Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'd also like to make a contribution in the debate on the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2019. At the outset, as you've probably noted already, Deputy Speaker Vasta, Labor will oppose this bill. This bill is just another attack on worker representation in this country. As a matter of fact, it's another attack on the very fundamental role that trade unions play.

I would have thought most people in this place would at least acknowledge the fundamental role that unions have played in Australia not simply in Australian workplaces but also in the Australian economy. I'm not sure about those opposite, but, for those of us here who have been around for some time, we would have heard the member for Kennedy, who is probably not well known as a rabid trade union official, speak on this. I recall when he gave a speech about workers' conditions in this country. What he was saying was that, if anyone thought the conditions that we enjoy in the workplaces in Australia did not come from the trade union movement, they had rocks in their head. As I say, he's not known for being a mad lefty! He's certainly nowhere near that. He's not known for being the champion of the trade union movement, but he was certainly a realist when it came to identifying that the benefits that we enjoy in our workplaces have a lot to do with the successful operation of the Australian trade union movement.

This bill by a government which is determined to attack worker representation is an attack on the whole trade union movement itself. Here is a simple test. Just think about it: when was the last time that any of those opposite said anything beneficial about the trade union movement? When do they say anything about mates in construction that go around building sites? No doubt they have a connection with the CFMMEU and other building unions that look after workers who are particularly prone to suicide and that issue. I have heard them mention the AMA once or twice, which, yes, I have to concede is a very powerful union in this country. But in terms of looking after workers in ordinary workplaces, there are not many times that they say anything beneficial about those unions.

I worked for the Australian Workers Union. At one stage, I was the assistant national secretary of that organisation. I recall having discussions with shearers et cetera on those things—as a matter of fact they were members of the old Country Party, which those sitting opposite were once called. One big difference in those days, I suppose, was that we didn't get caught up in the legalities of having to sign and dot everything in order to effect an agreement. In those days, a handshake was really what consummated agreements that were honoured by those representing pastoral industries, for example, as well as other areas.

I understand many things have changed. I'm not sure whether lawyers have got much to answer for in all of that, but I do know things have changed in that regard. But what hasn't changed is the way that those opposite view trade unions. My brother, as you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta, is the head of the Health Services Union and he was recently involved in a very major dispute in New South Wales about the protection of doctors, nurses and patients in public hospitals. There have been recent instances in public hospitals of nurses and doctors being bashed—in Melbourne, one was killed; in Blacktown, someone was shot; others have been stabbed. Here's a trade union that is going out to look after the community. By the way, I don't think the Liberals in New South Wales seem to take the same view about trade unions as the Liberals that sit opposite us in here. In New South Wales there might be the view that they do need to work with the representatives of Labor in those areas to effect a decent outcome, not only for members of the union but also for the community generally.

I note that the bill before us certainly has been amended since its first iteration. The government did take account of many of the issues that had been raised by this side; nevertheless, the changes are not substantive and they continue to place a pretty onerous burden on unions. This onus goes far beyond the recommendations of that highly controversial royal commission that we 'had to have'—the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. In that, Justice Dyson Heydon actually noted these funds that existed. He didn't note them in such a way to discredit their operations. As a matter of fact, he had noted some of the beneficial aspects of these funds that existed.

This bill is a clear indication of the government's priorities when it comes to industrial relations. It hasn't decided to do something to address stagnant wage growth, wage theft or issues of unsafe conditions—whether it be in the transport industry, in the construction industry or anywhere else for that matter—or deal with unfair workplaces—and it's not only those workplaces that belong to Liberal donors; there are other unfair workplaces as well. This bill is simply trying to weaken the existing trade unions within the union movement. They are trying to wrap unions up in so much red tape that it makes it harder for unions to look after workers' interests, fight for better pay and conditions, and fight to ensure better workplaces so that people can go to work and come home safely.

This bill will impose an added burden by placing restrictions in predominantly two areas: worker entitlement funds and the financial management of unions themselves. The bill is not about protecting workers, as those opposite seem to want to claim; it is certainly about attacking what they consider to be their political enemies. Worker entitlement funds are in place for a very important reason—to ensure that workers' entitlements are protected. They provide critical services to workers, such as training, counselling support, suicide prevention, and occupational health and safety on worksites. The bill places limits on when worker entitlement funds can become registered or stay registered, on what sorts of organisations can operate the funds and on the actual make-up of the board of the funds. It is a way of making it so prescriptive and regulated to make sure they can control not only the funds but who can be a trustee and who can run and manage the funds. We are talking about funds which are predominantly union assets.

The bill seeks to shut down worker-run funds by allowing employers to set up and run their own funds. As a corporation, under this arrangement they are quite free to do that. It creates a set of rules for workers and allows for corporations to be free of those restrictions. If this government's rhetoric on corporate equivalence were to be truly believed, wouldn't you think the effort would have been made to have some equivalency when it comes to running such funds? But that goes beyond the scope of this particular bill. The bill doesn't exist as a measure to assist in any way with all the matters these funds were originally created to address—to assist workers on site with occupational health and safety training, suicide prevention or any of the other matters these funds are largely responsible for. That just shows that this is gross hypocrisy. Over the past year or so we have all seen and read many examples of employers ripping off workers—high-profile chains such as 7-Eleven, Domino's Pizza, Michael Hill and no doubt others. Shouldn't we be doing a little bit more to protect those who unions are basically in operation to look after—the workers?

I will let those on the other side in on a bit of a secret. Unions don't exist because they are written into the Constitution. Unions don't exist because parliaments decide that they should exist. Unions exist to fulfil a need, and the need is to look after workers, employees, to give them a chance to collectively bargain, to look at health and safety on worksites and to gain better conditions. The code in all that is that the mob opposite just don't like this notion of collectivism. They don't like the idea that people can band together to have a discussion to determine what is in their best interests. As a matter of fact, they don't trust them to be able to do that.

One thing I know about the trade union movement is the degree of democracy that exists within it. As someone who has worked in the union movement, I know the frustration that exists over the degree of democratic processes that you need to go through and how often you need to go through them. Ultimately, the members of the union, the paid-up members who decide they want to join a union, make the decision as to who it is they want to run their organisation.

Once again, it is almost to the point of hypocrisy that this bill also seeks to give more power to the Registered Organisations Commission—a body that quite frankly was thoroughly discredited in its role over its raids on the AWU. Having represented the AWU in the past but also having represented policing organisations, I understand that there will be times when things will occur and powers will need to be brought to bear, whether people have exceeded their charters or not. But here's an instance where it was very political: the minister's office was tipped off about the raids in advance, allowing them to tip-off the media. By the time the police arrived at the AWU offices in Sydney, they had to basically get through a barricade to execute their warrant because the media was there. The media had placarded the place because those opposite, in display of absolute hypocrisy, through the Registered Organisations Commission and the minister's office, decided to tip-off the media before the police could execute their warrant and their role under the law. That shows you what those guys over there think of the legal process. It shows you that they don't want anything to get in the way of their political agenda. And what was their political agenda at that stage? It was to get Bill Shorten, the member for Maribyrnong, in the lead-up to a federal election. Let's not try and sugar-coat this. They did everything possible to use their influence, not only their legislative influence but their influence over the media, to ensure that they could get a political scalp. As I understand it, even from my discussions with the head of the AWU at that stage, the information that was sought was already in the hands of the Heydon royal commission, if they cared to look. But that wasn't the point. The point was going out and executing those warrants and putting the union on public display.

I happily oppose this legislation. I oppose it for what it stands for—the very hypocritical approach of trying to turn unions into something which they're not. Unions are designed to look after workers, and that's what unions should and must do. (Time expired)

See this speech in context