|
senate vote 2017-08-09#11
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-11-17 10:01:36
|
Title
Bills — Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017; in Committee- Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 - in Committee - Agree with the bill
Description
<p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>As I understand, we are dealing with the One Nation amendments, and I use the word 'amendments' loosely. I did say in my earlier contribution today that One Nation have never stood up for workers in this place unless they've actually been embarrassed into standing up for workers and when they were forced to do that in relation to penalty rates. But here they are. They're not even satisfied with the attacks on working people brought about by Senator Cash and the coalition of hopeless people sitting across this chamber. They're not even satisfied with that. They want to go even further, and there was no capacity. Senator Roberts did not have a clue as to what the amendments would actually do. He did not have a clue what the implications were. Maybe his mind's on other things, like High Court challenges and the like. This is something that we see from One Nation whenever they get a chance to attack working people in this place. They set about attacking them, and that's exactly what these amendments do. We don't support the amendments. The government should not support the amendments. The government have done enough attacking on working people, without picking up your further attacks on working people.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-08-09.245.5) to agree with the bill as amended. This means that they can now vote on [whether to pass the bill](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/senate/2017-08-09/12).
- ### What does this bill do?
- According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd006):
- > *The purpose of the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 (the Bill) is to amend the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act) to:*
- >
- > * *create new criminal offences related to the solicitation, giving or receipt of corrupting benefits (applicable within the context of the industrial relations framework created by the FW Act) and*
- >
- > * *create new criminal offences related to national system employers offering, promising or providing certain ‘prohibited payments’ and other persons soliciting, receiving, obtaining or agreeing to obtain such payments.*
- >
- > *The FW Act also deals with negotiation and creation of enterprise agreements (EAs). An EA is an agreement made at the enterprise (business) level and is enforceable under the FW Act. An EA sets out terms and conditions of employment and the rights and obligations of the employees and the employer covered by the agreement. An EA must meet a number of requirements under the FW Act before it can be approved by the Fair Work Commission (FWC).*
- >
- > *The Bill would amend the FW Act to require bargaining representatives to disclose financial benefits that they, or a person or body reasonably connected with them, would or could reasonably be expected to derive because of a term of a proposed EA.*
<p>One Nation are an absolute disgrace. One Nation, you should not hold your heads up anywhere in this country, because workers' wages will diminish under you lot. You are simply subservient to the coalition. You do everything the coalition want you to do. You're worse than the National Party in that context, and that's saying a lot. So you should pull this off, because you don't even know what it means. You don't know what the implications are. You are an absolute disgrace. You should spend some productive time trying to build your case for the High Court. I think that's where you should put all of your efforts in. As I read it, you are in big trouble. Workers in this country will survive you, Senator Roberts. They will survive the coalition—</p> <p class="speaker">John Williams</p><p>Senator Cameron, direct your comments to the chair, please.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>They will survive the coalition and they will go on to get some decent rights, decent conditions and decent bargaining rights when Labor win the next election. And you will be gone—back to the obscurity that you came from.</p> <p class="speaker">Malcolm Roberts</p><p>I don't know where to start on that one! Let me answer Senator Cameron's questions from earlier. 'Reasonable'—it's an adjective—means agreeable to reason or sound judgement; logical. Secondly, it means, not exceeding the limit prescribed by reason; not excessive. Thirdly, it means moderate, especially in price. And this is where it comes back to Senator Cameron's question wondering what it means with regard to union membership dues. So not expensive. Fourthly, it means, endowed with reason. Fifthly, it means capable of rational behaviour and rational decisions.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>Unlike you!</p> <p class="speaker">Malcolm Roberts</p><p>Mr Chair, I normally go to the television for entertainment but I have to come down here more often!</p><p>Are people so used to union bosses receiving corrupt payments that Senator Cameron needs help with understanding what 'reasonable' means when it comes to union dues? Let be me specific. Say, for example, companies can't make payments anymore to corrupt union bosses. This is what it means: currently—</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>If they were corrupt, they'd be in jail!</p> <p class="speaker">John Williams</p><p>Order on my left!</p> <p class="speaker">Malcolm Roberts</p><p>There are many before the courts, as I understand it—some on criminal charges.</p><p>So here's what it means: there would be some set of dues for everyday union members—the people that the union bosses are quite often stealing from. Then, to get around these corrupt payments, it would simply be a matter of creating an executive membership grade, which could be, for example, $10,000. And that would be the way companies would be paying off the union. Or it could be $100,000. Or it could be, as we have seen in the examples that I read yesterday and today, $1 million. Is that a reasonable membership due? I say not. Maybe the senator was sleeping through my speech yesterday. So I will read what I said when I described this. Corrupt union bosses and employers create loopholes. What this does is it closes a loophole:</p><p class="italic">… where a union may charge executives of a business, for example, unreasonably large union membership fees in lieu of no longer being able to obtain cash through other nefarious means as prevented by this bill …</p><p>It must be similar, in other words, to ordinary membership dues.</p><p>I want to go on with something Senator Cameron said. This bill is about protecting union members from the sorts of corrupt payments that they have stolen from union members through the union bosses. The union bosses have stolen from the union members. That's what we need to protect. The employers are in cahoots with some union bosses to steal from union members and deny them their rights. This is about restoring workers' rights and union members' rights. And that is reasonable.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>Can I indicate that I and my colleagues will not be supporting the One Nation amendments. This is not a reasonable amendment. The implication is—and I believe it is an unnecessary amendment—that unions will be able to get around this legislation by charging $10,000 for a membership fee. I don't think that when Senator Cameron was secretary of the AMWU the fee was $10,000 or anything like it. Any union that tried to charge an unreasonable fee would find itself in a position where they wouldn't have too many members. They would have a situation where people would join another registered organisation in its place.</p><p>I understand the rationale of Senator Roberts. We didn't have the benefit of a briefing from your office, Senator Roberts. It is not a criticism, because we are all so busy in this place, but I believe the legislation works without this. I believe that this is an unnecessary and onerous amendment, and my colleagues and I cannot support it.</p> <p class="speaker">Lee Rhiannon</p><p>I want to add the voice of the Greens to the opposition of what One Nation is bringing forward here. It's in no way an improvement. It's just out there doing more work for the coalition in a very ugly way and that would bring further hardship. It speaks volumes about what type of party One Nation is. Just because we're hearing from the likes of the minister of how they're doing it for the workers—and now we're hearing it from One Nation—doesn't mean that what people say is true. It's certainly not true because workers need unions. Workers need unions that are out there representing them, campaigning for them and getting better conditions. That's why we all can enjoy lunch breaks, holidays and superannuation—because people came together and they struggled. Yes, mistakes were made along the way, but we already have sufficient laws to tackle that. What One Nation is after is very punitive, very dangerous and should be defeated.</p> <p class="speaker">Malcolm Roberts</p><p>My response to Senator Xenophon's comments are that I would not imagine that any union that charges $10,000 for its ordinary membership dues would stay in business very long. My point is that, to get around the membership dues being reasonable, unions can take payments off companies and call them membership dues. That's what I was referring to, and that's what this amendment is designed to stop.</p> <p class="speaker">John Williams</p><p>The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8197, moved by Senator Roberts, be agreed to.</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Malcolm Roberts</p><p>I move amendment (1) on sheet 8198:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 8 (line 25), after "of", insert "directly".</p><p>I have a definition of 'direct' here in case this is needed. This ensures benefit funds that are established for union members—perhaps, for example, widows—go directly to those the money was proposed for. That's what this is about. We all know that some union bosses are so audacious in their attempts to steal money that they establish fake funds for victims and then never give those victims one red cent from that fund. This amendment seeks to target that specific behaviour and ensure that these funds are only exempted if they directly benefit those the money was intended for.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>This is unnecessary. It's absolutely ridiculous, and Senator Cash should not be supporting rubbish like this coming from One Nation.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>The government will be supporting Senator Roberts' incredibly constructive amendment. The amendment clarifies, again, what kinds of payments will be considered legitimate payments for the purposes of the offence. For the reasons that I have previously articulated, we accept these amendments on the basis that they do provide further clarity as to what qualifies as a legitimate payment under the bill.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>On behalf of my colleagues, we cannot support this amendment. The provisions in the bill are clear enough. It must be of benefit to employees. To say 'directly benefit' would invite absolute chaos. What does 'directly benefit' mean? Would it mean if a union collectively bargained for workers in one sector of the union that the other workers who have paid their member dues will not directly benefit, therefore it's unlawful? It is completely and utterly unworkable and unreasonable, and we do not support it.</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>by leave, I move amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8164:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, item 3, page 8 (line 25), at the end of paragraph 536F(3) (b), add "or former employees".</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 3, page 8 (after line 28), after paragraph 536F(3) (c), insert:</p><p class="italic">(ca) a benefit of nominal value associated with travel or hospitality during consultation, negotiation or bargaining;</p><p class="italic">(cb) a benefit of nominal value that is:</p><p class="italic">(i) a token gift, an event invitation or a similar benefit; and</p><p class="italic">(ii) given in accordance with common courteous practice among employers and organisations;</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 8 (lines 29 to 32), omit paragraph 536F(3) (d), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(d) a payment made, at no more than market value, for goods or services supplied to the defendant in the ordinary course of the organisation's business;</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 1, item 3, page 8 (line 36), at the end of paragraph 536F(3) (f), add ", or in settlement of a matter before the FWC or a genuine legal dispute".</p><p>The AiG, the ACTU, Professor Andrew Stewart and many other stakeholders have raised concerns that the exemptions in the bill to the cash or in-kind benefit offence are too narrowly drawn. For example, it makes it an offence for the following activities, which are not corrupt or corrupting and are standard activities: unions requesting and receiving payment from employers of wages or entitlements owed to ex-employees; unions negotiating the settlement of disputes with employers before court proceedings are commenced or have failed; and standard travel and hospitality during negotiations—for example, the employer making their conference room available with morning tea for a negotiation. The Labor amendments will mean that these perfectly proper activities are within the statutory exemptions.</p> <p class="speaker">Michaelia Cash</p><p>The government will be supporting Labor's amendments (3) and (4). I seek leave to move the government's amendments to Labor's amendments in items (1) and (2) on sheet 8164.</p><p>Leave granted.</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">(1) Amendment (1), omit "or former employees", substitute ", or the defendant's former employees in relation to their former employment".</p><p class="italic">(2) Amendment (2), paragraph 536F(3) (ca), after "nominal value", insert "(meaning no more than 2 penalty units)".</p> <p class="speaker">Doug Cameron</p><p>On behalf of Labor, I want to indicate that we do not support these amendments. They further narrow the bill and they are again a government attack on workers being able to access reasonable services through their trade union movement. They are another attack on working people in this country. We do not support them.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|