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

I am pleased to indicate that Labor will be opposing the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014. The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, in his second reading speech, argued that he had fought the double dissolution election on our industrial relations commitments and they had won. I think there might have been one day when there was one small mention of industrial relations during the election campaign, but for the Prime Minister to argue that the last election campaign was fought on this bill is another example of where this Prime Minister has really lost the plot.

He went on to talk about grave failures of governance and a lack of accountability and transparency. I think the biggest failures of governance in this country have been the failures of governance in the banking industry, where the banks are systematically ripping off ordinary Australians, and this government will do nothing about it. This government refuses to have a royal commission into the banking industry, the biggest corporate rip-off that we have seen in this country for years.

He talks about setting up a robust regulator with appropriate powers and resources. I will come to it a bit later, but we have seen what their robust regulators do, with the ABCC and the absolute contempt shown by the ABCC—or Fair Work Building and Construction, who would like to be the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It is a regulator that does not care about accountability and does not feel that it should have to be accountable.

Malcolm Turnbull went on to talk about meaningful sanctions that can be applied when wrongdoing is revealed. There are plenty of sanctions there: the people that have been involved in wrongdoing are in jail, where they should be. Anyone that rips off money from workers and trade unionists should go to jail. That is where they should be—absolutely in the slammer, where they deserve to be.

Then the Prime Minister went on to say that the government has an unambiguous mandate from the Australian people to ensure that the registered organisations act is transparent and accountable. The transparency and accountability are there, and the transparency and accountability will be from what we are proposing, the amendments that we will propose to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill. We are proposing that ASIC investigate serious contraventions, not some mate of the coalition, put in there on hundreds of thousands of dollars to run the coalition's agenda from within a government organisation. We are arguing for tougher penalties, because we have no time for any trade union official, or anyone, who would rip off workers through the union movement.

We are proposing a cracking down on dodgy auditors. We are arguing that whistleblowers should be protected and encouraged. If someone wants to blow the whistle on anyone in the trade union movement that is doing the wrong thing, that should be dealt with. It should be dealt with unequivocally and in a clear manner, and the whistleblower should be protected. We are also arguing for transparent disclosure and disclosure thresholds.

I have to say to you I am appalled at the hide of the Prime Minister and of this party, the party who gave us Work Choices, the 2014 budget, the ABCC and trickle-down economics. How dare this party masquerade as a government who cares for rank and file unionists? It does not care about rank and file unionists. We know what its agenda is: to destroy effective trade unionism in this country so that the mates that keep throwing the money into its bank accounts for election after election—the big end of town—get more profit at the expense of ordinary working people. This is the party who gave us unfair individual contracts. Remember the Spotlight workers—women trying to help their families get food on the table, unmercifully ripped off by Spotlight under this government's Work Choices legislation. This is the party who reckons that, if you go on the job, you should simply do what the boss tells you, with no rights when you go on the job. You clock off your rights when you clock on, and the boss has complete managerial control. This is the mob that is trying to tell us that it is doing this to help ordinary workers and ordinary trade unionists. This is the mob that wanted to get rid of penalty rates, which are absolutely essential for many families to make a living and actually put food on the table, send their kids to school, and buy the school shoes and schoolbooks as and when they are needed. It wants to get rid of penalty rates, annual leave loading, bargaining rights and every long-held protection that workers have fought for in this country.

The crossbench should understand that this is just one aspect of how the coalition are going to set about doing this. This is not simply the end of the story for the coalition; this is part of a long-term strategy that they have to diminish the capacity of the trade union movement to represent workers and have decent bargaining rights in this country. If they were the mob that were going to look after workers, why have they treated the public servants, their employees, with absolute disdain and contempt over the last three years? If they were the great protectors of the trade unionists in this country, why have they not bargained in good faith with the Public Service in this country for almost three years?

This is the mob that says it is going to look after trade unionists, and it appoints a professional union buster, Mr John Lloyd, as the Public Service Commissioner—a man who has made his livelihood attacking trade unionists and workers' rights for as long as he has been in public service in this country.

This is the mob who would destroy the apprenticeship system and shift the cost of training from the employer to the apprentice. It determined that there would be student builders to appease former Senator Bob Day and make sure that Senator Bob Day's vote continued to be provided to the coalition. Former Senator Bob Day asked for $1.4 million so he could rip apprentices off, and what does this government do? It says: 'No, Bob, we're not going to give you $1.4 million. How about $2 million to get rid of apprenticeships in this country?' This is the mob that, because it is supporting that Bob Day proposal, would destroy the trade certificate system in this country just to appease former Senator Bob Day.

The great protectors of the trade union movement, as they were trying to portray themselves, are the very mob that would seek to deny women workers decent maternity leave. That is what they are about. Do not ever be fooled into thinking that this lot have any bone in their body that is sympathetic to the trade union movement or workers in this country. They are the lot that would deny workers an increase in superannuation. I know that, when I first became a union official, one of my first jobs was to try to get superannuation for ordinary workers. If you were a blue-collar worker under the coalition, what happened with you then was that, if you left the job, you lost your superannuation, because there was no vesting of your superannuation for a blue-collar worker in this country—absolutely none. They supported that, and they opposed superannuation. So, for every condition that makes workers' lives in this country a bit better and easier and makes it easier for workers to go home to their families and say, 'Look, I've got a decent wage and decent conditions and I'm feeling all right about myself and my job,' this is the lot that would take that away.

They really are the party who support Wall Street wages for the boss and Bangladesh wages for ordinary workers in this country. They have been like that for as long as I have been in this country, and that is over 40 years. That is what they are: Bangladesh wages for workers and Wall Street wages for the mob that put the money in their back pocket. That is what they are about. They are the party that believe it is okay to sack a worker unfairly. I could not believe that we have legislation that says, basically, that you can treat a worker unfairly and then you can sack them. This is just beyond belief.

This is the party that rails against unions while turning a blind eye to young, inexperienced Irish and German backpackers being killed on dangerous construction sites. Do you ever hear coalition members come in and say, 'This is terrible that this construction company had no safety on the job and were using backpackers and the backpackers got killed under huge lumps of concrete, or a young German backpacker—a young woman, a female worker with no experience in the building and construction industry—fell many metres and met her death'? Do they say anything about that? No, they do not. This is not the mob that would support trade unionists in this country.

This is the party who ignores the plight of 457 workers being ripped off by senior Liberal Party members and Liberal Party donors. Just look at subclass 457. When was the last time you heard coalition members say anything about the workers working on 457 visas in 7-Eleven shops right around the country? They say nothing. They do nothing. The only thing you hear from this lot is attacks on the trade union movement.

This is the party that has given us the most incompetent, arrogant and biased public servant ever in this country, Mr Nigel Hadgkiss. Mr Hadgkiss, the head of Fair Work Building and Construction, who treats his accountability to the Senate with absolute contempt. Hadgkiss, who treats the estimates process as unimportant and not requiring honest and open answers. Hadgkiss, who believes maintaining a diary is his prerogative and not the need for any accountability for the expenditure of taxpayers' money.

This is the mob who talk about accountability and transparency and failure of government when it comes to unions. They only do that when they are attempting to smear the great Australian trade union movement. Yet, when it comes to the Liberal Party itself, when it is discovered to be more corrupt than any trade union movement in this country, when it systematically goes around breaching electoral laws in New South Wales, when ICAC exposes the Liberal Party for its dishonesty, for its corruption, what does it do? It does not say to ICAC, 'Great job; well done'. It changes the laws to define ICAC. That is what this lot do. So if it is the trade union movement and there are a minority of problems in the trade union movement, then you impose legislation that takes rights away from all workers. When it is the Liberal Party—up in Newcastle, sitting in the back seat of the Bentley, taking brown paper bags with 10 grand of illegal donations to the Liberal Party—what do you hear from the Liberal Party? A big fat zero. Nothing.

How dare the Liberal Party come here and lecture us about accountability and proper process? If they deal with the problems in the Liberal Party they might have an argument to come here and raise issues about any other organisation in this country. But they cover up the corruption in the Liberal Party, they cover up the corruption in the banks, they cover up the corruption in the farming sector where workers are being mercilessly ripped off. All they do is they come in here day after day attacking the trade union movement, when the real problems in this economy are the people who are supporting those opposite. They come in here after losing 10 Liberal Party members in New South Wales because of the corruption watchdog in New South Wales. Ten members of the Liberal Party gone because of corruption in New South Wales. Senator Sinodinos has memory loss. Every day that he was in ICAC he lost his memory, but he was prepared to take thousands of dollars from a company that was going bust—or even had been bust—to travel from the eastern suburbs to a meeting in the western suburbs of Sydney. Those are the types of people we are dealing with across the chamber.

They are the mob who ignore the greed and avarice and financial destruction of innocent families by the big banks. They are the mob who want to hand $50 billion in tax cuts to big business, including the banks. Why would anybody give the banks a tax cut when they are ripping families off day-in day-out, screwing families every day? This is the mob who are presiding over rising inequality and declining living standards. Surely that is the issue the public would want any government to deal with? They rail against red tape and big government, but when it comes to attacking the union movement or paying off their mate Bob Day, there is no limit to the amount of taxpayers' money that can be splashed around—absolutely no limit. They ignore the existing regulatory bodies, and they create more bureaucracy and red tape by establishing another regulatory body. Never too much red tape when it is used against the trade union movement!

They now want to create a new, highly paid position, the Registered Organisations Commissioner—another Nigel Hadgkiss or John Lloyd in the making.

Australian workers have a right to question this mob. The crossbench should be questioning it, because this is more red tape and more ideology at work. This is ignoring the real problems in the economy and taking the worst aspects of problems in the trade union movement and saying they apply everywhere. They do not. Australian workers have a right to belong to independent trade unions. I was a union official for 27 years, 11 years as National Secretary of the AMWU. I received the ACTU award for outstanding commitment to the Australian trade union movement. I know a bit about the Australian trade union movement. My record as a union official is on the public record. My activities are an open book: fighting for workers' wages and conditions, for superannuation, for shorter hours, for health and safety and for decent jobs and industry policy, and working with employers to improve the productive performance of companies. I was a member of Mr Keating's best practice advisory committee, where we went to companies who did not even have a business plan. How crazy was that? Yet it was the trade union movement, working with government, that actually modernised whole areas of Australian industry. I was responsible for putting an external review board into the AMWU so that accountability was there. Any member could go to former deputy president of the New South Wales commission Jim Macken, former Senator Barney Cooney and former Victorian Premier Joan Kirner, and take any complaint about the operation of the union to them.

This is just one step in a broader attack on the trade union movement. The government should be dealing with the real issues and should lay off the trade union movement, because without unions wages, conditions and living standards in this country will decline. (Time expired)

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 should be defeated. It has already been defeated twice in the Senate, and the right thing to do would be to vote it down again.

In trying to understand this bill, we need to examine it in the context of what the Liberal-National party stand for and to understand why they are so obsessed with attacking the union movement, why they really go after collective action that workers engage in to improve wages and conditions, and why they effectively, therefore, are taking a stand against those working for a fair society. The registered organisations bill is not just some simple piece of legislation to get some conditions in place; it is legislation about tying up how unions fundamentally work.

Again, why are Liberals and Nationals so obsessed with laws that weaken unions? The coalition's key purpose is to deliver for its constituents, and its constituents are corporate Australia. And what is the key demand of corporate Australia? Why corporations are on the planet is to increase their profits. It is what CEOs are legally required to do: to do the best thing by their shareholders. The best thing by their shareholders is increasing profits. How do you increase profits? You limit the role of unions, and that is what is going on here with the registered organisations bill we are dealing with today and with the ABCC bill, which this government is also obsessed with pushing through.

So that is why they are doing it. That is why the Liberals and Nationals, under Prime Minister Turnbull, are pushing so hard in this last two weeks of parliament to get through this legislation. But they cannot go out there and say: 'We have to pass this legislation because our main backers, corporate Australia, want it through. We want to make it harder for workers to get out there to defend and improve their conditions, gain higher wages and improve safety on the job—all issues that will cut, to some extent, into the profits. Corporate Australia want to have a free hand, with more deregulation, and want to go in there hard.' Mr Turnbull cannot go out there and say, 'We get big donations from corporate Australia, and their key demand is to weaken unions.' Senator Cash, as the responsible minister, cannot go out there and tell the truth about why they are introducing this legislation. So what do they come up with? The big lie, the deception about why this legislation is being introduced.

Apparently, if you listen to them and believe them, it is about getting registered organisations and corporations on a level playing field so that they will be bound up with the same laws, requirements and standards. Again, when you look at it, that is just not the case. The starting point here needs to be that unions and corporations are not the same. Again, let's remind ourselves: corporations have a legal obligation to get out there and make profits for their shareholders. What is the job of unions? Unions are organisations where workers—the members—come together collectively to work for improved wages and conditions.

Let's also remember what this has meant for Australia. It is why we have the type of fair society that we have—a society where we need to work to improve fairness and reduce inequality. What workers have achieved, organised collectively and coming together in unions, is fantastic: holiday pay, sick pay and penalty rates. Why do we have penalty rates? Because we value our weekends. We value time in our communities with our families and friends. Therefore, if you are in one of those jobs where you have to work at weekends, you should get that extra assistance—that extra pay. All these conditions, and much more, have been won by unions in well over a century of struggle. But, if corporate Australia could get its way, so much of that would be stripped away. That goes to the heart of what we are dealing with here today, and it is a reminder that the role of unions is not similar to, and cannot be equated to, the role of corporate Australia, which is how the government are trying to present their argument, because they have this dilemma. They cannot justify what they are doing by being honest, so they are coming up with this huge misinformation about what is going on here.

It is really worth expanding on this issue of what the union movement has achieved for Australia, at a time when all you hear from the Turnbull government and from most of the media outlets is attacks on unions, as though they are all out there feathering their own nests and doing the wrong thing. If people do the wrong thing, there are a raft of laws in Australia, as the government knows. If criminal activities are undertaken, you have a responsibility to go and report them, and they can be taken up immediately. That is not a problem. Again, the fact that those laws are so rarely acted on demonstrates what is really going on here.

I have detailed just some of the huge achievements of the union movement. These huge achievements are at the core of a fair society, and again they were not given to us because our forebears in this place came and sat on the red benches and the green benches one day, had a good idea and thought, 'Okay, let's pass some legislation so there'll be holiday pay, sick pay and penalty rates.' They did not happen because earlier MPs arrived at work and decided to pass that bill; they came about because workers collectively came together to struggle, campaign, go on strike and engage with their communities to win those rights—something that is so fundamental to the type of society we have today. It has been that big battle all along. If these proposed laws go through, the red tape—and remember that this is also a government that is always telling us how it wants to cut red tape, but not when it comes to the union movement; it wants to tie the union movement up—will make it much harder to continue those important campaigns that make such a difference to the lives of so many.

CEOs, bosses and corporate heads have their lobbyists in here pushing hard for laws that restrict union activities. That is why in the last two weeks, when there is so much important work that should be undertaken, we are being subjected to these two proposed laws, which should have been binned long ago.

It is easier to run a profit-making company unencumbered by unions saying workers deserve higher wages, calling for occupational health and safety inspections or campaigning for overtime to include full penalty rates. The boss sees all these demands as financial burdens. We cannot emphasise this enough, because this is what the government is refusing to acknowledge. Why do they do that? Why do they want to cut corners? Why do they not want to grant those very reasonable demands for safety on the job?

You heard the previous speaker, Senator Cameron, give that tragic example of the young German backpacker killed early on in her work here. She had no experience on the job, she was not given proper inductions, and she lost her life when she was travelling around the world trying to get some experience and to see different countries. There was the absolutely criminal activity in Queensland just recently. I will come back to this in the ABCC debate, but it is worth repeating many times: two workers were in a huge pit with big concrete slabs being moved above them. They see one slab starting to topple, and they are able to scramble up a ladder to get away from it. They start to stabilise it, but they cannot stop the next big concrete slab from toppling and they get squashed. They are killed between two concrete slabs. These are the sorts of incidents that are going on at building sites all the time. And if you wonder why it is a rough and tumble industry, it has a lot to do with the rotten working conditions that are becoming, tragically, more common because of the weakening of unions in this country, who find it much harder to get out there and take up these issues.

A couple of years back it was the Abbott government that was doing something similar to what the Turnbull government is doing today—that is, trying to push through these anti-union laws. This is common when you have conservative governments in power; this is what they do. One of their primary roles is to get this type of legislation through. We are seeing it from the Turnbull government; we have seen it with the Abbott government. Not too long ago it was the Howard government and Work Choices. And then you go back to the Menzies government and the penal sections of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act that set down heavy fines and jail sentences for union officials and rank-and-file members who engaged in any action contrary to an order of the arbitration court. And unionists were jailed under that act.

Again, this is a reminder that the coalition understand what their core business is. They get into power and what is their job? To weaken how unions operate. And we have seen it successively with different governments, and that is what Minister Cash has been spending all her time on—to continue that history of how coalition governments work. And with that brief history that I just ran through of what previous conservative governments have done, it shows it is not that dissimilar to the registered organisations bill that we are now dealing with. The same intent is there: it is designed to tie up unions and limit their ability to work for improved wages and conditions.

An examination of current laws reveal why this legislation is not needed. Currently unions are required under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 and other legislation to be democratic organisations. Remember there is no similar requirement for corporations. Unions are required to publish their accounts and financial returns every year online, but proprietary limited companies are not. The companies do not have to do that. That highlights the big lie that is coming from the government in how they are promoting what this bill is about. They are not being truthful with what is going on here.

Current laws prevent officers of registered organisations from using their positions for their own personal benefit. If an officer did abuse his or her position they could be prosecuted. And then there are all of the criminal laws: if there is corruption or if there is rorting in any form, it can be dealt with right now. That is possible. This bill is not needed in any form. The bill allows the government to intervene and control unions in a way that is not in place for private companies. Private companies, corporate Australia, can get away with it. The laws have been successively weakened on their accountability, whereas for unions it is getting much tougher.

If the Turnbull 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 that they will impose the same penalties as apply to a publicly listed company. This legislation, by tying unions up in red tape, will reduce their ability to continue to work for the interests of workers. Those on very low pay and poor conditions need unions.

Again, when you look at the way Australian society has developed, what you see, for well over the last century, is that, when you have stronger unions fighting for and winning good wages and conditions, that flows through to workers who are not in that same position, may not be represented by a union and may not have the industrial muscle to be able to achieve those changes. In time it flows through to them. Cleaners, child-care and aged-care workers, and all workers with little ability to organise benefit when unions that cover workers in other sectors have wins with improved wages and conditions. We really need to remember that. It has been a very significant part of how our society has developed.

But now our society is at the crossroads. To pass this legislation will further exacerbate the inequality that is becoming the hallmark of 21st century Australia. Workplaces will become more unsafe, and wages for many will hover around the poverty level as the government does everything possible to make it easier for companies to undercut wages, avoid penalty rates, and have more workers on casual rates while some work 50 or even more hours a week or attempt to survive by taking on one, two, three or more jobs. On those conditions, what meaning does family life have? How would people have time to go to a P&C meeting at their local school and attend their children's sporting events, and how would they pay for their children's school excursions? These are real questions. If you are committed to Australia being a fair society, a fair society means people are not in constant struggle to pay the rent, put food on the table, dress their kids and help them with their recreational activities. There are people who are struggling so hard at the moment, and the backup that so many families and so many people have is that there is a union movement there that is working for decency. What people are facing now, in the low-wage, no-job-security society that the Turnbull government is overseeing, is that life is going to get harder for them—again, because of bills like this that should in no way become laws.

This bill is the latest attack by this coalition government on the union movement—again, representing a long history of what coalition governments do when they get into power. They deliver for their constituency, corporate Australia, which donates millions of dollars to the Liberal and National parties to try to get them elected. The registered organisations bill should not pass. It is one more brick in the wall of inequality the Turnbull government is constructing. The intent is ugly, ruthless and cruel. It is a bad bill and it should be voted down.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Marshall, I am again privileged to be contributing to a debate with you back in the chair. Can I say how pleasing that is. It feels like the natural order of this place has been restored, and I hope there will be much more of it.

It is wonderful to begin a Monday morning in the Senate on such a positive note, with a terrific and important bill before the Senate, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014. Mr Acting Deputy President, through you, can I please congratulate the minister for her leadership on this issue and on many other issues. This is a minister who will already go down as the minister who saved owner-driver truck drivers this year; this is a minister who will already go down as the minister who saved the CFA volunteers; and I hope, with the agreement of the Senate, in due course this will also be the minister who will go down as the minister who saved union members from being ripped off by dodgy union officials.

The contributions to the debate so far this morning, I think, have been very instructive. I listened carefully, as I always do, to Senator Cameron's contributions and, of course, to Senator Rhiannon's contributions as well. Although they were very passionate and erudite, as always, I thought it was very revealing to see what they chose to talk about and what they did not speak about. In fact, they spoke very little about the bill that is before us today. They spoke very little about its provisions, about what it seeks to do and about the problems that it seeks to address. Instead, they spoke at some length and in some detail about the union movement generally, about its achievements, its accomplishments and its role in society. Senator Rhiannon even talked about how some people in our society find it difficult to pay their rent or to find time off work to look after their kids. These are good and worthy topics and important issues, but not ones which relate to this bill directly or, frankly, in my view, even indirectly.

I would like this morning to return to the bill itself and talk about what it actually seeks to achieve, to see if we can help enlighten the Senate about what we are actually debating and focusing on this morning and throughout this week. The government is asking the Senate to ensure that both unions and employer organisations are subject to similar levels of transparency and accountability to those we require of companies. The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Bill 2014 will establish a focused regulator to oversee unions and employer groups with strong powers to enforce the law. It will mean officials from unions and employer groups will be subject to similar standards to those of company directors under Corporations Law, including more thorough reporting and disclosure and, for those who break the law, bigger penalties.

This legislation is important because across Australia there are 47 unions and 63 employer groups, with annual revenues of $1.5 billion and assets of $2.5 billion. More than two million members trust these organisations with their money. Honest workers deserve to know their union or employer group is acting in their best interests. These organisations have special privileges under the law, and I think that it is appropriate that with those special privileges come reasonable obligations and expectations of capability and transparency. For example, these organisations are exempt from paying income tax. All Australians deserve to know, as a result of that, how they are being accountable for that privilege. Unions in particular have other special legal privileges that are not afforded to other organisations, companies or individuals in our society, such as the right of entry to a workplace. With such a special legal privilege I do not think it is unreasonable for them to be held at only the same standard as a company director or a corporation.

I will talk a little about how this legislation will work. The bill contains measures to improve the standard of governance of registered organisations and to deter wrongdoing. They include, for example, a focused regulator, to be called the Registered Organisations Commission with appropriate resources and powers modelled on those of corporate regulators, enhanced financial accountability provisions and meaningful sanctions that can be applied when any wrongdoing is revealed. Some of the new accountability measures for unions and employer groups will include requiring registered organisations to disclose remuneration paid to the top five highest-paid officers in their head office and any branches and requiring officers whose duties relate to financial management to disclose material personal interests, and ensuring officers do not make decisions on matters where they have a conflict of interest. It is difficult to understand what anyone would object to among those provisions. Perhaps that is why the senators who have spoken in opposition to this bill this morning have not referred to any of these provisions.

I note that Senator Dastyari is due to speak next. I have a challenge for him—that is to address the merits of the bill and of these provisions in particular. I look forward to hearing his specific concerns about these measures, if he is indeed joining with his colleagues and opposing this bill.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Challenge accepted!

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome that. The legislation also introduces higher civil penalties and a range of criminal penalties for organisations and officials who are found by courts to have done the wrong thing—for example, civil penalties ranging from $18,000 to $216,000 for individuals and up to $1,080,000 for a body corporate and criminal penalties for reckless or intentional dishonest breaches of an officers duties of up to $360,000 or five years imprisonment or both.

I would like to talk about some of the events which led the government to form the view that this was a necessary measure. This is not something that the government decided to do on a whim or without any evidence. It is something that the government has done in response to major incidents of defrauding of union members' funds and the misuse of union officials' powers. Here are some examples, and it is important to note for the record that this applies to a range of unions, not just a handful. It applies to a range of union officials, not just a couple of bad apples. And it is not ancient history. Many of these incidents are current. Indeed, there is a case in the courts this very week relating to the National Union of Workers and an alleged fraud of up to $400,000 of union members' money. This is not ancient history; these are current issues facing union members and unions across the country.

For example, TWU officials spent more than $300,000 purchasing modified American utes, which were used for personal purposes. One official even attached personalised number plates to his ute. Another official had the union's redundancy policy redrafted so that he could take his car with him once he left the union, which happened not very long after the purchase of that truck. National Union of Workers officials and staff have used members' funds on dating websites, sports tickets, toys and holidays. NUW officials and staff used corporate cards and credit cards to buy holidays worth more than $18,000, sports tickets worth more than $4,000, toys worth more than $670, dating website services worth more than $2,200, hairdressing and iTunes purchases worth more than $1,500, and other personal purchases.

Back to our friends at the Transport Workers Union. We had assistant secretary John Berger as the Tasmanian superannuation liaison officer for TWUSUPER from 2009 to 2012. He was also an employee of the TWU at that time. In the 2011-12 financial year, Berger spent only five days in Tasmania, with half of his time devoted to his duties on behalf of TWUSUPER. The TWU then billed the superannuation fund $93,434 for his work in that financial year. That is a pretty spectacular rate of pay. Senator Cameron was very concerned about Wall Street rates of pay, but I think we should be looking very closely at Tasmanian rates of pay on that hourly basis. There would be many Wall Street traders who would be envious of that kind of remuneration. This invoiced amount covered exactly half of Berger's total annual salary. He reluctantly agreed with Jeremy Stoljar SC during the union's royal commission that, on the math, the invoice that was put in claims $93,000 for 2½ days' work. Obviously a very productive union official.

Another matter that senators may be aware of is that the Leader of the Opposition's campaign director's wages were paid by a construction company—obviously a very kind and considerate construction company. Mr Shorten accepted a $40,000 donation from one of the companies negotiating a pay deal with the Australian Workers Union, Unibilt, at the time he was the Australian Workers Union national secretary and campaigning to become a member of parliament. The donation was used to pay the wages of Shorten's campaign staffer in 2007, but was not disclosed until two days before the royal commission asked him about these matters in sworn evidence—quite a number of years later, as senators will be aware.

One final example: the Australian Workers Union—again—was identified as being engaged in issuing false invoices. The royal commission heard that Cesar Melhem, a member of the upper house in state parliament and a Labor MP, repeatedly issued false invoices to companies marked as 'training', 'occupational health and safety' or similar when in fact they were actually payments for union membership in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Australian Workers Union membership roll contained the names of workers as well as horseracing jockeys who had never agreed to become members of the union.

These are just a handful of examples. This is just a snapshot of the many instances in which union officials have engaged in untoward conduct, where union members' money has been spent misspent. We have not even spoken so far today about the Health Services Union and the spectacular misuse of members' funds that occurred there under the stewardship of a previous member of the other place, but I have no doubt that other senators will contribute some details about that case later on in the debate.

It is very clear that union members have been taken for a ride by union officials for far too long, and it has fallen on this government to take action to address it. It should not require a coalition government to address this. The previous Labor government was confronted with a very similar set of facts and could have taken measures to address this, but it chose not to. Instead, it chose to side with union officials over union members, and that is something that this government will not do. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome Senator Paterson's remarks and his contribution on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014. He felt that the debate should be heading towards the specifics of the legislation that is before the Senate. I do intend to speak about the specifics of the bill itself, but I think it is near impossible to divorce the specifics of this bill from the broader issue, which is nothing other than a concerted assault by this government on elements of the trade union movement and the trade union movement as a whole. The idea that you can look at a piece of legislation like this in isolation without the context of the approach that is being taken by this government on the broader issues of workers' rights, trade union participation and the movement more generally I think would be false and a mistake.

I will talk a little bit about the specifics of what this bill proposes to do. I would not mind trying in an impartial way to outline the bill as I understand it and then outline my opposition to it. The bill itself establishes the Registered Organisations Commission, which will be headed by the Registered Organisations Commissioner, who will be hand-picked by the government and will have greater investigative powers than those currently available under the Fair Work Commission. It increases disclosure requirements for officers and registered organisations. It introduces higher penalties for civil contraventions and introduces criminal offences in respect of officers' duties which are modelled on those found in the Corporations Act 2001. I think it is worth noting that this bill was defeated—I know Senator Rhiannon said on two separate occasions—I recall on three separate occasions, but I may be mistaken—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you're right.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, on three separate occasions by the 44th Parliament. There may have been an earlier one that defeated it once. It is a little bit like groundhog day here—here we go again.

Some suggestions have been proposed—and again I do not want to go so far as overly foreshadowing amendments that may or may not be made in this chamber. There are proposals—that should be taken—that Labor outlined as part of our plan for better union governance that was announced in December 2015. It would provide: increased penalties but exempt volunteers, greater protection for whistleblowers, more accountability for auditors and more accountability for electoral donations by reducing disclosure amounts from $13,200 to $1,000. Rather than creating a new bureaucratic Registered Organisations Commission, Labor proposed that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission use its extensive coercive powers to investigate serious breaches of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act.

There are serious concerns about the nature of this legislation. The bill will establish the Registered Organisations Commission, which will be headed by the Registered Organisations Commissioner, who again will be hand-picked by this government. The bill modifies disclosure requirements. This bill actually increases red tape. It is fascinating to hear senators who have been such strong advocates of lessening government regulation, like Senator Paterson, arguing for what can only be described as another burdensome process being placed on none other than in many cases volunteers who are giving up their own time and their own effort to participate.

The bill contains higher penalties for civil contraventions and introduces criminal offences, as discussed earlier, but these sanctions are onerous. These sanctions are disproportionate. They are unfair. They prevent employers who volunteer to work for employer bodies from continuing that work. The bill treats volunteers like the chief executives of corporate boards, except without the pay and conditions.

Registered organisations and the role they play in our society should not be underestimated or ignored. They are created for the purpose of representing Australian employees and employees at work. But the important point is that a lot of these are organisations and positions that are held by volunteers, by people who give up their own time and their own resources and who choose to participate in these types of processes because they believe in the issues, the cause and the matters for which they are fighting. Registered organisations represent their members before industrial tribunals and courts and work with government on policy matters as wide-ranging as economic policy and social policy.

What concerns me is that the real agenda of the government is not in this case about strengthening the trade union movement. The real agenda with this legislation is to destroy and weaken the role of the trade unions within our society. The nature of this legislation goes to the heart of doing that by making it more difficult, more onerous and more challenging for volunteers to participate and be involved in these types of organisations. This legislation is nothing more than an attack on the rights of Australian workers to be properly represented and protected.

It is worth making the point that in the majority of submissions, from both employer and employee groups, to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee's inquiry into the previous iteration of this bill—again, this is not a new bill—were against the substantive measures outlined in the bill. I note that in an earlier inquiry the Ai Group, an organisation that is not known to be aligned with the Labor Party, said:

If the proposed criminal penalties and proposed massive financial penalties for breaches of duties are included in the RO Act, this would operate as a major disincentive to existing voluntary officers of registered organisations continuing in their roles, and would deter other people from holding office.

These are serious concerns.

Senator Paterson and others, especially from the government side, who have spoken about this bill tend to talk about the allegations of criminality, some of which are very serious cases of criminality. Unlawful behaviour, particularly criminal behaviour, by anyone should be met by the full force of the law. That should be the case whether the person is a banker or a union official. No-one should have any tolerance for those who steal from workers, whether that be corrupt union officials stealing members' money or employers underpaying their staff. In all cases, the taking advantage of the weak and vulnerable is reprehensible behaviour and should be called out for what it is. That is why we have an Australian Federal Police and state and territory police with the powers to investigate crimes. We even have the Australian Crime Commission, which has coercive powers and the power to investigate serious crimes. They are the appropriate, well-resourced, bodies to deal with these serious allegations. I am not of the view that simply creating another level of bureaucracy is going to achieve the outcome of improving this situation.

Labor supports strong and proportionate regulation of registered organisations. Proportionality in this scenario means that you have an appropriate response to the challenges being faced. That is why the Labor Party in 2012 proposed a series of reforms. We further updated those reforms in December 2015. They are reforms that have not been taken up by the government.

In 2012, the legislation that was put forward by the then minister for employment and now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, in the other chamber, tripled penalties for breaches of the Fair Work Act. The legislation required that education and training about governance and accounting obligations be provided to officials of registered organisations and required the disclosure of officials' remuneration and pecuniary and financial interests. It also enhanced the investigative powers available to Fair Work Australia, including the power for the Fair Work Australia general manager to provide information to bodies such as federal or state police and other regulatory agencies, correcting a serious flaw in the regulatory regime introduced by a previous minister for workplace relations, Mr Tony Abbott. The legislation was supported by both employer and employee organisations. The regulation of trade unions as a result of these 2012 changes meant that we had a working body that had never been stronger. Accountability had never been higher, and the powers of the Fair Work Commission to investigate and prosecute for breaches had never been broader. Penalties were tripled, which means they had also never been tougher.

Look at how the government has carried on. Look at how the government behaves. If you look at how the government speaks and at the rhetoric it chooses to use in this space, you realise that what it says could not be further from the truth. The registered organisations act prohibits members' money from being used to favour particular candidates in internal elections or campaigns. The registered organisations act already allows for criminal proceedings to be initiated where funds are stolen or obtained by fraud, and the registered organisations act already ensures that the Fair Work Commission can share information with police—as is entirely appropriate. The registered organisations act already provides for statutory civil penalties where a party knowingly or recklessly contravenes an order and direction made by the Federal Court and the Fair Work Commission. Under the Fair Work Act, officers of registered organisations already have fiduciary duties akin to those of directors under the Corporations Law.

Labor has put forward a plan to strengthen the transparency and accountability of trade unions, and it is something that I feel this government should be looking at adopting. It is something that will actually have meaningful impact—improving the legislation and the procedures by which these matters are dealt with. What we have from the government, however, is nothing more than an ideologically-driven assault on the rights of workers to participate in the trade union movement and on the rights of workers—especially those who are volunteers—to engage and to have their role and their say. It is impossible to split the reality of where the government's agenda has been heading on this issue and what the government itself is saying.

I want to quickly run through what the government has been doing in some of these areas. When it comes to the protection of Australian workers, this government could not have done less on the real issue and on what is going on there. I find it disappointing that, on this Monday morning, the first issue of the day, the matter we are dealing with, is a registered organisations bill that has been rejected several times by this chamber in the past and that has no other purpose than to push an ideological agenda and an assault on good, hardworking Australians.

I was fortunate last week to participate in the Senate inquiry into matters related to the coal industry. The day before the inquiry I was fortunate to be able to travel to Hazelwood and meet with a group of workers who have been displaced or will be displaced as of May next year and to talk to these workers about the challenges that they face. Those are the matters that this chamber should be dealing with. Those are the matters that should be the top priority on our agenda. When we are seeing 750 workers who have lost their jobs, that should be the focus of this government. Instead, we have a government that has decided that the first piece of legislation on its agenda is going to be nothing other than an assault on the rights of workers and an attack on their ability to participate. The government is creating unnecessary legislation which will do nothing other than discourage volunteers and others from participating in these processes.

The proposals that were put forward by Labor at the end of last year, in December 2015, go to the heart of legitimate concerns that have been raised in this space. They go to the heart of the issues that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, we have not seen the government engage in serious amendments that can improve this legislation and have the possibility of being bipartisan. I am still hopeful there may be an opportunity to work out a bipartisan way of dealing with this issue. Unfortunately though, I am increasingly coming to the view that that is probably something that is not realistically going to happen.

The regulation we have placed on trade unions is serious; it is strong. But what we have here is assault after assault on trade unions; assault after assault on the rights of working Australians—and at a time when there are such challenges being faced with respect to the future of the Australian workforce and the future of Australian jobs, and with industry after industry being displaced. There is a disconnect in what is happening out there in the real world, in workplaces, in industries that are on the way out.

Rather than using our time in this chamber to discuss how we prepare our economy, how we prepare our workplaces and how we prepare our industry for the changes that will inevitably be taking place, here we are, with only two weeks to go, again talking about a piece of legislation that has been debated to death, that has been rejected on three separate occasions—rather than talking about the issues of what some of these workers are now facing. An incredible change is taking place in the Australian economy. Incredible changes are taking place when it comes to Australian jobs. The focus of the employment minister needs to be on how we futureproof our economy, how we make sure there are good, decent jobs for these Australians going forward. Instead, we have the rehashing of an old bill that has been dealt with before, that is being pushed by nothing other than a strong ideological agenda that will achieve nothing but discourage genuine, hardworking volunteers from being able to participate, to have their say and to be involved in these types of organisations.

Regarding the proposals that have been placed before us—and I want to speak to some of the crossbench senators here—an ideological agenda has been pushed in this chamber by the conservative side of politics for many, many years, and this is simply an extension of that. Think of all the volunteers in these organisations, the people who choose to give up their own time, their own resources. To hold volunteers, who are unpaid, to the standard of corporations without giving them the same type of remuneration or the same types of opportunities really will do nothing but weaken these organisations. I am proud of and like the idea that a lot of these registered organisations have real people—often, in the case of trade unions, off the tools—who work nine to five and who choose to participate because they want to have their say and they want to protect their industries. I think it will be a very worrying development if we head down the path where good, decent, hardworking Australians are excluded because of an ideological agenda that is being pushed as an assault on the trade union movement.

We have seen in blind quotes and comments that have been given that the government seems to view all this as 'good politics'. But it is bad policy, and that is why this bill, in its current form, should not be supported. (Time expired)

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I rise with a sense of obligation to Australian workers to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014. The government has a mandate specifically for this bill, and the chamber must give careful and due consideration to this bill as it is central to the calling of the double dissolution election—a rare occurrence in Australian political history.

As I mentioned when the CFA legislation came before the Senate, Pauline Hanson's One Nation party travelled from the north of Queensland to rural Victoria to learn how the Australian industrial relations system was affecting the economy and how it was viewed by everyday Aussies. This bill begins a process of pulling apart the elites—and by 'elites' I mean those union bosses who lord over hardworking mums and dads who struggle to pay their union fees and who should rightly expect the best and most diligent representation by their union. This bill brings rule of law to the elites, the union bosses, who have failed to adhere to law or think they are above it. Australians always kick back when they think a group or person has too much power. The strong community support that exists for this bill is a result of the concentration and wielding of ugly power by elitist union bosses. Finally, Aussie workers can breathe easy that this law will have their back. And having Australia's back was an exact promise of Pauline Hanson at the last election.

This bill seeks to bring the regulation of unions into line with the standards required of corporations and their directors. This long overdue legislation aims to create a registered organisations commission to take over responsibility for the oversight of unions and employer organisations from the ineffectual, union dominated Fair Work Commission. A high level of accountability is a measure for which Pauline Hanson's One Nation has been calling for some time. Why is this bill central to our philosophy? Central to our assessment of legislation is the concept of ensuring that freedom wins over any proposed control mechanism. The bill sets workers free to have representation without the yoke of a union boss's theft of resources and imposes on union bosses the obligation to look after union members' fees in trust with reasonable fiduciary obligations—obligations that every other section of the community is expected to meet.

This bill is about protecting workers, standing up for workers and giving workers rights to ensure that they are not unfairly or grossly controlled by elitist union bosses. Specifically, this bill seeks to bring the regulation of unions into line with the standards required of corporations and their directors. Provisions of the bill include, firstly, increasing the obligations of union office holders to disclose conflicts of interest and, where necessary, recuse themselves from making decisions on matters in which they have an interest. Secondly, the bill's provisions include increasing the requirements for union financial transparency and disclosure, making breaches enforceable by civil action and, most importantly, creating meaningful criminal penalties for union bosses who breach their statutory duties in line with those that company directors currently already face. In order to have sufficient power to monitor and induce compliance with these provisions, this bill will also create the office of the registered organisations commissioner, whose powers, most appropriately, will be modelled on those in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, which also aligns them with those which govern corporations and their directors.

This bill is largely in response to the shocking corruption scandal that engulfed the Health Services Union and the recommendations of the royal commission into union corruption conducted by Commissioner John Dyson Heydon QC. Honourable senators will recall the case of disgraced former Labor PM Craig Thomson, the former national secretary of the HSU No doubt many of my colleagues will recount the stories of excess from that union. Even after overwhelming evidence of Thomson's criminality was revealed, former Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard said in question time on 16 August 2011:

I have complete confidence in the member for Dobell. I look forward to him continuing to do that job for a very long, long, long time to come.

Some may wonder if he is still here. Then of course there was Thomson's successor at the HSU, Labor stalwart and so-called whistleblower Kathy Koukouvas Jackson, who was supposed to clean up the HSU after the Thomson scandal. These people are reprehensible; and, indeed, this bill will address their behaviour.

However, I want to turn the attention of the Senate to be leader of the Labor Party, a man who would not be Labor leader if it were not for the shady dealing he has engaged in with the union of greatest ill repute, the CFMEU. Mr Shorten's dirty dealings to gain the CFMEU's support for his tilt at Labor leadership resulted in his ardent opposition to this bill—and it stinks. This is how corrupt these elites are. The CFMEU actually funds GetUp!, an organisation which aims in cahoots with American billionaires to de-industrialise Australia—the very industries that their members belong to. They do these acts in the name of global warming without any evidence and contrary to the empirical evidence on climate. It is a completely political agenda. GetUp! agitates for a Shorten prime ministership. Follow the money and you find the corruption of the elites.

Today 'someone-else-has-to-pay-the-Bill' Shorten, the 'honourable' Labor leader, has consistently spoken against increasing penalties on union officials for breaches of law, who breach their fiduciary duties to their members. Then again, Mr Deputy President, the 'honourable' Labor leader's position is hardly surprising, given his own colourful history. As the former national secretary of the AWU between 2001 and 2007, Victorian state secretary from 1998 to 2007 and Victorian state president of the Labor Party from 2005 until 2008, the 'honourable' Labor leader was a person of great interest to the Royal Commission into union corruption.

The Royal Commission into Union Governance and Corruption heard that Mr Shorten accepted and failed to disclose large donations for himself from employers while negotiating for the union on behalf of employees—secret commissions to sell his fellow union members down the river! By any measure these behaviours do not meet fiduciary obligations to protect the people he represents and serves. No wonder Mr Shorten opposes this legislation. He would have gained the most from rorting innocent workers— innocent workers, and amongst the lowest paid in Australia. Rorting workers is the true hallmark of an elite hell bent on personal power and glory. The 'honourable' Leader of the Opposition admitted to the commission that he had failed to declare a political donation of around $40,000 from a labour hire company in the lead-up to the 2007 election campaign and that invoices regarding the payments for services were not truthful. Mr Shorten, however, claimed to have no knowledge of false invoicing, totalling more than $300,000, which had been sent to construction company Thiess John Holland—a convenient form of selective amnesia!

These 'donations' were undeclared because they were a payoff—a payoff to agree to lowering the wages and conditions of his already poorly-paid union members. No wonder he wanted them kept secret! So let's be clear: the leader of a major union and now the self-styled leader of the so-called workers party took secret commissions from employers to sell his own union members down the drain! This is the behaviour of an elite with no care for the rule of law. It is as if laws are for the peasants; accountability is for the poor; and the elites would call us the great unwashed. And now he says that we do not need a Registered Organisations Commission. Mr Deputy President, I ask you!

During cross-examination, counsel assisting Commissioner Heydon said that the 'honourable' Leader of the Opposition was being 'evasive' and 'non-responsive'—their words. 'Evasive and unresponsive'! It is hardly surprising, is it? I mean: if he was honest, he would have to admit he betrayed his fellow union members, just like Craig Thomson, Michael Williamson and Kathy Jackson. Mr Heydon QC said:

What I'm concerned about more is your credibility as a witness ... and perhaps your self-interest as a witness as well.

The commissioner did not believe him, Mr Deputy President, because he knew a lie when he heard one. On Mr Shorten's watch as AWU secretary, massive conflicts of interest and ripping off his own AWU members in crooked side deals with employers like Cleanevent were the order of the day.

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

Senator Roberts, you really have been taking us right to the limit with what is allowed in this debate. I think you are now crossing the line. I draw your attention to standing order 193(3), which does not allow you to make imputations of improper motives and personal reflections on members of this or the other House. I would ask you to give consideration to that in continuing your remarks.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President. It is no wonder in my view that the Labor leader is desperate to prevent the passage of this bill. Stopping this bill is what an elite would do. Let us recall what Mr Shorten's cronies had to say about this legislation. Labor's workplace relations spokesman Brendan O'Connor fulminated with confected indignation when this bill came before the House of Representatives. The member for Gorton said:

The opposition will not support a politically motivated witch-hunt designed to kill off unions …

Kill off unions? This is designed to strengthen unions and strengthen union members. The member for Gorton appears to think that financial transparency and accountability is a witch-hunt to kill off unions. That is hardly surprising, since his own brother Michael O'Connor is the CFMEU's national secretary and he has been charged with industrial offences. I would think that was something of a conflict of interest. In fact, protecting criminal activities by unions seems perhaps to be something that runs in the CFMEU's DNA. A family connection to the highest levels of the most corrupt and lawless union in the country hardly qualifies the member for Gorton to pronounce judgement on this bill. In fact, I think the vehement opposition of the likes of the CFMEU national secretary and his brother is the strongest recommendation for the registered organisations bill yet.

What else has been said by the cabal of Labor elites? When this bill was last in the Senate, my honourable colleague Senator Cameron claimed this bill was:

… about the coalition's obsession with destroying collective bargaining in this country. The bill—

said Senator Cameron—

is about the government introducing over-the-top regulation and red tape on the … union movement …

Well, how wrong can anyone be! In truth, this bill is only about destroying corrupt practices such as the stealing of union members' money by criminal and union bosses. Taking food from the tables of innocent workers and engorging the pay cheque and waistline of union bosses is abhorrent and unacceptable. So, does the senator still believe that these practices are so central to union operations that banning them will destroy the union movement? Apparently so.

Now some former Labor figures have recognised the necessity of this bill. As Senator Cash mentioned in question time two weeks ago, Paul Howes, Bill Shorten's successor at the AWU, said three years ago:

I can't see any reason why anyone in the [union] movement would fear having the same penalties that apply to company directors.

Former ACTU president Martin Ferguson stated:

There is an absolute obligation on the union movement to clean up its house.

Former Labor attorney-general Robert McClelland said there was 'unquestionably a case for further legislative reform'. Former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty has been quoted previously as saying:

I was always on that side of the debate which said that unions are public bodies so they are accountable to members for their management—

they are accountable to members for their management.

These are reasonable and rational comments by honest advocates of the union movement. They highlight the case for a legal fiduciary obligation on union bosses to be implemented. All of these comments have come from the union movement itself.

No-one should ever expect to waltz through life unaccountable for spending other people's money. There is a legal expectation in every industry that other people's money, given in trust—given in trust—must be spent to benefit those people for whom one holds the money. A fiduciary obligation on union bosses to take care of their workers should be a natural occurrence, but, sadly, some union bosses have become negligent and lawless in their behaviours.

When a union boss is corrupt, their malfeasance results in a number of repercussions that ricochet throughout the entire economy. The first of these is the increased cost to consumers. Everyday Aussies pay more for products like construction, delivery of goods, manufactured items or delivery of public services, to give just a few examples. Further, the economy grinds to a halt as union bosses extort and seek to control workplaces, free from punishment by law. At will, they do it. Other effects of lawless union bosses seeking to control our economy include lower productivity, resistance to investment, lower employment and damaged export capacity.

One would think that the Labor Party today would be keen to support measures to identify and prosecute such flagrant and criminal breaches of the trust of rank-and-file union members; promote and support the economy; and increase industry. But no—in Shorten's Labor, theft and malfeasance is encouraged and flourishes unpunished, with complete abandon. All that today's Labor members and senators seem interested in doing is protecting the snouts in the trough of their union-boss cronies. And there I was thinking that unions were there to represent the interests of their members in an honest and transparent, accountable manner!

Bill Shorten promised to run Australia like he would run a union. That would surely mean theft of taxpayers' money, taking bribes to sell out our great nation, standover tactics, extortion reigning, extreme levels of control, and abuse if you do not do things Uncle Bill's way.

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

Senator Roberts, no—you must refer to members by their proper title. And again I think you are really pushing against the limits of what is allowed by the standing orders.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He has probably taken lessons from the United States, the Hillary Clinton school of governance, which would seem to be appropriate. I say to the Senate: the world dodged the Clinton bullet, and it holds out hope that by passing this legislation we can dodge the union bullet as well—the union bosses bullet.

We have also seen the Greens stand up on their hind legs to denounce this bill. During previous debates and today's debate in this chamber, watermelon Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon has repeatedly attacked it—

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

Senator Roberts, you do not refer to other senators like that.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I retract that comment.

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

Yes—and I would ask you to be mindful of the standing orders.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is what Senator Rhiannon and said:

This is ugly legislation … Attacking the union movement to drive down wages and conditions as set out in this bill is integral to how the Liberals and Nationals operate.

Returning the union movement, a corrupt union movement, to the rule of law is apparently against Senator Rhiannon's commitment. I say to Senator Rhiannon: if one fails to support this bill, then what one in fact wants is a bunch of union bosses free to spend union members' money on prostitutes, Labor Party campaigning, jewellery and home renovations. But then I also remember that the CFMEU donates heftily to the Greens party. If they are free to wantonly spend this money, then they are free to jack up union fees and cause more financial pain to working families.

In fact, no-one who is not wearing a shabby koala suit and clutching a dog-eared copy of Das Kapital could possibly fail to see that this legislation is simply about honesty and decency. Holding union bosses to a fiduciary standard—which, if they were honest representatives of their members, they would already be upholding—is a very basic and long overdue requirement. It is certainly nothing to do with driving down wages and conditions, as the extremist Left rather hysterically screams.

Far from being an attack on unions, this legislation is about defending honest, hardworking union members from immoral and criminal union bosses who abuse their positions of trust and responsibility to steal from their own members. That is what this legislation is really about. Yet, for all their sanctimonious cant, the range of arguments by the opposition, by the opponents of this bill, are simply a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, yet signifying nothing. Far from attacking unions, this legislation actually protects ordinary, everyday, rank-and-file unionists by ensuring that their leaders act in their interests' rather than simply in the leaders' bosses' interests.

This legislation protects ordinary union members, everyday Aussies, from having their funds stolen by corrupt union bosses. So it is astonishing that the Labor Party would be so vehemently opposed to it. In truth, as Paul Howes, Martin Ferguson, Robert McClelland and Bill Kelty have recognised, if the Labor Party actually represented everyday working people, this would be their legislation, not the government's.

Let me take up something that Senator Dastyari mentioned about volunteers. This will encourage volunteers to join boards, because volunteers will now be able to hold people accountable, and, if they do not like the corrupt dealings of a board, they can either change it or get off.

But the tragic reality is that the party of the working man and woman, the party of Chifley and Curtin, has ceased to exist. This legislation has simply exposed the modern Shorten-led Labor Party for what it is: a party whose original ideology—promoting the interests of workers—has been perverted and subverted to simply doing whatever works to promote the interests of Labor and union bosses.

Mr Shorten's and Labor's hysterical opposition to this legislation only goes to illustrate how utterly debased, cynical and hypocritical the opposition to this legislation has become on his watch. The most profound truth that opposition to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill has revealed is that, while Labor began as a movement, it now ends as a gang—a movement to control people. Instead, on this side, in Pauline Hanson's One Nation we support freedom and rule of law—two fundamental tenets for human progress.

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

I am pleased to enter this debate after my colleague Senator Roberts's address, which was very interesting and highlighted some of the real issues. We have heard in this debate from Senator Paterson, who I think said it all, but perhaps I could contribute somewhat as well.

I do note in passing that the contributors from the other side so far have been Senator Cameron, Senator Dastyari—both very involved in the union movement—and Senator Rhiannon, whose party was the recipient of quite generous donations from the CFMEU and other unions, I think.

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

So you should be proud of it, Senator. But you would not be proud, perhaps, of some of the things that some union bosses have been involved in over the years. I notice Senator Dastyari made an impassioned plea in this debate—and well he might, because he has been involved on the fringes of this issue in more than one capacity.

I will relate to the Senate a story about Mr Paul Gibson, a former New South Wales Labor member, who did some so-called consultancy work to allegedly improve the relationship between the New South Wales ALP and the National Union of Workers in New South Wales. One would wonder why you would need a specially employed consultancy to improve relationships between the Labor Party and one of their biggest backers, but let us overlook that for the moment. Mr Gibson was paid $250,000 by the union—that is unionists' money. That is money that unionists, ordinary workers, contribute to their union for what they would hope would be things that the union might do to improve their conditions. They did not do it expecting that Mr Paul Gibson would receive $250,000 for a consultancy. The consultancy was not in writing, so we do not know exactly what it was about. No invoices were produced in support of two of the largest payments, of $16,500-odd and $44,500-odd. Where the invoices were produced, the services performed were simply described as 'consultant services' with no other details about what the payments were or when the services were supplied. This all came out in the royal commission, I might add. The consultancy fee continued to be paid for eight or more months after harmony between the National Union of Workers in New South Wales and the New South Wales ALP had been reached. I am quoting, again, the royal commission.

This arrangement was overseen by none other than the then General Secretary of the New South Wales ALP, who interestingly was my colleague Senator Dastyari, who spoke previously in this debate. So he well knows about how unionists' money—the membership fees they pay—was used in that instance. An amount of $250,000 was paid to a former New South Wales Labor MP to make things better between the National Union of Workers and the New South Wales ALP. I am sorry, but that does not pass any accountability test and it certainly does not pass the pub test.

This arrangement was a bit like the one involving Michael Williamson, who we all know from the Health Services Union, back in 2008. The Senate might recall that in the first half of 2007 Mr Williamson made a payment to Mr Mark Arbib. There is a name we all remember here too. He was also, as I recall, the General Secretary of the New South Wales Labor Party. He came into the parliament. He did not have a terribly distinguished career; he was not here very long. He was appointed a junior minister in the then Labor government and a few months later retired under circumstances which were never fully explained. Anyhow, that is a subsequent happening. Mr Williamson paid Mr Mark Arbib some money for a purported consultancy in relation to a supposed upcoming dispute with the New South Wales government. The dispute never eventuated, but Mr Williamson still paid Mr Arbib for six months, at about the rate of what a senator would have received in this place, until he entered the Senate. His remuneration, as I say, came from the Health Services Union. But isn't it interesting that around the same time Mr Arbib was strongly supporting Mr Williamson's candidacy to be the ALP national president. There you have it all: six months pay to try and get Mr Williamson up as the ALP national secretary. I think he succeeded before he fell into disgrace. I am not sure where he is now—perhaps in jail—but, certainly, he has been the subject of legal proceedings.

When you listen in this debate to people like Senator Cameron, Senator Dastyari and Senator Rhiannon, you have to understand what their backgrounds are. In this debate, I prefer to listen to union leaders who are respected, who did a good job for their members and who did a good job for the ALP in various forms over the years. I did not like that about it, but they did a good job, a professional and an honest job. But they are the sort of union leaders who you really want to take notice of, rather than people who have spoken in this debate who seem to have conflicts of interests in the contributions they make.

Let me refer to Mr Paul Howes, who was the AWU secretary. He said:

I can't see any reason why anyone in the [union] movement would fear having the same penalties that apply to company directors.

He said, quite rightly:

If you're a crook, you're a crook …

Mr Paul Howes was correct.

Former ACTU president Martin Ferguson, who went on to become one of the better ministers in the Labor government—again, unfortunately for my side of politics!—was a good minister and an honest man. He said in relation to this bill:

There is an absolute obligation on the union movement to clean up its house. There is an obligation on the unions to put their house in order.

Former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty said:

I was always on that side of the debate which said that unions are public bodies so they are accountable to members for their management …

Former ALP Attorney-General Robert McClelland said there is 'unquestionably a case for further legislative reform'.

That is what this bill is all about. The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 contains measures to improve the standards of governance of registered unions and to deter wrongdoing. The provisions in this bill that we are debating include a focused regulator—the Registered Organisations Commission—with appropriate resources and powers modelled on those of the corporate regulator. It will be exactly the same as what happens for corporations and public companies. This will now happen, should this bill be passed, for those registered organisations involved in the fair work and industrial relations area.

The bill also requires enhanced financial accountability provisions and meaningful sanctions that can be applied when wrongdoing is revealed. The new accountability measures for unions—for both employer and employee groups, I might say— requires registered organisations to disclose remunerations paid to their top five highest paid officers in their head office and any branches. What is so bad about that? How could you object to that? We are parliamentarians here. Everybody knows every single cent that any person who works in this building receive, whether they be parliamentarians or secretaries of departments. So how could you object to the top five union officers or employee organisation officers in head offices or any branches being made public?

I know the ABC had a different view. Years ago, they did not like to tell us how much their top presenters received, although in a roundabout way Senate estimates committees did find that out. We have learnt that some of the top front-of-house ABC announcers are in the $700,000 and $800,000 bracket—a bit more than the poor old ABC people up in regional Queensland who I interact with. Even the ABC were forced, kicking and screaming, to account for their top paid presenters, but for some reason those on the opposite side seem to think that that is not appropriate for unions.

These accountability measures also require officers with duties that relate to financial management to disclose material personal interest. Again, that seems to be standard in public companies, in this business and in the Public Service. But for some reason—and Senator Rhiannon might explain this to me—the unions do not seem to abide by the same rules. I cannot understand that, Senator Rhiannon, unless it has something to do with the fact that those unions are fairly big contributors to the Greens political party. I can think of no other reason why one would object to that.

The provisions will also ensure that officers do not make decisions on matters where they have a conflict of interest. Again, it is a no-brainer. It is so basic. It is organisations 101. Yet, for some reason, the Labor Party here and their mates in the Greens political party are railing against it. I will just ask if any of them are going to contribute to explain to me why these rules should apply to public companies, corporations, federal parliament, the Public Service and state governments. Even local authorities have these accountability measures in place. But for some reason the union movement seem to think that they do not need to comply with those fairly common standards of honesty and propriety that apply to the rest of the world.

Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, I do not want to take unfair advantage of you as you are in the chair, but I am curious about the TWU officials who spent over $300,000 on luxury cars. They were not just luxury cars. We hear Senator Carr and others railing against the closure of the Australian car industry, but we then find that these TWU officials not only spent $300,000 on luxury cars but were purchasing modified American utes which were for their personal use. One of the officials even had a personalised number plate put on one. The other one apparently had the union's redundancy policy redrafted so that he could take the car with him when he finished work with the union. That, I understand, happened not long afterwards.

We then have the examples of National Union of Workers officials and staff using corporate credit cards to buy holidays worth over $18,000, sports tickets worth over $4,000 and toys worth $670. Over $2,200 was spent on dating websites and over $1,500 on hairdressing and iTunes purchases. It is not just money they are spending. This is money contributed by workers as union levies and dues. I am sure they did not expect that by paying their union dues they would be sending one of the union bosses overseas for an $18,000 holiday. Why would you not want to stamp that out? Please, Senator Rhiannon, please Senator Dastyari, please Senator Cameron, tell me why you would not want that sort of rort to be interrupted? We have all heard about Mr Shorten when, as a union official, he accepted a $40,000 donation from one of the companies negotiating a pay deal with the AWU—the company was Unibilt. At that time he was the AWU National Secretary, and was campaigning to become a member of parliament. The donation was used to pay the wages of Shorten's campaign staffer.

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

Mr Shorten.

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

Mr Shorten's campaign staffer. Thank you for that. I emphasise that it was Mr Shorten MP, the current Leader of the Opposition. The $40,000 he got from that company negotiating a pay deal was used to staff Mr Shorten's campaign office in 2007, but it was not disclosed until just two days before the royal commission asked him about these matters in sworn evidence. Senators would also have heard of Cesar Melhem, who is well-known in Labor circles and in this building. He repeatedly issued false invoices—marked 'Training', 'OHS' and similar—to companies, when they were actually payments for union membership to the value of hundreds of thousands of dollars. These are not just monetary figures that roll off the tongue; these are contributions paid by workers who go out, do a day's work, get their pay and then contribute a certain amount of that pay towards union memberships, because they believe that the unions will be doing the right thing by them. It is those sorts of people who are being ripped off by this, and I cannot understand that any party that claims to look after these workers could possibly oppose this sort of accountability that will bring honesty—

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition has such a proud track record!

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

Okay, you say the coalition has such a proud record, but, Senator McKim, if you are going to speak—if you are game to speak on this—you might first of all tell us exactly how much the CFMEU gave you, how much any other union gave you, and why you would oppose any legislation that required some accountability and honesty.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk, on a point of order?

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

I would like to point out that Senator Macdonald is talking directly to Senator McKim and should be making his comments through the chair.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bilyk. I encourage Senator Macdonald to ignore the interjections and direct his comments through the chair.

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

You always know when you are getting somewhere in a debate and people are very embarrassed about what is being said—you have these stupid points of order to try and shut down a senator's speech.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I will get you to reflect on Senator Bilyk's point of order. It was not a stupid point of order; it was actually a correct point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. As always, you are absolutely correct. Another point of order, of course, is that there should not be any interjections—but, Mr Acting Deputy President, I do not see you stopping Senator Bilyk. That is okay; I do not need you to. I do not need protection from types like Senator Bilyk. Certainly you should not address senators directly and you are quite right, Mr Acting Deputy President—it is a most important standing order that must be observed on all occasions, and I am glad—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, are you reflecting on the chair? I ask you to carefully choose your words.

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

Not at all—I am in fact congratulating you, Mr Acting Deputy President, on abiding by those standing orders and applying them so religiously. That is what we expect our chairmen to do. It is a rule that sometimes perhaps is not as observed as it should be. But I am glad, Mr Acting Deputy President, that you are doing it, because it is an important one. We should not talk directly to other senators. But I ask Senator Rhiannon and Senator McKim to explain to me just how much they get from the unions and why they think all of these things—the Williamson stuff, the—

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your party has been shafting the workers for a century in Australia.

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

I beg your pardon?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, order. Senator Macdonald, I ask you to ignore the interjections.

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

The Greens and the Labor Party supported Craig Thomson, and we now know that he was ripping off ordinary workers and using their money for his own personal gain—some of it pretty nefarious. That seems to be the sort of activity that Senator Polley, Senator Rhiannon, Senator Dastyari and Senator Cameron, and, I suspect, Senator McKim, might be—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bilyk, on a point of order?

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

I am well aware that most women over 50 look the same to Senator Macdonald, but, if he was referring to me, my name is Senator Bilyk, not Senator Polley.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order.

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

Again, I raise the point that you know you are getting close to the bone when the Labor Party continue to interrupt in any way possible on these things. Can I ask any speaker who is about to participate in this debate: how much have you got from the unions, how much are they supporting you, and why is it that you think that some of their activities—only a few instances of which have been mentioned by Senator Paterson, Senator Roberts and I—are good? Why don't you think unions should abide by exactly the same rules as public companies and corporations? Why should the unions be different, when they get involved in these sorts of rip-offs—this lack of honesty, this stealing of workers' money? I cannot believe that anyone can seriously oppose this bill if they have any interest in the workers of Australia.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014. As senators in this place know, registered organisations play a critical role in Australia's workplace relations system. Most registered organisations do the right thing. They are there to represent their members and their industries. This should be recognised. Most unions, employer groups and other registered organisations conduct themselves, in the main, with dignity and integrity, providing vital services to employees and employers. That means that we in this place should value and support their work. They provide critical representation and advocacy for employees and employers alike. In particular, trade unions are of significant importance to the working people of this country, playing a pivotal role in protecting the rights of working people, providing essential advocacy and policy work and representation in tribunals and courts. It is representation that many workers would not be able to afford if it were not for the work of their unions.

In the legislation before us today we see coming yet again from those opposite an attempt to hamstring unions from representing the working people of Australia. The government's proposed registered organisations bill does nothing to improve the lives of working people. They claim it is about transparency, regulation and accountability, but it does not contribute to these matters. It simply makes it harder for unions to represent working people. It does this by requiring unions to comply with onerous and unnecessary requirements which are more about tying them up in bureaucracy than improving regulation or increasing the transparency which these organisations should naturally be subject to.

The sanctions in the bill are significantly disproportionate and unfair. So do not be fooled: this legislation is not about better unions or better workplaces. It is not even about better regulation. The registered organisations act already provides for regulation, and it does this very well. The Liberal government is trying to tell us otherwise; however, the act functions well and according to its purpose. For example, the act prohibits members' money from being used improperly to support candidates at internal elections. It allows for criminal proceedings being initiated where funds are stolen or obtained by fraud. We have seen significant examples of that and the way it is effectively prosecuted. The act already ensures that Fair Work Commission can share information with our police forces. The act 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 act, registered organisations have significant fiduciary duties akin to those of directors under corporations law. So what we have here in this legislation is a duplication of those responsibilities.

The registered organisations act requires officers to disclose their personal interests. The act already ensures that officers need to disclose when payments are being paid to related parties. The act already requires officers to exercise care and diligence in their work, to act in good faith and not improperly use their position for political advantage.

Why is the act already strong? Because Labor made it strong. As we have said again and again, we have no tolerance for corruption, wherever it occurs. Criminal acts in registered organisations should be treated with the full force of the law, just as they should in corporations and in the community. Labor has always been committed to this and we always will be. It is why we strengthened the regulation and accountability requirements of the act, increased the powers of the Fair Work Commission to investigate and prosecute breaches, and tripled penalties for offenders. On this side of the chamber we in Labor believe in better unions, higher standards and tougher penalties for people and organisations who do the wrong thing.

But that is not what the bill before us today is actually about. This bill is simply about more bureaucracy and more red tape. It is about duplicating regulation where there is already regulation. In effect it is about making the work of unions harder.

In this place Labor will only support this bill if the government agrees to amendments which will be true to the principles that we have outlined in this place and in the other place. Our amendments will ensure that the bill actually achieves the stated purpose that the government has put forward—better governance of registered organisations. Our proposed amendments address the issues raised in the submissions by both unions and employer groups alike, who have put forward significant concerns. Submissions to the Senate inquiry made it clear that it is not only unions opposed to many of the measures in this bill, but also there is opposition coming from employer groups. The government should be proactively supporting and considering our amendments and accepting them if it is serious about transparency and accountability.

The first amendment we put forward relates to ASIC. That is about extending the powers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission rather than introducing this new regulatory body. Here in Australia we do not need yet another government bureaucracy with the establishment of the Registered Organisations Commission under this bill. More layers of bureaucracy, as the government has so often liked to point out to us, do not achieve better outcomes for our nation. We are advocating that the powers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission should be extended to investigate serious breaches of the fair work, rather than the creation of a new body. As our Prime Minister has said, ASIC has the standing powers of a royal commission. Their regulatory powers to investigate matters are similar to those of a royal commission. So why would we not want the body that we are supporting to have those powers?

Our next amendment is about increasing penalties but excluding volunteers from those penalties. Here we do need to see penalties increased for deceitful behaviour. We on this side of the chamber support this. But volunteers must be excluded from these penalties. Under the government's bill, volunteers, workers, union members and supporters will be expected to act like directors of publicly listed companies. This, I think, is incredibly unfair. They are expected to uphold these standards without the pay, conditions and expertise expected of these positions. The proposition that the government has put forward in this sense is absurd. It will deter people from participating in these kinds of organisations. The kind of participation that we are talking about includes workplace delegates, who need to be able to talk to their union and bring forward to their union issues from their workplace; they are elected delegates within their organisation. We are talking here about significant criminal penalties for people who might be a delegate or be on the board of their union.

Similarly, you can see that small businesses are affected by these kinds of clauses, where they might want to participate in their industry association. What this legislation means is that teachers, nurses, plumbers, electricians, small business owners and employees—ordinary hard working Australians—would be subject to hefty, unfair fines and criminal penalties. It is simply not fair. Even the Australian Industry Group has said:

If the proposed criminal penalties and proposed massive financial penalties for breaches of duties are included in the RO Act, this would operate as a major disincentive to existing voluntary officers of registered organisations continuing in their roles, and would deter other people from holding office.

While the Australian Industry Group now, oddly, supports this legislation, its views on this matter are still very clear. This, indeed, is Labor's view: only paid union officials and paid office holders should be subject to penalties.

The other thing we want to see is greater protection for whistleblowers. We agree that whistleblowers should be protected and encouraged. Our amendment goes further and improves protection for whistleblowers. This amendment is critical to ensuring that corruption is stopped and reported. Currently, the penalties for those taking adverse action against whistleblowers are $4,500, six months imprisonment or both. Indeed, whistleblower protections should be extended to those in the private and not-for-profit sectors. That would mean that anyone who intimidates or silences whistleblowers would be subject to a fine of up to $18,000 and two years imprisonment. These are appropriate penalties, considering the gravity of trying to stop someone from blowing the whistle on corruption. Our amendment would also allow whistleblowers to take civil action themselves. If the government is indeed serious about ensuring transparency and protection for those who come forward, these amendments should be supported.

We also have a further amendment on accountability for auditors. We seek to increase audit requirements and penalties for auditors. Those who are charged with the responsibility of examining the finances of registered organisations should do so in an honest and professional manner. They should be held to account if they do not do this. It is critical that auditors are required to disclose criminal misconduct should they come across it; we cannot let auditors be complicit in their silence—otherwise they are simply not doing their job. Labor's amendment also provides for the rotation of auditors to ensure greater independence and security, so that you do not get auditors in the pocket of anyone who is dodgy with the books of their organisation.

We have further amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act so that registered organisations are treated in the same way as members of parliament and other people making donations. We are asking here for amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act which decrease the threshold for disclosures of donations. While the government continues to talk about unions, disclosure thresholds and transparency, so far those opposite have refused to apply these very same standards to themselves! Those opposite want to see these standards imposed on unions but do not want to see these standards imposed on the donations that they receive themselves. We on this side have advocated for a long time for the lowering of the disclosure thresholds in the Commonwealth Electoral Act. All elections managed by the Australian Electoral Commission should be subject to the same electoral funding laws. Why should unions have a higher standard of donations disclosure than this government? Whether in unions or federal elections, accountability in electoral donations must be taken seriously. We have proposed that the disclosure amount be reduced from $13,200 to $1,000, and we have argued this for a long time. If you opposite were serious about increasing transparency around donations, then you would accept those amendments to this legislation.

Indeed, our amendments are not unreasonable. These amendments would make this bill achieve what the Liberals say they want to achieve: accountability. I implore the government to consider and adopt these changes. But, significantly, I am concerned that this bill is not just the start but the middle of an ongoing antiworker agenda. Those opposite are not serious about tidying up corruption—otherwise they would have put forward the kind of bill that I have just outlined. Instead we see vicious attacks on workers, time and time again, from this government and indeed every Liberal government before it. I fear that we will continue to see such attacks because you do not care about workers. Jobs growth under Malcolm Turnbull has halved to 0.9 per cent over the year, down from 1.9 per cent. There are almost 1.8 million Australians who cannot find a job or cannot get enough hours to cover their basic needs. This is being felt most harshly in my home state of Western Australia, where unemployment is the highest in the country. And today the ABC is reporting that Rio Tinto is set to axe 500 iron ore jobs, adding more uncertainty to our already struggling WA economy.

What is the government doing about this? Nothing. Where are the Liberals when unemployment is rising? Nowhere to be seen. Where are the Liberals when unions uncover gross violations of workplace health and safety? You are nowhere to be seen. Where are you when unions uncover workers being paid below the minimum wage? Again, you are nowhere to be seen. Where are you when Australian jobs are going offshore? Nowhere to be seen. Instead of doing anything to actually improve the lives of working people, the government is back to the same old dirty tricks of union bashing. Those opposite me in this place and indeed the other place continue to seek to destroy unions and undermine the rights of workers in this country. Why? Because you fundamentally do not believe that workers are entitled to representation by their unions. You want to make it more difficult for union officials to do their jobs and, in turn, you allow large companies to slash wages and conditions. I, like millions of workers across this country, am tired of it, sick to death of it. I encourage the government to accept Labor's amendments if you are serious about holding organisations to account. That way you can still allows unions to represent their members effectively.

It is thanks to unions that the working people in our country have the living standards that we enjoy today. Without this work we would not have sick leave, annual leave, an eight-hour working day or penalty rates for working on the weekend. Without unions this country would not have occupational health and safety standards and workers compensation. Indeed, without unions this country would not have Medicare or superannuation. These are the most basic but important rights that every worker in our country should enjoy every single day—and I pay tribute to the unions of our nation for delivering this to us. I can only imagine the country we would be living in today if it were not for their hard work. The active participation of workers in the union movement is fundamental to the future of our nation—and this includes our delegates and volunteers, who are targeted unjustly by this legislation. We need our unions to be able to protect the rights of workers and to do this effectively.

The Senate has rejected this bill multiple times. This bill is of course one of the bills you put forward that prompted the double dissolution election earlier this year, yet you barely mentioned it in the election campaign. Why? Because you know it is a vote loser. You know it is flawed legislation. It is tied to the same agenda that we saw with Work Choices under the Howard government, which is one you tried to hide from the electorate. That is why you did not talk about it during the election campaign. We know that this bill is only a small part of the government's anti-worker, anti-union agenda. We have seen it with your flawed royal commission. In this legislation, yet again, we have an attempt to rip off the working people of our country. You should know by now that the working people of this country will not fall for your tired, dirty union-bashing tricks. Workers in this country will continue to stand up and fight against the conservative views that you put forward and we will not be silenced. (Time expired)

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise today to discuss the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014. In Australia, I believe it is reasonable for all Australians to expect those who represent their interests and are responsible for managing their funds to all be held to the same standards of transparency and accountability. Across Australia today there are 47 unions and 63 employer groups that have between them revenues of $1.5 billion and assets of over $2.5 billion. This is the money of more than two million hardworking Australian men and women who trust these organisations with their money and with the responsibility to look after their interests. These millions of hardworking Australian men and women pay their union dues and they deserve to know that their union, or their employer group, is acting in their best interests. Considering that these organisations are also exempt from paying income tax, all Australians also deserve to know that they are fully accountable.

I agree with Senator Pratt and those opposite that unions are critically important to Australia and to Australian workers. But unions, like every other organisation in this country that manages people's money and looks after their interests, must be held to the highest possible standard of accountability and transparency. But, scandalously, these organisations and their directors are not currently held to the same standards of accountability and responsibility as companies and company directors are. No amount of highly skilled verbal gymnastics from those opposite can hide the fact that what many union officials are doing is quite simply wrong; in fact, it is very wrong. Many high-profile union officials, and even former Labor attorney-general Robert McClelland, have called for these reforms. In 2012 Mr McClelland was quoted in The Australian as saying 'there is unquestionably a case for further legislative reform'.

Those opposite, who profess to be for the workers, are protecting and perpetuating an endemic culture of entitlement and abuse by union officials. Not only is this culture evident in the workplace, it is also seen in the ranks of the union officials themselves. Currently, there are 113—yes, 113—CFMEU officials before the courts. In fact, there are currently 10 from Western Australia before the courts—making a total of 24 in all from my home state of Western Australia, which is utterly scandalous. In recent years, courts have imposed more than $8 million in fines on the CFMEU alone. As numerous judges have observed, these penalties are not enough for unions that treat law-breaking as standard procedure, as business as usual. The $8 million in fines, paid for by union members' dues, are akin to parking tickets. They are simply seen as a cost of doing business. That is scandalous. That is an abuse. It is, absolutely, evidence of an endemic culture of union abuse and of unions rorting their membership.

If company directors were found to have behaved in the same way that, so far, over 100 officials just in the CFMEU have, they would be out of a job quick smart. They would be dealt with swiftly by the appropriate regulatory authorities and by the courts. Those opposite would be the first ones—in this place and in public—decrying, as they should, any such transgressions or abuse by the corporate sector. I simply cannot understand how those opposite can rationalise the systemic and endemic exploitation of Australian workers—the men and women who are members of unions and who pay their union dues, often at some financial hardship to themselves. Yet those opposite remain silent on the gross abuse of workers whom they so loudly profess to support. As we have seen in this place today, they keep trotting out the same old tired class-warfare rhetoric instead of actually standing up to the unions and saying: 'It is wrong. It is time to you to change.'

The facts are indisputable. Decades and decades of royal commissions and reviews have identified a clear culture of entitlement to other people's money when it comes to the unions. Sadly, in the absence of acceptable transparency and accountability standards, abuse of union members' fees is endemic. Today, many—certainly not all—union officials use their members' fees as their own personal ATMs. Just look at the audacity of two senior Western Australian Transport Workers Union officials who used branch funds to purchase themselves expensive imported Ford utes at a price of more than $150,000 for each ute. These union officials purchased their utes courtesy of union membership funds, and then they used them as their own personal vehicles. One official felt so comfortable using his union membership fee funded car that he put personalised plates on the car. It did not stop there. Just before they purchased these expensive imported cars, they had organised redundancies for themselves so that the vehicles could be taken with them when departing the union. So not only did one of the officials receive a redundancy payout of $500,000; he took his $150,000 souped-up Ford ute—paid for by union members—with him. Where were those opposite when this happened? Where were my Western Australian colleagues in this place when this happened? Why weren't you standing up for the TWU workers when they were so egregiously ripped off? As we all know, the audacity of union officials and others who rort any organisation just gets bigger and bigger if left unchecked.

In 2015, former Health Services Union national secretary Craig Thomson was found guilty of misusing $300,000 for his own campaign to enter parliament and for his many personal indulgences and proclivities, as we now know. His colleague Kathy Jackson also fleeced more than $1 million through cash withdrawals, holidays, artworks and other luxuries. The membership funds of the Health Services Union funded this nearly $1.5 million of personal expenditure. Where were those opposite? Where were those opposite decrying the exploitation of workers? This money had come from nurses, from hospital cleaners and from disability and other healthcare workers who paid their annual fees to their union to be represented. Instead, they were funding a luxurious lifestyle for these officials. Where were those opposite when this happened? These are the hardworking, honest Australians who take care of our most vulnerable people, often for minimal pay—and this is the thanks they were given by the unions who they were paying to represent them. This theft could only happen because of the lax legislation and because these union officials were able to exploit the lack of transparency.

But it does not stop there. In the most recent trade union royal commission, many other rorts and deceptive conduct by union officials came to light. For example, officials from the National Union of Workers spent money on personal holidays and a dating website. I am sure the membership of the NUW would be delighted to know they were funding the dating habits of their union officials! One NUW official even used members' fees to spring for a KISS concert corporate box for his family. He used his union card to pay $7,740 for a corporate box at a KISS concert, which was the subject of the famous 'I was made for rorting you' story in The Daily Telegraph. The same New South Wales secretary of the NUW spent nearly $5,000 on his union credit card for a New Year's Eve party for his family and $1,500 on a flight for his wife to Hong Kong. Where were those opposite when NUW members were being so egregiously rorted? They were nowhere to be seen. But it did not stop there in the NUW. Officials and staff used their corporate cards to buy luxury holidays worth more than $18,000, sports tickets worth over $4,000 and toys worth $670; to spend over $2,500 on dating websites; to spend money on hairdressing and iTunes purchases; and to spend more than $1,500 on other personal purchases.

Shockingly for me as a senator for Western Australia, CFMEU officials who were receiving kickbacks from underworld figures raided redundancy funds for staff. Redundancy funds were raided to pay workers who were unlawfully striking on the building site of Perth's new children's hospital. That is beyond contempt. Where were those opposite? Where were my Senate colleagues from the Labor Party when all this was happening? Nowhere to be seen and nowhere to be heard.

The TWU appointed its own assistant state secretary, Mr John Berger, as the Tasmanian superannuation liaison officer for TWU Super from 2009 to 2012. In the financial year 2011-12 Mr Berger spent five days in Tasmania—five days. How much do you think he got paid by the union for five days of work? He got $93,434 for five days work. Mr Berger finally had to agree, albeit somewhat reluctantly, that the invoice put in for $93,000 was actually for 2½ days work, not even five days work.

When he was the AWU National Secretary, the Leader of the Opposition's union accepted a secret donation of $40,000 from Cleanevent to fund his campaign for parliament—a fact he disclosed only when it was exposed by the royal commission. In his capacity as AWU National Secretary, Mr Shorten also signed an EBA with Cleanevent that cut the number of award conditions. Yes, it cut award conditions, including penalty rates, for the workers of his own union. What was the cost? What did he get in return? Cleanevent agreed to pay the union $25,000 per year for three years in return for the names of their workers and a deal that stripped the workers of their penalty rates. That is scandalous. And where were those opposite standing up for the workers? Mr Shorten was the organiser for Cleanevent when it entered a 1999 EBA with the AWU and was reportedly responsible for the 1999 deal that set low pay and conditions that applied not for the next four years or 10 years but for 15 years.

Mr Cesar Melhem of the Australian Workers Union repeatedly issued false invoices to companies, marking them 'training', 'OH&S' or similar, when they were in fact used to pay union membership, to boost the union's power within the ALP. He issued false invoices to raise money to pay for extra influence in the Labor Party organisation itself. The AWU membership roll contains the names of workers and horseracing jockeys who had never even agreed to become members of the union. Where were those opposite when the AWU workers were again being ripped off by their union?

From these few examples—and sadly there are many, many more—it is clearly evident that the current laws in force are far too lax and do not ensure that unions and employee group officials are suitably accountable and acting in the best interests of the workers they represent. Over four years our systems and laws have remained unchanged. Hardworking Australians are still being shamelessly exploited and ripped off by unions and employee group officials. This is why the coalition government has introduced this bill, to ensure that the interests of all hardworking Australian men and women, whether they are championed by unions or not, have their best interests looked after.

But it is not just those on this side of the chamber who are seeking equal standards of accountability and transparency to protect Australian workers from the worst excesses of rogue union officials. For example, the former AWU Secretary Mr Paul Howes said: 'I can't see any reason why anyone in the union movement would fear having the same penalties that apply to company directors.' This is Paul Howes, and he said this:

If you're a crook, you're a crook.

How true. Former ACTU President Martin Ferguson himself, no less, said:

There is an absolute obligation on the union movement to clean up its house. There is an obligation on the unions to put their house in order.

Former ACTU Secretary Bill Kelty said:

I was always on that side of the debate which said that unions are public bodies so they are accountable to members for their management.

Senator Urquhart herself in this chamber stated in 2015 that it was her belief and Labor's belief:

… that officers of registered organisations or anyone in a position of trust who misuses the funds of members, who acts inappropriately or who takes benefits that they are not entitled to must never be condoned.

I would like to address two issues that Senator Pratt raised in relation to her amendments. The first one is the proposed ALP amendment in relation to ASIC being the regulator. Commissioner Heydon considered in detail whether ASIC should regulate registered organisations and he strongly recommended against this approach. He believed, after careful consideration, that transferring the regulation of registered organisations to ASIC risked diverting ASIC from its core responsibilities, which is the regulation of corporations and of financial services. It could also result in inadequate focus on the regulation of registered organisations. Additionally, he observed that 'sharing the regulation of registered organisations between ASIC and the Fair Work Commission would cause many great practical and administrative difficulties from having two regulators regulating in the same space'. I think it is very clear from the outcomes of the trade union royal commission that it is absolutely essential that there is a strong and dedicated regulator of registered organisations.

One of the other amendments that Labor is proposing, which Senator Pratt raised, relates to volunteers being excluded from this bill. In our view, that would be a seriously retrograde step, because currently all officials, whether they are paid or whether they are volunteers, have responsibility for financial management and have obligations under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. Our amendments to the act will not change the current situation.

There are actually a number of very important reasons for this, but I will give you two words: Kathy Jackson. Kathy Jackson is the exact example of why this should not change. In her last position with the HSU, she was a volunteer. Those opposite may not have known this, but she was a volunteer. She was the honorary national secretary. Under Labor's proposal, she could not have been held accountable for any wrongdoing in her role, because she was a volunteer. Labor must surely know that their proposed amendments to exclude volunteers would create a major loophole that could be exploited by an official with bad intentions, such as Kathy Jackson. There is absolutely no reason why the misappropriation of members' funds by a volunteer should be considered less serious than misappropriation by a paid official, because, as Martin Ferguson said, a crook is a crook, whether they are paid to do a job or whether they are a volunteer. This approach has been taken for charities and not-for-profit organisations, where directors, who are often also volunteers, are not exempt from Corporations Act obligations. We see no good reason why that should change.

The facts are very simple and clear. If those opposite were truly acting for the benefit of hardworking Australians, and of union members in particular, they would genuinely believe that a crook is a crook and that it does not matter whether you are paid, a volunteer, a company director or a union official—you should be subjected to the same standards of accountability and transparency. It is a very simple and clear prospect, and the Australian people deserve nothing less.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 has been introduced in a hail of publicity in the final two weeks of sittings this year, along with the ABCC legislation. We noticed in the press today that the government has sought to play up how significant these matters are. I heard on Radio National today how busy we would be discussing these questions. Of course, the reality is very simple. This is a government that has no substantive legislative agenda. This is a government that has essentially stumbled through this year. It went to a double dissolution in June—it had a truncated and somewhat stunted budgetary program prior to that—in a desperate bid to clean out the Senate from the ravages of the crossbench, as the government saw it, only to find that that double dissolution turned out to be very bad for the government. The government has now been reduced to a majority of one. We have a Prime Minister who came into office just over a year ago full of hope and vigour, with great expectations of what he would achieve, only to find that those hopes and those expectations have been dashed, as we realised that this Prime Minister is a captive of the extreme right wing of his party and now has very little to say about the future direction of the country—unless it is actually approved by the extreme right wing of his party.

This morning, we had publicity around this bill and, of course, the ABCC bill. We have noticed in the last couple of weeks that this government has become increasingly hysterical in the language that it has used. Because it lacks a legislative program of substance, it now has to resort to the good old sturdy stand-bys of conservative governments—that is, racism and xenophobia, with a touch of a union bashing. That is really the hallmark of the government now, and this bill, of course, is very much part of that agenda.

The government has nothing to say about jobs and nothing to say about the circumstances under which ordinary Australians find themselves, in terms of declining economic opportunities. It has nothing to say about the fact that we have the lowest labour market participation rates in 30 years, that real wages have stalled and that living standards are declining in this country. It has nothing to say about the fact that we are shipping jobs offshore like it is going out of fashion. It has nothing to say about what the real circumstances of this country are. This is a desperate attempt to frighten the living daylights out of people by mocking up these proposals to try to suggest that, somehow or other, this is a government that actually stands for something other than the extreme right-wing agenda that, of course, gave Mr Turnbull the keys to the Lodge. Those were the terms on which he secured the Liberal Party leadership from Mr Abbott, and he could only act on these matters. So the great issues that he had made his name from, in terms of producing a progressive Australia, all went out the window in the desperate exchange that he made with the right wing of the Liberal Party so that he can appear to be running the government.

We just heard from Senator Reynolds the classic formulation of the proposition that the government advances. Those opposite say: 'We really like unions. We really think unions are good.' But, of course, it is a vision of unionism very different from what most Australians see as the role of trade unions. There is a vision of trade unionism on the Liberal side which essentially sees trade unions performing a tame cat role—acting like some sort of voluntary association, like all the other great interest groups of the country. But, in terms of having the industrial capacity to defend the rights of workers on the job, well, of course the unions are not really to be treated in that way, under this government's mentality. We do not have any talk about unions having a political role—that is regarded as illegitimate. What unions are really about is being some sort of voluntary organisation where you have a cup of tea and a bit of a chat every now and then, and you do not actually do anything about preserving real wages. You do not do anything about ensuring occupational health and safety. You do not do anything about defending working-class life in this country. That is not the role of unions, according to the Liberal Party; the role of the unions, essentially, is this legal fiction about the right to organise but not the right to actually do anything. This bill is a further extension of that proposition.

We have heard a lot about the misdemeanours and the various malfeasance actions of an isolated group of trade union officials, many of whom this minister has come into this chamber and waxed lyrically about, when matters are actually before the courts—only too happy to abandon the sub judice principles and blacken people's names, even those people who have been acquitted. We do not hear any acknowledgement that people actually are brought before the courts. Nor do we ever hear anything about the facts when people are acquitted of the crimes that she is accusing them of. And they are crimes, if they are proven, and that is the whole point.

This is a bill that does not really take any interest in making better workplaces or ending union or corporate corruption. It is not about that. And we make the point again and again that the labour movement has no room for corruption, no tolerance for corruption, wherever it occurs. It does not matter if it is a union official or a company executive; we take the view that that of course is not the intent of this bill in any event. That is the ruse. That is the device to use to establish a further step forward in a union-busting, antiworker agenda, as coalition governments have done for generation after generation.

There is a standard pattern here: establish a royal commission, make all sorts of sensational allegations, and then the reality is—take Cole, for instance: how many people were actually convicted of any offence, despite all the claims? What we see is this measure to establish a registered organisations commission, headed of course by a Liberal Party appointment. The new commission would have even greater powers than those available to the general manager of the Fair Work Commission. This is a bill that seeks to advance the antiworker agenda of this government, seeks to criminalise legitimate trade union activity. It is not about dealing with criminal offences, because these proposals here in themselves do not acknowledge that there are currently laws against criminal activity.

What we have here are in fact measures pertaining to penalties which are much higher for civil contraventions. As I said, it is about criminalising normal activity. These sanctions are essentially onerous and unfair. And we see the circulation of the government speaking notes, and not just amongst the government senators—Senator Macdonald and Senator Roberts now. I guess it is clear that the government speaking notes have now been distributed to One Nation; it is very clear, because they use exactly the same rhetoric, exactly the same examples, exactly the same circumstances.

What we have here is a simple proposition that the registered organisations act—and the government never acknowledges this—already prohibits members' money from being misused in favour of particular candidates, for instance in internal elections. The current laws in this country already allow for criminal charges to be laid where funds are stolen or obtained by fraud. Already our legislation in this country allows for the fair work commissioner to share information with police where that is appropriate. It already provides statutory penalties where orders of the Fair Work Commission or the Federal Court are unknowingly or recklessly contravened. We already have laws in terms of registered organisations about judiciary duty akin to the directors of the corporation law. That already exists at law. The current act already requires officers to disclose their personal interests.

Now, we acknowledge that it always needs to improve. But you have to actually acknowledge what the law is at the moment—what it is that you are seeking to improve. That is why we are proposing a whole series of amendments, including limitations on donations to make it consistent with the electoral act, and we have a contingent notice of motion provided for a series of amendments that we will propose in that regard. We will not support this bill, however, unless there are proper amendments. And of course we acknowledge that this is a bill that really is not about genuine reform; it is about the political agenda by this government, desperate, trying to cover up the fact that it has no broad agenda.

And now One Nation, which claimed that it came to this place as the enemy of the elites, has now demonstrated just how deeply antilabour and antiworker it is. It masquerades around its hostility to the elites but it has in fact become a tool of the elites. One Nation appeals to freedom of rule of law. But of course all of that rhetoric is shallow and empty, and it has been demonstrated to be such, because One Nation is in fact acting as the cat's paw for the Liberal Party in its antiworker, anti-union agenda. One Nation is of course about busting open the labour movement, who are the only bastions in this country to defend ordinary people against what are the abuses of corporate power, the abuses of the extraordinary capacity of the corporations in this country to actually take advantage of the current law.

These are the circumstances that need to be assessed when we are looking at these agendas, because now we have a party—the party of Work Choices—having yet again entered into this array of measures. And they have made it very clear in their other legislative agenda. They have made it very clear in the way they have conducted themselves in this parliament. We have seen the royal commissions established, as the historic pattern has shown. We have seen the deeply partisan actions of the government-appointed commissioner Mr Dyson Heydon. We know that the whole thing was an attempt to stigmatise the labour movement, to stigmatise leading members of the labour movement and to seek electoral advantage in so doing.

But of course the government was somewhat embarrassed by these measures and chose not to actually mention them too much in the last election. The reason for the election was not discussed—and that is a very simple proposition here—because they know that within the trade union movement there is very deep hostility to this. Even more important is that the Australian people understand how significant the trade union movement is to the history of this country and to the future of this country in ensuring protections of ordinary people's rights. This is a government that spent $60 million on its tainted royal commission. We know it was about hounding Labor leaders, that it was about hounding trade union officials and a transparent political agenda—which of course is not a surprise to anybody. We know that the Australian people are a wake up to these measures, just as they were to the Howard government's WorkChoices and the so-called Australian workplace agreements. In 2005 the Liberals sought to pretend that workers pay and conditions were protected by law. They in fact said at that time that wages were actually too high! Then they introduced various measures to freeze wages—to affect the consequences of their policies by reducing living standards and cutting wages. This, of course, was part of a much more detailed program of union busting.

We know the public is a wake up to this and we saw this in the submissions to the various inquiries into this bill. That is why this bill has been knocked back several times in this chamber. It is quite clear that between the union movement and employers there is an understanding of how dangerous these measures are when they are used by a hostile government that wants to undermine the capacity of workers to organise and defend themselves.

It is not just a question of the intransigence of the chamber; it is the fact that the government itself understands deeply it needs to accept a whole series of amendments because this bill is deeply flawed. If this bill was genuinely about reform, it would acknowledge what is happening within the police services across the country and their capacity to investigate crimes. It would acknowledge that the Australian Crime Commission already has coercive powers to investigate crime. These are the appropriate agencies to deal with criminal matters. They are not industrial relations bodies. It should be left up to the people who are actually responsible for dealing with criminal matters; it should not be about criminalising trade union activity.

What the shadow minister, the member for Gorton, has foreshadowed on behalf the Labor Party is a whole series of amendments which are designed to provide stronger penalties, but which would exempt volunteers. Earlier I heard Senator Reynolds say, 'Of course, we can't have ASIC regulate registered organisations.' Doesn't that give a lie to the proposition that there should be equality of treatment between company directors and trade union officials? Shouldn't the same body do it? What we are hearing today is: 'Oh no we can't possibly do that because we need a specialised political police to organise union-busting activities.'

There have been important electoral changes of ensuring proper accountability to democratic principles, including disclosure of electoral donations by companies or banks. I would dearly love to see details of the way banks operate and how they influence the political direction of this country. I would dearly love to see the operations of companies in, for example, the recent scandals involving franchise chain stores; I would dearly love to see the level of political engagement that they have had. I would also love to see the Australian Securities and Investment Commission have the power to investigate serious contraventions of the act. I would have thought that, if the government were serious about equality of treatment before the law, it would accept these amendments.

Given the sort of misconduct we are talking about, we would expect the government to engage properly with the opposition on these matters rather than seek a blatantly political attack on unions, as we have heard today and as we have heard again and again, as this government desperately tries to cover up the fact that it has very little to say about the future directions of this country. We are saying that we should not have different standards for workers and employers. We acknowledge that, and that is why our amendments go to that question.

In 2012 is that the present Leader of the Opposition, as the minister for employment, introduced reforms to various laws regulating registered organisations. Those changes acknowledged that the penalties could be tripled for breaches of a Fair Work registered organisation. The legislation required education and training and responsibilities of governance to be provided to officials of registered organisations, both employers and unions. It enhanced the investigative powers available to Fair Work Australia, including giving the general manager of Fair Work the power to share information with federal and state police. The reforms corrected a serious flaw in the regulatory regime, which had been introduced by the former minister for industrial relations—who was, of course, Mr Tony Abbott.

The rhetoric and the misinformation peddled by the government never acknowledges that there is a history to these matters and that there are quite strong provisions within the current regulatory arrangements. If the government was to be honest about this arrangement, it would acknowledge that its real agenda is about destroying the union movement and about trying to destroy the links between the trade union movement and the Labor Party. We are proud of our relationship with the unions of this country. Unlike the Liberals, we actually acknowledge the critical role that unions play in defence of working people and in the advancement of a progressive and fair economy. Unions have driven fundamental social and economic reform in this country and every benefit has flowed to the people of this country—the eight-hour day, annual leave, sick leave, weekend penalty rates, workplace safety laws, equal pay for women, Medicare, superannuation. How many of these measures were supported by the parties of town and country capital in this country? Not one of these social justice measures was ever supported by a conservative political party in this country. We have to acknowledge some simple and basic principles are at stake here—the principles of a fair Australia, a just Australia, and an Australia in which everybody has rights, which can be defended in the workplace or at the ballot box. This bill seeks to undermine that fundamental industrial and political principle.

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

I am pleased to rise to support the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014. I would have thought that every single solitary person in this parliament, from the other side and in this chamber, would want to see the fairness and the equity that have been proposed in this bill. Indeed, those listening to this debate might think that there is only one group of people who are the subject of this legislation, should it be passed, and that is members of the trade union movement, which of course is absolutely wrong. It will apply to employers and to employer groups. It highlights the fact that anybody in this country who receives the benefit of funding, including funding from taxpayers by way of tax benefits or tax relief, has a very, very strong obligation, and that is to be fully accountable to their members or to taxpayers.

That is exactly why this legislation, proposed by Minister Cash, is before us. It is not about unions only. It is about employers. It is about employer groups. It is about unions. It is about any registered organisation that collects, processes, manages and expends moneys on behalf of their members. What this bill does is say that this parliament places an obligation on those people to ensure that those who are responsible for the expenditure of members' moneys do so with propriety, with honesty and with transparency.

For those who think this is some historic event, it is not. Only Friday of last week, we had the circumstance in New South Wales where two people—the ex-secretary of the National Union of Workers of New South Wales, a Mr Derrick Belan; and his niece, the ex-financial controller, Ms Danielle O'Brien—were brought before the courts, on the recommendation of the recent Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, for the illegal expenditure of members' funds. It is not an inconsequential sum of money. The alleged fraud by Mr Belan is of the figure of $440,000. He was refused bail and is due to appear on a day to be fixed. The young lady was granted bail, but the figure was $430,000.

I want to reflect for a moment: how does it come to pass, in any organisation—be it an employer organisation, be it a union organisation or be it the RSL—that a couple of people think that they have the capacity and the wherewithal to knock off nearly $900,000, for whatever purpose? My father was a bank manager, and he used to say to me, 'Chris, if a teller is stealing, there are two people to blame. One is the teller who is stealing and the other is the manager who has failed to put into place strategies so that the teller will understand they will be caught.' If you take that on a macro scale, Mr Acting Deputy President Ketter, this is what is before us today. It is of sufficient importance that the Parliament of Australia must address itself to these questions. It is not union bashing; it is not employer bashing; it is looking at the proper activities of those charged with the responsibility and the husbandry of the money of members.

So, what happened in that New South Wales case? How could those two people think that they could knock off, if it is proven, $800,000 from their members—not taken from employer groups, not taken from the wider public, but taken from the membership fees of their own members. That is what we are addressing here today.

It is interesting to listen to Senator Carr go on about union-bashing et cetera. As I have said in this place, I am the very proud grandson of Tom Back, who was the secretary of what was referred to as the lumpers union, on the wharves in Fremantle during the Depression years. The Fremantle Lumpers Union eventually, through the Waterside Workers Federation, became the MUA, a union with whom I have enormous difficulties today. I can assure you that I find grossly offensive all of those comments made by Senator Carr about our side of the parliament. They are wrong. They are lies. I find them offensive to the memory of my grandfather. The actions of my grandfather, and those like him, were the actions of a person who spends every living hour trying to ensure reasonable employment for members of the union—including my father, Bill Back; and his brother, my uncle Tom Maher, both of whom got work on the wharf when there was work on the wharf in Fremantle during the Depression. So I do not want Senator Carr coming in here and carrying on with that sort of nonsense that I just heard about that person.

I want to reflect for a moment on some of those vagaries about which we have heard. It goes to the point made a few moments ago, and that is the amendment foreshadowed by Senator Pratt, from Western Australia. We know that Ms Kathy Jackson, acting at one stage in her career in a voluntary capacity as the honorary secretary of the Health Services Union, would in fact be exempt, should this amendment pass. Let us think about that for a moment. Let us think about all those low-paid workers in nursing home, those people for whom it must be a vocation rather than a job, going by the attention that they give to elderly people like they gave to my mother and that others who are in nursing homes receive.

To think that another person was, at the time, a member of the other place—Mr Craig Thomson. In 2015, the former Health Services Union national secretary, Mr Thomson, was found guilty of misusing $300,000 for his campaign to enter parliament and then for other indulgences, apparently including the use of prostitutes. As deputy chair of the then education, employment and workplace relations committee I could never get out of my mind the union fees that would have been being paid by those low-paid workers in nursing homes, in hospitals and in other facilities so that Craig Thomson could enjoy the services of prostitutes and, indeed, fund his own campaign for election.

Worse than that was the fact that we all know very well: the then Gillard government could not afford for Mr Craig Thomson to leave the parliament. Should he have been bankrupted, he, of course, must have left the parliament—a matter that is being dealt with at this very moment in consideration of another colleague—because, as we know, members and senators cannot sit in the parliament if they are bankrupt. So what happened? I would now invite Senator Dastyari, who at the time was the secretary of his union, to come in and correct the record if I am wrong in saying that Mr Craig Thomson's legal fees were paid so that he could continue in the parliament, when there was full knowledge of what this person was doing and was subsequently found guilty of undertaking.

I think that was one of the lowest moments in the history of this parliament—certainly in the eight years that I have been here—that the government of the day would protect a person against bankruptcy, using funds by another union, to avoid a circumstance in which he would have to leave the parliament, with the government then finding itself in a position of not having sufficient numbers to govern. I ask the question: if, indeed, those funds were paid by then secretary Dastyari, did the members know that those funds were being used for that purpose? This goes exactly to the reason why Senator Cash has brought this legislation before this parliament, and that is the fact that members of registered organisations—be they employer groups, be they employee groups or be they unions—have a right to know that their funds are being husbanded and that they are being handled honestly, with integrity and with transparency.

We go to the legislation to which Senator Carr referred in the final moments of his contribution. Again, it relates to amendments introduced by the then minister for industrial relations, Mr Bill Shorten, in 2012. Remember, these were amendments that the then Labor government brought in. I will refer to one of them, because in the brief five days that the then Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee had to review this legislation, introduced by Mr Shorten, one of the elements then, and an element today, relates to the five highest paid officials.

With your concurrence, I want to quote from Mr Shorten's second reading speech in the other place, when he was speaking of the levels of disclosure. This is the comment that he made:

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

This is not an unreasonable requirement, one would have thought. He then went on to say:

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

He concluded by saying:

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

The then minister, the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, was in support of the core key elements of what we are dealing with today.

As you know, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, there is very strong support from luminaries of the Labor Party for the sort of legislation that is being proposed here today. Former ACTU president Mr Martin Ferguson, who went on to become the Minister for Resources and Energy, is highly regarded around Australia from everybody in those industries. He said:

There is an absolute obligation on the union movement to clean up its house. There is an obligation on the unions to put their house in order.

Former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty said:

I was always on that side of the debate which said that unions are public bodies so they are accountable to members for their management.

A previous Attorney-General in a recent Labor government, Robert McClelland, made this comment: 'Unquestionably, a case for further legislative reform.' We know that former National Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union Paul Howes was concerned about many of the elements. He spoke about the 'cancer of dishonesty' and how it can corrupt an organisation. At the time, he spoke of the need for developing resistance to corruption.

Senator Carr and I are on the same page when it comes to that particular issue. We know that in our democratic system, which is the Westminster system of parliament, the government of the day—the coalition government under Mr Turnbull—introduced this legislation into this place and it was rejected twice, which then became a trigger for a double disillusion election. We went to the 2013 election saying that we would clean up the Shorten legislation and that we would introduce the registered organisations bill. We were voted into government in 2013. Then, in 2016, we said that, should we win government, should we be privileged to continue as the government of this country, we would again introduce this registered organisations legislation. And here we are back in government. It behoves those in this parliament to respect the voice of the Australian people. That is what must happen.

I am not going to spell out all of those vagaries that I know others have about the misuse of funds by people entrusted to their management by their members and often low-paid members of those organisations. But I do want to focus in the couple of minutes left available to me on how this legislation will work. There will be a focused regulator. There is no variation from the other side of politics on this one. There will be enhanced financial accountability provisions. The original Shorten legislation, as my colleague Senator Cash will remember, imposed enormous burdens on people to participate in further financial management training even if they were already highly competent in those spaces. The sensible legislation produced by the government through the minister today simply says there will enhanced financial accountability provisions with meaningful sanctions that can be applied when wrongdoing is revealed.

If we look at the penalties we can see they are serious. We are not talking about small sums of money. Last Friday it was $800,000 by two people who, because of the culture of their organisation or because of their own dishonesty, if proven, seemed to think they could walk away with $400,000 each. I just cannot believe this. So the penalties will require registered organisations to disclose the remuneration paid to their top five highest paid officers. I have already referred to the fact that Mr Shorten in government was in agreement with that. The penalties will secondly require officers whose duties relate to financial management to disclose material where they might have a personal interest. Isn't it amazing? If there is a conflict of interest, you will have to put your hand up and say so. We do that here. In any circumstance in which there is the possibility of a conflict of interest, we must announce that. So this is now being put into the legislation. Thirdly, we are ensuring in this legislation that officers cannot make decisions on matters where they have a conflict of interest. They must excuse themselves from any decision making. They must be absent from the room. The minutes of a meeting must confirm the fact that they took no part in that particular decision making.

As we know—and as was supported by the then government through its minister Mr Shorten—civil penalties will range from $18,000 to $216,000 for individuals and over $1 million for a body corporate, employer group, union or any registered organisation. And, as there needs to be, there will be criminal penalties that will apply for reckless or intentional dishonest breaches of officers' duties with a fine of up to $360,000 or five years imprisonment or both.

The wider community have an expectation that those charged with the responsibility for other people's money will take it seriously, honestly and with integrity and that there will be transparency. I do not care, further to Senator Carr's comments, whether it is an employer group, a union group or, indeed, anybody who puts their hand up and seeks taxpayers' money by way of either payment or tax relief. They should all be subject to the same burdens that have been introduced in this legislation.

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

I rise this afternoon to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014. This bill seeks to establish a registered organisation commission, headed by a registered organisation commissioner, hand-picked by this government. The new Registered Organisation Commissioner would have greater powers than those of the general manager of the Fair Work Commission.

Before I get into the detail of this legislation, I will say it never ceases to amaze me when those people on the other side start talking about former Labor members of parliament in such a glowing terms as we have heard this morning in the contributions from government members. There was talk this morning about people such as Bill Kelty, who headed up the ACTU, and Paul Howes, the former National Secretary of the AWU. It is just a great shame that those on the other side did not even utter any ounce of respect for those people when they were in those positions. But because it happens to fit their agenda today in this debate they have started making reference to these former members and rolling out all these fabulous things.

But it has been even more extraordinary than that, because we had a contribution this morning from Senator Roberts. I do not normally listen to his contributions in this place, but today it was just an extraordinary contribution! It was just extraordinary! This is a man who is totally ill informed about this legislation. He is totally ill informed or he has a prejudice against unions. It was just a gobsmacking contribution. I think perhaps he should go and have a read of his own speech and then reflect on it.

Then we had the contribution of Senator Macdonald. He was critical of my contribution when I had not even spoken in this place in this debate. It was a bit reminiscent, quite frankly, of when this government voted against their own legislation in the House of Representatives.

But I will go back to the bill. The bill modifies disclosure requirements and increases red tape. The bill contains higher penalties for several contraventions and introduces criminal offences in respect of officers' duties which are modelled on but also exceed those found in the Corporations Act 2001. These sanctions are onerous, disproportionate and unfair and will prevent employers who volunteer to work for employer bodies from continuing that work.

The bill treats volunteers like the chief executives of corporate boards, except without the pay and conditions. This bill was defeated on three separate occasions by the 44th Parliament, along with the ABCC bill. Today, this bill is being taken out of the bottom drawer by a desperate government that has nothing else to say—a government bereft of any plan for the future of this nation and a government that quite frankly cannot go a week without stuffing something up. This is a government that has voted against itself twice in the House of Representatives—not once, but twice. This is a government that is unfit to govern this nation. This is a government that actually called on itself to demand it explain its own failings. I think that is pretty good; members of the government have actually had some foresight—they themselves concur that they are not up to the job.

This is a government whose members have been so preoccupied fighting each other that it has achieved nothing but a bunch of thought bubbles, and we have seen that week after week. In its desperation, it is returning to the anti-union, anti-worker and anti-fairness agenda it has always clung to. It has cut paid parental leave again, which will see 70,000 mothers lose some or all of their paid parental leave. It has called new mothers who have collective paid parental leave entitlements that intersect with the government's scheme 'double-dippers' and 'rorters'. The Turnbull government's approach to bargaining across the APS has been to strip away rights and conditions that give workers a voice in the workplace. This is evident in the Members of Parliament Staff Enterprise Agreement 2016-2019 currently being proposed. It has quite frankly come to the table and said, 'There is no way that we are going to be here and bargain with you.' It has put an offer on the table and said take it or leave it. This is the character of this government.

This morning I was reading something in the media that is quite apt when you consider that the AAA rating of the economy is at risk yet again under the stewardship of Mr Turnbull. This a piece in The Australian newspaper—I know how much the government members like to refer to that newspaper—is very timely, because it is pointed towards the Prime Minister. In fact, the headline is, 'How to be Prime Minister.' That is pretty good, after somebody knifed Mr Abbott to take on the top job. We all know that Mr Turnbull has always had the ambition and the drive to be Prime Minister, but, unfortunately, since becoming Prime Minister he has not delivered on anything. He raised expectations in the community, particularly after he rolled Tony Abbott, that he was going to be a new Prime Minister—a 21st-century Prime Minister. His government would be agile. It has been anything but agile. Mr Turnbull, if you are listening, perhaps you might want to refer to The Australian. It is a very good article; it might give you a few tips—although I am not sure that anything will help you at this late stage.

This Prime Minister did the ultimate deed by knifing someone else in the back to take on the role, but he has failed to show any economic leadership for our nation. The man is well suited—we know that; he has better suits—but, to be quite frank with you, nothing much else has changed. The Liberal government still has no clear economic plan to speak of. Nothing has been done on the future of our economy, absolutely nothing. Again, in the papers this morning it is reported the AAA rating that we guard so jealously is under threat under this government. We have seen no economic leadership from Mr Turnbull. He has failed to be up front about his tax plans and has offered nothing to the Australian people. He is more interested in taking selfies with President Obama than displaying any economic leadership.

This week, we have a desperate government that knows that if it does not get its 2016 election trigger bills through a Senate it does not control it will look even more helpless and less able to articulate a vision. I do not blame Australians for wondering what the point of a double dissolution was. I ask myself that time and time again. What was the point of Mr Turnbull calling a double dissolution, when it has been almost five months since the election and only now do we have the bill before us? It is as clear as day that Mr Turnbull does not have any idea about where this government should go. He has no idea on the sort of policies that he needs to take forward. The only thing that he does know is that he is fighting every day for his own job—and he is fighting within his own caucus.

This Prime Minister promised to fix the budget and create jobs and growth, but all he has delivered to date are growing deficits, more debt, record low wages and record unemployment. Malcolm Turnbull's jobs and growth mantra during the 2016 federal election was nothing more than an empty slogan. Empty words and empty promises—that is all we are seeing from this government. The only plan the Turnbull government has put forward is a $50 billion tax cut for big business—the big end of town—which will smash the budget when Australians can least afford it. Looking at the statistics, it is clear that the Turnbull government has failed the Australian economy. There are 261,100 young people unemployed—young Australians. There are 261,100, and too many of them are in my home state of Tasmania. The number of Australians giving up on finding work is at the highest level since 2006. The government just cut 128,000 apprenticeship places from the system in the midst of a skills shortage. These are the sorts of decisions that the government is making. There are over 1.8 million Australians who cannot find a job. That is 1.8 million Australians who do not have a job. Wages growth has fallen to another record low. The government is still hurting middle and working class families by attacking penalty rates. Its continuous attacks on Medicare are damaging to workplaces and economic productivity.

Those on the opposite side of this place will always support the big end of town, but they have never and they will never represent or support workers in this country. We on this side of the chamber know the importance of the union movement and we value the work that unions do on behalf of hardworking Australians. We support unions and we support the best possible standard of union governance. We on this side of the chamber have zero tolerance of corruption. That is zero tolerance of corruption.

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

How much?

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

Zero. My colleague from Tasmania, Senator Bilyk, knows this only too well. She was a former unionist. I have not been, but I have been a proud member of unions through my working life, because what my mother always used to say to us when we were growing up was, 'You get a job, you work hard and you belong to the union. It does not matter how hard you work, if the boss wants to get rid of you he will try to. If there is a downturn the first people who will go will be the workers, so always join your union.' Which I did.

Whether you sit in a boardroom or work in a factory, we believe that any corrupt behaviour should be met with the full force of the law. I cannot stress that enough. The diatribe contributed to this debate from those opposite has tried to paint a very different picture. I do not believe that anyone in this chamber would support any form of corruption, whether it is through a business—and we see a lot of white collar crime, but we do not very often hear about white collar crime from those opposite, though we always hear if there has been proven corruption within a union. And so it should be exposed for what it is. Whether it is in business, whether it is taxpayers' money or whether it is your sporting organisation—it does not matter. Zero tolerance is what we stand for on this side of the chamber.

Let's not pretend that this legislation, as it stands, is about better workplaces or stronger unions. That is not what this government wants. This government would be very happy to sit back while workers in this country were being paid half the minimum wage. They have done nothing to look at the widespread rorts or corruption and rorting in the 457 and temporary work visa system. The only time they talk about wages is when they complain that they are too high. Mr Turnbull does not want to support stronger unions which represent the interests of working people. The government's goal is quite the opposite: it is to destroy the link between the trade union movement and the Labor Party. That is it—be up-front about it! Tell it for what it is—that is what your belief is. We will fight and stand by Australian workers every single day.

Their goal is to destroy the capacity of trade unions to organise and to bargain collectively. Their agenda is demonstrated by their legislative program, the way they conduct themselves in parliament and the royal commission conducted by the most partisan of commissioners, Dyson Heydon. This is a government which has gone after former and current Labor leaders through an abuse of executive power and spending millions of taxpayer dollars. This is a government which introduced absolutely no legislation as a result of their trade union royal commission. They had one agenda—to blacken the union movement and Mr Shorten—but they failed, because there was nothing there to find. This government has given us plenty of reason not to trust them when it comes to workplace relations. Any resolution in relation to this bill or the ABCC is only the first step in the government's anti-union, anti-worker agenda. It is all part of their crusade against workers.

The way the government carries on you would think there was absolutely no regulation or registration of organisations. That is the picture they have tried to paint here this morning. But nothing could be further from the truth. The act already prohibits members' money from being used to favour particular candidates in internal elections or campaigns. It 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. Officers of registered organisations already have fiduciary duties akin to those of directors under corporations law. The act already requires officers to disclose their personal interests.

The only reason this Prime Minister is talking about this legislation is to try and pacify the hard-right wolves of his Party. Labor is better than that. We are interested in improving this legislation to make it worthwhile, to genuinely improve conditions for employees and employers.

In December last year, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for employment and workplace relations, Brendan O'Connor, announced new measures to detect and deter corruption in trade unions and employer associations. Labor will move amendments in the Senate which seek to implement our election policy. Firstly, rather than creating a new government bureaucracy, the Registered Organisations Commission, Labor proposes that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission use its extensive coercive powers to investigate serious breaches of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act.

Secondly, we will increase penalties for behaviour which is intended to deceive union members or the regulator. We will double the maximum penalties for all criminal offences under the act. We will increase the fine for false and misleading conduct from $10,800 to $18,000. For paid officials who act in a way that materially prejudices the interests of the union or its members, we will increase the fine from $10,800 to $216,000. Only officials in paid positions who are responsible for decisions about the financial management of registered organisations will be subject to these penalties—not volunteers.

Thirdly, Labor's amendments will increase audit requirements and penalties for auditors. We want to make sure that those people who are charged with the responsibility of independently examining the finances of registered organisations do so in a professional and accountable manner. Auditors that choose not to report misconduct in registered organisations could themselves be subject to imprisonment. This will ensure that auditors are not complicit in their silence. 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 independence.

Fourthly, we are proposing a new donation threshold for union officials and politicians alike. It is time to extend the current electoral funding laws to donations and expenditure for all elections managed by the Australian Electoral Commission, whether they are union elections or the federal election. Any entity associated with candidates in such elections should be required to publicly disclose the total value of payments made, receipts and debts each year. Our amendments to this legislation will reduce the current disclosure threshold in the Commonwealth Electoral Act for election funding from $13,000 down to $1,000, as well as prohibit anonymous donations over $50 and introduce measures to end the practice of donation splitting by related entities, which can be used to avoid disclosure thresholds and so undermine donation transparency. The government are happy to go after unions when it comes to disclosure thresholds and transparency but they are not willing to apply the same standard to themselves.

Fifthly, we want stronger protections for whistleblowers. The penalties for those taking adverse action against whistleblowers are currently limited to a $4,500 fine, imprisonment for six months or both. Labor's improvements to this legislation will extend whistleblower protections to the private and not-for-profit sector and mean that people who seek to intimidate or silence whistleblowers will face two years jail and an $18,000 fine.

In summary, Labor will support an amended bill that will increase penalties but exempt volunteers, provide greater protection for whistleblowers, provide more accountability for auditors and provide more accountability for electoral donations by reducing the disclosure amount from $13,200 to $1,000, whether in union elections or federal elections.

We are genuinely interested in passing good legislation. So I say to those on the other side of the chamber: do not make this politically motivated, actually look at the amendments and make sure that the very best legislation is passed through this place, because, quite frankly, you do not have a very good track record on the legislation that you bring before us. We know, in fact, that those opposite have no legislation. We are spending an inordinate amount of time dealing with non-controversial legislation because those opposite are filibustering because they are still trying to get the numbers for various pieces of legislation. It is about time we saw something of the real Mr Turnbull and his agile, 21st century government, before it is too late.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the third time I have risen to briefly contribute to the debate on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, and for the third time I will vote against this government legislation. In division 3, this legislation takes away fundamental civil rights from blue-collar workers—like the right to silence, the presumption of innocence and freedom of association. I cannot in good conscience support extraordinary legislation which specifically targets union members and blue collar workers while ignoring white collar crime and criminals.

If the government were at the same time to introduce extraordinary legislation to parliament, which applied the same standards to all workers, both blue-collar and white-collar workers, then they would have my support. For example: if the government wanted to establish a federal commission against corruption, or a federal ICAC, which had extraordinary powers to attack all corruption and crime, then I would support them. And there is a great need for a Federal ICAC. But when the government try to take away fundamental civil rights from brickie's labourers while effectively exempting bankers from the same treatment, every fair-minded Australian must reject that proposal. Our nation and democracy are based on the principle of equality before the law for all. Regardless of whether you push a concrete saw on a building site for a living or a $1,000 pen in a corporate boardroom, you should be treated equally before the law. If the government makes the case for a removal of fundamental civil rights because of extraordinary and entrenched corruption and crime in the Australian community, then let the ensuing legislation and the corruption-fighting organisations attack wrongdoing both on the building sites and in the boardrooms of big business.

This legislation reverses the onus of proof. In other words, it forces accused workers to prove their innocence, rather than the authorities having to prove the guilt of alleged wrongdoers. So if this legislation is passed, building workers accused of wrongdoing will face penalties if they exercise their democratic right to silence, while they are forced to go to the expense of proving their innocence. This is an un-Australian and undemocratic situation. It should only be tolerated when you are tackling the extraordinary threats posed to Australia by terrorists and organised crime.

I have spoken about this to the Senate before, but it is worth repeating again. Unlike members of the Liberal Party in the Senate, I do not have an ingrained hatred for members of unions. I acknowledge that, on balance, the union movement in Australian has been an agent for positive change and has protected and strongly advocated for the rights of working Australia families. If we did not have unions and organised labour and their fights for better wages and conditions, Australia would be a poorer, less fair country and work sites would absolutely be less safe. However, yes, I also acknowledge that the unions—just like the corporate world, just like the military and just like politicians—have had their fair share of fraudsters, crooks and standover men who have ripped off their members and committed shocking crimes to satisfy their own greed and lust for power.

Of course, there is an ongoing need to monitor, investigate and enforce our laws wherever crime and corruption are found. Within many organisations, whether they be government departments, political parties, corporations or unions, the military—wherever there is a concentration of power and money—the risk for criminal or unethical behaviour increases because, as we all know, if you are human, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. However, the problem I have, when the Liberals say they want to apply corporate standards of regulation to the unions, is that Australian corporate standards—let us be hones—are not all that flash. You only have to look at the corruption in some of the Liberal Party's biggest election donors, the banks, to realise that the Australian corporate standards are about as good as the standards and regulations governing the Australian union movement.

I believe that an equitable solution to corruption in the workplace and broader Australian society is the establishment of a permanent corruption watchdog whose Star Chamber power will apply to bankers and union members equally. Combine that body with reformed world's best whistleblower or public interest disclosure laws that protect, encourage and reward genuine whistleblowers coming forward, and then corruption in the workplace, corruption in government departments, corruption in the boardrooms, corruption in political parties and, God forbid, corruption in the military would finally be properly addressed.

I have also spoken about this in previous speeches when I have addressed the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014: overseas workers on various work, 457 and student visas have been used to undermine the rights and work conditions of Australian workers, something that this legislation does under the pretext of targeting corruption. Both Labor and Liberal governments have made rules while in government relating to 457 visas which allow our big oil and other associated companies to legally sack 36 Australian maritime crew and replace them with foreigners on their tankers. This Liberal government decided to kill off the jobs of 45 defence clothing manufacturing workers because the defence minister decided not to place further orders with the Workwear Group, resulting in the company announcing in recent times that union members will lose their jobs. This government has a budget of $100 million a year—$50 million to be spent on making uniforms in Australia—but now the Liberal Party is happy to have the majority our defence uniforms made overseas because it means fewer Australian union members.

I would like to address an issue raised by members of the government: political funding and its potential to influence votes in this chamber. The JLN has refused to take any political funding from big banks and from unions like the CFMEU and the Maritime Union, all of whom have had serious questions raised about their governance and integrity. I oppose the legislation before the House based on its merits as it is written, not because of any political funding or promise of political funding. Indeed, in order to lead by example, the JLN is the only political party in Australia which discloses political funding in real time. I challenge all senators and political parties to adopt a similar level of transparency for their political funding.

I will vote against the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014. I understand that, should this legislation progress to the Senate committee stage, different senators have proposed amendments which I believe may improve the flawed legislation. I will listen carefully to the debate and amendments proposed by all senators. In particular, I am very interested in the improvements foreshadowed by Senator Xenophon and Labor—and I am inclined to support their improvements to the legislation which provide greater protections for whistle blowers and more accountability for auditors and electoral donations.

The bill is ideologically motivated, unfair and irrational. It undermines the basic civil liberties and rights of Australian workers, while ignoring tens of billions of dollars in fraud, tax evasion and crime in the banking, finance, medical and insurance industries—just to name a few industries where multinationals have had great influence. According to Parliamentary Library research I recently commissioned, over a five-year period from 2010-11 to the present day the four big banks—the Commonwealth, the NAB, Westpac and the ANZ—have donated in excess of $2.56 million to the Liberal and National parties alone. That is why you will not see a banker lose their right to silence or have to prove their innocence if accused of an offence or crime in the finance industry. But if this legislation passes, you will see blue-collar workers lose their right to silence and the right to a presumption of innocence, while bankers are treated separately.

Government members and others have used findings and evidence of the Heydon royal commission to justify this legislation and the ABCC legislation. I have raised this point before. As my research and consultation on the ABCC legislation progressed over the months, my trust in Commissioner Heydon and his $60 million royal commission was absolutely shattered when it became blindingly obvious that Commissioner Heydon had lied to the Australian people about the so-called grave threats he had discovered to the power and authority of the Australian state. I am in a unique position to pass judgement on Commissioner Heydon's secret reports and his findings. Unlike most Australians and politicians, I have read Commissioner Heydon's so-called secret reports. They are a fiction and they are lies. There are no grave threats to the Australian state. If there were, ASIO would have been all over the Heydon royal commission like a bloody rash. They would have been all over it and they would have known about it. When I questioned ASIO about Heydon's secret reports and his wasted $60 million at estimates, no copy had been referred to them—nor had ASIO even thought of asking for a copy of the so-called secret reports. What we have with this $60 million royal commission is a royal commissioner who agreed to participate in a Liberal Party fundraiser and who lied to the parliament and the Australian people about the seriousness of the threat to the Australian state through his investigations into union and other corruption. I repeat: why did Commissioner Heydon lie to this parliament and the Australian people?

I think it is very important to note that many members of the government have made speeches in which they have used many examples of CFMEU bad or criminal behaviour as a reason to pass this legislation. If the government were fair dinkum about tackling bad or criminal behaviour by the CFMEU they would have agreed to my proposal to deregister them. In the last parliament I asked a question of the then Leader of the Government, Senator Abetz:

Given that the senator agrees that the CFMEU leadership is involved in a wide range of serious criminal activities—blackmail, extortion, death threats and assault—and associations with outlaw bikie gangs, killers and underworld figures, and given that there is little difference between the CFMEU and the BLF, can the senator explain why his government … has not deregistered the CFMEU, just as it knows the Hawke-Labor government did in 1986?

That was the moment when the Australian people were able to see that the government really did not want to address the problem at hand in a measured and targeted manner that respected democratic fundamental civil rights and liberties. It quickly became apparent that they were using a rogue union as an excuse to attack the democratic civil rights and liberties of all Australian workers. It is a classic case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut—and legislative overreach which must be opposed or, at the very least, amended and mitigated. I oppose this legislation.

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

Here we are, in the fifth week of this parliament, considering the so-called urgent legislation that was the rationale for a double dissolution election. And the other double dissolution trigger—the ABCC bills, which we were also told needed to be passed urgently—has been pushed down the agenda even further. Apparently these bills were so urgent back in July that it has taken the Turnbull government until November and the penultimate sitting week of the year to introduce them to the Senate. The timing of this bill and the ABCC bills just goes to show that the double dissolution was not about these bills. Combined with the proroguing of parliament, they were a convenient trigger for Mr Turnbull to get the election timing that suited him. It was the first time in recent history that the parliament was prorogued for a purely political purpose. Mr Turnbull knew that the Australian people were slowly waking up to the fact that he was not the leader they thought he was and had abandoned his true ideology so he could pander to the conservative base in his party. He knew he was sliding in the polls because of this and had to get an election behind him as soon as possible. An ordinary election would have been too late. Had the government held on until August, it is very likely that they would not have achieved their very slim majority in the House of Representatives.

Wasn't it curious to see, having justified the double dissolution on the basis of this bill being urgent, and on the basis of the ABCC bills being urgent, how little these issues were mentioned by Mr Turnbull during the election campaign? They were certainly mentioned heavily in the lead-up to the election being called but barely at all during the campaign proper. This demonstrates that the registered organisations bill was a convenient excuse for calling a double dissolution election. When it comes to this bill, there is something blatantly political about the government's agenda, and that is their desire to attack trade unions, to attack the organisations that represent ordinary workers. I am very proud to have been a long-term member—for many decades—of various unions but I am very proud to stand here and say that for the past 25 years or so I have been not only an employee but also a workplace delegate of the Australian Services Union and I continue to be a member.

Those on the other side of the house paint the unions as evil and corrupt and attempt to stymie their ability to organise. Why do they do this? They are doing this so they can pave the way for an extreme workplace relations agenda—because that is what Mr Turnbull's mates in big business want. Their big-business mates must be offering a very substantial reward. The attacks on unions by those opposite, their cosying up to big business, is so brazen and so blatant that they are not even trying to hide their agenda. They are pursuing their antiworker agenda with all the subtlety of a freight train. I am surprised. I did not know they even knew anything about unions except to bag them. I have been here nearly nine years, and I have never heard them stand up and defend unions or the members of unions in the way I have heard in the past few hours today. There have been other days when they have done it, but only around these bills. Their hypocrisy is blatant. They are the lapdogs of big business, sitting there wagging their tails, waiting for a doggy biscuit and a little pat on the head. When big business says, 'Jump,' they ask, 'How high?'

They demonstrated that when they spent $60 million of taxpayers' money on a political witch-hunt: the trade union royal commission. Commissioner Dyson Heydon showed his political colours by accepting an invitation to speak at a Liberal Party fundraiser while he was still commissioner. If this alone were not enough to expose the royal commission for the blatant political farce that it was, let us not forget that we have seen only one conviction—just one—resulting from the 93 referrals of possible breaches of civil and criminal law. That is because the commission spent so much time going beyond its brief of exposing genuine corruption and instead started to pursue legitimate industrial activity. But this embarrassment has not stopped the government from inflating the findings of the royal commission. I guess that, after spending $60 million of taxpayers' money on a political witch-hunt, they had to get some bang for their buck. After all, it is easier for them to try to pretend the royal commission was money well spent when faced with the prospect of admitting to Australian taxpayers that they just blew $60 million of taxpayers' money.

The royal commission is also exposed as the political exercise it is by the fact that the government introduced this bill—a bill supposedly about union governance—before the royal commission had concluded. Following the conclusion of this political farce, not one bill has been introduced, nor has an existing bill been amended, as a result of the findings of the royal commission. It is a shocking abuse of power that so much taxpayers' money was wasted by this government in pursuing their political opponents. As I said, they have a blatant political agenda, and it is about as transparent as cling wrap. So it is when it comes to this bill, a bill which is designed to tie up trade unions in red tape, a bill which is designed to hobble unions and deny them the capacity to effectively do their job, which is organising and protecting workers. This is an exercise in rank hypocrisy from a government which claims to be about reducing regulation but which ties up parliament's time introducing reams of legislation to remove redundant provisions and to correct punctuation and which then proposes a bill which will bury registered organisations in the very red tape that it promised to cut.

Let me tell you the biggest hypocrisy of the lot for me. The biggest hypocrisy of the lot is that those on that side of the house—within their own mix, within their own group—hid corruption in the Tasmanian Liberal Party by Mr Damien Mantach. They did nothing about it, they let him walk away, they let him resign from his job, and then they gave him a job in Victoria. What did he do there? He blew the money there! They have the audacity to come in and talk about union officials and how some union officials are doing the wrong thing as if all unions are tarred with the same brush. We know for a fact that Mr Mantach's spending on his party credit card during his time as director of the Tasmanian branch of the party some eight years ago resulted in 15 charges relating to 53 payments from Liberal Party coffers. They have the audacity to come in here and act like they are so pure and they really care about unions, union members and the taxpayers. Well, they do not. I cannot believe that they would have the gall to do it.

Mr Mantach initially racked up almost $48,000 in personal expenses on the card. The then president of the Tasmanian branch, Mr Dale Archer, met with the then Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, who at the time was Senator Abetz, on 5 March 2008 to inform him of an investigation. Senator Abetz's account of that meeting was:

No advice was sought or offered. No sum of money was mentioned.

That must have been a real beaut meeting! He did not even get told that $48,000 had been misappropriated by Mr Mantach. The following day—6 March—Mr Archer informed the then federal director, Mr Brian Loughnane, that Mr Mantach had resigned. He just gets away scot-free. He gets to resign. How amazing is that! According to the Hobart Mercury,

“Brian Loughnane was informed by me of the full extent of the circumstances surrounding Mr Mantach’s departure,’’ Mr Archer said. “There is a file note that confirms in writing that the federal director was advised of this issue on the 6th of March, 2008.’’

If we believe the accounts of both Mr Archer and the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Abetz, the investigation was completed, the amount of money was determined and Mr Mantach had agreed to resign, all in the space of one day. And they come in here to talk about alleged union corruption and how all unions are evil. Give me a break, people!

The Liberal Party's Tasmanian President, Mr Geoff Page, held a closed-door meeting to discuss the party's handling of the issue with a select group of members. Mr Page told members at that meeting that a sensible decision was made to negotiate the repayment of money by Mr Mantach. This is the bit where it gets really, really good: the Tasmanian branch of the Liberal Party had not disclosed to the Australian Electoral Commission Mr Mantach's repayment of the expenses. The Tasmanian director at that time, Mr Sam McQuestin, filed the request in August and said that the failure to do so seven years earlier was an 'administrative oversight'. So you can belong to the Liberal Party and steal $48,000 of Liberal Party members' money and the party can have an 'administrative error' for seven years, and they have the gall to come in here and bang on about bad unions!

At least the unions do something for the people. You know what unions do? Unions get you annual leave. Do you really seriously think that kind employers give annual leave away just because they want to? They get you sick leave. They may well end up negotiating you some paid parental leave, depending on what those on the other side decide to do about that. You do not get these things due to the generosity of employers—trust me. They have been negotiated over years and years for people in the workforce. That is why it is important that we stop this complete witch-hunt and the political agenda about trying to reduce the importance of the trade unions.

But let me take you back to the story about Mr Mantach. Section 234 of the Tasmanian Criminal Code states:

Any person who steals anything is guilty of a crime.

So, if money was stolen, repaying the money does not absolve a person of committing the crime. Section 102 of the Criminal Code states:

Any person who solicits, receives, or obtains, or agrees to receive or obtain, any property or benefit of any kind for himself or any other person, as a consideration for any agreement or understanding that he will compound or conceal a crime, or will abstain from, discontinue, or delay a prosecution for a crime, is guilty of a crime.

I say everybody in the Liberal Party in Tasmania who knew about that must be guilty of a crime. Why was the matter involving the Tasmanian branch of the party not ever reported to the police? Why was it not reported to the police?

This gets even better: the former Federal Director of the Liberal Party, Brian Loughnane, was part of the selection panel that appointed Mr Mantach to the position of director in Victoria. So he steals $48,000, he uses his credit card for all sorts of things in Tasmania and, funnily enough, he gets to resign. Nobody goes to the police about it, even though a crime has been committed. He then picked up a job in Victoria from the people who knew what he had done in Tasmania. We know that people knew what he had done. So they appointed Mr Mantach to the position of Victorian director of the Liberal Party knowing the circumstances of his resignation as director of the Tasmanian branch. If just one of the many people in the Liberal Party who knew about Mr Mantach's conduct in Tasmania had come forward and reported the matter to police, it is possible that the much larger alleged crime in Victoria could have been avoided.

I will give the Liberal Party in Victoria a little bit of credence: they did report him. But how can they stand there and talk about corruption in the union movement when it is right within their midst and they knowingly gave someone a job in Victoria. What a joke! Given that public funding of political parties is available in Victoria, this involves not just Liberal Party members' money but—guess what—also public money.

Let's go back to the bill at hand. What also makes the bill and the trade union royal commission such a political exercise is that this government is so intent on going after trade unions when, as I said, there is much more evidence of corruption and malfeasance in the corporate and financial services sector. As we have heard, it is right within their midst. And what do they do? They just sweep it under the carpet and let Mr Mantach get away with whatever he wants to do, because he is one of theirs.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He went to jail!

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

Yes, but not when he was in Tasmania. When he was in Tasmania, you let him resign and you let him get away with the theft of $48,000. If he had not recommitted a crime, if he were not a repeat offender, he would have got away with stealing $48,000 from the Liberal Party in Tasmania. You cannot cover that over. There is no way you can cover that over—absolutely no way.

When we hear so many stories about ordinary customers being mistreated by the big banks while Labor is calling for a royal commission, this government wants to give them a $7 billion tax cut. With 1.8 million members, the trade union movement is the largest social movement in Australia. Many of the rights and conditions that have been gained throughout history that Australians take for granted, as I said earlier, have been won not through the kindness of employers but through the advocacy of trade unions and their members over many, many decades. But those on the other side are very happy to let people lose their working rights and conditions. You are a disgrace. You are all a disgrace! You found unions all of a sudden. What a joke!

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

To the chair.

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

What an absolute joke, for you to have found the unions just so you can bag them and you can bring in your new industrial relations agenda. Who know what exactly it is going to be, but I tell you what: I do not want to see what you guys have got to offer, because I remember mark 1. I remember what you put up before and how you wanted to screw the workers over and have individual bargaining. 'Let the members fend for themselves. We're an individualistic group—everybody out for themselves.' You know what? We are not supporting that. We are here for the workers and we will defend the workers to the hilt. There is nothing that we will not defend our workers for. When you can get your own house in order and when you can stop people like Mr Mantach getting away with stealing $48,000—

Debate interrupted.