Not merely did Australian Building and Construction Commissioner Nigel Hadgkiss break the law in preventing ABCC staff from accurately advising employers, Employment Minister Michaelia Cash might have broken the law when she established the ABCC with Hadgkiss as its head. Only a tortured interpretation of the legislation lies between her and what appears to be a blatant breach of it.
According to section 21 of the act that establishes the ABCC, the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016:
The Minister must not appoint a person as a Commissioner unless the Minister is satisfied that the person:
(a) has suitable qualifications or experience; and
(b) is of good character; and
(c) will uphold the APS Values set out in section 10 of the Public Service Act 1999, including by performing his or her functions in an apolitical manner and acting impartially and professionally.
It’s (c) that is the problem for Cash: when the ABCC was established on December 2 last year, by her own admission she had known for over a month about Hadgkiss’ “behaviour” (her word). Clearly Hadgkiss’ “behaviour” in preventing staff from making sure employers were given accurate information — information that was of benefit to unions seeking to meet with workers on-site — wasn’t consistent with the second APS value: “The APS demonstrates leadership, is trustworthy, and acts with integrity, in all that it does.” Nor, for that matter, was Hadgkiss’ behaviour “impartial” or “professional”.
[‘Rule of law’ an optional extra for ABCC chief Nigel Hadgkiss]
After admitting last week she had known of Hadgkiss’ behaviour since October last year, Cash realised the spot this put her in, so she hastily began making a distinction between what she knew of the “allegations” against Hadgkiss by the CFMEU, and his later admission of a breach. This distinction was undermined by reporting in The Australian — not exactly a friend of the CFMEU — that, according to government sources, the government “knew what was going on” about Hadgkiss. And what action did Cash take in response to the “allegations” about Hadgkiss? After all, under section 28(c) of the act, she has the power to terminate the ABC Commissioner’s appointment “if the Commissioner fails to perform his or her functions with impartiality as between all categories of building industry participants”. Hadgkiss’ actions were a blatant example of partiality.
But Cash’s real defence is that she didn’t actually appoint Hadgkiss to the ABCC at all, thus getting her off the hook. Given the ABCC didn’t exist until December 2, how does that work? Cash is relying on the fact that the transitional provisions legislation that accompanied the ABCC Act provided that the director of the Fair Work Building Inspectorate — the predecessor body of the ABCC — continued in the new role of ABC Commissioner. So it wasn’t Cash who appointed Hadgkiss, but her predecessor Eric Abetz in 2013. QED.
[Not so funny anymore: Cash appointed Hadgkiss knowing of his behaviour]
But there are a couple of problems with that. One is an academic one: the actual wording of the transitional act as introduced by the government says that “the instrument appointing the person to that office has effect, after the transition time, as if it were an instrument made by the Minister under 9 subsection 21(1) of the new Act appointing the person” i.e. Hadgkiss’ rolled-over appointment was to be regarded as effectively as if he’d been appointed by Cash.
The other is that this was Cash’s legislation. She was responsible for it after the election; it was introduced into the House of Reps in August last year, then introduced into the Senate in November, by which point Cash knew of Hadgkiss’ behaviour. Cash led the debate at the end of November that resulted in the bill being significantly amended. A simple government amendment would have removed the automatic continuation of Hadgkiss’s appointment. Cash, despite knowing about Hadgkiss’ behaviour, chose not to do so.
If you believe Chuckles Cash, though, it was all Eric Abetz’s fault that she ended up putting on the ABCC a bloke who had broken the law and blatantly breached public service values.
Cash’s position is untenable, and if Turnbull had any integrity he would sack her – so of course she is completely safe.
I know not if the Minister is responsible or irresponsible. I do know Ministers’ are accountable; yet have no confidence whatsoever that as members of the current government any would be held so. Legal restraint is no longer a functional reality when an Australian government holds a one seat majority.
. . . . . so chuckle on Minister Cash.
The only thing that can be said about Cash in a positive light is that she has no need of a sign language interpreter, everyone can read her lips.
She is one of only nine women in the ministries, (forty, counting secretaries) so we have to assume that there are few women in the coalition with any brain at all, because she shows little intellect other than a strong desire to remain at the trough. Her idea of ‘interns’ is appalling. Why not just reintroduce serfdom?
If Malcolm had any spine, she would be fired, but that ain’t about to happen is it?
And one of the other nine is Fiona Nash who is under a bit of a dual citizenship cloud.
Agreed, Leon Knight, Cash’s pozzy is simply untenable. I can’t think of a more clear cut example of Ministerial wilful negligence with potentially huge adverse material outcomes. It’s likely the CFMEU – maybe even the ACTU – will take some kind of legal action, but it’s also not impossible that major building companies will have their strategic planning and commitments impacted collaterally, too…so it’ not completely absurd to see the Commonwealth (ie taxpayer) now at some risk of being exposed to downstream liabilities. There is a hideous looming over-supply of investment-tenuous large builds in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane. Over-reaching developers under commercial pressure are very creative when it comes to leveraging/contriving taxpayer bail-outs/escapes.
Long bow, sure. But the whole ‘respectable front’ of the government’s/Cash’s obsession with the CFMEU was supposedly to put rule of law back in charge of the sector, in order (allegedly) to rejuvenate the construction industry’s legal certitudes, operations stability and especially strategic investment legitimacy. So it’s not out of the question that the entire l’affair ABCC will end up/drag out for yonks in various courts.
Good on you for focussing on the unsexy growth industry/deep legislation stories, BK – they tell the real tale of governments crumbling. Also, Cash is perhaps the most smart-arsed and least efficacious Cabinet smirker Oz politics has seen since Peter Costello…
Actually a very short bow… with essentially everything a building firm does now being approved by a criminal, those firms now have what investors call “moral hazard”. If a builder offends, and Hadgkiss didn’t try to stop them, said builder can now sue Chuckles (because her fault). That’ll wipe the shit-eating smirk off her moosh.
I’m disconsolate.
Why disconsolate? Vacuous Cash has never had anything worthwhile supporting under her helmet of hairspray and voice best described as competing with a nail screeching up a blackboard.
She was spunky tho.
Yes, quite so. Every site accident, every environmental spill, every traffic flow disruption and council intervention, every point of legal friction or dispute on every build in the land is now…legally ‘up for grabs’, with the Commonwealth the defacto underwriter whichever way the by-case rulings fall. It’s like discovering at the start of the finals that the referee boss has been on the take from one team all year (without them even knowing ot!)…where/how do you even start to make fair retrospective rulings on this or that dispute b/w this or that team…Jesus. This clusterpuck government has actually managed to do the exact opposite of its claimed intention. Whether it’s genuine dispute or merely opportunistic union or company cynicism now, the concept of any meaningful construction industry ‘rule of law’ has just been rendered utterly impossible.
This one may be small and barely simmering for now, but if will surely bite this government big time. Wait for the first court cases to start firing up…and don’t forget, this ‘rule of law’ thing was the DD trigger for the entire election…