opposing this bill.

Jo Lindgren (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill (No 2) 2014 and to support the workers of Australia. Transparency and accountability are the fundamental principles that allow the people of Australia to have faith and belief in the people or organisations that represent them. Transparency and accountability delivers integrity, peace of mind and, most importantly, good governance.

This bill will amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 to: establish an independent watchdog, the Registered Organisations Commission, to monitor and regulate registered organisations with enhanced investigation and information gathering powers; strengthen the requirements for officers' disclosures of material personal interests and to change grounds for disqualification and ineligibility for office; strengthen existing financial accounting, disclosure and transparency obligations under the act by putting certain rules of obligation on the face of the act and making them enforceable as civil remedy provisions; and increase civil penalties and introduce criminal offences for serious breaches of officers' duties as well as introduce new offences in relation to the conduct of investigations under the act.

Both employer and employee organisations make decisions, invest money and resources and advocate on behalf of their members. This is similar to registered companies making the same undertakings on behalf of their shareholders. Companies are bound by a number of legislative requirements and frameworks. They are there to ensure that the process by which a company operates: is within the law; is making structured sound spending or investment decisions on behalf of its shareholders; and, amongst other things, is not making decisions based purely personal gain or self-promotion. It is only a natural progression and an equitable outcome that our employer and employee organisations should be governed by the same robust governance. Those opposite will argue that tighter measures were introduced into the Fair Work Act legislation in 2012 and that the arrangement is now strong and efficient.

The front page of the newspapers across this country tell a different story, with regular, ugly news pieces about the blight of bullies, foul mouthed rogues and stand-over men within some of these organisations. The current regulations are just not working and due to that workers and businesses alike are suffering at the hands of self-regulated ideologists. As a member of a chamber of commerce, or a member of a workplace union, I would want to know who was running my organisation, what qualifications they have, what potential conflicts of interest may pertain to them, what they are being paid and where my money is being spent. This is not unreasonable nor should it raise eyebrows. Of course the chance of union bashing or witch-hunts will arise. Desperate times for those opposite call for desperate measures.

Judith Sloan, the contributing economics editor for The Australian, on 1 May 2012 wrote:

The reputational damage caused by the shenanigans at the HSU is likely to have led to a further hemorrhaging of members—this is already apparent in terms of resignations from the HSU. But the effect is likely to be more widespread. With the lack of transparency in union affairs, who can tell what other unions get up to?

The workers of Queensland deserve better than this. Sloan goes on to say:

The alternative strategy for the union movement is to embrace choice and competition and commit to high standards of governance. By providing real benefits to members in an open and transparent manner, there may be a chance workers can be attracted to join up.

As my colleague Scott Buchholz MP said when debating the bill:

… this bill enhances the union movement—in particular honest union members. What this bill seeks to rub out is what we see time after time in the Australian press: the word 'union' associated too many times with 'bullying', 'coercion', 'intimidation', 'thuggery', 'corruption' and 'royal commission' … The setting up of a royal commission stands to strengthen and enhance honest union membership.

In The Australian on 16 May 2012, Paul Howes of the AWU argued:

… 99 per cent of our movement has nothing to fear ... from more transparency, from being more open and ensuring we act diligently.

… If a dodgy boss rips off our workers … we hunt that boss down … and we make sure that they pay back to their workers what they deserve …

… And if we have a dodgy trade union official who rips off those workers, we need to hunt them down too …

During a submission to the Senate regarding the bill, the ACTU said:

The Bill is poorly conceived, badly motivated, and entirely unnecessary.

... It is … transparently political … in an area where there is no extant public policy problem.

Perhaps several front pages of newspapers and a royal commission would see that statement being revised at the moment. Again, I must draw the attention of the House and the ACTU to the current industrial affairs being played out across our nation, where a few rogues feel justified in holding the country to ransom on the back of their hardworking members' dues. I ask: does this not warrant a sensible consensus that action must be taken?

With regard to the criminal offence provisions contained through the bill, in particular proposed sections 337AB and 337AC, the evidentiary burden will be borne by the defendant with regard to their intent or reasonableness if charged under the provisions. This singular fact is itself a dissuader for one to indulge in contrary behaviour of that very type of bullying and harassment. How dare those opposite try and say that harsher penalties on people who scam hard-earned dollars from poor, unsuspecting workers are not appropriate? Go out and tell your members that they do not count, because that is effectively what you are saying. The 18 per cent of unionized workers will fall to 15 per cent, and maybe, just maybe, they will even cast a conservative vote.

The privilege that unions have of collecting money from their members to provide their members with fair representation is a myth if you are not prepared to back hard, tough laws against those delegates and leaders from the unions that seek to rort it.The workers need protection; the businesses need to employ more people; and you are available to help them here and now by supporting a bill that actually gets the bad guys. Whether they are union associated or employer associated, a bad guy is a bad guy. We make movies about it, and we all cheer when we get the bad guy. We teach our children in our homes and our schools that bad guys are just that—bad. This bill makes the bad guys pay and protects the innocent. It promotes security and encourages growth.

The Abbott government is committed to improving the Fair Work laws so that we can build a more stable, fair and prosperous future for Australia's workers, businesses and economy. The absolute need for this legislation almost goes without saying. The rorts, the rackets and the rip-offs have been in the media on almost a daily basis, and the wider community is strongly in favour of these reforms.

Until this parliament acts, Australia will not have a sufficiently robust system that ensures corruption is uncovered and eradicated before it becomes systemic—as it did in the infamous HSU case. It is simply no longer tenable to argue that the present system is adequate to deal with or discourage this kind of behaviour. Unions and employer associations play a critical role in workplace relations systems and the economy more broadly, and their members invest a great deal of trust in them. The community expectation is that these registered organisations will operate to the highest of standards. These organisations are given special legislated rights. With rights come responsibilities. We in the government believe that the majority of registered organisations do the right thing and in many cases maintain higher standards than those that are currently required.

The bill introduces legislative measures designed to see governance of registered organisations lifted to a consistently high standard across the board. A more robust compliance regime will deter wrongdoing and promote first-class governance of registered organisations. The Abbott government believes the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill will provide the certainty and high standards of operation that members of registered organisations are entitled to expect. It delivers clarity to both employer and employee organisations about good governance of their charters and restores the faith of those people most at risk: the membership. I fully support the passage of this bill.

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

I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2], and so here we go again. I do not know about you, but to me it is starting to feel a lot like industrial relations Groundhog Day. This is the fourth time that I have spoken in this place on this or a virtually indistinguishable clone of this bill. And, if common sense and rational minds prevail, this will be the fourth time that the Senate will say no to this part of the government's vindictive agenda to weaken unions that support Australian workers. This bill is identical to the one that was rejected by the Senate less than a year ago, and the amendments are identical to those that were voted out by the Senate in May 2014.

As I have addressed the specifics of this bill on three occasions so far in this place, I will not spend too much time on going over the same ground, just as the government did not spend too much time when they failed to amend this bad legislation before sending it back to the parliament. The measures in this bill have been consistently rejected by the Australian Senate and the Australian people. Let us be clear. This bill is not about improving productivity. It is not about fulfilling an election promise. It is about this government using every means at its disposal to weaken unions and, with that, weaken the Australian workers whom they represent. It is just one element of the government's agenda to decimate the power of workers and, in doing so, drive down working conditions and pay. The government wants us to believe that it is merely fulfilling a commitment made to the Australian people before the election. Of course, one glance at the government's form reveals this to be a laughable proposition, given the scant regard the Abbott government has shown for all the other firm commitments it made to the Australian people before they cast their votes in 2013.

Remember, this is the government that promised there would be no cuts to health, no cuts to education, no changes to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS. And we all know what has happened since then. Not only is it a nonsense that this government cares one ounce for honouring its promises, but this bill does not even do that. The actual promise that was made was that it would be the same for registered organisations as for corporations. This bill goes much, much further. Despite the promise that the bill would align the penalties for registered organisations with those for corporations, that is not what this bill would do. In fact, there are a number of areas in the bill which are inappropriate and extend beyond the provisions in the Corporations Act. For example, the maximum penalty for a 'serious contravention' of particular sections of the company act is $200,000 for an individual and $1 million for a body corporate. This is less than the amount in this bill. And, unlike the Corporations Act, the penalties in the bill will automatically increase as the value of a penalty unit increases. Not only that but the bill is very vague on what exactly constitutes a 'serious' contravention, other than to say that it is a contravention that is 'serious'. For these reasons, the bill is yet another broken promise from a government so far in trust deficit that even its own leader in Victoria has referred to Mr Abbott and his supporters as 'poisoning the well of goodwill for all other elected officials in the country'.

The bill also fundamentally fails to understand that registered organisations are not like corporations and their office holders are not akin to corporate executives. The truth is that, in many cases, it is rank-and-file members of unions that are elected as delegates to governing bodies. They are not there for a salary; they are there as members of the community who believe in supporting workers' rights. This bill would mean that many dedicated, ethical individuals make the difficult choice not to participate in their union. But, of course, that was always the plan: by threatening onerous penalties and obligations, the Abbott government would scare off many hardworking and committed individuals, making it more difficult for registered organisations to advocate on behalf of Australian workers. Of course, diminishing the power of unions to advocate on behalf of workers is part of the Liberal Party's reason for being. This bill directly seeks to deny Australians their fundamental right to representation by diminishing rank-and-file participation.

At this point, I want to be clear that Labor absolutely rejects any sort of misconduct, whether it be from union officials, business executives or even politicians. We support robust legislative processes that will ensure appropriate punishment is levied on those who break the rules. We will continue to fight for accountability and transparency. But we will not indulge the government's vindictive agenda of attacking the pay and conditions of Australian workers on every front. The truth is that, by any objective measure, Australia's industrial relations system is working.

Recent releases from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on Australian industrial activity show that our dispute levels are at lows we have not seen in generations. Days lost to industrial activity in the year to March 2015 are the lowest they have been since recording began. Notably, the highest number of disputes was recorded under the bad old days of Work Choices under the Liberal government. And we must not forget that these are the days that this government would love to see return. In fact, let us cast our minds back to what Prime Minister Tony Abbott said of Work Choices in March 2008:

The Howard government's industrial legislation, it was good for wages, it was good for jobs and it was good for workers. And let's never forget that.

No, Mr Abbott, we will not forget you said that, I can assure you.

Those opposite like to point to the HSU case to suggest that there is something inherently wrong with our industrial relations framework. They want the Australian people to believe that there is something fundamentally, systemically wrong with how unions work and how they are treated under the law. But the truth of the matter is: it is the case at HSU that shows exactly what we have been doing right in industrial relations. In the case of HSU, the Fair Work Commission collected evidence and the courts made their verdict, as they should do. Due process was followed, a decision was made and appropriate punishment was levied. The system worked exactly as it should. We have got the balance right, and the avenues to address corruption and misconduct are robust.

The truth is that the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act already allows for criminal proceedings being initiated where funds are stolen or are obtained by fraud. It already ensures that the Fair Work Commission can share information with the police as appropriate. It 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 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act or the Fair Work Act. Under the Fair Work Act, officers of registered organisations already have fiduciary duties similar to those for directors under the Corporations Law. The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act already requires officers to disclose their personal interests. The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act already requires officers to disclose when payments are made to related parties. And the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act already requires officers to exercise care and diligence, act with good faith and not improperly use their position for political advantage. So clearly this bill is not about better governance and accountability. We already have that. And, despite what those opposite would have you think, there is nothing in the bill before us today that would stop people committing fraud.

The bill was recently put under the microscope by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. This committee reported on the bill in its Fifth report of 2015, drawing attention to a lack of detail on new offence provisions that the minister had failed to address in the explanatory memorandum to the bill—not once, not twice but three times.

Unsurprisingly, the committee noted its disappointment at the minister's absolute and ongoing failure to address these issues. Similarly, The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights reviewed the legislation and found that the new offence of concealing documents relevant to an investigation could be incompatible with the right to a fair trial and fair hearing because it imposes a reverse legal burden of proof on the defendant, limiting the defendant's right to the presumption of innocence. This is clearly a bill that will not address the problem that it seeks to confect. It is yet another attack from the Abbott government on the ability of unions to represent Australian workers.

Of course, this is not the only avenue the government has used to try to weaken the union movement. As I mentioned earlier, there have been four iterations of this malignant legislation. But it is far from an isolated example. In fact, we have seen a concerted campaign by this government using every option available to them to weaken unions. Just this morning we saw the government's bill to re-establish the repugnant Australian Building and Construction Commission. This toxic legislation will discriminate against construction workers and expose them to harsh laws that do not apply in any other industry. Then we have the most notable evidence of Mr Abbott's campaign of vengeance toward unions: the witch-hunt masquerading as a royal commission into union activity. Again, this is in the Liberal's DNA. In fact, there has not been a Liberal government for more than 40 years that has not held an inquiry of some sort into union activity.

The Abbott government's royal commission into trade unions is the most egregious use of public money for transparently political purposes that I have seen in a while. In fact, the government is spending $80 million of taxpayers' money on this charade; $25 million of this is going directly to lawyers employed to prosecute the government's case. The Attorney-General's own former employer, Minter Ellison, does particularly well out of it, getting $17 million. What a waste of scarce resources from a government that not so long ago could not stop screeching about Australia's debt and deficit problem. But that was until they doubled the deficit—but that is a whole other story of wanton waste. Not only did they set up a wasteful commission; they also extended the commission for no justifiable reason.

If we needed further evidence that the royal commission is a politically motivated sham, then it came last week with the revelation that the royal commissioner himself, Dyson Heydon AC, was also set to be the star keynote speaker at a Liberal Party fundraiser. Invitees were clearly told that the income from the event would go to the state branch of the party for the next election campaign. Even in his own email pulling out of the event last week, Mr Heydon said that he would still be willing to appear at future Liberal events. Clearly, this revelation casts a shadow over Mr Heydon's impartiality and, clearly, it makes a mockery of the impartiality of the whole commission process.

Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, was absolutely right when he called out this 'smoking gun of political bias'. When the government was faced with this undeniable truth last week, the response was unbelievable. The Prime Minister could not even maintain a consistent position, contradicting himself over whether the event was a fundraiser or not, giving two totally different definitions. Then, Attorney-General George Brandis went in another direction entirely, saying that it was not even a party political event at all. Mr Abbott relied on the words of Julian Burnside to bolster his argument that there is nothing to be concerned about. He failed to recognise Mr Burnside's full comment on the matter, which was:

Heydon is an honourable man. I give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is honourable enough to step down.

He further outlined his position to Fairfax newspapers:

I think an honourable person caught in that position would step aside.

Truly, you could not make this stuff up. Mr Burnside's perspective was reinforced by Monash University Professor Julian Teicher, who said:

I think the problem here is that to make the findings of this royal commission as credible as possible, Justice Heydon needs to appear—not just to be—absolutely independent.

In fact, in a similar circumstance, Mr Heydon put forward a very similar point of view when he discussed the importance of appearing to be fair in the case of British American Tobacco Australia Services v Laurie. On this matter, Mr Heydon wrote:

It is fundamental to the administration of justice that the judge be neutral.

It is for this reason that the appearance of departure from neutrality is a ground of disqualification ... because the rule is concerned with the appearance of bias, and not the actuality, it is the perception of the hypothetical observer that provides the yardstick.

Clearly, this proves that Mr Heydon's position is now untenable and reveals the royal commission for what it is—a very expensive, taxpayer-funded witch-hunt. While this is undoubtedly true, we need to be aware that the motivations behind the royal commission were not just an attack on political opponents. The reality is that whatever political pain this royal commission was intended to inflict, it betrays a wider and much more malignant agenda of driving down the pay and conditions of Australian workers. By attacking the groups that represent workers, the government is also directly attacking the power of the workers to secure fair pay and conditions.

The reality is that wage growth is at the lowest point it has been in decades. Economists will tell you that we need solid wage growth if we are to keep our economy moving. Increased wages lead to increased spending, which leads to a healthier economy. The greater the spending power of the workers, the more money flows through the economy, the more profitable are businesses and the more workers they can employ. In attacking unions, those opposite are seeking to cut this cycle and further entrench inequality. In doing so, they would encourage a trend for the financial resources of society to flow to the top.

Inequality is one of the greatest issues facing our economy. When the richest seven Australian individuals hold more wealth than more than 1½ million households in the bottom 20 per cent, something has gone seriously wrong. When senior executive pays are 100 times average weekly earnings then something needs to change. But the Abbott government's union bashing agenda will only serve to further entrench inequality and to further divide our society into the haves and the have-nots.

Recent research by the International Monetary Fund found that unions are a force for greater equality. Research undertaken by IMF economists Florence Jaumotte and Carolina Osorio Buitron found strong evidence that a decline in unionisation is directly related to the rise in incomes for the richest 10 percent of peoples. They saw that a drop in union membership is correlated with steep increases in income at the top and a growing gap between those with wealth and the working poor. Of course, it makes perfect sense.

In many industries, it is only through banding together that workers can overcome inherent power imbalances and negotiate fair outcomes. Lower union membership reduces workers' bargaining power, which means that executives and shareholders can get higher returns if workers do not have the power to secure fair pay. This lack of bargaining power also feeds into a growing inability to influence corporate decisions, which can further entrench benefits for those at the top of the company hierarchy at the expense of workers.

The working poor are an increasing and shameful reality in this country. The minimum wage is failing to keep pace with inflation while executive salaries continue to rise. But those opposite are doing everything they can to attack Australian workers. In fact, from the time they got the keys to the ministerial wing, those opposite have done everything they can to achieve just this. They took away pay rises for childcare workers. They axed pay rises for aged care workers. They announced the sacking of 16,500 public sector workers despite promising only 12,000 job losses before the election. They brought in draconian offers for the remaining public servants which would strip rights out of enterprise bargaining agreements, cut conditions and drive pay rises to below inflation.

They have failed to negotiate a single public sector agreement, 12 months after 116 of them have expired. They goaded Holden to move offshore and lied about Toyota's reasons for pulling out of Australian by trying to blame it on workers and unions. They set out to sabotage the shipbuilding industry by breaking their election promise to build submarines in South Australia. They virtually froze investment and job creation in the renewables industry by breaking their pre-election promise that there would be no changes to the renewable energy target.

They reopened a 457 visa loophole, which the former Labor government closed up, to allow employers to hire an unlimited number of workers without scrutiny. They signed a free trade agreement with China, which allows companies with large projects to bring in foreign workforces with none of the requirements to consider local labour firsts.

They oversaw a Productivity Commission inquiry which has recommended cutting penalty rates, lowering minimum wages and expansion of individual contracts. They put forward coastal shipping legislation, which would see the wholesale foreign flagging of Australian ships and opens the door to massive foreign work forces taking over these ships. And when Australian jobs are on the line, as in the case of Caterpillar in Burnie and the Alexander Spirit, which was docked in Devonport, they have not lifted a finger to fight for these jobs at all.

As I have outlined, the legislation before us today is yet another example in a long list of Mr Abbott's anti-worker agenda, and I urge senators in this place to stand strong against it and vote it down.

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

First up this morning we had the bill to revive the ABCC, and now we have this bill. In addition to the Abbott government's farcical Omnibus Repeal Day, they appear to have instituted a new legislative tradition—attack the union movement day. Should this be any surprise from the sworn enemies of the trade union movement—the Liberal Party—who will do anything for their mates in big business? However, ask them to support workers, which is who the unions represent, the working people of this country—no way will they do it. As sad as I am to say it, the National Party, who once at least pretended to represent rural Australia, now just follow blindly after their Liberal masters.

It follows a pattern of behaviour of failed political attacks against workers and the union movement from those opposite. The latest failure—the Abbott government's $80 million political witch-hunt in the form of the trade union royal commission—has spectacularly failed. It has been revealed to be the partisan exercise that Labor always knew it was. It was clear from the outset, from the terms of reference of the inquiry and the intentions of this government, that this royal commission was an exercise in politics, not justice. It has been made clearer by the fact that the commission has been going beyond its brief of exposing corruption instead of starting to pursue legitimate industrial activity.

You would think that anyone who took on the job to conduct such a blatantly political inquiry would have already shown their true colours. But the fact that royal commissioner Dyson Heydon accepted an invitation to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser exposes this inquiry for the political exercise that it is. The invitation was very clear that it was a political fundraiser. It said that any funds raised were to go to the state Liberal Party, so there could have been no mistake regarding that. Justice Heydon should now seriously consider whether his position is tenable.

Of course, when the royal commission is concluded, those looking at its conclusions should do so through the prism of the political nature of the inquiry and the man leading it. Not just content with using the royal commission as a proxy for its attack on unions and workers, the Abbott government has also used the Productivity Commission and the parliament. The bill we are debating now is the fourth version of the government's attempts to silence the union movement by burying it in red tape. We have had one private senator's bill and three government bills in as many years trying to introduce this very regime under the guise of regulating registered organisations. But don't be fooled: this is not about good governance for registered organisations. There is no policy justification for this bill. It is a political exercise aimed at attacking the political opponents of the Abbott government and using employer organisations as collateral damage.

It is deliciously ironic that one of the bills listed for debate after this one on the red is the Omnibus Repeal Day Bill—a bill where the government goes through the farcical exercise of removing outdated provisions and correcting punctuation under the guise of reducing red tape. They come in. They make a huge song and dance about it They are actually removing commas and full stops and putting the correct punctuation into the bill, but they make it sound like they are doing something glorious. The government love to trumpet their pretentious attempts to cut red tape for business, but when it comes to the business of being a registered organisation they go in the opposite direction, introducing onerous requirements and exorbitant penalties for the failure to meet those requirements.

Labor, in government, already strengthened disclosure requirements, accountability and transparency for registered organisations through legislative changes in 2012. At the same time, we tripled penalties for breaches of the legislation. Let me remind those opposite, as I did in my speech in February this year, of the governance and accountability provisions that are already contained in existing legislation in the Fair Work Act and the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act. Officers of registered organisations already have fiduciary duties similar to those for directors of corporations. Officers are required to disclose their personal interests and when payments are being made to related parties. Officers are required to exercise care and diligence, act with good faith and not improperly use their position for political advantage. It is prohibited to use the funds of members of registered organisations in internal elections. Criminal proceedings can be initiated where funds are allegedly stolen or obtained by fraud, and the Fair Work Commission can share information with the police as appropriate.

These provisions are tougher than those that existed when the current Prime Minister was minister for workplace relations under the Howard government. To see that this bill is a blatant political exercise, we need only look at the timing of it in relation to the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. The government have initiated an inquiry into the governance of, and corruption in, trade unions, yet they have introduced this bill to this place four times. Why would you spend $80 million of the taxpayers' money on a royal commission if you claim to already have the answer? That is what they do by trying to reintroduce this bill.

Of course, there is plenty of further evidence that this bill is ideological. Take, for example, the fact that the government puts so much political capital into tackling corruption and malfeasance in the trade union movement, yet in the financial services area, where corruption was vastly more widespread, this government proposed legislation that would actually water down the regime designed to protect consumers. It actually wanted to water it down. You can tell that the Abbott government has overreached with this bill when, time and time again, even its friends in business have criticised it.

There was a Senate inquiry into the second iteration of this bill, the 2013 bill, and I will remind you again what the Australian Industry Group, a registered employer organisation, said about this bill. The Ai Group submitted:

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.

Just let me repeat that last line again:

… the Bill would seriously impede many organisations from carrying on their daily business operations.

It is not that this should be a surprise to any of those sitting opposite. It is exactly what this bill is designed to achieve, so they should understand that.

There are onerous requirements in this bill that will be imposed on individuals who choose, often on a voluntary basis, to dedicate their time to a body which represents employers or employees. These requirements are akin to those that would apply to the board or CEO of a major company. We should recognise that corporations and registered organisations serve very, very different purposes. Corporations are designed to generate wealth and advance the financial interests of their shareholders. Registered organisations are established to represent the rights of their members. But this regulation goes even further, extending to every branch of every organisation, regardless of size—every branch of every organisation, regardless of size. As the Australian Council of Trade Unions has pointed out, it is like saying that the rules that apply to the board of Woolworths also apply to a management committee in each individual store. It is just bizarre.

Those who take on official roles as officials and board members in trade unions rarely, if ever, receive the sort of remuneration of board members and executives in for-profit companies. As I have said before, many of them work in a voluntary capacity and receive no remuneration at all, yet the onerous reporting requirements imposed by this bill and the penalties for not meeting those requirements are so great that there are many roles within registered organisations that will simply go unfilled because there is too much risk in taking them on.

This, as I said, is the coalition's fourth attempt to kill the union movement by regulation, because the other three were most rightly rejected by the parliament. You have to wonder why this government persists with its attack on workers and the trade union movement when every attempt is a spectacular failure.

When they introduced Work Choices in government without a mandate to do so, they faced a fierce backlash not just from the union movement but from the Australian public broadly and were voted out of government. They have released a series of failed bills aimed at attacking the rights and entitlements of Australian workers, which have rightly been rejected by the parliament. Their politically driven trade union royal commission has been exposed as the expensive political witch-hunt that it is with the commissioner's acceptance—as I said—of an invitation to a Liberal Party fundraiser being exposed. One wonders what the outcome would have been if his acceptance had not been exposed. Would he have turned up? Would he have spoken? Who is to know?

The exposure of the royal commission as a partisan political exercise has absolutely destroyed the effectiveness of this $80 million attack on the government's political rivals. That is $80 million basically down the gurgler. When it comes to workplace relations, this government is like Monty Python's black knight, continuing its attack again and again despite having each and every limb hacked off. That is what this government remind me of. They persist with their ideological attacks against workers' rights and unions, even when they are routinely rejected by the parliament and the Australian public—but I suppose they cannot help it. A bit like Pavlov's dogs, who salivated every time they heard a bell ring, this government salivate at the mere thought of attacking the union movement and, in so doing, attacking the working people of Australia who are members of those unions and reintroducing elements of Work Choices. It is in their DNA.

This bill is a solution waiting for a problem. When Labor introduced the Fair Work Act and associated bills, we reduced industrial disputation, we increased labour productivity and, through later amendments, we increased compliance for registered organisations. Labor do not support this blatant political attack on the union movement, and we will oppose this bill. This is a bad bill from an even worse government.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2] is a very important piece of legislation, one which I have to say I would have thought, given recent events in the public domain—particularly the cases of Craig Thomson and Mr Michael Williamson—the Labor Party, in representing the actual workers who subscribe union dues to these unions, would welcome. I would think that any right-minded person seeing some of the most lowly paid workers and union members in our country being just nakedly, cruelly and cold-bloodedly ripped off by the likes of Craig Thomson and Michael Williamson would welcome this legislation, would welcome increased accountability and would welcome greater surveillance of positions of trust held by union officials.

Having cut my teeth as a young lawyer in Kalgoorlie, acting for both unions and for companies, I am left with the clear understanding that, in certain circumstances, workforces do need the representation of the union movement, the labour movement. In the 1930s in Kalgoorlie many workers suffered from silicosis, and it was the union movement that came to their assistance in dealing with that blight. But then I look at what has been happening in recent times—in the last 10 or 20 years or so. Union dues provide a very large corpus of money to be used in administration. What we have seen with respect to Mr Thomson and Mr Williamson has been a complete breakdown in fidelity and trust and a complete breakdown in loyalty to those Hospital Service Union members.

This piece of legislation establishes an independent watchdog, the commission, to monitor and regulate registered organisations with enhanced investigation and information gathering powers. It strengthens the requirements for officers to disclosure material personal interests and related voting and decision-making rights. In other words, it increases the surveillance on conflicts of interest so that wives and relatives cannot do work for the unions, as was the case with Mr Williamson. The bill strengthens existing financial accounting, disclosure and transparency obligations under the Registered Organisations Act by putting certain rule obligations on the face of the act and making them enforceable as civil remedy provisions. It also increases civil penalties and introduces criminal offences for serious breaches of officers' duties and introduces new offences in relation to the conduct of investigations under the Registered Organisations Act. The bill clearly intends to bring the obligations on union officials and those charged with the administration of union funds into the same realm as those of company directors, which I think is a very, very good thing because the trust and integrity involved in the role of such officials are very, very similar.

The government is committed to improving the fair work laws so that we can build a more stable, fair and prosperous future for workers, particularly from the perspective of transparency. Transparency as to where a union member's dues end up and how they are applied is a very important part of the way our industrial laws function. The need for this legislation really does go without saying. We have witnessed massive rorts, racketeering on an amazing scale and rip-offs that have been the subject of night after night of sensational media reporting. Clearly, any responsible government cannot sit on its hands and watch the sort of thing that has gone on—particularly exampled by Thomson and Williamson.

The charges and allegations against both of those people in their capacity as officers of the Health Services Union were, quite simply, shocking and completely unacceptable. Thomson was arrested in respect of more than 150 fraud related charges and is facing allegations that his 2007 election campaign was partly funded by siphoning union money without authorisation. Mr Williamson pleaded guilty to misusing almost $1 million of Health Service Union member funds. I pause to say that I think that we can all acknowledge that Health Service Union members—those men and women inside hospitals who do the cleaning and the menial tasks—are some of the lowest paid people in Australia today. And Mr Williamson, in a very callous and cold-blooded way simply ripped them off—just ripped them off. I find that completely and totally unacceptable. There are some who might want to say that that is not representative. We have seen charges from the royal commission, and the royal commission is setting out a litany of this sort of abuse of power by union officials. Members of the Health Services Union are asking how these gross breaches of trust—the Thomson and Williamson sagas—can occur. The obligation on this parliament is to, firstly, respond to the fact that Mr Williamson has pleaded guilty—and I underline that. That is, he has admitted and accepted that, in a guilty way, he simply stole the money of the members of this union. He has accepted that he was and is dishonest, and that he ripped these people off. Accordingly, the government seeks to act. I think this legislation is very well balanced in seeking, as I have said, to increase the transparency to provide the transparent powers for a commissioner to investigate such matters.

The bill introduces a suite of measures designed to see governance of registered organisations lifted to a consistently high standard across the board. That is so understandable in the face of what we have witnessed and so required that the parliament and the government should be congratulated for responding in the way that it has with this legislation. A more robust compliance regime will deter wrongdoing and promote first-class governance of registered organisations. In order to improve oversight of registered organisations the bill will establish a dedicated, independent watchdog—the Registered Organisations Commission—to monitor and regulate registered organisations and to provide them with enhanced investigation and information-gathering powers. The new commission will have the necessary independence and powers to regulate registered organisations effectively, efficiently and transparently. The commission will be headed by the Registered Organisations Commissioner, who will be appointed by the minister. The commission will have stronger investigation and information-gathering powers than those that currently apply. These will be modelled on those available to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, which will further enhance the ability of the commissioner to provide strong and efficient regulation of unions and employer associations. The commission will have the power to commence legal proceedings and to refer possible criminal offences to the DPP or law enforcement agencies.

In this legislation we are also increasing the penalties. For serious contraventions the maximum penalty will be increased to 1,200 penalty units, which is approximately $200,000—I think the units are worth $170 each—and for corporate breaches the penalties will be increased to 6,000 penalty units, which is about $1 million. I think the penalties for these sorts of breaches of trust, faith and abuse of power are very appropriate.

I want to pause to go over why the government is doing this. Of course, I need go no further than to deal with what happened with respect to Mr Craig Thomson, who was in fact a Labor Party member of this parliament. The Fair Work investigation into the Health Services Union national office identified a total of 181 contraventions of the Registered Organisations Act and the Health Services Union rules by the union officials and others. The claim against Mr Thomson included 37 alleged breaches of general duties imposed on officers of registered organisations and 25 alleged breaches of the Health Services Union rules. Mr Thomson was convicted of criminal charges in the Melbourne Magistrates' Court, on 18 February 2014. He subsequently appealed and, to the best of my understanding, was convicted of 13 charges of theft. As outlined in a statement made by the Fair Work Commission General Manager, Ms Bernadette O'Neill, on 18 February, Mr Thomson's criminal conviction will impact the civil proceedings, as the Registered Organisations Act provides that any corresponding civil proceedings that have been stayed will automatically be dismissed.

Let's deal with what was confronting law enforcement agencies when an investigation was carried out into the activities of Mr Thomson. On 31 January 2013 Mr Thomson was arrested by New South Wales Police in relation to allegations of fraud against the Health Services Union by Victorian police. The trial began on 2 December 2013, with Mr Thomson pleading not guilty to over 145 fraud-related charges. On 18 February 2014 Mr Rozencwajg found Mr Thomson guilty of using credit cards issued to him in his role as National Secretary of the Health Services Union between 2002 and 2007. So for five years this person apparently treated the Health Services Union as his own private banker.

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

Just like Bronwyn Bishop did in parliament!

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy for Senator Cameron to defend this person.

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

I am not defending—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He cannot resist interjecting, because he knows this is an absolute blot on the labour movement. The labour movement does have a lot to be proud of, but this is not one of those things. This is a disgrace.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

The sooner Senator Cameron owns up to the fact that—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Johnston, direct your comments through the chair, please.

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Acting Deputy President. The sooner Senator Cameron owns up to the fact that this legislation will stop the likes of Craig Thomson and Michael Williamson, the better off we will all be.

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

And Bronwyn Bishop!

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron! Order on my left!

David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The magistrate found Mr Thomson guilty of stealing HSU funds and obtaining financial advantage by deception when he used the union's credit card to pay for escort services, cigarettes, firewood, travel expenses for his ex-wife and when he withdraw nearly $10,000 in cash from ATMs. On 25 March 2014 Mr Thomson received a sentence of 12 months imprisonment, but with nine months suspended. Mr Thomson launched an appeal and, as I have said, I think that 13 of those charges of theft were sustained upon appeal. Mr Thomson was formally expelled from the Labor Party on 4 April 2014. Bear in mind, these offences were carried out between 2002 and 2007. So more than seven years after the offences were committed, Mr Thomson was expelled from the Labor Party.

I turn to Mr Michael Williamson. On 4 October 2012, former Health Services Union national president and former national president of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Michael Williams was arrested by New South Wales Police and charged with 20 criminal offences. Mr Williamson was charged with a further 30 offences before all 50 charges were combined into four major charges. On 15 October, Mr Williamson pleaded guilty to those four charges including defrauding the Health Services Union of almost $1 million through the creation of false invoices. He was also charged with two new counts over his alleged attempts to hinder police investigations. Not only did he ultimately accept his guilt but also he accepted that he sought to avoid that guilt by hindering police investigations. This was a man who was president of the Australian Labor Party. What a blot on the landscape for that political movement.

A full-day sentence hearing was held on 3 March 2014 in that New South Wales District Court. On 28 March 2014 Judge David Frearson of the New South Wales District Court sentenced Mr Williamson to 7½ imprisonment. He will be eligible for parole after five years. This person, who callously ripped off the workers in the Health Services Union, was the president of the Australian Labor Party.

On 4 April 2014, Mr Williamson was formally expelled from the Labor Party at a meeting of the New South Wales administrative committee. Media reported in October 2013 on a settlement of $5 between Mr Williamson and the New South Wales division. He was charged with $1 million but the settlement to the union was $5 million. Clearly, in a civil sense, the breach was even bigger than the criminal offences. This is an absolute disgrace and clearly the law was inadequate. The assistance that the legislation gave to the investigators was inadequate and we seek to remedy that problem right here and now. On 11 December, The Australian Financial Review reported that:

The NSW division of the Health Services Union is attempting to recover $2.4 million it alleges was overcharged under a secret commission arrangement involving former secretary Michael Williamson , his ex-mistress Cheryl McMillan and a former director of a supplier to the union, Alf Downing.

Proceedings against Mr Williamson did not proceed due to a settlement being reached. However, proceedings against Ms McMillan and Mr Downing are continuing. On 16 October 2013 the members of that union were given the happy news—I say that sarcastically—that Mr Williamson had applied for bankruptcy. The union members received no justice whatsoever in this. Of course, Mr Williamson did not give back the money he had purloined nefariously.

We then saw what happened with respect to Ms Kathy Jackson. It was reported that she had used legal fees totalling several hundred thousand dollars to defend matters which she was unauthorised to defend and the Health Services Union is seeking some $400,00 with respect to unauthorised use of funds.

Those three examples, in my respectful opinion, mean that this legislation is necessary and that this parliament must continue a very active surveillance, as it does with company directors, as it does with people charged with the administration of moneys from membership subscriptions and from shareholders. It is all very similar. The common threats are obvious and people who seek to say this legislation is wrong and not needed are living in a dream world.

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

I rise to support the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2] and I look forward to it being unanimously supported in this chamber. In fact, we already have an indication that the Labor Party, when in government, had themselves introduced amendments contained in the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2012, demonstrating at that time that their certainly was, in the view of the Labor government at the time, a need for increased financial accountability of registered organisations, strengthened investigatory powers and increased penalties. One would think we are all singing from the same sheet of music.

Those amendments were not adequate; they did not go far enough. Indeed, they contained some clauses that were totally unnecessary and required the coalition in government to address—for example, full financial accounting by people who really had little if anything to do with the financial accountability or financial reporting.

Secondly, there was the inadequacy of the original Labor government amendment, which I remember speaking to at the time and pointing out the fact that there were onerous demands for training, particularly in economics, accounting and accountability upon some people acting where their role would not take them to a requirement for that sort of training, and even more foolishly for people who were already professionals in that space. They were not to receive any immunity.

This bill does a number of things to improve what were the then Labor government's amendments in their Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Act 2012. They are: firstly, to strengthen the reporting and disclosure obligations to align more closely with the Corporations Act, which of course stands in good stead and which has such a critically important oversight role in the management of corporations in this country; secondly, moving the obligation from the rules of registered organisations to the face of the legislation itself; and, thirdly, the amendments that we are discussing here today, and upon which I hope there will be full unanimous support, give the new commissioner greater scope to ensure that officers are complying with their obligations and greater powers to investigate when a member makes a complaint—when a member makes a complaint—about a registered organisation. So, here we are speaking about people who are themselves members of that organisation.

There is little doubt at all that the community expects the highest levels of accountability and transparency from anybody charged with responsibility for the monies of members and the monies of shareholders and, ultimately, the confidence of the wider community—be they corporations, employer groups or registered organisations in the context of unions—in being accountable to their members. As I said, this is an area in which we would expect to see full agreement, because there would not be anybody in this place—surely!—who would not agree that there must be, in the context of the dollars which are handled and which are actually contributed by members of registered organisations, employer organisations and, indeed, corporations, the highest standard of accountability and transparency to make sure there are none of the unfortunate events that we have seen in recent years and which have been canvassed adequately this afternoon by my colleague Senator Johnston.

So, what does the bill do? The first thing is that it establishes an independent watchdog—the Registered Organisations Commission—to monitor and regulate registered organisations with enhanced investigation and information-gathering powers. As we have seen in the events of the last four or five years—as we have seen spelled out in the media, in the courts and, indeed, in this place—it has been an inability to undertake adequate investigation and to compel the provision of information that has led to the ludicrous positions that we have had.

The second thing the bill does is to strengthen the requirements on officers—disclosures of material personal interests and related voting and decision-making rights—and to change the grounds for disqualification and ineligibility for office, be that in an employer group, in a union group or in any other registered organisation. Thirdly, as one would expect, the commission's role will be to strengthen existing financial accounting, disclosure and transparency obligations under the act itself by putting into place regulations and obligations on the face of the act and making them enforceable as civil remedy provisions. And, fourthly, it will increase those civil penalties and introduce criminal offences for serious breaches of officers' duties, as well as introduce new offences in relation to the conduct of investigations under the Registered Organisations Act. Therefore, as I said, what is necessary is a circumstance that will ensure community confidence—that we are building a stable, fair and prosperous future for Australia's workforce, for Australia's businesses and for the wider Australian economy.

Why is there a need for this legislation? Because we have seen the rorts, we have seen the rackets and we have seen the rip-offs in both employer groups and in union groups. We have seen this in the media and we have heard of it in the courts. We have actually heard about it in this place. And we know that they have been so frequent that the wider community has spoken strongly. Indeed, when the coalition first released its policy for better accountability and transparency of registered organisations in April 2012, some 15 months before the 2013 election, it received widespread public support. The Australian parliament must act. We will not have a sufficiently robust system to ensure that the sort of corruption that has been revealed in numerous and recent scandals is stopped until or unless we actually introduced this legislation.

It is no longer tenable to argue that the present system is adequate or that it is discouraging the type of behaviour about which we have heard and of which we will no doubt hear more. It is the case that union and employer associations play a critical role in workplace relations and the economy more broadly in this country. Their members, be they members of employer groups, unions or other registered organisations, invest an enormous amount of time and money and a great deal of trust in these officers. Unfortunately, we have seen too many instances on both sides where those confidences have been abused and where funds have been misappropriated and, indeed, we have seen the end result. There is a community expectation that registered organisations will operate to the highest of standards, and this legislation will ensure that that does take place.

The organisations are given special legislated rights. But with rights come responsibilities and with responsibilities come accurate management, probity and transparency, and complete and full reporting.

The government believes that the majority of registered organisations in this country do the right thing, and in most instances maintain higher standards than perhaps even those that are currently required. But our recent investigations into the Health Services Union, for example, illustrate that financial impropriety has occurred under the current governance regime for registered organisations. The charges and allegations against former member of parliament Craig Thomson and former ALP national president Michael Williamson in their capacities as officers of the HSU—and now Ms Kathy Jackson—are shocking. They are unacceptable, and the wider community wants action taken.

Senator Johnston spelt out some of those areas into which Mr Thomson, and indeed Mr Williamson found themselves. All I can do is remind those who might be attendant upon this session to reflect on the background of most of the people who pay union dues in the health services sector. Those of us who have had relations in aged-care facilities, for example, know very well the devotion of these people. We know they are not highly paid.

I recall, when matters associated with Mr Thomson were being discussed in this place, being informed of a lady of eastern European descent who had been working—and still is working—in the health services sector. She had paid, from a fairly modest salary, her union dues over many years, and somebody had calculated that, if she had today all those union dues she had paid—which we now know were totally abused and misappropriated by Messrs Thomson and Williamson, and possibly Ms Jackson—she could have afforded to go back to her native country in eastern Europe. Her response was: 'No. If I had that money available to me today I would not go back to my original homeland. I would want to put those funds towards the education of my grandchildren.' That really resonated with me. How those two or three people could possibly have done what they did with funds of workers in low-paid jobs in the health services sector is something they themselves are going to have to come to terms with into the future.

The bill introduces a suite of legislative measures designed to see governance of registered organisations lifted to a consistently high standard across the board. We require a more robust compliance regime, which is going to deter wrongdoing and promote first-class governance of registered organisations. We are a leading world economy; surely, we should not see the sorts of abuses that we have seen unfortunately unfold in the last couple of years.

We know that Fair Work Australia took far too long with their investigations in the Health Services Union. We know that the legal proceedings that ensued should well and truly have been brought to a head much more quickly. I recall, as deputy chairman of the committee at the time, a KPMG review into Fair Work Australia's investigations into the HSU which identified shortcomings in the conduct of the investigations. Members of that union and the wider community not only want a strong regulatory regime to give them confidence in these organisations; they also want swift action taken when standards appear to be breached or have been breached. To do this, we have to have a robust regulator in place with appropriate powers and resources, together with meaningful sanctions. That is what was absent when Fair Work Australia conducted those investigations. Those of us who sat through Senate estimates hearings at that time were extremely disappointed—those from both sides of the political divide—as to the tardiness. It was clear that there was not a robust regulator in place. This is what this legislation aims to achieve.

To improve oversight of registered organisations the bill will establish a dedicated independent watchdog, the Registered Organisations Commission, to monitor and regulate organisations and provide it with enhanced investigatory and information-gathering powers. The commission will have the necessary independence and powers—and reporting obligations, incidentally—that it needs to regulate organisations. The commission will be headed by a commissioner appointed by the minister. The commission will be required to report to the Minister for Employment annually on its activities; that report will be tabled in parliament, and the commissioner will appear at Senate estimates on each occasion that the Senate requires.

The activity of the commission will be subject to the same oversight by the Commonwealth Ombudsman as Commonwealth agencies. It will ensure appropriate levels of transparency and public accountability by the commissioner himself or herself. And, as is common with statutory officeholders, the minister can give directions of a general nature to the commissioner, but they must be in writing and they are a disallowable instrument. For avoidance of any doubt, I want to make the point strongly: the minister will not have any powers to give directions as to a particular matter or an investigation.

The commission will have stronger investigatory and information-gathering powers than those that currently apply, but they will be modelled on something that already exists and those are the powers available to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. So this will further enhance the capacity of the commissioner to provide strong, efficient regulations of employer associations and unions, with all of those reporting and accountability requirements to the people who sit in this chamber.

Under the bill, there will be appropriate sanctions against efforts to hinder or mislead investigations—something that, as we know, dragged out the course of recent events in the HSU. It will give all members of registered organisations confidence that, should they make a complaint to the commission about the organisation of which they are a member, that organisation and its officials must comply with the requirements of the investigatory process, or they will face sanctions.

Members of registered organisations can have the confidence that, under this new legislation, a person convicted of a particular offence will not be eligible to be an officer of an organisation or to stand for election to office. For the first time we are going to see those elements that members of registered organisations have been asking for actually enacted in legislation.

We know very well, contrary to the comments of some, that many of these registered organisations control assets worth millions of dollars. They are effectively dealing with cash flow and investments similar to those of large businesses. And we, quite rightly, expect in this place and in this country that large businesses are held to a very high standard of account and that those people responsible for the handling of funds and making decisions associated with the fate of members' funds are adequately trained, are adequately competent and are required to report in a full and transparent fashion, and that is what this legislation aims to do.

It is entirely appropriate to expect a high standard of financial reporting from our registered organisations, given the trust that members place in their unions and employer associations that they will operate honestly and use the funds derived from membership fees to represent their interests rather than the sorts of interests that we have seen played out in the cases of Messrs Thomson and Williamson, and Ms Jackson.

Registered organisations must have substantial economic, legal and political influence. It is clearly inconsistent with community expectations for organisations of this type or people who are officers of those organisations to operate to lower standards than those that apply to corporations or other comparable bodies.

The officers of registered organisations under this legislation will need to disclose remuneration paid to the top five officers in the head office or their branches. They will be required to report material personal interests to their members, disclosing personal interests of officers and their relatives, and declaring any payments made to persons or entities in which that officer has declared an interest.

This will prevent officials from improperly benefiting from their role in organisations—for example, by an officer procuring goods or services to a company in which they hold some interest without disclosing that interest in an appropriate and transparent process. And we have seen all too often it played out in the courts, somewhat belatedly in many instances, where there have been serious abuses by officials of registered organisations using their privileged position to benefit themselves and indeed those closely associated with them.

We have seen in the case of Messrs Thomson and Williamson that the existing regulations do not sufficiently protect members' interests and that there will always be less than scrupulous individuals who will seek to take advantage of the positions that they hold. And this, apart from anything else, is the compelling reason why this legislation must be passed. It is in the interests of everybody in this place, from whichever political colour or persuasion. There are of course criminal penalties to be introduced for more serious breaches, in addition to those I have outlined. I finish with the words of Justice North, who made comments last year:

The penalties are rather beneficially low … beneficial to wrong doers.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2]. I am heartened to hear that Senator Back has such a keen interest in unions and their affairs. I did mistake him for perhaps not being a supporter of unions, but I can see now that he is a firm supporter of the union movement!

What is before us is another example of the coalition's industrial relations agenda—

Government Senator:

A government senator interjecting—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes—its agenda. It is an agenda that appears to the community to be unclear and confused, a legislative program that simply has no direction at all. This government is lurching from a piece of legislation to a new piece of legislation. In this instance it is bringing forward its failed bill for the third time. But one thing is clear about this government: this bill is an illustration of the inordinate amount of time that this government is spending talking about and targeting organisations that represent the interests of workers and their families. Why is it doing that? You might say that Senator Back has a keen interest in unions and that is why he is talking about it. I suspect it wants to talk about anything other than the current issues that face this country.

They want to ensure that they are talking about something they are familiar with and that is union bashing. That is what they enjoy and that is what they like. That is what they feel most confident about, because they do not want to deal with the hard reality of the economy and they do not want to deal with the hard reality of marriage equality. They do not want to deal with a whole range of issues that they could be getting on with, with good governance.

Officers of trade unions work hard every day. In difficult times they simply want to get on with the job of representing working people. However, they continue to be attacked by this government.

We are all aware that this is the third time the bill has come before the Senate. The question before the Senate today in relation to this bill is not whether employer bodies and trade unions should be held more accountable to their members and the community. I think that is a given. Everybody agrees on that.

Labor's position on this matter is clear. We are committed to ensuring financial accountability of unions and employer organisations. We support appropriate and fair regulation for registered organisations. We support tough laws and tough regulations for those who break them. That is why in 2012 the Labor government, and indeed the now Leader of the Opposition, then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, toughened the laws to improve financial transparency and disclosure by registered organisations to their members. As a result of that, trade unions in Australia have never been stronger, more accountable and, in terms of their accountability, have never been higher. And the power of the Fair Work Commission to investigate and prosecute for breaches has also never been more apt.

In this instance we have tripled the penalties, which means that those laws have never been tougher; however, in this bill the government have gone well beyond the pale. They have gone too far, with no proportionality.

It is a disproportionate response against the trade union movements but it is not surprising that they would do that. Unsurprisingly they have departed from even the Prime Minister's commitment to shift the industrial relations debate towards the sensible centre. This is not sensible centre. This is the extreme ideologues within the Liberal Party and the National Party that want to attack the trade union base. That is what this is all about. Let us not be confused by Senator Back's newfound love of trade unions.

But let us also remember that this is a government that has gone to great lengths to proclaim and pretend that it is reducing red tape and regulation. The government had an omnibus bill about reducing red tape and regulation. We will not find this bill in that report; however, this bill does the complete opposite. It increases red tape and duplication by establishing a new regulator. If one was not already enough, this government wants to add a new regulator while retaining the existing one. The bill establishes the Registered Organisations Commission, which has coercive powers that are defined as 'do all things necessary or convenient for its purpose'. If there was ever one reason why Labor and even those opposite should not support this bill, it is that one phrase. What this government is attempting to do is give an unfettered power to a regulator to travel across unions, employers and employees. So if they think that this is not a double-edged sword, you might want to think again about how this bill will operate should it pass.

For any member of the community, this would be a considerable expansion, far too expansive for any regulatory body to have. In comparison to the powers given to the Registered Organisations Commission, they are far greater than those for regulated companies. The government makes much in the debate about moving trade union accountability and transparency to an equivalent of corporations similar to powers that are provided under ASIC. In this instance, this bill goes way further. If this government was serious about that, why would it not give the same powers to ASIC? Why would it not give the same powers to ensure that those financial charlatans out there are also held to book as well? But, no, it is simply picking on trade unions and ought to be pinged for it, when you look at the way the coercive power will extend to any person who the commission believes on reasonable grounds has information or a document relevant to an investigation. It is a wide power.

Furthermore, the commissioner can require a person to provide reasonable assistance in connection with an investigation. These provisions pose serious questions about the accountability and transparency of proposed unconstrained investigations which may require any member of the union to answer questions. This is an excessive power, far in excess of what you would expect if you were legitimately trying to improve accountability and transparency on top of Labor's 2012 legislation.

Yes, everybody stands against fraud, everybody stands against maladministration but what the government has not been able to do is tie this legislation to how it will actually remedy the circumstances that it describes so well. I think those opposite take a little delight out of describing it, but this bill does not fix those problems and they have not linked those two arguments together. The Registered Organisations Commission, which this bill establishes, is completely in excess of what companies are subject to under the Corporations Act. If this government was fair dinkum, it would pass these simple laws for companies and let us see what the companies might say about that.

The most revealing proposal of what the government is trying to do with this bill is its effect on volunteers. The compliance obligation of this bill applies to every branch of every union, to every part of every registered organisation irrespective of its size. So the Australian Council of Trade Unions has stated it is like saying that the rules which apply to the board of Woolworths also apply to the management committee in each individual store. Let us reflect on that from the ACTU perspective. A good example is the Australian Industry Group, which is an employer body and a not-for-profit organisation. It has 78 democratically elected councillors that comprise its governing and review body. They are unpaid and working in their own time. But under this bill, they would be subject to the new compliance requirements which require disclosure of interests and of those of their relatives. This exceeds the requirement placed upon directors under the Corporations Act, who are only required to disclose their fellow directors.

In contrast to the Australian Industry Group Council, we have the Woolworths board of directors, with 12 people appointed by shareholders being paid in excess of $200,000 per director per year, supervising, monitoring and governing the financial interests of shareholders in excess of $6 billion. We can obviously see that there is a significant proportionality problem with this bill. As this bill chooses to regulate individuals who choose, often on a voluntary basis, to dedicate their time to an employer body or union in the same ways executives and non-executive directors of corporations, there is a clear disproportionality that is expressed in this bill. But we should not be surprised about this. This is a government that likes to bash trade unions, likes to ensure that it is talking about trade unions more than it is talking about the economy. Its obligations on officers of trade unions and employer associations is very wide and creates an undue administrative burden on many registered organisations which are less than one per cent of the financial size—

Debate interrupted.