House debates
Thursday, 10 August 2017
Questions without Notice
Trade Unions
2:07 pm
Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is also to the Prime Minister: Will the Prime Minister advise the House on how the government's corruption benefits legislation will improve transparency and outlaw secret payments to the detriment of workers?
Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Heydon royal commission revealed what many knew—that there had been a long history, over many decades, of secret payments made by employers to trade unions in order to secure benefits for those employers. Those benefits, which Justice Heydon described as corrupting benefits, were a major feature of his report, and his recommendation was that any benefit paid by an employer to a union or a union official which was not for a thoroughly legitimate purpose for services rendered should be unlawful. The law now passed by the Senate has done that. But, equally, any payments paid between an employer and a union, even if for a legitimate purpose, should be disclosed.
We have seen dozens of examples of unions, particularly the AWU, receiving payments at a time when there was an enterprise agreement being negotiated.
Mr Dreyfus interjecting—
Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What about Cleanevent? What about that great achievement of advocacy on the part of the Leader of the Opposition's union, where workers who were entitled to $50 for per hour overtime ended up with a deal at $18 but the union ended up with $75,000 completely undisclosed?
What about the $32,000 contribution to the Leader of the Opposition's campaign, which he forgot to disclose for quite some years—whoops!—and that came from Unibuilt, an employer whose members were members of the Australian Workers' Union?
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The reality is the law was not fit for purpose.
Ms Plibersek interjecting—
Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The reforms that have been introduced put transparency above secrecy and put integrity above corruption. Labor opposed all of these reforms. They stood in the Senate and defended corruption against integrity. They defended secrecy against transparency.
It is patently obvious that, if you are a trade union or a trade union official and you are dealing with an employer, as you do all the time, you should not be taking benefits from that employer and in particular you should not be taking benefits that are not fully disclosed, particularly at the time of negotiations.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
This is a long overdue correction of a major flaw in the law.
Mr Perrett interjecting—
It is to the Labor Party's internal shame that they did not support it.
Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The member for Moreton is warned! I remind members that, during question time, where there are issues that are quite divisive in the chamber, members expect me to be able to listen so that I can conduct question time properly. The member for Moreton bellowing through the Prime Minister's answer does not assist in that regard at all, and that goes for other interjections as well. A number of people have been warned. I will have no hesitation in ejecting them. I am trying to listen to the questions and answers carefully. If members object to something that is said in either a question or an answer, they can't complain if I have not heard it properly. The member for Sydney has the call.