Web viewROYAL COMMISSION INTO TRADE UNION. GOVERNANCE AND CORRUPTION. Level 19, 55 Market Street,...

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO TRADE UNION GOVERNANCE AND CORRUPTION

Level 19, 55 Market Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000

On Tuesday, 18 August 2015 at 9.30am (Day 7)

CFMEU FUNDS - BTG D&A U-PLUS COVERFORCE

Before the Commissioner: The Hon. John Dyson Heydon AC QC

Counsel Assisting: Ms Sarah McNaughton SC Mr Thomas Prince

Instructed by: Minter Ellison, Solicitors

.18/08/2015 CFMEU BTG D&A 751 Transcript produced by DTI

1 THE COMMISSIONER: I think, before we begin, I just want 2 to check that, for example, Mr Pasfield, is Mr Agius or 3 Mr Slevin coming? 4 5 MR PASFIELD: Mr Slevin will be, Commissioner. Mr Agius 6 is ill today. 7 8 THE COMMISSIONER: What's wrong with him? 9 10 MR PASFIELD: He's in hospital at the moment. 11 12 THE COMMISSIONER: Oh dear. Ms McNaughton perhaps can 13 find out some details later, and I would like to hear them. 14 Like everyone else, I'm sure, I'm sorry to hear it. You 15 have no problem with the questioning proceeding? 16 17 MR PASFIELD: No problem at all. 18 19 THE COMMISSIONER: Is there anyone else here who has been 20 disadvantaged by the change in timing for this hearing 21 today from 11 to 9.30? I think everyone is owed an apology 22 for the late change, it is just that a witness is coming 23 from interstate, was supposed to be coming for 10 and can't 24 come until later, hence the juggling. I apologise to you 25 too, sir, for this problem. I hope it hasn't been an 26 inconvenience to you. Thanks, Mr Pasfield. Very well, 27 Ms McNaughton. 28 29 MS McNAUGHTON: Just to be clear, that witness that you 30 just mentioned has nothing to do with this particular case. 31 32 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. 33 34 <ANTHONY PAPACONSTUNTINOS, on former oath: 35 36 <EXAMINATION BY MS McNAUGHTON CONTINUING: 37 38 THE WITNESS: Morning. 39 40 MS McNAUGHTON: Commissioner, Mr Papa will be under his 41 former oath. 42 43 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. It is customary, when a witness 44 is in the box overnight, just to remind them that they're, 45 in your case, bound by the oath you took yesterday. 46 47 THE WITNESS: Yes.

.18/08/2015 CFMEU BTG D&A 752 A PAPA (Ms McNaughton) Transcript produced by DTI

1 2 MS McNAUGHTON: Q. Mr Papa, we were talking about the 3 clause in the EBA and your understanding about it. Can 4 I now take you, please, to more your involvement with 5 CIDAF. There are some documents there within the 6 chronological folder. Could that be provided to the 7 witness? 8 A. Thank you. 9 10 Q. You have given some indication, sir, in relation to 11 your involvement with CIDAF, but could I ask you, please, 12 to turn to page 161. 13 A. Yes. 14 15 Q. Do you see that there's some minutes from 16 December 16 2010, and you're in attendance at that meeting which is 17 minuted there? 18 A. Mmm-hmm. Yes. 19 20 Q. Over to page 164, do you see "Election of office 21 bearers"? 22 A. Yes. 23 24 Q. And you're elected unopposed as a representative of 25 the CFMEU, along with Mr Knott. Do you see that? 26 A. Yes. 27 28 Q. Does that accord with your recollection of that time? 29 A. Yes, I think it does, yes. I don't recall it. 30 I remember getting elected and re-elected on occasions as 31 well, but, yes. 32 33 Q. Back at page 163, the Treasurer's report? 34 A. Yes. 35 36 Q. This is halfway down that page, or just below halfway. 37 Do you see: 38 39 MK advised that Foundation cannot involve 40 itself in drug and alcohol education due to 41 its charity status. That is why the 42 Building Trades Group Drug and Alcohol 43 Committee exists to undertake that 44 function. 45 46 Do you see that? 47 A. Yes, I do.


1 2 Q. As at the end of 2010, what was your role with the 3 Drug and Alcohol Committee? 4 A. I was a member of the Committee. 5 6 Q. Did that accord with your understanding, what Mr Knott 7 apparently advised? 8 A. I'm not sure. I'm not sure whether it did or not, 9 because there was occasions that, you know, the meetings 10 were fairly quick. This obviously must have been an AGM, 11 if there was an election of office bearers, so, yes; no, it 12 doesn't. That's a fair statement. 13 14 Q. So irrespective of whether you can recall it, that 15 does accord with your understanding of how that group 16 worked? 17 A. Well, yes, because the BTG had a safety officer - an 18 education officer, anyway, and the education officer's role 19 was to go out on building sites and do presentations to 20 workers about drugs, alcohol, problem gambling, safe sex, 21 all that stuff, and there was - that was his primary role. 22 That's what he was getting paid for by the BTG. 23 24 Q. When you say "by the BTG" you mean the BTG Drug and 25 Alcohol Committee? 26 A. Committee, yes, the DA Committee, yes. 27 28 Q. Who was the person you were referring to that went out 29 on the sites? 30 A. There was a number of them, Tommy Simpson, primarily, 31 he was in the job probably the longest. Shane Barrett was 32 engaged down the track and he was doing the TAFE colleges, 33 and now the current education officer is a person called 34 Joe Ratana, who took over from a bloke called Dave Lakeman 35 who retired. 36 37 Q. Can you now turn to page 165. Do you see they're 38 minutes of a foundation meeting held on 16 February 2011 39 and you're present at it, according to the minute? 40 A. Yes. 41 42 Q. Do you see towards the end of the page 165 that it 43 says: 44 45 Michael Knott supported the urgent need to 46 engage Kamper & Co to do supplementary 47 audit to ensure probity.


1 2 A. Yes, I do see that. 3 4 Q. Do you see that that was in the context of, further up 5 that page, that Mr Sobb had resigned from the Committee? 6 A. Mr Who? 7 8 Q. Anthony Sobb? 9 A. Sobb, yes. 10 11 Q. Do you remember him? 12 A. Yes. 13 14 Q. Do you remember him resigning? 15 A. Yes. I vaguely recall a meeting where he wasn't too 16 happy with what was going on and decided that he was going 17 to withdraw. 18 19 Q. Can you give any further detail about what you recall 20 about why he wasn't happy? 21 A. I think it was more to do with auditing, and "forensic 22 auditing" was a word that was bandied around, and he just 23 wasn't too happy about - this is his impression, that 24 wasn't too happy with what was going on, because ultimately 25 when he did withdraw, he established the Fairfield Drug and 26 Alcohol Organisation, so there was some suspicion that he 27 did it quite deliberately so he could pull out and 28 establish his own organisation under the banner of the 29 club. 30 31 Q. Do you recall Mr Knott and what he said about the 32 urgent need to engage Kamper & Co to do a supplementary 33 audit? 34 A. I don't recall that, but, as I said, there was a lot 35 of debate around the issue of auditing. 36 37 Q. Could you now please turn to page 170. Do you see 38 there is a further Committee of Management meeting minutes 39 of 9 March 2011? 40 A. Yes. 41 42 Q. You were there, it says, as a representative of the 43 CFMEU? 44 A. Yes. 45 46 Q. Can I also ask you to please go to page 174. 47 A. Yes.


1 2 Q. Do you see there is an application authority for 3 business accounts, this one, account number ending in 2083, 4 for the Building Trades Group? 5 A. Yes. 6 7 Q. Over the page, at 175, can you see your details there? 8 A. Yes. 9 10 Q. And those of Mr Tulloch? 11 A. Yes. 12 13 Q. Do you see that you both are authorised to operate on 14 the account? 15 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. And that is dated, if you go over to page 177 -- 18 19 THE COMMISSIONER: I should just direct that on page 175, 20 the personal details are not to be published. 21 22 MS McNAUGHTON: If it please the Commission. 23 24 Q. Over the page, on 177, is 16/3/11 is the date, so 25 16 March 2011? 26 A. Yes, I see that. 27 28 Q. And back at 176, in terms of positions of you and 29 Mr Tulloch, you are said to be the Secretary and Mr Tulloch 30 is said to be the President. Does that accord with your 31 recollection as at that time? 32 A. No, not really. I remember Mal Tulloch, who was the 33 Secretary of the CFMEU after Mr Ferguson departed, and he 34 wasn't there for a terribly long time, so, yes. 35 36 Q. Was it the practice that the current Secretary of the 37 CFMEU was the President of the BTG? 38 A. Well, in terms of the BTG itself, when it was 39 initially established under the auspices of Labour Council, 40 it was the senior officers of the organisation that made up 41 the Building Trades Group, so it doesn't surprise me if 42 that was the case. 43 44 Q. It appears that the persons authorised to operate on 45 the account as at March 2011 were only you and Mr Tulloch? 46 A. Yes. 47


1 Q. Is that right? 2 A. Well, that's what it looks like, yes. 3 4 Q. So both from the CFMEU, and Mr Tulloch, at that time, 5 having a role as Secretary of the CFMEU? 6 A. Yes. 7 8 Q. And then over the page, at 179, do you see that 9 there's a motion to support that banking document? 10 A. 179? 11 12 Q. Yes. 13 A. It's another set of minutes. 14 15 Q. I beg your pardon, 178. 16 A. Okay. 17 18 Q. Yes? 19 A. Yes. 20 21 Q. Were you and Mr Tulloch the only people who attended 22 the meeting on 1 February 2011, can you recall? 23 A. No, I don't. There was other members of the BTG, so - 24 I don't recall. I know I signed this. I certainly didn't 25 prepare the document. 26 27 Q. Do you know who did? 28 A. Well, it would either be someone in the office of the 29 CFMEU, and I - look, I couldn't tell you. I don't know. 30 It would be someone in the office of the CFMEU. That's 31 where most of the documents were prepared that had to do 32 with the CFMEU, and I signed them when asked. 33 34 Q. Was the meeting actually held, do you recall? 35 A. To tell you the truth, I don't know, I can't recall. 36 37 Q. Can I go a bit out of order and ask you, sir, to go to 38 page 260? 39 A. Of the same folder? 40 41 Q. Of the same folder. 42 A. Yes. 43 44 Q. Do you see at page 260 a very similar document to the 45 banking document we have seen earlier? 46 A. Yes. 47


1 Q. But this time it is you, still, but instead of 2 Mr Tulloch it's Mr Parker on it? 3 A. Yes. 4 5 Q. If you go over to page 261, 262 and 263 -- 6 7 THE COMMISSIONER: I direct that residential addresses and 8 personal details there appearing not be published. 9 10 MS McNAUGHTON: Thank you, Commissioner. 11 12 Q. This document is 24 January 2012. That is at 13 page 263. 14 A. Yes, I see the date. 15 16 Q. And then over the page, at 264, there's a very similar 17 document, "Minutes of Meeting Held", this time January 16, 18 2011; do you see that? 19 A. Yes. 20 21 Q. It says: 22 23 Following the resignation of 24 Malcolm Tulloch, the new signatories ... 25 are to be changed to the following two, to 26 sign together. 27 28 Q. Do you know why Mr Parker became a signatory instead 29 of Mr Tulloch? 30 A. I don't know the internal machinations of what had 31 happened. All I know is that there was comments made about 32 Mr Tulloch having a short wick and needed some anger 33 management, that is about it. 34 35 Q. But why did his change in role at the CFMEU mean 36 inevitably a change of role of the Building Trades Group of 37 Unions? 38 A. Well, if he was no longer in that position, I presume 39 that he didn't have any role to play at all in the affairs 40 of the Union. 41 42 Q. And that included a role to play in the Building 43 Trades Group of Unions? 44 A. Yes. Yes, I'd imagine so, yes, because it was part 45 and parcel of the structure of the Union. It was part of 46 the CFMEU, and if he no longer has a role in the CFMEU he 47 has no role to play in the BTG, I would imagine.


1 2 Q. So you say the BTG was part of the CFMEU, is that 3 right - part and parcel of the structure of the Union; is 4 that what you say? 5 A. Yes. Well, that is how I've known it. From the time 6 I entered the CFMEU, that was my belief. 7 8 Q. Can we go back to look through some of these 9 documents, back to page 179. Do you see there "Minutes of 10 Meeting", this time, 22 March 2011. You attended that 11 meeting of the Foundation? 12 A. Hang on. 179? 13 14 Q. Yes. 15 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. Do you recall anything about what was going on in 18 March 2011, independently of this document? 19 A. Yes. I think at the - I joined the organisation as 20 the CEO in May of that year, so I was just a Committee 21 member in March, and it was leading up to whether the 22 organisation was financially viable, et cetera, et cetera, 23 and there was the situation with Sobb and also Kamper's 24 involvement to do an audit of the organisation, yes. 25 26 Q. At this point, at page 179, number 7, it appears that 27 Mr Sharp addressed the Committee of Management meeting and 28 advised them of his health and fitness for return to work; 29 do you see that? 30 A. In the same meeting? 31 32 Q. Number 7. Do you see that? 33 A. Yes. It says, "T Sharp joined the meeting at 9.30am." 34 35 Q. Yes, and he was invited to address the meeting. Do 36 you recall that occurring? 37 A. Not really, no. Oh, I think it was - he was in rehab 38 and he was asked to come in to provide an explanation to 39 the meeting, I think, yes; yes, I do. 40 41 Q. Then over at page 183, do you see further minutes of a 42 meeting, this time 31 March 2011, and you were apparently 43 present at that? 44 A. Yes, I see that. 45 46 Q. There was further discussion about Mr Sharp's 47 situation at points 5, 6 and 7 on the bottom of that page?


1 A. I see that, yes, provided a doctor's certificate. 2 3 Q. And then over the page, do you see it is recorded: 4 5 In recognition of Trevor's recovery 6 progress to date and in a final effort to 7 assist him on a pathway to full recovery 8 and his stated aim of total abstinence it 9 was reported that the BTG Drug and Alcohol 10 Committee, in partnership with the 11 foundation, was prepared to discuss with 12 Trevor Sharp an offer of a 6 month contract 13 of employment. 14 15 and then there would be a review of his position. Do you 16 recall that occurring? 17 A. I recall there was a lot of discussion about Trevor's 18 recovery and how the Committee was going to deal with it, 19 and they wanted to deal with it in such a way that it 20 reflected what the organisation was all about, that, you 21 know, we weren't prepared to kick him in the guts, to put 22 it bluntly, you know, while the person was down. We wanted 23 to do the right thing by him. 24 25 Q. Could you now kindly turn to page 202. Do you see 26 there a further meeting minuted of 6 June 2011? 27 A. Yes. 28 29 Q. Then do you see at point 3 matters arising from the 30 minutes: 31 32 B.Seidler wants to know the relationship 33 between BTG and CIDAF. 34 35 A. Yes.. 36 37 Q. It says: 38 39 M Knott explained that BTG was a Union 40 initiative and was an education arm and 41 that CIDAF was a joint initiative between 42 employers, Union and employer 43 representatives and was responsible for 44 fund raising and the running of Foundation 45 House. 46 47 Does that accord with your understanding of those


1 organisations? If you read "BTG" as perhaps the Drug and 2 Alcohol Committee? 3 A. Yes. There's the BTG Drug and Alcohol Committee which 4 is operating, or operated, out of the Foundation, and then 5 there was the BTG Committee, Safety Committee that operated 6 as well, which was part of the umbrella of the Labour 7 Council. 8 9 Q. You saw those as different organisations, did you? 10 A. Well, yes, I did, yes. 11 12 Q. What, practically speaking, did the BTG Safety 13 Committee that operated as part of the umbrella of the 14 Labour Council do? 15 A. That was a Committee that was operating when Mr Childs 16 was the Secretary, and it had a role to play in industrial 17 matters and other activities to do with the building and 18 construction industry, industrial/political matters, where 19 the Drug and Alcohol Committee was a Committee established 20 that looked after drug and alcohol, so they were 21 established under the rules of the Constitution of the 22 Labour Council, initially, and then there was one in the 23 CFMEU, with the BTG Committee, and then there was the 24 safety Committee - the BTG Drug and Alcohol Committee which 25 is the Foundation. I know it is confusing, I'm still 26 confused to this day. 27 28 Q. You said that the Safety Committee of the BTG was 29 operating when Mr Childs was the Secretary - yes? 30 A. Yes, that's correct. 31 32 Q. He became ill, you say, in about 2002? 33 A. Around about that, yes. 34 35 Q. Did that not function in that fashion after that? 36 A. Yes, it did, it continued. I was involved - as 37 I said, I was asked to take over from his responsibilities. 38 39 Q. But you say that BTG D&A Committee, you say, "which is 40 the Foundation"; is that correct? 41 A. I beg your pardon? 42 43 Q. The BTG Drug and Alcohol Committee -- 44 A. Yes. 45 46 Q. I just want to clarify what you said, "which is the 47 Foundation", did you say that?


1 A. I didn't say - well, I may have said that, but the BTG 2 Drug and Alcohol Committee operates out of the same 3 premises as the Construction Industry Drug and Alcohol 4 Foundation, so they operate out of the one building. The 5 BTG Safety Committee operated out of, basically, the CFMEU, 6 yes. 7 8 Q. Right. Now, the Safety Committee, which you say you 9 had something to do with, did that -- 10 A. I was involved in the Safety Committee. As I said, 11 I took over from Graham Childs. 12 13 Q. Did that have meetings? 14 A. Yes, but we didn't meet regularly. It was very 15 sporadic, as I indicated yesterday, yes. 16 17 Q. You indicated, in relation to minutes and the like, 18 that it may not have had minutes on every occasion? 19 A. On some occasions we did. More often than not it was, 20 you know, discussion between two or three or four, 21 depending on how many people turned up at the meeting. 22 23 Q. Are the BTG itself and the BTG Safety Committee one 24 and the same, in your mind? 25 A. No. 26 27 Q. So there's the BTG, the BTG Safety Committee, there's 28 the BTG Drug and Alcohol Committee operating out of 29 Rozelle? 30 A. That's correct. 31 32 Q. And Foundation House? 33 A. That's correct. 34 35 Q. They're all different? 36 A. That's correct. 37 38 Q. The minutes at 6 June 2011 - can I also ask you to 39 look at page 204. Do you see right towards the end, the 40 second-last paragraph, if I can call it that: 41 42 B Seidler thanked T Papa for his 43 contribution and M Knott and C Huntley for 44 their work on the redundancy and deed of 45 separation. 46 47 Do you see that?


1 A. Yes. 2 3 Q. Do you understand that to have been in relation to 4 Mr Sharp leaving the organisation? 5 A. It appears that way, yes, but - what date was this? 6 7 Q. This was June 2011? 8 A. Okay. Yes. I wasn't directly involved in organising 9 Trevor Sharp's departure, if you like. There was a 10 Committee that was established, a subcommittee that was 11 established, that dealt with the day-to-day operation of 12 the organisation in the absence of Mr Sharp and he being in 13 rehab. That Committee consisted of Michael Knott, 14 Col Huntley, Brian Seidler, and they obviously had the 15 support and they were getting advice from John Baldwin, who 16 was the clinical manager at the time, about Trevor's 17 condition, and so on. I wasn't directly involved, so why 18 Seidler was thanking me is beyond me, quite frankly. 19 20 Q. Can I ask you, please, to turn to page 207. 21 A. Yes. 22 23 Q. Do you see there an email from Mr Knott? 24 A. Yes. 25 26 Q. To Ms Glass and Ms Hollings? 27 A. Yes. 28 29 Q. Do you know who has Ms Hollings is? 30 A. Yes, she's my PA at about Foundation House. 31 32 Q. And it is copied to Mr Tulloch, yourself, Ms McWhinney 33 and Mr Sharp? 34 A. Yes. 35 36 Q. The subject is "Meeting re D&A prior to 4 October". 37 Do you see that? 38 A. Yes. 39 40 Q. It's asking Ms Glass to organise a meeting with a 41 range of people, including yourself? 42 A. Mmm-hmm. 43 44 Q. And the meeting would include "Proposal to continue 45 Tony Papa's appointment", yourself? 46 A. Yes. 47


1 Q. Mr Knott's resignation and Keryn McWhinney's 2 appointment? 3 A. Yes. 4 5 Q. Do you recall that at that time, which is September 6 2011? 7 A. No, not really. 8 9 Q. By the way, just before I go on, was the BTG Drug and 10 Alcohol Committee, to your understanding, ever known as the 11 BTG Drug and Alcohol and Safety Committee? 12 A. Well, yes, it has been called that, yes. 13 14 Q. At what time has it been called that? 15 A. I don't know, to tell you the truth. I think that was 16 the case before I became the Executive Officer of CIDAF. 17 18 Q. So when? That's a long period of time? 19 A. I became Executive Officer at the end of May, I think 20 it was 30 May 2011, so -- 21 22 Q. As at that time, what did you call the BTG Drug and 23 Alcohol -- 24 A. Just the BTG. 25 26 Q. So it wasn't called the BTG Drug and Alcohol -- 27 A. Well, everyone referred to it as "the BTG". It was a 28 lot easier than "Drug and Alcohol Safety Committee" or 29 "Drug and Alcohol Committee" or, in the case of the CFMEU, 30 "the BTG Safety Committee". So everyone referred to it as 31 the BTG. 32 33 Q. Do you know when "Safety" came into the name of the 34 Committee? 35 A. No, I couldn't tell you. I don't know. 36 37 Q. Can I ask you to turn to page 209. Do you see there 38 minutes from 4 October? 39 A. Yes, I do. 40 41 Q. You're there as "CIDAF representative", it says? 42 A. Yes. 43 44 Q. Does that accord with your understanding? 45 A. Well, I attended meetings after I became the Executive 46 Officer and I attended meetings more or less to provide 47 information and up-to-date dealings of the organisation.


1 2 Q. Over at 211, it appears that there's a typed 3 President's Report of Mr Huntley. Do you see that? This 4 one relates to 8 November 2011, it says, "AGM", at the top 5 of that page? 6 A. Yes, I see that. 7 8 Q. Towards the bottom, the fourth-last dot point, it 9 says: 10 11 Tony Papa agreed to take on management role 12 (thanks Tony). 13 14 A. Yes. 15 16 Q. Does that accord with your understanding of the time 17 at which you agreed to take on that role? 18 A. Full-time, yes. That is why - I initially went over 19 to CIDAF by secondment, and initially that was to be a 20 period of three months, but I decided that I liked doing 21 what I was doing, helping people and doing what I could for 22 the Foundation, and I was asked to stay on and I agreed. 23 24 Q. Thank you. Could we now go to page 212 which appears 25 to be -- 26 A. The AGM, yes. 27 28 Q. -- the AGM. In the middle of the President's Report 29 on page 212, do you see under number 4, he starts this 30 sentence: 31 32 With the resignation of T sharp we have 33 restructured the CEO position with 34 Tony Papa taking on the management role. 35 36 A. Can I just read this? 37 38 Q. Certainly? 39 A. Yes. 40 41 Q. Does that accord with your understanding as to when 42 you took on the role? 43 A. Yes, it was restructured, the position, which I, by 44 and large, wanted it restructured, because I think that - 45 well, I thought then and I still do today that that 46 position was a position that (a) was extremely important in 47 terms of the operation of the organisation, the earnings of


1 the Executive Officer were far in excess of what they 2 should have been, in my opinion, and I agreed to take on 3 the role with a changed structure - that is, a lesser 4 income for the Executive Officer, other conditions of 5 employment which applied to Trevor, which I thought were a 6 bit exorbitant as well, and we changed that structure. 7 8 Q. Could I just go back as a sort of segue back to the 9 BTG Drug and Alcohol Committee. You say that it was also 10 called "BTG Drug and Alcohol and Safety Committee". What 11 was your understanding as to the nature of the safety 12 involved in that Committee? Was it drug and alcohol 13 related or independent of drug and alcohol, to your 14 understanding? 15 A. Well, what we were doing, in fact, the work of the 16 Drug and Alcohol Committee, by way of our education officer 17 going on building sites, doing those presentations for 18 workers - it was all about safety. We wanted people to 19 work safely. 20 21 If you're impaired with drugs or alcohol there's no 22 chance you're going to be working safely, so you place 23 yourself into a serious situation, let alone others that 24 you're working with, so what we were doing, by and large, 25 was to do with safety anyway, and our policy reflected 26 that. 27 28 Q. Do I understand from that that it emanated out of the 29 drug and alcohol related behaviours? 30 A. Yes and no. I think the role that the Union played, 31 and continues to play, with safety in the building industry 32 and the role that we play in terms of education, they 33 interlock. You know, some people may disagree, but, to me, 34 I have been around for quite some time, and when you see 35 people in the building and construction industry, which is 36 a very dangerous industry, that are impaired - and 37 I remember many years ago, you know, it was not unusual to 38 have a couple of slabs sitting in the fridge where people 39 would have a beer on the job, and stuff like that. We had 40 to change that culture because it was unsafe, and that is 41 what happened. 42 So what the Union were doing in terms of their safety 43 officers' work and the role of the organisers on the job 44 and the role that we were doing in terms of Foundation 45 House and bringing people in for rehabilitation, educating 46 them about the dangers of drug and alcohol use on the job, 47 et cetera, et cetera, they were married, basically.


1 2 Q. But the BTG Drug and Alcohol Committee, if I can call 3 it that, had a focus on drug and alcohol in relation to 4 safety; is that fair to say? 5 A. It's fair to say that but, as I said, they're 6 interrelated. 7 8 Q. Certainly. 9 A. Yes. 10 11 Q. Can I ask you, please, to go on to page 217. Do you 12 see there the heading is quite clear, "Committee of 13 Management Meeting Held on 9th November 2011 Following 14 AGM"? 15 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. There are various discussions about various items, 18 including a change of logo, on 218, for Foundation House? 19 A. 218, yes. That logo was - the initial logo had a - it 20 was this logo on the top left-hand corner of that document 21 and, as you can see, it's two high-rise buildings with 22 CIDAF underneath it. It certainly didn't reflect who we 23 were. And I remember I was talking to a particular person 24 who was an engineer in the industry and he said, "Oh, your 25 organisation must be cashed up, owning two buildings like 26 that", but that wasn't the case. We weren't cashed up. So 27 we had to change that logo because the impression that that 28 gave certainly didn't reflect who we were. 29 30 Q. Can I now ask you, please, to turn to page 222. Do 31 you see there minutes from a meeting of 7 December 2011 32 where you are apparently in attendance? 33 A. Yes. 34 35 Q. Towards the bottom of page 222, indeed, the last 36 paragraph, do you see there, just above the last paragraph 37 it starts: 38 39 B Seidler inquired about the BTGU Safety 40 Program and asked to see the clause 41 concerning this payment in the current 42 EBAs. 43 44 A. Yes. 45 46 Q. And then: 47


1 The CIDAF Committee of Management has 2 requested that they be advised where funds 3 from BTGU Safety Program are deposited 4 after collection by administrator, they 5 would like to know where the money is 6 transferred to and why it does not come 7 directly to Foundation House. 8 9 A. Mmm-hmm. 10 11 Q. Do you remember this controversy? 12 A. Yes, I do indeed. 13 14 Q. Could you tell the Commission, please, what you recall 15 about the controversy from any perspective that you have, 16 either as a CIDAF person or a BTG D&A person or, indeed, 17 CFMEU. 18 19 MR BORGEEST: Before that question is answered, there is 20 no foundation, in my submission, for the suggestion that 21 Mr Papa had a CFMEU capacity at the time of this 22 controversy. 23 24 THE COMMISSIONER: I heard the question as simply being 25 directed to him asking or to him stating, as it were, what 26 he could recollect of the controversy, whatever hat any 27 particular people were wearing. Is that correct, 28 Ms McNaughton? 29 30 MR BORGEEST: That was the form of the question, and it 31 contained the suggestion that Mr Papa may have had a CFMEU 32 capacity at the time, and there's no foundation for that 33 suggestion. 34 35 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 36 37 MS McNAUGHTON: I will clarify that. 38 39 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 40 41 MS McNAUGHTON: Q. Sir, could you tell the Commission 42 what understanding you had, from whatever perspective you 43 would like to give it from? 44 A. The Committee was a bit confused about the funding, 45 and that is what led, ultimately, to the Committee 46 resigning. There was a belief amongst certain Committee 47 members that all of the money that was raised by way of the


1 enterprise bargaining agreement was to go to the 2 Foundation. That wasn't the case. The belief was that the 3 Union had milked, if you like, the organisation, which 4 again wasn't the case, and there was a bit of lack of 5 knowledge about the organisation, where the money, the 6 income, was coming in. My view was that the enterprise 7 agreement that the Union had had contained a particular 8 clause that assisted the Foundation, and that the clause, 9 in fact, enabled the employers or required the employers to 10 contribute to the Foundation, which they did by way of that 11 enterprise agreement. 12 13 As I pointed out to the Committee, the Union, in fact, 14 was giving us the money to help us operate, because at that 15 time we weren't getting any funding at all. We're still 16 not getting any funding, by the way. We don't get a 17 cracker from either the Federal Government or the State 18 Government. And the contribution of the Union was the 19 thing that kept us going. Without that, the doors would 20 have closed back in 2011. And we were certainly - at least 21 I was certainly grateful that we were getting that support, 22 but some of the other committee members really didn't 23 understand what the situation was, and I went through great 24 pains to go through some of the minutes to try and explain 25 it to them, but unfortunately it just fell on deaf ears. 26 27 Q. Can we just look at page 223. There was a motion, at 28 the top of that page, which was amended soon after, it 29 would appear: 30 31 The CIDAF Committee of Management requests 32 that the BTGU advise them the total dollar 33 value of all funds collected via the EBA 34 Safety Program clause in the last five 35 years, as well as how the funds were 36 distributed. 37 38 And then there was an amendment. So it was changed to, if 39 you see the second line, "the last two financial years". 40 It goes on: 41 42 They would like to know which account money 43 was paid into as well as where the money 44 was transferred to from this account. This 45 information is to be provided ... by 46 20 December 2011 ... 47


1 The next meeting. It goes on, a further motion moved by 2 you, it says: 3 4 That clause 12.8 and any other relevant 5 clauses in the BTGU EBA be amended 6 immediately to reflect that the 7 Administrator of the Safety Program is 8 directed to advise that all donations be 9 paid directly to the CIDAF account. 10 11 Do you recall that? 12 A. Yes, I do recall that meeting. As I said, it was - it 13 got a bit hot, that meeting, about where the funds were 14 coming from, how they were distributed, et cetera, 15 et cetera, and CIDAF, as an organisation, obviously we were 16 concerned about the income that was coming into the 17 organisation. We were in a fairly parlous state, put it 18 that way, when I became involved in 2011. 19 20 Q. First of all, in relation to that motion I just read 21 out, apparently moved by you, do you accept that that's a 22 correct record of the motion? 23 A. I don't recall moving the motion, but I accept the 24 fact that it is in there. 25 26 Q. It indicates that you've moved the motion that all 27 donations be paid directly to the CIDAF account? 28 A. Yes. I see that, yes. I don't recall moving the 29 motion, no. 30 31 Q. So as at this time, there was $2 per week going to the 32 Administrator of the Building Trades Group of Unions Drug 33 and Alcohol/Safety Program. Do you recall that I showed 34 you that yesterday? So, by this, did you understand that 35 you were asking for all of the $2 to flow through? Did you 36 have authorisation from the Union in relation to that? 37 A. No, I did not, no. No-one had any authorisation. It 38 was a meeting that was fairly volatile about the financial 39 status of the organisation at that time. We obviously 40 wanted more income. We were waiting for Government, the 41 State Government, to give us the allocated funding that we 42 had already - were supposed to get but didn't, and we were 43 operating on the smell of an oily rag, basically, until we 44 were reimbursed for what we had expended to keep the 45 program operating, and it got a bit hot in those meetings, 46 so as far as the funding and that was concerned, people on 47 the Committee believed that we should be getting


1 100 per cent of what was being raised, and it's fine to say 2 that, but if the moneys have been raised by another source 3 and they're kindly contributing to you, what right have you 4 got to tell them how much you want at the end of the day? 5 That is the way I saw it. 6 7 Q. You moved the motion? 8 A. No - that is what it says, I know that, but I don't 9 recall moving the motion, because at the height of the 10 meetings, some of the meetings I attended, there would be a 11 proposition put and then the chairman would say, "Moved: 12 Tony Papa" or "Moved: John Brown", and it would be 13 recorded as that, but I don't recall moving that motion, 14 quite frankly. Because if you go through most of the 15 minutes of those meetings, I was the person trying to 16 explain to the rest of the Committee where the income was 17 coming in from, which was Laytins Mayfair at that time, and 18 how it was distributed, and that practice continued when 19 I joined the organisation. 20 21 Q. Further below it says: 22 23 Moved: T Papa. Seconded: K Bellear. 24 25 It also says: 26 27 Approved unopposed. 28 29 A. We could move whatever we liked and approve whatever 30 we liked at that Committee meeting. It had nothing to do 31 with the CFMEU, or the BTG, for that matter, over there at 32 the CFMEU. 33 34 Q. But -- 35 A. We'd still have to go and talk to the CFMEU. 36 37 Q. At least according to these minutes, it looks like you 38 are leading the charge to change the format of the clause 39 in the EBA. Do you say that is not right? 40 A. No. I suggested that that is what we should be doing, 41 but in order to do that, you've got to talk to the Union, 42 because it was the clause in their EBA that needed to be 43 amended. We couldn't do it in the absence of the Union 44 supporting what we were saying. 45 46 Q. But you were in favour of approaching the Union? 47 A. I was in favour of it. Oh, of course I was, yes.


1 2 Q. And you understood, did you, that even if it was a 3 misconception, the members of the Board had an 4 understanding, even if it be wrong, that all of the money 5 had been coming to Foundation House? 6 A. That's right, yes. 7 8 Q. And they were upset when they learnt that that was not 9 the case? 10 A. How they got upset was at a particular meeting that we 11 held - and normally when you had meetings, they were fairly 12 laid back, jovial type meetings, that we went through the 13 business before us. One particular meeting, there was an 14 issue that came up whereby some board, and I don't recall 15 where or who, were prosecuted or going to be prosecuted 16 because they weren't paying attention and carrying out 17 their duties. One of the Committee members dropped his 18 bundle, to put it bluntly, and was very concerned, because 19 he wasn't paying too much attention at most of the meetings 20 that I attended: he had plenty to say but usually did 21 things in a jovial way. 22 23 From then on, that is when people started to really 24 focus on what was important and what wasn't, and so on and 25 so forth. So it emanated from that one meeting after this 26 board was going to be prosecuted. Everything changed from 27 then on. 28 29 Q. So you say that you had always known that not all of 30 the money was going to Foundation House? 31 A. Yes, that was the practice when I joined the Union, 32 became involved with the BTG - that was always the 33 practice. 34 35 Q. But you'd had, what, no occasion to tell anyone on 36 CIDAF or the Foundation Committee meeting until it came up 37 and was raised by someone else; is that what you say? 38 A. A lot of people knew about it. A lot of people knew 39 about it. I mean, if you have a look at some of the people 40 on the board - and I listened to some of their 41 contributions here which were totally inaccurate. A lot of 42 people knew that - where the funding was coming in. But 43 I think, in my opinion, a lot of people used that as an 44 excuse to bail out, you know, like rats leaving a sinking 45 ship. 46 47 Q. So you say "a lot of people knew". Do you mean a lot


1 of people on the Committee knew? 2 A. Absolutely. 3 4 Q. The Foundation? 5 A. Absolutely. 6 7 Q. Who do you say -- 8 A. Brian Seidler knew about it. You can't be 12 years on 9 the Board there and be the Secretary of the Master Builders 10 Association and not know. To me, it's implausible. 11 12 Q. Let's just look at the clause, sir. Could the 13 witness, please, be shown the folder "Building Enterprise 14 Agreements", MFI-6. Do you have that in front of you? 15 A. I've got the folder, yes. 16 17 Q. Page 440? 18 A. Yes. 19 20 Q. The last dot point - we saw this yesterday. Which bit 21 of that clause says that half the money is going to the 22 CFMEU? 23 A. It doesn't say that at all. 24 25 Q. Why are you saying -- 26 A. Because that was the practice. 27 28 Q. -- Mr Seidler must have known? 29 A. Because it was the practice. 30 31 Q. How would he have known that? 32 A. Who. 33 34 Q. Mr Seidler? 35 A. How would he know? 36 37 Q. You say that he must have known, but the clause 38 doesn't tell you? 39 A. I know that, but Seidler knew, and if he says 40 otherwise, well, then, I'm afraid he's not telling the 41 truth. 42 43 Q. Why you do you say that, sir? 44 A. Well, I was of the opinion of how it worked, and I'd 45 been in the industry a dog watch compared to Mr Seidler - 46 and others. They knew. 47


1 Q. You can say that they knew. Why do you say they knew? 2 A. Well, because, as I said, I had been in the industry a 3 lot lesser time than they were and they obviously knew the 4 practices, as I discovered them, and I didn't hold a senior 5 position in the industry like Brian Seidler, as an example. 6 7 Q. As far as the difference between you and him, you 8 worked for the CFMEU -- 9 A. That's correct. 10 11 Q. -- and he worked for the other side? 12 A. That's correct. 13 14 Q. If I can put it that way, in terms of agreements? 15 A. That's correct. 16 17 Q. Why is it that he would have been privy to the 18 information that you were privy to when you had worked or 19 were working for the CFMEU? 20 A. Well, as I said, with Mr Seidler, given the position 21 that he held, a very senior position in the industry, he 22 knows a fair amount about what the industry does and how 23 things go about. We had a fairly good relationship with 24 the MBA, and I believe we still have to this day, and, as a 25 matter of fact, Mr Seidler used to come along and address a 26 lot of the gatherings of the CFMEU as the head of the 27 Master Builders Association, so he knew, he understood. 28 29 Q. Was it made known to Mr Seidler in writing, to your 30 knowledge? 31 A. No, I couldn't answer that, I don't know. 32 33 Q. Did you tell him in words, yourself? 34 A. I personally didn't tell him, no. 35 36 Q. Were you present when anyone else told him? 37 A. No, I wasn't. 38 39 Q. How do you know he knew, sir? 40 A. Well, he's not a dummy, put it that way. He's a 41 fairly smart man and he'd know. He'd know, like most other 42 people know. It's common knowledge. 43 44 Q. Why do you say that, sir? 45 A. Because that is my belief. 46 47 Q. It has to be based on something?


1 A. It's based on my belief that I found out how things 2 operated in the building industry after coming from the 3 maritime, and if I'm smart enough to work it out, I'm sure 4 other people are that are a lot smarter than I am. 5 6 Q. But you worked for the Union. Mr Seidler worked for 7 the Master Builders? 8 A. Mr Seidler worked with the Union on many, many, many 9 occasions. It's not unreasonable to suggest that he'd 10 know, because other people who don't work for the Union 11 also know, so -- 12 13 Q. Who? 14 A. Many others, many others. 15 16 Q. On the board of Foundation House, who do you say knew 17 but pretended they didn't know that the CFMEU -- 18 A. It is not a question of pretending, with all due 19 respect. People knew. 20 21 Q. You can say that any number of times, sir, but can you 22 give further reasons as to why you keep saying they knew? 23 A. Because that is my strongest belief, they knew. 24 25 Q. Is that all you can offer the Commission? 26 A. That is all I can offer, because during the course of 27 all these discussions that were taking place, let me tell 28 you, a lot of things that were said there were not recorded 29 in the minutes, and there was clear indication that people 30 knew about it. But maybe their knowledge was a little bit 31 tweaked out of realism, but they knew, by and large knew. 32 They knew that the CFMEU was basically the sole 33 contributor. 34 35 Q. That is different to being the recipient of half of 36 the money as a result of the clause, isn't it? 37 A. I don't know how different that can be. The fact is 38 that the CFMEU, everyone knew that if it wasn't for the 39 CFMEU that place would have been dead and buried by now. 40 41 Q. Sir -- 42 A. And it was their contribution, from moneys that they 43 raised from their enterprise agreement, that kept us going 44 and still does to this day. 45 46 Q. That is one issue. The other issue, though, which is 47 what has been the focus of some of the hearing last week


1 and this week is whether or not people knew that the CFMEU, 2 as the result of a clause that I've just shown you, or one 3 like it, was the recipient of 50 per cent of the money? 4 A. Yes. 5 6 Q. And you say that people on the Foundation House Board 7 knew that? 8 A. By and large, yes. 9 10 Q. Prior to it becoming an issue? 11 A. By and large, yes. Maybe they -- 12 13 Q. Name them, please? 14 A. Maybe they - well, you're quite familiar with the 15 Board members at the time. The Board knew that the money 16 was coming in from the CFMEU, and it wasn't up until the 17 time that, as I said, there was this issue about a board 18 being prosecuted that everything started to mushroom. 19 20 Q. I will ask you again, if I may: why do you say that 21 people on the Board knew that the CFMEU were getting 22 50 per cent of the amount raised via that clause in the 23 EBA? 24 A. Well, Trevor was on the board when he - prior to him 25 relapsing and Trevor knew what the situation was. Quite 26 clearly he knew it. And when I got involved, I knew it. 27 And other people on the Board - Mick Knott knew it. So 28 it's not as if other people weren't aware of it, they were 29 aware of it. 30 31 Q. You've named yourself, Mr Sharp and Mr Knott? 32 A. Yes, and I also named Mr Seidler, earlier. He knew 33 about it. 34 35 Q. Just to be clear, you say that he knew that 36 50 per cent of the money raised from the EBA clause was 37 going to the CFMEU? 38 A. He knew that there was money coming from the CFMEU, 39 and it continued to operate that way and it still does to 40 this very day. 41 42 Q. When you say "from the CFMEU", certainly via the CFMEU 43 negotiated EBA? 44 A. That's correct. 45 46 Q. Yes? 47 A. Yes, it was their enterprise agreement. It wasn't


1 CIDAF's EBA. 2 3 Q. Yes. 4 A. Yes. 5 6 Q. That is apparent, is it not? 7 A. Yes. 8 9 Q. But in terms of the money coming from the CFMEU, it is 10 money raised via the EBA -- 11 A. Yes. 12 13 Q. -- for employers to pay X amount of dollars, $2 for a 14 lot of the time -- 15 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. -- to the administrator of the BTG D&A Safety Program, 18 yes? Now, what do you say that Mr Seidler knew? 19 A. I'm suggesting that most of the Board knew that the 20 moneys that were coming in were via the CFMEU's enterprise 21 agreement, they knew that. 22 23 Q. Yes. Okay. So that's one thing. 24 A. Yes. And it was - at one stage it was $1 per person 25 per week, then it changed to $2 per person per week. 26 27 Q. So they knew it was coming through the CFMEU EBA? 28 A. That's correct. 29 30 Q. Do you say that the members of the Board knew that 31 50 per cent of the money raised via that clause was going 32 to the CFMEU? 33 A. Yes, that is -- 34 35 Q. And being kept by them? 36 A. Yes, that is what I'm suggesting, that there was money 37 sent to - see, Laytins Mayfair collected the money and then 38 passed it on to the BTG D and A, okay? And the 50 per cent 39 went to the CFMEU for their Safety Program in the building 40 and construction industry. The other 50 per cent was 41 retained by the Foundation for its work in terms of 42 rehabilitation and what have you. As far as the education 43 officer was concerned, there was no funding required for 44 that because that was provided by way of a Government 45 grant. Okay? So the CFMEU supported the Foundation with 46 the 50 per cent, and they were carrying out their 47 responsibilities in the industry on safety with the other


1 50 per cent, which I didn't think was unreasonable. 2 3 Q. Why do you say that members of the Foundation House 4 board knew that the CFMEU were getting 50 per cent of the 5 money raised -- 6 A. Because that's my belief. They knew. And during the 7 course of our discussions it was evident that people knew. 8 9 Q. You say that they knew that the money was being raised 10 via the EBA. That's one thing? 11 A. Yes. Can I just say to you that where they were 12 saying that there should be 100 per cent given to the 13 CFMEU - given to the Foundation, why would they say 14 100 per cent if they were getting 100 per cent? They were 15 getting 50 per cent. They wanted to increase that to 16 100 per cent to make the Foundation more viable. That is 17 what it was about. 18 19 Q. So you say they knew all along -- 20 A. Of course they did. 21 22 Q. You understand that the effect of what they have said 23 is that they only latterly found out? 24 A. I know what they said. I know what they said and, as 25 I said, I was the last Indian standing when they all put 26 their hand up and decided to jump ship, because it was a 27 convenient opportunity for them to bail out, as far as 28 I was concerned, and I was left like a shag on a rock. 29 They weren't too concerned about the patients that we had 30 in there; they weren't too concerned about the staff and 31 their entitlements and everything else. They decided to 32 walk out. 33 34 Q. Apart from your belief, is there anything which makes 35 you say that they knew? 36 A. I can't give you any concrete evidence that says that 37 they knew unequivocally, but I do know this: 38 I participated in those discussions and the various 39 comments that were made by some of those people on the 40 Committee, it was evident to me that they were aware of it. 41 And I'd be surprised that other people who were involved on 42 the Committee weren't aware of it either. A lot of the 43 people in the industry are aware of it, so I don't take - 44 I don't believe for one minute that the Committee were just 45 a bunch of drongos that were unable to think for 46 themselves. Of course they did, they knew that. 47


1 Q. But there's nothing in writing, is there? 2 A. No, there's not, not to my knowledge. There may be, 3 I don't know. 4 5 Q. Available to them, I should say? 6 A. Yes, I don't know. 7 8 Q. To your knowledge, there was nothing in writing 9 available to them to indicate that the 50 per cent split 10 went to the CFMEU? 11 A. No, but that doesn't suggest that they didn't know, 12 because when have you some discussion with other people, 13 you talk about these things and we talked about all those 14 things on that Committee. 15 16 Q. Who with? 17 A. The Committee. I raised them. I raised them. 18 19 Q. But when? When did you first raise, in words to the 20 Committee -- 21 A. I raised them on the Committee on the basis that we 22 were in a parlous state. We were receiving 50 per cent of 23 what the Union were providing to us, which we were grateful 24 for, and at the end of the day, it was suggested, and 25 I suggested, that we should pursue 100 per cent from the 26 Union. Because one thing that the Union has always done is 27 it has always had a social conscience about doing things 28 that are going to be beneficial for the community, and as 29 far as Foundation House is concerned, what services we 30 provided are not only beneficial to the building and 31 construction industry, but also to the broader community 32 generally. 33 34 Q. So you say you raised it when the finances were 35 becoming in a parlous state? 36 A. Yes, we were worried about whether the doors were 37 going to remain open so we could continue to provide our 38 rehab services. 39 40 Q. What about before then? 41 A. I wasn't aware that we were in a parlous situation 42 until I was asked to go out and try and assist Foundation 43 House. 44 45 Q. But what I'm asking you is are you saying that you 46 believed that the Committee members knew about the 47 50 per cent split when things were going well financially?


1 A. They always knew, because as far as the funding and 2 that was concerned, we never ever got any recurrent 3 funding. The only funding we received, we received for a 4 period of about nine years. It was a flat $200,000 off the 5 State Government to operate, but then it stopped totally. 6 There was no forewarning that it was going to happen, it 7 just stopped. And so all the costs continued to rise, 8 because $200,000 flat per annum doesn't take into account 9 the movement in wages; it doesn't take into account the 10 cost of living and all these other things. So it was 11 inevitable that that $200,000 was going that way, our costs 12 were going to supersede what our income was. 13 14 Q. Was there anything about Mr Sobb's withdrawal that 15 caused any particular financial problem? 16 A. Well, he withdrew and withdrew some funding as well, 17 I think it was $200,000, $300,000 off memory. 18 19 Q. So was it around about the time that finances became 20 tight that this controversy arose? 21 A. Yes. 22 23 Q. Yes? 24 A. Yes. 25 26 Q. Is that when you started to talk about how the money 27 from the EBA clause was split up, and not before? 28 A. No, I'd spoken about it before but it wasn't an issue 29 that people actually turned their mind to. It only 30 happened because people were concerned about the future of 31 the Foundation. 32 33 Q. You would have had no reason to talk about the split 34 before the finances became difficult? 35 A. Things were travelling fairly smoothly and then, all 36 of a sudden, everything became a bit urgent. 37 38 Q. Can I ask you to look at page 237, please. 39 A. In the same folder? 40 41 Q. Of the same volume. 42 A. 237? Yes. 43 44 Q. Do you see there there's a discussion, a minuted 45 discussion, at least, on 22 December 2011 where you are 46 apparently present? 47 A. Page 237?


1 2 Q. Yes? 3 A. What I've got is the John Holland Enterprise 4 Agreement. 5 6 Q. I beg your pardon. I haven't been clear at all. Back 7 to the chronological folder. 8 A. Okay. Okay. Yes. 9 10 Q. At page 237 do you see there "Committee of Management 11 Meeting Minutes" from 22 December 2011 meeting? 12 A. Yes. 13 14 Q. Do you see under 3: 15 16 BTG DA unanimously agreed at meeting on 17 20 December 2011 to make available $53,700 18 from term deposit on maturity to CIDAF 19 subject to favourable report from Auditors 20 Kamper Associates. 21 22 A. Yes. 23 24 Q. What was all that about, do you know? 25 26 A. There was $53,700 which was due to mature in - I think 27 it was January the following year, yes, 2012. And I 28 suggested at the meeting that if things got really tough 29 then there's - there shouldn't be any problem with rolling 30 over the $53,700 into the Foundation to keep it afloat, 31 provided that the members had agreed to it, which I was 32 confident that they would have, they would have agreed to 33 it. 34 35 Q. Was that you reporting that, that was recorded in the 36 minutes, do you believe? 37 A. Basically, yes, I think, yes. I was aware that it was 38 due to mature in early January. 39 40 Q. And you were the person, relevantly, on both 41 committees - that is, the BTG D and A Committee and the 42 Foundation House Committee? 43 A. That's correct. 44 45 Q. Could you please go over to page 239? 46 A. Yes. 47


1 Q. Do you see there you've signed a letter under the 2 Foundation letterhead on that page, and also the following 3 page, respectively to Ms Mallia and Mr Parker? 4 A. Yes, to attend the meeting. 5 6 Q. Yes. 7 A. Yes. 8 9 Q. Do you recall that occurring? 10 A. Yes. 11 12 Q. Could you go over, please, to page 260 - we've done 13 that, I beg your pardon, we don't need to do that. Page 14 269? 15 A. 269? 16 17 Q. Yes, please. 18 A. Yes. 19 20 Q. Do you see there, it is an email from Ms Mallia to 21 you, Ms Price and Mr Parker, and it is really addressed to 22 you, it says: 23 24 Tony, 25 26 Following on from our discussion early this 27 week and our attendance at CIDAF this 28 morning we need to organise ... 29 30 Certain things: 31 32 1. That Kylie come out and familiar 33 herself with the operation of the BTG ... 34 2. That CFMEU settle its representation 35 on the BTG D and A Committee as at present 36 there is not any representation from the 37 Union Executive. 38 3. That a meeting between us and convened 39 to discuss the CIDAF report. 40 41 Do you see that? 42 A. Yes. 43 44 Q. Do you recall what all that was about? 45 A. No, I don't, to tell you the truth. I know Kylie came 46 on the Committee as the representative of the CFMEU, 47 because when I was on the Committee I represented the


1 CFMEU, and then when I became the Executive Officer, then 2 that position became vacant, so Kylie came on to fill that 3 vacant position. 4 5 Q. Do you see over the page, page 270, 27 January 2012 6 meeting minutes? 7 A. Yes. 8 9 Q. And under number 4, do you see: 10 11 CFMEU report to Committee of Management. 12 13 A. Under -- 14 15 Q. Number 4? 16 A. Yes. 17 18 Q. It says: 19 20 CFMEU report to Committee of Management. 21 C Huntley said that whilst appreciating the 22 written response from the CFMEU to 23 B Seidler's letter (attached) he was 24 disappointed as COM would like to know 25 where the said monies were spent. 26 27 Do you recall that discussion? 28 A. Yes. Yes, I do, yes. 29 30 Q. And then it says: 31 32 B Parker stated that the funds were used to 33 pay wages for safety representatives and 34 for safety purposes on building sites, but 35 as the CFMEU as yet have not totally gone 36 through their accounts after management 37 changes they cannot give any further 38 information. 39 40 A. Yes, I see that. 41 42 Q. Do you recall Mr Parker and Ms Mallia coming out? 43 A. They were not long in the job as Secretary and 44 President of the CFMEU, and obviously they weren't familiar 45 with their accounts or any part of the leadership of the 46 Union at that time, so they needed to familiarise 47 themselves, and they attended this meeting because of a


1 letter that Brian Seidler had written them as the CEO of 2 the Master Builders Association. They responded 3 accordingly to that letter. They came along to explain 4 their position to the Committee. 5 6 Q. Over the page, page 271, the second paragraph, do you 7 see in the second sentence of the second paragraph it says: 8 9 All guests were asked to leave including 10 T Papa and J Baldwin. 11 12 A. Can you point me to that paragraph? 13 14 Q. Sorry, the second paragraph on page 271? 15 A. Yes, I've got it. "After much further vigorous 16 discussion". 17 18 Q. Yes. 19 A. Yes. 20 21 Q. And then the second sentence: 22 23 All guests were asked to leave including 24 T Papa and J Baldwin. 25 26 A. That's correct, yes. 27 28 Q. You and that person were invited back to the meeting 29 and instructed to carry out a number of things? 30 A. Correct. 31 32 Q. Including: 33 34 Ask for confirmation from the BTG DA that 35 all monies received by CIDAF from CFMEU 36 enterprise bargaining agreements shall 37 remain the property of CIDAF and utilised 38 solely by and for CIDAF/Foundation House. 39 40 A. Yes. 41 42 Q. And secondly: 43 44 Ask that BTG DA confirm that the $53,700 45 term deposit which matured on the 46 10th January 2012, be granted to CIDAF. 47


1 Do you see that? 2 A. Yes. 3 4 Q. And then other matters as well. Could you now please 5 go on to 275. 6 A. Yes. 7 8 Q. That's a letter by you, apparently a form letter to 9 employers, writing to advise that as of the above date, 10 that is 1 February 2012: 11 12 ... CIDAF will be collecting the Safety 13 Program monthly donations. 14 15 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. And then further information about that, together with 18 a form on the following page? 19 A. Yes. That came about - I had a discussion with 20 Steve - I can't think of his surname. He was from Laytins 21 Mayfair. I had a discussion with him on the basis of what 22 they were collecting in the industry from the enterprise 23 agreement, and I was very concerned that there was 24 something in the order of about 200 employers who weren't 25 contributing at all. Despite the fact that they'd entered 26 into an agreement with the CFMEU, they weren't paying to 27 the Foundation, and I was concerned about it and 28 I indicated to Steve what, if anything, that he had in 29 place to collect the arrears, because we needed funding, 30 obviously, to continue to operate. 31 32 He told me that there was nothing in place to collect 33 arrears, nothing at all, and I said, "Well, you're getting 34 an income from the money that you're collecting, and all of 35 a sudden you're telling me that there's no way of 36 collecting the arrears, so you've got no method of doing 37 it?" He said, "No I haven't." I terminated him then and 38 said, "Well, you know, it's not good enough. You're 39 collecting" - I think it was 10 per cent of what he 40 collected, for his services and I said to him it just 41 wasn't good enough, "We are going backwards". He's still 42 getting his 10 per cent and we were suffering as a 43 consequence, so I terminated him. 44 45 Q. Were you aware of whether there was a method of 46 collecting the EBA moneys from this clause prior to Laytins 47 Mayfair being involved?


1 A. No, I don't, no. I joined the Union in '98 and, as 2 I said to you earlier, I was just an organiser up until the 3 time Graham Childs had his aneurysm, and then I was 4 injected into all of these other positions. 5 6 Q. Because information available to the Commission is 7 that Laytins Mayfair became involved in about September 8 2005 and that, prior to that, there was an arrangement 9 whereby they were not involved. Does that ring any bells? 10 A. Yes. At one stage - I didn't know that they were 11 involved and then I was made aware that they were involved 12 and the money was going through them, and, as I said, 13 I wasn't happy with how things were shaping up and I sat 14 down and had a talk to Steve - Steve Parker was his name, 15 and indicated to him that what they were doing or - he 16 complained to me that all it was was him and one girl that 17 was running the whole show and he said, "There's just not 18 enough of us to collect arrears and so on and so forth". 19 I thought, well, it's not in our general interest to keep 20 this arrangement going, because we were the people 21 suffering from it at the end of the day. 22 23 Q. Could I ask you, please, to be handed the BTG D&A 24 Financials folder which is MFI-14. 25 A. Thank you. 26 27 Q. Could you please open up to the first page, which 28 I think should say "BTG Drug and Alcohol Committee. 29 Flow of EBA Levy Contributions. July 2004 to August 2005". 30 Is that what you've got? 31 A. Yes. 32 33 Q. There's a diagram there. Could I just step you 34 through it. This is it as a result of a forensic 35 accounting analysis by the Commission. It says "Employer 36 with CFMEU EBA" and it shows EBA levy contributions of over 37 half a million there going to the BTG D and A Committee? 38 A. Yes, I see that. 39 40 Q. And then, if you'd accept from me, there are some old 41 versions of the clause where it went directly to Foundation 42 House, which is only a small proportion as at 2004-2005? 43 A. Yes. 44 45 Q. Once the money, the bulk of the money, goes to the 46 BTG D and A Committee, can you see that essentially half 47 goes through to CIDAF and half goes through to the CFMEU?


1 A. Yes. 2 3 Q. Then can you please turn to the next page, which is in 4 some respects similar but in some respects different. This 5 is from 2005, September 2005 to January 2012. The levy 6 contributions, 2.1 million during this period of time, go 7 through to the BTG D and A Committee, do you see that? 8 A. Yes. 9 10 Q. Then there is that hang over of the small amount that 11 is going through directly to Foundation House? 12 A. Yes. 13 14 Q. Do you see that Laytins Mayfair is now in the picture? 15 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. Literally. We've got a fee or a commission going 18 through to them of $233,000 or so dollars? 19 A. Mmm-hmm. 20 21 Q. The money goes to the BTG of Unions account ending in 22 083. Do you remember you being a signatory to that 23 account? We saw a document today in relation to that 24 account? 25 A. I think so, yes. 26 27 Q. Then after it goes there it goes through to the 28 CFMEU (NSW)? 29 A. Yes. 30 31 Q. There's a slight differential that is explained there, 32 which I think is easily explained, but essentially the 33 money goes through BTG of Unions to the CFMEU? 34 A. Yes. 35 36 Q. Can you assist the Commission as to why the 37 arrangement started to involve not only Laytins Mayfair, 38 which you have, but the BTG of Unions being introduced as a 39 step in the process? 40 A. My understanding is that the money that was collected 41 from the enterprise agreements would go to Laytins Mayfair, 42 that is my understanding. They would pay it over to the 43 BTG DA account. The Drug and Alcohol Committee would 44 reimburse Laytins Mayfair whatever their fee was. 45 46 Q. Yes. 47 A. And then the money was then divided fifty-fifty after


1 that. That is my understanding. 2 3 Q. So you don't know why the BTG of Unions was introduced 4 as a step in the process? 5 A. No idea. 6 7 Q. But you were a signatory to that account? 8 A. I was signatory to accounts but, as indicated with 9 some of the comments that were made here earlier, I was 10 given documents to sign, I was asked to come in to the 11 office to sign things, and in light of all the other duties 12 that I had, I'd go in, sign what I had to sign and get out 13 and go back to doing what I was doing. So more often than 14 not I relied upon people to do their job properly and 15 I just signed documents as required. 16 17 Q. Well, you were on the BTG D and A Committee? 18 A. Yes. 19 20 Q. You were on the BTG of Unions? 21 A. Yes. I joined the BTG D and A Committee after 22 Trevor Sharp had stood down. 23 24 Q. You were on it before then, weren't you? 25 A. On the Committee of Foundation House. 26 27 Q. What about the BTG D and A Committee? You were a 28 signatory from 2002, were you not? 29 A. Yes. 30 31 Q. Of the account? 32 A. Yes, but I joined that from the time that I became 33 involved after Graham Childs's incident. 34 35 Q. That was 2002? 36 A. That's correct. And I think at that time, too, was 37 when, I think, Trevor was told to step aside because it was 38 a bit of a conflict of interest or something. I was asked 39 to go on to that as well. 40 41 Q. That was about 2005, I think? 42 A. I'm not sure. 43 44 Q. In any event, you have been a signatory on the BTG 45 D and A Committee account since 2002; you've been on the 46 BTG of Unions account for a lengthy period of time - 2002; 47 and you've been on both of those committees, and you say


1 you have no idea as to why BTG was introduced as a step in 2 the process? 3 A. No, I don't know. I have no recollection as to why it 4 happened. 5 6 Q. You say you were just given documents and you signed 7 them? 8 A. Yes, precisely. 9 10 Q. Who would know? 11 A. Mick Knott, Trevor Sharp - they'd know. 12 13 Q. What was Mr Sharp's role or Mr Knott's role on the 14 BTG of Unions? 15 A. Well, Trevor Sharp was the Executive Officer or CEO of 16 Foundation House. The records of BTG and various other 17 things were kept in the office there. Mike Knott was the 18 Financial Controller of the Union and the BTG, so, yes, 19 they'd know. 20 21 Q. Why would they know? They weren't on the 22 BTG of Unions; they weren't BTG people, were they? They 23 were D and A Committee people? 24 A. Yes, in terms of the Drug and Alcohol, yes, and 25 Mick Knott was part of the BTG Committee as well, in terms 26 of the finances there as well. 27 28 I was involved in going to the office when Toni 29 Mitchell would ring me, as she stated in her evidence. 30 She'd ring me and if I had the opportunity to go to the 31 office I would, I'd sign papers and get out. Other 32 occasions, she would give a parcel to Tommy Simpson to 33 bring out to me wherever I was. He'd ring me, I could be 34 at Campbelltown or Pyrmont, it depended, or in the office, 35 in the city. I'd sign the documents, they'd go back in the 36 parcel and take it back to Toni Mitchell. That is how it 37 operated. 38 39 Q. Sir, Michael Knott was not a signatory to the BTG 40 account ending 083 at any time? 41 A. No, I know that, but he knew about the finances. 42 43 Q. You're the person who was on both of those accounts? 44 A. That's correct. 45 46 Q. And you were the signatory on both of the accounts, 47 and you're saying you don't know why the BTG of Unions


1 was brought in -- 2 A. I don't, I honestly don't. 3 4 Q. And you're saying other people would know, neither of 5 whom were on those accounts as signatories? 6 A. That's correct, because they were involved, basically, 7 at the coalface with the finances; I wasn't. Only to sign 8 documents, which I did. There are some documents there 9 without my handwriting on it, only my signature, which were 10 prepared by other people. 11 12 Q. Are you trying to distance yourself from this 13 arrangement? 14 A. No, I'm not trying to distance myself from anything, 15 but I won't be the scapegoat for anything either. 16 17 Q. So at the BTG of Unions who were the decision-makers? 18 A. The BTG of Unions? Well, I was involved with it. 19 There was other people involved from Brian Beer, 20 Mick Doust, the bloke from the Plumbers Union - I can't 21 think of his name. Andrew Ferguson. 22 23 Q. If they were the decision-makers, were they involved 24 in having the BTG of Unions introduced as a step in this 25 division of money? 26 A. I don't know. As I said to you, those meetings were 27 held very infrequently, so, yes. I've got no recollection 28 of it, to tell you the truth, because they were so 29 infrequent, the meetings. 30 31 Q. You were a co-signatory on the account, at times with 32 Mr Ferguson; that's right, isn't it? 33 A. Yes. 34 35 Q. By the way, did you see his evidence over the days 36 that he gave it? 37 A. Yes, I was up the back. 38 39 Q. Did you discuss any matter with Mr Ferguson prior to 40 coming here? 41 A. No, I did not. 42 43 Q. In the weeks leading up to this week? 44 A. No, he was away overseas for some weeks, six weeks, as 45 I understand it. 46 47 Q. Prior to that?


1 A. No. 2 3 Q. You seem to know how long he was away? 4 A. Well, I followed some of the things on Facebook that 5 his wife put up, some of the photographs of the trip and so 6 on, so I was aware of it. 7 8 Q. You say you didn't have a discussion with him? 9 A. I certainly did not. 10 11 Q. But you sat here during the course of him giving 12 evidence? 13 A. I sat here, yes. 14 15 Q. Could I have the witness, please, shown the bank 16 account, volume 2, MFI-3. 17 A. Thank you. 18 19 Q. Can you turn to page 576, please. 20 A. Yes. 21 22 Q. Do you see there's a copy of a cheque co-signed by you 23 and Mr Ferguson? 24 A. Yes, I see that. 25 26 Q. 12 November 2007? 27 A. Yes. 28 29 Q. Who made the decision in relation to that payment? 30 A. Well, it certainly wasn't me. All I - as you see, my 31 signature is there, but the handwriting is not mine. 32 33 Q. Why do you say it certainly wasn't you? 34 A. Because I didn't draw any cheques, didn't authorise 35 anyone to draw cheques. I merely signed them as I was 36 asked to. 37 38 Q. You were co-signatory? 39 A. That's correct. 40 41 Q. What do you think being a co-signatory means? 42 A. Being a co-signatory means a person who signs 43 documents and cheques with some other person or persons. 44 45 Q. It is part of the authorisation process of the 46 payment, isn't it? 47 A. I understand that. I understand that.


1 2 Q. Did you exercise any decision-making -- 3 A. No. 4 5 Q. -- in putting your signature to that document? 6 A. I did not. 7 8 Q. None at all? 9 A. None at all. 10 11 Q. In fact, you could have had your eyed closed, so far 12 as you were concerned? 13 A. Could have, yes. 14 15 Q. Do I take it it's the same for page 577? 16 A. The same. 17 18 Q. 578? 19 A. Yes, again, all of these cheques have been drawn by 20 someone else, filled in by someone else. All I did was 21 sign them. 22 23 Q. Just to be clear, this is a cheque from the Building 24 Trades Group Account -- 25 A. That's correct. 26 27 Q. -- ending in 083? 28 A. Well, I don't know the bank account numbers. I can 29 see them there on the cheque, but, as I said, I didn't draw 30 any cheques; all I did was sign them. 31 32 Q. And it goes on and on and on? 33 A. Yes. 34 35 Q. I won't waste everyone's time, but if you turn over 36 the next 20 or so pages -- 37 A. Yes, I see all of them. 38 39 Q. The same. You say that you had made no decision in 40 relation to putting your signature on any of those cheques? 41 A. I just merely signed cheques or other documents that 42 were presented to me for signature. 43 44 Q. By whom were they presented? 45 A. Various people. Toni Mitchell, as an example, from 46 the Drug and Alcohol Committee. She would do it. As 47 I said, she would ring me to find out whether I could come


1 through. There were people from the Union who would ask me 2 to do the same, Sudesh Singh was one of them, Patricia 3 Hamson was another, so I was merely asked to sign 4 documents. 5 6 Q. Can we be quite clear, in relation to Ms Mitchell do 7 you say she gave you Building Trades Group cheques? 8 A. No, DA cheques. 9 10 Q. I've just shown you Building Trades Group cheques? 11 A. Yes, I understand it. 12 13 Q. Leave Ms Mitchell out of it this then. Who do you say 14 authorised or asked you to sign these cheques? 15 A. Well, people who were involved in the accounts 16 department: Sudesh Singh, Patricia Hamson. I was merely 17 asked to sign those cheques and/or documents that were 18 presented that required signature, and if I was in the 19 office, I'd sign them. Other times they'd ask me to call 20 in to sign them. Other times they'd bring documents to me 21 to sign. 22 23 Q. What office were you in at this time? 24 A. In the city office. 25 26 Q. Let's say '07-'08? 27 A. In the city office. 28 29 Q. You say "the accounts department". By that do you 30 mean the accounts department of the CFMEU? 31 A. Yes. 32 33 Q. And Ms Hamson worked for the CFMEU? 34 A. Yes. 35 36 Q. This is a Building Trades Group Account? 37 A. Yes. 38 39 Q. You are saying the decision was made somewhere in the 40 CFMEU, are you? 41 A. Correct. 42 43 Q. You put no thought into it at all? 44 A. No, no, I just accepted that this was part of a 45 particular process and I was required to sign some 46 documentation, which I did. 47


1 Q. And you can't assist us as to why the payments were 2 routed through the BTG -- 3 A. No idea. 4 5 Q. -- before it came to the CFMEU? 6 A. No idea. 7 8 Q. That's your honest answer to the Commission? 9 A. Absolutely. 10 11 Q. So it wasn't a case that everyone knew; in this case, 12 it appears that you don't know at all, even though you were 13 signatory to both accounts? 14 A. As I indicated yesterday, I spent a lot of time out on 15 the road in the areas that I was looking after. I did a 16 whole host of other things - working with the WorkCover 17 Authority; I sat on a number of committees with WorkCover; 18 codes of practice, I was involved in drawing them up; the 19 specialist demolition, and so on and so forth. I was 20 fairly busy, and I looked after a particular area, one of 21 the largest areas at that time, and our task was to go out 22 there, do safety programs, do safety inspections and 23 various other stuff, and I didn't have any involvement in 24 the accounts and the running of the BTG, of the Union or 25 anyone else. I was merely asked to facilitate a particular 26 process, which I did. 27 28 Q. When Mr Ferguson was Secretary of the Union, is it the 29 fact that you and he were the only CFMEU people on the BTG, 30 the Building Trades Group of Unions? 31 A. I don't know. As I said, we used to meet in the 32 office of the CFMEU with the Plumbers, the ETU, the 33 Metalworkers, so I don't know, I can't recall that it was 34 only Ferguson and I. It may have been, down the track. 35 I'm not aware. I'm not certain. I'm not certain. 36 37 Q. We saw, I think, the bank authorisation form for 083 38 account yesterday? 39 A. Yes. 40 41 Q. I don't know whether you've still got volume 2 of the 42 bank accounts there in front of you, page 457? 43 A. 457? 44 45 Q. Yes. 46 A. Yes. 47


1 Q. Do you recall we saw yesterday that the method of 2 operation, which was apparently pursuant to a decision of 3 the Building Trades Group, was that Mr Ferguson would sign 4 with either Mr Doust or Mr Beer, and you would sign with 5 either Mr Doust or Mr Beer? 6 A. I see this. 7 8 Q. Do you know how it came about that you and Mr Ferguson 9 were signing with each other? 10 A. Well, after a while you find that some of the other 11 participants wouldn't come to meetings, or couldn't come, 12 and at the end of the day it was just difficult to operate 13 if no-one was turning up, so I presume that if the others 14 weren't attending meetings - I know Brian Beer got crook 15 and he left; Tim used to replace him from time to time. 16 He's now the Secretary of the Metalworkers, I believe. So 17 I think that that may have something to do with it at the 18 end of the day. 19 20 Q. You have indicated earlier that these cheques seemed 21 to emanate from the accounts department of the CFMEU? 22 A. Well, that's when - when we were meeting, we were 23 meeting in the CFMEU office, so I'd imagine all the details 24 would be kept there. 25 26 Q. And that two CFMEU people were co-signing the cheques? 27 A. Yes. Meaning me and Ferguson? 28 29 Q. Yes. 30 A. Yes. 31 32 Q. Can I go back now to the chronological folder, please. 33 Do you see at page 277 -- 34 A. Yes. 35 36 Q. -- "Committee of Management Meeting Minutes" on 37 29 February 2012 and towards the bottom of the page, 38 number 4, "Presentation of Financial Statements and 39 Report"? 40 A. Yes. 41 42 Q. Do you see that there is a report: 43 44 Financial situation eased slightly.... 45 46 for various reasons. It goes to the "Motion", underlined: 47


1 The CIDAF Committee of Management is 2 extremely disappointed that the $53,700 3 that was promised by CFMEU has not 4 materialised into CIDAF accounts. 5 6 A. Yes. 7 8 Q. Do you recall on an earlier page that the discussion 9 was in terms of the money coming from the BTG D and A? In 10 fact, up that same page, on page 277, under number 3, the 11 second dot point, it says: 12 13 $53,700 still in BTG DA contingent 14 account ... 15 16 A. Yes. 17 18 Q. Do you know why the minutes were recorded in these 19 terms, that at the bottom of the page the money is promised 20 by the CFMEU, and halfway down the page, and indeed 21 earlier, we saw it was recorded as BTG D and A money? 22 A. I think there was a perception that the money was 23 promised. It was never promised, not to my understanding. 24 We said that we would be happy to roll over the 53,700 into 25 CIDAF if it got to the stage where they needed finance, to 26 be financially supported, I indicated that I was confident 27 that the membership of the D and A Committee would, in 28 fact, agree to allow that to happen, but only on the 29 basis - and I remember the issues that were raised: only 30 on the basis that there was a clean bill of health given by 31 the accountant after he did an audit, to make sure that it 32 wasn't just throwing good money after bad, and also to make 33 sure that the entitlements of the workers or the employees 34 of the foundation would be able to be met. They were the 35 reasons. 36 37 And by the time the audit was done, there were some 38 changes made, there was a reduction of three staff - a 39 counsellor and two residential care workers - there was a 40 whole host of other changes that we implemented. We then 41 eventually got the contribution from the State Government 42 to reimburse what we'd already spent, the $200,000, so 43 there wasn't any need to hand over the $53,700. 44 45 Q. Why do you understand there was a confusion that it 46 was the CFMEU who were responsible for giving over that 47 money, do you know?


1 A. Wasn't the CFMEU, it was the members of the Building 2 Trades Group Drug and Alcohol Committee. 3 4 Q. Can you see there at the foot of page 277, the 5 fourth-last line at the bottom of the page, that it was 6 promised by CFMEU. Do you know how that occurred? 7 A. That is, again, a misunderstanding that people had. 8 9 Q. Can I ask you to turn to page 279. 10 A. Yes. 11 12 Q. Just a bit down the page do you see that there is an 13 email, part of a chain, from you to Ms Glass, copied to 14 Ms Hollings: 15 16 Hello Rita, 17 I have received Brian's letter (by 18 email) ... 19 20 Then you wish to correct something in his letter. Do you 21 want to just read that? 22 A. Yes. 23 24 Q. You're saying in there that Mr Parker "appears to be 25 unaware that the entitlements of all employees are 26 currently and always have been preserved and guaranteed"? 27 A. That's correct. 28 29 Q. Can I ask you to turn over to the letter in question 30 at page 280. 31 A. Mmm-hmm. 32 33 Q. Do you see there the letter from Mr Parker to 34 yourself? 35 A. Yes. 36 37 Q. It says: 38 39 I refer to your email attaching a 40 resolution of the CIDAF COM. 41 42 We don't seem to have that actual email, but the resolution 43 would appear to be the motion at the foot of 277. 44 A. Yes. 45 46 Q. Mr Parker says: 47


1 I am not aware that the CFMEU has made any 2 promise that the amount of $53,700 be 3 transferred to CIDAF. 4 5 A. That's correct. 6 7 Q. So you forwarded the motion, although you say it was 8 not quite correct? 9 A. That's right, it wasn't correct. 10 11 Q. Why did you forward the motion? 12 A. I don't know whether I forwarded the motion. 13 14 Q. It says: 15 16 Dear Tony, 17 I refer to your email.... 18 19 Unfortunately, we don't have it. 20 A. I think what I did - the email was to correct a 21 misconception. 22 23 Q. The misconception you appeared to correct was in the 24 last paragraph? 25 A. Yes, as I say: 26 27 I wish to correct the comment in Brian's 28 letter for his edification ... 29 30 about the guaranteeing of the entitlements of the workers. 31 He wasn't aware that that money had already been put aside 32 and preserved. 33 34 Q. You weren't correcting anything about where the 35 $53,700 came from? 36 A. No. No, the $53,000 was part of the BTG DA, and that 37 was money collected from sales of T-shirts, doing 38 fee-for-service drug and alcohol presentations to areas 39 that weren't part of the building construction industry. 40 Like, for instance, we did councils, municipal councils - 41 like Holroyd, as an example, Parramatta, Marrickville 42 Council - and doing other related educational programs for 43 a fee-for-service basis. That is where that $53,700 came 44 from. 45 46 Q. But if it was the motion, and it appears it was from 47 the terms of Mr Parker's letter at 280, that the motion in


1 question was at the foot of 277, and you were present at 2 the meeting, can you recall why the misconception was 3 allowed to come through into the motion that you forwarded 4 on to Mr Parker? 5 A. No, I can't explain that. I don't know. 6 7 Q. Then can you please go ahead to page 281. 8 A. Yes. 9 10 Q. Do you see there's an email from Ms Hollings, who you 11 say is your assistant? 12 A. PA, yes. 13 14 Q. It is to a number of people? 15 A. Yes, they're the members of the Board. 16 17 Q. 18 To the Committee of Management members as 19 addressed. 20 21 Please find attached the response received 22 from Brian Parker - CFMEU State Secretary 23 regarding the motion of the CIDAF COM 24 forwarded to him. 25 26 As can be seen in the correspondence there 27 is a commitment concerning the said moneys 28 despite having some memory lapse at the 29 beginning of the letter. 30 31 A. Yes, I see that. 32 33 Q. Did you cause Ms Hollings to type that? 34 A. Yes, probably, yes. 35 36 Q. How does that fit with what you've just told the 37 Commission? 38 A. Well, as I had said, with the 53,000, the 53,000 was 39 BTG DA money. It had nothing to do with the CFMEU. 40 41 Q. Can I just stop you there. What's the memory lapse 42 that you're referring to, then, sir, about: 43 44 I am not aware that the CFMEU has made any 45 promise that the amount of $53,700 be 46 transferred to CIDAF. 47


1 Is that the memory lapse you're referring to? 2 A. No, what I'm referring to is that there was - consent 3 was going to be given for the 53,700 to go over to 4 Foundation House based on Kamper's report and based on the 5 fact that the workers' entitlements were guaranteed. 6 7 Q. Could we just look at 281 and look at this phrase that 8 was done apparently on your behalf: 9 10 As can be seen in the correspondence there 11 is a commitment concerning the said moneys 12 despite having some memory lapse at the 13 beginning of the letter. 14 15 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. Can we go to the letter at page 280. What is the 18 memory lapse to which you are referring? 19 20 THE COMMISSIONER: To which Ms Hollings is referring. 21 22 MS McNAUGHTON: Well, Ms Hollings on his behalf, he said. 23 24 THE WITNESS: Well, I think the reference that I was 25 referring to was the memory lapse associated with the 26 53,700 going over to Foundation House, if - in the event 27 that it was needed, based on certain prerequisites. That 28 is what I'm referring to. 29 30 Q. Indeed, as my team have pointed out to me, thank you, 31 at the foot of page 281, you appear to have signed off on 32 that whole email, even though in the middle of the email 33 there is a portion of a letter to Ms Mallia signed off by 34 you, but right at the bottom of the email, the whole email 35 seems to be signed off by you? 36 A. Yes. 37 38 Q. Can you just say, again, what do you say is the memory 39 lapse by Mr Parker? 40 A. Well, I don't know, from what I read here: 41 42 I wish to correct the comments in Brian's 43 letter for his edification, that he is 44 obviously unaware that the entitlements of 45 the employees are currently and always have 46 been preserved and guaranteed. 47


1 Q. It says at the beginning of the letter "despite having 2 some memory lapses", at the beginning of the letter? 3 A. I think I'm referring to the fact that (a) he wasn't 4 aware that the entitlements of the workers have been 5 preserved; and (b) that the moneys would only go over if 6 the accountant's report gave us a clean bill of health; 7 that is what I interpret from it. 8 9 Q. Sir, that can't be right, can it? The beginning of 10 the letter is: 11 12 I am not aware that the CFMEU has made any 13 promise that the amount of $53,700 be 14 transferred to CIDAF. 15 16 That is the beginning of the letter? 17 A. My understanding was, there was no guarantees given 18 about the 53,700. It was always predicated on the fact 19 that the money would mature in January and that that money 20 would go over to the Foundation if, in fact, it was needed, 21 and at that time it was believed it was going to be needed, 22 but it was predicated on the basis that the money, rather 23 than be thrown into the pot, into an organisation that 24 isn't viable, to guarantee the workers' wages, which may be 25 needed for that, which Brian believed that that was a 26 priority, and, secondly, that Kamper was going to do an 27 audit on the books of the organisation to make sure that we 28 weren't throwing good money after bad. That is my 29 understanding. 30 31 Q. Your understanding is today, at 2015. Do you say that 32 is better or worse than your understanding in March 2012? 33 A. What do you mean? 34 35 Q. You wrote this email? 36 A. Yes, I did. 37 38 Q. Or it was sent on your behalf, signed by you in March 39 2012. Do you say your understanding is better now or back 40 then? 41 A. Well, I know where things are at present. Back then 42 things were fairly fluid because of the emotions of people 43 on the Committee, the fact that we were in a fairly 44 difficult position financially, the State Government still 45 hadn't provided us with the funding that we were 46 anticipating, so things were fairly difficult back then. 47 Things are a bit different now in 2015. There's been a lot


1 of work done to the organisation between then and now. We 2 actually have a new Board, after the former Board resigned. 3 4 Q. Can I now please take you to page 298. 5 A. Yes. 6 7 Q. Do you see that this is an email from Ms Mallia to 8 Mr Ferguson, but you're copied in. Do you see that? 9 A. Yes, I do. 10 11 Q. 12 Andrew, 13 14 I spoke to Tony. He confirmed: 15 16 1. Vending machine money went to CIDAF; 17 2 Trevor paid by CIDAF; 18 3. He does not know detail of City to 19 Surf, but we added info about the golf day. 20 I am comfortable with these letters ... Any 21 final comment? 22 23 Would you turn over the page to page 299. 24 A. Yes. 25 26 Q. Do you there a letter, in draft form, on the 27 letterhead of the CFMEU? 28 A. Mmm-hmm. 29 30 Q. Do you recall getting the email copied in to you from 31 Ms Mallia? 32 A. I can't recall that, no, but, as a matter of fact, the 33 vending machine money - that has always gone to CIDAF, 34 still to this day. 35 36 Q. Can I ask you, can you recall having a conversation 37 with Ms Mallia about these things on page 298? 38 A. I don't at present, but I may have; obviously I did, 39 yes. 40 41 Q. What about the letter at 299 through to 300, do you 42 recall whether or not you provided any information in 43 relation to that letter? Take your time? 44 A. I may have. I don't know. 45 46 Q. You may have? 47 A. Yes, but this was a letter that was in response to


1 Brian Seidler's letter. I may have, yes. 2 3 Q. But you can't recall that either? 4 A. I can't recall it. But the thing that intrigues me 5 is, you know, the vending machine moneys. Trevor was paid 6 by CIDAF, no other organisation. I mean, he was the CEO of 7 the organisation, so he was paid by that organisation. And 8 in terms of City to Surf, I've got no idea about the City 9 to Surf, I've never been in it, I don't know anything about 10 it, and the golf day, I think we've had two golf days which 11 we've raised some money from. The contributions of one of 12 the golf days bought the bus which we're currently using, a 13 14-seater bus. The second contribution from the golf days 14 went to upgrade some computers. So I don't know why 15 they're so important, quite frankly. 16 17 Q. So do you say that the BTG D and A or Foundation House 18 did the golf days? 19 A. Foundation House, yes. 20 21 Q. Not the CFMEU? 22 A. No. No, no. Tom Simpson, in fact, was the bloke who 23 organised the golf days. He was very athletic and he 24 believed that it was a good way of bringing in additional 25 income that would support the Foundation. It was a good 26 initiative, I thought. 27 28 Q. Thank you. You can put that to one side for the 29 moment, please. Commissioner, I'm now going to be turning 30 to the Thiess payment topic. Unfortunately, I'm taking a 31 little bit longer than I anticipated. 32 33 THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Do you want to adjourn for a 34 short time? 35 36 MS McNAUGHTON: I'm in your hands, Commissioner. 37 38 THE COMMISSIONER: I think we normally adjourn for 39 15 minutes, but today let us resume at 25 to 12. 40 41 SHORT ADJOURNMENT 42 43 MS McNAUGHTON: Q. I did say I was moving on but I have 44 one more question in relation to the topic we've been 45 looking at. Could you please go to the Chronological 46 Bundle and go to page 212. Do you see they're the minutes 47 from the AGM on 9 November 2011. Then go over, please, to


1 page 216, which is still part of that document. Do you see 2 the heading "General Business"? Just above that I'm going 3 to direct your attention to. 4 A. That paragraph? 5 6 Q. Yes, the paragraph above the heading 7 "General Business": 8 9 T Papa will be sending out donation 10 requests [for] to several clubs to try to 11 secure more funding. 12 13 And then this: 14 15 Laytins Mayfair are no longer collecting 16 ACIRT contributions. Coverforce will be 17 assisting with the administration. 18 19 A. Yes, I see that. 20 21 Q. Do you recall what that was about? 22 A. Yes. 23 24 Q. Can you assist? 25 A. In terms of the clubs, where we're currently located 26 in Rozelle there are a number of clubs within our district, 27 if you like -- 28 29 Q. Can I stop you there, sorry. I'm more interested in 30 the second sentence, I beg your pardon, about Coverforce 31 assisting with the administration in relation to what would 32 appear to be the EBA clause contributions? 33 A. Okay Laytins Mayfair are no longer collecting ACIRT 34 contributions, and I indicated to you why. 35 36 Q. Yes. 37 A. In terms of Coverforce assisting with the 38 administration, I reported that to the Committee, that 39 I had discussions with people at Coverforce and they 40 indicated to me that rather than us sending our 41 documentation to the employers who had enterprise 42 bargaining agreements on a monthly basis, which was a 43 costly exercise, they do it anyway to the industry and they 44 offered to send ours out with theirs so it wouldn't cost us 45 any money. That was it. 46 47 Q. That assumes that everyone who signed up to the


1 Coverforce clause is going to sign up to this clause? 2 A. No, that doesn't assume anything. All that did was 3 that indicate that they were prepared to help us to save 4 some money. So they would send out our stuff with theirs, 5 but it never eventuated anyway, it never happened. 6 7 Q. It was just discussed, was it? 8 A. That is all. But I was grateful for the fact that 9 they offered to assist us in some cost-saving measures to 10 help the Foundation. 11 12 Q. Was it you who was dealing with this issue? You were 13 the person in discussions with Coverforce? 14 A. Yes. 15 16 Q. Who were you dealing with at Coverforce? 17 A. I spoke to Jim Angelis. 18 19 Q. Thank you. 20 A. Because Coverforce was - you know, I've known Jim for 21 quite some years and he's of Greek origin, as I am, and I 22 was telling him about the problems that we were facing and 23 as a matter of fact, I asked him to give us some donations, 24 if you like, to help us, but he offered to post out all our 25 material on a monthly basis, to save us some money, which 26 I thought was a great gesture, but it never got off the 27 ground anyway. 28 29 Q. Why was that? 30 A. Never got off the ground? 31 32 Q. Yes. 33 A. I've got no idea. 34 35 Q. That does end that topic for the moment. Could I ask 36 the witness please to be given MFI-16, which is the 37 diagram. 38 A. Thank you. 39 40 Q. Do you recall whilst you were sitting watching 41 Mr Ferguson's evidence seeing this document? 42 A. Yes. 43 44 Q. Have you seen it before, apart from that? 45 A. No, only when you put it up on the screen. 46 47 Q. Have you had an opportunity to have a closer look at


1 it? 2 A. No. 3 4 Q. Can I just invite you to familiarise yourself with it. 5 It starts at the top left-hand corner with a payment of 6 $100,000? 7 A. Yes, I see that. 8 9 Q. Are you able to assist the Commission with your 10 knowledge of the $100,000 payment? 11 A. The only thing I know about the $100,000 was 12 Steve Dixon had raised it at an organisers' meeting and 13 said that Thiess were going to assist with the Union Safety 14 Program and that was at an organisers' meeting. I know 15 that it was called a donation and what have you. I don't 16 recall it being called a donation, quite frankly, but I do 17 recall the report that Steve Dixon gave to the organisers' 18 meeting. 19 20 Q. When was that? 21 A. I can't recall but it would have been around that 22 time, no doubt. 23 24 Q. Who was at the organisers' meeting, apart from you and 25 him? 26 A. All of the organisers. All the organisers. 27 28 Q. You were an organiser at that time? 29 A. Yes. 30 31 Q. Can you recall the word he used more precisely? 32 A. No, I can't. All I know is that he reported that 33 Thiess were going to make a contribution of $100,000 to the 34 organisation. 35 36 Q. Did he indicate why? 37 A. No, but I did listen to what he had to say, that it 38 was more to do with the project safety record which was 39 fairly appalling. 40 41 Q. Have you, in your career, ever heard of an amount of 42 money of that type of amount being used for safety? 43 A. No, I don't, but it wouldn't be unusual given that 44 safety costs a fair amount of money and that is one of the 45 areas that there's a lot of shortcuts taken. 46 47 Q. You have never seen an amount of that nature?


1 A. No, I haven't, no. 2 3 Q. Was anything said, once he'd said that, by anyone else 4 at the meeting? 5 A. No, not really. I think it was just a report that was 6 given. I don't recall any discussion or debate or anything 7 like that, but everyone was aware that there were incidents 8 that were occurring on the project, the person dying, there 9 was a ceiling collapse in the tunnel and all of that stuff. 10 11 Q. Was anything written down at the delegates' meeting, 12 to your knowledge? 13 A. I'd imagine - well, delegates -- 14 15 Q. I beg your pardon. I withdraw that. Was anything 16 written down at the organisers' meeting, to your knowledge? 17 A. Some of the organisers had taken notes and stuff like 18 that, yes. 19 20 Q. What, for their own purposes? 21 A. Yes. 22 23 Q. Was anyone taking notes for a -- 24 A. There probably was, yes. 25 26 Q. -- permanent record? 27 A. I'd imagine so, yes. 28 29 Q. Who would that have been? 30 A. I can't recall. I don't know who was there at the 31 time. 32 33 Q. In 2006 was it convened by a particular person? 34 A. If it was an organisers' meeting it would be convened 35 by the Committee of Management, that they would organise 36 the date of when the organisers' meeting would occur and so 37 on and so forth. 38 39 Q. Where did it occur, this meeting? 40 A. At Lidcombe. 41 42 Q. In what particular room? In a particular room? 43 A. Upstairs on the second floor, which is the big 44 auditorium, yes. 45 46 Q. Was anyone at the front at meetings like that? 47 A. Yes, normally the Secretary, the Assistant Secretary,


1 the co-ordinators, yes. 2 3 Q. Can you recall at this meeting who was there in terms 4 of the Executive? 5 A. I think Brian Fitzpatrick would have been there, 6 Ferguson would have been there, Peter McClelland would have 7 been there, Mick Knott would have been there, yes, those 8 people, maybe some others, I don't know, I can't recall 9 totally. 10 11 Q. Your best recollection is that it was being given by 12 Thiess to the Union? 13 A. That is my understanding. 14 15 Q. Could the witness please be shown page 82. Do you 16 still have your Chronological Bundle? 17 A. Yes. 82? 18 19 Q. Yes. 20 A. Yes. 21 22 Q. You've got page 82? 23 A. Yes. 24 25 Q. Do you see there a tax invoice under the letterhead of 26 the Building Trades Group of Unions Drug and Alcohol 27 Committee? 28 A. Yes. 29 30 Q. For $100,000? 31 A. Yes. 32 33 Q. And it's issued to Thiess? 34 A. Yes. 35 36 Q. Tax invoice number OT-301? 37 A. I see that. 38 39 Q. Have you seen that before? 40 A. When it was posted up on the screen, yes. 41 42 Q. Apart from that? 43 A. No. 44 45 Q. Do you have any idea why it has been issued by the BTG 46 D and A Committee? 47 A. No idea.


1 2 Q. Did you have any part in its issuance? 3 A. No, I did not. 4 5 Q. Did you hear that it was being issued by the 6 BTG D and A Committee at the time? 7 A. No, I did not. 8 9 Q. Were you on the Committee at the time? 10 A. I can't recall. I probably was. There were a lot of 11 things, as I indicated earlier, that were drawn up and sent 12 out without my knowledge. I didn't know - prior to seeing 13 it on the screen I wasn't aware that there was a tax 14 invoice issued for $100,000. 15 16 Q. Can we now go through please to page 90? 17 A. Of the same bundle? 18 19 Q. I think it is the same bundle. No, it's the bank 20 statements volume, volume 1? 21 A. Page 90? 22 23 Q. The bank statements volume. 24 A. Thank you. 25 26 Q. For the record, it's MFI-3, volume 1. 27 A. Yes, I've got that. 28 29 Q. Do you see there a bank statement for the BTG Drug and 30 Alcohol Safety Program? 31 A. Yes. 32 33 Q. You're a signatory to that account? 34 A. Yes. 35 36 Q. Over at page 91 do you see, about four-fifths of the 37 way down the page, a credit of $100,000? 38 A. I see that. 39 40 Q. Were you aware at the time that $100,000 had been 41 received into the account to which you were a signatory? 42 A. No, I did not. 43 44 Q. Do you see there towards the bottom of the page, the 45 second-last entry, 20 April, a credit - I beg your pardon, 46 a debit of $90,909.09? 47 A. I do, yes.


1 2 Q. Do you know anything about that? 3 A. No, I do not. 4 5 Q. Are you sure? 6 A. I'm absolutely sure. For the Drug and Alcohol/Safety 7 Program, this bank account, the address, as you can see, is 8 PO Box 1145, Rozelle, so it went to the BTG DA at Rozelle 9 and the staff collect the mail and so on and so forth. 10 I wasn't even aware of this. 11 12 Q. Are you absolutely sure about that, sir? I'd like you 13 to think very carefully about that. 14 A. Entirely sure. 15 16 Q. Could you turn to page 93 of the Chronological Bundle, 17 please? 18 A. Yes. 19 20 Q. Do you see there your signature? 21 A. I see that. 22 23 Q. It is a Quickline Transfer, Account, Safety Program, 24 date 20 April 2006, paid to the Building Trades Group of 25 Unions, the amount $90,909.09. It is approved by you, 26 isn't it, sir? 27 A. My signature is there. 28 29 Q. It is approved by you, isn't it, sir? 30 A. My signature is there and as I indicated to you 31 earlier there were plenty of occasions that I was asked to 32 sign documents. Now, I didn't draw this Quickline Transfer 33 up. All I was asked to do was to sign it. The $100,000 or 34 this $90,909.09, I was unaware of it, simple as that; 35 that's a fact. 36 37 Q. It is on the same page -- 38 A. I know what it says. 39 40 Q. The figure is just above where you've signed. 41 A. I know, exactly there. 42 43 Q. You must have looked at something on the page? 44 A. Yes. I don't know - at that time I didn't know 45 anything about the accounts at all. I didn't run them. 46 Trevor Sharp looked after the accounts of the BTG and also 47 Mick Knott; they were involved in it, not I. I was asked


1 to sign documentation, including bank statements, opening 2 up of bank accounts, I'd be asked to do that; letters, on 3 occasion, I would be asked to sign which I did and left. 4 5 Q. Even if you didn't read much on this page at all -- 6 A. Yes. 7 8 Q. -- immediately above where you're signed is the figure 9 of $90,909.09? 10 A. That's correct. 11 12 Q. You say you didn't see that? 13 A. I'm not saying I didn't see it, but there was no 14 explanation given to me about it. All I know is it was 15 part of the accounts that I had nothing to do with. 16 17 Q. Do you recall seeing the reason? 18 A. No, I did not, no. As I said, the first I heard of 19 that money was Dixon giving a report to the organisers' 20 meeting. 21 22 Q. Do you believe that was after or before you signed 23 this document? 24 A. It would have been before, I'd say. He'd reported 25 that they were going to make a contribution. I wasn't even 26 aware that the contribution was made at that time and 27 I certainly wasn't aware of the break-up of it and that's 28 what obviously this is, some of that $100,000. 29 30 Q. How do you know it's the same 100,000? 31 A. How do I know? Because of all of the statements that 32 have been put up on the screen while I was sitting up the 33 back. 34 35 Q. You heard Mr Dixon talk about $100,000 being received 36 from Thiess at an organisers' meeting? 37 A. But that was the first I'd heard about it, yes. 38 39 Q. Yes, and then there's this document here for a 40 different amount, $90,909.09? 41 A. That's correct. 42 43 Q. Why do you say that it was the same amount of money? 44 A. Well, it was part of what Mr Dixon had to say and 45 Mr Sharp's contribution was that there was a break-up to do 46 with GST and all sorts of other stuff. 47


1 Q. Do you see back on MFI-16 which is the diagram -- 2 A. Yes. 3 4 Q. -- that we've now moved across the page on the top, 5 the red arrow going on to the BTG, the Building Trades 6 Group of Unions, do you see that? 7 A. Yes, from left to right, yes. 8 9 Q. Yes. Do you see beneath that that there are two 10 transfers, one of $18,000 or so and one of $72,000 or so? 11 Do you know anything about those? 12 A. No, I do not. 13 14 Q. Are you sure about that? 15 A. Absolutely confident that I didn't know anything about 16 this. 17 18 Q. Absolutely sure? 19 A. Absolutely confident. 20 21 Q. Could you please look at pages 107 and 108 of the 22 Chronological Bundle? 23 A. Which one? The Chronological Bundle? 24 25 Q. Yes, please, 107 and 108. 26 A. Yes. 27 28 Q. Do you see there on both of those pages a Building 29 Trades Group document with some handwriting on it and under 30 the line about three-quarters of the way down that 31 substance is "Requested by: T Papa"? 32 A. I see that. 33 34 Q. Did you know anything about -- 35 A. Definitely not. 36 37 Q. -- that? 38 A. They've misspelt my name as well. 39 40 Q. You say you didn't request these cheques? 41 A. Did not and I certainly didn't draft this up. As 42 I said, my name is misspelt. 43 44 Q. Even if you didn't draft the documents are you saying 45 that you didn't request the payment? 46 A. I just said that, yes. I don't know whose that 47 signature is, by the way.


1 2 Q. You don't know? 3 A. No, that is not familiar to me. 4 5 Q. It's not Mr Ferguson's? 6 A. It doesn't appear to be, no; it doesn't look like his. 7 8 Q. You would have heard that in 2007 there was some 9 interest shown in this payment by an investigator from the 10 ABCC? 11 A. No, I did not. The first I'd heard of that was last 12 Sunday week when I had a meeting with my barrister. He 13 asked me whether I was aware of it and my response then, as 14 it is now, was no, I was not aware of it. 15 16 Q. Are you sure about that? 17 A. Confident. 18 19 Q. Just before I go on in further detail to the ABCC 20 inquiry, just in relation to the two cheques that are up on 21 the screen, or the two requests for the cheques -- 22 A. Yes. I requested neither. 23 24 Q. You don't recall Mr Knott coming to you with any issue 25 or that you made any request to Mr Knott? 26 A. No. I certainly didn't make any requests for cheques 27 to be drawn up. 28 29 Q. Can I have you also look at page 109? 30 A. Of that bundle? 31 32 Q. Of the Chronological Bundle. 33 A. 109? 34 35 Q. Yes, please. 36 A. Yes. 37 38 Q. Do you see there a tax invoice under the letterhead of 39 the Building Trades Group of Unions Drug and Alcohol 40 Committee? 41 A. Yes, I see that. 42 43 Q. "Attention: Tony Papa"? 44 A. Yes. 45 46 Q. It says, "The Building Trades Group. 47 Attention: Tony Papa"?


1 A. Yes, I can see that. 2 3 Q. So you've never seen that document before? 4 A. No, I've never seen it, and I didn't request it and 5 that obviously is a Sussex Street address on that which was 6 the former address of the Drug and Alcohol Committee. 7 8 Q. "The Building Trades Group", the Sussex Street address 9 there? 10 A. Yes, Level 10, 377 Sussex Street. 11 12 Q. You say that was not the current address as at 2006? 13 A. No, that was the address where the Sydney Branch was 14 at that stage. 15 16 Q. The Sydney Branch of the CFMEU? 17 A. The Sydney Branch of the CFMEU. 18 19 Q. Wasn't that where the BTG was? 20 A. Yes. 21 22 Q. That was where you were? 23 A. Yes. Well, that's where I was located, yes. 24 25 Q. Do you see how it works? This is an invoice under the 26 letterhead of the BTG D and A, so they've issued the 27 invoice? 28 A. Yes. 29 30 Q. They've issued the invoice to the Building Trades 31 Group at Level 10, 377 Sussex Street where you were? 32 A. Yes. 33 34 Q. And it's "Attention" you? 35 A. Yes. I don't recall it, that's what I'm saying, 36 I don't recall it. 37 38 Q. Leaving that to one side, go back, if you would be 39 kind enough, to MFI-16 and do you see the bottom box is 40 "CFMEU Construction and General Division"? 41 A. Yes. 42 43 Q. And then there's a red arrow at the left of that box 44 going up to the BTG Union's Drug and Alcohol Committee? 45 A. Yes. 46 47 Q. And there's a cheque there, $72,727.29?


1 A. Yes. 2 3 Q. Do you know anything about that? 4 A. No, I do not. 5 6 Q. Could you please go to page 128 of the banking 7 documents? 8 A. Yes. 128? 9 10 Q. I am sorry, I beg your pardon, I'm misleading you 11 there; it is the Chronological Bundle. 12 A. Yes. 13 14 Q. Do you see there it's the bank statement for the CFMEU 15 and at 129 do you see a debit of $72,727.29? 16 A. I've got a different page. 17 18 Q. We're now on 129. 19 A. Okay, I see that. 20 21 Q. If you put that to one side and if I can trouble you 22 please to go to the bank statements, folder volume 1 now. 23 A. Yes. 24 25 Q. Do you see at page 145 of that? 26 A. Yes, I've got that. 27 28 Q. It is the second page of a statement starting on the 29 previous page for the BTG Drug and Alcohol Safety Program. 30 Can you see the Quick Deposits coming in on 17 October of 31 $72,727.29? 32 A. Yes, I see that. 33 34 Q. And you're a signatory to that account? 35 A. I believe so. 36 37 Q. Do you say, do you, that you didn't notice that coming 38 in? 39 A. No, I did not. 40 41 Q. Was it discussed at the time? 42 A. Not to my knowledge, no way. As I said, the first 43 I've heard about the payment of $100,000 was the report 44 that Steve Dixon gave at the organisers' meeting. What 45 occurred thereafter with the deposit and what else, I had 46 no involvement in. 47


1 Q. Can I please ask you now to go to the Chronological 2 Bundle, page 132? 3 A. 132? 4 5 Q. Yes, please. 6 A. Yes. 7 8 Q. Do you see there there is a request, on the BTG 9 D and A Committee letterhead, to the bank for a change of 10 signatories? 11 A. Yes, I see that. 12 13 Q. And on page 134 -- 14 A. And I also see Trevor Sharp's name at the bottom of 15 that and authorisation of that, yes. 16 17 Q. Yes. Can you go please to page 134? 18 A. Yes. 19 20 Q. You will see that the "Account Type" and "Method of 21 Operation" is Building Trades Group of Unions Drug and 22 Alcohol/Safety Program? 23 A. Yes. 24 25 Q. And then over the page, to 135, do you see the 26 authorised signatories are Mr Ferguson and yourself? 27 A. Correct. 28 29 Q. Have you signed that document? 30 A. Yes, I have. I can see my signature there but 31 I didn't have anything to do with drawing it up; it's not 32 my handwriting. 33 34 Q. Under your "Details" section do you see, on the 35 right-hand side of that section, that your official 36 position is recorded there as "President"? 37 A. I see that but I was never the President. 38 39 Q. Do you know why there was a change of signatories 40 requested on 18 October 2007? 41 A. No, no, not aware. 42 43 Q. Are you saying, as per your previous evidence, you 44 just got a document, you signed it? 45 A. Signed it, that's it. 46 47 Q. You weren't curious to know why?


1 A. No, I was too busy to ask why and there was no 2 explanation given. 3 4 Q. You've signed it over the page as well, at 137? 5 A. I can see that. 6 7 Q. Building Trades Group Drug and Alcohol Committee is 8 the relevant association? 9 A. Yes. 10 11 Q. And you've signed it as Chairperson or Chief Officer 12 of the Association? 13 A. They've got me down as President. This is the same 14 document you're referring to. 15 16 Q. Yes, but you've signed it here yourself -- 17 A. Yes. 18 19 Q. -- as opposed to someone else perhaps filling in the 20 incorrect information. You've signed it here yourself 21 as signatory -- 22 A. I signed that but that handwriting to the left of my 23 signature is not mine; I didn't fill that in. 24 25 Q. There's no cross or anything against the signature, 26 you must have signed it yourself? 27 A. Which page are we looking at? 28 29 Q. Page 137. 30 A. That's what I'm looking at. 31 32 Q. Yes. You've signed it yourself. 33 A. I've signed it, but the handwriting to the left is not 34 my handwriting; I didn't fill this in. 35 36 Q. Right, but you did sign it? 37 A. I beg your pardon? 38 39 Q. You did sign it? 40 A. Of course. I've said that. 41 42 Q. Could you please go to page 140? 43 44 MR CONDON: Commissioner, I think there's a 45 non-publication order already about page 135 where 46 Mr Ferguson's details appear, but lest there not be one, 47 I seek an order.


1 2 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you, Mr Condon. In the event 3 that there isn't a non-publication order about the personal 4 details on page 135, I now make one. 5 6 MS McNAUGHTON: Q. Sir, could you please go to page 140? 7 A. I've got that. 8 9 Q. Do you see there a request by Toni Mitchell, on the 10 letterhead of the Building Trades Group of Unions Drug and 11 Alcohol Committee, for a new cash deposit account? 12 A. Yes. 13 14 Q. 22 October 2007? 15 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. And over the page, page 142, do you see it is in 18 relation to the Building Trades Group Drug and Alcohol 19 Committee? 20 A. Mmm-hmm. 21 22 Q. Do you see at page 143 that you have co-signed that 23 document? 24 A. I did. 25 26 Q. And that is you and Mr Ferguson, do you see that? 27 A. Yes, I can see that. Toni Mitchell sent this out and 28 I signed it. Toni Mitchell would not do anything unless 29 she was authorised to do it and the only person that would 30 have authorised her to do it would have been Trevor Sharp 31 or Mick Knott, one of the two. I signed it, yes, because 32 it was given to me to sign, but that handwriting is 33 Toni Mitchell's. 34 35 Q. Do you know why a Cash Deposit Account was being set 36 up? 37 A. No. 38 39 Q. No idea? 40 A. No. 41 42 Q. Was it ever discussed? 43 A. Not with me. 44 45 Q. You're sure about that, you have a clear recollection 46 that it was not discussed with you, do you? 47 A. Yes.


1 2 Q. Not that you can't recall? 3 A. Well, I can't recall, but it certainly wasn't 4 discussed with me, that's all I can say. I wasn't privy to 5 those discussions that took place with the accounts and 6 various other things. 7 8 Q. Could I trouble you to go to the banking folder, 9 I think volume 2? Would you go please to page 639? 10 A. 639? 11 12 Q. Yes, please. 13 A. Yes. 14 15 Q. Do you see there a Cash Deposit Account statement for 16 the BTG Drug and Alcohol Committee? 17 A. Yes. 18 19 Q. And we've got zero balance at 1 October 2007 and then 20 an amount of $72,727.29 coming in on 29 October 2007? 21 A. Yes. 22 23 Q. Do you say you know something about that or not? 24 A. No, I don't know anything about that. 25 26 Q. Then over the page, 663, we are -- 27 A. 663? 28 29 Q. Yes, please. Could we go right over the page - sorry, 30 many pages - to 663? 31 A. Yes. 32 33 Q. Do you see there we've gone right through a few years, 34 right through to October 2009? 35 A. 2009, yes. 36 37 Q. Do you see the sum total in the account has been 38 withdrawn, $80,188.04? 39 A. Yes, I can see that. 40 41 Q. On 8 October. After interest there's a closing 42 balance of zero. Do you see that? 43 A. Yes. 44 45 Q. Do you know anything about that withdrawal? 46 A. No, I do not, no. 47


1 Q. Can I ask you please to go to I think it's the 2 Chronological Bundle - no, it's not, I beg your pardon. It 3 is volume 1 of the bank statements. 4 A. Is that in the - this one. Okay. 5 6 THE COMMISSIONER: Bank statements? 7 8 MS McNAUGHTON: Yes, please, volume 1. 9 10 THE WITNESS: Yes. What page? 11 12 MS McNAUGHTON: Q. Page 214. 13 A. Yes. 14 15 Q. Do you see, at 8 October, this is an account, if you 16 need to satisfy yourself on the previous page, for BTG Drug 17 and Alcohol Safety Program? 676 are the last three digits 18 of the account number. 19 A. Yes. 20 21 Q. On 8 October there's money coming in of $80,230.88. 22 A. On 8 October? 23 24 Q. Yes, in the "Credit" column: "Financial Markets CDA"? 25 A. Yes, I see it, yes. 26 27 Q. Do you see that money coming in from that cash deposit 28 account? 29 A. Yes. 30 31 Q. The second-last entry on the bottom of that same page, 32 cheque number 1 for $72,000? 33 A. I see that, yes. 34 35 Q. Do you know anything about that? 36 A. Well, the money that came in on 8 October I wouldn't 37 know anything about because that's my birthday. I would 38 have been - I wouldn't have been at work on that day, so 39 I know nothing about that. 40 41 Q. Well, you could have seen it later, the next day? 42 A. Well, if I was familiar with the accounts I would 43 have, but I'm not familiar with the accounts because 44 I wasn't privy to them. 45 46 Q. And then what about the cheque of $72,000 coming out 47 as cheque number 1 on 19 October?


1 A. I don't know anything about that either. Again, I was 2 never privy to the accounts. 3 4 Q. Are you absolutely certain about that? 5 A. Entirely. 6 7 Q. Can I ask you please to go to the Chronological 8 Bundle, page 152. 9 A. Yes. 10 11 Q. Do you see your signature on the cheque for $72,000 on 12 9 October? 13 A. I do, yes. I do, yes. 14 15 Q. You signed that? 16 A. Yes, I acknowledge that. Again, it's a signature on a 17 cheque that I didn't draw up, didn't request it. I was 18 asked to sign because I happen to be a signatory to the 19 account, but I wasn't privy to the accounts. 20 21 Q. Could the witness please be shown MFI-11? Do you see 22 that there are two documents as part of MFI-11 and one of 23 the documents has two signatures on it in the "approved by" 24 section? 25 A. Yes. 26 27 Q. That is your signature? 28 A. Yes. On the second page there's my signature, yes. 29 30 Q. So that is against the words "Approved by" and the 31 "Payee" - I'm not suggesting this is your writing - says 32 "Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union"? 33 A. Yes. I certainly didn't draw this up, or it's not my 34 handwriting, although I did - again, as I keep saying, 35 I signed it. 36 37 Q. So you signed the cheque requisition for a $72,000 38 cheque to go to the CFMEU? 39 A. Well, this is Toni Mitchell's handwriting and she 40 doesn't do anything unless she's authorised or given 41 instructions to do so and I certainly didn't give her any 42 instructions. I signed it. 43 44 Q. Did you notice what she was signing? 45 A. In a lot of cases, no, because it was given to me to 46 sign. Tom Simpson would give me some documents. He'd say, 47 "Sign here." They had little tags on them where my


1 signature was required and he'd take it back. 2 3 Q. $72,000, though, is a large amount of money, on any 4 view? 5 A. It's not a small amount, yes. 6 7 Q. Wouldn't that have come to your attention given it's 8 right next to where you were signing? 9 A. Not really, because as far as the accounts are 10 concerned, the Union or the BTG, there were sums of money 11 that were obviously large sums. To me it didn't really 12 strike me as being odd. I was just asked to sign a 13 document which I did. These as I said were drawn up by 14 Toni Mitchell. 15 16 Q. Who do you say asked you to sign it? 17 A. It would either have been Toni that rung me to either 18 come past the office to sign the documents or she would 19 have given it to Tommy Mitchell - Tom Simpson to hand to me 20 to sign and he'd take them back to Toni, because I'd be out 21 on the road. 22 23 MS McNAUGHTON: Those are my questions. 24 25 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Cheshire? 26 27 MR CHESHIRE: No, thank you. 28 29 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Latham? 30 31 MR LATHAM: No, Commissioner. 32 33 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Reitano? 34 35 MR REITANO: Yes, Commissioner. I have some questions. 36 37 <EXAMINATION BY MR REITANO: 38 39 MR REITANO: Q. Sir, I act for Mr Knott. Could I just 40 ask you some questions about some evidence you gave about 41 Mr Knott's involvement in matters to do with the Building 42 Trades Group accounts. 43 A. Yes. 44 45 Q. When I say the Building Trades Group accounts, do you 46 understand that to be different from the Building Trades 47 Group Drug and Alcohol Committee?

.18/08/2015 CFMEU BTG D&A 822 A PAPA (Mr Reitano) Transcript produced by DTI

1 A. That's correct. 2 3 Q. Can I suggest to you that, so far as you are 4 concerned, you can give us no direct information that would 5 support your contention or your suggestion that Mr Knott 6 was responsible for the BTG accounts; is that correct? 7 A. Other than to say that Mr Knott was the financial 8 controller. He was responsible for the accounts. That is 9 all I can say. 10 11 Q. Mr Knott, to your knowledge, was not responsible for 12 the BTG accounts? 13 A. Well, Mr Knott and Mr Sharp were, the BTG Drug and 14 Alcohol accounts. They would talk to one another fairly 15 frequently about the accounts and I'd be asked to sign 16 cheques for that purpose. 17 18 Q. I'm not asking you about the BTG Drug and Alcohol 19 Committee, I'm asking you about the BTG? 20 A. Yes. 21 22 Q. Mr Knott, to your knowledge, had nothing to do with 23 the BTG accounts; correct? 24 A. That is not my understanding. 25 26 Q. Where did you get your understanding from? 27 A. Well, I didn't control the accounts of the BTG. There 28 was a financial controller that operated in the Union, and 29 Mr Knott was the financial controller. I had no knowledge 30 of the accounts. I was never privy to any of the accounts, 31 so I presume that that was the case. 32 33 Q. You knew that Mr Knott was not authorised as a 34 signatory to any of the BTG accounts, didn't you? 35 A. I was aware of that, because I was authorised, but 36 I didn't draw up any of the cheques and I didn't request 37 any of the cheques. I was merely asked to sign them. 38 39 Q. I'm not asking you about what you did. You knew that 40 Mr Knott was not authorised to sign any -- 41 A. It was obvious, because I was a signatory to that 42 account. 43 44 Q. And he was not? 45 A. He was not, but obviously someone had to draw all of 46 these things up and be accountable for the accounts. 47


1 Q. And certainly, to your knowledge, Mr Knott never asked 2 you -- 3 A. Not personally, no. 4 5 Q. -- to authorise anything? 6 A. Not personally, no. It was either Toni Mitchell, or 7 someone in the office would ask me to sign cheques. As 8 I said, there was the finance - I don't know what 9 Sudesh Singh's title was or Pat's title was, but they asked 10 me to sign things. 11 12 Q. You never saw Mr Knott at any of the BTG meetings, did 13 you - that you went to? 14 A. Well, we hardly met, as I said earlier. 15 16 Q. Whether you hardly met or you met a lot, Mr Knott 17 wasn't at those meetings, was he? 18 A. Not that I can recall. 19 20 Q. Did you, from time to time - you worked in the city, 21 didn't you? 22 A. Yes. 23 24 Q. Mr Knott worked at Lidcombe? 25 A. Lidcombe, that's correct. 26 27 Q. Did you from time to time ring him? 28 A. No. More often than not I would receive calls from 29 Lidcombe, not make them. 30 31 Q. Were you ever asked by someone else in the city office 32 to contact Mr Knott? 33 A. On what matter? 34 35 Q. On any matter? 36 A. Oh, occasionally I'd talk to Mike about - there was - 37 he was in control of the cars, as an example. If I had a 38 problem with a car I'd talk to him. He was in charge of a 39 lot of other things and he had a lot of responsibilities 40 out there at Lidcombe, so from time to time I talked to 41 him. 42 43 Q. Did you ever ring him and ask him to prepared a cheque 44 requisition and ask him to get it approved or authorised 45 by Mr -- 46 A. No, I did not. 47


1 Q. Would you do me the courtesy of letting me finish my 2 question? 3 A. Yes. 4 5 Q. And ask him to take it to Mr Ferguson and have him 6 approve or authorise it? 7 A. No, I did not. 8 9 Q. I want to suggest to you that you did that on at least 10 two occasions that you were shown in the course of your 11 evidence this morning? 12 A. I did not. As I indicated, on those two occasions, 13 they were documents presented to me for signing, which 14 I signed. 15 16 MR REITANO: Thank you, sir. 17 18 THE WITNESS: You're welcome. 19 20 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Reitano. Mr Condon? 21 22 <EXAMINATION BY MR CONDON: 23 24 MR CONDON: Q. Mr Papa, I act for Mr Ferguson. If it is 25 convenient, can the witness be shown MFI-13, which may 26 still be on the system. It's the last exhibit the witness 27 was shown. 28 29 THE COMMISSIONER: Are you thinking of this (indicating)? 30 31 MR CONDON: Yes, I was, Commissioner. 32 33 THE COMMISSIONER: It is MFI-11 that Mr Condon wants the 34 witness to look at. 35 36 MR CONDON: I am obliged. 37 38 Q. Do you recognise Ms Mitchell's handwriting on those 39 documents? 40 A. I do, yes. 41 42 Q. Can you assist the Commissioner, what handwriting do 43 you say is Mrs Mitchell's? 44 A. Well, according to this, it's got Toni Mitchell's 45 signature on the document on the left-hand side of the 46 screen. It says "Prepared by T Mitchell". 47

.18/08/2015 CFMEU BTG D&A 825 A PAPA (Mr Condon) Transcript produced by DTI

1 Q. Do you recognise her handwriting elsewhere on that 2 document? 3 A. Yes. All the handwriting is hers. 4 5 Q. Would you just close that up, Mr Papa, I would be 6 grateful? 7 A. Excepting the - sorry, the amount, the handwritten 8 thing on the left-hand side, which says "advise amount of 9 cheque" is it? "Please advise amount of cheque", on the 10 right-hand side of the right-hand document. 11 12 Q. Thank you. 13 A. I don't know whose writing that is, but certainly not 14 mine. 15 16 Q. Would you close the document up. I'll take you to 17 another document. 18 A. Okay. 19 20 Q. In the Chronological Bundle it is at page 140 to 143. 21 A. 140? 22 23 Q. Yes. That should be a letter, Mr Papa, from the 24 Building Trades Group of Unions Drug and Alcohol Committee 25 to the bank, followed by a request for new cash deposit 26 account. Do you see that document? 27 A. I do, yes. 28 29 Q. You said in evidence in answer to my learned friend 30 Ms McNaughton, Counsel Assisting, that Toni Mitchell sent 31 the document to you and you signed it? 32 A. Yes. 33 34 Q. Can you tell the Commissioner, please, what your 35 recollection is of how Ms Mitchell sent this document to 36 you before you signed it? 37 A. Well, as I said, there's two ways that this document 38 could have been signed by me. One, that Toni would have 39 rung me and asked me to pop into the office to sign some 40 paperwork, and/or, two, she would have sent Tom Simpson out 41 to where I was, because I spent more time on the road than 42 anything else, and I would then sign the documents, he'd 43 return them back to Toni Mitchell. 44 45 Q. We're speaking, of course, about a document that came 46 into existence, Mr Papa, in late 2007? 47 A. Yes.


1 2 Q. Are you describing to the Commissioner, then, the 3 practice which existed in late 2007 of sending documents to 4 you? 5 A. That's correct, that was the practice. 6 7 Q. Would you turn over to page 142 and page 143? 8 A. Yes. 9 10 Q. Do you recognise the handwriting on that document? 11 A. Yes. 12 13 Q. Leaving aside the signatures which appear at the 14 bottom of 143, can you say whose handwriting that is? 15 A. Toni Mitchell's. 16 17 Q. In the same bundle, could I take you back, please, to 18 the letter that appears at page 132 and the enclosed 19 document that goes to page 139? 20 A. Yes. 21 22 Q. Do you have a recollection of how this document came 23 to you, Mr Papa? 24 A. No, I do not. 25 26 Q. If you go to pages 134, 135 and 137, do you recognise 27 the handwriting on those documents, leaving aside the 28 signature? 29 A. Yes, again, it's Toni Mitchell's. As I said, with 30 Toni, she would only prepare things as she was requested to 31 or asked to. 32 33 Q. Is it your recollection that this document came to you 34 in one of the two ways that you've told the Commission 35 about. 36 A. It's the only way it could have come to me. 37 38 Q. Are you certain about that? 39 A. Absolutely. 40 41 Q. You can close that bundle up for the moment, I would 42 be grateful. Could the witness be shown MFI-6, tab 10, 43 page 440. Mr Papa, I'm going to ask you some questions 44 about the clause which appears in the last dot point -- 45 A. What page? 440? 46 47 Q. It should be in front of you, Mr Papa?


1 A. 440, yes. Is that the last dot point? 2 3 Q. Yes, is it convenient for you to read it on the 4 screen? 5 A. I can see it, yes. 6 7 Q. It is the standard EBA clause you've been asked some 8 questions about? 9 A. That's correct. Yes. 10 11 Q. You've told the Commissioner that you were at some 12 stage an organiser. 13 A. Yes. 14 15 Q. Just tell the Commissioner over what period of time 16 you were an organiser, please? 17 A. I joined the Union in - I think it was, off memory - 18 October, mid-October 1998. It was at the end of the 19 Patrick dispute in the maritime industry earlier that year 20 and I spent three months off - I resigned, in fact, from 21 the MUA at that time because I didn't believe that the 22 dispute that occurred on the waterfront should have 23 occurred, quite frankly, but, anyway, I left, and I joined 24 the CFMEU in October 1998. 25 26 Q. As at 2005 and 2006, did you remain an organiser? 27 A. Yes. 28 29 Q. Did the Union conduct training courses for organisers? 30 A. Yes, they did. 31 32 Q. Did those training courses extend to an understanding 33 of the standard EBA clauses? 34 A. Can you repeat that? 35 36 Q. Did the training you received from the Union extend to 37 an examination of the standard EBA clauses? 38 A. It included all of the clauses in the enterprise 39 agreement. We'd go through them so people were familiar 40 with them and so on, yes. 41 42 Q. Did the training extend to the clause in front of 43 you - that is, the last dot point on page 440? 44 A. Yes. 45 46 Q. Do you recall discussing that clause with Union - 47 employees from time to time?


1 A. With employees? 2 3 Q. Yes? 4 A. I did, yes. 5 6 Q. Did you tell them where the money was going to? 7 A. Depends on who I was actually addressing, because a 8 lot of the employees that were employed by the various 9 companies - there was thousands of companies - some paid 10 emphasis to certain clauses, others didn't, but, yes, 11 I recall explaining this to some of the rank and file, yes, 12 with some of the people I dealt with, yes. 13 14 Q. Did you ask those persons on those occasions, or did 15 you tell them, I should say, on those occasions, where the 16 money actually went to? 17 A. On some occasions I did, yes, but, you know, I was of 18 the opinion that the industry knew that they were - where 19 the money was going. 20 21 Q. Let's just attend to one issue at a time? 22 A. Yes. 23 24 Q. As at 2005-2006, was it your understanding that some 25 of the money raised by the EBA provision in front of you 26 went to the CFMEU for its Safety Program? 27 A. Yes, it was my understanding. 28 29 Q. You told the Commissioner that, on occasions, you 30 spoke to meetings of employees and you spoke about that 31 clause? 32 A. Yes, not at every meeting, but yes, I did. 33 34 Q. Using your best recollection - I don't want you to 35 guess - did you have occasion to tell those employees that 36 some of the moneys raised by that clause went to the CFMEU 37 for safety purposes? 38 A. I did, yes. Again, that wasn't on every occasion. 39 40 Q. At those meetings - I've mentioned about employees 41 being present? 42 A. Yes. 43 44 Q. Were those meetings, in essence, open to anyone who 45 might want to attend? 46 A. Meaning? 47


1 Q. For example, on some occasions, did representatives of 2 employees sometimes attend those meetings? 3 A. Yes, yes, and people who worked for that enterprise or 4 company that weren't members of the Union either, they were 5 there. 6 7 Q. Yes. 8 A. Yes. 9 10 Q. I'm taking your mind back some years ago, 2005-2006, 11 but was it your experience more often than not that at 12 those meetings of employees, employer representatives were 13 present? 14 A. Employer? 15 16 Q. Yes. 17 A. Yes, there was, yes. 18 19 Q. Was it more often than not the case that persons who 20 were not members of the CFMEU but who were otherwise 21 employees also attended those meetings? 22 A. That's correct. See, some of those employers were 23 actually members of the Union and, you know, it was fairly 24 difficult to exclude them from a Union meeting whilst they 25 were members of the Union and, look, some of those 26 employers were, you know, good, decent people and wanted to 27 get involved in the affairs of the Union; and there was 28 others that you wouldn't feed, but, nonetheless, they 29 attended meetings, yes. 30 31 Q. Can you just assist the Commissioner: why would 32 employers be members of the CFMEU? 33 A. Well, a lot of the employers came through the ranks of 34 the Union as labourers or tradesmen, and they remained that 35 way, and still, to this day, there are employers who are 36 still members of the Union. 37 38 Q. Just excuse me one second, Mr Papa. I think you told 39 the Commissioner a few minutes ago that employers would 40 have known -- 41 A. Yes. 42 43 Q. -- that the money raised by this EBA provision went, 44 in part, to the CFMEU? 45 A. Yes. 46 47 Q. Leaving aside the sorts of meetings we've just spoken


1 about, how else would employers have known that the money 2 would have gone, in part, to the CFMEU? 3 A. A lot of employers would have known that over the 4 years because of - one thing that building workers, like 5 other workers, they all talk a lot. You know, there's an 6 old saying, "Don't send a telegram, tell a building 7 worker," because things go through the industry fairly 8 quickly and that is how the industry is. People 9 communicate on a regular basis. 10 11 Q. Do you recall yourself - again, I'm directing your 12 attention to the period 2005-2006 -- 13 A. Yes. 14 15 Q. Do you yourself recall having such conversations with 16 employers about this clause and about the money going to, 17 in part, the CFMEU? 18 A. Some employers would express an interest and ask the 19 question, and you obviously provided them with an 20 explanation. In a lot of cases, a lot of others just 21 signed the enterprise agreement and that was it. 22 23 Q. Mr Papa, lawyers don't like the word "would"? 24 A. Yes. 25 26 Q. I want your recollection. Do you have a recollection 27 one way or the other about such conversations taking place 28 in about the mid-2000s? 29 A. With me personally involved? Yes. 30 31 Q. With employers; is that right? 32 A. Yes. One thing that needs to be understood, I didn't 33 view the employers as the enemy or anything like that. 34 I like to work with the people. And the building industry, 35 as such - the unions, the employers, the Master Builders, 36 employer representatives and worker representatives - have 37 to coexist, and that has been the case. And even to this 38 day a lot of employers I regard as friends. 39 40 Q. Are you able to say to the Commissioner now how often 41 those sorts of conversations took place? Was it rare, 42 infrequent, common or what? 43 A. I suppose infrequent. 44 45 Q. Can I just change topic for a moment, please, and ask 46 you about something else. Could the witness be shown 47 MFI-10, please. Before that is done, Mr Papa, I was asking


1 you about 2005-2006. 2 A. Yes. 3 4 Q. Would your evidence about those sorts of conversations 5 extend back to, say, the early 2000s and for the few years 6 after 2006 as well? 7 A. Well, I was involved in negotiating enterprise 8 agreements with a lot of employers and, in particular, in 9 the area that I looked after, and I had plenty of 10 conversations with employers, employees - yes. 11 12 Q. I want to be precise. Come back to my question. Did 13 the evidence you've just given the Commissioner apply 14 equally to the years in the early 2000s and, say, the two 15 years after 2006? 16 A. Yes, I think so, yes. 17 18 Q. You should have in front of you, Mr Papa, MFI-10? 19 A. Yes. 20 21 Q. You will see these relate to the Building Trades Group 22 of Unions Drug and Alcohol and Safety Subcommittee? 23 A. Yes. 24 25 Q. By all means look at the document, but can I just ask 26 you in particular to look at the left-hand page under the 27 heading "Objectives". Let the Commissioner know when 28 you've finished doing that, please. 29 A. Yes, I see that. 30 31 Q. Can the witness also be shown MFI-21. 32 A. Thank you. 33 34 Q. In particular, could I ask you to go to the last page 35 where again it refers to Drug and Alcohol and Safety 36 Subcommittee. Do you have that, Mr Papa? 37 A. Yes. Is that under "Objectives" as well? 38 39 Q. Indeed. Could I just ask you, please, to read that 40 section to yourself and let the Commissioner know when 41 you've done that. 42 A. Yes. 43 44 Q. You were asked some questions by learned Counsel 45 Assisting, Ms McNaughton, about the safety aspects of this 46 Committee, and you will see there at least on these 47 documents there is a reference to the provision of


1 occupational health and safety services and activities in 2 the building and construction industry? 3 A. Yes, I see that. 4 5 Q. When were you a member of this Committee, be it called 6 Drug and Alcohol Committee or Drug and Alcohol and Safety 7 Subcommittee, can you tell the Commissioner what years you 8 were on that Committee? 9 A. As I said, I think with Graham Childs, I think he got 10 crook around about 2002 and so I'd been involved since that 11 time. 12 13 Q. Until when, Mr Papa? 14 A. To tell you the truth, I can't recall. All I know is 15 that I was more or less phased out of that Committee. 16 17 Q. You were on that commit for a number of years, I take 18 it? 19 A. Yes. 20 21 Q. Do you recall the committee having an interest in 22 occupational health and safety services matters generally - 23 that is, more than simply related to what might be called 24 drug and alcohol issues? 25 A. Yes. 26 27 Q. Leaving aside the occupational health and safety 28 consequences of drug and alcohol issues - if you put that 29 to one side - do you have a recollection of the Committee 30 being concerned with health and safety issues more 31 generally and, if so, in what regards? 32 A. In terms of health and safety, I think no matter who 33 you are, if you're in the Union you're always concerned 34 about the health and safety and the welfare of people on 35 the jobs, and the committee was no different. 36 37 Q. Can we be concrete, Mr Papa. I understand the general 38 proposition. Can you tell the Commissioner, please, what 39 sort of OH&S issues did the Committee have regard to. 40 41 MS McNAUGHTON: Can I object, Commissioner? There's a 42 matter of clarification. I'm not quite sure which 43 Committee my learned friend is asking about, because 44 earlier Mr Papa, when I was asking him questions, said 45 there was a Safety Committee and there was a Drug and 46 Alcohol Committee and that they were different. So it is 47 not quite clear, given these are at least in part draft


1 documents, it would appear, and I think the evidence is to 2 that effect, which Committee Mr Papa is being asked about. 3 4 MR CONDON: That's a fair comment. I'm grateful to my 5 friend. 6 7 THE COMMISSIONER: Very well. 8 9 MR CONDON: Q. After 2002, let's take a few years after 10 that, I'm speaking now about a subcommittee or 11 subcommittees of the BTG. How many committees were in 12 existence at the one time that dealt with what might be 13 called safety? Was it just one, being the Drug and Alcohol 14 and Safety Subcommittee, or something like that term, or 15 was there another Committee as well? 16 A. Yes, the BTG Committee. 17 18 Q. Right. 19 A. They both were conscious of safety, as I indicated 20 earlier to -- 21 22 Q. To Ms McNaughton? 23 A. -- Ms McNaughton. The education program that the BTG 24 Drug and Alcohol and Safety Program was involved in was on 25 the job, they had an education officer, they talked to 26 people about the impairment of drugs and alcohol and so on 27 and so forth on the job and how it impacted on people 28 working safely. And then there's the Committee, the BTG 29 Committee. They were obviously concerned about safety in 30 the building industry by way of the organisers that carried 31 out safety inspections, safety programs, along with the 32 safety officer that was a full-time employee of the Union. 33 So it was interlocked, really, it was something that we had 34 in common. 35 36 Q. Yes. Were you a member of both subcommittees? 37 A. Yes. 38 39 Q. Before my learned friend rose to clarify my 40 questioning, for which I'm grateful, I was asking you about 41 a subcommittee and you were giving some evidence about its 42 attention to safety? 43 A. Yes. 44 45 Q. Was that the BTG Safety Committee to which you were 46 referring or was it to the Drug and Alcohol Subcommittee? 47 A. Both.


1 2 Q. Both. Can I just ask you to attend, please, to the 3 Drug and Alcohol Subcommittee. Is it your evidence to the 4 Commissioner that after 2002 it had a focus on OH&S issues 5 quite apart from the consequences of drug and alcohol 6 addiction, for example? 7 A. Yes, it did. As a matter of fact, in the material 8 that we used to distribute on building sites, it was under 9 the name of - I don't know if it's on this. It was under 10 the name of "Not at work, mate", which means, basically, 11 that if you choose to drink or take drugs, don't do it at 12 work, and if you do do it at work, it becomes our business. 13 14 Q. What I am trying to focus on - and I'm sorry to labour 15 the point, Mr Papa - leave aside the issues of alcohol and 16 drugs and the consequences thereof, was this particular 17 committee also concerned with OH&S issues more generally? 18 A. They were conscious of it and they played a role, but 19 the more active role of safety on building projects was 20 undertaken by the Union. But our education officer always 21 spoke to workers about working safe, and that is, don't 22 take drugs at work; don't drink whilst you're at work. 23 24 Q. Can I just change the subject, please, and go to the 25 BTG? 26 A. Yes. 27 28 Q. The parent organisation. You told Ms McNaughton or 29 told the Commissioner, I apologise, that on the Committee 30 were the Plumbers, the ETU and Metalworkers; is that right? 31 A. That's correct. 32 33 Q. How many delegates - and I'm talking about 2006 to 34 2008 - did the CFMEU have, at least on paper, on that 35 Committee? 36 A. Two. 37 38 Q. How many delegates did the Plumbers bring to the 39 committee, at least on paper? 40 A. Usually one, occasionally they'd turn up with two. 41 The ETU was the same. There was one representative, 42 Mick Doust, but he'd attend some meetings with some of his 43 colleagues. 44 45 Q. But in terms of formal delegates, leaving aside -- 46 A. The CFMEU had two. 47


1 Q. Plumbers had one? 2 A. One. 3 4 Q. The ETU had one? 5 A. One. 6 7 Q. And what about the Metalworkers? 8 A. One. 9 10 Q. Again, changing subject, you were asked by 11 Ms McNaughton about the $100,000 payment? 12 A. Yes. 13 14 Q. And you spoke about a meeting of organisers? 15 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. Which you attended? 18 A. Yes. 19 20 Q. In the course of giving evidence to the Commissioner, 21 you referred to the Union Safety Program. What did you 22 have in mind when you used that expression, the Union 23 Safety Program? 24 A. Well, the Safety Program of the Union consisted of -- 25 26 Q. I'm talking about on that site, Mr Papa? 27 A. On the -- 28 29 Q. On the Epping to Chatswood site? 30 A. Well, as I indicated, it was a site that had a fairly 31 dismal safety record. There was a lot of accidents. As 32 I said, the ceiling had collapsed in the tunnel on one 33 occasion; there was a person who had died in the pond, so 34 it had a fairly dismal safety focus. 35 36 Q. To your knowledge, what did the CFMEU do in response 37 to these safety issues or safety problems? 38 A. They kicked up a fuss, no doubt. They weren't too 39 backward in coming forward to explain to the company that 40 their safety was appalling and that there were people being 41 injured. There were stoppages on the job - particularly 42 when that person died, the job stopped - and they took 43 measures to talk with management, a program to try to 44 educate people to work safer, and so on and so forth. As a 45 matter of fact, I did a tunnel safety course, I was trained 46 there on the job, I did a tunnel safety course. I think 47 I've still got the certificate somewhere.


1 2 Q. Lastly, you were asked by Ms McNaughton about meetings 3 of the Committee relating to Foundation House. 4 A. Can you repeat that? 5 6 Q. You were asked by Ms McNaughton about some committees 7 of the CIDAF, Foundation House? 8 A. Yes. 9 10 Q. You said - and for the Commissioner's reference this 11 is at page 778 of today's transcript - that there were 12 comments made at those meetings, or at least at one 13 meeting, by employers' representatives to the effect that 14 they knew that the payments were going to CFMEU? 15 A. Yes. 16 17 Q. Do you recall what was said on those occasions by 18 those representatives on that issue? 19 A. The issue was, by and large, the amount of moneys that 20 we were receiving. Some believed that we should have 21 received 100 per cent as opposed to 50 per cent. There 22 were differing views about where the organisation stood 23 financially and, as I said, most of those meetings were 24 fairly hot, people got a bit hot under the collar. There 25 were some misconceptions about certain methods and so on 26 and so forth. They were fairly lively meetings, I can 27 assure you. 28 29 Q. But do you recall now - you told the Commissioner that 30 some of the employers knew that the payments were going to 31 the CFMEU? 32 A. Yes. 33 34 Q. Do you recall what was said on that particular issue? 35 A. Well, what was said was - or the belief was that 36 people - we should have received, that is, the Foundation 37 should have received, 100 per cent, not 50 per cent. That 38 was the - but people were on the Committee for quite some 39 time. They knew what was being received, what was being 40 distributed and so on and so forth. It wasn't as if they 41 were totally ignorant to that fact. 42 43 MR CONDON: That is my examination. 44 45 THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you Mr Condon. Mr Slevin? 46 47 MR SLEVIN: No questions, Commissioner.


1 2 THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Borgeest? 3 4 MR BORGEEST: No questions. 5 6 THE COMMISSIONER: Ms McNaughton? 7 8 MS McNAUGHTON: No, thank you. 9 10 THE COMMISSIONER: It is in order for the witness to be 11 excused, I take it? 12 13 MS McNAUGHTON: Yes, thank you. 14 15 THE COMMISSIONER: You're excused from any further 16 attendance on the summons. Thank for giving up your time 17 over these two days and, no doubt, the time you took in 18 preparing your evidence. You may leave the witness now. 19 20 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 21 22 <THE WITNESS WITHDREW 23 24 THE COMMISSIONER: That brings this hearing to an end? 25 26 MS McNAUGHTON: The case study is not quite finished 27 because of at least Mr Deegan and possibly one other, and 28 we will be in contact with the affected parties as to when 29 that will be. 30 31 THE COMMISSIONER: Do you expect it to be this week or -- 32 33 MS McNAUGHTON: No, I think it will be next week. 34 35 THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Very well. The public 36 hearings are adjourned to 1.45pm tomorrow. 37 38 AT 12.55PM THE COMMISSION WAS ADJOURNED 39 TO WEDNESDAY, 19 AUGUST 2015 AT 1.45PM 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

.18/08/2015 CFMEU BTG D&A 838 Transcript produced by DTI

Web viewROYAL COMMISSION INTO TRADE UNION. GOVERNANCE AND CORRUPTION. Level 19, 55 Market Street,...

Documents

Transcript of Web viewROYAL COMMISSION INTO TRADE UNION. GOVERNANCE AND CORRUPTION. Level 19, 55 Market Street,...