Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Is the minister aware of recent reports relating to the distribution of funds from worker entitlement funds to registered organisations?

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

Thank you, Senator Duniam, for your question. Yes, I am. Senators will be aware that it was recently revealed that unions in Australia have now amassed assets in excess of $1.5 billion and have an annual income of $900 million. Colleagues, as we know, this has actually been achieved whilst, at the same time, union membership has been in freefall. As a result of an article in TheAustralian today by Simon Benson, we now have a much better understanding of just how unions have managed to amass this wealth. Employee entitlement funds, designed, for example—I don't know—to cover redundancy payments or ensure that sick workers are not disadvantaged by their circumstances, have been funnelling approximately $25 million each year back to unions.

Colleagues, unfortunately it won't come as a surprise to you that the CFMEU over the last four years has received $75 million from these employee entitlement funds. That is $75 million that should have gone to the workers but has instead been sent to Australia's most militant union. But there is a very, very serious issue that the Leader of the Opposition himself needs to answer. When he was leader of the AWU, we saw a cosy deal flourish between the AWU Victoria and income protection fund IUS Holdings. IUS provided income protection insurance to workers signed up to AWU agreements. Evidence shows that, between 2004 and 2007, payments worth in excess of half a million dollars were channelled to the AWU. Mr Shorten needs to explain how this occurred. (Time expired)

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

Senator Duniam, a supplementary question.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that answer. Can the minister now explain why it's important that these funds are used for their stated purposes?

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

That's exactly what Mr Shorten needs to explain: why did the income protection insurance scheme that workers were signed up to by the AWU over the period 2004 to 2007 make 20 different payments from IUS Holdings to the AWU worth a total of $566,116? Mr Shorten needs to explain what these funds were used for, despite the stated purpose of the actual fund itself. You see, this is the problem with those on the other side. They're not interested in regulation, they're not interested in transparency; they just like to funnel money from employee entitlement funds directly to unions. In some instances—Senator, you'll like this—they built houses on the water in Tasmania for their own purpose, when the money should have been going to the employees in the fund.

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

Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Finally, how can registered organisations ensure better accountability in the management of these funds?

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

We now know the magnitude of the flow of the funds from worker entitlement funds to unions. It's hundreds of millions of dollars. If I were a worker in Australia who was a member of this fund, I would be shocked to know that there were hundreds of millions of dollars that potentially could have gone to members of that fund. It is a fact that the union's core business should be to represent the worker and not to exploit them to make hundreds of millions of dollars for themselves. Again, the Leader of the Opposition needs to explain why his union, the AWU, took half a million dollars from an income protection fund designed to protect his members. He needs to explain why he thought this was appropriate. You have a union funnelling money from a workers entitlement fund back into their own pocket. They need to explain to their members why this is okay. (Time expired)