House debates

Thursday, 25 June 2015

Bills

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2]; Second Reading

10:52 am

Photo of Brendan O'ConnorBrendan 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.

Photo of Michael DanbyMichael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | | Hansard source

Or on corruption with the Wheat Board.

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

And we could have had a royal commission on 'wheat for weapons', as the member for Melbourne Ports reminds me. We could have had a royal commission into the corruption that was obvious to all where the foreign minister, and indeed the Prime Minister and the minister for trade, would have been summoned to those inquiries. These are far more serious matters than are actually subject to the current commissions that have been established by this government.

But the reality is that this government will be willing to spend millions upon millions of taxpayers' dollars—$80 million so far—to go after the Labor leader, and not the first Labor leader but the third Labor leader. Is it remarkable? I think it is remarkable that in 15 months three Labor leaders have been forced to an inquiry. It is not a judicial inquiry; it is an executive inquiry run by the government and established by the government. Summonsing the leaders to those inquires is an abuse of power, an abuse of taxpayers' money and a complete and utter national disgrace. It should be called out for what it is. This is an abuse by Tony Abbott. Tony Abbott is abusing taxpayers' money and abusing the powers of the state—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. According the standing orders, the honourable member is required to refer to other honourable members by their titles, not by their name.

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for Gorton should know those rules, and I would ask him to abide by them.

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

If only they were used in question time. If only they were used in question time by Tony Abbott.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. After you had corrected the honourable member, he immediately made the same error again. I remind him the standing orders require him to refer to members by their titles, not by their names.

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I would request that member for Gorton does abide by those rules.

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

I am happy not to mention Tony Abbott.

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for Gorton should show due respect—

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

I accept that.

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

and I ask you to—

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

I withdraw 'Tony Abbott'.

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Thank you.

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

I wish we could withdraw him entirely from the public. But let me just say—

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

Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. He seems to be defying your ruling repeatedly. You have asked him on three occasions now and he keeps making the same error. He has been in this parliament for quite some time. He should comply with the standing orders.

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I would ask the member for Gorton to abide by the orders.

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

Okay, because no-one knows who I am talking about when I say 'Prime Minister'—I understand. The Prime Minister has decided to spend millions upon millions of taxpayers' dollars, $80 million so far, on attacking the leader of the Labor Party. I was thinking, 'There are some issues there,' and you know what? The current leader of the Labor Party is very willing to answer all questions asked of him. But I was thinking just the other day that this is the third leader. There have only been three leaders of the Labor Party that have been up against the current Prime Minister, all three of whom have been called to executive inquiries run by the government to attack them. This is not engagement on policy matters in the parliament. Three Labor leaders—Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and the current Leader of the Opposition—have been forced to go to these executive witch-hunts that have been established by the Prime Minister.

Do you know how much money has been spent so far? Some $80 million. If you asked the public, 'Do you want $80 million that could be paying for teachers, paying for nurses, paying for hospital care, paying for medicine and paying for all sorts of things that matter?' do you know what they would say? 'Why are you spending $80 million attacking the Labor Party?' This bill is being introduced not because the government thinks it will succeed, because this is the third effort by the government to have this bill enacted into law. This is about politics.

As I said to you earlier, the fact is that every employer body that is a registered organisation has made submissions on the record against this bill. It is not that unions are opposed to this. Every registered organisation is against this. I want to make it very clear. Certainly, I engaged with the Minister for Employment many, many months ago to see whether we could reconcile differences and reach an arrangement on this bill. Given that we in government made all the reforms in this area, I was very much looking to reach agreement on the matters that were contained within the bill.

I said to the Minister for Employment, 'You cannot have volunteers who sit on the board of the Australian Industry Group, for example—small businesses who are volunteers on that board—being subject to greater criminal or civil offences than directors of publicly listed companies.' Currently, the bill here would force businesses, mostly SMEs, who sit on the board of the Australian Industry Group—I think there are 60 people on that board—to be subject to outrageous sanctions. They will not volunteer to work in that field if they are going to be subject to, as I say, outrageous sanctions—sanctions that exceed those of directors of publicly listed companies. Unfortunately, in that discussion I had with Minister Abetz we could not reach agreement.

I think if the government were serious it would listen to the employer bodies. I do not expect it to listen to unions, but I would have thought it would listen to employer bodies saying: 'These sanctions are onerous. These sanctions are disproportionate and unfair and they will prevent employers who volunteer to work for employer bodies from continuing that work.' But no—unfortunately, I could not reconcile the differences between the government and the opposition on this matter. I make an appeal to the government. I am still happy to find ways to reconcile these differences because I do believe that if we can improve accountability and transparency on top of the reforms that were done in 2012 we should do that. But we have to be reasonable. You cannot expect small businesses or employers who are volunteering their own time to work on employer bodies to be subject to outrageous laws.

We know the government hates unions and we are not surprised that it wants to destroy unions and kill the union movement but we do not expect the government to try to kill employer bodies along the way. That is why I would have thought that the submissions made before the Senate inquiry by employer bodies would have at least been listened to by this government. Then I realised how much this government hates unions. It does not even care what the employer bodies say. There were seven or eight submissions made, none of which were important to the government as it went on its rampage to destroy the union movement.

Any government that ideologically predisposed to public policy has got a real problem. It has a blind spot—that is the most polite way I can put it. The reality is that we have things going on. People know there are some things happening. We have a royal commission. The royal commission is running on the entire union movement. We are still wondering why there have been no findings, or even observations, on Kathy Jackson, who clearly, on the face of it, has some very serious questions to answer. How can the royal commission hand down an interim report and make no reference at all to Kathy Jackson given the damning evidence before the royal commission?

At the same time the royal commission decided to make findings against others without even calling those people. How can it be that Michael Lawler—and this was on the front page of The Australian today—the man appointed by Prime Minister Abbott when he was the minister for employment, be on indefinite sick leave from the Fair Work Commission representing his partner, Kathy Jackson? Why hasn't the government said anything about his role as a commissioner, given that when the Prime Minister was the minister for employment he appointed Michael Lawler?

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a point of order.

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I ask the member for Gorton to resume his seat. Firstly, I ask the member to be very careful where he treads with the rules on sub judice. I call the member for Bass on a point of order.

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

I refer the honourable member to page 524 of the Practice, which deals with this issue. It is fair enough to have a general conversation about royal commissions but when he is identifying individuals who are before the royal commission before the royal commission has reached conclusions then that is appalling.

Mr Deputy Speaker, the other point of order I would like to raise is under standing order 90, reflections on members. The honourable member has asserted that the Prime Minister is forcing the opposition leader before the royal commission. That is a false assertion and reflection on the Prime Minister. Mr Shorten has decided to appear of his own recognisance.

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bass. I remind the member for Gorton to be very careful of the ground he treads.

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

I am very careful. With all respect, I am using the Speaker's own rulings, if you like. I am being consistent.

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I interrupt the member for Gorton. The ruling as far as royal commissions is that there can be general discussion but you are going into very specific areas and straying onto grounds that I think are—

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, with respect, I have a point of order. If indeed ministers of this government in question time can actually refer specifically to the Leader of the Opposition with respect to the royal commission then I think it is quite consistent that I raise matters now. If you are suggesting for a moment that in question time, in three hours, we will not have Christopher Pyne, the minister for education, rise as the acting Minister for Employment and attack the Leader of the Opposition, then I would agree with you. But let us be very consistent here. If indeed these matters are going to be raised every day in question time then I think I have every right to raise these matters.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: I refer the honourable member again to rulings by Speaker Snedden in the past where he asked members to show restraint when it came to the specifics of issues before a royal commission.

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bass. The member for Gorton has the call.

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

Thank you very much. By the way, with respect to former Speaker Snedden, we have been seeking to raise that point of order in question time and it has been ruled out of order. The shadow Attorney-General has been seeking to raise that ruling with the current Speaker of the House. We have sought to raise that ruling and it has been ruled out of order even before the matter has been raised properly.

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for Gorton has the call. He should also record that this is the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill. He will be relevant to the bill.

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

I am happy to be. Why is Michael Lawler allowed to defend Kathy Jackson

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for Gorton will resume his seat. The member for Bass on a point of order?

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

The honourable member is well aware that props are not allowed in the chamber. On four occasions now he has consistently defied your ruling. I ask you to deal with him, perhaps under standing order 94(a).

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank the member for Bass. The member for Gorton should be aware that the holding up of props like that is completely unacceptable. The member for Gorton has the call and he will be relevant to the bill.

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

Indeed, I am happy to be. This is a very serious matter. We have a bill before the House on changing arrangements to registered organisations. I know of no registered organisation that supports the bill. As I said, there was submission after submission by employer bodies and unions opposed to the arrangements. The strongest penalties, the greater accountability and the greater transparency that is now required of those organisations were introduced by the former government, but I want to make it very clear that this is being introduced for political purposes of the government to attack its opponents. That is not the basis upon which you make good policy. I said to the Minister for Employment that we want to see if we can find a common point of agreement on these matters, but I could not reach agreement with the government. I move:

That all the words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"while not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House notes:

(1) the adverse impact of the creation of the Registered Organisations Commission on registered organisations, including employer bodies and unions;

(2) the fact that the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (the Act) was amended in 2012 to improve disclosure requirements, enhance transparency, require greater accountability and amended to also triple civil penalties for breaches of the Act;

(3) the fact that the Abbott Government's legislative program needs to be viewed as a whole to examine the Government's attempts to return to Workchoices;

(4) the fact that the Government has launched an all-encompassing Productivity Commission review of the Fair Work Act 2009;

(5) the fact the Government is using taxpayers' money to fund a Royal Commission ostensibly to inquire into registered associations recognised under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act, but actually targeting their political opponents; and

(6) the Government's attempt to undermine industrial relations in this country by pitting worker against union, worker against employer and union against employer instead of seeking to create cooperative relationships that improve workplace conditions and productivity at the same time."

(Time expired)

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Photo of Gary GrayGary Gray (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Resources) Share this | | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

11:23 am

Photo of Scott BuchholzScott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I acknowledge the wholehearted way in which the previous speaker tried to defend his undefensible position.

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

Indefensible.

Photo of Scott BuchholzScott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Indefensible—thank you. With the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2] we intend to establish an independent watchdog, the Registered Organisations Commission, to monitor and regulate registered organisations, with enhanced investigation and information-gathering powers. I will go through some of the other requirements of the commission. The intent is to strengthen the requirements for officers to disclose material personal interests and change grounds for disqualification and ineligibility for office; strengthen existing financial accounting, disclosure and transparency obligations under the RO Act by putting certain rule obligations on the face of the RO Act and making them enforceable as civil remedy provisions; and increase civil penalties and introduce criminal offences for serious offences or breaches of duties, as well as introducing new offences in relation to the conduct of investigations under the RO Act. We as a government want to introduce this because we are committed to the improvement of the Fair Work laws so that we can build a more stable, fair and prosperous future for Australian workers, our business and the economy.

The previous speaker alluded to this government 'hating unions'. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our nation needs a robust union movement. Our nation needs those who will stand up in the workforce and protect the rights of workers from less-than-scrupulous operators in the private sector. So nothing could be further from the truth. In fact this bill enhances the union movement—in particular honest union members. What this bill seeks to rub out is what we see time after time in the Australian press: the word 'union' associated too many times with 'bullying', 'coercion', 'intimidation', 'thuggery', 'corruption' and 'royal commission'. Am I the only one who can see that there is a problem? The setting up of a royal commission stands to strengthen and enhance honest union membership. The previous speaker also mentioned that this party wants to 'kill the union movement'. The union movement of Australia is doing that quite well on its own. Page after page after front-page story of scandal—union members spitting on officers of the Commonwealth, investigations of threats and intimidation, strikes, vandalism, backyard deals shutting out construction companies, and fines to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. We see this every day. Members may remember a case, which I will get to, about inviting a journalist to a union meeting and then bashing him up. So opposition members should not say that we as a government are killing the union movement. The Australian Labor Party is doing that quite well on its own. This bill seeks to assist the opposition in dealing with a most serious situation that they are in.

Most of us on this side of the House come from the small business sector. So we put bills up through our budget mechanisms to try to enhance small business—getting rid of red tape, less government and providing incentives through the budget in asset write-downs so that small business can prosper and unemployment can be addressed. On the other side there are three main threads to the bills that they bring before the House. In the previous parliament it was normally some increase to the bureaucracy. Their idea of fixing a problem was—

Ms Chesters interjecting

I sat and listened to the opposition member in silence but I do not expect the same respect from the other side, who endorse the union movement. They should not bring their thuggery and intimidatory tactics to this place while I speak, because I offer them a respect that I do not expect I will get in return. Those on the other side normally come to this place with some connection to the union movement. Whether it be working for a union, endorsement by a union or preselection by a union, most of the opposition frontbench have a union affiliation which has led them into their position. So the unions are as entrenched in the ALP as small business is entrenched in this side of government. No-one in Australia should believe in any pretence that we are anti-union. Nothing could be further from the truth. But honest unions are what we want—honest representation for honest workers who need to be represented better than in the cases I want to draw the House's attention to.

Recently in Queensland there was a newspaper article with the headline 'Queensland unions investigated for threats, intimidation, snap strikes and vandalism'. It read:

Militant union activity is rampant in Queensland, with building investigators 'run off their feet' looking into threats, intimidation, snap strikes and vandalism.

The Fair Work Building and Construction Commission … has revealed 52 out of its 133 active cases are in Queensland—more than any other state or territory.

This is my state. This is where the heavy lifting normally gets done in our economy in and around construction, and we need to protect those businesses that are looking to lawfully go about their business without the threat of intimidation and vandalism. How would anyone on the other side of this House dare defend that this acceptable practice? Nigel Hadgkiss, the Fair Work Building and Construction director, said:

Our Queensland investigators are run off their feet responding to calls for help … Despite my staff working their hardest to enforce the rule of law on construction sites, the spread of unlawful activity seems to be spreading faster than ever.

That is why we are bringing this bill before the House. Another headline says, 'The trail of union intimidation of women must be stamped out.' The article said that a union member:

… used a megaphone to broadcast the name and phone number of another FWBC official, in front of scores of CFMEU members, and encouraged them to call the number. He then shouted at the official, 'You think all I got is your phone number?'

He then said, 'Lick it up, you f---ing dog'. This is the high-water mark of behaviour—or is it the low-water mark? If you want more stories, just wait for the next day. There is this headline: 'CFMEU ordered to pay Grocon $3.5m; fined for conduct on Brisbane worksite', and the article states:

Australia’s biggest construction union is under siege amid a record $3.55m payout, a push for deregistration and damaging allegations including of unlawful conduct at a Brisbane worksite.

…   …   …

The CFMEU has also been fined $545,000 for unlawful, intimidating and coercive conduct on a Brisbane worksite where subcontractors and employees were called dogs and 'scabby gay boys'.

In a scathing judgment the Federal Court found the union displayed 'outrageous disregard' for industrial norms and implied it could face deregistration if it continued its unlawful conduct.

No-one on the other side will come to the House and try to defend that position. I know that those on the other side of this place are honourable men and women. No-one on the other side will come in endorse these actions and behaviours of some members who some of them owe their political career to. None of them will endorse these behaviours. But it is increasingly difficult, with the closeness of the entities that relate, for them to move to discipline. The bill before the House seeks to do exactly that.

Another headline reads, 'Builder needing union favour paid CFMEU figure $2,000 for strippers, royal commission told'. We have had our fair share of stripper allegations in this place that we saw firsthand. The article reads:

A builder who needed union approval to get lucrative jobs paid a senior figure at the militant construction union $2000 cash to spend on strippers …

  …   …   …

It was revealed that a union organiser and senior union figure had to be separated during a dispute at the CFMEU's Swanston St headquarters.

So if you think you are safe on the worksite as a result of being a union member, do not credit that. You are not even safe within the union because if they do not like what you are doing, the union officials will actually take to you. 'It was revealed that a union organiser and a senior union figure had to be separated'. They will go at each other. As I alluded to earlier in my speech, last year the MUA conference condemned the attack on the freedom of the press. The MEAA incoming chief executive, Paul Murphy, said, 'At a trade union meeting, a worker's not safe and is in fact assaulted, is nothing short of disgraceful.' For those who were not aware of the issue, there was a meeting of the MUA in Perth. An Australian journalist was invited to cover the story and when he arrived there he was set upon by union members. Hardly a welcoming endorsement. This Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 seeks to act on those unscrupulous actions.

When we are in an environment of such thuggery, such coercion, such intimidation, it is difficult to dig your way out of this hole. It could very well be that it is like the symptoms of being an alcoholic. If you do not realise that there is a systemic problem within the organisation, if you do not understand that there is a systemic problem that runs through the veins and is corrupting those honest, hardworking union members—let us not get to the value for money membership, where their fees end up—the union movement must first understand that they have a problem and, in doing that, I would encourage them to embrace this bill. You will hear that this is just an attempt to return to Work Choices. Nothing could be further from the truth, Australian people. There is nothing in this bill that speaks to anything but Work Choices. This bill clearly goes to trying to stamp out unethical behaviour that is systemic within the union movement. If there is no problem, if there is nothing to hide, then support us in the chamber on this most valuable piece of legislation.

If we have a look at the trajectory of union movement membership in Australia, it fairly well emulates the union movement membership over the last 50 years globally. Union membership globally has fallen away. In the previous speaker's comments you heard that the intent of this government was to kill the union movement. I again say that those on the other side, those within the union movement group, are doing everything in their power to do that of their own accord.

They said that this was an attack on their leader. I know the Leader of the Opposition to be a good man. He has fought many hard battles with an intent to represent those who he was paid to represent. He acknowledged that he wanted to go before the royal commission earlier. I will not stray into anywhere other than to wish him well in those deliberations. It is not the intent of this government to do anything untoward there.

In closing, the opposition needs to first understand that there is a systemic problem within their movement and the only way that it can be fixed is to address the problem. We will provide the tools through this bill to try to work through it. If you do not work through it, stories like those that I have just read will continue to dominate our press. It is not good for the future of the Australian union movement and it is not good for our country.

I commend this bill to House.

11:38 am

Photo of Lisa ChestersLisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to speak in favour of the amendments that have been moved to this bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2], for several reasons. Without the amendments, this bill fails to do what the government is intending to do. It is simply more red tape that is not only opposed by people in this House but also opposed by industry organisations, employer groups unions—those hardworking unions that the previous member said that he was here to stand up for.

Let's just for a moment reflect on what the previous member said in this House. He suggested very early on, by interjecting and calling this bill red tape, that I was engaging in thuggery, bringing thuggery into this place and being intimidating. The previous speaker also said that it is like alcoholism, so being like an alcoholic I cannot see the problem that is going on, and that the values of union officials are being corrupted because of what is going on in the union movement.

I have never in my life been called the thug. Never in my life has it been suggested that I am intimidating. When I was actively involved in a union—representing some of our hardest working and lowest paid workers, cleaners—and when I worked and talked about industry reform, I was never referred to as a union thug. The government likes to throw around that term, whether it be in question time or whether it be up in the Federation Chamber. It is used by every individual member who gets up to speak on this issue from the government. When you say that this bill is supposed to support the good union officials, you are also in your same speech and comments calling them union thugs. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways.

The previous speaker and government speakers say that union members should get behind this bill and support it, because they believe it is good governance. It is not. It is purely and simply a way in which to attack the union movement and those involved in the union movement. This bill and what it will do has been opposed by employer organisations time and time again, but yet the government brings forward this bill again to this House in this last sitting week before the session ends. Why? It is purely and simply politically motivated. It is not good governance and it is not about ensuring that we have safer workplaces. It is not about, as the government tries to suggest, supporting good union officials.

Let's us just look at who they have attacked in this place. I just do not know who they mean by these good union officials, because they continue to attack every single union that has ever stood up to represent their members. This government in this place and the other place have attacked childcare workers. They have attacked United Voice for daring to say that we should have a national quality framework. Whether it be in question time or through the committee process, they have attacked United Voice and childcare workers for daring to say that they should have professional pay and respect for their skills and for daring to say that there should be ratios in our childcare centres to ensure that we have a safe ratio of children to educators.

Another union this government has attacked is the teachers' union, the AEU. They have also attacked the Independent Education Union. They have stood in this place in question time and in other debates and dared to attack teachers and their union for saying, 'I give a Gonski. We want to see more funding our schools.' That is a measure and reform that would make teaching easier not just by having the resources to support the students but also by helping every single school student in this country.

When they stand here and say that they are standing up for good unions, they should name the unions that they think are good unions. That is because every single day this government will come in here and demonise another union and another group of union members for advocating for the rights of their members, advocating for the rights of Australians and advocating for quality issues like in early childhood education and funding for our schools.

Another union that has been attacked in this place is the nurses' union. They are people who make sure if we are sick and we are in hospital, then we get the help that we need. They have attacked the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation for standing up and saying that they support PPL. They want to see the current Paid Parental Leave scheme continued. That is another union that this government has attacked for standing up against bad government policy, where this government wants to cut the amount of support that new mothers have with their newborn babies.

Another union that this government has attacked time and time again is the TWU, the Transport Workers' Union. They represent our truck drivers, who have the most unsafe workplace in the country: our Australian roots. If you work in the trucking industry, you are more likely than any other industry to have a workplace injury or death. Our roads are not as safe as they need to be. This government, through their reviews in this place, has attacked reforms that the TWU have pushed for in their Safe Rates campaign. That is the safety remuneration tribunal that was set up under the previous government through the active lobbying of industry and the union involved, the TWU. This government has attacked them at any chance they have got to say that that was just a union campaign to support their union mates. That is wrong. It was about road safety. This government decided to attack that union.

This government attacks the MUA. In fact, it will bring up the MUA a number of times in this debate. The MUA purely and simply want there to be shipping jobs, maritime jobs, in this country. The MUA stand up and say, 'We want our industry to exist in Australia. We want the industry to employ Australians.' This government seeks to attack that union.

Whether it be our childcare workers, our teachers, our nurses, our ambos, our truck drivers, our construction workers, the people who work really hard in hospitality or the people who work really hard in manufacturing, the government seek to attack them because they are the union. At the end of the day, a union is a group of workers coming together to have a collective voice and say in their workplace and their industry. Despite the rhetoric of the government saying that this is about supporting good unions, they will stand up here day after day and rip down every union that exists in this country, to the extent that they ripped down the AMA when the AMA stood up and said that they were opposed to a GP tax.

This government's actions do not match its own rhetoric. If it is serious about supporting unions, it would not be putting this bill forward. It would not, time and time again in question time, time and time again in this House and in the other place, attack unions. Why does it attack unions? I have a clear example of one of the reasons why I believe this government spends so much time attacking unions. I think this example highlights and goes to the heart of who this government is and who it is really trying to protect. It is a case involving the CFMEU and temporary workers. The CFMEU exposed a case in Melbourne where people who were here on 457 and 417 visas, working for a particular construction company, were being underpaid. They were being paid as little as $4 an hour. The CFMEU engaged the Fair Work Ombudsman to start investigating this case of exploitation of workers on a subclass of visa within a workplace here in Australia.

The Fair Work Ombudsman thus far has recovered $400,000 in back pay. So the CFMEU was right. These workers were being underpaid. The Fair Work Ombudsman has been investigating and has ordered the company to pay at least $440,000 in back pay. The CFMEU were a good union, as this government says it is here to stand up for. The CFMEU investigated. They advocated. They got the Fair Work Ombudsman involved to help clean up this clear case of worker exploitation. Yet what has happened since as a result? They were investigated by the Fair Work Building and Construction inspectorate, asking where their right of entry was and did they enter the workplace appropriately.

Rather than supporting the good unions, the good union officials, that are doing their work of exposing the exploitation going on in some of our workplaces, that government sends in the Fair Work Building and Construction inspectorate and tries to push through the ABCC in this House, which seeks not to investigate the worker exploitation going on in the construction industry but only to investigate union organisers, the good union people that this government claims that it represents.

Why are the government so interested in this particular case, of all the worker visa exploitation cases that we are seeing day after day being exposed in the media? Perhaps it is because the company who have been involved in this case, who have been ordered by the Fair Work Ombudsman to pay back money, who have been found guilty of exploiting people on temporary worker visas, are in fact major supporters of the Australian Liberal Party. The company at fault in this particular case donated $400,000 to the Liberal Party, according to the most recent AEC disclosures. No wonder the Acting Minister for Employment in this place stands up in question time and has a go at the CFMEU. No wonder in the other place they move motions condemning the CFMEU and the organisers involved in this case. They are protecting their own backs, because this company that has been found guilty of ripping off workers is in fact a Liberal Party donor.

It is not the first time that this has been exposed. There is a real reason why this government seeks to shut down the union movement, to silence them, to tie them up in red tape and to have a go at them. It is because they expose what this Liberal Party is really about. What is going on in our workplaces at the moment needs to be the focus of this government. This government has turned its back on what is going on in some of Australia's largest workplaces. This government is not taking seriously the exploitation that is going on with temporary workers in this country. As I have said, where is the royal commission into the worker exploitation going on in some of our workplaces? Where is the investigation going on into the modern slavery that is occurring in some of our workplaces? People have come here in good faith to work—they may have taken a gap year from their home country and come here as a migrant worker on a 457 visa or a 417 visa—and, rather than getting the same wages and conditions as Australian workers, time and time again we have found that they are used as cheap slave labour, going in and undercutting the conditions of Australian workplaces.

It is not just the CFMEU example that I have got here. There are examples at the farm gate that have been exposed in the Australian media and are being investigated by the Fair Work Ombudsman. There are instances on our farms. There are instances in manufacturing. In the poultry industry, it is particularly bad, whether it be Baiada chicken factories or Hazeldene's in my electorate. There are problems in the meatworks industry. There are problems in the construction industry. There are problems in the cleaning and the security industries. We are seeing time and time again the exploitation of foreign workers being exposed. The first people to speak up for those workers are the unions—the union officials and the union members—who are outraged about the exploitation that is occurring in these workplaces. Yet the government, rather than working with the good unions that it claims that it is here today supporting, it demonises them, it calls them thugs, it says that they are intimidating, it says that they are only concerned with their self-interest, when that could not be further from the truth. What we are seeing going on in our workplaces is the real battle that this government should be looking at. They should not be engaging in royal commissions that try to go after, shame and slam a few individuals. They should be going after the employers and the subcontractors that use the current situation to exploit temporary workers.

When it comes to bashing unions, when it comes to demonising their opposition, this Prime Minister has form. We know that from what he did when he was the employment minister and the things that he used to say in the media. He used to say that unions engaged in industrial and economic sabotage, that the unions were the ones that were militant and bringing the country to its knees. If he is serious then drop the rhetoric where he has his members here standing up and saying they are here to support good unions.

The government needs to drop the act that they are standing up for working people and drop the act that they are standing up for good union officials. They fail every day to stand up and congratulate the work of good unions.

11:53 am

Photo of Andrew NikolicAndrew 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.

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

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Would the member for Bass actually refer to the bill or to some provision? He has failed to do so. I would ask him to talk to the bill.

Photo of Ross VastaRoss Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for Bass is in order and I ask him to continue.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am entirely in order in talking about governance arrangements which this bill is designed to redress. I know it is uncomfortable for the member for Gorton and I know that the member for Maribyrnong and his front bench will be wincing through the excellent ABC series The Killing Season. But it is ironic that the Leader of the Opposition is a 'no show' on this program, to avoid actually accounting in person for his role in the political assassination two prime ministers.

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

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. And I want the member to sit before I actually raise it. I asked the member for Bass to refer to the bill. You, of course, asked him to address the bill. He is defying your order.

Photo of Ross VastaRoss Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I said that the member for Bass was in order and I wanted him to continue.

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

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition's record acts as a clear reminder to all Australians of 'the real Bill'. Of late, and rather opportunistically in my view, the opposition leader has been grasping—

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

Mr Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The current speaker raised a point of order when I was contributing to this bill on the basis that I was not referring to people by their titles. He has just referred to the Leader of the Opposition improperly and I would ask him to refer to people by their titles.

Photo of Ross VastaRoss Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The member for Bass will address the Leader of the Opposition by his title and I ask him to continue.

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

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I remind the member for Gorton about tedious repetition, which is also in the standing orders.

What we see from those opposite is the championing of issues which are designed to give them gravitas but simply try to distract from the sorts of things that this bill is meant to address. Their championing of same-sex marriage is a case in point. Then an attempt to re-try the case for Australian Republicanism. Many of these things last about two hours, or however long the news cycle tempo is that drives Labor operations.

Most tellingly, both for the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Gorton and the once-proud Labor Party, is the open question beyond Canberra about what they and their party actually stand for. The reality hits home even harder when the member for Maribyrnong is compared to Labor titans like Bob Hawke and perhaps even Gough Whitlam. Because whether you like them or not it is nevertheless indisputable they both stood for something, and this substance derived ultimately from individual character.

Both men were strong, energetic, essentially decent and visionary, focused far beyond mere self-aggrandisement. Of course, against such lofty standards, most mortals would be found wanting, but against them the Leader of the Opposition positively wilts!

Regrettably for many Labor true believers, what the ABC's The Killing Season shows, and what some of the things that have been relayed in relation to this bill actively demonstrate, is that it is a bitter reminder to those true believers in the Labor Party that their 'light on the hill' has not yet been lit in the 21st century, and that under the stewardship of the opposition leader it is unlikely to be rekindled for the foreseeable future.

Let me talk about some of the measures in this bill, now that I have outlined for the member for Gorton what they are meant to redress. The bill introduces a suite of legislative measures that are designed to see governance of registered organisations lifted to a consistently high standard across the board. A more robust compliance regime will deter wrongdoing and promote first-class governance of registered organisations, protecting those low-paid workers that members opposite often refer to.

There are a range of measures in this bill that are designed to protect those people—to protect their interests and make sure that unions comply with the interests of their members and, when they do not, that there can be some sanction. Members of the union and the community want not only a strong regulatory regime to give them confidence in their registered organisations but also swift action when those standards are breached. In order to do this, we have to have a robust regulator in place with appropriate powers and resources, together with meaningful sanctions that can be applied when wrongdoing is revealed.

The government believes that the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2] will provide that certainty. It will provide the high standards of operation that members of registered organisations are entitled to expect. I say to the member for Gorton and others: the only people with anything to fear from these measures are those who do the wrong thing. Those who are operating within the law, which is the overwhelming majority of officers in registered organisations, have no reason to fear taking on official responsibilities. They should, in fact, be comforted by knowing that unlawful behaviour will be dealt with by this government.

12:08 pm

Photo of Andrew GilesAndrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

As we debate the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2], Australia is becoming less equal. Research that ACOSS distributed at the start of this week painted a stark and disturbing picture. Australia's rich are getting richer and, while inequality here has not reached the extreme levels of countries like the United States, we are heading in that direction. Australians earning in the top 20 per cent of incomes now receive five times as much as those in the bottom 20 per cent. This gap is widening. We are heading towards a society much like the United States.

This is, of course, driven by the policy agenda of this government, in particular the cruel austerity of last year's budget and this year's budget. This is a government committed to attacking our social compact and also the social wage. But it is also a government that is committed to attacking unionism. When we look at income inequality, which is at the heart of this drive to us becoming a less equal society, we think about the work of such bodies as the IMF. The IMF has characterised this as the defining challenge of our time. Combatting it, the IMF says, is critical to sustainable economic growth, something I think all of us in this House should be committed to and working towards. It is undermined by this government's policy agenda more generally and specifically by this government's blind ideological attitude to the world of work, particularly this reflexive hatred of trade unionism.

When I think about our progress towards Americanisation, towards a society that is even more unequal—a society like that of the United States—I think about the recent contribution of the Noble Prize-winning economist Joe Stiglitz when he was asked last year about why Australia had resisted the tide of inequality relatively well. He was asked what Australia had that the US did not. He replied initially with just one word: 'Unions'. He said:

You have been able to maintain stronger trade unions than the United States. The absence of any protection for workers, any bargaining power, has had adverse effects in the United States.

Unions are a critical baulk against inequality—inequality in the workplace and inequality across our entire society. The role that they play is not only absolutely fundamental to giving individuals dignity and fairness at work but also a critical aspect of maintaining our path towards sustainable economic growth.

The pattern around income inequality is also exacerbated by what we are seeing in terms of wages growth. We are seeing wages growth stagnant and very, very uneven. We have the lowest wages growth on record. This is strange because when this government came into power the justification for a range of pieces of legislation introduced to attack trade unions and trade unionism was, of course, a wages explosion. The wages explosion was entirely in the imagination of government members. This reveals much more about their ideological world view and their complete determination to reshape how the labour market operates than any sense of reality or any sense of empathy with Australian workers or Australian families and their struggles to deal with cost-of-living pressures.

I referred to the IMF earlier and I want to make it very clear that, in agreeing with Joseph Stiglitz in his bold defence of the Australian union movement, I also agree with the IMF. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to income inequality, but we do have to look at supporting the role of trade unions if we are serious about supporting people's rights at work and supporting sustainable economic growth. This is the context within which we debate this bill, and this is why I am very proud, in opposing the bill, to speak in support of the amendments moved by the shadow minister, the member for Gorton.

This is the third time this bill, or a bill in very similar form, has been before the House. Its introduction might charitably be described as a triumph of hope over experience on the part of the minister. It is also one of 10 bills this government has introduced dealing with deregulation of workplaces. There have been 10 such bills from a government that seemed, before the election, determined to put as much distance as possible between it and any attempt to remake workplace relations. We do know something about this Prime Minister, the former minister for Work Choices: that, whatever he says, he is absolutely committed to returning to the core elements of Work Choices, as many of the previous bills debated in this place pushed towards.

In this debate, we have seen a consistency with this approach—a triumph of ideology over any reasoned approach to what is happening in the world of work and the priorities for workplace regulation. It was telling in the contribution of the member for Bass that he had nothing to say about the bill which is before us. In fairness, he probably had nothing to say about the bill because there is nothing to be said.

This is a bill which serves no purpose other than for tedious repetition from government members which has allowed them to go on wide-ranging frolics of character assassination rather than deal with the important business of understanding the challenges we face in the world of work, such as boosting productivity and reducing exploitation, as the member for Bendigo highlighted very effectively in her contribution to this bill. Instead, we have just had endless ranting and tedious repetition.

There was another telling element in the contribution of the member for Bass. He made it very clear, contrary to suggestions from the Prime Minister, that he does not accept that the architecture of the Fair Work Act is broadly appropriate. His contribution seemed to be very close to a direct call for a return to Work Choices. I say again: so much for Work Choices being 'dead, buried and cremated'. Of course, we have seen so many signs that this will not be the case already. Very recently, we have seen the callous attitude this government has shown to the cleaners who work so hard in this building. There was an attack this week on early childhood workers, and the union—

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, since the member mentioned the cleaners, I wonder if he would accept a question under section 66A.

Photo of Ross VastaRoss Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Is the member willing to give way?

Photo of Andrew GilesAndrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

No, I am not.

Photo of Peter DuttonPeter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | | Hansard source

Aren't you up to a question?

Photo of Andrew GilesAndrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

It is not a question of whether I am up to it, Minister. If you wish to make a contribution to this debate, I am sure we would welcome it because your high-minded approach to public policy making across every area is something that is—

Photo of Peter DuttonPeter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just to confirm with the member, is he inviting me to ask him a question? Would he accept a question, having not agreed to answer a question from the member for Hughes?

Photo of Ross VastaRoss Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Member for Scullin, would you like an intervention?

Photo of Andrew GilesAndrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

No, I would not like an intervention. I would like to speak on the matters that are before the House. I do not think the minister or the member the Hughes have any interest in engaging in the matters that are before this House.

Photo of Craig KellyCraig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

It is an opportunity to answer a question.

Photo of Andrew GilesAndrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

You can continue this dialogue across the chamber, Member for Hughes. You can, too, Minister, because I welcome any contribution you would like to make to this debate.

Let us think about the record at large of this government on industrial relations. Members on this side remember that just before Christmas the government announced terms of reference for the Productivity Commission to have a look at Fair Work. These terms of reference, again, go to the very heart of the debate about how we ensure our progress towards more equal workplaces or hold it back. It is about our progress towards a more equal society or a less equal society—matters clearly of no interest to any of the government members here. The mere mention of Work Choices still sends shivers down the spines of government members. This is why they look for cover, such as from the Productivity Commission. We have seen a set of terms of reference that are so wide that everything that might matter to anyone who works for a living is under threat.

This review is absolutely critical to the coalition's plan to remake Australia's social compact and take us to a society much less like the Australia most of us accept and much more like that of the United States. We on this side of the House remember that it has been long established—indeed, it is conceded often by government members—that we have an industrial relations system that promotes collective over individual bargaining, consistent with a range of international obligations we have entered into.

We have also committed ourselves to freedom of association, a value which is under threat in the consistent attack and the constant demonisation of trade unions and trade unionists. Conservatives have done nothing in the world of industrial relations over the last 20 years, save try to reduce all collective institutions and reduce the way in which unions can support vulnerable workers in their workplaces, undermine collective bargaining and erode all sense of fundamental rebalances of power away from those who have the capacity to exploit often very vulnerable workers.

While this Productivity Commission reference is underway, we also have a royal commission which is entirely consistent with the views that have been expressed by government members in this chamber. It is all about character assassination at great expense. We see witch hunts when we should see serious work done on meeting these policy challenges. But that is not a priority for this government. This government is concerned with undertaking a sustained attack on Australian workers. Undermining the role of unions through this bill and many of the nine other bills that have been presented is a key part of that agenda.

This is a government that is committed to removing effective unionism for Australian workplaces. It wants to destroy the capacity of working people to come together and work together to bargain fairly and support the fabric of Australian workplaces and the Australian way of life. This is in the context of a government which is unconcerned that the minimum wage has dropped to such a low level. This is a government that is unconcerned about how important penalty rates are to so many Australian workers. So many government backbenchers have belled the cat on this issue. Again, while the government pushes down wages and tries to deny people access to penalty rates, we still hear the minister speak of a wages explosion. He could not be more out of touch.

Again, why would the government have asked the Productivity Commission to look at wage growth if it was not minded to push wages down? It is absolutely clear that that fundamental issue of a fair day's pay in return for a fair day's work is totally up for grabs. We have seen the minister, Senator Abetz, continue to make clear that, in his world, penalty rates are up for grabs. They are so important to so many workers, so many of the people I represent and so many of the people the member for Throsby represents. Yet this government, which effectively promised not to interfere with this fundamental aspect of how wages will be set, is committed to putting so many more people under deeper pressure.

The previous speaker, the member for Bass, in his wide-ranging contribution talked about what people on this side of the House stand for. The Chief Government Whip, who spoke before him, also put this at issue when he said that opposition members endorse unions. Let me be clear in responding to the Whip: of course we endorse unions and the vital role they play in reshaping power relationships in workplaces. We stand for effective, decent trade unionism. We stand for workplaces that are fair. We stand for a system of workplace relations that does secure fairness at work, substantively, in terms of securing rights, setting down minimum standards that we know promote decency and dignity for all, and enabling people to effectively come together to bargain on just terms.

On this side of the House more broadly, we take the debate about workplace relations seriously. It is not a matter of witch-hunts; it is not a matter of politicking. It is a fundamental challenge. We are deeply interested in how the world of work in Australia is changing. We are committed to the challenge of building more cooperative, more productive workplaces. We understand that that is a process that has to be taken through effective partnership building between employers and workers coming together in trade unions, recognising the shared challenges that we face, recognising the inequities in bargaining power and recognising that this is not a debate that can be won through prejudice, that it is not a debate that can be resolved through the rants of government members; it is a debate that must be built around values, and the key value here is fairness at work.

12:23 pm

Photo of Peter DuttonPeter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question put.

Photo of Ross VastaRoss Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.