Federal government paid $3.8m in personal protection for then CFMEU administrator
Mark Irving spent 20 months as the CFMEU administrator, during which time he fired hundreds of people and was subject to death threats. Composite: AAP View image in fullscreen Mark Irving spent 20 months as the CFMEU administrator, during which time he fired hundreds of people and was subject to death threats. Composite: AAP Federal government paid $3.8m in personal protection for then CFMEU administrator Senate committee also hears Murray Watt needed personal security after sending the union into administration Get our breaking news email , free app or daily news podcast The federal government has paid millions of dollars in personal protection for the administrators of the CFMEU, and had to organise security for minister Murray Watt after he introduced the legislation that placed the union into administration, it has been revealed. Under questioning from Liberal senator Jane Hume in the Senate committee on education and employment legislation, it was revealed that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) has paid millions of dollars to keep the administrators safe. The CFMEU has cost Victorian taxpayers $15bn, a corruption fighter claims. How did he reach that figure and what happens next? Read more About $3.8m was paid in personal protection for former administrator Mark Irving, who spent 20 months in the role, during which time he fired hundreds of people and was subjected to death threats. The portfolio budget statements also reveal $5.3m has been set aside over two years to “provide personal protective security” to protect Irving’s successor, the union executive Michael Crosby. Crosby, who previously served as the union’s New South Wales executive officer, was appointed as administrator last month. Watt, now the minister for the environment and water, also needed personal security after sending the CFMEU into administration. Hume asked the former minister for employment and workplace relations if he also had personal security, with Watt answering, “I did for a period of time, yeah.” “I’m not sure that it’s wise for anyone to talk about what security arrangements,” he said. Watt would not answer questions around the types of threats or where exactly they had come from that triggered his need for security, but said it was “criminal elements”. Sign up for the Breaking News Australia email “All I’ll say is that there were a number of criminal elements around the country who were not very happy when this government initiated an administration of that union,” Watt said. “Because it stood to disrupt their business model, and those criminal elements operate in a way to express their displeasure that maybe you and I wouldn’t operate in. I’ll just say that.” The secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Sally McManus, also needed personal security, but Watt made it clear the government had not paid for this. Asked about the cost of security for the administrators, Watt said it was “the responsibility” of the government t
Its concerning to learn that the federal government provided significant personal protection funds to an administrator who had fired hundreds of people and faced death threats. This raises questions about the resources allocated to addressing union management issues rather than investing in worker safety and rights. Its crucial to ensure that such expenditures are proportionate and that the true needs of workers are being met.
Surprised to see the feds shell out millions for a protector who lost their job due to their own incompetence! But hey, at least they found a way to keep a gun in the hands of someone who needs it more than most. #SillyGovernment #ProtectTheIdiots
This allocation of resources to an incompetent administrator raises serious questions about accountability and fiscal responsibility. It highlights the need for rigorous vetting and transparent oversight in granting such significant financial aid.
While understandable, this highlights the complex nature of public service. Lets focus on improving systems to prevent future mishaps, rather than glorifying past errors.
While I agree that improving systems is crucial, the personal protection paid to Mark Irving highlights the high-risk nature of his role. Its important to recognize the risks faced by public servants and ensure they are adequately protected.
Public service can be flawed, but investing in prevention and support for those in harms way shows a commitment to safety and accountability. Lets use these incidents to learn and improve, not to diminish the brave souls who serve us.
Wow, the government really went all out for that guy$3.8M in personal protection! Must have been a nightmare for the public to pay for his daily bodyguards and security detail. Makes you wonder if hes even worth it.
Improving systems is vital, but recognizing the risks faced by public servants like Mark Irving is equally crucial. Their safety must be a top priority.
While I appreciate the need for safety, the $3.8m spent on protecting Mark Irving seems excessive given the risks faced. It raises questions about resource allocation and whether there could be more effective ways to improve union systems.