Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to have the opportunity to finish the remarks I was making to the House last week, when we last had this debate on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013, when we interrupted the debate to proceed with question time. At the time, I was reflecting on the fact that, for me, it is quite odd to stand here in this chamber and say that I agree with the Australian Industry Group, in their reflections on this matter, in calling for extra time for this legislation. It is an odd place to be when employers and employees agree that we need more time for this transition to occur. On a day like today, it is another opportunity to remind the House of why it is so important that our registered organisations, whether they be unions or employers' organisations, have the opportunity to exist and to exist in a society where they can have freedom of association.

In the final few minutes that I have allocated in this debate, I would like to finish where I began, and that is by reflecting on the outrageous and laughable remarks that have been made by this government on being 'the friend of hardworking people'. It has been mentioned today already that, in the case of Holden workers, the government has failed to support the industry, to invest to ensure that those jobs are locked in. Twenty-four hours ago we also saw this government demonstrate how much it is the friend of early childhood educators—by axing the fund that would see their wages dramatically increased!

It is clear and obvious that this government is not the friend of workers and is now trying to prevent the organisations that seek to represent them existing in this area without extra burden and extra regulation, and to not allow them to do their duties.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to 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.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill is the wind-up to the government's attack on people's rights at work. First they will come for people's unions and then they will come for people's rights at work. There is a fig leaf covering this legislation. It says that this legislation is supposedly about ensuring some kind of parity between how corporations are treated and how unions are treated. But on the simplest of examination it is clear that that is not the purpose of this bill and that that justification does not hold at all. It is no surprise, though, that the coalition members would start from that point because to them everything is a business and everything ought to be run as a business. There are probably very few members, if any, sitting on the government benches who have worked for a union or even been a member of a union. Thus, it is absolutely no surprise that they do not understand what unions are about and some of the fundamental differences between unions and companies.

Companies are regulated by company law because companies exist to seek to make a profit; they exist to return money to their shareholders. A whole system of law had been generated around that putting obligations on directors of companies to act in the way that is going to generate maximum return for their shareholders. Separately to all of that, when you set up a company you can choose whether you are going to set up a private company or a public company and go and seek capital by listing on the exchange and so on. If you do the latter, a different set of obligations applies to you. ANZ is regulated in a different way to the company that might be set up to run the corner shop or a small business.

Unions are completely different entities. A fundamental principle of a union that guides its internal structure and its purpose is not making money for shareholders but being a democratic organisation that will act in the interests of its members. That is the test that the legislation regulating union should apply. It is legitimate that the laws regulating companies have as an element that directors have to act in such a way as to make a profit. But there is a completely different motivation when it comes to unions.

The Independent Panel on Best Practice for Union Governance, in a way that sums it up succinctly, put it like this:

A number of researchers have questioned the merit of drawing on a ‘corporate model’ of accountability, pointing out that trade unions and companies are very different types of organisations. Their rationales for formation, the purposes they serve, and the nature of their membership are key differences. Union members have a democratic interest in the organisation of a union, rather than a financial or proprietary interest. Unions should be viewed as membership-based mutual interest societies rather than businesses.

The function of unions is not to profit from dealings with the general public. They operate as non-profit organisations. Their potential to harm individuals with whom they have financial dealings is nowhere near as great as that of private or public companies. Unions do not have shareholders with significant financial investments at risk. Shareholders may have large financial exposure to a company by reason of the size of their shareholding; by contrast union members have necessarily invested only their generally fairly modest membership fees.

That should be enough to dispose of the so-called rationale for this bill.

But if you take it a step further you understand the blatant hypocrisy that is driving this bill. Let us assume that the government is serious when it says that unions and companies should be regulated in the same way and think that through for a moment. The legislation that regulates unions requires union rules to provide for the democratic functioning and control of organisations. The people who run them—the equivalent of the CEO; the secretary of a union—have to be selected by election and those elections have to be conducted by the AEC or a similar organisation. And the members of those organisations have rights to come in and depose the people who are running their organisations at will.

If the government is serious when it says that there needs to be one set of laws governing unions and companies, then let us be serious about it. What it is effectively saying is that every mum-and-dad company running a corner shop needs to have a system of election overseen by the AEC. The CEOs of publicly listed company should be elected by the shareholders in an election conducted by the AEC. Is that what the government is going to propose? Of course not, because it is not interested in consistency.

What you also find, if you look at all closely, is that unions at the moment are subject to disclosure of their financial affairs in a way that, I tell you what, if you asked most private companies, 'Are you prepared to disclose your finances in the same way that unions have to', they would run a mile—they would run an absolute mile. If the government were serious about one set of laws applying to both then they would require private companies to be disclosing their real financial records on a regular basis, with a level of oversight that is currently not in place with regard to those private companies. You would be asking every small business, every mum-and-dad company that exists, to open their books and put them up on the internet—because that is effectively what unions have to do at the moment. It is not the case that this government is at all interested in having one set of laws apply across the board.

You understand the hypocrisy even more when you compare the government's approach to unions with that of other organisations. When it comes to charities, the government cannot run fast enough to dismantle legislation overseeing charities and not-for-profits—because for them, apparently, federal legislation that might have some teeth to it is an invasive act into the running of their business; yet, when it comes to unions, apparently they are fair game.

Again, if you want to understand the hypocrisy, have a look at how they treat the building industry. You open up the newspaper to see that the Leighton group of companies has apparently started approaching members of Saddam Hussein's regime to do a deal with them, potentially in breach of Australian law, and there is not a peep from the government about it. Despite the fact that it is apparent that AFP and ASIC have not been talking to each other for a couple of years, there is no interest at all in inquiries or royal commissions into deals with Saddam Hussein's regime. They turn a blind eye to all of that, yet they cannot run fast enough to set up a secret police force to oversee workers in the building industry.

Apparently, it is okay if you just happen to work in the building industry, through no fault of your own, for you to be treated as someone with fewer rights than an accused criminal. The government say it is okay for a secret star chamber to be able to pull you off the street and haul you in for questioning, and when you are released you cannot even tell your husband or your wife or your family where you have been, because that would be in breach of the legislation. So, apparently, when it comes to the building industry, it is okay to attack unions but they will turn a blind eye to mates in the boardroom who are accused of incredibly serious offences.

This government, which comes in and tells us it cares so much about individual freedoms, is the first one to say, 'Yes, everyone deserves equal rights, which is why we are bringing in this bill—to treat people in different areas equally.' But that is not the case if you are a building worker, it is not the case if you are a refugee, it is not the case if you are someone who wants to marry the person you love and they happen to be of the same gender. This government uses principles of equality of treatment, and uses individual liberties, selectively and turns a blind eye to abuses whenever it suits.

This bill is a classic example of that, because while they are busy off doing one thing with charities, and while they are busy doing everything they possibly can to give Christmas presents to big business to allow them to flout some of the most basic protections that exist in this country, they are turning the blowtorch on workers and their unions.

With this legislation apparently red tape is bad when it applies to charities but it is okay to tie unions up in red tape—and that is exactly what this legislation would do. This legislation is about saying there will be enforceable oversight over registered organisations that does not exist with respect to companies, that does not exist in other sectors—'But we will make you jump through hoops that the Pty limited company would quail at.' We do not have liberalism coming from the Liberal Party; we have reaction masquerading as liberalism. Apparently the state needs to get out of the way everywhere, except when it comes to unions, where it is okay to pass laws that are invasive, that regulate the internal affairs of people who have come together to protect their own interests, and to apply the kinds of penalties and heavy-handedness to them that is not being applied elsewhere.

For those reasons I will not be supporting this bill.

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Isaacs I would like to congratulate him on receiving the prestigious Button Award this evening and the citation that went before that. Furthermore, I would like to congratulate former member the Hon. Judi Moylan and current member the Hon. Melissa Parkes for their receiving the Missen Award. Congratulations, the member for Isaacs.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for those congratulations. The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2013 is one that the government has brought forward in pursuit not of some real, identified social problem that needs to be addressed, but rather of an ideological agenda. It is legislation that has been produced in a great hurry. That is why the position the Australian Labor Party is taking in relation to this bill is that it should be far more carefully considered and should be referred to a Senate committee for proper examination.

It is absolutely incumbent on the government to demonstrate its case by pointing to evidence. We need to have evidence based legislation in this place. We need to have evidence based measures. It is incumbent on the present government to explain why the current system is not working, beyond raising some allegations about matters which are presently before the courts and beyond raising matters which are already being investigated by the Fair Work Commission. Again, as with other legislation that has been brought forward in a rush before this parliament by this government, it is seemingly forgotten that we as a government brought forward the Fair Work legislation in 2009, which was substantially amended in 2012 in the very area that this bill deals with. A minister bringing legislation such as this before the parliament has a duty to explain why it is that at the end of 2013 it is necessary to come forward with very substantial additional obligations on registered organisations—obligations that ignore the nature of those organisation and that are not justified in any way.

I would say right at the outset that it ought to be clear that the Australian Labor Party has absolutely no tolerance for corruption by union officials—no more than we as a party have tolerance for corruption of any officer in any body, or indeed any citizen. We support tough penalties for those who break the criminal law, and we support appropriate regulation for registered organisations. It is of course the case that one needs to have some form of regulation in order for these organisations to exist, just as it is necessary to have some form of regulation for companies—which are artificial bodies that need to be brought into existence by a legislative scheme. And that should carry with it—for companies, for charities and for registered organisations, like employer organisations and unions—appropriate regulators and appropriate consequences for those who do not follow the rules.

Again, it was the Australian Labor Party that brought forward increased penalties for misconduct, which made unions and employer groups more accountable in the wake of the allegations that were made about the Health Services Union. We strengthened laws that were enacted by the present Prime Minister when he was minister for workplace relations. The Labor government toughened the laws that the present Prime Minister himself brought in while in government. The result of the legislation last year is that the regulation of trade unions in Australia has never been stronger, the accountability has never been higher, and the powers of the Fair Work Commission to investigate and prosecute for breaches have never been broader. It should not be forgotten that the Labor government tripled penalties, which means that penalties for breaches of the legislative scheme have never been tougher. And let us not forget that it was the Labor government that forced the Health Services Union into administration. We simply do not think the government has made out a case for the very considerable additional regulation—more red tape, if you like—that is being brought to bear on registered organisations.

Right at the heart of this is that there is a very great difference between for-profit corporations, charities—another form of regulated organisation—and unions and employer organisations, the latter two being the type of organisations that are regulated by the legislation that is being amended by this bill. The simplistic comparison that is being drawn over and over again by the new government and by members of the new government while they were in opposition—that the same type of penalties, the same form of disclosure obligation, and the same form of regulation of the conduct of boards and of executives of these types of organisations should be brought to bear as if they were for-profit corporations, which is what this legislation is based on—is wrong. That is right at the heart of our opposition to this legislation: it is not the case, and no amount of assertion in the absence of evidence, and no amount of assertion in the absence of some reasoning, is going to make good that proposition that, put simplistically, unions ought to be regulated in the same way as listed corporations. There is no reason unions should be regulated in the same way as listed corporations, any more than there is a reason that employer organisations ought to be regulated in the same way as listed corporations. Unions and employer organisations are very different creatures from for-profit corporations. Boards of for-profit corporations owe a duty to their shareholders. They owe a duty to pursue profit. They owe a duty to make decisions that are in the best interests, which will almost always mean profit in a monetary sense for their shareholders.

By contrast, officials of unions and officials of employer organisations are under no such obligation. They exist for the benefit of their members in a non-profit sense. They are not established to make a profit; they are not established with anything like a primary aim of raising money. They are mutual-benefit organisations that exist to further the interests of the members of those organisations. So, the Australian Industry Group, representing, as it does, many thousands of employers across the country, has as its interest not the pursuit of profit—it is a not-for-profit organisation—but, rather, pursuing different regulation, different government policy, and different conditions for the interests of its members. The reason I mention the Australian Industry Group is that it needs to be borne in mind that this is not simply a bill that would deal with trade unions; it is a bill that deals with employer organisations. And the Australian Industry Group, in its submission to the inquiry about this bill by the Senate Standing Committee on Education and Employment, reveals that, like many other submitters, it has a great deal of unease about this bill.

In particular, I would commend to all the submission that the Australian Industry Group made on this bill. The Australian Industry Group set out a number of differences between registered organisations that are regulated by this legislation and corporations. They make the simple point that the Australian Industry Group is a not-for-profit organisation which has 78 elected councillors who are unpaid and working in their own time. By contrast, a major company is likely to have seven to nine directors who will almost certainly be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for their services.

The Ai Group also noted in their submission that a number of the requirements of this bill are, in fact, more onerous than those in the Corporations Act. So we do not even have the new government keeping to their own rhetoric about the need to have the same obligations imposed on registered organisations, trade unions and employer organisations as are imposed on corporations. In fact, they have gone considerably further. For example, the Ai Group points to the requirement to disclose all material interests, not only those which raised the possibility of a conflict of interest. This, they say, is objectionable, as is the need for disclosure to all members rather than just the committee. They point to the requirements for disclosure of related party payments as completely unworkable, as in this bill they do not have the limitations that are set out in the Corporations Act, including, for example, disclosure only of those payments that are above a threshold, which is what makes those provisions in the Corporations Act workable.

They also make the obvious additional point that a governing body of 78 councillors was bound to have a huge number of related parties and that this would create a huge administrative task. It is a very lengthy submission so I am not going to keep illustrating from it. But perhaps a last point to select from the many points that the Australian Industry Group makes is that it regards many of the proposed civil penalties as massive and unwarranted, noting—as I have already noted—that the penalties were already tripled in the 2012 amendments brought forward by our government. In many cases what is proposed in this bill would mean that the penalties would be increased by a further two-thirds and in some cases even more. I make the point again that the penalties incorporated in this bill are higher than those in the Corporations Act.

The Australian Industry Group is expressing deep unease and concern. So too are many of the other employer groups, and the trade unions are also very concerned. I will quote from the submission of the Australian Council of Trade Unions to the Senate committee inquiry:

The Bill is poorly conceived, badly motivated, and entirely unnecessary.

It went on to say:

It is a transparently political Bill in an area where there is no extant public policy problem.

It is simply not good enough for the new government to blindly pursue an ideological agenda without reference to some actual societal problem, without reference to some actual concern or some actual wrongdoing that is occurring that requires this drastic increase in the level of regulation. The irony, and it is a fairly bitter irony, is that this bill is being brought forward by a government which has come to office boasting—braying—about what it is going to do to reduce regulation and red tape in the Australian community.

Here we have additional regulation, and very substantial additional regulation at that. Indeed, it is possible to point to a number of other examples in bills being brought before this House, and I have in mind the Building and Construction Commission legislation which is before the House. The Registered Organisations Act already prohibits members' money being used to favour political candidates, or particular candidates in internal elections or campaigns. The Registered Organisations Act has provisions which already allow for criminal proceedings to be initiated where funds are stolen or are obtained by fraud. The Registered Organisations Act already has provisions which ensure that the Fair Work Commission can share information with the police as appropriate. Finally, the Registered Organisations Act already has provisions which provide for statutory civil penalties where parties knowingly or recklessly contravene an order or direction made by the Federal Court or the Fair Work Commission under the Registered Organisations Act or the Fair Work Act.

Of course, under the Fair Work Act itself we have a range of provisions which impose fiduciary duties on officers of registered organisations akin to the duties that are imposed upon directors under the Corporations Law. The Registered Organisations Act already requires officers to disclose their personal interests. It already requires officers to disclose when payments are made to related parties, and it already requires officers to exercise care and diligence, act in good faith and to not improperly use their position for political advantage. The government has simply not made out a case for these substantial amendments and I would urge the government to let this bill go to a Senate committee before it proceeds further.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, I have an intervention under 66(a). Would the honourable member explain for 30 seconds why, if the regulatory regime is sufficient, it took longer than the Great War to prosecute the case against Mr Thomson?

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member prepared to take the question?

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

No. That brings me to my next point, about independence and accountability. In recent weeks, the coalition government have demonstrated their unflappable commitment to independent advice, by scrapping 20 advisory bodies! Yes, this government have certainly shown the world how much they value independent and informed advice. Given this complete lack of commitment to independence, why are the government seeking to establish an 'independent authority' like the registered organisations commissioner? Well, under the current bill before the House, the commissioner is to be appointed by the minister. But never fear, because, under the 2013 coalition policy, we are assured of the commissioner's independence. It reads:

The first head of the Registered Organisations Commission will be appointed by the Minister but will not be subject to Ministerial direction.

That sounds reassuring, except, of course, that under proposed section 329FA, we find that the minister is in fact allowed to give direction to the commissioner, but only if it is written. So, first we were assured the commissioner would be completely independent, and then we were told the minister would actually play a role in the commissioner's appointment and, in direct contradiction to the government's own policy document, would be given direction.

What next? It is yet another broken promise from an already broken government. It is also a particularly curious situation when, for all their rhetoric about government intervention and the nanny state, those who sit opposite are pushing this kind of agenda. It is even more curious, given their self-purported hatred of regulatory burden and red tape, that they are also advocating for a system that can only add to an organisation's administration. This was just one of many concerns raised by affected parties.

The Australian Community Services Employers Association, for example, has raised the massive regulatory burden the bill would impose, particularly for small organisations.