Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Bendigo invokes the name of low-paid workers, then spends all of her time on a shopping list of so-called 'good unions' that have an incredible amount of fines imposed on them at regular intervals—millions and millions of dollars of fines for industrial thuggery and appalling behaviour. I am not sure how her references to unions reflect that sort of behaviour, because the things that we see do not hold some of the things she said to be true. The member for Bendigo invokes the name of low-paid workers but fails to explain how Craig Thomson and former ALP National President Michael Williamson helped those low-paid workers of the HSU with their use of union money, the money of those low-paid workers. But I digress.

I have great pleasure in speaking on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2], which replicates the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013, which was negatived in the Senate. It is an opportune time to do so, partly because of the evidence being led before the royal commission into union corruption. I know the member for Gorton spent a considerable amount of his time making reference to that royal commission.

It is clear that the crisis currently enveloping the Leader of the Opposition will soon be examined by the royal commission but not for the reasons that the member for Gorton preferred. Indeed, he said that the Leader of the Opposition is being forced to appear before that royal commission. My understanding of the Leader of the Opposition's own comments is that he has asked to attend, and I think most Australians look forward to him attending and explaining a number of things. Most fair minded Australians would agree that hard-working, low-paid union members, to use the comments from the member for Bendigo, deserve a full explanation about the agreements that the Leader of the Opposition made in their name while he was head of the Australian Workers' Union.

But interest in the AWU service of the member for Maribyrnong has meant that comparatively little attention has been put on what is in my view a much more serious issue, and that is the union movement's extraordinary power under the legislative arrangements established by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard—arrangements that put the unions at the centre of determining wages and conditions. Evidence at the royal commission suggests that these agreements fell below the threshold of prescribed awards, and it is more than reasonable for those low-paid workers that the member for Bendigo referred to to ask the obvious question: why is that so? Australians will soon get the chance to ponder how it is that unions, which only represent about one in 10 private sector workers and less than one in five workers overall, enjoy such an extraordinary position of privilege.

Why did unions gain such a bonanza of enhanced power under the Gillard government? The extent of that power is significant. I will mention just a few of the things that unions gained a right to: new right of entry provisions; forced employer payments for transporting and accommodating union officials; changes to award coverage, enabling any union to enter any workplace; and coastal shipping changes that dramatically drove up costs. The head of Bell Bay Aluminium in my electorate of Bass gave evidence to the Productivity Commission which said that, soon after the coastal shipping reforms came in, a sop to the MUA by the member for Grayndler, the cost of shipping went up 63 per cent. Just think about the cost of that to our productivity. Some of the other things that unions gained rights to are majority support rules, forcing employers to bargain against their will; a strike-first, talk-later approach to bargaining; endless new tribunals; policies to enhance union membership; and even netball associations appearing to be considered fair game. The creme de la creme was the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission.

Where former Prime Minister Julia Gillard strengthened unions, the Leader of the Opposition now resists any reduction in their authority. I guess we should not be surprised given the background of Labor politicians. It is a comparison that has often been made in this House. Indeed, the member for Gorton talked about the royal commission. The royal commission has brought out a discussion paper recently that tells us unions have a very significant role in determining the composition of the Australian Senate, with 71 per cent of Labor senators being former union officials.

That privileged, powerful union position is of course a lead weight on our productivity. I have given the example of a very important business in my electorate of Bass that saw that 63 per cent increase in shipping costs after those 2012 coastal shipping reforms.

Mr Brendan O'Connor interjecting—

The member for Gorton interjects again. I am sure that Paddy Crumlin, the Secretary of the MUA, would have put up a shrine to the member for Gorton and the member for Grayndler in relation to those coastal shipping reforms, but they were terrible for my electorate of Bass, they were terrible for Bell Bay Aluminium and they were terrible for companies in this country that rely on coastal shipping. The coastal shipping fleet was cut from 30 to 15 in the intervening period because of some of those changes that the Labor Party made.

But when we talk about that privileged union position, the question is: what will national leaders do about it? It is a question that inevitably links to the personal character of those who have the authority to respond. The wider electorate, the silent majority, has a very canny way of feeling out a leader's real substance—or its absence.

Policy results and action will only get an individual or a party so far, but eventually unless both results and character are present, the clock of longevity is inevitably ticking. In recent media appearances, the opposition leader has said that illicit payments should not be paid to unions and that they should be accountable to their membership and the Australia people. And, 'Here, here!' I say to the Leader of the Opposition. But talk is cheap, and the best way of demonstrating his commitment to address this issue is by backing the government's policy to restore the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Failure to do so confirms that the opposition leader remains a union chief first and foremost.

Even former union leader, Paul Howes, has called for more honesty in the union movement to make things better for working Australians. Mr Howes, formerly of the Australian Workers Union, was quoted in The Australian on 26 November 2012:

I actually believe there is a higher responsibility for us as guardians of workers' money to protect that money and to act diligently and honestly. … The reality is I do not have any issue with increasing the level of requirements and penalties on trade unions for breaching basic ethics like misappropriation of funds.

The question is how can we not act and strengthen protection, strengthen penalties, even when wrongdoing by unions is detected? Fair-minded Australians will agree how important it is to give the courts the ability to hand down strong penalties should the crime deserve it. And we know that the courts have had an issue with shortcomings in the current framework. I quote here Federal Court judge Anthony North, making an almost unprecedented comment last year, 'The penalties under the current act are rather beneficially low, beneficial to wrongdoers.' So the opposition leader should listen to Paul Howes and Judge North. He should join the government's policy of erring on the side of honest workers over dodgy union officials.

But while hope springs eternal this appears to be a forlorn hope, because Mr Shorten is dogged by a record that appears increasingly impossible to redeem. By his own definition in the media in the last 24 hours, the Leader of the Opposition has admitted publicly that he lied to broadcaster Neil Mitchell when commenting on his role in bringing down the Gillard government.

Plentiful commentary on this issue is also seen in the ABC series The Killing Season. What we see, not just from the members opposite and some who have left this House, is an all-too-transparent rat cunning. Having been up to his elbows in the political gore associated with the slaying of two Labor Prime Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition then adroitly shepherded through policies designed to keep him at the helm, at least to the next election. In short, the opposition leader is not only Count Dracula in charge of the blood bank, but he has craftily secured the only key to it.

See this speech in context