Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fair Work Building and Construction, under the leadership of Mr Nigel Hadgkiss, is mired in administrative incompetence, cronyism, bias and partiality in the exercise of the agency's functions. It also operates under a culture of bullying and harassment. In the past two years, Mr Hadgkiss has failed to properly answer or make a claim of public interest immunity in respect of 20 important questions about the administration of his agency. I only have time tonight to cite the worst examples.

In one of the most egregious examples of Mr Hadgkiss's desire to cloak his agency in secrecy, he is currently seeking to cover up whether improper payments have been made to a former APS senior executive service officer, Mr Glyn Cryer. His employment was terminated after an APS Code of Conduct investigation conducted by the agency found he had engaged in corrupt behaviour. This is not my characterisation of the officer's conduct. Fair Work Building and Construction itself reported to the Australian Public Service Commission that the officer had behaved corruptly. Any hint of corruption in the Australian Public Service is a very serious matter. The parliament is entitled to know if senior APS officers are behaving corruptly. The parliament is even more entitled to know if senior APS officers found to have behaved corruptly are walking away with more than they should be entitled to under confidential agreements with government agencies.

Despite having had two opportunities to do so, Mr Hadgkiss has not denied that this officer was the beneficiary of a payment above and beyond his legal entitlements. The parliament is entitled to know, if this payment has been made, who authorised it. Was it the head of the agency, Mr Hadgkiss? Was it the Secretary of the Department of Employment? Was it the Public Service Commissioner? And what was the minister's knowledge of it? It is inconceivable that anyone could think it is acceptable to use public funds for an ex gratia payment to a senior APS officer found to have behaved corruptly. And if no ex gratia payment was made in this case, why doesn't Mr Hadgkiss just say so? Who, other than Mr Hadgkiss, could possibly think the Senate is not entitled to know the details of this tawdry business because it is all a bit sensitive and personal and people might be embarrassed?

This is Mr Hadgkiss' view. It is in writing in answer to questions on notice from the last estimates. It is also the Minister for Employment's view. She also thinks the possible embarrassment to the former senior APS officer involved outweighs the Senate's right to know about corrupt conduct and expenditure of public money. If anyone doubts the minister might hold this view, look up Senate question on notice 2796 on the APH website. The Senate is entitled to know the details of this matter. If Mr Hadgkiss believes it is not, he will have to drop the privacy nonsense and make a public interest immunity claim setting out the actual harm to the public interest that would result from the Senate being informed about corrupt behaviour and the misuse of public funds in the Australian Public Service. I expect the Senate to be further informed on this matter next week through the estimates process.

The Senate is entitled to be satisfied that government regulatory agencies have not been captured by interest groups the agency is supposed to regulate. Regulatory capture is a form of political corruption that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Until I asked him about it in estimates, Mr Hadgkiss had never heard of the concept of regulatory capture.

In Fair Work Building and Construction's 2013-14 annual report, Mr Hadgkiss disclosed he had made 50 stakeholder presentations in the eight months since he was appointed as director. These presentations included small boardroom meetings. Given that it is in the cosy atmosphere of small boardroom meetings, perhaps over a spot of lunch amongst friends, that regulatory capture can occur, I felt that transparency would be even better served if Mr Hadgkiss disclosed which company boardrooms he had been invited to. So it was with some surprise that I encountered fierce resistance from Mr Hadgkiss to the proposition that more transparency in relation to these meetings might dispel any thought that the regulator was being captured by the companies being regulated.

First Mr Hadgkiss said that he thought it would be an unreasonable diversion of agency resources to reassure the Senate that his agency is not being captured by one side of the industry in cosy boardroom meetings. Then Mr Hadgkiss said it was unreasonable for him to disclose which company boardrooms he is attending because he was not sure that he kept an account of every boardroom meeting he attended. Then the position became that he would not disclose which boardrooms he had attended because those companies could have 'retribution handed down towards them'. Who would have thought that meeting Mr Hadgkiss could be so dangerous? Then Mr Hadgkiss told an estimates hearing that he could not disclose his appointments because he does not keep an official appointments diary. If this is true, which I doubt, then Mr Hadgkiss would be the only statutory office holder in the country who does not keep an official appointments diary.

The agency's latest annual report makes no mention of any comfortable boardroom meetings. You have to wonder why.

Since Mr Hadgkiss was appointed Director of Fair Work Building and Construction, sick leave and unscheduled absences per employee have doubled to levels which are amongst the highest in the APS. Spiralling sick leave and unscheduled absences are red flags for something deeply wrong in any workplace.

I am in possession of emails providing evidence of a culture of bullying and harassment, a culture in which complaints are ignored, perpetrators are protected and victims are punished. I am in possession of emails and other documents which indicate that code-of-conduct investigations resulting in employees being sanctioned with penalties, including termination, are being used to silence hardworking, honest public servants working at Fair Work Building and Construction who want a bullying-free workplace.

One employee, Mr Mark Lanigan-O'Keeffe, was sacked in 2014, ostensibly for unauthorised parking of his car at Fair Work's Sydney office. Three other employees were also subject to code-of-conduct investigation for the same offence. They were either exonerated or merely reprimanded. Only Mr Lanigan-O'Keeffe was sacked. He was an agency harassment contact officer and union delegate who had made and passed on multiple bullying complaints to management.

There are two current proceedings in the Federal Circuit Court to which the Director of Fair Work Building and Construction is the respondent and in which I am led to believe bullying and harassment are significant issues. Mr Hadgkiss is spending tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money on expensive private lawyers to defend these matters and prevent public disclosure of the facts behind these cases.

Given the maladministration of this agency by Mr Hadgkiss, of which I have provided only a few examples, he should seriously consider his position as a statutory officer. If he will not, the minister should.