Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the motion to refer the provisions of this bill to the Economics References Committee. One of the disappointments, of course, is opposition, but one of the little joys you can have is speaking on issues that you have a passion for. Industrial relations is one of those. This bill is not one of my passions though. This bill is not well crafted.

Honourable Senator:

An honourable senator interjecting—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know it is a reference, but we are talking about the bill. The reference is a positive reference, but it is about a bill that is not particularly good. In fact, that is exactly why the reference is here. It is about ensuring that we get more scrutiny in respect of this bill.

I will put it in context. It is an odd thing for the government. When they were in opposition seeking government, they spoke about red-tape reduction. They spoke about removing regulatory burden. They got to government. Now they are adding regulatory burden. They are doing it not only in the area of registered organisations but also in the ABCC bill. Again, strong industrial relations legislation already exists. They are a government that said one thing prior to entering government and then in government do the exact opposite. They said things like: 'We will remove red tape. We'll make business more easy.' They said they would be 'open and transparent'. They said they would seek to do those things. In government, they have done the exact opposite. They have done a backflip, exactly as they did with the Better Schools reform. Prior to reaching government, they said, 'There wouldn't be daylight between us and the Labor Party in respect of this matter.' When they got into government, they did a backflip. They are a government that would say and do anything prior to getting to government. Having got to government, they have chosen to throw their original rule book out the window and do anything it takes to achieve their political ends. This is but one of them.

Our job in opposition is to highlight this and point it out, to demonstrate that this government in this particular area of registered organisations is about adding regulatory burden. Look at the type of regulatory burden in this area which already has significant legislation. This is an area where Labor did not tolerate corruption by union officials. We do not tolerate corruption by any officers of any employee bodies, and we moved to strengthen the legislation, when in government, to ensure that there was strong regulatory oversight in this area. We now have a government that wants to continue to press for adding significant burden not only on registered employee organisations but also on registered employer organisations, and then it tries to justify it in the flimsiest of ways. This is a government that is not what the voters voted for. It has morphed into something completely different.

The impact of this legislation should be carefully considered by this reference, not rammed through this house and the House of Representatives without sensibly looking at the direct impact on both employer and employee organisations and the unintended consequences that come from it. There are many registered industrial organisations that are very small. They are not well resourced. They do a wonderful job of representing their members, both employers and employees. But in this legislation they will find significant, onerous legislation that will work against them. The concerns are quite broad.

Look at what already exists in legislation today. We have registered organisations that already prohibit members' money from being used to favour particular candidates in internal elections or campaigns, which is one of the justifications for this legislation. We already have registered organisations that act to ensure that the Fair Work Commission can share information with the police as appropriate. All of these things already exist and continue to ensure that the Fair Work Act operates effectively.

What is underlying all of this debate is a political witch-hunt. Those opposite cannot help themselves. They said before the election that they would not go back to Work Choices. They said it was dead and buried. What I think they are now going to do is slide it back in, piece by piece—slide back in the onerous burdens across industrial relations and rip away conditions piece by piece. They are not going to build in one big Work Choices piece of legislation, but they are going to attempt to do it piece by piece. That is their new modus operandi. The ABCC is on the list and registered industrial organisations are on the list. All of this just demonstrates to me that it is a political witch-hunt designed and aimed squarely at industrial organisations.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. Senator Ludwig, you will be in continuation when this debate resumes.