Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, , 3:03:34 to 3:10:50
Discussion shifts to the CFMEU administration, specifically the administrator's comments on the five-year limit for banning officials. Officials explain the interaction between the scheme of administration and the Fair Work Act regarding the suspension of members.
Topics: Workplace relations, Integrity
Speakers: Senator Maria Kovacic, Greg Manning, Sarah Godden, Senator Marielle Smith, Unknown Speaker, Senator Matt O'Sullivan
Senator Kabasik, okay. So I'm going to come to Senator Kavasik and then Senator Sheldon. Um Senator Kavasik, noting we're due to move on to round 12, but you have the call and I'll nudge you at 15. Senator Kavasic.
That's we could get the topic we'll get the right notices at the table.
Okay.
Okay, as well.
Can I have a lot of questions?
Sorry, we've just got some page number issues that we're contending with.
Thank you. Excellent. Sorry for the delay. So yes, so mine relates to the CFMEU administration. I'll just wait for everyone to be seated. Can I take you to the administrator's interview on 7:30 on the 30th of July? Um asked why John Setka should ever be allowed back, Mr. Crosby said because the rules limit me to a maximum period of five years. Um that's as much as I can do. Asked whether the rules needed to change, he said maybe, and we are changing the rules. Um we're bound by the Fair Work Act, and we'd have to have a look at how that interacted with the Fair Work Act. Um is the Department aware of those comments?
Yes, Senator.
What rule changes is the administrator seeking?
Uh in that specific context, I'm not aware of the details, Senator. However, I am aware that the CFMEU administration has been looking at the rules of the construction and general division of the CFMEU and are working with the general manager of the Fair Work Commission as the regulator of regulated organisations to review their rules and ensure that they are appropriate and suited for the uh CFMU going forward. So I'm aware of a much broader programme uh to review the rules of the of the division.
Okay, so my understanding was just so I can clarify. I thought he was seeking a review of we speak to the rules because the rules limit me to a maximum period of five years.
I think potentially there's a couple of matters being referred to in it. There's the the scheme of administration from memory provided for expulsion or suspension of membership of the unions for a period of up to five years. And additionally, the rules of the union itself would go to the ability of the committees of management, etc., which the administrator stands in the shoes of to expel or suspend members. So in a way you could see uh situation where under the scheme of administration someone could be removed and their ongoing ability to be a member could then be dealt with under revised rules of the union. But I think that those two matters are being dealt with there. And as Ms. in the comments, that's my assumption I should say, so no obviously haven't spoken to the administrator and says Ms. Godden said the union is undertaking a review of its rules which go to things around its membership, etc. in liaising with the Fair Work Commission. My understanding is that work will go into 2027.
Okay, so it's nothing in relation to the Fair Work Act itself because he referenced that bound by the Fair Work Act.
One thing I'll have to take on notice, sorry, Senator, is whether the provisions of the of the legislation that enable the scheme of administration to be put in place dealt with that. I don't know from memory. We'll look and confirm that on notice over stronger recollection in relation to the scheme of administration itself, permitted removal or suspension, etc. for up to five years.
Yeah, because what I would really like to understand is which are the specific rules that he needs amended in order to be able to do what he needs to do. If he is currently bound to limit that to five years and would like for it to be longer, well, where is it that we make the change to enable the administrator to do what he's asking government effectively to enable him to do?
As as Mr. Manning said, I believe it is in the scheme of administration itself, but we will take that on notice to confirm.
Okay. Um can you tell me whether the um administrator has consulted the department, the minister or Fair Work Commission about how they interact with the Fair Work Act and the administration
Yeah, um they may, it's possible that they've consulted the Fair Work Commission about it as part of that work we've referred to in reviewing their rules. Um the Commission will be here soon, but again, um if it doesn't come up, then we can take notice and check with the Commission for you if it doesn't come up in the questioning of those. I don't recall that they've consulted with the department about it, but I'm looking at the Mr. Keynes in relation to some of the regular catch-ups.
We we do have regular catch-ups with the um administration Senator, so um we would need to take on notice if it had been raised in one of those regular catch-ups, they're generally uh very broad-ranging catch-ups that um cover you know a wide range of matters in relation to the administration of the union. It could well have been raised uh in one of those. I there's no specific memory that's coming to mind, but I would I would want to check.
Thank you. If you could, I would appreciate that. Um also on that um topic, has the administrator or the Fair Work Commission General Manager raised the five-year limit with the department or with the Minister?
Um, and if so, when that was So I think I've taken it on notice to check if the administrator has raised it uh with the um with the department. Uh certainly we also uh have uh frequent uh catch-ups with the general manager and um other officers who are responsible. For registered organizations and it may well have been discussed in in one of those regular meetings, Senator.
But no recollection of whether they've specifically sought an extension or a change to that five-year limit?
And I think that not certainly no, no recollection to confirm that. I think it reflects where that in the process in the sense that the administration is working through that suspension or removal that initial that initial suspension removal under the scheme of administration, that work is ongoing. We're not really privy to the details of it. It might be something to raise at catch-ups in terms of where it's at for the timing, etc.
Are you aware though then? And just this is in response to your answer now. Are you aware then that there is consideration of changing that, that there is a view that that is insufficient?