CFMEU probe head flags interim report as union grills former watchdog

Lawyers for the CFMEU administration questioned the credibility of a former national building industry watchdog in an hours-long Queensland inquiry hearing into the union and sector.

Commissioner Stuart Wood KC also flagged an interim report or recommendations “sooner rather than later” around a new state building code and enforcement, after an 18-month inquiry extension.

Former Australian Building and Construction Commission boss Nigel Hadgkiss, who gave evidence about the need for the updated state building code in April, returned to the stand on Thursday.

While counsel assisting the inquiry had sought to have questioning of Hadgkiss’ 2017 resignation from the role barred from cross-examination, inquiry commissioner Stuart Wood ultimately agreed.

Hadgkiss quit a day after admitting in the Federal Court to recklessly misrepresenting union right-of-entry rules to employers for two years, breaching the Fair Work Act. He was ordered to pay $8500.

He was one of two former QBCC figures recalled for cross-examination by counsel for the CFMEU administration, Chris O’Grady KC, on Thursday, as the inquiry considers recommending a new code.

Counsel assisting the inquiry Jame McLean pushed back on one of the proposed lines of questioning by O’Grady, saying a well-designed code and regulator could improve construction productivity.

“An exploration of the circumstances of a particular individual’s resignation from a regulatory body cannot rationally bear upon the thesis that is being developed [by the inquiry],” McLean said.

O’Grady argued Hadgkiss was being put forward as an expert and the circumstances around his resignation represented a lack of judgement and inappropriate conduct.

“We’re entitled to explore that issue, so that you in due course can form a view as to the weight you give to Mr Hadkiss’ evidence,” O’Grady said, along with the ABCC’s perceived targeting of the union.

While Wood said he thought this struck him as an “opportunistic” effort which could descend into an “ad hominem attack”, he would allow O’Grady full range of questioning.

Across hours on Thursday afternoon, Hadgkiss was pressed by O’Grady on the work of the twice-abolished former ABCC he led between December 2016 and September 2017.

O’Grady also questioned Hadgkiss about his analysis of construction sector productivity rates, with Hadgkiss agreeing national construction codes placed rules on industry beyond the Fair Work Act.

Taken through parts of his lengthy written witness statement laying out suggestions for a new Queensland code, Hadgkiss conceded many elements also already exist in federal law.

But he said these were not being properly enforced. “There are loopholes being taken advantage by unscrupulous employers and union officials,” Hadgkiss said.

After the cross-examination was ended, Hadgkiss described O’Grady’s remarks about his reasons for leaving the ABCC as “quite disparaging”.

“I think it should be put on record that following my resignation, shortly thereafter, the Governor-General saw fit to bestow upon me the Order of Australia,” Hadgkiss said. “One of the [reasons] … was my contribution to Australia’s building construction industry.

“So I’d like to put that in context of, the rather, forceful cross-examination the counsel gave me.”

Then asked by Wood why he quit, Hadgkiss said: “I made a mistake, I paid the consequences, and I felt it best for the agency that I leave”.

After dismissing Hadgkiss, Wood noted the inquiry’s behind-doors work consulting industry stakeholders on changes to the code had started when the inquiry was due to finish next month.

With a recently extended final reporting date in December 2027, and evidence of Hadgkiss and fellow former ABCC figure Wayne Jenkinson finalised, Wood said it would be good for the inquiry to “make whatever recommendations it does in relation to this issue sooner rather than later”.

Wood said he believed the CFMEU administration was the last stakeholder which needed to be dealt with, and a report would then be prepared summarising this for the inquiry’s consideration.

He asked counsel for all parties before the inquiry to make any submissions of their own on the matter before July 24.

The inquiry’s next three-day hearing block will continue from next Tuesday.

Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.