Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

No, the member for Gorton, Deputy Speaker Kelly. There is a member for O'Connor; I just do not happen to be the member for O'Connor. It is a magnificent story about a West Australian engineer who engineered the water pipeline to Kalgoorlie. He thought it had failed and he committed suicide. A week after that, the water arrived. That is why we got the member for O'Connor. My seat is named after a former Prime Minister, not a bad Prime Minister, John Grey Gorton. He was quite an interesting enigmatic sort of guy. I would prefer to be called the member for Gorton than the member for McMahon. Chris Bowen, a good colleague and friend of mine, I am sure would rather my title.

I rise to remark upon the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2] before the House. This is, by the way, the third occasion that this matter has been before the House. For those of us who find the government's agenda to be a bit of a chaotic blur, albeit a nasty one, this is a bill that will establish the Registered Organisations Commission. The commission will be headed by a registered organisations commissioner with greater investigative power than those available to the general manager of the Fair Work Commission. The bill also modifies disclosure requirements, increases red tape and regulates individuals who choose, often on a voluntary basis, to dedicate their time to an employer body or union in the same way that the chief executives of corporate boards are also having to do.

You could be forgiven for being a little confused that we are back in this place debating this bill because this is the third time those opposite have brought this bill forward. I will try not to be too cynical about politics but my generosity of spirit has been somewhat tried by the coalition's timing on this bill. In the primitive collective of those opposite, you can imagine it would have gone something like this: attack your rights at work with Work Choices, lose the election; attack rights of workers, do not get any anywhere; set up a royal commission; attack rights of workers, do not get anywhere; call former Labor leader; attack rights of workers, do not get anywhere; call a current Labor leader; attack rights of workers and so on and so on.

This bill and why it has been introduced this morning is about no less than really a political attack on the opponents of the government. It is quite remarkable that the Prime Minister has had three opponents, all three Labor leaders since he was elected, since he knifed Malcolm Turnbull and became the leader of the conservatives—whatever you think of Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard or Bill Shorten—summoned to a royal commission. All three have been summoned to Tony Abbott's royal commission because this government and this Prime Minister uses the executive, uses the power of the state and uses millions upon millions of taxpayers' dollars to attack his political opponents. So let us not have any misunderstanding about why this matter has been reintroduced for a third time in this place. This is about politics. This is not about policy; this is not about good governance of registered organisations; this is about attacking the opponents of the government. For that reason, it should be understood in that frame.

As I previously acknowledged, registered organisations play a fundamental role in Australia's workplace relations system. They are created and registered for the purpose of representing Australian employers and employees at work. Registered organisations also represent their members before industrial tribunals and courts and work with government on policy matters ranging from employment issues to economic and social policy.

We support appropriate regulation for registered organisations. We support tough penalties for those who break the law. As I said the last time this bill was introduced and as many Labor MPs have said publicly on many occasions including the Labor leader, the Labor Party has no tolerance for corruption of officers of employer bodies or officers of unions. Labor is committed to ensuring financial accountability by unions and employer organisations. That is why three years ago in 2012, the then government, indeed the Leader of the Opposition as minister, toughened the laws to improve financial transparency, toughened the laws to improve disclosure by registered organisations to their members and indeed toughened the laws in relation to penalties. By making those amendments that we made in 2012, quite ironically, we amended the laws that were introduced by the current Prime Minister.

Let us look at the record. The Leader of the Opposition improved transparency, improved accountability and increased penalties for breaches of laws with respect to registered organisations more than the laws that were ushered in by the Prime Minister of this country did when he was minister for employment. Let us be very clear on that. As a result, the regulation of trade unions in Australia has never been stronger, it has never been more accountable and indeed the powers of the commission to investigate and prosecute for breaches has never been broader than when those amendments were made. We tripled penalties, which means that these laws, as I said earlier, have never been tougher. It begs the question: why would you be introducing this bill when in fact the work has already been done by the previous government?

Also, if you look at the submissions made by unions and employer bodies, there was not anyone amongst the authors of those submissions that was supporting these amendments—not unions and not employer bodies. In fact, almost to a body, every employer body that made submissions to the Senate inquiry argued against these provisions. So it is not just about unions saying they do not like it; it is about employer bodies saying: 'We've already had fundamental changes to our requirements. We reached agreement with the previous government. Now you're seeking to go further, when we're just bedding down these reforms.' Let us be very, very clear here. There is a unity ticket between employer bodies and unions in opposition to the so-called reforms contained within this bill.

However, the focus of the government, of course, is not about reform but about finding any reason to attack trade unions in this country. It does not matter whether in fact employers or employer bodies oppose a particular reform or change; this government is so ideologically predisposed to trying to kill unions that it will move changes to arrangements even if it hurts others. So far as this government is concerned, this is collateral damage, which it is quite happy to see happen because of its hatred and enmity towards working people negotiating collectively in workplaces.

There is no moderate right-of-centre party in the world that seems to hate unions like the Liberal Party of Australia does. Angela Merkel and Republicans in America work with unions, but this government hates them. It takes them off tripartite bodies. It goes after them. It has a royal commission that is so broad that effectively it goes after everyone who happens to either work for or be a member of a union in this country—a remarkable assault on our democracy. Tell me about a country without unions, and I will tell you a country without a democracy. But this government has such a hatred and this Prime Minister has such a hatred and enmity towards unions that we see millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars and the abuse of state power being used to go after those organisations.

Let me also be very, very clear. We do not and will never condone improper practices by anybody. Unlawful behaviour by any union officer should be met with the full force of the law. We do not believe that, if there is any serious allegation, it should be disregarded. Any serious allegation of improper conduct or, more particularly, criminal conduct should be met with the full force of the law.

If you understand the history of these matters, as I do as a former Minister for Justice, you would understand that the Australian Crime Commission was established arising out of another conservative party's term in office, under the Fraser years. It was a recommendation by another royal commission into unions back in the seventies. The Hawke government embraced that recommendation and established the National Crime Authority. You might remember that body. Ultimately the title changed, but the powers of that body did not change too much, and that body became the Australian Crime Commission.

The Australian Crime Commission has coercive powers and powers to investigate serious crime. If the government were about tackling serious crime in this country or indeed investigating serious allegations about criminal conduct, it has those powers in place. But that is not what the government wants to do. The government is not interested in actually fighting crime on these matters; the government wants a show trial to attack its political opponents.

Think about this. There has never been a time in our federation, since we were formed as a nation, that a Prime Minister would set up royal commissions to compel his opposition, his counterparts, to be brought before a royal commission. As I said earlier, whatever you think of Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard or Bill Shorten, all three of them have been forced to come before an executive inquiry for political reasons. All three of them have been forced to come to an executive inquiry that has been established by the Prime Minister.

Can you imagine a Labor government establishing a royal commission and forcing three previous conservative leaders before a royal commission? It would not be done. We set up one royal commission. We set up a royal commission on child sex abuse in this country, a very, very difficult subject—a very difficult subject for the victims and indeed a very difficult subject for organisations which in the main did the right thing but of course had a history where there were failures. That was our investment, if you like, of taxpayers' money into dealing with that serious issue.

We could have had a royal commission into why we went to war in Iraq. We could have had a royal commission into why John Howard went to war in Iraq based on a lie, because it was based on a lie and John Howard knew it was based on a lie. We could have done to John Howard what the British parliament did to Tony Blair.

See this speech in context