Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters entitled Funding and disclosure: inquiry into disclosure of donations to political parties and candidates and to take the opportunity to place on record a few remarks about some donations to political parties. Senators in this chamber may recall that some time ago I raised the issue of the use of the 457 visa by a company called Fletcher International based in Albany, Western Australia. The statements I made about Fletcher’s came in for some controversy from those opposite, and on examining the disclosure reports it is now apparent to me why.

Fletcher International are a renowned donor to the National Party. They have been a consistent donor to the National Party since at least 1998. They donate about $5,000 at a time, and they donate exclusively to the National Party. So when people want to come in here and defend the practices of some companies I think they should declare their interests in those companies.

At the time I was raising my concerns about Fletcher’s, it generated some publicity in Western Australia. I talked about their use of 457 visas rather than seeking to recruit local labour. At the time, I was contacted by a number of people who had actually received letters of rejection from Fletcher’s at the same time they were seeking to bring in overseas labour. I talked about some of the conditions that Fletcher International have been known to put in their Australian workplace agreements.

I was lucky enough to get hold of an old copy of an AWA—I will concede that it is old. At the time, they were offering $12.80 an hour. The AWA went for three years. It had a stand-down clause allowing the company to stand down any employee on the basis of stock shortage with, it says, ‘length of service or seniority not being the criteria for determining being stood down’. A three-day absence without notifying the company would lead to the employee being dismissed. There is a list of offences that led to instant dismissal. Most of them are justifiable, but there are ambiguous items such as horseplay; inefficient work performance was also a viable ground. It was a 45-hour week. Annual leave had to be taken during the shutdown period only and there was no sick pay provision at the time. As I say, that is an example of one of the AWAs that was on offer.

But consider the fact that local labour had received letters of rejection from the company and that Fletcher International has donated money to the National Party in the disclosure year 1998-99 as well as the years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2004-05. Obviously, we do not have the data for the latest round yet. But it would seem that, if people are going to seek to defend companies, they should get hold of a copy of the relevant AWA. They should disclose the fact that they are donors to a political party when they try to defend their employment practices. And they should actually try to work with people to ensure that they are employed on decent wages and conditions. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.