Senate debates

Thursday, 23 March 2017

Questions without Notice

Trade Unions

2:34 pm

Photo of Jonathon DuniamJonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Is the minister aware of any secret payments between big business and unions, which have been hidden from union members?

Photo of Michaelia CashMichaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | | Hansard source

Unfortunately, Senator Duniam, yes, I am. Bank statements and other documents tabled during the Heydon royal commission from the Victorian branch of the AWU have, unfortunately, revealed numerous secret payments from big business to the union between 2003 and 2007. Who was the chief negotiator of the AWU at the time? It was none other than the current Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten.

What is worse is that these secret payments were being made at the same time as the union was negotiating enterprise agreements with these companies or shortly after these enterprise agreements were entered into. Guess who signed these enterprise agreements. Guess who signed them. None other than the current Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten. The companies included Clean Event, Chiquita Mushrooms, Thiess, John Holland, Winslow Constructors and Unibuild. But wait, unfortunately there is more: bank statements—look at them. Look at these bank statements and what they disclose. Let us turn to one of the examples in these bank statements. From 2004 to 2007, the AWU Victoria branch received 40 payments from Visy companies totalling $191,399.44. The only person who knows what these payments were for, and he has never disclosed it, is none other than Mr Shorten himself.

Senator Cameron interjecting

Senator Seselja interjecting

Photo of Stephen ParryStephen Parry (President) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! Order on my left and on my right. Order, Senator Cameron and Senator Seselja. Senator Duniam, a supplementary question.

2:36 pm

Photo of Jonathon DuniamJonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I thank the minister for her answer. Could the minister further explain why it is important that payments made by businesses during the course of pay negotiations are disclosed to union members?

Photo of Michaelia CashMichaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | | Hansard source

Because, if you truly represent the members of your union, you should have nothing to hide from them. The question, therefore, needs to be asked in relation to the 40 payments from the Visy company to the AWU: why were they made? If they were legitimate, why have they not been disclosed? A legitimate payment is something that is there for all to see. One has to wonder why Mr Shorten has never disclosed the reason that the Visy company made 40 payments to his union of $191,399.44. It is a simple question, colleagues. Why was money given by the company to the union in the course of negotiating enterprise agreements?

Photo of Stephen ParryStephen Parry (President) Share this | | Hansard source

Senator Duniam on a further supplementary question.

Honourable senators interjecting

Order on both sides! I need to hear the question.

2:38 pm

Photo of Jonathon DuniamJonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Finally, can the minister advise what action the government will take to prevent employers from paying corrupting benefits?

Photo of Michaelia CashMichaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | | Hansard source

One of the criticisms from those opposite is that this legislation is going to target unions. That is completely, totally and utterly wrong. As Commissioner Heydon said in the royal commission: 'Corrupt receipt implies corrupt payment.' So the legislation that we will introduce is going to ensure that both the giving of the payment by the employer and the receipt by the union are criminalised. Again, unless they are legitimate payments—and legitimacy is something that one would assume requires disclosure and transparency—these payments should not be taking place. What we will do is criminalise those payments because, if you cannot tell the employees of the company, the members of the union, what these payments are for, then they should not be made.

Senator Cameron interjecting

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting

Photo of Stephen ParryStephen Parry (President) Share this | | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald and Senator Cameron! I suggest that Senator Macdonald and Senator Cameron go to the lobby to discuss this further.