Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to sum up debate in relation to the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017. I thank all honourable senators for their contribution to this debate and, in particular, I want to acknowledge the important contributions of those who are supporting the government's legislation. The bill will help to restore integrity to Australian workplaces. It is a bill that is pro-worker and anti-corruption. It will end the secrecy, as outlined so eloquently by Senator Roberts, that has marked dealings between employers and unions for decades. It will ensure that corrupt payments between a business, employee, union or union official are banned with significant criminal penalties for anyone who flouts the law. Penalties will apply equally to employers and unions who are both implicated by a secret payment.

The Heydon royal commission uncovered dozens and dozens of payments, secretly changing hands between employers and unions, which were collectively worth millions and millions of dollars. One of the worst offenders, as revealed by the royal commission, was, unfortunately, the Australian Workers' Union in Victoria, the union of Bill Shorten, the current Leader of the Opposition. The royal commission revealed hundreds of thousands of dollars of payments flowing from companies to the union, including payments received from Thiess, John Holland, ACI Operations, Winslow Constructors, Chiquita Mushrooms, Huntsman Chemical, the Australian Jockeys' Association and the Australian Netballer Players' Association. Perhaps the most disgusting example of them all—and the one which, unfortunately, Mr Shorten has again and again failed to apologise for—is, of course, the payments made by Cleanevent to the AWU. In return, in many cases, companies had the assurance that the AWU would not—I repeat, would not—agitate for better conditions or better pay for workers, the very workers they were supposed to represent. And, in fact, we have just heard an example on the Hansard record where the workers, when paid under the award, received 176 per cent more than was negotiated by the employer and the union under the relevant enterprise bargaining agreement.

Commissioner Heydon also observed that these practices were not new but have been carried on for at least the past 30 years. He also found that what he uncovered is just the small tip of an enormous iceberg. The royal commission found that not even existing laws on bribery, extortion, blackmail and secret commissions are enough to outlaw these arrangements. Those laws are not easily applied to payments involving unions and their officials and, even in the cases where they can be applied, have failed to deter the regular practice of such payments being made. Commissioner Heydon recommended that new provisions be introduced into the Fair Work Act to criminalise such payments. That is exactly what this bill does. The bill brings an end to the secretive, corrupting practice that has marked dealings between employers and unions for decades. The bill will rightly ensure that the true beneficiaries of workplace deals are the workers.

I would like to thank the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for their inquiry into this bill and all of those individuals and organisations who contributed by preparing written submissions and giving evidence at the public hearings. In particular, I would like to thank the crossbench for negotiating so constructively with the government. We will be adopting a number of their amendments.

I will just address some matters raised in the debate. There has been some discussion about whether this bill will apply equally to employers and unions. I can assure all senators that the bill has been carefully drafted to capture both sides of a corrupting benefits transaction. As the final report of the royal commission stated, corrupt receipt implies corrupt payment. An employer who offers or provides a secret financial benefit to a union is as heavily implicated as a union that solicits or accepts such a payment. The penalties for both parties are the same, and both parties can be held equally liable for the one transaction. Similarly, each of an employer, union and any employer association will have to disclose to employees most financial benefits they stand to gain under an enterprise agreement before employees vote on the agreement. By banning corrupting and illegitimate payments and requiring disclosure of benefits arising from enterprise agreements, workers will be protected from secret deals that conflict with their interests.

They will also be told what deals have been negotiated into enterprise agreements they are asked to support. For example, in the case of the Cleanevent deal, done by the AWU in Victoria, the royal commission found that, in exchange for payments of $25,000 per year, the Victorian branch of the AWU, in substance, agreed not to seek better terms and conditions for three years for those of its members employed by Cleanevent. For workers employed by Cleanevent, the outcome was appalling. All involved benefitted from the deal, except the people the union was supposed to be representing. That is not why unions exist.

Our bill will help to ensure that workers receive the benefit of honest employers and honest union officials who represent their interests. This bill is anti-corruption and pro-worker. It is about ensuring that the members of the unions are put first by both their union and the employer the union is dealing with. All parties in this place who believe in fairness, honesty and transparency in workplaces should support this vital reform to outlaw corrupting benefits. If you believe in stopping corruption and if you believe that employers and the unions they are negotiating with must put workers first, then this bill must be supported.

In the time I have left I now want to turn to some of the comments that have been made during the debate. In particular, I turn to the opening statement made by Senator Cameron in his second reading speech. He stated:

Labor has unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate amendments with the minister. The minister's intransigence and refusal to take heed of the concerns of the Labor Party, the union movement, employers, the Law Council and academics reinforces the view that this government and its minister are driven by ideology as distinct from fair and effective legislation.

Madam Deputy President, in this place there is a rule that you cannot call someone a liar, so I will not do that. What I will say, though, is this: the statement put on the record by Senator Cameron is false, as I have personally raised with him. Both my office and the office of the shadow minister, Mr O'Connor, have negotiated in good faith for over two months now. I won't table the various emails and the various documents that have been exchanged between the offices. But I will say that I have also raised my concern directly with Mr O'Connor's office, and they were kind enough to indicate that they were unaware of the statement that Senator Cameron was going to make. I take in good faith what the office of the shadow minister, former minister O'Connor, has said to me.

I will also say this: a number of amendments have been put forward by the Australian Labor Party. For the benefit of all senators, these amendments were negotiated, within reason, in good faith between my office and shadow minister O'Connor's office. For the benefit of Senator Cameron, I can advise the Senate that the government will be supporting approximately 90 per cent of the amendments that have been put forward. Again, those amendments were negotiated in good faith between my office and the shadow minister's office. We have also negotiated in good faith with a number of the crossbenchers, and I look forward to supporting One Nation's amendments and Senator Leyonhjelm's amendments. In fact, I would urge Senator Cameron, when we go into committee, to move his amendments straight up—given that we will be supporting the majority of them—and then we can debate those amendments that we cannot support and I will explain the reasons.

In relation to the second reading amendment moved by Senator Siewert on behalf of Senator Rhiannon, the government does not support the second reading amendment. The bill targets a specific issue through appropriate and targeted provisions in the same way that specific provisions apply to prevent corruption in the particular context of extortion, blackmail, bribery and corrupt commissions. The bill implements the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption and targets a specific problem that the commission identified as being widespread amongst employers and registered organisations. With those comments, I commend the bill to the Senate.

The CHAIR: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Siewert in the name of Senator Rhiannon on sheet 8181 be agreed to.