Senator REYNOLDS (Western Australia) (20:22): I too rise to speak in support of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment Bill 2014 [No. 2]. This bill implements the government’s election commitment outlined in the policy for better transparency and accountability of registered organisations. It will enhance the accountability and transparency of registered organisations by broadly aligning the obligations of office holders and the penalties and powers of the regulator with the Corporations Act 2001. Having a look at the detail of this bill, it absolutely blows my mind that anybody in this chamber could possibly not support the provisions of the bill. The fact that so many people on the other side are not supporting this, to me, very personally demonstrates so much of what is wrong with politics today.

 

Since the introduction of the 2013 bill, the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption has been established. The royal commission is inquiring into, amongst other areas, slush funds and other similar funds and entities established by or related to the affairs of trade unions. In its interim report, the royal commission made findings in relation to the conduct of officers of registered organisations, including that the maximum penalties for breaches of general duties in relation to financial management are too low, that breaches of officers’ duties are significant and widespread and that, in some instances, there is a deliberate disregard for the law. Again, how is it possibly in workers’ interests for the trade unions to have been allowed to get away with this sort of behaviour for so long? These interim findings of the royal commission, combined with the Health Services Union saga, illustrate the need for the measures proposed in this bill.

 

The bill increases civil penalties and introduces criminal offences for serious breaches of officers’ duties similar to those applicable under the Corporations Act. The bill also establishes the Registered Organisations Commission as independent but within the office of the Fair Work Ombudsman. Most importantly, especially for those opposite who claim this to be a partisan venture, the policy principles behind this bill are supported by a range of Labor luminaries—your colleagues and ex-colleagues. Who have we got supporting this? We have got Simon Crean.

 

Senator Williams: Ah, good man.

 

Senator REYNOLDS: Yes. We have got Martin Ferguson. We have got Robert McClelland. We have even got Paul Howes and Ian Cambridge. They are all doyens of the labour movement and they are all saying that this is the right thing to do, and it is the right thing to do because it is the right thing to do by union members. This bill also addresses concerns raised in the Federal Court by His Honour Justice Anthony North, who said that the penalties under the existing legislation are beneficially low to wrongdoers. That means people are not getting penalised as they should for misuse of union funds and other misbehaviour. This legislation will bring penalties in line with the Corporations Act, because we believe there is absolutely no skerrick of difference between a dodgy company director who is ripping off shareholders and a dodgy union boss who is ripping off members. Again, when you look at it that way, you think, ‘How on earth is it that the people opposite, who say that they represent the workers and are there fighting for the workers’ rights, cannot even give workers the same rights that shareholders have to protect them?’ It is an utter, utter disgrace.

 

I want to absolutely stress that the only people who have anything to fear from this bill are those who are doing the wrong thing by the workers of this country. I also want to reaffirm that the government firmly believes that the vast majority of officers of registered organisations absolutely do the right thing.

 

This bill was previously voted down in the Senate, but the primary reasons that the opposition opposed the bill are actually issues enshrined in the legislation as it currently stands today and are in full force. Something again that is quite astounding to me is that the onerous disclosure obligations that currently exist were in fact imposed by the Leader of the Opposition when he was the minister for workplace relations, and they will be removed under this government’s bill.

 

Having a look at this bill and having a look at some of the history to this bill, I really had to start wondering why the Leader of the Opposition and those opposite would oppose these provisions. In my short time in this place, I have come to appreciate that, the louder and more aggressive the blokes on the other side of this chamber get, the more you just know there will be something they will want to hide with all the bluff and the bluster. Interestingly, the loudest in this chamber in my time so far appear to have been ex-trade union officials—a coincidence?

 

Senator Williams: They all are!

 

Senator REYNOLDS: I know. It is pretty hard not to find one. But is that a coincidence or not? Having a look at the facts, my strong and deep suspicion is that it is linked and it is no coincidence. To test this hypothesis, I went back and had a look at the facts—not the rhetoric—and what is behind this well-worn tactic of those opposite of denying, defending and attacking: deny, defend, attack; deny, defend, attack. What are they trying to hide behind that? When I sought to understand why those opposite do not support this bill and the protection of the workers that unions represent, it did not take long to really understand why those opposite do not support this bill and are now trying so hard to discredit the royal commission. Sadly I had to narrow it down to the top 10 reasons that have come out of the royal commission because, simply, time in this chamber would not permit more.

 

Senator Conroy: Oh dear, the royal commission-er!

 

Senator REYNOLDS: Mr Acting Deputy President, if Senator Conroy does not think what I am about to read out are issues that every trade unionist and those opposite should not hang their heads in shame about at the impact on the trade unions—he might heckle but let him heckle after I have read out these absolutely blatant horrendous things that are happening against the people he pretends to represent. It was impossible to rank them because they are all so heinous. However, the first one I identified was: CFMEU officials Brian Parker and Darren Greenfield consorted with underworld crime figure George Alex. Alex’s friends and colleagues include Mick Gatto; former Comanchero Bilal Fatrouni; senior Rebels bikie Abuzar Sultani; standover man Vasko Boskovski; recently murdered career criminal Joe Antoun; and infamous ISIS jihadists Khaled Sharrouf and Mohamed Elomar, who did weight training, out of interest, in his backyard and joined Alex on a shooting trip shortly before escaping Australia to fight with ISIS.

 

Senator Conroy interjecting—

 

Senator REYNOLDS: You might find that funny, but I think it is an absolute disgrace on behalf of all trade unionists in this country.

 

The second one: Comancheros being used as debt collectors for trade unions. The facts: assistant commissioner of Victoria Police Steve Fontana confirmed that the Victoria Police had evidence showing the overall infiltration of the building and construction industry by organised crime. He indicated that outlaw motorcycle gangs, including the Comancheros have been regularly engaged as debt collectors on behalf of the industry. Victoria Police are concerned that the methods for debt collection in the industry involve criminal conduct such as assault, threat to assault and intimidation. Presumably, it is trade union members’ money that is going to these outlaw motorcycle gangs, including the Comancheros. That is No. 2.

 

What is No. 3? No. 3 is: construction company pays Bill Shorten’s election campaign director—which he, oops, forgot to declare. Mr Shorten accepted a $40,000 donation from construction companies—

 

Senator Nash: How much?

 

Senator REYNOLDS: $40,000, Minister—to pay the wages of his election campaign director in 2007. But, guess what? He did not disclose until—how many days do you reckon before the royal commission asked him about these matters in sworn evidence?

 

Senator Williams: Two.

 

Senator REYNOLDS: Two, that is right. From 2007 through to this year, he had forgotten to mention a $40,000 donation. He also relied on assistance from an AWU staff member to formalise this arrangement, which he also did not disclose and does not appear to have refunded.

 

Senator Conroy: It took the royal commissioner a year and a half to remember it was a Liberal fundraiser.

 

Senator REYNOLDS: Senator Conroy, the truth is the truth. As much as you might not like hearing this, it is a shame and a disgrace, and you are now defending it.

 

Ah, but that was not only it! The Leader of the Opposition also failed to disclose $12,700 for this worker plus $11,000 for a part-time campaign worker that was donated by—guess which union? The AWU—what a surprise. He only included this in a late disclosure—again, how many before the royal commission, do you think? It was two days before the royal commission evidence he gave. That is No. 3.

 

What do we think is the fourth absolute disgrace is? It is Bill Shorten himself cutting workers’ conditions. Isn’t that somewhat ironic—trade union members are paying for unions to represent them, and what is he doing? He is doing what I would call dodgy deals to cut their wages. How did this happen? The commission heard that under the 2006 Cleanevent agreement, signed under the authority of Bill Shorten as national secretary of the AWU, workers were deprived of penalty rates, public holiday pay, overtime and shift loadings. This was under a deal authorised by Bill Shorten himself.

 

As Victorian secretary of the AWU, Bill Shorten also approved an agreement to allow a group of mushroom pickers to be fired and mostly rehired as casual labour. It saved the company millions from the abolition of overtime rates, amongst many other savings. This was from a man who purports to be standing up for the workers of this country—absolutely disgraceful. That is No. 4.

 

What is No. 5? No. 5 relates to Boral. On construction sites in Melbourne, the law is determined by the CFMEU. Pointing to numerous examples of secondary boycotts, cartel behaviour, racketeering, intimidation, illegal blackbanning and criminal conspiracy, Boral CEO Mike Kane lashed the CFMEU as ‘an organisation that openly admits it has and will continue to break the law’. Kane revealingly stated that on construction sites in Melbourne, the law does not apply; the law is determined by the CFMEU. Guess who they employ to do their enforcement? The Comancheros.

 

No. 6: Bill Shorten’s close friend and AWU associate Cesar Melhem and false invoice incidents. The royal commission heard evidence that Cesar Melhem repeatedly issued false invoices to companies marked ‘training’, ‘OH&S’ or similar when they were actually payments for union membership. These were not small amounts of money. Any amount of money would be wrong but this was for hundreds of thousands of dollars. The AWU membership roll contained the names of workers and horseracing jockeys, who had never agreed to become members of the union. Mr Melhem also made a side deal in which cleaning company Cleanevent agreed to pay the union $25,000 per year for three years—$75,000—for undisclosed services in order to retain an enterprise agreement that left their workers with substantially worse than award pay rates. That is an absolute disgrace. That is No. 6.

 

No. 7 of my top 10: Bill Shorten’s close friend Cesar Melhem and the Industry 2020 slush fund—yet another sad saga involving them both. The royal commission heard evidence of a slush fund, euphemistically entitled ‘Industry 2020’ set up by former AWU state secretary and sitting ALP Victorian MLC Cesar Melhem. Despite being structurally separate from the AWU, this fund—aka the slush fund—received regular payments from companies which had EBAs with the union. It employed no staff and had no premises of its own. However, all Industry 2020 fundraisers were organised and run by AWU officials and used AWU resources. Through these fundraisers, Industry 2020 received contributions from other unions such as the Victorian branch of the NUW. The most high-profile Industry 2020 fundraiser was a $550 a head lunchtime function at Flemington Racecourse addressed by the then Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

 

What is no. 8 on the shame roll? It was the CFMEU receiving leaked details from Cbus members. The private details of over 300 construction workers were leaked by the construction industry superannuation fund Cbus to the CFMEU. What a disgrace. As a result of the leaks, construction workers were contacted, intimidated and threatened by CFMEU officials. And guess who the CFMEU officials employ? The Comancheros.

 

One of the Cbus officials who leaked the information to the CFMEU gave evidence that she was absolutely terrified of what the New South Wales secretary of the CFMEU would do to her and her family if she told the royal commission the truth about this leak. When an organisation like the CFMEU who uses Comancheros to do their enforcement, it is amazing that this woman had the courage to come forward.

 

No. 9 on the role of shame is John Setka’s threats. Allegations were made in the royal commission that the CFMEU had threatened contractors at the Pentridge Village residential development site to sign a CFMEU enterprise agreement and that they had pressured construction workers to join the union or otherwise face being blackbanned.

 

The developer testified that CFMEU state secretary John Setka demanded that the concreter Paul Costa be kicked off the Pentridge Village site simply because he was related to Daniel Grollo who Setka hated—again, utterly, disgraceful.

 

No. 10 on my list—and, as I said, I have a very long list and there are many, many more examples—is where a police officer arrested a former CFMEU official who gives evidence. ACT police arrested a former construction union organiser and previous Labor Party sub-branch president after he admitted to accepting tens of thousands of dollars in payments from tradesmen to help them win work. The CFMEU organiser was arrested after evidence revealed at the Canberra hearing of the commission. This was not of the commission’s making; this was evidence he gave to the commission.

 

Mr Kivalu, who was president of the ALP’s Dickson-Morning sub-branch in Canberra at the time he was allegedly involved in corruption, denied the cash payments constituted a bribe. When he resigned as the ALP sub-branch president, he was replaced with guess who? Another union official from the CFMEU who has also been the subject of adverse allegations at the commission—again, a pattern of behaviour time and time and time again. Having a look at those facts and that evidence—and the weight of evidence—it became very apparent why those opposite and the Leader of the Opposition so staunchly support their trade union mates and their supporters. It is a story of utter shame, and sometimes I do not know how those opposite can possibly still support the trade unions, knowing exactly what the trade unions are doing to their workers.

 

It is very clear when you cannot discredit the facts that you try and discredit the man. That is exactly what is happening now with the royal commission: deny, attack, defend. Deny, attack, defend. Deny, attack, defend. If you concentrate on discrediting the commission enough, you are hoping that all of these facts will disappear. Let me tell you: they will not disappear—

 

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

 

Senator REYNOLDS: no matter how hard you scream in this chamber. Deny, attack, defend—but the facts are here and the evidence is very, very clear.

 

So what are the changes that you are so opposed to? The government is making changes to remove unnecessary disclosure requirements on officers and organisations that were first included by the previous government’s 2012 amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009. These changes will ensure that only disclosing officers, those whose duties relate to financial management of the organisations, must disclose their material personal interests; and officers no longer need to disclose the material personal interests of their relatives. The bill now also ensures that financial officers with relevant experience can apply to the Registered Organisations Commission for an exemption. These are all issues that were identified by Labor as problems. They are problems that exist in the law as it stands today. They acknowledged it. They know it is still the case. They are problems created by Labor yet again, and we will fix them with this bill.

 

There is a pressing need for this bill and for the establishment of a registered organisations commission to protect union members’ and the funds that come out of their hard-earned pay. As we have seen, time after time and again and again, that out of the royal commission and elsewhere something has to change. Somebody has to stand up for these workers, and it is for all of those reasons, that I support this bill.