Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Would he advise the House on whether payments have been made from workers' entitlement funds to organisations of employers and employees and whether the Morrison government is protecting workers' entitlements fund bill will address these practices?

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for his question. As the member is well aware, workers' benefit funds not being properly regulated means the theft of money that should go to workers. The need for the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2019, presently before the House, probably dates back as far as the Cole royal commission. These funds are meant to keep capital amounts safe and protected to pay for workers' entitlements.

Back in the days of the Cole royal commission, the royal commissioner noted that the funds provide substantial income streams to employer and employee associations in the form of surplus distributions. He noted that there was an incentive for these bodies to note or agree to increases in employer contributions in the course of negotiations, and he said very properly, 'These funds should be used for the purpose for which they were intended no other.' Back then in the Cole royal commission he was talking about the surplus, the interest earned on the capital. As we have heard in parliament over the last several days, we have an example before us as a parliament where they have actually distributed the capital out of the account. The point that needs to be made very clearly here is that the regulation of these funds that the government brings to the House will regulate it for the purposes of both employee and employer organisations.

In making that point I want to make some further comments about this $32 million, a capital amount, that was moved from the organisation Protect, meant to pay for severance funds for electrical workers in the future, to the ETU. Over the last several days the ETU has been referring people to a joint statement they gave with the National Electrical and Communications Association, the employer association. In effect the ETU now say, '$32 million was transferred to us but it's okay because we kept only 75 per cent; the other 25 per cent went to the National Electrical and Communications Association, an employer association.' Very disturbingly, over the last few days NECA, as they are known, have been asked, and indeed their chief executive officer has been asked, to explain the use of that money—that's $10.4 million, by the way. They have declined to respond to the journalist's inquiries. I would very warmly encourage some kind of proper response. When you look at NECA's accounts, you will see they note in their last financial report that the $10.4 million profit share from Protect 'helped to turn around' a $600,000 operating loss for the employer group and create a $9.7 million profit. 10 million will tend to do that. It tends to turn around your financial accounts. But how is that money being spent to benefit workers? Where is the answer as to how that money is being spent to benefit workers and why will you opposite not support a bill that allows for transparency, regulation and adequacy of those arrangements? (Time expired)

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

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

I remind the minister not to refer to me if he can avoid it.