Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 and make the point that Senator Rice, in fact, has made the case mainly for the introduction of this bill. It is just so logical that we would serve and want to protect the very people that previous speakers have spoken about. Of course, this is part of the objective of the bill. It is also consistent with the policy that the coalition took to the 2013 election, which was based around better transparency and accountability for registered organisations. We said at the time leading up to the election—which, of course, the coalition won:

The Coalition will take strong action to ensure registered organisations are more transparent and accountable.

All of us know well the reasons why, over the last two or three years—as Senator Birmingham, who is in the chamber, is well aware, as are others who are taking note—it has become necessary for this to happen. I participated in Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Committee hearings, whilst the last government, the Labor government, was in power and, indeed, the minister was Mr Shorten, now the Leader of the Labor Party and the opposition in this parliament. Many of the amendments go towards undoing what were bad amendments and bad law that he introduced, which the committee at that time tried to identify. Representatives of unions and employer groups came before the committee to point out to the committee, and through the committee to Mr Shorten, just how short he was in his thinking. Contrary to the assertions of Senator Rice in the last few minutes, many of the amendments are actually aimed at undoing what was seen by union members, by representatives and, indeed, by others and the committee as being unnecessary and draconian. This bill, rightly, will reverse some of those measures.

What does the bill propose? Firstly, it will establish an independent Registered Organisations Commission to monitor and to regulate registered organisations with better investigation and information-gathering powers that will go on to the wider community, including union members. Secondly—and this is where I come to that hasty and ill-advised push by the then minister and now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten—it will amend the requirements on officers' disclosure of material personal interests and change the grounds for disqualification and ineligibility for office. We at all times said that the previous amendments were far too draconian. We thought they were unnecessary. They were not necessary; they were not wanted. Witnesses came forward to tell the committee they were not wanted. Certainly, the reports and recommendations, as I recall, of our committee pointed to that. Thirdly, the objective is to strengthen existing financial accounting disclosure and transparency obligations under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, making them enforceable as civil remedy provisions. Fourthly, the bill will increase civil penalties and introduce criminal offences for serious breaches of officers' duties as well as those new offences in relation to the conduct of investigations under the act. The bill provides for the formation of the commission and, of course, as an adjunct to that, the appointment of the independent commissioner.

It is lamentable to actually go back and reflect on what really was the laziness and the incompetence of the then minister. Basically, what happened was that the coalition announced its policy quite early prior to the 2013 election. Then Minister Shorten panicked. He in fact directed his department to try and short-circuit the whole process. He got it wrong; he did not give adequate time for consultation. He did not give adequate time for people whom he thought he was representing in this to consult and to participate. As I recall it—I think I am right—there was only a five-day period in which to examine the bill. Five days is not adequate, particularly when it was going to have the impact that it was on union officials and on others, some of them very, very well experienced already, who were going to have to be subjected to extensive training programs when already they themselves were quite expert in these areas. All that was ignored by Mr Shorten and so, therefore, it has become necessary for us in this place to bring this bill forward to give effect to sensible amendments.

In fact, at that time, as I recall, the then National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, Mr Howes, was concerned for many of the elements that we are introducing into this place today. He spoke about the cancer of dishonesty and how it can corrupt an organisation. He spoke further at that time, as I recall, of the need for developing resistance to corruption at every level. The wider community agrees with this. I do not think anybody in this parliament would disagree with those points. Therefore, these amendments have a strong support, as I understand it, from members of the union movement, who do not want to see a repeat of certain events that we have seen played out over the last few years.

Mr Shorten, in his second reading speech, when speaking of levels of disclosure, made this comment:

This bill will require the rules of registered organisations to provide for the disclosure of remuneration, including board fees, of the five highest paid officials of the organisation as well as the two highest paid in each branch, to the members of the organisation.

That is not an unreasonable requirement, one would have thought.

Determining the five highest paid officials will be based upon monetary remuneration rather than non-cash benefits. However—

Mr Shorten said at the time—

where an official's remuneration is required to be disclosed, that disclosure will require non-cash benefits paid to the official to be identified.

These requirements came into effect, as we know, in the act as implemented by Mr Shorten.

I made an observation a few minutes ago about the requirements for extra training of existing officers, which had to be undertaken prior to 1 July. Today is a good opportunity to raise this. When you have a look at those training requirements and who would be the subject of these training requirements you see that, where a person has to meet certain criteria, there is no recognition of a situation where if in the opinion of the commission or the commissioner those people meet those criteria they can be exempted from a training program. But, no, so hastily were the original amendments and the original bill developed and implemented that in fact everybody, even a person with degrees in economics and commerce and accounting, would have to receive this training. We are attempting to change that with these amendments.

What is it that the coalition government is attempting to do with these amendments? The first amendment is to the disclosure requirements for officers of registered organisations to align them more closely with the Corporations Act so that the requirement to disclose material personal interests applies only to those officers whose duties relate. The second amendment, and the interesting thing, for which I would urge the support of all parties, will remove the more invasive disclosure requirements for officers of registered organisations, which were introduced by the Labor Party when it was in government. Indeed, officers are required to report even their family members' material personal interests. Therefore, contrary to the contribution by the previous speaker, this is not something that is trying to add an undue burden on an officer; it is removing the undue burden on that officer. It seeks to remove the invasive disclosure requirements associated with reporting family members' material personal interests. Anyone who opposes that really is saying that we do need to know all of the personal interests of family members. Who is a family member? Is it a spouse, dependent children, non-dependent children, brother-in-law? These requirements are not necessary. They should never have been in there. Witnesses from both sides of the equation—witnesses from employers and from unions, as I recall—appearing before the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee pointed this out to the committee. My recollection, through you Madam Acting Deputy President to Senator Fawcett, is that we also saw the stupidity of that. Anyhow, that is what we are seeking to do. I will be interested to see whether the Labor Party and their associates the Greens actually support us in that. Thirdly, we seek to align the material personal interest disclosure requirements for officers of registered organisations with the Corporations Act, so that disclosures need to be made only to the governing body and not to the entire membership. Once again, one would have thought that if we wanted to attract good people to represent their members that would be a plausible amendment to make.

When it comes to payments, we seek in these amendments to limit disclosures of related party payments to payments made above a certain prescribed threshold, and with certain other exceptions based on the exceptions in the Corporations Act, for members' approval of related party transactions. Surely, anybody who is a member of a registered organisation would want to know about, would want to have access to and would want to be able to comment on and see transparency in disclosures of related party payments made above a certain prescribed threshold—all independent, independent commissioner, independent commission.

The amendments also provide the Registered Organisations Commissioner with the discretion to waive the training requirement for officers of registered organisations if the committee is satisfied that they fully understand their financial duties because of their level of qualification. Imagine someone with the qualifications of Senator Whish-Wilson, who is in the chamber, with his wealth of experience in financial management and accounting, being subjected to some training regime. This amendment is entirely sensible and entirely reasonable. It should have been there if Mr Shorten had been doing his work and not trying to rush to gazump and pre-empt what the coalition was bringing to the 2013 election. The amendment aims to give the commissioner discretion. We see recognition of prior learning in the education space. It is something we all know well. All it is doing is saying that we want to give an independent commissioner the discretion to waive the training requirement, to allow people to submit to the commissioner where their qualifications lie and have the commissioner determine whether in the commissioner's view their qualifications, existing training and what they are doing at the moment are satisfactory to meet the statutory requirements.

In answer to the comments made earlier, it is not apparent to me that these amendments are harsh or that they are trying to take away the rights of people. It seems to me that what they are about is to return to a level of normality.

It is the case in today's world that we have the tools; that is a much more educated community of people—a community of people who are able to access the tools they may need to determine the eligibility, the viability and the integrity of organisations of which they are members. These organisations use funds provided by those members. Therefore it seems to me that the clauses contained within this amendment are entirely reasonable.

In discussions I have had with members of the community, they have commented, 'Why don't they already exist? Would we have had the problems that have occurred in several unions over the last three or four years if this legislation was already in place?' I think that is an interesting point for those on the other side of the chamber to reflect on. Nobody wants to see the reputation of any registered organisation or any union being dragged through the mud, as they have been; no-one wants to see the reputations of corporate organisations—companies et cetera—dragged through the mud. That does not do anybody any good; that does not do the economy any good; that does not build confidence in the Australian community. It seems to me that any legislation that is aimed at fairness and aimed at removing unnecessary and ridiculous restrictions—like having to declare family members' interests or like having to subject yourself to a level of training when you probably could have written the textbook in the first place—is reasonable. It seems to me that these are entirely sensible amendments, and I commend them to the chamber.