This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

A Senate hearing convened to have Michaelia Cash answer more questions about her office’s role in tipping off media to police raids on union offices descended into farce on Friday, with Cash refusing to answer questions on the grounds of “public interest immunity”.

The employment minister told the hearing that officials from the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) and the Registered Organisations Commission (ROC) would not answer certain questions either, leading Labor senator Doug Cameron to accuse the Coalition of a “cover-up”.

Friday’s hearing was the first opportunity the committee had to ask Cash follow-up questions after she was embarrassingly forced to correct her evidence to the same committee in October, when she wrongly claimed her office had not tipped off the media before federal police raided the Sydney and Melbourne offices of the Australian Workers’ Union five weeks ago.

With six hours scheduled for Friday’s hearing, the first hour was wasted after Cash made a claim of public interest immunity, which the committee – comprising a majority of Coalition senators – granted her.



Michaelia Cash and the rogue staffer: when political theatre goes off-script | Katharine Murphy Read more

Her claim for immunity drew an angry response from Labor senators Cameron and Murray Watt, prompting Liberal senator and chair Linda Reynolds to call three unscheduled breaks to restore order.



The hearing was further disrupted when BuzzFeed journalist Alice Workman, who was reporting from inside the committee room, tweeted that ROC officials were openly joking, during the second unscheduled break, that it had been “a very productive half hour”, “they could do this all day” and Labor was “getting pretty desperate”.

Cameron, when he saw Workman’s tweet, demanded to know which officials had made the comments, accusing them of being extremely “partisan” for public servants.

Mark Bielecki, the commissioner of the Registered Organisations Commission, and Chris Enright, the executive manager, admitted to making the comments.

That led Cash to claim angrily that journalists must be “listening in to private conversations” and demanded the matter be referred to the Senate president. Cash had to be reminded that journalists were allowed to sit in the committee room and conversations in the room could be overheard by anyone.

Cash then instructed officials from the ROC and FWO to cover the papers on their desks so photographers could not take pictures of them.

The hearing began with Cash telling the committee she would not answer questions to do with the Australia federal police’s investigation into the AWU, because she did not want to prejudice the investigation.

She said many questions about the investigation had already been taken on notice at October’s hearing, and she was still trying to answer them.

She said the ROC’s investigation of the AWU was the subject of court proceedings, and was therefore subjudice, so ROC officials could not answer questions either.

“To avoid the significant risk of prejudicing or prejudging matters that are before the court, I and the officers at the table will not answer questions about matters before the court, or if necessary we will take on notice any questions that go to the Registered Organisations Commission’s investigation into the AWU or that litigation and take legal advice before responding to them,” she said.

“Obviously neither I nor the officers at the table will be answering questions that could prejudice investigations carried out by these agencies pursuant to their statutes or prejudice legal proceedings that might arise from those investigations.”

Cameron asked how Cash could seek public interest immunity if she wasn’t under investigation. Cash replied by saying the committee had accepted her immunity claim, leading Cameron to accuse the Coalition-dominated committee of a “cover-up”.

Malcolm Turnbull says Michaelia Cash acted 'entirely appropriately' Read more

The claim provoked committee members to talk over each other loudly, until Liberal chair Linda Reynolds called an unscheduled break.

Cash at one point even refused to say for how long her former staffer David de Garis – the man who had tipped off the media – had worked in her office.

“In relation to that particular question, it would be subject to the public interest immunity claim,” she said.

Cameron was stunned by her answer, saying: “Really? So public interest immunity [extends to] how long someone has worked in your office, are you serious minister?”

Cash replied: “Ah yes I am senator Cameron. It is not up to me to judge which matters may or may not be subject to the AFP investigation.”

Cameron asked again: “So the length of time someone worked in your office is now subject to public interest immunity?”

Cash replied: “Senator Cameron, I believe I took that question on notice.”

Reynolds had to interrupt to ask Cash why public interest immunity would extend to a factual statement regarding the length of time De Garis had worked in her office.



Cash said she had already taken the question on notice.

The shadow minister for employment, Brendan O’Connor, sharply criticised Cash’s tactics on Friday and called for her to stand down.

“The minister has justified shutting down questions in Senate estimates on the basis that there is an ongoing investigation – a criminal investigation – by the Australian federal police in relation to this matter,” he said.

“If that is the case – if the minister’s conduct and the minister’s office’s conduct is subject to a criminal investigation of the Australian federal police – the minister must stand aside until that investigation has been completed.

“Otherwise, it is making a mockery of ministerial accountability. It is making a mockery of the Westminster system, where a minister is accountable and held responsible to the parliament.”