Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In recent weeks, and for the final two weeks of Senate activity, it is an alphabet soup of business: ROC, ABCC, PPL, VET, 18C et cetera—the list goes on. Today, to give it its full title, it is about the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014. It is to hopefully improve that bill that I am co-sponsoring some vital amendments, with Senator Xenophon. We will have the chance to debate them later. I have told journos many times that I am pro worker and anti corruption—be it union corruption or corporate corruption.

In recent weeks, I have spent a lot of time with ministers, shadow ministers, union officials, including from the CFMEU, and other senators. I will be voting for the amended bill, if the planned amendments pass. To get to this position, I have read many proposed amendments. I have supported some, and I have rejected others. The opposition encouraged crossbenchers to work on amendments. I suspect the big picture—as Paul Keating would say—was to get this bill and the ABCC legislation watered down as much as possible so that if, in the end, they did get passed, they would be closer to a gelding than a stallion. This legislation has been a long time coming. It is time, I believe, for a full-time, independent regulator for this sector, which has been wracked with scandal, rather than the current body dealing with it part time. The union movement will only be strengthened if potential members can be confident that all of their leadership are working to benefit members, not to personally benefit themselves. I do not see this as an attack on unions. I see it as an effective way to improve the way that this sector is governed. No-one, including people within the union movement, wants to see a repeat of the Kathy Jackson or the Craig Thomson rorts. Kathy Jackson misappropriated $900,000 from the Health Services Union. Craig Thomson squandered $300,000 of union members' money—much of it on prostitutes.

In case anyone wanted to argue these horrors were a thing of the past, just remember that last week police arrested Derrick Belan. He was previously the New South Wales branch secretary of the National Union of Workers. Police also arrested his niece, Danielle O'Brien, who managed the union's accounts and audited his personal expenses. Belan has been charged with 24 fraud related offences totalling about $440,000. Police also charged him with participating in a criminal group. O'Brien is facing 148 fraud related offences totalling over $400,000. It is shocking. I wonder how anyone can argue, in the face of these events, that we do not need a specialised, properly-resourced organisation to deal with these matters.

One of the late Labor amendments is to get rid of a new sheriff and have ASIC play policeman. I have decided to vote against that. I have decided to vote against it because I think ASIC already has a volume of problems of its own, policing corporate crooks in an increasingly sophisticated world of company crime. My fear is that by dumping this area on ASIC, we would see it not get the scrutiny it deserved nor have the sophisticated, specialised nous that is required.

Then there are whistleblowers. Senator Xenophon and I are and will be, I believe, rightly proud of what could be the best whistleblower protection in the world. It would cover anonymity, compensation and protection. Even though it now deals specifically with unions, it must in the near future be extended with the same powers and the same protections to whistleblowers in the corporate sector. As my grandma used to say, 'What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.'

One of the amendments I am sponsoring, with the Xenophon team's support, concerns auditors. I must admit that when I was railing against that scumbag Craig Thomson on radio and television, I never thought that one day I could be in a legislative position to do something about such selfish, self-serving thieves. I will admit that in this case it is partly personal. When the stories started coming out about Craig Thomson spending $500 a time on hookers I was actually lying in a hospital bed, and watching members of his old union, the Health Services Union, doing menial tasks for about, I guess, $15 an hour. I remember that I watched a middle-aged European woman with a mop cleaning up after a burst colostomy bag. I thought at the time that her union fees for the year would probably be around the $500 that Thomson spent on one prostitute in one assignation. Maybe better auditing would have sprung people like Thomson, Kathy Jackson and Michael Williamson, and it may have sprung them hundreds of thousands of dollars earlier.

So there it is—my support for this bill. These are some of the reasons I have come to the decisions I have. I know and understand that I will not please everybody, but I got to this position without making deals with either side. That is what I promised the people who elected me.

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

We have had four Senate inquiries into the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, and Labor's view has not changed. We do not support this bill. We have been responsible and we have put up a raft of amendments, but when it comes down to the bill it is unnecessary and duplicates changes that Labor made when we were in government.

Every time I have spoken on this bill I have made my views known, both here in the parliament and in the broader community. I do not support corruption either as a Labor senator, as a former trade union official or as a member of the public. If there is a hint of corruption or any kind of inappropriate behaviour which affects the proper running of an organisation or business then it must be investigated and those found guilty must face the full strength of the law. But unlike the Turnbull government I do not draw a distinction between whether it is a business, a trade union or a community organisation. I do not stand for corruption, full stop. I stand for transparency and openness.

This bill is unnecessary and duplicates the changes that we made as a Labor government when we acted on corruption and made changes to registered organisations. At that point I was still a trade union official, and those changes made by Labor affected the way that we operated the union. When this bill was first put forward, the changes that Labor made—which we had implemented and which created further accountability and transparency for not only unions but employer organisations—were still being worked through. Of course you will not hear about Labor's changes from the Turnbull government. They like to pretend that Labor did nothing. It is a shame—in fact, it is more than that; it is a missed opportunity—that no proper review has taken place of the changes Labor made to registered organisations.

Of course, Mr Acting Deputy President, if you just listen to the government you would think this bill was all about trade unions. Indeed, if you listen to a range of speakers from the crossbenches or the government you would still think this bill is simply about trade unions. Of course, it is not. It covers employer organisations—those employer organisations who choose to be registered under the Fair Work Act. The government's agenda is about demonising trade unions.

Since this bill was first put forward we have unfortunately seen the collapse of a number of construction companies. This has happened to large companies across the country, leaving employees, subcontractors and suppliers out of pocket and sending some of those smaller companies to the wall. What is the government doing about those crashes? Nothing. The most notable of those collapses is of former Senator Day's building companies. He has debts of at least $38 million, and yet the government's silence on this sad state of affairs is palpable. Australian families who signed up with the former senator's companies to build their dream homes were left stranded. Worse off are those families who in good faith signed up with the former senator for him to take out insurance policies against the building work in their name. He never took those policies out, so those families have been left absolutely high and dry, with nowhere to go. They have nothing—not even the insurance protection that they had paid for up-front. They do not have that protection to fall back on because the former senator did not take out the insurance these families had in good faith paid for. Again, what are the Turnbull government saying about the plight of these families? Nothing.

More recently I have heard about the many small company suppliers who, in good faith, supplied products to the former senator's companies and who are all out of pocket. Some are not just out of pocket but are wondering where, or, indeed, if they can make up that shortfall to their business to the tune of hundreds and thousands of dollars—money that they were relying on to in turn pay their employees and their suppliers. What about them? What action is the Turnbull government taking to ensure this does not happen again? What are they saying about the plight of these businesses? Nothing. And why? Because it does not suit their ideological agenda.

On the one hand the Turnbull government tell us that Australian small business is at the centre of our prosperity as a nation; yet, on the other hand, they ignore the hundreds of small businesses affected by this crash and the crash of many building companies across the country. They ignore those Australian families who will not have new homes at Christmas. Indeed, some of them—those for whom the former senator failed to take out insurance—have absolutely no answers at all.

Worse still are those government senators who, despite the failings of former Senator Day's companies, still extol his virtue, even moving a motion of support. Why is that? Because he was a guaranteed vote for them and their conservative legislation. Once again the Turnbull government are demonstrating that this is all about them—their own survival—more than the plight of Australian families or Australian small business.

The major registered organisation employer groups do not want this legislation either. They, too, believe it to be an imposition. Like unions, registered employer organisations rely on volunteers. In this case, they are people who are running their own business who give up their own time to ensure their employer organisation works and works effectively. It is these volunteers, in both registered organisations and in trade unions, that the government are seeking to penalise. That double standard is well on display again. Earlier this year we saw the government champion the rights of volunteers, but once again their partisan approach is on display: it is not the volunteers who give their time to make sure their employer organisations or their trade unions work who get the government's attention—not this time, not these volunteers.

Labor is once again leading the charge here. We have put up an amendment to this bill seeking to protect those volunteers, but, so far, it has failed to get the support of the government. Our amendment goes to increasing penalties but exempting volunteers. We just heard Senator Hinch talk about the cleaner who mopped the floor after a colostomy bag had broken. That is the sort of person who volunteers in their trade union, and that is the sort of person the Turnbull government want to penalise—make no mistake about that. On the employer side, it is, again, those people who are running the small businesses that are everywhere in our community who volunteer their time to make sure that their employer organisation works. They are the ones the Turnbull government are seeking to penalise.

We want to provide greater protection for whistleblowers. We want more accountability for auditors. We certainly want—and we are absolutely on the record on this one—to provide more accountability for electoral donations, and we want to reduce the disclosure limit amounts. Whether it is union elections or federal elections, we are very clear about making sure that, if you donate, it is out there for everyone to see. We also do not think it is necessary to create a new organisation to police legislation. We have proposed that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, properly resourced, is the appropriate body to make sure that there is good, solid, open and transparent accountability.

What of this new-found government desire to negotiate? We have seen this bill come before this parliament many times before. Despite the government making a big hue and cry about it being the reason that we had the double dissolution election this year, it was not mentioned anywhere during the election campaign—not one word did I hear the government speak in relation to registered organisations. Prior to then the government steadfastly refused to entertain any negotiations, yet suddenly the government has discovered that it needs to negotiate. What concerns me is that, if the government is successful in getting this bill passed in an amended form, it will become part 1. Then, further down the track, we will see part 2 of registered organisations, where some of the aspects of the legislation the government did not get in suddenly appear in a new bill. Then, further again down the track, we will see part 3.

This government's track record is not one of negotiation. They have stood there and said: 'We will not negotiate. We have got a mandate.' Yet now they are doing the exact opposite of that, and I question their motives. Is this just: 'We are going to wear people down. We are going to keep at this. We are going to keep coming back with what we really want, even if it takes us one, two, three or four amendments to legislation'? That is what I think is going on here.

This is not a government that readily negotiate, are used to compromise or are trying to find consensus. This is a government that either win or lose and then present the same bill over and over again. Yet, suddenly, here we are negotiating. I am sorry, but I see that for what it is. I see that there will be further amendments down the track to try and get through this unnecessary, burdensome, bureaucratic registered organisations bill which is absolutely designed to go after trade unions and nothing else.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support this bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, subject to the amendments that I will be moving jointly with my colleague, Senator Hinch, supported by my colleagues, Senators Skye Kakoschke-Moore and Senator Stirling Griff.

I previously debated this bill on 2 March 2015, when I indicated that I would be voting for the measures in the bill. I want to make very clear the important role that trade unions play in our community: they play a vital role in protecting the rights of workers, as well as holding employers and politicians accountable. I have been fortunate to work with a number of union officials on a variety of issues, from anti-dumping measures to aviation safety improvements to support for local jobs to improved workplace compensation schemes—I could not have done that without the support of those union officials. Many of these officials have shared their concerns with me about cases of corruption and malfeasance that have been exposed. I think it is important to note that the opposition leader, Mr Shorten, has indicated that he has no tolerance for corruption within the trade union movement, and I know that his views on that are genuine and sincere.

This legislation is not friendless, in that union officials in the past have said that this legislation—to bring union officials and to bring unions more in line with Corporations Law measures, in terms of accountability—ought to be considered. The former Australian Workers' Union National Secretary, Paul Howes, as head of the AWU, essentially backed the coalition's plan for tougher penalties for union bosses who misused members' funds, and said—quite rightly—that he had no issue with moves to impose punishments that were in line with those faced by company directors. I think that is the nub of this. It is appropriate that there is a specialist organisation that deals with this, rather than ASIC. That is something that can be debated in the committee stages of this bill. In my view, union members should have even greater protections than shareholders, because the duty their union owes to them goes much further than a financial return. People join unions in the belief and with the understanding that the organisation will support them and look after their rights, and I think, overwhelmingly, that is the case. Unions do outstanding work in relation to this.

I also believe that this bill will be improved significantly by having enhanced whistleblower protections, and I will be moving those amendments, co-sponsored by Senator Hinch. It is important to put this in context: I am very grateful for the wise advice and counsel of Professor AJ Brown from the Centre for Public Governance. He is Professor of Public Policy and Law and the program leader for Public Integrity & Anti-Corruption at Griffith University. He is the pre-eminent expert on whistleblower laws in this country. He has published many papers, made many submissions, and undertaken extensive research on the whole issue of whistleblowers, and I think knows more about this issue than anyone else in the country. He has made submissions to the Moss review of the Public Interest Disclosure Act, and he has made submissions to the economics committee, which is looking at the issue of whistleblower protection—and I pay tribute to Senator Sam Dastyari, who was a key driver of the economics committee looking at this particular issue. I will discuss the amendments in due course, in the committee stages of this bill. These are amendments to the bill that I would be very happy to take questions on from my colleagues.

I also want to read into the Hansard an undertaking from the government which I expect the minister, Minister Cash, will confirm word for word. I will read the undertaking word for word. It is as follows:

Following the agreement to strengthen and enhance whistleblower protections in the Registered Organisation Commission (ROC) legislation, the Government has agreed to the following:

1) To support a Parliamentary inquiry to examine the ROC whistleblower amendments with the objective of implementing the substance and detail of those amendments to achieve an equal or better whistleblower protection and compensation regime in the corporate and public sectors.

2) To support the Parliamentary inquiry considering, on the basis of mutually agreed terms of reference, matters including but not limited to:

a. Compensation arrangements in whistleblower legislation across different jurisdictions, for example the bounty scheme used in the United States.

b. The definition of detrimental action and reprisal and the interaction between criminal and civil liability.

c. Issues associated with internal disclosures.

3) That the motion to refer this issue to the Parliamentary Committee will be voted on in the Senate (or if a reference to a Joint Committee by both House of Parliament) by Wednesday 30 November 2016 with a reporting date of 30 June 2017.

4) That following the tabling of the Parliamentary Committee report, if the report recommends adopting stronger whistleblower protections in the corporate and public sectors, the Government will establish an expert advisory panel to expedite the development and drafting of legislation to implement whistleblower reforms in the corporate and public sectors.

5) That legislation will be introduced into the Parliament by December 2017 (subject to any extensions on the Parliamentary inquiry reporting date that may be determined by the Senate) to introduce greater protections for whistleblowers in the corporate and public sectors consistent with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Committee and the expert advisory panel with the proviso that the Government commits to, as a minimum, supporting the substance and detail of the whistleblower protection and compensation regime contained in the ROC legislation.

6) The Government will commit to support enhancements to whistleblower protections and commit to a parliamentary vote on the legislation no later than 30 June 2018.

It is a commitment that has been made to me and to Senator Hinch, and that is why I have read the entire commitment into the Hansard; a commitment which I expect that the minister will confirm.

These are momentous changes to whistleblower protection laws, which the government has committed to extending to the corporate and public sectors. The changes will include, for the first time, a broadening of the definition of what a reprisal action is, and mechanisms to make clear the level of harm to individuals—much broader than the current public interest disclosure legislation across Australia, which has proven to be woefully inadequate in respect of this. It will also include, for the first time, a mechanism for civil compensation based on common law principles, which is broader than anything that has ever been done before in this country. Senator Hinch is right: these amendments, if passed, will see Australia go from some of the worst whistleblower protection laws in the world to arguably the best. It will be a momentous leap forward for whistleblower protection laws. There is a process in place to enhance and strengthen them but, most importantly, to extend them to the corporate sector and the public sector so that those who work in banks, for instance, will be able to avail themselves of the extensive protections that have been drafted. Again I am grateful for the wise counsel and advice of Australia's preeminent expert on whistleblower protection laws, Professor AJ Brown, from the Centre for Governance and Public Policy at Griffith University.

These are the matters that ought to be done in order to protect whistleblowers. It will enhance this legislation but, importantly, it will mean that, for corporations and the public sector, we will have, sooner rather than later, extensive whistleblower protections in this country that will ensure that whistleblowers get the protection they deserve. That is why, subject to these amendments, I support this legislation, along with my colleagues.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to join this debate on the government's Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, and I do so after Senator Xenophon's contribution. I have to say it is surprising to see Senator Xenophon, who has been in this place for some time, supporting a suspension of standing orders without notice in order to push this bill through tonight. For someone who has long argued in this place for sensible, considered debate and proper process, it was a surprising turn of events, but that is a matter for him and his party room to consider.

As the chamber knows, Labor opposes this bill in its current form, and we will be advancing a set of amendments to deal with its shortcomings, but I want to make some comments about the legislation. This bill is deeply flawed. It is not only deeply flawed as a piece of substantive legislation but also part of a deeply offensive ideological agenda on the part of this government. It represents the latest phase in the Liberal Party's continuing efforts to undermine and attack the role of trade unions in Australian society. These attacks on trade unions, in one way or another, have been ongoing since the formation of the Liberal Party. They are designed to undermine the role played by trade unions in representing employees and the legitimate role played by unions in bringing employees together to negotiate collectively with employers to secure better pay and better working conditions.

The fact is that those on the other side and their predecessors, the conservatives of Australian politics, have never accepted that trade unions play a legitimate and important role in our workplaces and in our society. From Stanley Bruce, who tried to scrap the federal arbitration system in the 1920s, to John Howard's Work Choices legislation, which cut pay and conditions for Australian working people, it is the same ideological agenda over decades: Liberals and their predecessors always want to attack trade unions, deregulate the labour market, cut wages and conditions, and reduce the fundamental rights and protections for working people. That is who they are, that is what they believe, and this bill is simply another instalment in that story.

The bill before the chamber deals with the regulation of registered organisations in Australia's industrial relations system. The system is an integral part of Australia's workplace relations system. Registered organisations, of course, are trade unions and also employer organisations which are registered to represent their members under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, which I will describe as the registered organisations act. Registrations under this act give unions and employer associations the ability to appear in industrial tribunals and to advocate on behalf of their members. It also gives these entities their legal status, in a similar fashion to the way in which incorporation under company law gives companies a separate legal personality. The registered organisations act regulates the rights, responsibilities and duties of organisations and their officers and the internal administration and governance of these entities.

What we are debating is a bill that seeks to make a number of changes to that act. These are changes which already have been rejected by the Senate three times and which are not about improving the welfare of members of registered organisations. In fact, they are about undermining the role of unions and therefore undermining the position of those who trade unions represent: millions of ordinary working Australians.

Labor regards the role of registered organisations as central to our system of workplace relations, and we regard the regulation of those organisations as important. Regulation of registered organisations should ensure that they are administered effectively, in accordance with the highest standards of governance, in the interests of, and subject to the democratic control of, their members. That is why Labor in government strengthened the laws regulating registered organisations in 2012, and it is why Labor in opposition has proposed further reforms to the regulation of registered organisations. In 2012, the Leader of the Opposition, then the Minister for Workplace Relations, significantly strengthened the regulation of registered organisations, and Mr Shorten's reforms improved the accountability of registered organisations to their members. The 2012 reforms tripled the penalties for breaches of the act; required officials of registered organisations to be provided with education and training about their obligations; and required the disclosure of officials' remuneration as well as their pecuniary and financial interests. These reforms also improved the investigative powers available to Fair Work Australia in ensuring compliance with the act. This included providing the Fair Work Australia general manager with the power to provide information to bodies such as federal or state police or other regulatory agencies, correcting a serious flaw in the previously existing regulatory regime. So Labor has a strong track record in this area, and we will not be lectured by those opposite.

The Senate, as I said, has rejected the government's bills three times already, and with each rejection those opposite have ramped up their hyperbole and their bluster. They are deeply misleading in their contributions on this policy. They seek to create the impression that trade unions are not subject to any accountability mechanisms, regulation, scrutiny or standards at all. In fact, before the bill that is before the chamber is passed, the act is some 580 pages long and, as a result of Labor's previous reforms which I have outlined, it provides strong regulation of registered organisations and high levels of accountability of the officers of these organisations. The powers of the Fair Work Commission have been both strengthened and broadened, and penalties for breaches of the act have been tripled. That means there are serious consequences for those who fail to uphold standards and to act in the interests of their members.

The government's rhetoric ignores the extensive regulation of registered organisations that already exists. The act already allows for criminal proceedings to be initiated where funds are stolen or obtained by fraud. The act already ensures that the Fair Work Commission can share information with the police as appropriate. The act already provides for statutory civil penalties where a party knowingly or recklessly contravenes an order or direction made by the Federal Court or the FWC under the act or the Fair Work Act. The act already requires officers to disclose their personal interests. The act already ensures officers disclose when payments have been made to related parties. It requires officers to exercise care and diligence, act in good faith and not improperly use their position for political advantage. The act prohibits members' funds from being used to favour particular candidates in internal elections or campaigns. This is an act which already heavily regulates trade unions.

Under the Fair Work Act, officers of registered organisations already have fiduciary duties akin to those of directors under the Corporations Law. Rather than strengthening regulation of registered organisations to ensure they operate in members' interests, the government's bill seeks to undermine these organisations. It imposes disproportionate and unfair sanctions on trade unionists who act in voluntary positions for their organisations. It singles out officers of registered organisations for more onerous treatment and penalties than apply to company office holders and executives under the Corporations Law.

The bill will establish a new bureaucracy in the form of the Registered Organisations Commission. In doing so it will increase red tape for registered organisations. It contains higher penalties for civil contraventions and introduces criminal offences in respect of officers' duties which exceed those found in the Corporations Act. Labor do not believe that a trade union member who acts on a voluntary basis as an honorary office holder should face more onerous penalties than the chief executives or directors of Australia's largest companies.

Labor support strong regulation of registered organisations, and—let's be clear—the vast majority of trade unions and employer associations are administered honestly by people who take their responsibilities seriously, who are committed to the welfare of their organisations and their members, and who are diligent, hardworking and professional. It is true that from time to time there are some who do not live up to these standards, and let me say that there is no-one more disgusted or angered by corruption in the trade union movement than those of us on this side of the parliament. That is because we understand the great civilising mission that the trade union movement has played in this country over decades, and we understand that corrupt behaviour by some rips off the very people that the union movement represents: the working people of this country.

Yes, there must be strong regulation and tough penalties for those who break the law. There must be financial accountability. Unlawful behaviour should be met with the full force of the law. That should be the case whether they are a corporate executive or a trade union official. Labor have made clear that we have no tolerance for those, whether they be corrupt union officials or unscrupulous employers, who steal from or exploit workers. The AFP and state and territory police agencies have the power to investigate criminal breaches. Fair Work Australia has the power to investigate and enforce registered organisations' compliance with the law. And the courts have the power to impose penalties on those who breach the law when it comes to the governance of registered organisations.

Labor's commitment to strong regulation of trade union behaviour was demonstrated by the announcement of the plan for better union governance last year. We will be moving amendments to this bill to implement the key elements of this plan. The amendments will provide for stronger penalties, greater protections for whistleblowers and greater regulation of the conduct of auditors in registered organisations. Rather than create yet another bureaucracy, yet another red tape element, Labor's amendments will mean that, where there are serious breaches of the law, registered organisations will be subject to the powers of the corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Our amendments empower ASIC to examine and investigate serious contraventions by registered organisations. This would provide experienced investigative resources without the bureaucracy of a new commission.

Like the government, Labor are also proposing an increase in civil penalties for serious transgressions by officers of registered organisations, but we have taken a more proportionate approach when it comes to volunteers. We will also increase penalties for wrongdoing by auditors, because we want to make sure that people charged with the responsibility of independently examining the finances of registered organisations do so in a professional and accountable manner. Under our amendments, auditors who fail to report malfeasance or criminal conduct in registered organisations could themselves be subject to imprisonment. This will ensure that auditors are not complicit through silence or inaction. Further, in relation to auditing we will require the rotation of auditors so that there is sufficient turnover to ensure that new parties are coming in to examine the books, resulting in greater scrutiny and greater independence. We also propose to extend public service whistleblower protections to registered organisations, including trade unions.

The amendments to the bill which will be moved by Labor are substantive and constructive. They build on the reforms we made in government to improve the governance and accountability of registered organisations. By contrast, the bill as presented by the government is not about improving standards, nor about improving governance. It is about one thing. It is about an ideologically motivated attack on the trade union movement. We all know why this government want to undermine trade unions. When they were last here, under the former Prime Minister John Howard, they introduced the notorious Work Choices legislation, a direct attack on workers' rights and workers' living standards. The stripping back and reduction of award entitlements for working people lay at the heart of the Work Choices legislation. It attacked workers' rights to organise themselves into trade unions and engage in collective bargaining. It provided unscrupulous employers the power to force vulnerable workers onto unfair individual contracts—remember Australian workplace agreements?—with the threat of dismissal for those unwilling to sign.

The campaign against the Howard-era Work Choices legislation was led by the trade union movement in this country. It did so because that legislation was deeply unfair and reduced the living standards and job security of employees in this country. The union campaign against Work Choices contributed to the defeat of the Howard government in 2007 and the election of a Labor government, which restored fairness to Australian workplaces. Here we are, nearly a decade later, and what we have is another Liberal government who would dearly like to repeat Work Choices. But this time around they have decided to launch an assault on the union movement first—through this bill, through their discredited royal commission, through their incessant propaganda and misleading rhetoric, and through their construction industry legislation. And if they succeed in undermining and incapacitating the Australian union movement with these measures, the next step, as night follows day, will be Work Choices style legislation. It will be a return to the classic Liberal agenda of hard-line industrial relations deregulation, because that is really what they want to do. This is just the entree. What they really want to do is try to diminish the power of the trade union movement and to try to silence the movement which stood against Work Choices and which campaigned so effectively against the Howard government legislation. This is the first step in the return of the classic Liberal agenda of hard-line industrial relations legislation, cuts to wages, cuts to penalty rates, cuts to basic entitlements and cuts to workers' rights.

I want to make one point about the context in which this debate is being undertaken. There has been a lot of discussion in this country in recent times, post Brexit and post the election in the United States and various other political events, about the rise of populism, the effects of globalisation and the advent of a range of political parties here in the Senate and elsewhere globally. There has been a lot of discussion about the economic gains from globalisation and trade as not having been fairly shared. There has been a discussion in this country about inequality as one of the drivers of the anger and frustration that we have seen on display both internationally and here in Australia. There has been a discussion about the anger and frustration of the Australians whose jobs are in industries that have not thrived over these last years.

Political leaders have been focussing on, or at least articulating, these questions: how do we better engage these Australians? How do we respond to their concerns? How do we make this nation fairer? How do we address inequality? Isn't it telling, then, that in the middle of this debate about how we better deal with the effects of economic inequality, how we better deal with economic inequality itself and how we make this nation a fairer place that the focus of those opposite is not on how we make Australia fairer, not on those Australians who are so angry at the economic inequality they experience and who are so angry at seeing the changes to their jobs and to their industries; the government's focus is on attacking the trade union movement. At a time when we are concerned about rising economic inequality, it says something about the ideological obsessions of those opposite that their focus is not on how to make this a fairer place but on attacking the institutions who stand for fairness.

If you look at the history of this country, the Australian trade union movement has contributed to this being a more decent society. It is the Australian trade union movement that has stood up over so many decades for decent wages and conditions, for safer workplaces, for Medicare, for superannuation and for a whole range of other social reforms such as maternity leave, paid parental leave, pay equity and so forth. Look at the list of conditions that the trade union movement, over its history, has won: a decent minimum wage, annual leave, penalty rates, equal pay for women, sick leave and unfair dismissal rights just to name a few. So, what does it say about this government that, when faced with some of the events that we have seen overseas and when faced with a debate in this country about the rise of populist views, their priority is to attack one of the very institutions that has contributed to making this Australia a more decent society? It really lays bare not only their ideological obsession but also the paucity of their economic agenda—the paucity of this government's agenda. What we are debating is a bill that has its origins not in Mr Turnbull's government; it has its origins in Mr Howard's government. It is an old, familiar, tired agenda that says nothing to Australians about the problems that the country really does face.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to sum up the debate in relation to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014. I thank all honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. The government acknowledges the important role of registered organisations, both union and employer organisations, and the role that they play in the affairs of workplace relations in this country. What we want to do is ensure, for the two million Australians who are members of registered organisations, that their organisations remain strong. This will only happen if confidence is restored to those members and to the Australian people.

Despite what has been said by those on the other side, this is not about union busting. What it is about, though, is increasing transparency and accountability and stopping those unscrupulous individuals who would use members' hard-earned funds for their own self-interest. The gross breach of trust and financial impropriety displayed by officials of the Health Services Union provided the initial impetus for this reform. The actions of former ALP member of parliament Craig Thomson, former ALP national president Michael Williamson and former HSU national secretary Kathy Jackson are nothing short of shocking and, I would hope, condemned by all in this chamber as unacceptable. Mr Williamson is serving a jail sentence for misusing almost $1 million of HSU money. Ms Jackson is currently facing dozens of charges for theft, and Mr Thomson has been ordered to repay nearly half a million dollars for his indiscretions.

The subsequent findings of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption have shown that the current system of regulation is doing very little to deter corrupt and unscrupulous individuals—for example, the royal commission identified that former senior officials of the Transport Workers Union were undeterred from using members' funds to purchase themselves two luxury cars. These officials then used their senior positions to change redundancy rules to ensure that one could keep the car for his personal use even after leaving the union. As recently as last week 172 charges were laid against two former staff members from the New South Wales branch of the National Union of Workers who together are alleged to have misappropriated $870,000 from members of their union for personal expenses including holidays, concert tickets and sex toys.

This bill will strengthen existing financial accounting and disclosure requirements placed on registered organisations, increase penalties for those found to have done the wrong thing and establish a strong, independent regulator—the Registered Organisations Commission—to give the regulation of registered organisations the attention it needs.

It is clear from case example after case example after case example that many union officials have used their members' funds and their unions as their own personal piggy bank. Unless parliament acts, there will be nothing to deter this behaviour.

I turn now to the senators' contributions during the debate. Labor has proposed that this bill exclude application to volunteers. I remind those opposite of one particular person whose last position with the HSU was as a volunteer. The position was, of course, the honorary national secretary, and that person was Kathy Jackson. Labor's amendments would ensure that Kathy Jackson would be able to continue doing what she was doing with no recourse. Under Labor's proposal Kathy Jackson could not be held accountable for any wrongdoing in that role simply because she was a volunteer. This creates a significant loophole in the legislation—one that would no doubt be exploited.

We believe that, if a volunteer like Kathy Jackson makes significant decisions affecting the finances of a registered organisation, they should be held to the same standards as a paid official. We are not talking about a union delegate who attends a conference and is asked to vote to accept the financial reports of a branch. They will not be caught. What we are talking about here is volunteers—Kathy Jackson—with real decision-making power who deliberately do the wrong thing or turn a blind eye to doing the wrong thing.

Labor has also proposed that the regulator be ASIC rather than the Registered Organisations Commission. This is a distraction for ASIC, a watering down of the current arrangements and a signal that Labor still refuses to acknowledge the serious wrongdoings within registered organisations that require stronger, not weaker oversight. Surely registered organisations—and I remind those in the debate that they have a collective net worth of approximately $2 billion and have approximately two million members—deserve their own regulator to ensure that those in charge of the registered organisation are doing the right thing by their members.

Look at the investigations into the misconduct within the Health Services Union. They took years and years to come to a conclusion despite the overwhelming evidence that was available. The current regulator, the Fair Work Commission, has many other duties and is unable to give the regulation of registered organisations the focus they so clearly require. The Registered Organisations Commission is needed to ensure that misconduct is detected and addressed quickly and effectively.

Labor has also proposed that the disclosure threshold for donations to all federal elections be reduced to $1,000. Labor also well knows that this is not the time or place to discuss proposed amendments to electoral laws. That is a completely separate piece of legislation. In addition, Labor is well aware, following any federal election, the matters of electoral policy are first considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, and that is currently being undertaken.

I now turn specifically to matters raised by members of the crossbench. I place on the record my gratitude and thanks to members of the crossbench for considering this bill on its merits and engaging with the government in good faith to discuss genuine improvements to protect members of registered organisations. I put on the record that the government is happy to support stronger protections for whistleblowers in this bill and thank Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch for proposing these strong protections. The proposals will ensure that whistleblowers have access to strong and effective remedies where a person causes them detriment out of a belief that they may make a disclosure of certain information. It will also ensure that the regulator can pursue those who cause detriment to whistleblowers, including prosecuting them for a criminal offence. I confirm the undertaking, read into Hansard, by Senator Xenophon from the government.

The government is also very happy to support stronger measures to ensure that those who conduct audits of registered organisations are independent. Auditors should be independent, should be registered and should be rotated regularly. These are the equivalent arrangements that apply to company auditors, and there is currently no such regime within registered organisations. The government is pleased to support Senator Hinch's amendments in this regard.

The coalition is committed to improving the governance and accountability of registered organisations. The case for improvement is clear. The Australian people have chosen, and the parliament now has an opportunity to act. I commend the bill to the chamber.