Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are 1.8 million union members in this country—the largest social movement in Australia. Every one of those 1.8 million people belong to a movement that can claim a large share of the credit for building modern Australia. Whether they belong to a union or not, Australians know and appreciate the benefits of what unions have delivered for them: a generous social safety net; decent conditions at work; the weekend itself and penalty rates for working on it or at other unsociable hours; annual leave and sick pay; Medicare and the foregone wage increases to pay for it; universal superannuation; and, perhaps most importantly, occupational health and safety and workers compensation.

The reform era so often invoked by pale imitators and editorial boors would not have been possible without the foresight, cooperation and sacrifice of the Australian union movement. No group has done more to raise the living standards of working and middle-class Australians. When the World Bank chief economist and Nobel laureate, Joseph Stiglitz, when visiting Australia, was asked why Australians were faring better than their American counterparts, why our society was more equal and why our society was fairer, he replied in one word: unions.

Building a better future for this nation depends upon the active participation of working men and working women and their unions. This is a social and economic reality the Liberal Party have never understood and have always resented. They do not see unions as partners in economic progress. They see them and view them as an obstacle to their true mission: a low-wage, easy-to-hire, easy-to-fire society—a race to the bottom on pay and conditions. And the shabby way they have dealt with this legislation speaks for all of that.

Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, you might remember that the legislation currently before the House is from the Prime Minister's double dissolution. Do you remember that political masterstroke, that agile, innovative move, a compliant new Senate, a thumping new majority—all on the back of this vital legislation? Yet as far as we know it did not get a mention except on day 1 and on night 55 of the election campaign.

Now this legislation has been dragged out of the bottom drawer because this is a government that is so bereft of anything to say, so devoid of any plan for the future of this nation. It is a government full of ministers incapable of answering basic questions. It is a government that last week actually voted to censure itself, calling on itself to demand it explain its own failures. Now, in flailing desperation, the Prime Minister has returned to this tired old attack, diving back down into the old anti-union, anti-worker, anti-fairness agenda the Liberals have always clung to.

The last two days have brought so much deja vu, haven't they? The master of subtlety, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, deploying his usual forensic skills. The Treasurer, yet again, confusing volume with quality. But I have to say I was a bit disappointed in the Leader of the House. He has gone shy on us. I was waiting for him to leap to his feet and deliver another heartfelt hymn of praise to Kathy Jackson. Remember in 2014 when he summoned us all into this chamber so that he could say: 'Kathy Jackson is a revolutionary. Kathy Jackson will be remembered as a lion of the union movement. More strength to her arm.' But, as usual, the disappointment-in-chief, the crowning mediocrity, came from the Prime Minister. Watching the Prime Minister's performance, such as it was in question time the past two days, we could not help thinking on this side: 'At least when Tony did this, he put his heart into it.' At least when the member for Warringah stood up, he stood for something. He was not this weak, pathetic, sell-out we have now. At least the member for Warringah had a proper crack. He would have had his backbench up and going, clapping along. Instead, they are stuck watching this bad tribute act, this cover band, butchering the Abbott government classics.

You can often hear a lot of the flat earthers over there stand up in question time and say, 'Raise your hand if you've had business experience.' And like little school children they raise their hands in glee and begin a crescendo of cries that Labor does not understand how business works. Of course, most of the ones that might have had business experience find their way onto the front bench. They are usually corporate lawyers. Of course, they have other roles in life but they have not run too many corner shops or small businesses. They might have had some business experience—and, indeed, there are people with business experience on this side—but you never hear them say, 'Raise your hands if you've ever represented working people.' That is because they haven't. They are consumed with themselves and their back pockets rather than belonging to a movement that tries to assist all.

It should come as no surprise that many of us on this side of the chamber do come from unions, and we are proud of it. We are proud of every day we spent standing up for workers and helping build a prosperous and fair country. Like my colleagues in this place, we are deeply grateful for what the working people of Australia taught us. We would not swap that for Goldman Sachs. It is because on this side of the House we know the importance of the union movement. We value the work unions do on behalf of Australians, who go to work every day and want to come home safe. We support unions and we support the best possible standards of union governance.

As I have said many times, as the Labor leader has said and as colleagues on this side have said: Labor has no tolerance for corruption wherever it occurs. Criminal behaviour, whether the offender sits in a boardroom or works in a factory, should be met with the full force of the law. But let's not pretend that this legislation as it stands is about better workplaces or stronger unions. No conservative government in history has ever wanted that—and this mob is no different. The government has had to be dragged kicking and screaming to take the slightest skerrick of interest in the criminal rip-offs occurring at 7-Eleven. They were happy to sit back while workers in this country were paid less than half the minimum wage. There are still 7-Eleven workers who have not been paid. There has been no legislative remedy proposed by the government. There has been no priority put forward about the exploitation of workers in relation to that scandal. Indeed, they have done nothing to look at the widespread reports of corruption and rorting in the 457 and temporary work visa systems. Again, the Fair Work Ombudsman on the weekend released a report explaining the scale of exploitation. It does not instil confidence in those visa schemes if we do not redress exploitation. The Prime Minister could not even scratch up a tweet for the Ford workers on the day the factory closed. The only time they talk about wages is when they complain that the wages are too high. For the Liberal Party, workplace relations is always about ideology; it is always about politics.

When you look at Labor governments of the past and, I can assure you, Labor governments in the future, you see that when we sit down to talk about the challenges of this country we sit down with employers and unions. They are at the table when we talk about the challenges that confront us as a nation—never the Liberal government. Unions are banished when the Liberals are elected to government. They are banished, they are demonised, they are defamed, they are slandered and they are libelled by members of a Liberal government. That is why they set up that grubby, politically motivated royal commission, with a royal commissioner who wanted to moonlight at Liberal Party fundraisers to smear his opponents.

We know this Prime Minister is only talking about this legislation to try and keep the hard-right wolves from the door for another week. We have seen it again in terms of his willingness to consider changes to the gun laws in this country. We know what the Nationals want on the Adler shotgun. We know what they want. In fact, Senator McKenzie belled the cat today when she said, 'We want to see a lift on that ban.' The conduct of the Prime Minister and his ministers in dealing with Senator Leyonhjelm is reprehensible. Senator Leyonhjelm has every right to express his views if he wants to liberalise gun laws, but the government has no right to horse trade in that manner. It is all about the Prime Minister trying to secure his support in his party room, and this legislation is all about that.

Can I tell you, Deputy Speaker, Labor is better than that. We are interested in improving the legislation to make it worthwhile, to genuinely improve conditions for employees and employers. Of course, that does depend upon an honest conversation. As the Prime Minister often likes to say, 'We need to see the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.' That is why it is worth looking at the existing regulations that already apply under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act. From what the Liberals say, you might think there is currently no regulation of registered organisations, as if all lay in darkness until the Prime Minister, who has just joined us, said, 'Let there be light.' Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, as a result of the changes that the Labor leader made when he was minister for workplace relations, we have seen that the regulation of trade unions and registered employer bodies in Australia has never been stronger, accountability has never been higher and the powers of the Fair Work Commission to investigate and prosecute for breaches have never been broader. It is because Labor, only Labor, tripled the penalties for offenders that penalties have never been tougher. Let's be clear about what is already in the registered organisation act. The act already prohibits members' money from being used to favour particular candidates in internal elections or campaigns. It already allows for criminal proceedings being initiated where funds are stolen or obtained by fraud. It already ensures that the Fair Work Commission can share information with the police, as appropriate. It already provides for statutory civil penalties where a party knowingly or recklessly contravenes an order or direction made by the Federal Court or the Fair Work Commission. Officers of registered organisations already have a fiduciary duty akin to those of directors under the Corporations Law. The act already requires officers to disclose their personal interests.

For all of those important protections that already exist, on this side of the House we are genuinely interested in passing good legislation, and that is why we are proposing substantive and constructive amendments to make this legislation worthwhile. Labor believes in better unions, higher standards and tougher penalties for people and organisations who do the wrong thing. First, rather than creating a new government bureaucracy, the Registered Organisations Commission, Labor proposes that the Australian Securities and Investment Commission uses its extensive coercive powers to investigate serious breaches of the Fair Work Act.

Second, we will increase penalties for behaviour which is intended to deceive union members or, indeed, members of employer bodies or the regulator. We will double the maximum penalties for all criminal offences under the act. We will increase the fine for false and misleading conduct and, for paid officials who act in a way that materially prejudices the interests of a union or employer body or its members, we will increase the fine from $10,800 to $216,000. Importantly, only officials in paid positions who are responsible for decisions about the financial management of registered organisations will be subject to these aggravated penalties. We will exempt volunteers.

The government's bill treats volunteers, workers and small-business people who sit on committees of management like chief executives of corporate boards, except without the same pay and conditions and the expertise they get to rely upon. They are treating them like directors of publicly listed companies. We do not believe that is right. We want people to participate, employer bodies and unions alike. This will deter people participating. It is clear that the Prime Minister and the government are not too worried about these volunteers. We would hope they would accept our amendment to exempt them from the application of this bill.

It is also worth making the point that the majority of submissions to the Senate inquiries into the previous iterations of this bill, from both employer bodies and unions, were against measures still contained within this bill. Given that the Prime Minister has joined us, I hope he has listened to the Ai Group who said:

If the proposed criminal penalties and proposed massive financial penalties for breaches of duties are included in the RO Act, this would operate as a major disincentive to existing voluntary officers of registered organisations continuing in their roles, and would deter other people from holding office.

While the Ai Group apparently now support the bill—I still believe they support our amendment—despite these elements being just as problematic, these are genuine concerns that have not been addressed by the government. We will also create a new penalty provision for improper participation in a decision by those seeking to personally benefit, punishable by a fine of up to $216,000 for very serious contraventions.

Third, Labor's amendments will increase audit requirements and penalties for auditors. We want to make sure that the people who are charged with the responsibility of independently examining the finances of registered organisations do it in a professional and accountable manner. Auditors who choose not to report malfeasance or criminal misconduct in registered organisations could themselves be subject to imprisonment. This will ensure that auditors are not complicit in their silence. Further in relation to auditing, we will require the rotation of auditors so that there is sufficient turnover to ensure that new parties come in to examine the books, resulting in greater security and independence.

Fourth, we are proposing a new donation threshold for union officials and politicians alike. It is time to extend the current electoral funding laws to donations and expenditure for all elections managed by the Australian Electoral Commission, whether they are union elections or indeed a federal election. Any entity associated with candidates in such elections should be required to publicly disclose the total value of payments made, receipts and debts each year. For a long time, Labor has argued for lower disclosure thresholds. Our amendments to this legislation will reduce the current disclosure thresholds in the Commonwealth Electoral Act for election funding from over $13,000 to $1,000, as well as prohibiting anonymous donations over $50 and introducing measures to end the practice of donation splitting by related entities, which can be used to avoid disclosure thresholds and undermine donation transparency.

We really do hope the government are listening to this amendment. We hear a lot of rhetoric about improving transparency with respect to donations. We hear a lot of rhetoric from the government and in particular from the Prime Minister. He has an opportunity with this bill to support Labor's measure to reduce the disclosure threshold so that candidates in federal elections will have to disclose at the same level as union candidates and, indeed, employer body candidates of elections. The government, of course, as we have seen, are happy to go after unions when it comes to disclosure thresholds and transparency, but to date they have not been willing to apply the same standards to themselves. Think about this: the Liberals want to have a higher standard of donation disclosure on those who seek to run a union than on those who want to run the country.

Five, we want stronger protections for whistleblowers. Currently, the penalties for those taking adverse action against whistleblowers are limited to $4,500 or imprisonment for six months or both. Labor's improvement to this legislation will extend whistleblower protections to the private and not-for-profit sector. This means people who seek to intimidate or silence whistleblowers will face up to two years in jail and a fine of up to $18,000. And whistleblowers themselves will be able to take civil action for reinstatement and compensation.

These are substantive proposed improvements that Labor wants to put in place to the proposed legislation in order to transform it from a piece of political puffery to a genuine act of better governance. This is, of course, a test for the government. They can beat their chests, they can carry on with the same dreary old scare campaign, desperately seeking one last crumb of political advantage, and they can continue in relation to their rhetoric about donations. We know the Prime Minister likes donations—he has two million reasons why—but, if he wants to see improvements to donations, if he wants to see improvements to disclosures, if he wants to apply the same law to unions as to himself and other members of this place, he will support our amendment in relation to improving disclosure by reducing the thresholds for all elections that are governed by the Australian Electoral Commission.

On this side of the House we know where we stand. We are here to offer tougher penalties, higher standards, greater transparency for union candidates and for candidates who want to run in federal elections, and a better way forward for employer bodies and unions. That is the Labor tradition. We are proud to live up to it today. We would ask the government to seriously consider these amendments, because they are moved in good faith. We have a few weeks, because the Senate does not sit until 7 November. We would say to the Prime Minister in particular, let us have a conversation on these amendments. We will certainly be talking to the crossbenchers. I am very happy to be talking to the Minister for Employment on these matters, because we believe that these amendments will add value, and we think that if the government and the Prime Minister were sincere in relation to this issue they would take up our offer to consider these amendments in a genuine way.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to conclude debate on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill. It is the second vital tranche of workplace reforms reintroduced into this House for the fourth time this week. As I said in my speech introducing this bill third time it was brought into the House, since 2013 the coalition has sought repeatedly to honour the commitment it made to the Australian people to legislate to improve the governance and accountability of registered organisations—unions and employer organisations. The legislation was blocked by the previous Senate repeatedly and, consequently, it was one of the two reasons for July's double dissolution election.

We fought the election on these commitments to workplace reform and we won. The mandate to proceed with this bill is clear and the case for reform is compelling. Better run workplaces, safer workplaces, workplaces not subject to corrupt or unlawful behaviour will deliver stronger economic growth, more jobs and higher wages. This was never about union busting; it is about economy boosting. Following our election, we are therefore, again, for the fourth time—

Mr Perrett interjecting—

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton is warned.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

seeking to honour our commitment to the Australian people by reintroducing this bill.

The government acknowledges the important role registered organisations play in workplaces in Australia. These organisations—unions and employer organisations—stand in positions of trust. To remain strong, it is vital that they are seen to do the right thing by their members. Yet the truth is that officials of some of these organisations have been in flagrant abuse of the responsibilities they owe to their members. They have misused union funds for personal gain. They have rorted membership rolls to increase their clout within the Labor Party. They have ripped off hardworking members to indulge their own political or personal interests. Is it any wonder that union representation in the workforce, particularly the private sector workforce, is at an all-time low? Is it any wonder that there should be a crisis of confidence in this culture on display by too many senior officials in the union movement?

The coalition has repeatedly sought to honour the commitment it made to the Australian people to improve the governance and accountability of registered organisations. This is a policy we have now taken to two elections. The case for change has been made. The gross breaches of trust and financial impropriety displayed, for example, by officials of the Health Services Union provided the initial impetus for reform. One senior official is serving a jail sentence; another is currently facing dozens of charges; and yet another has been penalised nearly half a million dollars for his indiscretions.

Since then, the findings of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption have revealed myriad examples of bad behaviour by union officials. The current system of regulation is doing very little to deter them. As many judges have noted, they treat the small fines imposed under the current law like parking tickets—a cost of doing business. The royal commission revealed how officials from the National Union of Workers used union credit and corporate cards to pay for dating services, holidays, corporate box seats at major events, toys, hairdressing and other personal services. Officials from the Transport Workers Union used members' funds to purchase two luxury foreign cars and changed redundancy rules to ensure they could keep the cars for their personal use even after they left the union. The TWU also appointed its own official to a concurrent position at its superannuation body. He was paid $93,400 for 2½ days work over the course of the year. The Leader of the Opposition, when he was Secretary of the AWU, accepted a company donation for over $40,000 to pay for a political operative to manage his campaign to win a seat in the federal parliament, and he failed to disclose it until two days before he was due to give evidence at the royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition's successor at the AWU, Cesar Melhem, repeatedly issued false invoices from the AWU to companies, worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. At the same time, the unions received lists of the names of the employees of those companies to be added to the union's membership roll. Many of them had no knowledge that they had become union members. Others had their union dues paid by the company when they had already paid them themselves.

Those opposite would have us believe that the Heydon royal commission uncovered just a few bad apples. It is true that many union officials are law-abiding and well motivated, but there are systemic issues here, undeniably. In the words of commissioner Heydon:

It would be utterly naive to think that what has been uncovered is anything other than the small tip of an enormous iceberg.

Mr Perrett interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton has already been warned.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill will strengthen existing financial accounting and disclosure requirements placed on registered organisations. It will increase penalties for those found to have done the wrong thing and it will establish a strong, independent watchdog, the Registered Organisations Commissioner, to give the regulation of these organisations the focus and the resources it needs. At the same time, it will reduce the unnecessary red tape imposed by the existing act that was the work of the Leader of the Opposition when he last amended these laws.

It is clear that the corrupt and illegal conduct of many union officials will continue unless there is effective parliamentary intervention. When politicians are presented with a clear problem for which there is a proven solution, they have a responsibility to act. This is the fourth time members of this parliament have been given the opportunity to consider this legislation to clean up registered organisations. Those opposite have been shameless in their efforts on behalf of their union supporters to frustrate and obstruct this important reform.

I have always found it very hard to understand why the Labor Party resists with such fervour this legislation. Given the extent of the scandals exposed in the royal commission and elsewhere, you would have thought leaders of the union movement and their political wing in this parliament would have said, 'Now is the time to clean up our act, to reassure our members and potential members that unions are run in their interest.' But no. When it comes to a choice between protecting the interests of rank-and-file members and defending the freedom of corrupt union officials to rip off those they claim to serve, the Labor Party has locked in slavishly behind the union bosses.

Almost a year ago I asked this question of Labor: whose side are you on? Are you on the side of the members or are you on the side of the officials? Sadly, we have the same answer today as we had back then. Those opposite remain stubborn apologists for the appalling exploitation of hardworking Australians by union officials abusing their power. How long do we have to watch officials of unions representing some of the lowest paid workers in Australia ripping them off, not being accountable and not prepared to accept the same standards of accountability and transparency as the directors of a public corporation? The time for action to stop these scandals and to end the rip-offs is long overdue. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr Husic interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Chifley will cease interjecting.

Mr Husic interjecting—

The member for Chifley will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).

The member for Chifley then left the chamber.

The question is that the bill be now read a second time.