Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

When the former coalition government led by then Prime Minister John Howard gained control of the Senate at the 2004 election, he took the opportunity to make some dramatic changes to Australia's industrial relations and wage-fixing arrangements. He changed the workplaces of Australia. The former Prime Minister's industrial relations minister, through some of that period of time, of course, was the current member for Warringah, the current Prime Minister. We saw individual statutory agreements, AWAs, and this impacted adversely upon the wages and conditions of working people—in particular, women, people who worked in the retail sector, cleaners, nurses and teachers. There were a whole host of areas where people were vulnerable.

Work Choices was pernicious and punishing, and when we came to power the then newly elected federal Labor government introduced the Fair Work legislation which did away with Work Choices. Now here we go again—only a few months into their new term of government, the new coalition government are attempting to impact the workplaces of Australia adversely yet again. What they are doing here, of course, with the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013, is dumping onerous regulation on registered organisations by forcing them to provide more information than massive, multinational businesses that are operating pursuant to the Corporations Act—and all of this without really any adequate or proper explanation.

The coalition has adopted an approach in relation to industrial relations which shows the difference between us and them. In some countries, the difference between the major political parties may be one of language, or sometimes religion or at other times geography, but in Australia it is industrial relations. Nothing beats more firmly in the breasts of coalition members than the idea that you might do things which have an adverse impact on those representative organisations that represent workers in the workplace—namely, trade unions.

The coalition government owe the Australian people and registered organisations a really satisfactory and reasonable explanation for why they want to regulate organisations and subject them to these new and onerous obligations under this legislation. At the same time the current Minister for Education, I think it was, said words to the effect that the majority of registered organisations do the right thing and in many cases maintain higher standards than those currently required. In fact, I had a look at the Liberal Party policy in relation to this: 'Improving fair work laws'. It is fascinating reading—the Orwellian nature of the language used in that particular document. It impacts in a way that really harms workers and their representatives.

It is not just me and not just the Labor Party who have been concerned about the haste with which the coalition is pushing through this particular legislation. The National Workplace Relations Consultative Council also suggested the bill might be delayed for further consultation. I think it does require further examination. The Labor Party's position is to refer the bill to a Senate committee for proper consideration and examination.

When we introduced the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2012 we acknowledged the fundamentally important role that registered organisations play within our workplace relations system. Notwithstanding that small number of individuals who may cast a shadow over some components of one or more of these organisations, I concur with those opposite when they say that the vast majority of organisations in this country, whether employer organisations or employee organisations, do the right thing. They are largely democratic, highly professional and member focused, otherwise they would not survive.

Labor does not condone corruption in any organisation, including unions. It is unacceptable and those who commit a criminal act should not receive the full force of the criminal law. They should be prosecuted, charged, convicted and punished if they are guilty of those crimes.

In fact, it was the former federal Labor government, in 2012, that increased the penalties for misconduct and made unions and employer groups more accountable following the HSU allegations. As a result of the changes made by the former federal government, the regulation of trade unions in this country has never been stronger and the accountability has never been higher. The powers of the Fair Work Commission to investigate and prosecute for breaches has never been broader, with triple penalties, which means that they have never been tougher. It was the former federal Labor government that forced the HSU into administration.

When the former federal Labor government introduced its bill last year it was overwhelmingly supported by industry. In fact, many of those were involved in the consultations forming the legislation. Still others made submissions in relation to the Fair Work Review Panel, which were adopted in whole or in part. The former federal Labor government's bill was supported by industry and others, because it better aligned the fair work legislation with other laws relating to unfair dismissal. It gave Fair Work Australia more power to require applicants to provide additional information on the circumstances surrounding their dismissal. The changes meant that if a lawyer or paid agent does the wrong thing—for example, after they have been given leave to represent a party—cost orders can be made against that particular lawyer or paid agent.

So we have been pretty clear all along about our position in relation to these matters. We have made it plain what we think in terms of workplace relations in this country and we have been the ones who have brought in reform after reform in workplace relations to protect the entitlements of workers. Those opposite have never been supportive of an industrial relations system where the sensible centre is at the forefront of the industrial relations system.

But we know, and so do unions, that economic outcomes are dependent on profitability of organisations. They know that companies, whether they are small, medium or large, require profit, and their workers cannot continue to have good jobs, high wages and secure financial futures unless the organisations they work for in small business, or otherwise, are profitable, well run, well managed and highly professional. Unions themselves often act in this way. Far more often than not they act in a way that is accountable and democratic. The former federal Labor government's Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2012 provided improved financial transparency and disclosure by registered organisations to their members as well.

The rights of union members are not by any stretch of the imagination the same as economic interests held by shareholders in big companies. It is for this reason my belief, and the belief of the Labor Party, is that registered organisations, including trade unions, should not under any circumstances be regulated in exactly the same way as the coalition believes the business community and other for-profit organisations should be. The coalition's Leader of the House informed us that his government consulted with members of the subcommittee of the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council. On that occasion some of the members suggested the bill be delayed.

On this side of the chamber we believe there is no need for this legislation to be rammed through the House of Representatives. We believe there are very real concerns about difficulties envisaged in the future, should this bill be allowed to pass, in terms of enabling and encouraging people to take on official responsibilities in their registered organisations. We do not believe this legislation is necessary. It does, however, seem like the coalition's position in relation to the Australian Building and Construction Commission. It is in their blood and bone, their DNA, to do these types of things. In their policy they talk about an organisation that polices this area. Even the pejorative expression 'polices this area' is simply unnecessary and wrong. What we need in this area is an organisation like Fair Work Australia, which balances the rights of organisations and does not involve a judge-and-jury type situation. Bringing back the ABCC on the left hand and bringing in this new organisation to be a tough cop on the beat, in terms of registered organisations, on the right hand, means that we would have a one-two punch from those opposite to the industrial relations system in this country. It is not in the best interests of workers; it is not in the best interests of industrial relations. It is not the sensible centre.

I will finish on this note: the current Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act already requires officers to disclose their personal interests, to disclose when payments are made to related parties, to exercise care and diligence, to act with good faith and to not improperly use their position for political advantage. Exactly what do those opposite hope to gain by forcing this bill through this chamber today? What is their motivation? It can only be ideological. It is not economic. It is not in the best interest of registered organisations in this country. Once again it shows that the coalition are intent on bringing back a Work Choices like regime in this country. The only thing that they will not do is use the name. But the flavour remains. You can feel it; you can taste; you can touch it. They intend to bring back Work Choices to this country. This is part of the one-two sucker punch that they want to inflict on the workplaces of this country. I oppose it accordingly.

See this speech in context