Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House, in relation to the statement made on 21 May 2012 by Mr Craig Thomson, the then Member for Dobell:

(1) expresses its regret for the statement and its contents, much of which has been proven as false by the findings of the Melbourne Magistrates Court on 18 February 2014 in relation to Mr Thomson; and

(2) apologises to:

(a) those individuals named in the speech against which egregious falsehoods were made; and

(b) the members of the Health Services Union, some of the lowest paid workers in Australia, for the spending by Mr Craig Thomson of $267,721.65 of Union members’ funds on his re-election campaign and further private expenditure not authorised by the Union.

This motion gives us the opportunity to do two things in this House this afternoon. Apart from the opportunity to apologise to the individuals named in the former member for Dobell's statement on 21 May, it gives us the opportunity to, firstly, indicate that privilege should never be used in the way that we say it was used by the former member for Dobell again; secondly, that it will not be used by any member of this House in the future.

Those members of the parliament who have been in the parliament for a lengthy period of time and those new members all know that it is a standing part of this House that telling the truth in the parliament is one of the most pre-eminent responsibilities of any member of parliament, particularly ministers in answering questions at the dispatch box. They are under a strict dictum not to mislead the House; and, if they do mislead the House, particularly deliberately, their tenure as a minister comes to an end.

For the rest of the House, the attachment of parliamentary privilege is a privilege—hence its name. It gives members of parliament the opportunity to make statements in this place which might otherwise—if made outside the House—expose the member to be sued for defamation. It is a particular right of members of parliament which no-one else enjoys in our society, because it is a privilege that needs to be protected and nurtured and only used to ensure that we are protecting the constituents that we seek to represent and to do what is right in this place, and not for any other purpose.

It is the government's contention that the former member for Dobell deliberately appeared in the House and used the parliamentary privilege to defame individuals in the parliament who he knew could not defend themselves, and under parliamentary privilege created a fantastic story, a fantastic alibi, designed to protect and save his own political skin at the expense of the reputations of others. That is why it is a very serious matter. That is why I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition is in the House and clearly intends to speak on the motion, because I am sure that most decent minded members of the Labor Party were just as horrified—and still are—with the statements that the member for Dobell made in this place and just as horrified by the fact that he used them in the way that he did.

I notice also the former Speaker of the House is in the chamber, the member for Chisholm. I remind her of something she said, at the end of the debate on 21 May, at the end of the statement by the former member for Dobell:

I want to thank everyone for their graciousness in listening to the member for Dobell.

It reminded me, when I read that, that we had listened with grace to the member for Dobell. He was not cat-called upon by the members of the opposition at the time; he was listened to in eerie silence in some respects. We gave him that grace, and he returned the favour by misleading the parliament and by defaming individuals who could not defend themselves under parliamentary privilege. For that reason, we take this motion very seriously today.

The Manager of Opposition Business said today in the media: 'Of course we vote for a resolution, because we are deeply, particularly, offended by what happened and in the way union members were cheated of their funds and everything that has been found out in court.' I am grateful that the opposition is supporting this motion; I am very grateful that they are. But I wonder if, by supporting this motion, they are indicating, they are admitting, that they got it wrong for three years while they defended the member for Dobell. They defended the member for Dobell very strongly. The phrase 'running a protection racket for a protection racket' has been bandied about in this place and in the media.

I will use the words of the ministers at the time. On The 7.30 Report, Anthony Albanese, the member for Grayndler and the then Leader of the House, was asked:

Do you have complete confidence in Mr Thomson?'

He answered, 'I do.' On ABC News 24, on 17 August 2011, Craig Emerson, then a cabinet minister, was asked:

So you think Julia Gillard is right to express her full confidence, as she has done in the Parliament, about Mr Thomson?

Mr Emerson replied, 'Yes, I do.' On the same channel, the minister at the time was asked:

Does Craig Thomson have your full confidence?

He said, 'Yes, he does.' The current Leader of the Opposition himself has been asked these questions over a period of time. On 24 August 2011, he was asked on Radio 3AW, by Neil Mitchell:

You've run a union, you understand these things, do you support him?

He replied:

Oh, yeah, I believe him.

He was asked:

… you got complete confidence in him?

He answered, 'Yeah'. That was the then minister, now Leader of the Opposition. Only as recently as 19 February, the Leader of the Opposition was asked at a doorstop in Melbourne:

Will you or the Party apologise for how much you stuck by Craig Thomson given what has happened in the court this week?

The Leader of the Opposition's statement was:

As I said yesterday, no-one is above the law.

But we are still waiting for the statement from the Leader of the Opposition where he does not continue to express full confidence in the member for Dobell but, in fact, apologises for a number of things, including the lies that were told in this place by the former member for Dobell. In particular, we are expecting him to apologise to the thousands of Health Services Union members, the workers, who handed over their hard-earned dollars to their union representatives, secretaries, national secretaries and organisers only to find that money funnelled into what the Melbourne Magistrates' Court has found were fraudulent and illegal purposes.

In particular, $267,000 that was used by the former member for Dobell to fund his election campaign in 2007. To all of us who have been elected to this place—I have been elected eight times—$267,000 is a tremendous amount of money. As most of the marginal seat members in this place would know, pulling together the resources for an election campaign is very difficult. A lot of raffle tickets need to be sold and a lot of lunches need to be attended. On our side of the House, a lot of businesspeople are asked for donations. On the Labor side, of course, they have the union movement to support them.

In this case, where, in 2007, $267,000 of union members' funds was used by the former member for Dobell for his election campaign, the very least the Leader of the Opposition could do would be to pay that money back to the Health Services Union. Until he does pay it back to the Health Services Union the stain will continue to on the Labor Party—they are effectively accepting a benefit from the Health Services Union members. They elected Craig Thomson to this parliament and he served in it on the Labor side for six years—three of those in a hung parliament.

If the Labor Party really wanted to put behind them the last three years, they would pay that money back. If the Leader of the Opposition wanted to show that he was a statesman, not just a union official protecting union officials—that he wanted to rise above his background—he would do that, just as Bob Hawke had to do. Bob Hawke was a union official, and he had to rise above his background to become Prime Minister for the whole country. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to be taken seriously, the thing he could do today that would most demonstrate that, apart from apologising to the Health Services Union workers, would be to announce that the Labor Party would pay back that $267,000—especially when you put it in the context that Labor received $1.2 million from Health Services Union members between 2007 and 2013. This is a mere fraction—I think it is about 22 per cent—of what the government could pay back to the Health Services Union if they wanted to show good faith with the workers.

This is where the Leader of the Opposition's rhetoric needs to start matching his actions. He talks relentlessly about being a friend of the worker, but when he gets the opportunities to act he does not take them. When he gets the opportunity to protect the workers' interests by supporting the Registered Organisations Commission, the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption and the Australian Building and Construction Commission, and the opportunity to pay money back to the Health Services Union workers to demonstrate that he is on their side, he does not take those opportunities. Australians can sniff out insincerity. With this Leader of the Opposition, they can sniff out that he talks a big game but, when he gets the opportunity to deliver, he does not deliver.

In the last few minutes of this contribution, I would like to talk about a couple of the other aspects of the motion. The motion apologises to those people named by the member for Dobell on 21 May 2012. Michael Lawler, Kathy Jackson, Terry Nassios and Marco Bolano were all named in a very negative way by the former member for Dobell. In fact, they were defamed. The current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, was also named and defamed by the former member for Dobell. We do extend our apologies to all those individuals, and I am glad that the opposition intends to extend its apology to all of those individuals, particularly to the now Prime Minister, who, of course, stood up for the Health Services Union throughout those last three years.

The person I particularly want to comment on is Kathy Jackson. Kathy Jackson is a revolutionary, and revolutionaries—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

See—they are already laughing. Come in spinner. Revolutionaries are not always perfect. Revolutionaries sometimes have to cut corners and do things in order to bring about a result. But she will be remembered as a transforming union leader. I note the opposition laughing and mocking Kathy Jackson. I wonder if they will laugh after they hear this quotation. In an interview on radio 2GB on 16 October last year, Kathy Jackson recalled a meeting in 2011 of the HSU council at Darling Harbour, after these matters were publicly aired. She is quoted as saying:

There would have been 900 delegates … I kid you not … This is after I went to the police … (Michael) Williamson got a standing ovation … they played the Rocky theme when he walked in … there were people heckling me and screaming at me and (fellow HSU whistleblower) Marco Bolano … that I was a traitor to the movement … people were calling out ‘Judas’ from the crowd … this went for four hours.

I do not hear you laughing now, Members of the opposition. What this points to is that in the HSU there was a cultural problem, where ripping off money from workers was regarded as the norm. The former leader of the Labor Party Mark Latham indicated that himself. Craig Thomson was not an embarrassment to the Labor Party; he was the gold standard in how to behave. And yet you are laughing today at Kathy Jackson. You should hang your heads in shame. Kathy Jackson is a revolutionary, and Kathy Jackson will be remembered as a lion of the union movement. As was written by Gary Johns, a former Labor member of this House, a former Labor minister, the royal commission:

… may change the nature of union-employer relations; it may change the ability of trade union leaders to remain in positions for years and hand power to a chosen candidate.

Jackson, Athena, toppled two union leaders … In her wisdom, and in deciding to wage war with the HSU, she may well have strangled the union-ALP umbilical (ac)cord.

More strength to her arm. I look forward to hearing the contribution of members of the opposition.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For health workers who were members of the Health Services Union, Craig Thomson's actions are a deep and unforgivable betrayal. For all of us in the Labor Party, Craig Thomson's actions, as outlined by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 18 February this year, are a deep and unforgivable betrayal. These actions were contrary to the fundamental principles of Australia's trade union movement and everything it stands for. These actions were contrary to everything that the Australian Labor Party stands for. I have spoken to people who had the privilege to know Bill Dobell, after whom the seat of Dobell is named. Bill Dobell was a staunch Labor man. He would have been horrified. These actions are a violation of the standards that Australians expect of their parliamentary representatives. But, worse than that, as I said at the opening, Craig Thomson's actions are a betrayal of hardworking Australians whose rights he was duty-bound to protect. There is no question that the members of the Health Services Union suffered as a result of Craig Thomson's actions, and he owes the members of the union and all those involved with the union that he falsely attacked a deep and heartfelt apology. Mr Thomson abused the trust of this place, his constituents, his colleagues and thousands of hardworking Australians in the health services sector.

Today this parliament expresses our regret for the contents of Mr Thomson's speech in this place. I hope that this motion can assist the members of the Health Services Union, who have been let down and betrayed by Mr Thomson. We support this motion without qualification or reservation. We support this motion without equivocation, because we on this side of the parliament take our responsibilities as parliamentarians seriously. It is a privilege to represent Australians in this place. Parliamentary privilege is an important, ancient right that must not be abused. Misleading the House is a grave and serious matter. It is incumbent on all of us who stand in this place to uphold the highest traditions of respect and the highest levels of respect for those that we represent, for those who rely upon this institution, and the highest traditions of respect and the highest levels of respect for each other and for this institution, which is fundamental in the exercise of Australian democracy. Mr Thomson failed this most fundamental test and, in doing so, he failed all of those who placed their trust in him.

Australia's trade unions are overwhelmingly member focused and professional organisations. It is a terrible shame that Craig Thomson's reprehensible behaviour has besmirched the reputation and cast doubt on the motives of a movement that is dedicated to providing safe workplaces; productive, profitable and competitive enterprises; and decent conditions for so many hardworking Australians. No institution in Australia outside of the parliament has done more to lift the standard of living for working people than unions. As a former union representative and as a member of parliament, I have always supported measures that fight corruption. Two years ago, as workplace relations minister, I supported placing the HSU East Branch into administration. That step was extremely serious and unprecedented. The court agreed that the level of dysfunction within the union meant that it should be put into administration. The court did so because the members of some branches of the HSU were victims of a poisonous culture of dysfunction and corruption among their leadership and it needed to stop. Many HSU members do not earn a lot of money, but they pay their union dues. The end of this torrid chapter in the history of the Health Services Union has come.

Just as Labor will always stand up for low-paid workers and competitive businesses and fight for job security, we will always cooperate with the agencies that are responsible for uncovering the truth and fighting corruption. We supported the reference to the Privileges Committee on these matters previously, just as we supported the reference to the Privileges Committee yesterday. I have committed publicly that the Labor Party will cooperate with the royal commission. Two weeks ago I proposed a police task force led by the Australian Federal Police, working with state police agencies, to tackle criminal behaviour and corruption, including in the building and construction industry. Today I welcome the government's new indications of support for our proposal. We are pleased that they are adopting our proposal and will now be allowing our police officers and the Australian Crime Commission to do what they do best: catch and prosecute criminals. We are pleased that, as a result of the work of this task force, those engaging in criminal behaviour, whosoever they may be, will feel the full force of the law. We are pleased that justice will be done.

All of us in the Labor Party have no tolerance for corruption wherever it occurs. It is a profound insult to everything we believe in and everything we stand for. Corruption cannot go unpunished. No-one is above the law, not union representatives, not business people, not politicians. It is a clear message and a strong lesson for all of us. Labor will be supporting this resolution without equivocation, without reservation. We will support this resolution because what happened in May 2012 was in our opinion an abuse of the privilege of parliament.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the leader of the Labor Party, the Leader of the Opposition, for his speech. It was great. Every article of it was great. It was perfect. It missed just one thing: it was two years late. To think we were thought to be somehow naive, to believe a story that was so incredible, a story which had people pulling their hair out and people outside the parliament denying it. I said on the record and I went outside the parliament and said, 'I think this is a load of rubbish.'

In this game, there is a range of things. We are not saints in here, but we are not naive either. You would have to have had the height of naivety to believe the story Mr Thomson gave that someone was impersonating him. He said that somehow, on a remarkable day, someone had broken into his house, found the keys and found his mobile phone, and they were a genius because they had the code to his mobile phone. Then they took his keys and drove his car. They must have been lonely as they drove his car because they wanted to call all his friends. So they called all his friends and then found their way to an establishment in Surry Hills where, after a certain event occurred, they had to pay the bill. The person they paid the bill to said, 'I'd better see your drivers licence.' And guess who was on the drivers licence? A person who looked exactly like Craig Thomson. But they had the art of a calligrapher. Not only did they have the face of Craig Thomson but also they could sign his name. Then this person was full of remorse, full of guilt. So do you know what they did? They drove back to the Central Coast, broke back into the house and put everything back where they found it. That was the story you had to believe.

Do you know what the Labor Party believed this person should be? They believed he should be on the Privileges Committee. You would think a person worth their salt, the Prime Minister at the time, would have said, 'Mr Thomson, I have to have a fireside chat with you—I really do—because you are supposed to represent the people who work in hospitals, who scrub the tiles, who clean up the defecation on sheets, who clean the urinals, who do the jobs nobody else wants to do.'

These people have other things to do with their money. They have children they wish to spend their money on. They have things they would like to do to their house. They might like to go on a holiday but because they believed in the purpose of the union movement they paid their union fees. They paid their fees because they trusted the Labor Party to do the right thing. They trusted this individual to do the right thing.

I am sure there is a whole range of people, predominantly women, who would like to say, 'I want my money back, because I could use that money to fix my children's teeth. I could use that money to go on the holiday I never went on. I could use that money to do so many things in my life because I'm on $660 a week.' They are not on much. But, no, the Labor Party did not stand by those ladies; they stood by Craig Thomson, as incredible as that might seem. Then we had this incredible line: that he had crossed the line. He crossed more lines than a ballroom dancer on a parquetry floor! There was a continual retinue of incredible stories.

After that, we had the miraculous position that Craig Thomson became an Independent and, miraculously, except for maybe on one occasion, he always voted for the Labor Party. Incredible! And now we find out that hundreds of thousands of dollars of bills have been paid by the New South Wales Division of the Labor Party and we find that the person who was on the Privileges Committee for the Labor Party forgot, when he was up for $200,000, to declare them. We can all forget about $200,000. You drop that on the floor of the parliament every Friday night! It is also fascinating that the New South Wales police fraud squad detective superintendent John Watson, sent an email to then General Manager Lee of Fair Work Australia. He said:

I've left messages throughout the day requesting that you contact me.

Mr Watson wanted to discuss Craig Thomson but Fair Work Australia did not want to call him back. They did not want to talk to him. Then we find out that Lee responded:

Neither I nor Fair Work Australia has the power to neither inquire or investigate, nor reach any conclusions about whether a reporting unit or anybody have been contravened by New South Wales criminal law. Accordingly, I regret to advise that I do not consider it would be appropriate for me or for any of my staff to meet with you to discuss Fair Work Australia's investigation into the HSU.

Mr Watson, the policeman, was trying to investigate a crime. On 12 June 2012, it was revealed under freedom of information that Fair Work Australia had also refused to cooperate with the Victorian Fraud and Extortion Squad. The story goes on and it just does not stack up. I was in the Senate when we moved a motion to try to get some transparency on this and the Labor Party and the Greens got together and defeated it. So we could not get transparency. Either you believe that they believed Craig Thomson or you believe that there was something else afoot. I am just not that naive. I think that the time had come. The evidence was there and any person with a gut instinct had it and understood what was going on.

Now we have the final conclusion to this. It was a great speech by the Leader of the Opposition. It was incredible. I agree with every word of it, except it would have been handy to hear it back in 2012. The members of the HSU would have liked to have heard it then. What happens about their money? Instead of paying for Mr Thomson's legal fees, maybe you would like to pay back the fees of the members of the HSU. Of course they will not get your money, because you are not out to protect them; you are out to look after Mr Thomson. Now Mr Thomson has been convicted and I imagine he will go for a plea deal. If anybody thinks that this story has finished then I feel that they are as naive as Craig.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on a very serious issue. As the Leader of the Opposition has said more than once, for us in the Labor Party, Craig Thomson's actions are an unforgivable betrayal. They are contrary to every principle of Australia's trade union movement and everything it stands for, and they are contrary to everything the Australian Labor Party stands for. Of course, like any Australian, the former member for Dobell was entitled to the presumption of innocence. I was disappointed to hear the member for New England's contribution that suggested that any Australian should be prejudged. But, Craig Thomson has had his day in court and he has been found guilty. His actions were wrong and his use of parliamentary privilege was wrong too, and that is why the opposition have twice supported a reference of this matter to the Privileges Committee. It is up to this House now to apologise to the people who were wronged. It is absolutely right that people who are sent here by their constituents are held to the very highest standards. The people who elect us expect us to act with honesty and integrity at all times. If you do not, it is quite right that you suffer the consequences.

We should not forget that the former member for Dobell let down the people who placed their trust in him as their member of parliament, but we should also remember those from whom he has effectively stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars. They are the members of the Health Services Union—hospital cleaners, orderlies, aged-care staff, radiographers and admin and clerical staff. I have heard a number of members opposite talking about the difficult work that these workers do. As health minister, I met many of them and I admired them a great deal. They are the people who keep our hospitals running. They are the same people who are being attacked by state governments around the country slashing hospital budgets and sacking these very workers. These people, hardworking as they are, pay the wages of their union leaders. Union leaders are there to represent them, to win them a better deal in their workplaces. It is 100 per cent wrong that someone whose salary and benefits are paid by union dues would abuse the trust of the members of that union and his colleagues of that union. I believe that every union member and every union leader would feel the same way, and certainly we feel the same way on this side. As well as betraying his HSU members and his constituents, Craig Thomson has betrayed the union movement itself. His actions have provided an excuse for some to attack the union movement as a whole, to suggest that this behaviour is somehow common or acceptable or the norm. It is absolutely not and there is no-one who has been more betrayed by this behaviour than the union movement—the members of the HSU—and Craig Thomson's constituents.

The Labor movement has been so important to the history of workplace relations in Australia. Historically, it has won some of the features of our industrial relations system that I think everybody in this chamber would hold dear—the eight-hour day, sick leave, holiday pay, job security and decent and safe conditions to work in. I hope that all members of parliament would see these things as important and acknowledge the role of the union movement in winning these great battles over time. But you do not have to go so far back into history. You do not have to go back to the struggles of the Hungry Mile to know how important the union movement has been in Australia. More recently, the Australian Services Union has campaigned to win equal pay and fair pay for community service workers across the country, most of whom are women, many of whom are in that same low-pay bracket that members opposite have described for the Health Services Union workers. These are people who work in very difficult circumstances. They work in drug and alcohol rehab. They work with victims of domestic violence. They work with children who are victims of sexual abuse. They work in some of the most difficult and most underpaid jobs in this country. The Australian Services Union was able to win a much deserved pay increase for their workforce because of changes that the previous government made to allow work of equal value to be remunerated equally. The Australian Services Union campaigned with its members and encouraged its members to make submissions to pay cases, and to stand up and speak up on the value of the work that they do every day in our communities. That is a recent and most important win for a union, showing exactly the sort of campaign that unions around Australia are engaged in.

Another very important campaign right at the moment is a similar pay claim for childcare workers. Childcare workers do some of the most important work in our community. They are early educators. They are carers for our children. Before the election, the minister at the table told those childcare workers that the government would support their claim for better pay and conditions. She has betrayed that commitment to childcare workers who do phenomenally important work for Australia's children.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have you read the submission?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you saying you do support the pay claim?

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Madam Speaker; this is a motion about the matters to do with the Health Services Union and the statement that Craig Thomson made to the parliament. I can understand that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has run out of material, given her silence on this matter over the last three or four years, but this has nothing whatsoever to do with the motion before the House. She should be asked to come back to the matter before us.

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Isaacs will withdraw.

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

I withdraw.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In his speech, the Leader of the House went a long way around and the concept of relevance to this motion was accepted to have a very broad brief. He was not interrupted once. The discretion the chair observed during that first speech should appropriately be observed for the remainder of the debate.

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

I have been tolerant in the breadth of material being covered, but the Leader of the House does have a point when asking that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition return to the substance of the motion in that it is a pretty far stretch to say that an application for a raise for childcare workers is relevant to the current debate. Please return to the subject of the motion.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have said very clearly and as the Leader of the Opposition has said very clearly on a number of occasions, we condemn Craig Thomson's actions, but without the union movement victims of asbestos would never have got the justice they deserve. They would have had high-paid lawyers sitting in courtrooms dragging out their cases. These are just a few examples in very recent times of the importance of the union movement.

When we offer our apology to the people Craig Thomson has wronged we say also that under this government 63,000 jobs have been lost since its election and pay and conditions are being attacked. No imputation should be attached to the union movement as a whole through the appalling behaviour of Craig Thomson. With those job losses has come a meticulous and deliberate attack on the pay and conditions of Australian workers. We will not allow the reputation of the whole union movement to be dragged through the mud by one person who has absolutely done the wrong thing. He has done the wrong thing by his members, done the wrong thing by his electorate, done the wrong thing by his colleagues here, done the wrong thing by his family and his community. He has clearly done the wrong thing, but he is not representative of the Labor Party, the labour movement, his constituents or our members.

Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand here in the federal parliament representing the people of Dobell. My electorate is made up of decent, hardworking Australians with strong goals and aspirations. The people of Dobell have much to be proud of. Over the past few years my local community has been the centre of a national scandal—a scandal that has exposed some of the darkest elements of the trade union movement and corrupt trade union officials.

Mr Thomson put Dobell on the national map for all the wrong reasons. He let down the people of Dobell, its families, seniors and businesses. After six years of lack of formal representation in Dobell, the people of Dobell became the forgotten people. He let down some of the lowest paid workers in Australia, members of the Health Services Union, as he spent $267,721 of union members' funds on his election campaign and for other private expenditure. Perhaps most disturbingly he stood before this parliament and defended his name, in the process telling falsehoods that have now been exposed by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court. Most importantly, he showed no regard for the victims of his immoral and illegal behaviour during his time as secretary of the Health Services Union.

The motion before the House seeks to address these wrongs. We acknowledge that not only did Mr Thomson deceive the people of Dobell but he showed complete disregard and contempt for the members of the Health Services Union who were misled by Mr Thomson. The Fair Work Commission found that Mr Thomson spent more than $260,000 on his election to the federal parliament, using the funds to pay for staffing costs and other electoral expenses; made cash withdrawals of more than $100,000 on his Health Services Union credit card; and made claims for more than $73,800 in dining and entertainment expenses. This much has become evident through the findings of the Melbourne Magistrates' Court.

On 18 February 2014 the Melbourne Magistrates' Court found Mr Thomson guilty of fraud and deception relating to the misuse of his union credit card while national secretary of the Health Services Union. This finding was welcomed by members of the Health Services Union, who through no fault of their own found themselves thrust into this scandal. Like the residents of Dobell, members of the Health Services Union spent years listening to Mr Thomson's claims of innocence. He claimed that he had been set up and betrayed by those who were envious of his political career. On 21 May 2012 Mr Thomson stood in this parliament and delivered a speech which is now truly seen for what it was: a betrayal of the members of the Health Services Union and a betrayal of the people of Dobell.

When attempting to excuse the evidence before him Mr Thomson said in this place:

One of the things that I have difficulties in making an explanation about—and I am certainly not going to use parliamentary privilege to lie or change that—is in relation to phones and how records were on my phones.

This is just one of many statements made by Mr Thomson in his address to the parliament that have now been exposed in the findings of the Melbourne Magistrates' Court. That is why we, this parliament, should support this motion and apologise to those impacted by Mr Thomson. It is appropriate that this House apologise to the individuals named during Mr Thomson's statement of 21 May 2012. In speaking about Mr Marco Bolano, Mr Thomson claimed Mr Bolano threatened him by saying:

… he would seek to ruin any political career that I sought and would set me up with a bunch of hookers.

Mr Thomson concocted a grand conspiracy and sought to shift the blame to his colleagues. When members of the Health Services Union spoke out against his actions he went before national media and attacked their character.

While these actions in themselves warrant an apology, it is the membership of the Health Services Union that has truly been betrayed by Mr Thomson, who was in a position where he should have been looking out for and protecting their interests. As I have mentioned, the Health Services Union represent some of the lowest paid workers in Australia, health workers including kitchen staff, porters, cleaners and clerical and security officers who work in the aged-care, community and disability-care sectors—those caring for the most vulnerable members of our community. While the Health Services Union seeks to improve outcomes for health workers across Australia, Mr Thomson took it upon himself to spend $267,721 of funds collected through union membership fees to finance his election campaign. Mr Thomson put his interests ahead of the interests of the union and the interests of the union's membership.

While I have spoken of the members of the Health Services Union, we must not forget the people of Dobell and how they have been impacted by Mr Thomson's actions. Mr Thomson won the 2007 election as the Labor candidate for Dobell. Whilst Mr Thomson should have been grateful to the Health Services Union for promising and delivering him a seat in parliament he showed complete disregard to those who put him there.

Mr Thomson was parachuted into Dobell from Melbourne, with the explicit purpose of contesting the seat of Dobell. Mr Thomson had no understanding of the Central Coast and the aspirations of its hardworking residents. Unfortunately for the people of Dobell, Mr Thomson's role as their local member charged with the responsibility of representing their interests in the federal parliament became a sideshow in the quest to clear his name. Mr Thomson's treatment of his electorate was not lost on the people of Dobell.

I would like to take a moment to share with the parliament some of the reasons why the people of Dobell should feel entitled to an apology for Mr Thomson's actions. I will never forget door-knocking a house in Hamlyn Terrace. The gentlemen who answered the door told me of his disgust in Mr Thomson as his local representative and that, as a Health Services Union member, he would never vote Labor again. In our shopping centres, the disgust of shoppers was clear. They would talk to me desperate for the opportunity to rid Dobell of this misrepresentation and eager to see our region promoted for our achievements. Unfortunately, Mr Thomson didn't have a strong record of local achievements to take to the people of Dobell. The people of Dobell were all too aware of the betrayal by Mr Thomson. The people of Dobell were all too aware of the fact that Mr Thomson's tainted vote was being used to prop up the then government. The people of Dobell were aware that $350,000 of Mr Thomson's legal fees were paid for by the New South Wales branch of the Labor Party while he was a member of the Labor Party.

Mr Thomson was so convinced of his innocence that he had a strong desire to continue as the member for Dobell. In order to do so, he sought to distract the people of Dobell from his record as the secretary of the Health Services Union and his record as the member for Dobell. In his desperate attempt to win votes he sought to deceive the good people of Dobell with his claims that he would stop the potential development of a coal mine. Mr Thomson knew full well that on two occasions his government had refused to have his private member's bill be debated by the parliament. Mr Thomson knew full well that the matter lies in the jurisdiction of the New South Wales state government. Mr Thomson could not promote his record as a local MP; instead, he had to defend his record as secretary of the Health Services Union. And, as he did before this parliament, he stood before the people of Dobell and attempted to distract from the truth.

The reality is that long before the Melbourne Magistrates' Court found Mr Thomson guilty, the people of Dobell had made up their mind. The people of Dobell no longer wanted Mr Thomson to represent them in the federal parliament. This was evidenced during the 2013 federal election. Mr Thomson cut a lonely figure on the ABC's 7.30 as he walked through Tuggerah Westfield shopping centre. The people of Dobell had heard enough and wanted to move on with their lives.

This parliament now has an opportunity to right some of Mr Thomson's wrongs. Although we are unable to pay back the hard-earned money contributed by honest workers of the Health Services Union, we can tell them, loud and clear, that this parliament is on the side of decent, hardworking Australians and not on the side of dodgy union officials. We can apologise to the people of Dobell, who for six years have been dragged through a national scandal on the sordid dealings of corrupt trade union officials. Let us not forget the $267,721 of union fees collected from the honest workers of the Health Services Union that was spent on Mr Thomson's self-interest and on Mr Thomson's election campaign on behalf of the Labor Party.

Senator Abetz was right in saying that this ordeal demonstrates the need for a royal commission into alleged financial irregularities associated with the affairs of trade unions and the establishment of a registered organisations commission to introduce more effective governance for trade unions to help prevent such conduct occurring in the future. I wholeheartedly support the motion before the parliament—for the people of Dobell, the members of the Health Services Union and those misrepresented by Mr Thomson's statement in this parliament. I want to see Dobell prosper. I hope we can put this disgraceful episode in our history behind us and get on with the real task at hand.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I figured so prominently in the contribution from the Leader of the House it is almost like providing a second speech in this debate. I will get to what I think is the appropriate process for dealing with these matters, but I want to deal first with the substance of what is before us. As I made clear in an interview this morning, Labor agrees with every word of the resolution in front of us. Once the resolution was seen and we knew the precise wording of it there was no problem whatsoever in making clear to the Australian people this morning and now in the parliament that we will vote for it.

The actions of Craig Thomson, as they have been found by the court, are indeed a betrayal of everybody who was paying their union fees to the HSU. They are indeed a betrayal of the union movement itself. Speaking as a member of the Labor Party, they are a betrayal of our party. They are actions that represent the exact opposite of what our party is about. And they are also a betrayal of the institution of the House of Representatives.

The House of Representatives carries parliamentary privilege. Parliamentary privilege is something that has extraordinary power and that is extraordinarily important to maintain democratic debate, but it must not be abused. Now that we have the findings of the court, it is clear that information which was presented as fact has been found by a court to be wrong. An apology is therefore being given to those affected by it.

I think it is important that our defence of people who are members of the HSU, our defence of people who are low paid, working in hospitals and research facilities, does not only find itself to be limited to this motion. I think it is important if we are going to speak up for the members of the HSU in this debate that we also speak up for them when state governments are taking their jobs, that we also speak up for them when industrial relations changes are being proposed that are about harming their conditions. I believe it is important that we do not pick and choose, that we only be on the side of HSU members when it might be seen to be politically convenient.

Yesterday, and for some days leading up to it, there was a discussion publicly as to whether the Privileges Committee was the appropriate way to deal with this issue. The Leader of the House in that debate yesterday made this comment:

… but that is a far cry from standing up in the parliament and making statements which are deliberately misleading, which are lies, to the chamber. It is the role of the Privileges Committee to determine whether that was done in a deliberate way and, if so, to recommend to the parliament what sanction might apply to the former member for Dobell.

He later said:

But I will leave the deliberations on those matters to the Privileges Committee. That is their purpose.

And he said later:

… I hope the Privileges Committee will deal with the issue in speed and also in an entirely nonpartisan way, in order to protect the reputation of the parliament.

I agreed with every word that the Leader of the House gave yesterday that I just read out.

I find it odd that at that point in time there was no mention of this motion we are debating. Indeed we had days, leading up, where allegedly there was going to be a 'great political wedge' against the Labor Party as to whether or not we would support a reference to the Privileges Committee—notwithstanding that in the last parliament we had supported a reference to the Privileges Committee. There was no mention of this motion at all. And only when they discovered that it was not a wedge issue did we find that this motion was placed on the Notice Paper.

I think it is important as well to deal directly with issues that were raised in part by the Leader of the House and in a very direct fashion by the member for New England, the Minister for Agriculture. In his contribution the Minister for Agriculture went to some lengths to say, 'Well, why weren't these statements being made two years ago?' Can I make very clear, in response to that, that we make no apology for defending the rule of law. We make no apology, when a matter is before the court, for saying that we will wait for the court to determine the facts. This week has been the first time we have been able to debate this issue after a court has determined the facts. With that in mind, we are willing to debate these issues, as we have yesterday and today.

I should also add, Madam Speaker, that we are consistent in that and do not play politics with that principle. It was the case during the last term that at exactly the same time we were arguing that the member for Dobell's issues should be determined first by a court there was a senator who was herself under charges, and subsequently was found guilty. At no stage did we drag her name through political debate, the way the member for Dobell was dragged through political debate, for one simple reason: we were waiting for the finding to be made by a court. Similarly, the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption currently is investigating matters that are related to the new member for Dobell. We have not been playing the game in this chamber of drawing out conclusions before those issues are dealt with by ICAC or drawing out conclusions before those issues, as they may, find their way into a court.

We have not been a party that will pick and choose when these sorts of principles will apply. The new member for Dobell is a beneficiary of the fact that we are not handling the issues related to her the way the previous opposition handled issues relating to the member for Dobell, in the same way that we—

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

I would interrupt the Manager of Opposition Business, in that what he is attempting to do is to smear another member while sounding pious. I would warn him against that course of action.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Speaker, by saying repeatedly that I am not doing that, and making clear that we will not do that—

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

I would—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not returning to the issue, Madam Speaker.

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

Good.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not returning to the issue—

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why raise it?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because the Speaker has just asked me not to.

Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why did you raise it in the first place?

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

The member will cease interjecting!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our principle here has been one that I believe every member of this parliament should reflect on because it will have a bearing on the nature of debate in this parliament for some time to come. It is appropriate to deal with this issue today because the findings of a court have been made. Those findings mean that we have a decision of a court that says what was presented as fact to this parliament was not true. It was not true in a way that has caused offence to people who were named in that speech and not true in a way that is deeply offensive to the members of the Health Services Union, to the union movement generally and to the Labor Party.

With that in mind, I hope in the first instance that we do not find ourselves with a new motion in a couple of days time as a further attempt to say, 'Maybe we'll find something that Labor won't vote for.' I hope that at this point we can leave the Privileges Committee to deal with the remaining issues related to this matter.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of this motion: that the House expresses its regret at the statement and its contents made on 21 May 2012 by Craig Thomson, the former member for Dobell, much of which has been proven false by the findings of the Melbourne Magistrates Court on 18 February 2014. This motion also provides for the House to apologise to individuals named in the statement against whom falsehoods were made and to members of the Health Services Union for the spending of $267,721.65 by Craig Thomson.

This is an unusual motion. Most would argue that it is entirely Craig Thomson's duty to make an apology for his actions. However, it is fitting that the parliament has the opportunity to make amends for the way in which one disgraceful member of the House used the devices of parliament, in particular parliamentary privilege, to mislead and to slander. In doing so, Craig Thomson undoubtedly damaged the reputation and standing of this House, so it is appropriate that we take time today to recognise the damage and apologise to those Craig Thomson made false allegations against.

There are a number of individuals who bore the brunt of the falsehoods uttered by Craig Thomson in his statement to the House on 21 May 2012 but, in my opinion, none more so than Kathy Jackson. I particularly note the opinion piece in today's Australian by Gary Johns, the former Labor member for Petrie, where he said:

She withstood the pressure of a culture of corruption in the Health Services Union. She deserves the respect and support of the entire labour movement. Instead, many revile her.

Kathy Jackson is a veteran of the union movement. She has been part of the union movement for many years. In a speech she gave in 2012, she acknowledged that and said:

I am not Joan of Arc. I am not a political virgin. I have been an activist in the labor movement all my adult life, played the political game and have the bruises to prove it.

Kathy Jackson was well aware of the likely implications for her in blowing the whistle on Craig Thomson. In that same speech she said:

Things rarely work out well for whistle-blowers and I didn’t enter into my current endeavour in the expectation of arriving at glory days for me. My expectations are a lot more modest. I want to see wrongdoing exposed. I’d like to see my union put in a position of strength and with the confidence of the membership restored, and I’d like to see reforms made to make union leadership more accountable to members and which would protect against possible future financial and political corruption.

It is a sad indictment of the Labor Party and the union movement that funds and supports it that a woman who has shown such courage as to call out corruption when she sees it is treated with such disdain. The vile acts of threat that were made against Kathy Jackson at the time—like the dirt-covered shovel left on the doorstep of her Melbourne home—are really a window into the culture and attitude within parts of the union movement. There is a growing list of incidents that point to thuggery, intimidation, corruption and, recently, links to illegal activities through bikie gangs. The Craig Thomson fraud is but one example, one very good example, why the royal commission into union governance is both appropriate and necessary.

So why has Labor not welcomed the royal commission? Why would members opposite not support a process that will lead to more transparency and accountability? Why did they continue to accept the vote of the former member for Dobell despite the disrepute he had brought to the parliament with his actions? Why did Labor fund the legal costs for Craig Thomson? These are questions that cast a pall over the Labor Party and the opposition leader who, at the time, expressed his support for the then member for Dobell.

The House should note that Craig Thomson remained a member of the Labor Party right up until April 2012, less than a month before he made his statement to the House. He remained a member of the Labor Party in this place in April 2009 after Fair Work Australia commenced an inquiry into the Health Services Union sparked by the action taken by Kathy Jackson in bringing irregularities to light. He remained a Labor member of this place after March 2010 when Fair Work Australia advised that its inquiry had been made an investigation. He remained a Labor member of this House when Fair Work Australia announced its investigation was complete and that 181 contraventions of workplace laws and union rules were found. He remained a Labor member as the ACTU suspended the Health Services Union. It was only shortly afterwards that the then Prime Minister Gillard announced Craig Thomson's intention to sit on the crossbenches. She said he had finally crossed a line but could not explain what that was. He sure had crossed a line, and Labor had preselected him and supported him.

On the day that the guilty verdict was brought down on Craig Thomson, Kathy Jackson warned that the royal commission would have its work cut out. She said:

The minute that I became aware of what was going on and tried to bring it forward, I was stymied at every point by the executive of that union.

We see the same attitude of blocking and trying to cover up what is going on in a number of high-profile unions, and we see the same attitude of not wanting to reveal the extent of the problem in Labor's reluctance to support the royal commission.

I just want to say to Kathy Jackson that I am sincerely sorry for what Craig Thomson put her and her family through. I am sorry that he used parliamentary privilege in such a dreadful way. The public expect that members will come to this place to earnestly argue differing points of view, to express opinions and to inform the parliament about issues relevant to their electorate and their actions. They expect statements made by members will be what they believe to be the honest truth. It is crucial to the integrity of this House that they are. The member that stands in this place and professes innocence is heard by their peers in silence and with an open mind. To question the integrity of a member of parliament is a most serious matter. But to abuse the privilege afforded a member of parliament is an affront to decency of the highest order.

When a court determines that the evidence proves a statement made to the parliament to be utterly false, then the integrity of the parliament is compromised. But we know that Craig Thomson did not just make accusations against unionists. He also made accusations against other people in his statement, including the then opposition leader, now the Prime Minister. That he has been proved wrong in that regard also is very self-evident and the Prime Minister remains a man of integrity and insight for having argued very strongly at the time that Mr Thomson ought to be removed from the service of the parliament due to the weight of allegations against him and the ill-repute it brought to the parliament.

But there is no doubt that the biggest victims of the fraud Craig Thomson committed are the hard-working members of the Health Services Union, some of whom are amongst the lowest-paid workers in this country. These carers, orderlies and cleaners all work hard, and should rightly be proud of the work that they do. They keep our hospitals running, they offer quality care and they provide comfort to the ill. They do not deserve to be linked with corruption, dishonesty and misuse of union fees.

Their union subscriptions should not be used to support the desires of dishonest officials; their union fees should only ever be used to protect them and their rights. To the members of the Health Services Union, I apologise that a member of this House used your funds to campaign for his own re-election and to meet his own desires. It was not appropriate, and it was certainly not appropriate that Craig Thomson then used this parliament to try and mount a case for his defence, when in truth his actions were indefensible.

The Craig Thomson saga was a sad chapter in the life of this House. I support this motion today and in addition I call on all members of this House to further support the royal commission into union governance so that we can ensure that never again can a union official abuse members' funds in this way.