Thursday, 1 August 2024

Questions without notice and ministers statements

Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (12:00): (597) My question is to the Minister for Skills and TAFE. For days the minister has defended the government’s decision to continue funding the rotten CFMEU as part of the Skills First training program. Has the minister sought assurances from her department that there are no CFMEU officials who are also organised crime or outlaw motorcycle gang members that are delivering Skills First training?

The PRESIDENT: Mr Mulholland, do you mind asking the question again – just the question part of it again, please.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Has the minister sought assurances from her department that there are no CFMEU officials who are also organised crime or outlaw motorcycle gang members that are delivering Skills First training?

Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Regional Development) (12:01): In terms of this question, it goes to process. The Premier was very forceful and very strong in her response, and that is that she has outlined a process that will be independent and there will be an investigation. In terms of all of the issues that you bring into this chamber along these lines, my very strong suggestion is that if you have an allegation or know someone that has an allegation, there is a process –

Members interjecting.

Evan Mulholland: On a point of order, President, the Premier herself has acknowledged that the CFMEU is rotten and contains criminal elements.

The PRESIDENT: That is not a point of order. That is editorialising.

Evan Mulholland: On relevance, I was simply asking if she has sought assurances from her department that there are no criminal elements.

The PRESIDENT: The minister has had about 39 seconds.

Gayle TIERNEY: My answer is that there is a process in place that was outlined by the Premier. Now, if you have got questions or allegations, then I suggest that you deal with the process that has been outlined. Otherwise you are trying to divert the resources and undermine the process –

Members interjecting.

Georgie Crozier: On a point of order, President, the minister has failed to even address the issue. It is not about the process, it is actually about what she has done as the minister in relation to her own ministerial responsibilities. I know she is shaking her head, but I would ask you to draw her back to the substance of the question and answer it succinctly, as Mr Mulholland expects.

David Davis: Further to the point of order, President, the minister may well have delegated some of the authority, but she is still responsible for actions within her department. She is responsible for every item that she has delegated. In that sense Mr Mulholland is asking a very simple and straightforward question, and she should answer the question rather than going on a rant.

The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, a member can ask a minister about an interaction with her department. I will call the minister.

Gayle TIERNEY: Thank you, President. Of course my department knows that I expect that activities that are conducted in the department or connected to the department should be conducted in a lawful way. That is an expectation, and that is absolutely understood.

Evan Mulholland: On a point of order, President, the question was about what assurances she is undertaking. It was not about understandings. It has been over two weeks since these allegations occurred. I was asking her whether she has sought assurances. It is a simple yes or no, Minister.

The PRESIDENT: I believe the minister was being very relevant to the question in that part of her answer. As far as semantics around expectations or assurances go, she outlined her expectations to her department.

Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (12:05): She clearly has not sought assurances. On that note, what was the date of the last spot check into the CFMEU carried out by your department as part of the Skills First training program?

The PRESIDENT: I spent the last half-hour reading previous rulings, and there are a number of rulings from presidents who I aspire to be as good as in the future which say that questions cannot have an expectation of or ask the minister to provide a degree of detail she would not have at hand. We have had a number of these questions in previous weeks. Mr Mulholland, I will let you rephrase so you are not out of line with those previous rulings by previous presidents and me.

Evan MULHOLLAND: On the ruling, I am happy for the minister to take it on notice if she does not have the information required. I was simply asking the date of the last spot check into the CFMEU. We asked a similar question yesterday in regard to whether there have been any spot checks into the CFMEU. Will the minister make public the date of the last spot check into the CFMEU?

The PRESIDENT: I will address Mr Mulholland, which segues to a number of rulings around when the degree of detail asked of a minister is far from what can be expected of a minister to have at hand. Those particular questions should be questions on notice. I am not saying that you cannot ask the question at this time, but that was the suggestion of previous rulings.

Nick McGowan: On a point of order, President, I refer to Mr Mulholland’s point of order. I have no qualms with what you have said, President, but in respect to this particular question, there have been three days straight of questioning on this particular issue, and yesterday there were questions specifically about the spot checks. I would contest that it is a reasonable expectation that a minister, under those circumstances, would readily have received a briefing, certainly on Tuesday – and if not Tuesday, certainly on Wednesday, then by Thursday. As you say, it is not something that we are expecting the minister to know off the top of their head, or seek to, but they should reasonably have that information to hand.

The PRESIDENT: I think there is nothing in the previous rulings around where an expectation should be, or a build-up of an expectation. I will call the minister to answer the question, but I just wanted to relate to the chamber that a number of these questions having that level of detail would not be expected of a minister.

Gayle TIERNEY (Western Victoria – Minister for Skills and TAFE, Minister for Regional Development) (12:08): It is a question that was asked yesterday. I answered that question. We have a system in place where, if the department believe that there is something that needs to be looked at, they do spot checks. They do a whole range of things. It is also an understanding in my department that I have a very high benchmark when it comes to allegations or complaints, and that is a way that the relationship works. They know that I take any complaints or allegations very seriously and that they are dealt with expeditiously.