Tuesday, 30 July 2024

Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (13:42): (585) My question is to the Minister for Mental Health. Minister, 18-year-old Ben was outrageously bullied to death following his first shift on a CFMEU-run government construction site. His mother Tammie has said that the CFMEU members:

… locked him in a shed for three or four hours, just a young boy with mental health issues.

Ben, a Gunditjmara teen, was relentlessly bullied because he was wearing a shirt of a small Indigenous construction firm he had previously worked for. Minister, why didn’t you intervene when this tragedy first became public?

The PRESIDENT: The minister can speak for herself, but I am struggling to relate how the question relates to her responsibility to the executive. I will call the minister, but like I said, she can speak for herself.

Ingrid STITT (Western Metropolitan – Minister for Mental Health, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (13:43): I thank Ms Crozier for that question. Of course this is a completely tragic incident, and my heart goes out to that young man’s family and loved ones. It is shocking to hear the details of what had occurred there. I think that it would not be appropriate to make any further comment about the circumstances around this tragic incident. My understanding is that this would be a matter that the coroner would be investigating, and it would be more appropriate for us to let that investigation take its course and digest and consider any recommendations that could come from the coroner’s report. The government has a very strong view about workplace safety, and it has a particular responsibility around young people. Those matters would be more appropriately directed to the minister for WorkCover. As I have said, as this is the subject of a coronial investigation, I think it is appropriate to leave my comments there.

Georgie CROZIER (Southern Metropolitan) (13:44): Evidence in the media has shown a CFMEU official abusing Ben’s former boss, who was from the same Indigenous construction firm, saying:

I declared you a dog in front of the boys, what are you going to do about it?

Minister, as you said, the government says that they have a strong view on workplace safety. This is a workplace issue, it regards mental health issues and it has completely led to this tragedy. That is why I asked you the substantive question, because of your responsibility as mental health minister. So I ask, given you do acknowledge that this is a workplace issue: have you spoken to the responsible minister and demanded that WorkSafe open an urgent investigation into the toxic culture on CFMEU-run taxpayer-funded construction sites? You as minister just acknowledged that role it takes. What have you done with the WorkSafe minister?

The PRESIDENT: I am still struggling as far as whether that is under the –

Members interjecting.

The PRESIDENT: People can get frustrated, but there are many rulings from previous Presidents – ministers should answer questions if they come under their responsibilities to the executive. The minister did state in her substantive answer that she believed the issue should be directed to the Minister for WorkSafe, and I would be surprised if that would not be her answer again, but if you want to call a point of order, Ms Crozier, please.

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, President, this issue is around bullying, around suicide – the tragic, tragic incident that happened. The young man had mental health issues. That is completely in the remit of this minister. She actually acknowledged in her substantive answer to me that she takes this issue very seriously. My question to you is: given that you know what we know around this tragic incident, around bullying, around the death of this young man, what have you done to have that discussion with the appropriate minister? Clearly nothing. Is that the issue? Is it a yes or no? All I am asking is what you have done to demand WorkSafe open an urgent investigation into it.

The PRESIDENT: Ms Crozier, that is not a point of order. I kind of got a bit lost.

Ingrid Stitt: On the point of order, President, I am trying to be sensitive here because this is a really distressing situation, and I fully acknowledge that and the government fully acknowledges that. Specific questions around workplace bullying are not within the remit of my portfolio responsibilities. That is just a fact. They would need to be directed to the appropriate minister – in this case, Minister Pearson in the other place. That is further to the point of order, but of course the government have made much broader statements and commitments through the Premier about what actions we will take in response to this outrageous behaviour.

Nick McGowan: Further to Ms Crozier’s point of order, President, in essence the question was a question of the minister in her capacity, asking whether she had had a conversation with another minister. I would put it that the opposition is entitled to ask whether ministers holding their own portfolios have had conversations. How they choose to answer that question is another thing indeed.

The PRESIDENT: I appreciate the point of order, Mr McGowan. I suppose getting back to the standing orders and previous rulings, questions are to be to the ministers on their responsibility to the executive. I am not too sure if asking another minister a question falls inside their responsibilities that they have made an oath to as far as their responsibilities go. I think we will just move on.

Members interjecting.

Nick McGowan: Further to the point of order, President, it is a long-established practice in this chamber but also in the other, particularly in cases where the opposition, whoever is in opposition, may like to ask a minister whether they have had a conversation with the Premier. For example, ‘Was the Premier aware that you had done this, Minister?’ and so on and so forth. So it is not without some standing that opposition members are able to ask ministers whether in their portfolio responsibilities they have had conversations with other ministers.

The PRESIDENT: I think that is a fair point. The point that you made is: did the minister have a conversation with the Premier around something that particular minister was responsible for as far as their responsibility to the executive goes? With this point of order, I think we are in a different situation. The minister has stated it does not fall inside her responsibilities.