Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I indicate that I will be voting for the measures in this bill, and I want to explain why. I make one comment in relation to Senator Lambie's contribution. She is right: the defence forces are not given a fair deal. They are not like other workers in the workplace in their ability to enterprise bargain. They cannot go on strike. I have a lot of sympathy for Senator Lambie's views in relation to defence forces. I do not have to urge her to keep up the campaign, because she is not giving up, so good on her.

I want to make it very clear that I am a strong supporter of unions. I believe they play a vital role in protecting the rights of workers as well as holding employers, and politicians, accountable. I have been fortunate to work with a number of union officials on a variety of issues, from antidumping measures and aviation safety improvements to support for local jobs in the transport sector and to improve workplace compensation schemes. I could not have done that without the support of the union movement and working together with them on a whole range of issues.

Many of these officials have shared their concerns with me about the cases of corruption that have been exposed. Some of them have even privately shared their desire for unions to be more accountable so that any hint of poor practices can be stamped out. Indeed, in terms of the royal commission into union corruption, I note that the national secretary of the Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association, Steve Purvinas, has publicly commended that inquiry, although he is in the minority. Other unions feel that they are being unfairly singled out or unfairly treated. The union officials that I speak to do not fear transparency or accountability; in fact, they want it. They want it because they want to show to their members and to critics of the union movement that they are doing the right thing. They want it because they have nothing to hide. Of course, there needs to be a balance between accountability and excessive red tape, but I believe this bill, as amended, is a reasonable compromise.

Indeed, it is worth reflecting on an article in the Financial Review on 30 July 2013, headed 'Judge slams penalties in union case', by Mathew Dunkley. It makes reference to the following:

A Federal Court judge has criticised the penalties available under laws governing misconduct by union officials who are found to have inappropriately used members' money or failed to comply with governance regulations.

It goes on to say:

… Federal Court Judge Anthony North said he was unhappy at the relatively small penalties on offer, particularly in relation to the cost of the court proceedings.

Justice North told the Melbourne court:

The penalties are rather beneficially low … beneficial to wrongdoers.

The report makes mention that:

Justice North's comments have come as the federal Coalition—

in opposition then—

promises to introduce stiffer penalties for unions, bringing them more into line with the rule for corporations.

That push has received support from Australian Workers' Union national secretary Paul Howes and retiring Labor frontbencher and former ACTU secretary Simon Crean.

It is not as though this legislation is friendless in terms of the general principle and thrust of this legislation. I note that Mr Howes as head of the AWU, one of the nation's largest unions, had backed the coalition's plans for tougher penalties for union bosses who misuse members' funds and said, quite rightly, that he had no issue with moves to impose punishments that were in line with those faced by company directors.

In an ideal world unions would exist to serve their members—and, in fact, I think the vast majority do so and do a very good job—but, unfortunately, in recent times we have seen some unions hijacked by unscrupulous individuals who have exploited these organisations for their own ends. Under the Corporations Act we set out the various requirements boards and executive officers must meet to ensure the reasonable protection of shareholders. We do this to codify in law the requirement that boards and executives work in the interests of their shareholders and the understanding that investors have the right to reasonable protections under the law.

In my view, union members should have even greater protections than shareholders because the duty their union owes to them I believe goes much further than a financial return. People join unions in the belief and with the understanding that the organisation will support them and look after their rights. I think overwhelmingly that is the case. It is not about protecting a financial investment; it is about protecting them and their livelihoods. Members place a trust in their unions and a breach of this trust is in my view a serious matter that needs specific measures to target and prevent.

I think it is important to note that the government has taken into account the concerns raised by the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee in response to the previous version of this bill. Those responses are welcome. I think the government's amendments in the other place address some significant concerns about the application of the bill and any unintended consequences. In particular, they address concerns about the application of the financial disclosure measures and ensure only the relevant parties are required to disclose, as well as the retrospective aspect of the bill. I am not being critical of the previous government in relation to their amendments but I think there were some unintended consequences in respect of that, so I think this does actually improve it. Ultimately, I believe this bill strikes a reasonable balance between scrutiny and freedom of association. There are very clear reasons why there needs to be change. In my view, while these measures do place a burden on unions—an additional burden in some cases—they provide greater protections for their members, and those, as all genuine union representatives would agree, are the ones we need to protect.

I have two final comments. Ai Group's Chief Executive, Innes Willox, wrote to me recently in relation to this. He indicated that, as a registered organisation, the Ai Group was:

… pleased that the latest version of the Bill includes a number of amendments introduced by the Federal Government to address the Ai Group's concerns including:

If somebody is a volunteer shop steward on the floor there can be no reasonable basis for insisting that they be subjected to these. Also in there is:

Corporations Act

Innes Willox supports that—

These are all sensible amendments. I think that the Ai Group, whilst it is on the other side of the fence, has been shown to be an organisation that has cooperated well with the union movement. I think their former head, Heather Ridout, worked well with the union movement. I think Innes Willox is of the same tone and mindset to have a cooperative approach to industrial relations. I think their concerns have been dealt with substantially. I think there has been an improvement in respect of this.

I have a couple of questions I want to put to the minister. He may respond to these in his summing up. Firstly, insofar as there may be unintended consequences in respect of this bill in terms of unnecessary red tape or unnecessary burden—not just teething problems with the legislation but also any systemic issues that need to be dealt with—what undertakings will the government give to review this on a regular basis to ensure that these matters are dealt with? Secondly, insofar as there will need to be some resourcing of the advisory service that is anticipated, can the minister indicate what those resources will be and how easy it will be for a union, large or small, that requires assistance in terms of complying with this legislation to get that assistance, particularly in the early phases of the legislation? These are matters to be dealt with.

Finally, in the broad context, there are other pieces of legislation that the government is putting up on industrial relations. I would like to think that this is the least controversial of all of those measures. They will be the subject of other scrutiny and other debate in due course. On balance, I support this legislation. I think it will overall enhance the accountability of unions to their members and I think the overwhelming number of union representatives in this country would welcome that.