Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I find the previous speaker's contribution to this debate on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014really incredible. He finished by saying that the government is keeping its promises. Each and every day in this House we hear how the government is breaking its promises. Before the last election it promised that there would be no cuts to health and education. Over $80 billion has been taken out of health and education. It promised that pensioners would not have their pensions cut. Legislation that will lead to a direct reduction in the rates of pensions has passed through this House. It promised that there would be no cuts to the ABC. There have been cuts to the ABC. So for the member for Tangney to stand up in this place and say, 'This government is keeping its promises,' shows just how much we can trust members on the other side of this House.

The member for Tangney spent a lot of time talking about individual liberty, about the right of people to make decisions of their own—basically, about how it was liberating for people to be able to do as they wish. He talked ad nauseam about personal liberty and at the same time was very critical of any form of what I would call mutual obligation. According to him, the power of choice is tantamount to everything; it is about an individuals right, about liberty. The member for Tangney would be quite happy to see the liberty of one group transcend the rights of another group. He is very much of the view that unions should have a zero membership—and those words passed through his mouth when he was speaking of this. He referred to unions as 'heavy-handed'. He referred to 'a mature handling of industrial relations'—I think a mature handling of industrial relations as far as the member for Tangney is concerned would be to have an industrial relations system where there were no unions whatsoever.

When I was sitting down preparing this speech, I really struggled to understand this government's approach to unions and to workers. I feel that it has adopted a position where it will not rest until unions do not exist. To hear the member for Tangney's contribution, I really believe that that is the situation. There is an ideological hatred of unions, and I ask: why? The member for Tangney pointed out that he wanted to bring fairness to the debate. Well, I think unions bring fairness to the equation. Any study of history will show that unions have actually brought fairness to the equation—unions provide protection for workers, just as employer groups provide a voice for employers. I will put on the record now that I appreciate what employers do in our community. I went to a small business awards ceremony in my electorate on Saturday night, and I was so proud of each and every one of those small-business people who were there and of the enormous contributions that they have made to my local area—just as I am really proud of the way unions stand up for workers, the way unions move to create some fairness in the equation, and the way unions protect workers. There is an imbalance of power, if you have a very strong employer group and a very weak union group. The idea is to have a balance.

When I hear members, like the member for Tangney—putting forward his extreme, right-wing, harsh, uncaring, unbalanced contribution to this debate—I can see why this legislation is before us in the House. I do not think that all members on the other side of this House could possibly share the extreme views that were expressed a moment ago. I do not see how people could accept a situation where personal liberty—the right to choose whatever you wish to do, over anything else—is paramount. I am sure there are members on the other side of the House who can see that there is a strong role for unions, just as there is for employers—because workers deserve protection. It is about balance and it is about fairness.

I look at this legislation before us today, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014, and I ask, how is it fair to impose on unions requirements and penalties that are more onerous than those in the Corporations Act? And for once, we have a unity ticket here between employer groups and union groups—both of those groups believe this legislation is flawed. The government is reintroducing legislation that came before this House in November. We did not support it then, and we certainly won't be supporting it this time. Even with the proposed amendments, employer and employee organisations still have significant concerns about the bill. As I said, employers and unions are on a unity ticket. Even with the proposed amendments, the penalties in this bill still exceed the penalties in the Corporations Act 2001. The government promised to regulate registered organisations in the same way as corporations—well, it certainly is not doing that in this legislation. If this bill is passed, the legislation implemented will place much harsher requirements on registered organisations. This is just another broken promise, by a government that comes in each day and breaks promises. The Australian people know that. And the Australian people are very suspicious about this kind of legislation. They know that those on the other side of this House—the large majority of them—have an ideological hatred of unions. The Australian people know that those opposite would like a situation where there were no unions; where workers were at the mercy of employers. But to have a good industrial relations system, you need balance; you need a system where you have strong employers and strong employee organisations—strong unions.

Now a bit of history: this bill has come through the Senate. The committee tabled its report in December 2013, and on 27 March this year the senate committee's report was actually tabled. That report did not support the legislation, and in March the amendments recommended by the Senate legislative committee were put in the Senate, and the bill was negated.

As I have already mentioned, the bill also modifies disclosure requirements, making them more onerous. It includes higher penalties for civil contraventions, and it introduces criminal offences, in respect of officers' duties, which are modelled on, but also exceed, those found in the Corporations Act.

Registered organisations—and this is where we come from—play a fundamental role in the Australian workplace relations system. The organisations are created and registered for the purpose of representing Australian employers and employees, giving them a voice—that is what it is about. Unfortunately, this bill seeks to take that voice away from them. Registered organisations represent members before industrial relations tribunals and courts. On a regular basis I have people come to my office who need that sort of assistance and are in a position where, even if they seek to exercise their individual rights and freedom, they do not have the ability or the knowledge to be able to do that without the assistance of their unions. Therein lies the answer to the question. Many of those on the other side do not believe that the people who find themselves in that situation should have a voice.

While we have problems with this legislation, we have absolutely no tolerance for corruption by union officials or officers in employer bodies, just as we have no sympathy for any corruption within corporations. We support tough penalties for breaking the law. I would argue that those tough penalties are already available. We support appropriate regulation for registered organisations, including a properly empowered regulator. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was minister, toughened the laws to include financial transparency and disclosure by registered organisations. As a result, the regulations for trade unions in Australia have never been stronger. Listening to those on the other side of this House, you would think that the regulations are weak and that the country is controlled by trade unions. Australia has one of the lowest levels of industrial disputes in the world. Accountability has never been higher. The power of the Fair Work Commission to investigate and prosecute for breaches has never been broader. We tripled the penalties, which means that they have never been tougher. But this government thinks that—even given those facts—the regulations should be tougher. The government wants to take away all power from the trade unions. It wants to create a situation where workers have no voice or ability to protect themselves. The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 already prohibits members' money being used to favour particular candidates in internal elections. It already allows for criminal proceedings to be initiated. It already ensures that the Fair Work Commission shares information with police. The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act already provides statutory civil penalties.

Under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act, registered organisations have a fiduciary duty akin to directors of corporations. It requires them to disclose their personal interests. A friend of mine told me about the level of disclosure he has to make in relation to his own personal interests—which includes disclosing payments made to relative parties and exercising care and diligence.

It is a really unusual situation when you have industry bodies and unions lining up on a unity ticket against the proposition. There is something very wrong with legislation that creates that situation. The opposition sought to engage with the government to ensure that the penalties did not exceed those in the Corporations Act, but the government was not willing. There are a number of issues, not the least of which is that this bill does not cover and regulate a range of entities and bodies, which are those that have been seen in New South Wales—bodies that have come before ICAC and that have put the honesty and integrity of organisations in that state into question.

This is flawed legislation. This is legislation that should not be passed. It is ill conceived and is another example of this government's broken promises saying one thing before the election and another thing after the election.

See this speech in context