Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak against the amendment to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 currently before the House. As has been previously suggested by my colleagues, the proposed legislation is dangerous. It is dangerous because of its ambiguity. It is dangerous because of its far-reaching implications and it is dangerous because the government is determined to push this through without adequate consultation or examination. But worse than that, it is unnecessary.

Let's look at the current legislation. As it currently exists, the act we now have outlines the standards to be met by registered organisations in relation to their internal rules, their elections, the conduct of office holders and their financial reporting. It also provides the Fair Work Commission with the power to register, investigate and hold accountable these organisations. It does this because the previous Labor government introduced this framework back in 2009. It was amended to make it stronger only last year. The amendment strengthened financial accountability requirements and provided for salary disclosure of top officials and disclosure of financial interests of officials. It introduced mandatory training to ensure that representatives of registered organisations were meeting their governance and accounting obligations. It created tougher penalties for breaches of the act, and the investigatory powers of the Fair Work Commission were strengthened. The 2009 and 2012 act created a fair and workable balance.

Again, all this happened under a Labor government. So, as a result of our reforms, the regulation of registered organisations has never been stronger, penalties for misconduct have never been tougher, accountability has never been greater, and the powers of the Fair Work Commission to investigate and prosecute any breaches have never been wider. Stronger, tougher, greater and wider—this act as it stands is industrial relations for the Olympics.

We did these things because they were necessary, but those opposite are hell-bent on flexing their muscles and trying to prove to the world that they are the toughest—not like the grown-ups they purport to be, but like bullies. This was evident in their rhetoric when the legislation was strengthened by the previous government. On 21 June 2012, the member for Bradfield said in the House that the legislation was:

… nothing but a minor piece of window-dressing produced by the minister and the government in a desperate attempt to try and divert and distract media and public scrutiny from the sorry state of governance in the union movement.

'Divert and distract'—if we want to talk about attempts to divert and distract, I am not sure you could find a finer example than this government. 'Look over there' has become quite the strategy for them, hasn’t it? We see it with their education policy, with their climate change policy and with their economic policy.

We saw it again only yesterday. In her intrepid foray into industrial relations, the Assistant Minister for Education was here, in a state of hysteria, using coalition catchphrases like 'slush funds' and 'union mates', instead of talking about how the government had broken yet another promise, this time on child care. And they are at it again today, making statements that do not stand up to scrutiny. For instance, they talk about how this is not an attack on trade unions and then, in the same breath, they go off on a diatribe—an absolute tirade—about how dreadful our unions supposedly are. The member for Ryan made mention of unions 25 times in her speech—25 times—and yet they claim that somehow this is not about unionism. Then, they want to talk about how necessary this legislation is. But, as the Leader of the House said in his second reading speech:

… the majority of registered organisations do the right thing and in many cases maintain higher standards than those that are currently required.

See what I mean, Deputy Speaker? Is it about unions? Is it not? Is it a necessary change, or are organisations already meeting their obligations? It does not quite add up. They do this because they do not want to talk about what is really happening here, they do not want to talk about why they really believe this legislation is so necessary and they certainly do not want to talk about why they are in such a hurry to get it passed. Like any other conjurer, they are relying on tricks and misdirection.

So let's try and see through the illusion. Let's take a step back—let's look at the current legislation as it stands. I previously mentioned the current powers afforded to the Fair Work Commission. And, as we have heard today, the government say it is not enough, that more needs to be done to make the regulation of registered organisations more like corporations. But, as it stands, the regulation of registered organisations—particularly after our 2012 amendments—is already fairly similar to the existing regulation of corporations. Sections 180 to 183 of the Corporations Act require that officers exercise appropriate care and diligence, that they operate in good faith, and that they do not abuse their position or misuse information. These sections are comparable to sections 285 to 288 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act in its existing form. In fact, in terms of the requirements for financial reporting, the current civil penalties are higher for registered organisations. The main difference is the existing provision for criminal penalties under the Corporations Act.

Under the proposed legislation before the House, the government have included new criminal penalties which would apply when an officer fails to comply with the registered organisation commission's new investigative powers. Some of these offences are punishable by a financial penalty of up to $340,000, five years imprisonment, or both. By implementing such legislation, the government have clearly forgotten that we have criminal laws to prosecute offences relating to fraud or dishonesty—that we already have a judicial system which independently assesses guilt and innocence. It is simply not necessary for the government to try and superimpose these laws on a system that is already working.

That brings me to my next point.

See this speech in context