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

I want to make a contribution to the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 and I also move an amendment:

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

“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to:

(1) abandon its support of the decision of the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates because it will mean nearly 700,000 Australians will have their take home pay cut by up to $77 a week; and

(2) legislate to prevent the decision from taking effect to stop Australians from having their penalty rates cut”.

Labor will not stand for corruption in any form, and we will support legislation that is properly drafted that applies to companies and registered organisations. There is no tolerance for corruption, whether in fact it is a company officer bribing a union official or an officer of a registered organisation, or for that matter whether it is a company bribing another company or bribing a public official or bribing a foreign official. Bribing officers of entities should be unlawful, and we believe there should be no tolerance in terms of either making or receiving a bribe.

We also say that whilst we are going to consider this bill closely we do question the motivation of the government. This bill is based on three of the 79 recommendations of the Heydon royal commission. The Heydon recommendations were made 16 months ago, yet this lazy and incompetent government, led by a do-nothing Prime Minister, took no action to respond to any of Dyson Heydon's recommendations—not before the double dissolution election and not after it, not even when this parliament was debating the two anti-worker pieces of legislation that were the Prime Minister's justification for taking the nation to the polls. This government did nothing in response to the Heydon recommendations—until, of course, they realised that they were on the wrong side entirely when it comes to cutting penalty rates.

If they wanted to have a genuine mandate from the Australian people for some of these reforms, it would have been proper for them firstly to consider the recommendations and respond to those recommendations prior to the last election. They chose not to do that: no formal response by the government to the recommendations of the Dyson Heydon royal commission prior to the election and no policy pronouncements other than the two double dissolution bills—which, by the way, had not changed in any significant way from the time they were introduced in December 2013, before the royal commission had even commenced. So, there is no point saying that the two double dissolution bills arose out of the recommendations of the royal commission, because in fact they were introduced into this place before the royal commission started.

We now have before us this bill which, arguably, takes up three of the 79 recommendations of the commission. We have made our views known about the motivations, the efficacy and the integrity of that royal commission. We did find, as we might recall, the royal commissioner did accept an invitation to raise money for the Liberal Party while he was commissioner of the royal commission. He chose to accept it—in fact, he tried to suggest that he was not sure what the invitation was. We all recall the invitation with its massive Liberal logo. Of course, he was willing to go along. There was even a spot where you could put your credit card details, so you could send more money the Liberal Party. This royal commissioner accepted that invitation during his time as commissioner. We, of course, have had questions about the integrity of that commission and the political motivations of its recommendations. Despite our serious misgivings about the political nature of the executive commission—and that is what a royal commission is; it is not a commission of the parliament; it is not a court of law; it is an executive government commission—and despite the reservations we have with respect of those recommendations, the motivations of the commission, the integrity of the commissioner, nonetheless, we do not support and we will never tolerate corruption in any form.

That is why I want to make clear that we will seriously consider this bill. We want to make sure that this bill is not designed in a way that is unfair to workers or that is uneven in its application. We do not want to see the effects of this bill being manifestly unfair and so we are going to seriously look at the construction of the provisions that go to the offences within the bill. We are also going to look at the exemptions, particularly in relation to cash payments or in-kind payments to registered organisations, because there are a lot of legitimate reasons that employers and unions work together for the public good or, indeed, for the good of the workforce of that company and the members of that union.

The government thinks that there should be no relationship between employers and unions because their hatred of unions is so great. They think there are only two types of unions—militant unions or acquiescent unions, and they are all corrupt. That is the world view of the merchant banker Malcolm Turnbull. That is what he thinks of unions; that is what the whole front bench thinks of unions. That is why they are so motivated to destroy the union movement. They do not believe it is a significant tenet of democracy. They like to undermine unions on every occasion they can and that is why they have been obsessed since they were elected in 2013—obsessed—with bringing in laws to target unions. We think that has been very unfortunate, given the other challenges that are currently occurring in workplaces.

There are some very unfair laws and there is a lack of enforcement of laws in this country in workplaces. Too many deaths in workplaces occur, and we could do better to prevent those deaths. Too many people are underpaid, and we could do a lot better by enforcing the law and improving the law so that workers in this nation are not underpaid. In fact, this government has been going on for some time saying that they will respond to the 7-Eleven scandal. Remember that? They talked about the 7-Eleven scandal; they were concerned about the 7-Eleven scandal.

It is a terrible case in which thousands of workers have lost money. It is argued that there is at least $100 million that the company underpaid its workforce, but I would say that it is higher than that. That is one company, one franchise arrangement—many employers but one franchise—with enormous amounts of money. The Minister for Employment, Senator Cash, has for months been talking about the remedy the government has in mind to deal with exploitation. But where is the bill? They told Fairfax it was coming and the Fairfax papers put it on the front page, but we did not see the bill. Then they told the Telegraph and the Telegraph ran a story about it coming into the parliament—no, there was no bill introduced into the House. And then more recently it was introduced into the House. Well, where is it? That bill has now been withdrawn so we can talk about other matters. In other words, the obsession is so great within the government in relation to unions that they were willing to remove the only legislation they have ever proposed since elected in 2013 that deals with worker exploitation that is happening now in workplaces.

Their callous disregard for workers in this country has no precedent. It is reflected in the amendment I moved insofar as they are not supporting a parliamentary remedy to negate the effect of the Fair Work decision that will cut the real pay of 700,000 workers. You may as well just put your hand in their pockets and take their income out. We are awaiting that other bill. Given that it has now been junked—it is been deferred yet again by the government, which never ever attends to worker exploitation because their obsession with unions is so palpable and so great.

Having said all of that, we will look at this legislation in good faith, because as I said we do not tolerate corruption in any form. We have zero tolerance for it. Quite frankly, if there is a corrupt union official, I want that person prosecuted and, if the offence is so great, jailed. If a company's chief executive officer or any officer of a company has bribed another person in an unlawful manner under existing laws, I would like to see that person brought to justice. Unequivocally, I have no time for that conduct.

I have to say there has been no consultation process whatsoever for those people who will be affected. As I understand it, the registered organisations have not been consulted, employers have not been consulted in any significant way, if at all, and yet they have introduced this bill into the house without consultation but that really is a consistent pattern from this government. It is important then, when we look to this bill and we consider this matter, to ensure that there is an appropriate Senate committee for those who may be affected, if this bill is enacted, to have an opportunity to explain whether they have concerns with the bill.

The terms of the new offences differ from the model legislation recommended by the commissioner. They differ from existing bribery and corruption offences in the Criminal Code, and we cannot have any confidence that this legislation does not unfairly target workers, and that is what we are hoping to determine through a proper process. The so-called corrupting benefits offences are broadly similar to the existing Criminal Code offences of bribery of a public official, bribery of a foreign official and corrupting benefits given to or received by a public official, although there are key differences in the construction of the provisions. For example, there are different tests of intention for making or receiving a bribe which would seem to make it easier to prosecute a union official than the employer: a company pays a bribe intending to influence a union official to act improperly or a registered organisation official asks for a bribe intending that the company believes that the official will tend to be influenced to act improperly.

In comparison, in the equivalent bribing Commonwealth officials offences the test is intending to influence for both giving and receiving a bribe and the maximum penalty is 10 years, whereas in the equivalent corrupting benefits Commonwealth officials offences the test is intending that the person will tend to be influenced for both giving and receiving the corrupting benefit and the maximum penalty is only five years.

The new offences do not require dishonesty on the part of the person making or receiving the bribe. The word 'dishonesty' is not within the construction of the bill. It is unclear whether the requirement that the intention has to be that the union official is influenced to act improperly effectively establishes the element of dishonesty. The equivalent offences in relation to Commonwealth officials require dishonesty but do not require the official to be influenced to act improperly. The bill also prohibits employers from giving cash or in-kind payment to a union or to a person nominated by the union and prohibits the union from requesting or receiving cash or in-kind payments.

The bill expressly excludes membership fees, wage deductions and benefits provided for employees and possibly covers provisions of union training services, tax-deductible donations and payments for services in accordance with the law or a judgement, but the regulations can remove or add other payments, including the ones excluded in the bill. That regulation, I understand, would be a disallowable instrument, but the variations could occur nonetheless in that manner.

The offences do not require the requests for cash or the payment of it to be dishonest. It seems possible, therefore, that a union official would be making a request if they approached an employer on behalf of an employee who has been made redundant and were seeking payment of entitlements lawfully due to that ex-employee. If this situation is captured by the new offence provisions, it is an absurdity and it is wrong.

The bill places obligations on unions and employers to disclose any benefits they or related entities may receive as a result of the operation of provisions of an enterprise agreement. What this government seems to fail to understand—and, again, it is their world view or perhaps their ideological blinkers—is that, for people who have actually engaged in workplace bargaining, these types of disclosures are legally required to be made by employers to their workforce and by unions. If anyone understood the enterprise bargaining process and understood the requirements under the Fair Work Act, they would understand that you need to explain the provisions of the agreement and provide access to that to everyone who needs to vote on that agreement.

I do not have any problems in principle with the intention of this bill to ensure proper disclosure on this or any other matter that might be in an enterprise agreement because Labor's position is that every provision—every clause—should be provided to the workforce and to the membership of a union or unions in order for them to be able to vote in favour or against the draft enterprise agreement. My understanding is that that is a requirement under the Fair Work Act. If there are any problems with the current arrangements—if there is a deficiency—I think we can sort that out in the Fair Work Act. I do not think it needs to be about finding another mechanism here, but, again, I am happy to listen to why the government considers that important when there is already a requirement for all those matters to be disclosed.

If you were to read the construction of the bill—if you would listen to the rhetoric of the government—you would think that there could somehow be an agreement between an employer or employers and a union or unions and that somehow the workforce and membership would not access the provisions of the agreement. That is just not lawfully possible. If it does happen it is a deficiency with enforcement because the Fair Work Commission has to make sure that the parties to an agreement have complied with the requirements of the act, and they are required to do that.

I know those opposite would far prefer that the Fair Work Commission did not deal with many matters. In fact, they would suggest that they would like to see more individual agreements in place that would just be filed in the employers' filing cabinet. The recommendations they have sought to make in terms of changes to the Fair Work Act are that they wanted individual arrangements that could be varied for employees to be no longer oversighted by a third party—not by the Fair Work Ombudsman and not by the Fair Work Commission—and just kept in the employers' file. They wanted no third-party oversight. We do not agree with that, and we would not agree that any provision of an enterprise agreement should not be provided to every employee who would be under that agreement or for every member of a union.

The opposition has no difficulty with formalising the process of unions and employers making these types of disclosures as long as the requirements apply equally to both parties and so long as it is not a superfluous provision given the requirements under the Fair Work Act.

This legislation, too, is narrowly focused. It really begs the question: are there comparable provisions to stamp out other forms of corrupt payments between companies? Do we have sufficient offences to ensure that we can deal with corrupt payments to public officials and foreign officials, the offences to which I referred earlier? If in fact those laws are fine and work, why is it then that those offences are constructed in a different manner to the offences that are contained within this bill?

Labor has no tolerance for corruption—not within the union movement and not within the corporate world. There is a whole series of things we can do to make sure that there is less corruption in society. For example, recently the government ensured that there is whistleblower protection within registered organisations, and yet they have denied comparable laws in the corporate sector. We would ask the government, 'If you want to ensure greater accountability and greater transparency, why is it you do not have the same whistleblower protection in the corporate sector that you have for registered organisations?' In fact, the reason the government managed to pass the whistleblower provisions that relates to registered organisations is they made undertakings to Senator Xenophon and Senator Hinch. Those undertakings were that they would move next to provide whistleblower protections to the corporate sector. Nothing has happened. Their benefactors seem to be getting off scot-free. Malcolm Turnbull's best mates, the big end of town, seem to be exempt from whistleblower protections. Why is that? It is not just about dealing with offences; it is about dealing with disclosure provisions and ensuring that people can come forward and be protected under the law.

There are other matters that we can raise on other occasions, and we will do just that. We will be looking at the bill to see if it treats people evenly, if there is no unfairness towards workers and if the exemptions to payments that are made to registered organisations are sufficient in that they cover those matters where there is a public good. I will just mention a couple of examples. For example, if it is the sole or predominant purpose to provide an entity that might be owned by a union the ability to train people on health and safety then we want to make clear that that is expressly exempt. I believe it is exempt, but we want it to be expressly exempt. I have had people raise with me that there are trust funds established between companies and unions to look after widows. The Maritime Union of Australia and a company have set up a trust fund for a widow because of the death of a worker of that company who was also a member of that union. They wanted to set up a fund to look after the family of the deceased worker. Is that arrangement exempt from these provisions or will the construction of that arrangement be such that it will not be exempt? If so, that is an issue for us. There are charitable reasons why employers and registered organisations may find themselves providing money to an entity that may be owned or part owned by a registered organisation. Will those charitable intentions and arrangements be exempt from capturing the offences outlined in this bill? That is important.

On this side of the House we think that you can argue with employers and you can argue with unions. That happens all the time. But those relationships between employers and unions are often longstanding. They may argue up hill and down dale over employment conditions, but they also, for example, support their industry. You will hear unions backing in industry. The maritime union will support the maritime industry. Forestry workers support the forestry industry. The CFMEU are strong supporters of that industry and, indeed, the mining and construction industries. The SDA will support the retail industry and the like. So there are reasons why there is common ground.

The view of the government is that there is no common ground between employers and unions. But that is not the real world. That is the fanciful world of the Liberal Party where every union is the enemy and every union official is corrupt or either acquiescent or militant. That is not the real world. I think people on the other side should get out a bit more and find out that those relationships are important. Whilst they will always disagree from time to time, they resolve those disagreements most often. Sometimes they agree on things beyond just employment conditions. I understand that the government does not like those forms of relationships and does not believe that people should work for their betterment beyond just employment matters. But I think the government should consider what I am saying in relation to that.

I just want to touch on the amendment. The government has introduced this bill, as much as anything, it seems to me, to deflect from its position on the penalty rates decision. Every member on the other side has voted at least procedurally in this place to stop us debating the bill introduced by the Leader of the Opposition and to stop the effect of the bill. Whilst it might have only been a procedural vote, effectively every member on the other side has said that they do not want to stop the decision taking effect. These are the same members of this place who were happy to abolish the order that increased the wages of truck drivers and abolish the independent umpire. The government actually did that. So if it can intervene by using this place to stop truck drivers' wages going up, surely it is within its remit to use this place in a manner that will stop retail and hospitality workers' wages going down?

I am looking at the member for Dunkley. He is getting ready for his lines. He is going to say a few things. We know what the member for Dunkley thinks about penalty rates. He has made some pretty remarkable statements about penalty rates. He does not think they should exist in many circumstances. But he is not alone. He is a new member. I do not want to spend all my time talking about the member for Dunkley. He is a new member; he might be a one-termer, too. But the fact is that there are at least 60 members of the government who are on the record saying they want to either cut or abolish penalty rates. So we have some work to do. But, given that almost every crossbencher in the Senate has now backflipped on their original position on penalty rates, and given that Senator Hinch, Senator Xenophon and Senator Hanson have now backflipped and decided to support Labor's bill in the Senate, it is very lonely being a government member on this position—very lonely, indeed. I do not just want to get their votes on this bill; I want them to apologise for their position. I want them to apologise that they are willing for people in their electorates to be hurt by this decision. They should apologise, but, first, they need to join Labor in supporting our bill.

I have moved the second reading amendment because I think, in the context of what is going on in relation to a recent decision by the Fair Work Commission, it is only proper that members in this place certainly say a couple of things: firstly, there is zero tolerance for corruption; secondly, the real income of low-wage workers, at a time when wage growth is at its lowest in a generation, is protected and supported by this place. That is the debate we should be having and that is the debate we will have.

Finally, I want to say that we will continue to examine the provisions of the bill. If this will lead to less corruption in the corporate world—of corporates trying to bribe union officials—and if it will lead to less corruption elsewhere, we are up for that consideration. If, on the other hand, this is an uneven application of a bill and is, in any way, unfair to workers and their representatives at the expense of employers, then we would have some problems. Despite the rhetoric of the Prime Minister, we will work constructively with the government on this bill. If they are well intentioned and fair, then we will certainly see if we can reach accommodation.

I think we should all be standing up against corruption in whatever form it takes and whoever it involves. That should be a significant role of this place and that is why I want to do that. After this bill comes back from a Senate committee, I would like to see if we can improve this, if necessary, to ensure that we see less corruption in this country.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Gorton has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( ): I rise today to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017. We are fortunate to live in a country where we are all afforded representation, whether it is through parliament, association or union, and we have many things to be grateful for in a society where we are free to unite and negotiate as one. That is, traditionally, what a trade union should be for: a fair go where there is minimal communication or representation where there is none. There was a period when having representation could literally mean the difference between life and death, where workers were deprived of their rights and overworked, but no longer.

We have passed beyond the era of necessity. Trade unions have become politicised and have their own agendas. Once upon a time, trade unions represented their workers' needs and agenda. Now, in so many cases, it is the reverse. We see these problems emerge when trade unions stop being solely about the rights of their workers and become their own entities. We see these problems emerge when trade unions start to work for things that differ from the needs and safety of their members. We see these problems when trade unions begin to advocate for themselves at the expense of their members.

That is where this legislation comes in. This bill bans secret and corrupting payments from businesses to unions which may influence the outcome of any enterprise bargaining agreements and potentially tempt trade unions to forget the interests of their members, on whose behalf they are meant to be negotiating. Money is a funny thing and can seemingly cause even the most vigilant trade union to neglect their duties.

The second part of this legislation requires disclosure of any legitimate payments that arise as a result of an enterprise agreement. Just like any businessperson—or, indeed, a politician—trade union members have a right to know the interests of those who have so much influence over the outcome of something that has so much of an effect over their lives. We regularly update our own register of interests—information that is publicly available—so that our constituents, whom we represent, know exactly what our interests are and so that we can demonstrate that we are not privately influenced by one business, one membership or one donor over work that we do on behalf of our electorates. Trade unions must be compelled to do the same. If the payments they receive from firms are legitimate and do not compromise their members' interests, they have nothing to hide. If the opposition are indeed for workers, as they insist so regularly and earnestly, they should have no concerns or hesitation about supporting this legislation.

We have seen multiple examples of this kind of behaviour by trade unions in recent times. One of the most remarkable examples to me is the instance where the Building Trades Group of Unions Drug & Alcohol Committee, an entity controlled by the CFMEU, received a payment of $100,000 from Thiess-Hochtief during construction of the Epping-Chatswood rail link in Sydney, supposedly for industrial peace. One would think this would be bad enough, but what happened? That $100,000 was invoiced as being for drug and alcohol safety training and siphoned off into the CFMEU's general account. I am sure that we all can see the inherent problems with this, and it is certainly not the only example of these secret payments occurring.

The Heydon Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption found that these payments were commonplace between businesses and trade unions to secure favourable treatment and prevent hostilities. Perhaps they are private kickbacks used for personal gain, such as with former CFMEU official Dave Hanna using free building materials and labour to renovate his home. Perhaps the payments are made in response to threats to boost the union's coffers, such as the NSW CFMEU demanding donations of employers to a rehabilitation fund. Or perhaps the payments are used to—and fancy this—increase an official's own status and power within the Labor Party! It is a wonder that there are not more speakers from those opposite. You would have thought that many would be able to offer us insights from having first-hand experience of these 'corrupting benefits'. Those opposite talk about things like penalty rates for the average employee but support unions who make deals that mean employees of the generally larger businesses get much lower penalty rates than those of small businesses. Those opposite support big business over small business while hypocritically opposing our own tax cuts.

As the Prime Minister said when addressing the House on this bill last week:

The role of union leaders is to put their members first. They are paid by members to represent their interests, which members rightly trust will be the first priority of their union.

This behaviour and these deals are an absolute betrayal of workers' and members' trust. Any honest union leader or business should have no problem with this legislation; after all, it is only targeting unions which are not faithful to their members and which place their own agenda above the needs of the members. The sole motivating factor for union officials should be the welfare of their members, certainly not their house renovations, their political agenda or their status within a political organisation.

Union members pay their union dues to their unions to represent them and it is their right to know exactly what their enterprise agreement entails and what was involved in the negotiation. If any payments were involved in the formation of those agreements, workers have a right to know what and why. They are paying for a service and paying for that service to be conducted without risking the integrity of the agreement being compromised by payments amounting to something close to bribery or extortion. Imagine the response when, having just signed up to a new enterprise agreement, workers should find out that the people that they were counting on—that they were trusting to have their best interests at heart when negotiating the agreement—were receiving payments on the side from the very organisations that were meant to be standing by their side. I ask those in the House at the moment, regardless of their roles prior to being elected to this place, to just imagine themselves in that situation. You would feel the betrayal, the disappointment, the distrust and be wondering what demands were relented upon with the agreement to the payment. You would worry about what aspects were sacrificed in an agreement to line the pockets of trade union officials at the expense of benefits, or which paved the way for cheaper employee pay or conditions.

Let's discuss another example, something a little closer to home. Thiess and John Holland, 'engineering, contracting and service providers to the infrastructure, energy, resources and transport services sectors', were found to have paid the Australian Workers' Union $300,000 plus GST to ensure minimal industrial disruption while EastLink was completed. This payment was disguised in false invoices for 'training', 'back strain research', 'AWU magazine advertisements', 'forum tickets' and 'conference sponsorships', none of which were ever provided and the payments were never disclosed to members of the AWU or to employees.

Now EastLink is one of Melbourne's primary freeways. It is critical to traffic flow and to easing congestion between the eastern and south-eastern suburbs. EastLink finishes—or starts, depending on the way you look at it—at the northern tip of my electorate and connects my constituents and other commuters with the Monash Freeway, the Eastern Freeway, Peninsula Link, Princes Freeway, Burwood Highway and Maroondah Highway, to name a few. This road is a tolled road and is predicted to be for many years to come. One would certainly hope that my constituents have not had to subsidise this secret payment to the AWU.

Some of the worst instances of these secret payments have been used to entice unions to sell out their members to benefit their own interests. What kind of representation is this? These are the people who trust and rely on these officials who have let them down. We need to make sure that corrupt trade union officials cannot betray their members any more.

These kinds of payments have been found in successive royal commissions over the past 30 years. The Heydon Royal Commission recommended banning the practice of secret payments, and that is precisely what this government will do. By making it a criminal offence to give, receive, offer or solicit such payments, the coalition government is demonstrating its commitment to restoring integrity and fairness in the workplace. These secret payments are dubious at best and criminal at worst. It is especially concerning when members are not being told what their union is doing or not doing on their behalf.

This legislation is in defence of workers—ordinary people who rely on their union to represent them and advocate for their interests. Criminal penalties for making, receiving, offering and requesting secret payments will apply equally to both the employer and to the trade union, ensuring that to do so is in no-one's interest. Penalties for secret, illegitimate payments will include up to two years in prison or $90,000 for an individual or $450,000 for companies. Penalties for payments with the intent to corrupt will include up to 10 years in prison or $900,000 for an individual or $4.5 million for companies. These figures are significant enough that they should deter even the wealthiest of employers and unions from doing the wrong thing by their members and employees.

Over the past few decades, millions of dollars have flown freely into the coffers of unions with absolutely no extra assistance or support for members being forthcoming. Whatever the purpose of the payments—be they for personal advantage, professional advancement, political advocacy or other—members are paying a fee for which they should rightly expect advocacy and nothing but advocacy for their workers' rights by their union. Same as any other service provider—a bank, a referral service—consumers should always be told if people or an organisation receive a commission for advocating on their behalf. If an outcome has been compromised, members should know about it. If their trade union has stopped short of the best outcome, members should know about it.

This legislation has the hallmark of the coalition government taking action on this matter. We are a government that strive to protect the individual and to ensure transparency in trade union activity. With the passage of this bill, even legitimate payments will be made known to members and employees prior to enterprise agreements being voted on. It is their right to know.

There have been a number of high-profile bills that are part of a broader view to reform relations in the workplace to be respectful, transparent and fair to workers, union members and employees alike. This is one of them. Banning secret and corrupting payments from businesses to unions, and requiring disclosure of any legitimate payments and financial benefits will restore integrity to the workplace. This is why this bill should be supported by the Leader of the Opposition, those opposite and everyone in parliament. I welcome their support for this important reform to outlaw corrupting benefits. (Time expired)