Doorstop Parliament House

E&OE TRANSCRIPT Doorstop - Parliament House 10 February 2014 SUBJECTS: Potential Royal Commission, Union corruption CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Bill Shorten is running a protection racket for a protection racket. He is a union official supporting union officials. Today he is demanding there be a police taskforce into union thuggery and corruption. But when he was in government four short months ago he was part of a cabinet the first defanged the Australian Building and Construction Commission then abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission and did nothing over six years to investigate claims of union corruption, slush funds, thuggery, none of which are new in the last few weeks. As Leader of the Opposition he’s abolishing the restitution of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, he is opposing the establishment of the Registered Organisations Commission which is designed to protect the money of union members and stop dodgy union officials ripping them off and he’s now opposing a Royal Commission into the behaviour of the unions. This is a man who says one thing and does quite the other. He pretends to be concerned about the benefits for workers and the rights of union members while at the same time doing everything in his power to undermine the capacity of Government to protect the rights of workers. He stands condemned. As I said he’s running a protection racket for a protection racket. If he genuinely wanted to look after the rights of workers, put honest unions officials, give them a chance to shine rather than dodgy union officials who give them all a bad name, he’d get out of the way of the Government, he’d support Royal Commission, he’d support the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, he’d support the registered organisations commission and he would stop protecting his former mates in the union. QUESTION: He says that a police taskforce will suffice and says the Royal commission will cost around $100 million and a police taskforce will suffice. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well if Bill Shorten really believed that why didn’t he ever propose it when he was in Government. He was a cabinet minister for six years. The allegations surrounding union slush funds, the Australian Workers Union slush fund, the bad behaviour of the CFMEU, the corruption surrounding union officials like the Health Services Union, the Williamson, Thompson affair. He was in government when these matters were raised. I don’t remember him ever saying there needed to be a police taskforce, now we’re in government and we’re proposing something be done to protect the rights of workers and now he’s opposing all of it and will use his numbers in the senate to continue to block the Australian Building and Construction Commission being established and the Registered Organisations Commission. QUESTION: So will your governments terms of reference on this then include the need to prosecute? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well the terms of reference for a royal commission if one is established will be released at the time of the announcement of the royal commission. QUESTION: In order for this not to just be a witch hunt just against the unions should the terms of reference include big companies perhaps involving collusion. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well the terms of reference will make it perfectly clear that there are often two sides to a bargain when it comes to collusion. But I think you’ll find that many people know its common sense that if bikie gangs and union officials are demanding extortionate rates or extortionate behaviour from employers, employers find themselves in a very difficult position, and especially in the construction industry. The Cole Royal Commission found endemic corruption, stand over tactics, bad practice in building and construction and we were starting to improve that industry saving billions of dollars and improving productivity. One of the first acts of the Labor Government was to first defang and then abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission and Bill Shorten was the centre of that. QUESTION: … companies need to be included in any Royal Commission, CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well let’s see what the terms of reference say, but let’s not try and pretend there is any moral equivalence between the employer and the situation an employer finds themselves in and the standover tactics employed by some dodgy union officials. QUESTION: Employers can say no. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well that’s easy to say Laura but it’s often not the case out in the workplace. QUESTION: That’s why I’m saying that any company needs to be included in the royal commission. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: The terms of reference will make that clear but let’s not attach a moral equivalence to the situation that employers often find themselves in being stood over by members of bikie gangs and corruption unions officials who are indicating that they will destroy their businesses, their construction site and potentially their livelihoods, that’s not exactly the same position that we find ourselves in. QUESTION: ….would you say corruption is widespread? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: If a Royal Commission is announced today and all the indicators are that it will be, that Royal commission will be able to get to the bottom of how widespread corruption and standover tactics and bad practice are, but we know from the allegations that have been aired in the last few weeks that people’s lives have been threatened if they raise extortionate behaviour by union members. Just in recent examples we know about the AWU slush fund which is obviously being investigated. We know about the Craig Thompson, Michael Williamson issue surrounding the Health Services Union and Bill Shorten if he wanted to stand up for the rights of workers rather than dodgy union officials he would support the Government’s measures in the ABCC, the ROC and a royal commission. He’s not doing so because he’s a union official standing up for union officials. QUESTION: These are a handful of examples and there 1.8 million people in a union around the country so that’s not widespread. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well I believe it’s reasonably widespread and let’s see what the Royal Commission finds in terms of Union behaviour. For Bill Shorten to be a credible alternative as Prime Minister of Australia he needs to rise above his background, he’s proving himself completely incapable of rising above his union official background he’s … to dance to the tune of the union movement. QUESTION: So are you guarantee there will be successful prosecutions coming out of the Royal Commission. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well I think you know that’s a question I can’t answer. I can’t guarantee successful prosecutions. That’s a matter for the courts to decide. QUESTION: …Bill shorten has suggested, or asked union bosses to ban bikies from wearing their colours or ban bikies from building sites. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well that’s just window dressing from Bill Shorten. If Bill shorten was serious he’d support the Government’s programme. QUESTION: Are you suggesting this is this a panicked reaction from Bill Shorten? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Bill Shorten has proven himself and leader of the opposition to be entirely beholden to the union movement. Every time he has been tested with the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, with the re-establishments of the Registered Organisations Commission, this Royal Commission he has squibbed it. Now he is trying to come up with all sorts of flibbity jibbit distractions to stop people from understanding at his central core he’s a union official supporting union officials. QUESTION: How do you think the people of Shepparton feel today when a royal commission is about to be announced, it could cost $100 million and your government wouldn’t SPC Ardmona $25 million. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well they’re very different issues and they’re matters of principle. With SPC Ardmona the principle wasn’t could we afford it, the principle was is it a good idea and with the Royal Commission into union corruption the same principle applies. It is not a question of whether we could afford it it’s whether it’s a good idea. The two shouldn’t be confused. QUESTION: Your cabinet is also facing a question from farmers about whether or not to provide assistance. Is there new money in the budget, can you see a case for new money in the budget to help struggling farmers at the moment. CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well I wouldn’t be pre-empting budget decisions. All of those things will be revealed in the May budget. There are of course drought relief provisions already in place and farmers would be accessing those if they find themselves in a situation of drought. QUESTION: Do you have a personal view? CHRISTOPHER PYNE: Well I’m a member of the Cabinet and I have a cabinet view [ends]