Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The best is yet to come, Senator Lines. The best is yet to come. Eight weeks ago, we had the release of the final report of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption. The report found a pattern of widespread pattern of corrupt and disturbing behaviour across Australia's trade union movement, with some of the most egregious examples occurring in my own state of Western Australia. I know that Senator Lines is here in the chamber.

The Labor Party and ACTU leadership have been at pains to suggest that what has been uncovered represents just a few bad apples. Well, the royal commissioner dismisses the notion in the introduction to his report.

Opposition senators interjecting—

For those Labor senators who have not laboured over it, let me read what the royal commissioner had to say:

You can look at any unionised industry. You can look at any type of industrial union. You can select any period of time. You can take any rank of officeholder, from Secretaries down to very junior employees. You can search for any type of misbehaviour. You will find rich examples over the last 23 years in the Australian trade union movement.

He went on to say:

These aberrations cannot be regarded as isolated. They are not the work of a few rogue unions, or a few rogue officials. The misconduct exhibits great variety. It is widespread. It is deep-seated.

Yet when we look at the text of this particular motion, which is supposedly about the corrupting influence of political donations, do we find any reference to the corrupting influence of union donations? Of course we don't.

If debates such as these are going to have any credibility, we cannot just cherry pick particular types of donors. In particular, we can hardly leave out the unions, given what emerged during the Royal Commission. Bear in mind also that the royal commissioner said that what had been found through that process in relation to corruption was 'the small tip of an enormous iceberg'. The final report paints a picture of a disturbing culture. Let me quote again:

Whistleblowers are unlikely to be found for various reasons including a well-founded fear of reprisals. The same is true of misconduct on building sites and other aspects of the misbehaviour that has been revealed. The very existence of a Royal Commission tends to cause a temporary reduction in misconduct. But it is clear that in many parts of the world constituted by Australian trade union officials, there is room for louts, thugs, bullies, thieves, perjurers, those who threaten violence, errant fiduciaries and organisers of boycotts.

It is worth recalling that the movement being characterised here is the chief source of both funding and personnel for the Australian Labor Party—a party that paints itself as the alternative government in Australia. The movement funnelled almost $6.5 million to the Australian Labor Party in 2013-14. In fact it has been estimated that, over the last 10 years, union contributions to the Labor Party have been over $98 million. Two of the worst offenders when it comes to the corruption uncovered by the royal commission were the Construction, Forestry Mining and Energy Union and the Maritime Union of Australia. Of course, it is also proposed that those two unions, the CFMEU and the MUA, soon merge. They are to be joined together in unholy matrimony, two like-minded souls joining together to wreak havoc on the nation's industrial landscape. I just hope there are no awkward scenes or battles ahead between Labor parliamentarians about which one of them gets to serve in the wedding party. Certainly the Leader of the Opposition would hate to be included, but there are some Labor senators who faithfully troop into this chamber and earnestly read union authored talking points. I just hope they have not forgotten where those invitations have been issued.

Let's not forget that the royal commission also found multiple instances where the Australian Labor Party had failed to declare donations from trade unions, including an instance where the Leader of the Opposition himself failed to declare such a donation. So if we want to have a discussion about the corrupting influence of political donations, maybe we should start by looking at donations from unions which are themselves engaged in corrupt behaviour. Just this week we have seen more trouble with the CFMEU. The national secretary of that union, Michael O'Connor, was one of 13 officials who allegedly ran an illegal blockage campaign last year—that is, trying to prevent workers from going onto a site to do their job. The union officials are accused of obstructing trucks and subcontractors from going onto construction sites and calling them a variety of foul names—charming behaviour. But, again, as the final report of the royal commission says, these are not isolated instances. In fact, there are currently around 73 CFMEU representatives and officials before the courts around Australia.

What makes this week's report of particular concern, of course, is that Michael O'Connor is the brother of the opposition's industrial relations spokesperson in the other place, the member for Gorton. I am not one to get personal, but given all the hysteria we heard from those opposite about Commissioner Dyson Heydon's alleged conflicts, I would have thought that it was a much greater concern that, if those opposite win the election this year, the person in charge of dealing with union corruption will be the brother of someone who now stands accused of it. It is difficult to conceive of a greater conflict of interest, and I cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition has not taken steps to deal with it.

The government believes that our present disclosure laws are working well. They are overseen by an independent body, the Australian Electoral Commission, and the details of donations are reported and accessible to members of the general public. Yes, the system relies on people and entities making honest disclosures about the donations they receive. Yet the most troubling evidence we have seen of noncompliance in recent times did not come from the property developers or from fossil fuel companies; it came from the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, who failed to disclose a $40,000 donation from his union mates. If we are going to have this debate, we need to start with those areas where the problem actually exists.