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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Last Friday, the Prime Minister said, in relation to the cuts to penalty rates:

Well we do support it …

Why did it take over three weeks for the Prime Minister to come clean with Australians and admit that his government supports a pay cut to some of Australia's lowest paid workers?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, through you: I am astonished, Senator Cameron, by the stupidity of your question. Of course any Australian government will respect the decisions of independent bodies. Any Australian government will do so. And it was you, Senator Cameron—the political party that you represent, when in government, established the Fair Work Commission as an independent arbiter. You established the Fair Work Commission as an independent arbiter, and, when you established it, you said—

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

Order! Senator Cameron, a point of order?

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

Yes, a point of order on relevance. There is one question, and that is: why did it take over three weeks for the Prime Minister to come clean?

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

The Attorney-General is being directly relevant to the question.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lest it be lost on you—through you, Mr President—Senator Cameron, it has been the position of the Prime Minister and of every member of the government, and it ought to be your position, quite frankly, to respect the decisions of independent arbiters; particularly, I might say, an independent arbiter which your side of politics when in government established to be an independent arbiter. This, Senator Cameron, is essentially an issue of the rule of law. Whether you agree with the determination or you disagree with the determination, whether you might wish that the determination had been otherwise, the fact remains that this is a determination made by an independent body—established by your side of politics to be an independent body—as a result of a transparent process on the basis of arguments put before it, and that decision by an independent body ought to be respected by everyone. It certainly is by the government.

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

Senator Cameron, a supplementary question.

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

Attorney-General, why is the government abandoning the up to 700,000 Australians who will lose up to $77 a week as a result of this decision?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, I am sorry to have to repeat what I said to your colleague Senator Moore, but the fact is that the trading away of the conditions of lowly paid workers relying on penalty rates is not something that is the result of any determination of the Fair Work Commission; it is a result of deals done behind the scenes by trade union officials. We know, infamously—infamously, it was revealed during the Heydon royal commission—

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

Order! Pause the clock. A point of order, Senator Cameron?

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

Again, a point of order on relevance. Unions cannot trade anything away behind the scenes, Mr President. There are democratic processes—

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

That is a debating point, Senator Cameron.

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

that have to be undertaken. The question was: why have 700,000 workers who will lose $77 a week been abandoned? The minister has not gone anywhere near that question.

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

Thank you, Senator Cameron. On the point of order: firstly, Senator Cameron, and to all senators, when raising a point of order, it is not the time to raise debating issues, which you did in the commencement of your point of order. Secondly, I remind the Attorney-General of the question.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr President. Senator Cameron, when an independent tribunal makes a decision then all political interests in this chamber—not just the government but all of us—are bound to respect the independence and the integrity of that decision, and the government does. When it comes to the decisions to lower the benefits to workers who rely on penalty rates— (Time expired)

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

Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question?

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

Minister, why is the government supporting a pay cut for some of Australia's lowest-paid workers whilst at the same time proposing a $50 billion tax cut to big business, including the big four banks?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We always hear the echoes of the old class war from you, Senator Doug Cameron, don't we, in that inimitable accent of yours from the shipyards of Glasgow. Senator Cameron, the facts are against you. The person who, more than anyone else, has traded away the rights, benefits, pay and conditions of workers is Mr Bill Shorten, as the Heydon royal commission found out in the case of the workers of Chiquita Mushrooms, in the case of the workers at Clean Event and, as we have seen more recently, in the case of workers in the food industry, where even—

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

A point of order, Senator Cameron?

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

The question went to the issue of a $50 billion tax cut whilst cutting the wages of the lowest-paid workers in this country. The minister again has not addressed that. He should be drawn to the question.

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

Thank you, Senator Cameron. The question commenced with 'Why is the government supporting' and the Attorney-General has been answering the question.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Lest it was lost on Senator Cameron, we respect the decisions of the Fair Work Commission as an independent arbiter.

If anyone has sold low-paid workers down the river, just look at your own leader, Senator. Look at what he did to the workers of Chiquita Mushrooms. Look at what he did to the workers at Clean Event. Look at what he did to so many other Australian workers whose terms and conditions he sold down the river for his dirty deals. (Time expired)

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

My question is for the Minister For Employment, Senator Cash. I refer to the recent revelations of secret payments from employers to unions, never disclosed to employees or union members, which corrupt unions and their officials. Can the minister inform the Senate of the detrimental impact of these payments?

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

I thank Senator Paterson for the question. Unions have a responsibility to deal openly and honestly with their members and to put the interests of their members first. In the same respect, though, employers have a duty to act with integrity towards their employees and not do secret deals that will adversely affect those employees.

It is unfortunate that the Heydon royal commission, like so many royal commissions before it, uncovered rafts of payments collectively worth millions of dollars from employers to unions made for highly questionable purposes. What is worse, they were never disclosed to the members of the union or the employees.

What did these include? Three renovations of a union official's home, bogus payments said to be for training that was never actually provided, and secret deals by which employers paid unions such as the AWU to keep workers' pay and conditions at below award rates. What an absolute disgrace! Others extracted payments to bolster their status and power, particularly within the Labor Party. For example, the current Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, and Cesar Melhem. They were effective at this, to say the very least. They were regularly signing employees up to the union without their knowledge and securing ongoing payments to the AWU in Victoria.

Most people would say, 'How come the law allows this to happen?' The Heydon royal commission recommended that payments like these be criminalised. So we are going to introduce legislation to criminalise secret payments between employers and unions. (Time expired)

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

What about brown paper bags in the backseat of a Bentley?

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

Senator Cameron, order!

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

What about brown paper bags in the New South Wales Liberals?

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

Senator Cameron, you asked your question earlier today. Senator Paterson, a supplementary question?

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

Can the minister advise the Senate what action the government is taking to protect workers and union members and outlaw these secret payments?

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

The government will amend the Fair Work Act to ban secret payments from employers to unions. Certain legitimate payments will be allowed, but these payments will need to be disclosed to the employees in the course of negotiating an enterprise agreement.

Criminal penalties will apply to both the employer and the unions. The party that makes or offers the payment will be penalised in the same way as the party that solicits or receives the payment. Criminal penalties for payment with the intent to corrupt will be 10 years in prison and $900,000 for an individual or $4.5 million for a company. Penalties for other illegitimate payments will be two years in prison or $90,000 for an individual or $450,000 for a company.

Those who would oppose this legislation need to front the Australian people and explain why. (Time expired)

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

Senator Paterson, a final supplementary question?

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

Can the minister apprise the Senate of the history of secret payments by employers to unions and the influence they can have on union officials?

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

Let's start with the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten. Unfortunately, the law allowed Bill Shorten to basically negotiate away the penalty rates that applied to the lowest-paid workers in this country at Clean Event in exchange for the employer providing to the AWU a cash benefit of $25,000 per year for three years. Because Bill Shorten, the current Leader of the Opposition, needed to bolster his power in the Labor Party he was also very happy to take on board a list of employees which he then added to his union. Anybody in their right mind who thinks that that type of behaviour should be allowed should, quite frankly, hang their head in shame. This should be one of the most uncontroversial pieces of legislation that ever passes through this Senate. Banning secret payments between employers and unions is in the interests of the workers. (Time expired)