Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, , 6:34:03 to 6:44:40
Examination of how the Fair Work Commission tracks individuals removed from the CFMEU to prevent their re-employment in other unions or as permit holders.
Topics: Workplace relations, Integrity, Law reform
Speakers: Senator Jess Walsh, Senator Maria Kovacic, Patrick Coyle, Senator Marielle Smith, Senator Jane Hume, Murray Furlong
And you're saying that we actually don't have the capacity to scrutinize it effectively. But only your government by instructing the administrator can do that. But clearly the AFP is saying that that's not adequate.
I just want to check, Chair, whether the correspondence was tabled that Senator Kavasik has referred to.
I believe all the correspondence we've now received today distribution has been tabled.
Right, okay. So Senator Kavassi, you referred to your invitation to Mr Crosby to appear.
That's correct. So my question is effectively the government has repeatedly opposed a dedicated Senate inquiry. The administrator has declined to appear at estimates. So how on earth are we meant, or how is the parliament meant to properly scrutinize the work of the administrator if we cannot have an inquiry and we cannot ask the administrator questions?
Sure. So letters have been tabled and so I note the letter from Mr. Crosby to Senators Hume and Kavasik and would just like to put on the record that he respectfully declines the invitation to appear at estimates. Doesn't deem it to be appropriate in all of the circumstances. However, offers to meet with you at a time of your convenience to brief you.
Private meeting is not transparency astronomy.
And in addition, and in addition, of course under the scheme of administration which our government delivered, which you never did. The administrator is required to report to Parliament as he has recently done. The administrator works closely with Mr. Furlong and the Fair Work Commission. Mr. Furlong has answered all of your questions today.
Minister, to finish this off, do you believe that the Parliament should be able to scrutinize the performance of the administrator?
I think the results of the administration are clear. Again, there were 200 officers from the scheme of administration.
That's not evidence.
There were 150. There were 150 officials removed from the union. Evidence has been given today that that was about half of the people who have worked at this union evidence has been given today. That the administrator appointed by Mr. Furlong under the scheme introduced by the government is doing more than any other participant in the industry to clean up the industry. That is the evidence that has been given today. The administrator has offered you a briefing and in addition to that, the administrator reports transparently to the parliament.
Sorry, I I was just going to let go. How does the administrator report transparently to the Parliament?
How in the report that is tabled in the Parliament that you referred to earlier.
But that doesn't allow for any discussion, it doesn't allow for any scrutiny, it doesn't allow for any questions. That's a statement. Okay.
I mean the trust us in the irony, the irony, I hope. I hope I'm not the only person that the irony does not elude of you wishing to understand more about a scheme of administration that you had 10 years to do and that you never did. Under your government, corruption in this union and in this industry flourished. It was a very good time for corruption in the construction industry. Under the government that you led. On our watch, we have taken the strongest action possible.
You haven't.
This union is in administration. We've heard evidence today from the officials that the administrator is doing more than any other participant to clean up the industry.
Today, Minister Watson and the local.
Senator Dolega, I know where you're going with this. I withdraw the comment. However, I would say that say that the Minister saying that the government has taken the strongest action possible. It is clearly not true if you're more action.
If you're making the withdrawal, the courtesy to the committee is to just simply misleading. No, Senator Sullivan, you don't have the call. We're dealing on a point of order. I'm asking Senator Hume to simply withdraw.
I withdraw the comment.
Thank you, Senator Hume.
I'd like to make a comment as well.
Is this a point of it? If it's a point of order, I'm happy to come to you, but if it's not, I'm confirming that the Minister has finished her response. Are you finished? Who is seeking the call for a question? Or a point of order. That's the options available.
Well, if it's not a point of order, I hope you'll forgive me, but it's in relation to relevance. I'm trying to be mindful of time and that we are behind. I've received three answers that contain the same information about the number of people that have been let go. And clearly it's a written statement, it's not relevant. I would not like us to continue to be behind, but I am going to ask all of my questions, and if I keep getting the same answer, I'm still going to keep asking all of my Questions.
I remind all Senators of the importance of relevance, but from what I can observe, I believe it is. It's a very, very broad test when it comes to estimates hearing. Senator Kavasik, you do have the call though. We've got five minutes before we go to the brain.
Yeah, I will need them after lunch then as well. Thank you.
As you go afternoon to no one is seeking the call other than yourself, so this is your time to manage the Cabassi.
Mr. Furlong, at estimates on the third of December, I raised concerns about CFMU officials being allowed to resign rather than being dismissed, potentially allowing them to avoid being classified as removed persons under the Act. And I want to return to that issue in light of recent allegations. But before I want to go to before I go to that, I want to ask, do you keep a register? Because I asked the department and they said that they didn't of the number of removed persons who are now or tracking of those individuals who are now back as officials in any union.
Cole will be able to assist you here.
In terms of a register, uh no, but we do have some insights from a range of different sources, and there's a it's a complex matrix of different elements to this that need to be taken into account. That is that is one of the mechanisms by which a person could become a removed person. But a person could also become a removed person by activity of the administrator during the administration. Now we are not on a day-to-day basis privy to the actions of the administrator.
So the administrator doesn't report any of this data to you? That's what I'm trying to understand. So the administrator may hold it, they may know it. The department doesn't know, and the commission doesn't know either.
I'm aware who will take such action as he deems necessary, and that can uh and his opinion as to the steps that he has taken may be a relevant consideration as to whether a person falls under one of the relevant removed persons categories. He has, however, from time to time reported to us a list of persons who are removed persons.
And what would make it different for him to provide you those 27 as opposed to any others prior or since so I just want to understand why you're not getting like why why did you get that list and not any other list?
Perhaps if I can approach this in two different ways. The first is that we have recently uh published uh uh guidance note in relation to remove persons to provide information to other registered organizations about what their responsibilities are about the potential risks associated with engaging persons who formally worked at the CFMEU or were officers of the CFMEU without undertaking due diligence, such as you know, making inquiries as to whether they are removed person or whether they have received the necessary certificates to enable them to be employed or to act as a bargaining representative or become an officer of a different organization. Um that information exists in respect of any person to be able to identify through engagement with the administrator, whether that person is a removed person or not, what uh what we do not have at the commission is a up-to-date daily daily updated list of names of people, but to the extent that matters come before the commission, we engage in respective individuals with the administrator and with the fairwork ombudsman about information that they may have about a person if they were to apply for a right of entry permit, for example. Um in those circumstances we can obtain the information necessary to satisfy ourselves as to whether a person falls within a category of removed person or not.